Sitting of 28 July 1998

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

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HEALTH

    General Practitioners
    Mr. John Healey: What steps he is taking to improve access to general practitioners, with particular reference to areas with a low number of general practitioners per 1,000 population. [50976]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): We have introduced a range of initiatives, such as a salaried general practitioner scheme, that will be beneficial particularly in areas with low GP numbers.
    Mr. Healey: I thank the Minister for his response, which was encouraging. However, is he aware that simply to bring our patient waiting list sizes down to the national average, we have to increase the number of GPs by one third in Rotherham, by one quarter in Barnsley and by one fifth in Doncaster? Is he aware that increasing GP numbers is one of the central objectives of the health action zone in the South Yorkshire coalfields? Will he therefore tell me what operating freedoms he is considering giving to health action zones to tackle the problem of GP numbers, and when he expects to reach a decision on the matter?
    Mr. Milburn: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Health action zones are currently working up their outline bids into full proposals, which we shall be examining very carefully. We want to ensure that the difficulties are plugged in all parts of the country, especially those with problems—which the Government have inherited—in recruiting GPs. I can tell my hon. Friend that his health authority has just agreed additional funding for a salaried GP post. I hope that that will be helpful. He will be aware that the Government have concluded negotiations with the British Medical Association to introduce a salaried GP scheme, and also to beef up the GP retainer scheme. As he will also be aware, many general practitioners have
    152
    worked in, but left, the national health service. The Government want to recruit them back into work, for the benefit of patients.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: I look forward—I say rather unexpectedly—to doing battle with the Minister in the next year. I know that he had high hopes of promotion, which he well deserves. I can only assume that the Prime Minister had given him an early pledge.
    Does the Minister agree with the BMA chairman that the extra GP trainee places will come on stream only in about 16 years' time? Moreover, the BMA says that the promised 7,000 extra doctors are those who are already doctors. What proportion of those 7,000 doctors will come from overseas? Does he agree with the BMA that we should use only United Kingdom trained doctors, and that importing doctors from overseas will not solve the problem?
    Mr. Milburn: I had planned on saying that the hon. Gentleman's first remarks were unworthy of him, but perhaps they were not. The British Medical Association is wrong on the more substantive issue that he raised. Doctors do not grow on trees—they cost extra cash, which is precisely what the Government have provided in the comprehensive spending review. If we had not provided extra cash, we would not be able to recruit extra doctors or to give the go-ahead to a massive expansion in the number of GP medical students—which I hope that he will welcome.

    Medical Negligence
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his answer of 23 June 1998, Official Report, column 491, what representations he has received on methods of reducing clinical negligence litigation. [50977]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): We have received more than 120 replies to our call for ideas on how to reduce the threat of litigation in the national health service. The replies have come from a wide range of sources, including the health care and legal professions, and the NHS and patients. My officials are currently studying the replies to identify key issues and ideas that we can develop.
    Mr. Dalyell: Are Ministers at all uneasy about the way in which some lawyers—not all—seem to encourage clients to take litigation against medical practices, and about the natural reaction of doctors and their colleagues, therefore, to practices defensive medicine, which may not be in the best interests of patients as a whole? Over the summer, will my hon. Friend and her lawyers look carefully at the submission by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton—a complex document that I have given to the Department in the hope that legislation can be brought forward to overcome an increasing and delicate problem?
    Ms Jowell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already met Sir Philip Otton. We shall consider his proposals. We want to avoid patients being led to believe that they have grounds for legal action. The risk of defensive medicine follows. We want to ensure that lawyers are kept out of the operating theatres and doctors are kept out of the courts. That is good for patients.

    Hospitals (Clinical Performance)
    Mr. Dennis Turner: What representations he has received on general practitioners' rights to information about the clinical performance of their local hospital. [50978]
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: What representations he has received on access by (a) general practitioners and (b) patients to information about the clinical performance of their local hospitals. [50989]
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: What plans he has to publish average clinical performance of hospitals by procedure. [50990]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): A wide range of people, including general practitioners and members of the public, have expressed strong support for our proposals to give patients and GPs a clear right to know about how their local NHS hospital is performing. As a first step, we shall publish hospital-based indicators in the autumn.
    Mr. Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential in the modern, dependable national health service that we are seeking to build that patients and GPs should have access to information about the performance of their local hospitals? Should not the right to know be our clarion call?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes indeed, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is crucial that the information provided to GPs and local people is accurate, comparing like with like. Providing misleading information would be harmful not just to the hospital and the profession, but to the GPs and patients.
    Mr. Tipping: Is it not the case that knowledge and information are power? Extending information to patients empowers them. That must be right, because they not only use the health service, but pay for it.
    Mr. Dobson: It is certainly right in principle. People want, and are entitled, to know whether their hospital is performing up to national standards. People do not want to go shopping around and travel long distances for treatment, but they want to be assured that their local hospital is up to scratch. The information will help them.
    Mr. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that, when the information is published, on a hospital-by-hospital basis, improvements are made where there has been shown to be room for them? What role does he see for the Commission for Health Improvement in ensuring such improvements in the interests of patients and GPs?
    Mr. Dobson: The crucial point is that local management and local doctors should know how their performance compares with national standards. If they are not up to the national standards, they should take steps to ensure that they get up to standard. The Commission for Health Improvement, while not quite a long stop, would not be the first organisation to be involved if the local management and local doctors were seen not to be
    154
    responding to the information that had been made available. Until now, most of the information has not been available, even to the hospital trust boards.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I endorse a sensitive approach to providing information on clinical outcomes, especially considering the fact that some of the waiting list targets have been such a fiasco for the Government. What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to reassure the research community, already affronted by the gratuitous cut in its budget, that a clumsy approach to naming and shaming, and hospital league tables, will not result in defensive medicine, a reluctance to take on difficult cases, and a stifling of innovation altogether?
    Mr. Dobson: I shall ignore most of the right hon. Lady's preliminary remarks. On the sensible point that she made about trying to ensure that we do not stifle innovation, it is true that if someone tries a surgical procedure for the first time there will be no standard for it, and it will be a riskier form of treatment than procedures that have been frequently carried out.
    I can safely say that at almost every meeting that I have had with doctors on that subject I have tried to emphasise that we do not want rules and standards to be laid down in such a way as to inhibit necessary developments. After all, not long ago the only place in Britain where one could have a hip joint replacement was where John Charnley worked, at the Wrightington hospital in Wigan—
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: In Lancashire.
    Mr. Dobson: Yes, in Lancashire; I apologise. 1 must admit that, as a Yorkshireman, I always did think that Wigan was in Lancashire; it always seemed to be there when it played against Yorkshire rugby league clubs.
    Similarly, 20 years ago, Oldham—I know that technically, that is part of Greater Manchester, but at one time it, too, was in Lancashire—was the only place in the world where one could have a test tube baby. We must ensure that any new rules that we lay down do not inhibit wonderful developments such as those that took place at Wrightington and at Oldham general hospital.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: At the end of last week there were reports that the use of human albumin for transfusions may not be safe, and today there has been another report that the cervical cancer screening carried out by a London hospital has not been entirely safe. Given that last October Ministers said that we must have a national system of quality assurance for cancer screening, and that in December the Secretary of State announced the need for a Commission for Health Improvement to ensure that the whole country has the highest quality standards, can the Secretary of State today assure women in particular, but also all general practitioners and patients, that we will not have to wait any longer for a national system to ensure that transfusions, screening and all other services are of the highest clinical standard everywhere?
    Mr. Dobson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are trying—carefully, so as to carry the professions with us, because if we do not, no new system will work—to put in place measures to ensure that standards are maintained.

    155
    As for his reference to the use of albumin, I can only describe the article in The Observer as a grotesque travesty of the situation. The information was supplied to the Chief Medical Officer; the Chief Medical Officer asked the people who prepared it, after consultation within the Department, to send it to the Medicines Control Agency; the agency considered it; the Committee on Safety of Medicines was informed and also considered it. As long ago as 28 May, the committee concluded that it did not consider that withdrawal of human albumin products was warranted, and advised that an expert working group be set up. That group has met, and decided that withdrawal of human albumin products was not warranted. As Secretary of State for Health, I have to consider carefully the advice of those who have been put in a position to give me advice on such matters; I do not have to respond to hysterical articles by ill-informed journalists in badly edited Sunday newspapers.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State will be reassured by the fact that I support what he says at that level, not only about medical advice but about other advice. May I press him to tell us whether, when he deals with the procedures, information will be circulated to general practitioners about new procedures, so that they can guide their patients to places where those are being carried out? May I also express the hope that the statistics will major not on mortality figures, but on successful procedures—and not only clinical procedures, because many other procedures are vital for good health?
    Mr. Dobson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Mortality statistics are fairly straightforward, but statistics showing how well people do after an operation—if they have survived—are more difficult to calculate, evaluate and log in any system. We are going to enormous lengths to ensure that our proposals command the support of the profession; indeed, the first figures that we shall be publishing in the autumn command the support of those who are carrying out operations. If we could not carry them with us, the proposal would be absurd.

    Waiting Lists
    Mr. David Ruffley: What proportion of the increased funding provided to his Department in the most recent public spending allocations will be allocated to reducing waiting lists. [50979]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): We have already announced an extra £500 million to tackle waiting lists this year, which means that we have spent a total of £2 billion extra on the national health service since we came into office. Under the comprehensive spending review, the NHS will receive a further £18 billion for the next three years, including £5 billion or more for the NHS modernisation fund. We shall ensure that that money is linked to results so that, in the lifetime of this Parliament, we reduce waiting lists by 100,000 from the level that we inherited.
    Mr. Ruffley: Will the Secretary of State explain why he and his colleagues conned the British public before the general election by saying that it would cost only £100 million to reduce waiting lists by 100,000?
    Mr. Dobson: We did not actually say that. At the most recent Health questions, I said, in response to an excellent
    156
    question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that I was fairly confident that waiting lists had stopped rising in June. I can now say that the preliminary figures show that they fell by about 21,000 in June—what is more, they will continue to fall.
    Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my right hon. Friend for the additional £630,000 that Bedfordshire health authority is receiving to cut waiting lists, which is in addition to the £2.8 million that it has already received. The money will help local hospitals to perform another 4,000 operations and will be of enormous benefit to patient care generally as well as to reducing waiting lists.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that part of that money will be spent on a new initiative to reduce the waste of theatre operating time owing to patient non-attendance? What other measures does he intend to take to ensure that valuable health resources are not wasted in that way?
    Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend is right. A substantial amount of time is wasted in hospitals when patients do not show up. We intend, through the new national health service charter—which will refer not only to patients' rights, but to their responsibilities—to draw attention to the fact that if someone does not turn up for an appointment, that harms not only them, but other people; moreover, it makes life difficult for hospital staff. We hope that, by publicising the damage that not showing up does to others, we can change the behaviour of those who have made hospital appointments or have had them made for them.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I use my first question to ask the Secretary of State whether he will take this opportunity to join me in placing on record a tribute to the Kent air ambulance, which crashed a few days ago with the loss of three lives? Will he pay tribute to the work of Graham Budden, the pilot, and Tony Richardson and Mark Darby, the paramedics? Will he also pay tribute, not only to all those who manned the air ambulance and did such sterling work, but to the entire community in Kent, which raised the money for the ambulance and supported it faithfully throughout?
    Mr. Dobson: I certainly join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to all concerned. I express my horror at what happened and my sympathy for the relatives and friends of those who died while trying to help others.
    Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful to the Secretary of State.
    I turn now to my main question. In order to get waiting lists down, it will, as the Secretary of State has said, be necessary to increase the number of doctors at general practitioner referral level and at work in hospitals. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the BMA that the 7,000 extra doctors that he has announced will be no more than the normal increase?
    Mr. Dobson: The 7,000 extra doctors have to be paid for. But for the comprehensive spending review settlement, there would be no money to pay for them. Every year, medical schools produce approximately 3,400 new doctors, and we hope that the schools will continue to do so and that the doctors will find employment in the national health service. If the right

    157
    hon. Lady wants to criticise us about the number of doctors available, let me remind her that it takes five, six or seven years to train a doctor. Any criticism of the numbers available today should be addressed to those who were in my office five, six, seven or eight years ago.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Try again matron.
    Miss Widdecombe: May I invite the Secretary of State to try again? Just answer the question. Yes or no will do. Will the 7,000 doctors that the right hon. Gentleman has announced be over and above the normal increase, or is that the number that would have come anyway from medical schools and other sources?
    Mr. Dobson: The answer is no. Doctors coming from medical schools do not necessarily end up working in the national health service unless someone gives them a contract and pays them. Without the money, there would be no contracts, they would not be paid and they would not be working in the NHS.
    Dr. Desmond Turner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while it is important to put money into bringing waiting lists down—I congratulate him on doing so—organisation and sensible management are equally important? One of the most important factors in the driving up of waiting lists under the previous Government was the idiosyncrasies introduced by the internal market system. Does he agree that removing the internal market will go a long way towards smoothing the path of reducing waiting lists?
    Mr. Dobson: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of our objectives in getting rid of the competitive internal market is to get rid of the expensive paperwork involved, which is using huge amounts of NHS money that we would deploy to treat patients rather than to buy paper to shuffle around the world.

    NHS (Drugs and Treatments)
    Dr. Evan Harris: How he intends to involve the public in discussions about limits on the provision of drugs and treatments in the NHS. [50980]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The public will be involved in setting national standards for the NHS through the new National Institute of Clinical Excellence, and in developing national service frameworks. We have also made it clear that local commissioners of services should consult the public to ensure that services reflect local needs and wishes.
    Dr. Harris: The Minister will recall that at his last Question Time we dragged from him the admission that postcode rationing exists, particularly for new drugs. It is also recognised that 3.7 per cent. growth across a Parliament will not provide for growth in drug expenditure. Does the Minister accept that the question is not whether rationing exists for treatment for multiple sclerosis, varicose veins, fertility and impotence, but when the Government will admit that that is happening and
    158
    either fund the health service to avoid it, or engage the public and the taxpayer on how to meet demand for existing resources?
    Mr. Milburn: As usual, I am not sure what is the policy of Liberal Democrat Members. There is no question of information being dragged out of this Government. We have acknowledged that treatments and the drugs available vary unacceptably throughout the country. Equally, we have made it clear that we are determined to bear down on those unacceptable variations. We want greater national consistency, based on more informed clinical judgments. The hon. Gentleman argued a few days ago from the Liberal Benches that the NHS needed 3 per cent. real-terms growth in expenditure. We have gone above 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. and for the next three years it will be 4.7 per cent. What does the hon. Gentleman want? Is 4.7 per cent. good enough or not?
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend ensure that debates about the availability of drug treatments focus not merely on the cost of the drugs but on the benefits? I am thinking, for example, of the new drugs for HIV, where there has been much focus on the cost but not as much on the long-term benefits, including the economic benefits of people being able to get back to work. In the argument about whether drugs should be available for a particular treatment, we want to avoid setting one group of patients against another, as has happened in the past.
    Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend makes two good points. On the first point, like previous Health Ministers, we get lots of advice from economists and others who say that we need to bear down on the NHS drugs bill, as though drugs were a bad thing, which is a naive assumption. If drugs mean easier, better and quicker treatment for the patient instead of going to hospital, that is a good thing and if it means growth in the NHS drugs bill, we should welcome it. On the second point, we want a more rigorous assessment of what is cost effective and clinically effective, particularly when drugs come on to the market.
    To return to the question by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), at the moment assessment of drugs when they are first introduced into the NHS is inconsistent. That is why we are introducing the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to ensure greater consistency throughout the health service. After all, it is supposed to be a national health service, not a series of competing local health services.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Hon. Members will agree with what the Minister has said, together with what the Secretary of State said about innovation and making general what has been shown to work. On the limiting of treatments, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, in a non-partisan way, whether he recognises that delays in non-emergency treatment for cataracts and hip operations, for example, affect the elderly in particular? Will he consider publishing for each health authority the instructions to hospitals in their areas on necessary delays for waiting lists? West Sussex has the highest proportion of elderly people and the waiting time is 17 months.
    Mr. Milburn: First, on the general point, the hon. Gentleman will be aware—I hope that he and his party

    159
    now accept this—that as we bring down waiting lists, which we are doing, waiting times for individual patients will also come down and I hope that he welcomes that. I will look into the situation in his area. I am aware of the problems there because he has seen me about them, in particular the increased demand that can arise from a higher than average elderly population. I will be pleased to look into the specific concerns that he expresses.

    Dental Services
    Mr. Peter Viggers: If he will make a statement on how national health service dentists are paid for root canal work. [50981]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): Root canal treatments are included as items of treatment in the statement of dental remuneration for which dentists can claim an NHS fee.
    Mr. Viggers: Well, I am grateful for that reply, as far as it went. Does the Minister agree that the fees payable to dentists for root canal work, at £24 for an incisor operation and £58 for a molar operation, which takes about two hours, are completely inadequate? Does he agree that dentists can undertake those operations only at a loss to themselves, if they are reputable and competent, and that recent studies show that in many cases dentists are undertaking such operations speedily and unprofessionally, which is resulting in low standards with further operations sometimes being necessary thereafter? What is he going to do about it? Before he replies, may I point out that dentists and patients in my constituency do not want to know what happened last year and the year before, but what will happen next year and the year after?
    Mr. Milburn: I am sure that they do not want to know what happened last year and the year before. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that an independent review body deals with fees for procedures performed by dentists. We submit evidence to that body, as other Governments have; dentists submit evidence too, and the body recommends the fees that it considers appropriate. Over the past few years, the doctors and dentists remuneration review body has made recommendations for increases in fees well above the rate of inflation.
    Mr. Eddie O'Hara: It may come as a surprise—although it should not—to some Opposition Members to learn that the more important question in some parts of the country is whether one can receive root canal treatment on the NHS. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure better availability of NHS dental treatment in the poorest areas to provide such important procedures as root canal work?
    Mr. Milburn: The Government have taken a significant step forward on that. My hon. Friend will be aware that we inherited great difficulties with access to NHS dental services in some parts of the country. We have introduced a new investing in dentistry scheme, which is already bringing home the bacon because it is recruiting dentists back to the national health service. As a consequence, 250,000 extra patients now have access to NHS dental services which they would not have had under the previous Government.

    Out-patient Consultations
    Mr. John Bercow: What estimate he has made of the number of people awaiting out-patient consultations on (a) 1 May 1997 and (b) 1 May 1998. [50982]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): Information on the number of people nationally awaiting out-patient consultations is not available centrally. However, information on first out-patient appointments shows that at March 1998, 81 per cent. of patients were seen within 13 weeks of general practitioner written referral and 96 per cent. were seen within 26 weeks. That compares with figures for March 1997 of 83 per cent. and 97 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Bercow: At Stoke Mandeville hospital, which serves thousands of my constituents, there has been an 88 per cent. increase in the number of people waiting for out-patient appointments for between 13 and 26 weeks since the Government came to office. What proportion of the alleged fall in waiting lists—which is, as yet, unpublished—is due to an increase in the waiting list to get on the waiting list?
    Mr. Boateng: We have made it crystal clear that our targets on waiting lists should not be achieved at the expense of out-patient appointments, and we shall implement that policy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give credit to, indeed thanks for, the additional resources that have been made available in his constituency which have provided 51 extra beds, which would not have been available if the hon. Gentleman's party were in government, and 4,280 extra treatments. It is time we received some gratitude from Opposition Members for those resources.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that part of the £2 million awarded to Barnet health authority to tackle waiting lists will be used to increase out-patient sessions at Edgware hospital, which the previous Government closed? Does not that show that this Government are trying to restore health services to the area, unlike the Conservatives when they were in government?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has performed a sterling service for Edgware hospital in his constituency and in north-west London generally. It is good news that the hospital is now delivering the new, modernised health service for which the people of his constituency and many others voted.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Will the Minister acknowledge that what matters to patients is the total waiting time from GP referral to treatment? Will he further acknowledge that reduced numbers on the waiting list for surgery will be a pyrrhic victory if the waiting list to get on the waiting list is getting longer? Will he therefore arrange for data on the total out-patient waiting lists in the UK to be collected and published with in-patient waiting lists in future?
    Mr. Boateng: Those data were never available under the previous Government, and they will not be available under

    161
    the present one. What counts is that we should shorten waiting lists across all fronts. Out-patients and in-patients alike will benefit from that. They did not benefit in that way under the previous, Conservative-led Government.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: According to figures that I have received from the Library, at the end of the financial year 1995–96, the debt owed to the national health service by non-NHS debtors was a staggering £543 million. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the difficulties that the previous Administration bequeathed to the national health service could be dealt with if some of the debt that they left us were collected?
    Mr. Boateng: The previous Administration have a great deal to answer for, and that is a small part of it.

    Premature Deaths
    Mr. Norman Baker: What research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the causes of premature deaths each year which can be ascribed to (i) tobacco, (ii) alcohol and (iii) cannabis. [50983]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The harmful effects of tobacco are well researched and documented—most recently, by the Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health. An estimated 120,000 people die every year from smoking or smoking-related causes.
    The latest evidence on the harmful effects of alcohol on health was analysed thoroughly in the preparation for the 1995 sensible drinking reports, the recommendations of which we have adopted as continuing policy. It is estimated that between 4,000 and 40,000 people die each year from alcohol misuse.
    The harmful effects of smoking cannabis—for example, bronchitis, cancers, short-term memory loss and aggravation of existing mental disorders—are well documented. It is estimated that five people have died in the past four years from cannabis abuse.
    Mr. Baker: It is interesting that the one illegal recreational drug of the three is the one that, apparently, caused the fewest deaths. However, will the Minister address a problem that many health professionals have identified? There appears to be a beneficial medicinal use for cannabis, yet at the moment it is improper—indeed, illegal—for health professionals to prescribe cannabis for any purpose. Will the Minister reconsider the matter, to discover whether those who would benefit from the medicinal use of cannabis might be enabled to do so without being criminalised?
    Ms Jowell: There are perfectly clear procedures for applying to conduct research to establish the medicinal benefits of cannabis. The Government have absolutely no intention of making the use of cannabis legal, but this is an opportunity for Opposition Front Benchers to clarify their position on the issue, and perhaps for the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) to make clear his position in relation to his recent book, "Saturn's Children", in which he said:
    "Nor are drugs a particularly threatening health problem."
    The Government disagree.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Of the 120,000 people who die prematurely from smoking-related diseases each year, 53,000 are over the age of 75. Given that the Minister's Department has stated that life expectancy for men is 75 years, how can those people possibly be described as having died prematurely?
    Ms Jowell: I made it clear that, every year, more than 120,000 people die from smoking or smoking-related causes. I did not identify those who died under the age of 75, but, with life expectancy increasing, it is absolutely clear that, for people who smoke, the chances of dying from tobacco or tobacco-related causes are increased by something like 100 per cent. Half of smokers die from causes related directly to smoking.
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Does not my hon. Friend recall that tens of thousands of people in this country who suffer from multiple sclerosis, the effects of chemotherapy and glaucoma take cannabis illegally as it provides the best relief from the serious pain that they endure? Why does she continue to condemn those people to dealing in an illegal market where they cannot guarantee the quality or strength of the product—and can only smoke it, which is the most dangerous method of using cannabis?
    Did my hon. Friend see the "Watchdog" programme last night, which presented both sides of the argument? It received a massive public reaction, with some 96 per cent. of people voting in favour of the medicinal use of cannabis. When will the Government get in touch with public opinion and stop maligning the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) for the four most intelligent pages in his book, which he has withdrawn—although, quite rightly, he has not changed his mind about them? It is about time the House allowed intelligent thought among Front Benchers.
    Ms Jowell: I join my hon. Friend in assuming that the failure of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton to respond to that point means that he has not changed his mind about the legalisation of hard drugs.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is not allowed to respond. He does not have an opportunity to do so; he has had his question. Let us have a little justice.
    Ms Jowell: To my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has long argued the case in relation to people who suffer from multiple sclerosis, I reiterate that those who wish to undertake research into the beneficial medicinal effects of cannabis use may apply to the Home Office for permission to conduct that work.
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: Does the Minister agree that, when examining the use of drugs—recreational or otherwise—we should consider not only premature deaths but ruined lives? Does the Minister agree that the Liberal Democrats' policy of legalising cannabis is both dangerous and irresponsible?
    Ms Jowell: I agree.

    Ambulance Service (Staffordshire)
    Charlotte Atkins: What factors underlay the response rate times achieved by Staffordshire ambulance service in the last three years. [50984]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): My hon. Friend will be aware that Staffordshire ambulance service has achieved the best response times in England for the third year running. I commend this achievement, which is attributable in part to an innovative system of positioning ambulances on standby close to areas where emergencies are most likely to occur. We need to spread that good practice, which I know other ambulance services are looking at. I congratulate both staff and management of Staffordshire ambulance service on their enterprise.
    Charlotte Atkins: What plans does my hon. Friend have to ensure that all ambulance services take advantage of Staffordshire's valuable experience? It appears that nothing has been done in the past three years to ensure that other ambulance services—such as Cornwall, which is at the bottom of the league table—benefit from the Staffordshire experience. The results have been startling and have produced huge dividends for patients, particularly those suffering cardiac arrest.
    Mr. Boateng: The Staffordshire ambulance service has already led several seminars that we have organised in order to encourage the spread of good practice. We must make it absolutely clear that we expect all ambulance services to respond to 75 per cent. of life-threatening calls within eight minutes by 2000–01. Staffordshire is so far the only ambulance service to have met that target already, and it is showing the way for others. Clear, strategic business planning has managed to achieve improvements without additional costs. Ambulance services nationwide must learn that lesson, and we intend to ensure that they do.

    NHS Trusts
    Mr. Tim Loughton: What meetings his Department held with members or representatives of local authorities prior to the June 1997 trawl for nominations to NHS trust boards; and if he will make a statement. [50985]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): So far as I know, the only meeting with local authority representatives at which nominations to NHS boards was discussed was an official meeting on 12 May involving myself and other Ministers and official representatives of the Local Government Association.
    Mr. Loughton: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to confirm that last year's scandal of Labour activists constituting 80 per cent. of board appointments to trusts—as confirmed by the Commissioner for Public Appointments—is a thing of the past? If political correctness is no longer an overriding concern when it comes to appointments in the national health service, can the Secretary of State explain how, although the chairman of the West Sussex health authority recently approved and
    164
    offered 14 names to fill a vacant board appointment on the West Sussex health authority—all of them male—the Secretary of State managed to appoint a woman?
    Mr. Dobson: I will make a start. Following the precedent set by the House of Commons some five or six years ago when we appointed 100 per cent. of the Speaker as a woman, I tried my best to ensure that at least half the appointments to NHS trust boards and health authority boards were women. We have achieved that target and I am proud to have done so. If the chair of the health authority—I forget which one—to which the hon. Gentleman referred could not come up with one woman out of 14 names, he should have his head seen to.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important that local authorities and health authorities work closely together if we are to achieve a seamless system of health and community care? I particularly commend to him the experience in my constituency, where the unitary council worked closely with the health authority with regard to the winter crisis money and, between them, effectively reduced the problems in the area and helped a number of elderly people to obtain more appropriate treatment with support in the community. Is it not reasonable that such co-operation between local authorities and health authorities should be reflected in appointments to health authority boards?
    Mr. Dobson: It is true that one reason for appointing at least a number of members of local authorities to health boards is to improve the liaison between the two, but elected members and appointed non-executives should not be the main channel for such liaison. Liaison at an official level must be improved, and that is one reason why we propose that, in future, the chief executive of a local authority should be expected to attend and participate in, but not vote at, the board meetings of the health authority. Such co-operation is necessary.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: When the right hon. Gentleman addressed the annual meeting of the Association of Community Health Councils for England and Wales on 9 July last year he said:
    "At the General Election we promised that we would make sure that the boards of health authorities and trusts would be more representative of the local communities they serve."
    Why then is there no longer a representative of general practitioners on the Shropshire health authority? Why then is there no longer a representative from the Ludlow constituency on the Shropshire health authority? Why is it that 50 per cent. of representatives on the Shropshire health authority are from the socialist stronghold of Telford? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is more to come, Madam Speaker. Why is it that the last two appointments to the Shropshire health authority were Labour councillors? When does the Secretary of State intend to address those problems and reply to my letter of 13 July?
    Mr. Dobson: When I set about making the appointments about which the hon. Gentleman complains, I was addressing the problem of significantly unrepresentative boards appointed by our predecessors. In case anyone says that I am justifying myself, the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who was

    165
    appointed by the previous Government and served in a senior position in the NHS as an appointee of the previous Government, has endorsed, in his Official Report, all that we have been doing, and has recognised that we have carried out the obligation that we entered into at the general election to make the boards more representative of local people. That is what we said we would do and that is what we are doing.
    The hon. Gentleman raises one relevant point, which is that where health authorities cover a substantial area it is sometimes difficult to obtain representation which covers each part of the area, a matter which I am trying to deal with. It is interesting to note that I am the first Secretary of State to ask for a map of each area showing whence each representative comes. None of my predecessors bothered to look.

    Over-medication
    Mr. Paul Flynn: What proposals he has to reduce the incidence of over-medication of the elderly. [50986]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Department and the national prescribing centre will publish a report on GP prescribing support in September. The document will give many examples of good practice where pharmacists have assessed prescribing for patients in a number of areas, including nursing home settings.
    Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister in a position to respond to my letters and the reports that I have sent him from Gloucester, Glasgow and Manchester, which reveal that up to one in five hospital admissions for elderly people is the result of the misuse and overuse of medicinal drugs; and that, of those patients in care homes who show symptoms of dementia, more than half have drug-induced dementia? Will he replicate the splendid review carried out by the department of psychiatry at the university of Manchester, which shows that reducing drug intakes for elderly people makes them more alive, relieves them from the confusion and misery in which they live, saves the health service a small fortune and makes available extra money to spend on care?
    Mr. Boateng: I will reply in detail shortly to the points that my hon. Friend raised in correspondence, but I was glad to have the opportunity, on 26 June this year, to give a prize to that self-same department—the department of old-age psychiatry at the university of Manchester—as part of the pharmaceutical care awards. We have learnt from the experience of that Manchester project that where pharmacists go out and about in the community, particularly where they are concentrated around nursing homes, the number of drugs prescribed per resident can be significantly reduced, stays in hospital can be reduced, and, significantly, the number of deaths is reduced. We want that good news and good practice replicated throughout the national health service.
    Dr. Peter Brand: Does the Minister agree that one reason for over-medication, especially of mentally ill and frail elderly people, is the NHS's withdrawal from respite care, day care and long-term care for elderly people? Does he recognise that the only way
    166
    in which those people are being contained in the community is by doping them up? Does he agree that, to avoid that problem, we need more resources to support people in the community?
    Mr. Boateng: We certainly need to ensure that resources, including any new resources, are applied in ways that complement health and social care being delivered together. By making a wider range of therapies and assistance available to old people we can reduce their dependence on drugs, particularly where we work in contact with the voluntary sector, which has introduced some important and innovative ways of proceeding. We are working on that now.
    Announcements on mental health will be made in due course, and the elderly will benefit alongside the young from our new policies in that area.

    NHS Direct
    Ms Gisela Stuart: What plans he has for extending NHS Direct. [50987]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The new -hour, nurse-led telephone helpline, NHS Direct, will be nationwide in 2000. It is currently being piloted in three areas, and, by the end of this financial year, it will be extended to cover at least 20 per cent. of the population. Three of the new areas to be covered will be Manchester, Birmingham and Cornwall, and the others will be announced in early August.
    Ms Stuart: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that NHS Direct will be extended to the country's second city, Birmingham. That is very much welcomed by all my constituents. Has my right hon. Friend analysed the success of the first wave of areas in which NHS Direct was used so that I may give my constituents a clear idea of what benefits they may receive from it?
    Mr. Dobson: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the proposed extension of the scheme to cover the great city of Birmingham. It may interest her constituents to know that some 80 per cent. of those who called said that they were following a course of action different from the one that they had intended to follow before making their call. Thus 80 per cent. of people were influenced by the nurse on the end of the helpline. Some 30 per cent. of callers were directed by the nurse to less resource-intensive care and some 25 per cent. were guided towards more resource-intensive care. In other words, when people were told, "Little Johnny has a bit of a fever, but will probably be all right in the morning," no care was provided, whereas arrangements were immediately made for an ambulance to be sent to take people in desperate need of care off to hospital.
    The object of the scheme is to provide an additional service which is not available at present. The three pilot schemes clearly showed that lots of people all over the country would not go to accident and emergency, get their

    167
    doctor out in the middle of the night or ring for an ambulance, but would ring up for advice, reassurance or, in some cases, urgent treatment.
    Mrs. Marion Roe: Will the Secretary of State confirm that NHS Direct will not be funded at the expense of other nursing-led activities?
    Mr. Dobson: Special funding has been made available this year for the pilot schemes, and will also be made
    168
    available for the additional schemes that are coming on stream. The scheme has an advantage, which we hope will be put to good use. A substantial number of nurses give up nursing because they have suffered back or other injuries which make it impossible to continue normal nursing. We hope that the idea of using their nursing skills on the end of a telephone will appeal to some of them, and that we will be able to bring their expertise and experience back into the national health service—to their benefit, and the benefit of patients.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would you rule on a point affecting the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, which may help hon. Members later this evening? It has been widely canvassed that, if the House decides to drop the amendment relating to the gay age of consent, it may come back in a new measure in the new Session. Would you rule on whether the 12-month delaying power of the other place would be triggered tonight or on Second Reading of any new measure?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order.
I read the Parliament Acts as applying to Bills originating in this House, but not to Bills that began in the House of Lords. That is also the view that happens to be taken by "Erskine May" at page 569. Thus, the Parliament Acts do not apply to the Crime and Disorder Bill, but they would apply to a Bill introduced in this House, if that were to follow today's proceedings.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Today, a White Paper on Welsh trunk roads has been published. One copy is available in the Library and 40 copies have been sent to Welsh Members, but no copies are available in the Vote Office. I am a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee. The A483, which is nominated as a priority road, runs straight through my constituency. Would you please clarify what the rules are concerning the availability of that document?
Madam Speaker: If a White Paper has been laid before the House, it certainly should be available to hon. Members in the Vote Office. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will take heed of what I say.
Mr. Robert Syms: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I also requested that document, which is a review of the trunk roads of Wales, from the Vote Office, as a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. I was told that it was unavailable. There is to be a decision later this week on English trunk roads. Would it be appropriate for that document to be available from the Vote Office, for all Members of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: It very much depends on the time and date when documents are laid before this House. These are the procedures that we have always followed: when documents are laid before the House, they should be available for Members. I see that those on the Front Bench have heeded what I have said about this matter.

Organ Donation
3.33 pm
Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the organs of potential donors are available for transplant on death unless the potential donor has previously indicated a wish to the contrary.
There is a crisis in the country. It is a quiet crisis, but nevertheless a tragic one. It results from the mismatch between people whose lives could be saved, or indeed transformed, by the donation of organs—kidneys, for example—and the availability of organs to fulfil the demand.
The latest available Government figures show that more than 200 patients die each year on the waiting lists for liver, heart, lung or heart-lung transplants alone. That figure does not include those waiting for kidney transplants. The number has been increasing in recent years, and is almost certainly an underestimate, as many patients do not even reach the waiting lists when the supply of organs is short.
The figures for kidney donations show that, in 1997, there were 1,635 kidney transplants, but the waiting list stands at 5,732. The number of kidney transplants has fallen for three successive years. The liver transplant waiting list has risen over the past three years, and the number of cadaveric solid organ donations and donors is diminishing—that is, the number of donations of hearts, hearts and lungs, livers and kidneys. It is not clear why the number of donations is falling, but part of the reason may be improved road safety. Nevertheless, there is a problem, and I think that the House should address itself to how that problem can be solved.
It may be useful to look at the current law, which, in the case of cadaveric organ donations, is governed by the Human Tissue Act 1961. The Act allows the person defined as lawfully in possession of the patient's body after death to authorise removal of parts of the body if either the patient has formally expressed the wish for his or her body to be used in that way or, after such inquiries as may be practicable, the person in possession of the body has no reason to believe either that the deceased expressed an objection to removal or that the surviving spouse or any surviving relatives object.
There are already problems with that law, because it does not clearly define who is in lawful possession of the body. It does not state whether it is the hospital authorities, as is currently believed, or whether relatives have a greater claim. It also does not state whether, if relatives establish a greater claim, there is a pecking order in the event of disagreement about authorisation.
If relatives are lawfully in possession, they are not required to allow the organs to be used to save other people's lives; they are merely authorised to do so. If, before death, the patient expressed the wish that his or her organs should be used to save others' lives, it does not automatically follow that they will be. Similarly, if the patient did not clearly express an opinion, the relatives are asked for their opinion. Therefore, relatives have an effective veto in both circumstances.

171
That is the contracting-in system, which we use in this country. Other European countries use a contracting-out system. France introduced such a system in 1977, under which people can register as being unwilling to let their organs be used in such a way. Since 1988, when the regulations were changed, they have been able to do that by means of a computerised national register.
I think that this country should seriously consider introducing a contracting-out scheme, which could better be described as "presumed consent". There is a moral argument in favour of that. On 30 May, Professor Ian Kennedy—who, as hon. Members will know, was appointed to run the inquiry into the Bristol hospital scandal—published a paper in The Lancet on behalf of the International Forum for Transplant Ethics. That paper—of which I was unaware when I chose the long title of the Bill—clearly sets out the philosophical arguments and premises. It states that there is a moral case for changing the law regulating organ donation from a system of contracting in to presumed consent in countries that have not yet done so. That is because it is accepted that, generally speaking, such a system would increase the supply of organs for transplantation. That would improve and save lives, and would be a good measure.
In countries such as the United Kingdom that, since 1990, do not operate a system of presumed consent, the supply of organs and the gap between demand and supply has widened. Some people, such as professionals who, in this country, are split on the matter, argue that public education and measures to simplify the process of donation and retrieval could improve the supply of organs. However, the evidence suggests that that is not entirely clear and that countries that have switched to presumed consent have a better supply.
The methods in various countries are analysed in the Kennedy paper. Of the countries that are considered in that document, only the UK takes organs following the consent of the person who is lawfully in possession of the body, and that is subject to the express objection of the deceased or of the relatives if they are available. An alternative, which operates in Norway and elsewhere, is that after relatives have been informed of the intention to remove organs, irrespective of their consent, donation and retrieval take place. In Italy, that is done when it has been ascertained that the relatives do not object and in Belgium, which I shall shortly deal with in more detail, the process is carried out when the dead person has not expressed a prior objection. When that is confirmed by the relatives, consent is presumed.
People in Britain have said that the differences in the rates of organ donation between countries can be explained by religious or cultural factors, by the rate of road traffic accidents, by gun laws or by the ability of specialist teams in intensive care units better to retrieve organs for donation. According to the Kennedy paper, in Belgium, there is well-documented and convincing evidence that, in 1986, a change in law from contracting in to presumed consent—that is, contracting out—led to an increase in organ supply.
In an inter-country study, the staff of the transplantation centre in Antwerp strongly opposed the new law and retained a contracting-in policy which was accompanied by enhanced public and professional
172
education. They felt that the new scheme would damage people's willingness to donate. By contrast, in Leuven, the new law was adopted. Antwerp's organ donation rates remain unchanged despite the extra education, but in Leuven, they rose from 15 to 40 donors a year over three years. In the country as a whole, organ donation rose by 55 per cent.
There is clear evidence that moving to a presumed consent system would increase the availability of donations and would save lives. However, we must recognise that people have strong ethical and moral concerns about whether that is the appropriate way forward. Nevertheless, the case must be made for moving to a system such as presumed consent under which people have to opt out. It is not clear that relatives are any more disturbed by organs being taken by presumed consent than they are by being forced at a difficult psychological time to make that decision. The Belgian system, under which confirmation is requested of the relatives rather than the relatives being trodden on willy-nilly, is plainly an appropriate system for the Government to consider.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Dr. Harris: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow an intervention in such an application.
Dr. Harris: I understand that, Madam Speaker, and I apologise for giving way. I should be happy to enter into correspondence, or to converse with Opposition Members or the Government on this matter because it is important to many thousands of people who are on waiting lists and to their families.
I urge the Government to consider consultation and to create a public debate on the measure so that we can move it forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Evan Harris, Mr. Norman Baker, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Mr. Bill Michie, Mr. Alan Simpson and Mr. Graham Stringer.

ORGAN DONATION
Dr. Evan Hams accordingly presented a Bill to provide that the organs of potential donors are available for transplant on death unless the potential donor has previously indicated a wish to the contrary: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 October, and to be printed [Bill 242].
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following the report on organ donation in the late 1960s, which was chaired by the father of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), I tried on eight occasions to bring in a similar Bill to that so eloquently introduced by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). On the first occasion that I did so, not only did Health Ministers remain in their places, but such was the importance placed on the subject that the then Prime Minister decided that he would wait and hear what was said.

173
In the corridor afterwards, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said to me rather laconically, "I was sympathetic to what you had to say, but I don't think you'll persuade Keith Joseph", and nor did I. Is it not a matter of etiquette on ten-minute Bills that representatives of the Department are present to hear what is said? This is a Parliament point rather than a party point. If the ten-minute Bill procedure—albeit kite-flying—is to be at all meaningful, Ministers should at least hear what is said.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's strong feelings on this matter. Ministers have busy schedules, and it is for them to decide whether to be present on the Front Bench on such an occasion. It is entirely a matter for Ministers.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
    Clause 1

      SENTENCE REVIEW COMMISSIONERS
      Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out
      (", and one of them shall be appointed chairman")
      3.46 pm
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 23.
      Mr. Ingram: These are all Government amendments concerned with the appointment of joint chairmen of the sentence review commissioners. The reason behind the amendments is to ensure that the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy clause 1(3), which states:
      "In making appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of the Commissioners, as a group, commanding widespread acceptance throughout the community in Northern Ireland."
      The appointment of a chairman is of particular significance, and it is felt that there could be considerable merit in appointing joint chairmen, hence the amendments.
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I rise briefly to say that the Opposition fully support this group of amendments. To prevent us from wasting further time on the Bill, I can tell the House that we agree with all the other amendments. It has been extremely helpful for the Government to have improved and modified the Bill in the other place. We are grateful to them, and we appreciate the trouble that the Minister has taken.
      Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats support all the amendments, which are clearly improvements to the Bill. We support the Government on all the amendments tabled.
      Madam Speaker: May I collect the voices on all the amendments?
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: No, Madam Speaker.
      Madam Speaker: Sorry, on amendment No. 1. Do you wish to speak, Mr. McNamara?
      Mr. McNamara: I thought, Madam Speaker, that you were suggesting that our voices should be collected on all the amendments. I want to get advice from the Minister about the content and meaning of the new clause. I would be delighted if you wanted to take amendments Nos. 1 to 15.
      Madam Speaker: I cannot. I must take them individually. I shall first collect the voices on amendment No. 1.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 15 agreed to.

      New clause
      Lords amendment: No. 16, after clause 12, to insert the following new clause—Interpretation: terrorism—
      ". In this Act "terrorism" means the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public or any section of the public in fear."
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      This amendment would add a new clause giving a definition of "terrorism" that is the same as the definition contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. The Government consider that it would be of value to have such a definition to avoid any possibility of ambiguity or a suggestion that the term might be used in a different sense in this Bill than in other legislation.
      Mr. McNamara: I was interested to know why the new clause was necessary when there was a definition of "terrorism" in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, under which people covered by this Bill had already been sentenced. I could see no reason why that definition was not being used when it was the definition under which they were sentenced.
      We now have an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister, for which we are grateful. I thank him for it.
      Lords amendment agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 17 to 24 agreed to.

  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
  Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain Commons amendments considered.
  Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords]
    New clause

      REDUCTION IN AGE AT WHICH CERTAIN SEXUAL ACTS ARE LAWFUL
      Lords Reason:
      The Lords disagree to amendment No. 14 made by the Commons for the following Reason:
      Because it fails adequately to protect vulnerable young people.
      3.53 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the Lords reasons for disagreeing to amendments Nos. 98, 107, 108, 140 and 237.
      Mr. Straw: These amendments relate to amendments tabled at the House of Commons Report stage in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen), to equalise the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity at the age of 16. [Interruption.] Madam Speaker, shall I continue?
      Madam Speaker: Yes; I am listening intently. There is a lot of difficult procedure for us to follow, and I am listening very carefully.
      Mr. Straw: If it is acceptable, Madam Speaker: it will take me about 10 minutes to explain my position. I was anxious that you should not spend the whole of that time sitting on the end of the Chair.
      Madam Speaker: I was not specifically waiting for something—although I am always prepared.
      Mr. Straw: I know that you are always prepared, Madam Speaker—like a good girl guide.
      Madam Speaker: Brownie.
      Mr. Straw: Or a brownie. We had better not go down that path just now.
      On 22 June, on a free vote, the House backed the amendments by 336 votes to 129. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth was supported in her amendment by my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and by the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and for Witney (Mr. Woodward)—all of whom have shown great moral conviction on a very difficult issue for all concerned.
      The amendments were to the Crime and Disorder Bill, which is one of this Parliament's major measures on law and order, giving effect to 12 manifesto commitments that

      177
      will have a significant impact on the safety and well-being of our constituents. Overall, the Bill has been widely and enthusiastically welcomed by the public and police. It received substantial support on both sides of the House on Second Reading and on Third Reading, both of which were unopposed.
      The Bill completed its Committee stage in June. Almost five weeks ago—on 24 June, after its Report and Third Reading—it was sent from the House to another place.
      Business managers and I had originally planned that the Commons amendments to the Bill—which began in the Lords—should have been debated at the beginning of July, so that there was adequate time to resolve any disagreements between the two Houses, should any arise, before the end of this month. However, that more relaxed timetable did not prove possible, not least because of the intervention of two sets of Northern Ireland legislation.
      For very good reasons—I can go into the matter in more detail if hon. Members so wish—we have always aimed to achieve Royal Assent to the Bill by the end of this week. Apart from those clauses that are due to come into force on Royal Assent itself, a full implementation timetable was due to start on 30 September. The overall timetable contains about 25 separate items in the Bill, including pilots on the Bill's major youth justice reforms, and starting three other linked pilots, all of which have already been chosen, announced and published; crime and disorder partnerships, which will work locally to reduce crime and disorder; and measures to implement the provisions on football hooliganism, which were rightly pressed by the shadow Home Secretary when the matter was dealt with on Report. Unless we have Royal Assent by the end of this week, those provisions cannot come into force before the beginning of the soccer season.
      The Bill also contains provisions on sex offenders. As the House knows, there is currently a gap in the law on sex offenders who were sentenced before the Criminal Justice Act 1991 came into force. Under current law, it is not possible for any licence to attach to those offenders once they are released from prison—something which has caused major constituency difficulties for many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      The sex offender order is designed to fill that gap. The police will be able to apply for such an order in respect of a registered sex offender who has previously served a sentence and who is anticipated to represent a threat to public order. If we do not get Royal Assent, we cannot put the sex offenders order into action as quickly as possible. Many other measures will also be deferred if we cannot get Royal Assent by the end of this week.
      4 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and colleagues who supported the amendment have generously and readily accepted the imperative of achieving Royal Assent for the Bill by the end of this week. I should not have asked them to support our move or asked the House not to insist on the amendment had I not first attempted to develop an alternative approach that could have met the will of this House immediately to equalise the age of consent while also meeting the concerns of the other place to protect vulnerable young people. However, I am satisfied that there is no
      178
      compromise solution that could be debated and resolved during the rest of this week that would be acceptable to another place and to this House.
      Before I come to my proposals for dealing with the will of the House on the issue as expressed on 22 June, it may be helpful if I set out the background to the issue and explain why the Government accommodated an amendment on the age of consent in the Bill.
      Mr. Tony Benn: My right hon. Friend is assuming that the Lords would allow the Bill to go down rather than concede to the overwhelming will of the House of Commons. That is a fundamental issue. Why does he assume that the Lords would succeed, particularly as I understand that the proposal will be reintroduced in the next Session, although the Lords could delay that as well? We cannot assume that the problem will be solved if the hereditary peers go, because the life peers also voted against the amendment.
      Is this not another capitulation to an unelected Chamber, comparable to what has happened over fox hunting? Under previous Governments, the leaders of the House of Lords have told Cabinet Committees—including those of which I was a member—not to proceed with certain proposals because they would be obstructed. Is not that the real issue—not the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the Lords could hardly reject, or even gay rights, important though the issue is and one that I have always supported, but whether the House of Commons, particularly on a free vote, is to have its will over a House that, on this matter, is elected by nobody, accountable to nobody and representative of nobody?
      Mr. Straw: I intend to set out arrangements by which this House will be able to achieve its will over the other place—by invoking the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 if necessary. However, the provisions of the Parliament Act are not available on Bills that begin their journey through Parliament in the other place. Although I fully subscribe to the Labour manifesto pledge to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords—we shall bring forward proposals in due course to give full effect to that commitment—whether we like the fact or not, even if the hereditary peers had not been allowed to vote, the other place would still have voted down the amendment, so this is not the best issue on which to challenge the authority of the other place. That can be done in a different way.
      On the two significant crises about the authority of this place over the other place, the issues were Government legislation. The situation is made more complex by the fact that we are dealing with a free vote in both Houses.
      Mr. David Winnick rose—
      Mr. Straw: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I should like to expand on a further point.
      I do not know what the outcome would be if we went in for ping-pong with the other place, but we would certainly not get Royal Assent by the end of this week. That would not be satisfactory. Even if we abandoned the idea of Royal Assent by the end of this week, there is no certainty that the other place would decide to concede the point made by this House on 22 June. The net result could be that, unless we took other steps, the whole Bill,

      179
      which has been supported on both sides of the Chamber, would be aborted. I do not believe that it is either appropriate or necessary to take that risk.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Home Secretary give way?
      Mr. Winnick rose—
      Mr. Straw: I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) first; then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. (Mr. Dalyell).
      Mr. Winnick: I regret, of course, the decision made last week, but I agree that the Bill must go ahead. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the House of Lords, or whatever it might then be called, were elected, it would have as much electoral credibility and legitimacy as the elected House of Commons, and that, bearing in mind how the life peers voted, such an elected Chamber would still have been likely to come to the same decision? Is that not a danger to the authority of the House of Commons?
      Mr. Straw: That is an important point of view to be weighed in the balance when we deal with stage two of the manifesto proposals in respect of the other place. However, I happen to believe that other issues, too, will probably arise in which the question of clashes between the House of Lords and the House of Commons will come into play.
      Mr. Dalyell: The Home Secretary and his officials have surely had brought to their attention the letter in The Times from a number of distinguished Law Lords, including Lord Ackner and Lord Wilberforce. What is the answer to their question why the amendment was not introduced at a much earlier stage? Why was it brought into the Bill at such a late stage? As one who has taken a view different from that of many of my colleagues, I am curious to know the answer to that question.
      Mr. Straw: I shall explain in a second, why the amendment was introduced; the reason relates to proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights. As for the time scale, it was always judged that it was appropriate for the matter to be debated in this House first, before it went to the other place. Had it not been for the intervention of Northern Ireland legislation, there would, in my judgment, have been ample time for the matter to be batted backwards and forwards between the two Houses.
      The debate took place on 22 June, the Bill came out of Standing Committee on 11 June, and our original plan was that it would come out of Committee in, say, early June, complete its Report stage by mid-June and, if possible, be considered by their lordships by the end of June. There would then have been ample time for further consideration.
      I also make another point, to which I shall return in due course—that the issue of the age of consent, although very important, is a simple one. The question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is more complicated, but the age of consent is a simple issue that has been discussed on very many occasions in the past. With great respect to their lordships, I thought that
      180
      their least persuasive argument in favour of the position that the majority in that House took involved the late stage in the proceedings at which they had to deal with the issue. It is not as if the issue had not been for many years a well-known question, on which people had been able to form rather settled conclusions.
      It would be helpful if, before turning to my proposals for dealing with the amendment, I set out the background and explained why the Government accommodated an amendment on the age of consent within the Bill before us.
      Hon. Members may be aware that Mr. Euan Sutherland and Mr. Christopher Morris, with the backing of Stonewall, the gay rights organisation, took the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Human Rights to argue that we were in breach of the European convention on human rights in setting a differential age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual activity.
      We learned last summer that the European Commission of Human Rights was about to issue a preliminary finding in favour of Mr. Sutherland. Our legal advice was that it was nigh on certain that that finding would be confirmed by the full court in due course. Such a court ruling would in practice have obliged the United Kingdom Government and Parliament to legislate for an equal age of consent.
      Because we thought—correctly, as it happened—that on a free vote an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons would favour setting the age of consent at 16, we judged that to contest the preliminary ruling would serve no purpose whatever, and would waste much public money on legal costs. We therefore sought an agreement with Mr. Sutherland, Mr. Morris and Stonewall by which they would stay their proceedings in the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of undertakings that we would provide.
      Those undertakings, which were collectively agreed by the Government, were contained in a document lodged with the European Court on 21 October 1997. A copy of the full text of the undertakings has been placed in the Library—they are a matter of public record.
      The undertakings have two principal components. First, we undertook at the "earliest appropriate opportunity" to have a free vote in the House of Commons on the equalisation of the age of consent. That is why we accepted that the Crime and Disorder Bill could be used for that purpose, although the scope of the Bill—which was already amending the law on offences—was such that, irrespective of whether the Government had agreed to include the issue in the Bill, it was rightly for the House to decide whether to amend it as some hon. Members sought to do.
      Secondly, the undertaking said that, if a majority of the House of Commons voted in favour of a reduction in the age of consent for homosexual acts to 16,
      "the government will bring forward legislation to implement the will of Parliament, such legislation to be introduced in time for the consideration of such legislation to have been completed by the end of the next Parliamentary session"—
      that is 1998–99—
      "at the latest."
      Against that background, I invite hon. Members, albeit very reluctantly, to accept the decision of the other place and to remove the age of consent provisions from the Bill. As I explained to my right hon. Friend the Member for

      181
      Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), if the House rejected their lordships' amendments and sent the Bill back to the other place, there is every prospect that that House would again reject the amendments. That would prevent any prospect of Royal Assent until the spillover in late October.
      Even in the spillover, there would be no guarantee that amendments to equalise the age of consent would be carried by the other place. In that event, their omission from the Bill would still have to be accepted by the House of Commons as the price of Royal Assent for the rest of the Bill. As the Bill is Government legislation that gives effect to manifesto commitments that all hon. Members of the governing party supported, I am not willing to play poker with it and risk all its provisions.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment could have been detached from the fate of the Bill if the Lords had been prepared to accept an amendment in lieu, which introduced an order power whereby the provision would not come into force except under an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament? If the Lords had allowed the Bill to proceed on that basis, it would have remained open to them to make their decision later. Certainly a number of hon. Members, including me, who voted for the amendment would have felt happy that the provision was at least on the statute book, even though the Lords would still have had the power to determine whether the provision was implemented.
      Mr. Straw: I accept that. Indeed, if the right hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying so, that useful suggestion came from me—it was one of the proposals that we considered in some detail. However, it became clear that it would not be acceptable to the supporters of the majority position in the other place, so, in the circumstances that we faced, it was not, frankly, a runner.
      As I have explained, the provisions of the Parliament Acts cannot be invoked, as the Crime and Disorder Bill began in another place. In any event, we could not countenance a year's delay in gaining Royal Assent for the Bill as a whole even if those provisions could be invoked.
      Mr. Benn: I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's arguments; the House may decide to accept his advice. Meanwhile, young people between 16 and 18 may be prosecuted by the police in circumstances totally different from any that have hitherto obtained—the elected House of Commons will have voted for the amendment and the Government will have given a solemn commitment to the European Court that they intend to legislate within a year to change the law. Can my right hon. Friend say whether he intends to indicate to the police that prosecutions in this category ought not to be proceeded with, given the two considerations of a treaty obligation and a free vote of the House of Commons? If that is not so, we shall get into a difficult and dangerous situation.
      Mr. Straw: I regret to say that I cannot give such an undertaking. Bills are Bills, and they are mere proposals for law until they become Acts of Parliament. I see no
      182
      way around that. We seek to give effect to both the letter and the spirit of the undertakings that we entered into last October.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: The kind of prosecutions mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) rarely, if ever, take place in Scotland. The Home Secretary talked about his reluctance to accept the decision taken by the other place. He should also be talking about the profound regret and anger in this place, where more than half of hon. Members voted for a measure that unelected people have rejected.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Straw: Speaking personally, I share the anger and regret of my hon. Friend and of many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. My position in favour of an equal age of consent at 16 is long standing and well known. I can provide some reassurance for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield by saying that recent parliamentary answers from the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), said, to my recollection, that the number of prosecutions is about three a year.
      Dr. Evan Harris: I hope to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, but I did not want to lose the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). I raised the same matter in an early-day motion this morning, and I have tabled questions on whether the Government, through the Lord Chancellor or the Attorney-General, have any discretion over decisions to prosecute. Such decisions are taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, but the level at which decisions are taken could be subject to direction. Does the Lord Chancellor have any remit to give sentencing guidance in the interim period while a unique position exists? According to answers that I have had from Ministers, there were 14 prosecutions for people involved with people under 16, although the data are not clear on whether that relates only to the relevant sections of the Sexual Offences Acts, or to other sections.
      Mr. Straw: I have no discretion over prosecutions, and it would be entirely inappropriate if I did. Prosecutions are in the hands of the independent Crown Prosecution Service. It is accountable to the Attorney-General, but he must exercise his judgment entirely independently, and that is exactly as it should be. It is constitutionally important that, as long as the law is the law, it stands to be enforced, and enforcement is a matter for the prosecuting authorities. There can be no dubiety about that.
      Mr. Joe Ashton: I do not want the Attorney-General to receive the wrong message from the House. I accept that there should be no prosecution of boys aged between 16 and 18, but I hope that we do not bring about an amnesty for older men and child abusers who take advantage and think that they will get away with it.
      Mr. Straw: I have made it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that there is no question of the law, or prosecuting policy, being changed in advance of

      183
      any change in legislation. There can be no dubiety about that. To do so would be to render risible our procedures for bringing draft laws to be considered at length by the House before they are passed into law. The debate should not drift down what will be an inevitable cul-de-sac.
      I have already explained why we cannot risk the Bill in ping pong before the end of the Session and why the Parliament Act does not apply. Even if it did, we could not risk making use of it as it would delay Royal Assent for a further year.
      I propose instead—in return for the House accepting the Government's proposition that we reluctantly accept the decision of the other place—that we should detach the issue from the Bill and deal with it in separate legislation in the next Session. Therefore, the Government will honour the second of the formal undertakings given in the Sutherland and Morris case, by producing legislation on the matter in 1998–99. In doing so, there will be, as before, a free vote on the age of consent so far as the Government are concerned.
      The Government are neutral on the matter. That arrangement follows a number of precedents, for example that of the Shops Act 1996, when the Government produced the legislation, provided a menu of alternatives and allowed free votes. The new legislation will be introduced first into this House, to ensure that it has the benefit of the Parliament Act should that prove necessary.
      Finally, Madam Speaker—this is my last point in case you want to get back on the edge of your Chair—in the debate in the House on 22 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw moved amendments relating to breach of trust and the protection of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds. Although his amendment was defeated by 40 votes, we have never discounted the strength of the argument that he deployed in this House or that deployed in the other place.
      The equalisation of the age of consent is a simple issue of removing a basic inequality in our law. It is an issue on which there are strong feelings and diverging views, but it is not technical or complex in itself. That was why we were content for it to be inserted at a relatively late stage in the passage of the Bill. I think that it is generally accepted that abuse of trust is not a simple issue in the same way; we discussed that at some length on 22 June. There are complexities in the definition of abuse of trust, in the behaviour, which is dealt with, in the interlocking with non-statutory safeguards that are already in place, such as professional codes, and in the relationship with current criminal law, under which any coercive sexual activity is already against the law and carries criminal sanctions.
      As a consequence of those complexities, but also in recognition of the concern felt by hon. Members regardless of their opinion on the age of consent, the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, announced on 22 June that I had set up a review group to look into abuse of trust. The group's first meeting will be on 30 July and it will report by the end of the year—hopefully, earlier.
      The review will concern both young men and young women, and in a non-discriminatory way. We will take account of the group's decision on whether legislation is necessary. I assure hon. Members that there will be no delay. I have asked the working group to deal with
      184
      abuse of trust as its first priority and to come up with proposals as quickly as possible. Any right hon. or hon. Members on either side of the House who wants to meet my officials to discuss the matter should write to me, and I will ensure that arrangements are made as quickly as possible. Precisely because the matter is complex, it is to the advantage of the House that we proceed by consensus, if possible.
      Mr. Dalyell: On a Scottish point, can my right hon. Friend say whether, since a reserved power is concerned, the review group will also cover considerations of Scottish law?
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that excellent question, and I wish that I immediately knew the answer. I am being given a variety of advice by my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, and I will try to give him definitive advice, hopefully before the end of the debate.
      The position of young people in residential settings is to be a particular concern of the review group, as those young people have least recourse to outside help and advice. The review will consider the protection needed by both young men and young women, on the basis that both sexes should be treated equally.
      I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will be disappointed that we have not been able to secure an equal age of consent in the Crime and Disorder Bill. I share that disappointment, but to insist on the amendment now would serve no useful purpose. It would not win round the other place; it would only delay the implementation of the Bill or risk its not being passed, which would be a grave disservice to our constituents.
      To those who are, as I am, impatient to equalise the age of consent, I repeat that, next Session, we shall introduce legislation to ensure a conclusive resolution of the issue on a free vote and remove the unjustified discrimination that has persisted for too long. On that basis, and with great reluctance, I urge hon. Members to support the motion.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I shall be very brief. I agree with the Home Secretary's advice that the House should agree with the decision of the other place. He cut it so fine in coming to the Dispatch Box that I thought that I might have to move the motion in his stead. As I voted and argued against the amendment in the first place, my reasons for agreeing with the other place are rather different from those put forward by the Home Secretary.
      There are two main reasons why we should agree with the Lords on the amendment. First, like other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), I took the trouble to listen to part of the debate in the other place. No one can complain about the general quality of the arguments. The House was packed and the different arguments were cogently put and listened to with care.

      185
      By any standard, there was a cross-section of speakers, including two bishops, a former chief rabbi and an ex-Labour member of the former Wolfenden committee.
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I knew that I should not mention the hon. Gentleman. He can rarely resist the temptation to intervene, so I shall allow him to do so.
      Mr. Bradshaw: I want to put the record straight. Indeed, bishops were present for the debate, and the Bishop of Bath and Wells made the best speech of the evening. However, having spent my first long period in the Lords since coming to this place and having been inculcated with the idea that the Lords was a centre of wisdom, I can say that I have never in my life heard so much ignorance, bigotry and bile. My opinion of the views that were expressed and the way in which they were expressed is very different from that of the right hon. Gentleman.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Strangely enough, I did not expect that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree in our assessment of the House of Lords. I expect that we can conceivably edge towards common ground in agreeing that a cross-section of views was expressed in the other place, that the arguments were listened to with care and that the Lords was absolutely packed from the beginning of the debate to the end.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Before we leave the subject of the House of Lords, I have a question for my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said that the other place is unrepresentative of the British nation. Has my right hon. Friend noticed the Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph today, which shows that only 25 per cent. of the population want to lower the age of consent for gay sex to 16 and does he agree that the House of Lords therefore showed last week that it is in touch with the nation?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I was not thinking of leaving the subject of the House of Lords, and I should like to return to the important point that my hon. Friend makes.
      The debate in the other place was conducted as one would have hoped that a debate in any second Chamber would have been conducted. A cross-section of speakers took part. There was a free vote—not on party lines. As anyone who listened to the debate knows, that point was vigorously made, not by a Conservative peer, but by Lord Stoddart of Swindon. [Laughter.] I know that old Labour is very unfashionable—it must be very sad for old Labour—but I do not remember that, in my time as a Minister, Lord Stoddart was one of my greatest supporters when I laid measures before the House. He said:
      "This is not a party political issue. It is a cross-party political issue. There are people of both parties, and none, who take differing views on the amendment."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 July 1998; Vol. 592, c. 964.]
      It is incorrect to say that the issue was carried by the hereditary peers. Life peers predominated among those who contributed to the debate and those who voted. In
      186
      the Division Lobbies, a former Labour Prime Minister, Lord Callaghan, voted against the change alongside the former Labour Northern Ireland Secretary and Defence Secretary, Lord Mason, while Tories such as Lord Newton and Lord Tugendhat actually voted in favour.
      4.30 pm
      Dr. Harris: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that the House of Lords is a broad cross-section, but what does he feel was the average age of those taking part in the debate? I believe that, if he considered that, he would recognise that one need not be young—obviously, hon. Members throughout the House share my view on that, and vote accordingly—to believe in human rights on the basis of sexual orientation, but the House of Lords shows that it certainly helps.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I do not know. Lord Callaghan may be over 60, or over 70—I cannot remember his age—but I would say, with some humility, that he has a dear sight more experience than even the hon. Gentleman.
      People are starting to debate whether, if we are to have a second Chamber, it should be appointed or elected. There is an interesting conflict on the subject. I heard what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said. One must expect that, whatever type of second Chamber we have, it will disagree with the House on occasion, for perfectly sensible reasons. Moreover, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, at least two opinion polls have shown that the House of Lords more accurately reflects current public opinion on this subject than did the vote in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Benn: In my opinion, this is about not the House of Lords but equality. I listened to bishops who believe that it is all right to join the Army and kill people at 17, but not to have sex with someone at 17. I heard Members of the House of Lords say, "Young people are not fit to make the judgment"—but they did not say, "Whatever age you are, you are not fit to elect us, because we are here for life."
      This is about democracy; and democracy in Britain is more important than a delay to the Crime and Disorder Bill or even—dare I say it—than the issue that we are discussing, on which I am wholly committed. We should not mock the idea of an elected second Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said that, if we had two elected Chambers, they might disagree; but, if he thinks about it, he will realise that, if we had held elections to two elected Chambers last May, the public would have elected the same sort of Members to both.
      That is the issue that we are discussing—democracy. I hope that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) does not mock the idea just because The Daily Telegraph commissions an opinion poll which tells us that people agree with the tabloids, when they are whipped up to do so.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Nevertheless, the debate will be in good order if it remains within the substantive context of the amendments.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I was about to make the same point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that the right hon.

      187
      Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has now made his speech, in any event. His major argument seems to be with the hon. Member for Walsall, North, not with me. In no way am I mocking democracy, but I do say that the case for changing the House of Lords has not been proven and that, even in this short debate, the divisions on what might replace the House of Lords have become apparent. I am perhaps not as concerned as the Home Secretary may be when he advances the Government's proposals—if they have any—in this area.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger in getting too excited about this issue? Observing that prosecutions are simply not taking place following consideration of the matter by the European Court of Human Rights, will my right hon. Friend explain what possible difference it will make to anyone whether we say yes or no to the proposition?
      Sir Norman Fowler: It makes a difference because the law sets out what is legal and what is not. My hon. Friend has put that point to me several times and I understand from where he comes—it is not an entirely unexpected position. However, I think that it makes a very substantial difference whether we make this change. My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to make his point in a moment in his usual inimitable fashion.
      I shall deal now with the second reason why I believe that it is right to accept the Lords amendment. When we debated the matter in this Chamber a few weeks ago, I made the point—to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also alluded—that the effect of introducing the amendment at such a late stage was to present to the House a more or less "take it or leave it" proposition. We did not have time to scrutinise properly any amendments that might have protected young people, whether boys or girls. That concern was expressed in the debate, and the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) received wide support. Wide concern was also expressed about the report of Sir William Utting on the abuse of young people—I emphasise again that we are talking about boys and girls.
      If the clause had been in the Bill from the start, proper consideration could have been given to the issues. It is a great pity and a great sadness that that was not the case. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) wishes to intervene—he did so last time, but it was not a spectacular success and I advise him not to do so again.
      The Home Secretary now says that new legislation will allow the House to consider properly any safeguards that are proposed. We shall have the time and the opportunity to do that. To be frank, I should prefer there to be no Bill and I oppose the change. I made my views clear on the last occasion. However, if there is to be legislation, the Home Secretary's proposal seems to be the right and proper way to proceed. We must not insert a clause into the Bill at a late stage because that does not allow many important issues to be considered properly.
      188
      I shall vote to accept the Lords amendment and I welcome that part of the outcome that the Home Secretary has advanced. However, I also congratulate the House of Lords on performing its traditional and valuable function of making the House think again.
      Ann Keen: I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends and other hon. Members who supported the amendment that the right approach was taken. The House voted to recognise and value all young people in this country, regardless of their sexuality. The House does not wish to criminalise young people in a democracy, and the overwhelming vote on 22 June ensured that that would not occur.
      I, too, reluctantly accept what has happened in another place. I have some pleasure in doing so because it means that we shall not be sending the amendment back to the other place where the facts may be distorted yet again and the noble Lords may again use offensive language in presenting their cases. They have done much damage within a short time to many young people and their families in this country. For that reason, if for no other, it is right not to send the matter back and for us to enjoy some aspect of democracy at the end of this Session.
      I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the way in which he has conducted the matter and for his undoubted assistance and help in, and commitment to, equalising the age of consent. I shall be proud when the Government introduce a Bill in the next Session and, if necessary—I hope that it is not—evoke the Parliament Act 1911, so that the democratically elected Members of this House of Commons can present their case, at the end of which the law will be changed.
      Mr. Beith: The Liberal Democrats support the Crime and Disorder Bill. Although its claims have been somewhat exaggerated, we, too, want to see it on the statute book quickly. There was a free vote in both Houses on the issue which is the subject of the amendment. I was one of the large majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends who voted in favour of the amendment. That was not a view at which I arrived lightly, and some of my constituents do not share it, but, on grounds of equality of rights and of the general uselessness and unhelpfulness of applying the criminal law in the area of teenage behaviour, I felt it right to vote as I did.
      Despite my disagreement with its conclusion, it is perfectly reasonable that the other place should invite the House of Commons to think again about the matter. However, it is not reasonable that its view should prevail over that of the elected House on an issue of fundamental principle and rights. It is part of the second Chamber's job to invite us to think again. It is doing so in circumstances, not perhaps of its choosing, when we appear unable to insist on our right without imperilling the Bill to which the matter has been attached.
      This House would usually be saying to the other place in our response to its view of our amendment that we have thought again about its proposition, but that we are still of the same mind and wish the view of elected Members to prevail. We might have said that we had thought again about the matter and believe that the concerns of the other place might be addressed in various other ways. It is notable that its reason for rejecting the Commons amendment related to the vulnerability of young people.

      189
      It was apparent in the vote on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that that concern was shared to a significant extent in the House—not to a sufficient extent to allow it to be carried but to such an extent that, even among those who did not vote for it, the Government rightly set about some work to determine whether it could be carried into law in a non-discriminatory way and would usefully add to the protections that already exist in the law for vulnerable young people. I certainly take the view that that work is valuable and I hope to see some result from it.
      We could have told the other place that we would think about what it had said, but that we still believed that our view should prevail. Other things being equal, that is what I would expect the result of a free vote to be, but we are not in a position to do that without derailing the Bill.
      The Government could have introduced another Bill and taken it quickly through the House, but that could lead to the other place arguing that it is not right that it should be expected to agree with a Bill that had been rushed through so rapidly. Another option, which I raised in an intervention and which would have been helpful if those in the other place who are pursuing the matter were prepared to accept it, would be to separate the matter from the Bill by means of an order-making power so that this part of the Bill would come into effect only when both Houses had voted to allow it to do so. The rest of the Bill would have proceeded into effect and the other place would have had that key for the lock and, without its turning it, the measure would not have come into effect. By the time that it had that opportunity, some progress could have been made on the concerns that the amendments with regard to the vulnerability of young people and those in positions of trust are intended to address.
      The Government considered those options, but chose another—that of introducing a Bill in the next Session of Parliament, to which, in any case, they are committed by the nature of their undertakings in response to the situation created by the European convention on human rights. They gave undertakings, it was necessary that they should do so, and those undertakings will have to be carried out. I understand why they reached that conclusion and I in no way seek to disrupt the process of effecting that. However, some points have to be made clear.
      First, the Bill must be a Government Bill. It would not be reasonable to hand the problem over to a co-operative Member at the beginning of the next Session of Parliament. That would be to expose it to all the risks that are attendant upon private Members' legislation and to deny it the protection that Government legislation has in its timetabling. It would be to invite yet another constitutional crisis whereby the Government have to consider whether to depart from their usual practice and give extra time to a private Member's Bill.
      The spirit of what the Government have said seems to show that the Bill to be introduced in the next Session should be a Government Bill and that its ability to proceed should be protected in the usual way of Government business, while the issue remains a free vote issue for Labour Members as for Liberal Democrats.
      The measure should not be tacked on to some sexual offences provision. It is about not paedophiles or marauding sexual offenders, but young people being
      190
      treated differently according to their sexual inclination, despite being the same age as those who face no legal penalty for actions which, however ill-advised or however much their elders might advise them against, are not against the law.
      4.45 pm
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what he is saying? Is he saying that there should be a Government Bill which would relate only to the question of the age of consent and that it should be whipped through the House?
      Mr. Beith: It is my suggestion, and I understood this to be what the Home Secretary said, that the Government introduce a Bill at the beginning of the next Session and that, as in the case of the Shops Bill, there should be a free vote on the central issue, in this case of whether the age of consent should be equalised at 16. I see Ministers nodding assent that that is their position.
      Once the principle has been decided, as someone who has been a Member of the House for a long time, I would expect the Government to ensure that the legislation was enacted and was not subject to mere delaying tactics over a long period to prevent that from happening, and that, when the matter was again put to the other place, perhaps with some of their concerns having been addressed in the meantime, it will accept that that is the will of this Chamber.
      Some secondary issues, which may clarify my reply to the hon. Lady, relate directly to the content of such a Bill. For example, if we merely change the law on the age of consent without doing anything else, it would be technically possible for some to have their names on the sexual offenders register for some years for something that is no longer a criminal offence. That is not acceptable, and it is a detail that could reasonably be remedied in the Bill. Even those who take a different view from me on the issue would not feel it right for someone to be labelled as a sexual offender when what he had done was no longer a criminal offence. Such matters could be dealt with in the Bill.
      The Home Secretary referred to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and the concerns that they raised. That will clearly need separate legislation because the matter is non-discriminatory in its intended scope. That was the hon. Gentleman's intention. Only the proceedings of the House tied him in framing the amendment. He was clear that his intention was to protect vulnerable young people, male or female, from sexual predation from males or females. I share much of his concern on that point and I hope that we shall make progress on that, but I think that it will require separate legislation to deal with it.
      When we have, as we have here, an issue concerning the widening of liberty, after due consideration the will of the Commons should prevail and the Government must provide the opportunity to make that possible. On that basis, I encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept that the Government are taking a reasonable way forward in the matter.
      Mr. Ashton: I welcome the Home Secretary's decision to bring the new clause back as a separate Bill so that it

      191
      has better scrutiny, because there is no doubt whatever that the unusual way in which it was introduced left much to be desired.
      We were told as long ago as last November that the Government would introduce the measure as part of the Crime and Disorder Bill. I tabled a question to the Home Office asking whether it would be part of the Bill, and was told that that was not the intention at that stage. I am not saying that the Home Office was not telling the truth; that was its intention at that time. I was asked to appear on television programmes such as Panorama, the presenters of which were absolutely certain that it would be part of the Bill.
      At that stage, it was impossible to get hold of a copy of the Bill, which had not even had its First Reading. Indeed, as late as January, it was difficult to get hold of a copy. The question was always whether the provision would be in the Bill or not, and there was no definite answer.
      I kept my eyes open to see what was happening with the Bill. I asked people in the Lords, whom I had known for many years in this House, whether the new clause would be tabled in the Lords. It was not. The Lords did not debate the matter and it was never put to them. It was simply tacked on to the back end of the Bill.
      Although I have great respect for my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom I have known for many years, I am sure that, if other legislation had been put before the House in that way, he would not have found it acceptable. He has often said that war can be declared without the House debating it, and he is right; but effectively that is what happened with the new clause. There was no Second Reading or scrutiny in Committee. I kept an eye on it, wondering what would happen once the Bill came here from the other place. I shall tell the House what happened.
      On Friday 12 June, the new clause was tabled, but not a soul knew about it. Although there was speculation that it was to be part of the Bill, it appeared in none of the Saturday or Sunday newspapers but was tabled quietly and discreetly on Friday 12 June, on a day when most hon. Members had gone home. That was done because, as everybody knows, there must be two weekends between tabling a new clause and debating it. The debate was then fixed within the absolute minimum time—a week the following Monday. That was a day when the football was on the television—[HoN. MEMBERS: "What rubbish!"] Nothing happens by coincidence in this place. I have been here for 30 years, in which time I have been a Whip and on the Front Bench. I can tell my hon. Friends who have not been here for quite as long that this place functions like an efficient machine.
      It was impossible even to see the new clause until Monday 15 June. When I saw that the subject was to be debated—it was announced at business questions—I rang the Committee Clerk and asked when the new clause would be tabled. He told me that it had already been tabled the previous Friday. I got hold of a copy of it quickly and went to see the Committee Clerk, Mr. Paul Silk—I hope that he does not mind me mentioning his name. Those who say that the amendments are not watertight should be aware that the Committee Clerk drafted them for me and did a magnificent job. However, we could not table the amendments until Tuesday 16 June.
      192
      Given that the new clause was to be debated the following Monday, that left only Wednesday and Thursday to scrutinise the amendments and get people to sign them.
      I am not saying that it was an impossible job. I went to the Susan Hamilton agency, which is on the premises, and had 600 letters explaining the amendments and 600 envelopes typed. Amendments are no longer published every day as they used to be; we have to wait until Thursdays to have them published, so nobody knew that my amendments had been tabled. I sat stuffing letters into envelopes until midnight. A good Christian movement charity called Care asked whether I wanted some help, so Care finished putting the letters in the envelopes—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) laughs, but I am describing the difficulties of a Back Bencher taking on a Government. My hon. Friend may be in the same position one day and he will then see the difficulties for himself.
      Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I do not want to malign Care, but my hon. Friend might like to know that a young girl from my constituency wanted to work for me at the beginning of this Session. It had all been set up, but, at the last minute, Care discovered about my sexual orientation and she was prevented from doing so. We know exactly where Care is coming from. The irony is that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) has a placement from Care in her office.
      Mr. Ashton: It is the oldest trick in the book to denigrate by abuse when one does not have a brief. With all respect to my hon. Friend, that is what the media do and what cheap-jack lawyers do when they have no brief—they denigrate witnesses—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) is an expert on verbal abuse, but let us not get sidetracked.
      I am trying to explain to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter, without being patronising, that when a Back Bencher takes on the Government, he has a job on. The Bill with which my hon. Friend was involved was given time and maximum help by the Government. He was very privileged, because I know of no other Back-Bench issue, whether it is fox hunting or whatever, that has had such a fair wind behind it. That has been his experience; when the situation is reversed and he finds himself taking on the Government without such back-up, he will be glad to accept help from anybody, without examining what he or she has done or not done. I was one Back Bencher taking on the Government.
      Let me continue the story. The 600 letters had to be distributed, and I had to get people to sign the amendments. I could have got 100 people to sign them, but I chose very experienced people like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who sits on the Speaker's Panel, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who is chairman of the Liaison Committee, and others who have been in the House for a long time. They readily signed the amendments, although I could not get enough signatures because of the shortage of time.
      I am trying to illustrate how this Back-Bench provision was railroaded through the House—"railroaded" is the only word for it. Let us look at what happened on the day. We were promised a free vote. We had a free vote on the

      193
      main clause, but when my amendments were called, the Chief Whip said, "The free vote is off. There is no free vote on your amendment." There was enormous confusion about that. We managed to get the amendment called, although when the Government tabled the new clause, they timetabled it. If Government business is timetabled, it gets three hours and one vote. Thus, the only vote that would have been allowed under the Government's proposal was a vote on the new clause—a Government-backed vote. My amendments could not have been voted on. However, I raised the matter with Madam Speaker and she agreed with the then Leader of the House that my amendments would be called. No end of barriers were put in the way of that so-called free vote.
      Mrs. Dunwoody: There was not too much confusion, because Government Whips were standing at the entrance to the Lobby making it clear that it was a Government vote. When I pointed out that it was a free vote, it seemed to come as a considerable surprise.
      Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend is an experienced Member. She came here in 1966 and has seen everything that can happen, so her remarks are of great value.
      On the first free vote, which would have been the only free vote had it not been for the Speaker's ruling, there was a majority of 207. Within 15 minutes, that majority had fallen to 40, with at least 50 people abstaining—the Government Whips were telling people not to vote in what was originally a free vote. One Whip even voted against reducing the age of consent to 16 and then had to vote against my amendment because the free vote was taken off.
      Mr. Tom Levitt: Does my hon. Friend know of an hon. Member who voted contrary to how he or she wanted to vote on that night? I heard no complaints that people were railroaded into voting against their will. Should not the Government have given a new clause that had such strong support in the Chamber the best possible avenues to be debated and to become law? Is not one of the outcomes of that the fact that the Home Secretary has given assurances that the points raised in the amendments will be looked at carefully by the Home Secretary's panel?
      5 pm
      Mr. Ashton: My hon. Friend makes a wide intervention covering three points—something that he would have been better off doing in the debate. I shall try to deal with them. There was not a free vote on my amendment; people were dragooned against their will. I could name them, but I shall not, for fear of embarrassing them. He can check the voting records—people on the payroll vote were told to vote against my amendment, and did. It still lost by only 40 votes, and at least 50 hon. Members were told, "Stay in the Corridor if you don't want to vote." They were whipped against my amendment.
      I am not arguing about that, because that is politics and what the game is all about. All that I am doing is revealing to hon. Members what happened and why there should be proper scrutiny of the measure. It should go through
      194
      Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading like other legislation, and it is totally unfair that a highly controversial issue affecting everyone in the community was not scrutinised.
      The House set up a system of Special Standing Committees. I was a member of the Modernisation Committee, which said that it would sometimes be helpful to have a mini-Select Committee or a Special Standing Committee to which people could give evidence at the start of consideration of a Bill. People in positions of trust or supervision could have given evidence to such a Committee, as could Stonewall, but there has not been even a Select Committee investigation into this matter. That is the essence of democracy. People talk about democracy in the House of Lords, but there is another aspect of democracy, which is the public having a say and being able to give evidence. There was no question of any sort of Special Standing Committee.
      I accept that there was a slight problem with my amendment—not a legal problem, but a difficulty in that abusers who are caught are not prosecuted, at any age. Public schools do not want the bad publicity of a prosecution, because parents would take their kids away; councils, as with Islington council, carry such stigma after prosecutions that they go to great lengths to avoid them; and insurance companies put great pressure on councils not to have a prosecution, because they would have to pay compensation to the abused youngster. There is clandestine agreement not to prosecute so that the abuser is sacked, but does not go for unfair dismissal because he does not want publicity, and then rings up the network and moves, for example, from Nottinghamshire to Derbyshire next door.
      Those questions should be examined, but there was never any move to examine them or any time given for that. The debate lasted three hours in this place and two and a half hours in the other place.
      My amendment would also protect young women aged 16 or 17 who are being harassed at work by their boss. At present, they have to go through the paraphernalia of going to a tribunal, but, under my amendment, they could say to their boss, "Hands off, I'm under age." None of this has ever been examined—it is all being bounced through. That is not democracy, any more than the House of Lords is democracy, which is why I support my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
      Ann Keen: My hon. Friend is confusing the argument, because the age of consent is a totally separate issue—it is about human rights equality. Many of us find offensive the suggestion that those who agree with equalisation of the age of consent have no care for the protection of all young people, especially the vulnerable. Everyone wants that to be discussed, and we want that law to be enforced properly.
      Mr. Ashton: I have never said that, and I said in my opening remarks in the previous debate that gays were not child abusers, but the age of consent is a major deterrent to anyone who is thinking of abusing a young person. They know that is against the law and carries severe penalties. [Interruption.] I am being called "crazy"—abuse again.
      In 15 minutes, I have raised half a dozen points that were never debated or analysed, or considered by a Committee. They were simply thrown in and bounced

      195
      through; that is not democracy, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is absolutely right to say that we should start from scratch with a proper Bill and thorough scrutiny.
      Mrs. Jacqui Lait: I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Lords opposition to the Commons amendment and the Government's proposal for a separate Bill, which we will now be able to discuss at much greater length.
      The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) brought into sharp focus some of the problems surrounding the change in the age of consent. I support what he said, but would go further, which is why I supported the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) in the brief and heated debate on 22 June. I seek assurances from the Home Secretary that the working group will take on board a point that was brought home to me by the national missing persons helpline, of which I am a trustee. It raised the issue not of youngsters who are abused by people in a position of trust, but of youngsters who have left home and are even more vulnerable.
      Such youngsters can sometimes be brought into a life of abuse through the rent boy, or even rent girl, system, where youngsters are almost offered for sale to those who are looking for sex with young people. As the age of consent comes down, the vulnerability of such people increases and the age at which youngsters could be abused also comes down. I accept that there is a law governing that form of abuse, but it is not being used. The staff of the national missing persons helpline regularly have to deal with youngsters who find themselves in such a situation. I am sure that they will take up the Home Secretary's offer to meet him and his officials to discuss the issue, which comes into sharp focus in discussions of any reduction in the age of consent. I hope that the working party will take all that on board.
      I am most grateful to the House of Lords for the opportunity to bring this issue to the notice of the House and, I hope, have it dealt with effectively in the new legislation.
      Mr. Benn: I shall be brief. There are separate issues here; my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) raised the abuse of anyone of any age by people in positions of trust. That has nothing whatever to do with the age of consent—a mentally handicapped person aged 45 and in care could be abused.
      My hon. Friend talked about things being railroaded into the Bill—I shall come to that in a moment—but if ever there was a railroading it is his amendment, which has nothing to do with the age of consent. There are vulnerable people who need to be protected, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, given enough time, will introduce legislation to deal with such protection.
      On the question whether we should agree with the Lords, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, warned us that the debate is about the opposition of the House of Lords to a Commons amendment, but dare I say that the motion states that we do not insist on resisting the Lords opposition? We have to give some attention to the source of that opposition.
      There is a history to this matter. The Conservative party likes the House of Lords, because it has always had a Conservative majority. This is not a party matter, but, as
      196
      Conservative Members know very well, Labour Governments have four years in office and Tory Governments have five, because the Lords can always turn its power of delay into a veto. I have sat in Cabinet many times; as I mentioned in an intervention, I have heard a Labour Leader of the House of Lords say, "I do not think that we should proceed with that—the Lords will delay it and that will wreck our legislation." I have a marked objection to that.
      I also have an objection to the authority of the second Chamber. Although I was brought up as a member of the Church of England and should have due respect for the bishops, I know what a bishop has to say to become a bishop. He does not only take an oath of allegiance, like us; he says, "I accept Your Majesty as the sole source of ecclesiastical, spiritual and temporal power." Bishops thus declare that they do not believe in democracy in order to become bishops. That was imposed on them by Henry VIII. When I hear a bishop talking about consent of any kind, I bear in mind the fact that the man got where he is by swearing that he did not believe in what this whole place is about—although, of course, there are good bishops and bad bishops.
      The next question concerns accountability. When I was elected as Member for Chesterfield, everyone in Chesterfield knew my view on the age of consent, because I had introduced a Sexual Equality Bill in 1989. People with an interest in the subject have written to me, and I am still writing back to them. The voters elected me, not necessarily because they agreed with my view on sexual equality, but in the knowledge that it was my view. Next time around, they can decide whether they still want me on the same basis. Their lordships, however, are not accountable to anyone—not even the appointed peers. Of course, every hereditary peer is descended from a peer who was appointed, so there is not much difference. A king used to do the appointing; the king has now moved to No. 10 Downing street, but the basis is the same. Hereditary peers are appointed in the same way as life peers.
      If I were in an aircraft and the pilot said, "I am not a pilot myself, but my grandfather was a pilot", I would leave the plane at once. If I went to the dentist and he said, "I am not a dentist, but my dad was a dentist in the 1920s—open your mouth", I would not listen to him for five minutes. Now we are told that we must respect their lordships' opinions. I respect the opinions of peers as citizens, but I do not accept that they have a right to frustrate the House of Commons.
      I know that the Crime and Disorder Bill is important, but, as I have said, I think that democracy is more important than any single Act passed by a democratic House. I challenge the Lords to throw the Bill out. They have been prattling about law and order ever since I was born. Do hon. Members imagine that they would insist on their amendment and destroy the Bill? Of course they would not; if they did, they would be putting their heads on the block and inviting the abolition of their House.
      We should have taken a stronger line, and I am disappointed that we did not. We did the same with the fox-hunting legislation: we ran away from the Countryside Alliance and the House of Lords. We have got into the habit of accepting that that place has merit, has judgment—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman has taken licence enough. Amendments

      197
      from the other place, whatever the Bill, are debated not on the basis of whence they came, but in terms of the long title of the Bill.
      Mr. Benn: You have been generous, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have given me a certain licence, because I have had some experience. When my blood turned blue some years ago, I was thrown out of this place—which was a funny thing to happen—but I turned it red again, and came back.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw said that the measure had been "bounced". Responding to one of our hon. Friends, he used the phrase "When you have been here as long as I have… ". Dare I say the same to him? Homosexuality has been on the agenda of the House of Commons for years. I do not remember Oscar Wilde, but I believe that he was engaged in an activity that the House of Lords would have regarded as entirely undesirable. I remember the setting up of the Wolfenden committee, and the debates on that committee. I remember the debates on clause 28—and, as I have said, I introduced my own Bill. The idea that those poor peers were taken by surprise, finding out that there was such a thing as homosexuality—when they had all been to public schools where it was rife—is ludicrous.
      I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw feels that the Bill was not properly handled. If I had been Home Secretary—an opportunity denied to me, alas—I would have put the measure in last October. I am sure that the Home Secretary will follow my advice; but do not let anyone tell us that it was a big surprise to the Lords to discover that such practices are engaged in even by 16-year-olds.
      When the Question is put, I shall shout "No" on principle. I do not suppose that it will be possible to find another Teller, but I shall at least have the satisfaction of making my voice heard in support of democracy. I very much hope that everything that the Home Secretary said will prove true—I am sure that he is right—and that, in the autumn, this matter will be disposed of once and for all, along with the Chamber that has caused all the trouble.
      Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I supported the amendment that we discussed on 22 June. I would have preferred the amendment passed by the House of Commons to stand, but—in sharp contrast to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)—I utterly defend the right, indeed the duty, of the House of Lords, while it is the second Chamber, to ask the House of Commons to think again.
      This is not the first occasion on which we have discussed that matter of principle in recent weeks. Having accepted that the House of Lords was right to send back to us, twice, the issue of tuition fees for students from England and Wales at Scottish universities, to be consistent I must also accept—and I do accept, as a matter of principle—that the Lords have a right and a duty to send back this amendment, although I happen to disagree with them.
      5.15 pm
      I appreciate that—as the Home Secretary explained—if the House disagrees with the other place today,
      198
      the whole Bill may well be lost. However much hon. Members may care to speculate on the way in which the House of Lords may or may not react if the amendment goes back to it, there is no doubt that it is our duty to protect the rest of the Bill. Conservative Members did not vote against the spirit and general intention of the Bill. Along with some of my hon. Friends, I served on the Standing Committee. We discussed the Bill for many hours, and, although some of us disagreed with the details, we did not disagree with the principle. We do not want the Bill to fall.
      The right hon. Member for Chesterfield may agree with this point. The Bill, which we debated so carefully in Committee, abolishes for ever the death penalty for all the remaining crimes to which it still applies. If the Bill is lost, that is one provision that will also have fallen by the end of this week. As in other instances, there is good and bad in the legislation, but—strangely—I agree with the Home Secretary: there is more good than bad in it.
      Unfortunately, the Government's business managers—I do not know to whom they are accountable—
      Mr. Straw: Neither do I.
      Mrs. Laing: I have every sympathy with the Home Secretary. It is a great pity that the Government's business managers did not manage this piece of business rather better. We could have had an opportunity to debate the matter fully, in the House of Commons, in the other place, in the House of Commons again and in the other place again, for however long it took to sort out the way in which this Parliament—as a whole Parliament—was going to deal with the matter. We are now at the end of a Session, however, and although I can blame the Government's business managers, we can do nothing about the legislation at the end of July.
      I have heard it said that the Home Secretary has discussed the whole issue with some of the amendment's sponsors. No one has discussed it with me, but I accept that the Home Secretary has undertaken to introduce legislation that would have the same effect as the amendment that the House of Commons overwhelmingly agreed to.
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is an interesting barometer, as a Conservative Member who supports the legalisation for gay sex at 16. Is she aware that various supporters of the legislation—homosexual organizations—want to attach to the new Government Bill other provisions, such as the repeal of clause 28, which banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools? Labour Members shake their heads—but if that were so, would my hon. Friend support a new Bill in the next Session? [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I use this opportunity to apologise to the hon. Lady and to tell her that she should not be tempted to stray into territory that is well outside the scope of the amendment.
      Mrs. Laing: I note your warning not to stray, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I never do.
      I would not vote to repeal clause 28; nor would I align myself with some of the militant gay rights people who protested outside the other place last week. However, I agree with the sensible and reasonable promoters of the

      199
      amendment who have conducted themselves with great honour and dignity throughout. I welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that the Government will present a measure in the next Session, because that will give the House and the other place an opportunity to debate the issue of duty of care, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton). I supported his amendment of 22 June, and I support the principle that he and the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) mentioned—that the law should protect young men and young women.
      The House has sent a clear signal that it does not approve of discrimination on the ground of sexuality. I have been surprised by the number of complimentary letters and messages that I have received in the past month on this matter.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: They were not from me.
      Mrs. Laing: I nevertheless received many messages.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent sheaf of opinion polls, not least the one in today's issue of The Daily Telegraph, showing that their lordships are more in tune with public opinion than is the House?
      Mrs. Laing: I am aware of that, but I have said many times that I do not believe in opinion polls and do not trust them. I do not know anyone who has ever been questioned by an opinion pollster. At many public meetings, the issue of opinion polls has been raised in the context of their being a measure of the popularity of Labour Members. At those meetings I have asked year after year whether anyone has ever been questioned by a pollster or whether anyone knows someone who has been so questioned. The answer has always been no. I give as much credence to today's opinion polls as I give to any of the others.
      Mr. Robathan: I used to take exactly the same line as my hon. Friend and always said that I did not believe in opinion polls. However, on 1 May last year I had to change my mind.
      Mrs. Laing: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I still do not believe in opinion polls.
      Mr. John Bercow: Perhaps we can take the argument a stage further. Would my hon. Friend agree that, even if public opinion opposes the equalisation of the age of consent for homosexual activity, she has a right and a duty to express her opinion as she thinks fit, and to vote accordingly? That is part of the purpose of this place and she need not be embarrassed about it.
      Mrs. Laing: I thank my hon. Friend for his wise words. As usual, he is right. As I and other hon. Members have said, it is sometimes the duty of hon. Members to lead, not to follow. If we spent the whole of our parliamentary life simply following opinion polls and bowing to popularity, we would not be doing our duty or fulfilling the purpose for which we have been elected.
      Dr. Harris: Rather bizarrely, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Buckingham
      200
      (Mr. Bercow). The hon. Lady should be reassured by the fact that there is just as big a majority in favour of equalisation as there is in favour of reducing the age of consent to 16. Since a measure to increase the age of heterosexual consent to 18 would probably be unworkable, opinion polls pose a dilemma for us all. Thank goodness we have our consciences to follow.
      Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about opinion polls—answers to such polls depend very much on the questions. One of the first rules that an apprentice solicitor or barrister is taught is that he must never ask a question to which he does not know the answer. We would delude ourselves if we assumed that opinion pollsters asked questions without intending to achieve a particular answer. The past five minutes of debate have put opinion polls firmly in their place, even those that appear in The Daily Telegraph.
      Mr. Robathan: The same goes for focus groups.
      Mrs. Laing: I agree with my hon. Friend. I also agree with the Home Secretary and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). Although they approached the question from different angles, they reached the same conclusion. I urge the House not to disagree with the other place.
      Dr. Harris: The Home Secretary's opening speech seems some time ago. I was struck by his sincerity, and no one can doubt that he supports the move to reduce the age of consent. We can all see the reluctance with which he advises hon. Members not to insist on the amendment. If he retains that sincerity and can reassure me on some small points and some rather larger ones, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will not get a second Teller for a Division.
      People feel strongly about this issue and, as on 22 June, I was again today struck by the eloquence of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen) who, without notes, delivered a strong speech in favour of the stance that we both hold. She advised the House to accept the Government's reluctant advice not to insist on the amendment. The campaigning records on this issue of the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) are far longer than mine. However, there are different shades of view between us on the best way forward and they must be recognised.
      The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and I supported the cross-party, Back-Bench amendment. At the enjoyable press launch of that amendment, we spoke passionately about our belief in the equality and respect for human rights that the amendment would introduce. I said that I approached the matter from a human rights perspective. I was attacked at school, although not often, for being a member of a minority because I was the only Jew in the school. I remember with horror the hard time that was given to boys who were thought, usually incorrectly, to be homosexual. I recall with shame that at an early age, I did not distance myself from snide remarks in the playground.
      It behoves us all to remember that we are discussing a minority that is still subject to entrenched discrimination of a kind that no other minority has to tolerate. Such prejudice is often based on ignorance or on strongly held

      201
      although misguided religious views. I regret that I was not invited to join the press launch of the compromise agreement that the Government have urged us to support, especially as I withdrew my early-day motion calling on the Government to press for the retention of the amendment because I accept their argument about the need to retain the Bill.
      I felt on 22 July that I was following Stonewall's line. It issued a press release on 22 July calling on the Government to do everything in their power to ensure that the House's view would prevail and that the age of consent amendment would be included in the Bill. I now know that Stonewall has changed its view and supports the Government's current plan. We must respect the views of Stonewall: it has campaigned on this issue far longer than I and other hon. Members have. If it had told me of its change of view, I would have withdrawn my early-day motion sooner.
      5.30 pm
      Ann Keen: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman says that, because we have been in touch on numerous occasions. That contact has been made.
      Dr. Harris: I do not want to start a debate about whether contact was made. I asked Labour co-signatories to the amendment whether there was any news about the negotiations, and I was told that there was no news. I contacted the Home Secretary's office twice last week, and I asked at business questions whether the talk in the press of consultation with the signatories to the amendment included all parties. The hon. Member for Epping Forest also made that point. I was not given that assurance at business questions, but the Home Secretary's office told me that he would do his best during this busy period to contact me and ask me for my opinion on the position. Perhaps because of the speed of events and his other duties, especially yesterday, he was regrettably unable to do that.
      I was concerned that on "Breakfast with Frost", the Home Secretary said that he had consulted the signatories: perhaps he meant to say some of the signatories. I am taking this opportunity, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the questions that I would have asked the Home Secretary had I been consulted on this compromise.
      The key point is that, if we follow the Government's advice, it will appear to the outside world that those of us calling for liberalisation and equality in this area of the law have been defeated. Regardless of the motives of those who voted against equality in the other place, Baroness Young's victory in defeating the equalisation measure will be seen—and has been by people who have contacted me both from the gay community and from among the prejudiced—as a victory for homophobia. That is sad, although I do not attach any blame to the Government.
      When we consider where to go from here, we must bear in mind the fact that this defeat for us and victory for homophobia will have several effects. First, it will make it more difficult—but not, I trust, impossible—to implement the full agenda for equalisation of the criminal law, including, for example, the decriminalisation of the victim in age of consent matters. I refer to the abolition
      202
      of the unique provision of this law that makes a criminal out of the victim of an act that is currently a crime, and of the unique provision that makes illegal all gay sex in private with more than two people present. That will now be more difficult to achieve, and we shall have to make greater cross-party efforts to maintain the momentum.
      Secondly, we shall also have to face the fact that, in the next few months, there will be more homophobia in society, be it deliberate and malicious, or instinctive and based on ignorance. My postbag on this issue has never been particularly large, but it has changed markedly and is now more homophobic and nasty—that is the only way in which to describe, some of the letters I receive on this subject. I fear that there will be a backlash fuelled by the public defeat of liberalisers, of which the gay community may be a victim. If the Government accept that analysis, they will be very concerned, as will many hon. Members.
      Thirdly, I fear that the Lords will be emboldened when this issue is considered again. That makes delay of the next attempt more likely. Next time, the Government must at least threaten to use the Parliament Acts.
      Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman accuses those who dislike the amendment that the Lords rejected of being homophobic. He said that it was a victory for homophobia. Does he accept that many of us who believe that the homosexual age of consent should remain at 18, far from having a fear or dislike of homosexuals, happen to believe that the matter is best left to individuals, and that we should protect people between the ages of 16 and 18 from people for whom they may not be ready? We do not have a fear of homosexuality: we think that we should protect young people.
      Dr. Harris: I said that it would be seen as a victory for homophobia regardless of the motives of those who voted against equality. Some people may have voted against equality not because of prejudice—homophobia is a prejudice, not fear. The expert evidence from the British Medical Association and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children shows that there is no physical, medical or social reason for such discrimination: it is discrimination pure and simple. Well-intentioned people may give other reasons for their view, and I would not use such a pejorative term of hon. Members. However, I have received letters saying that homosexuals should burn in hell. It is fair to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) to make that distinction. The result of the vote in the Lords gives power to, and boosts the morale of, people who hold the nastiest views.
      With the benefit of hindsight—and even this all-powerful Government do not have the gift of hindsight—it would have been better not to attempt reform in this Bill, as it was not going to succeed. When the issue is reconsidered, the Government should bear in mind the fact that an atmosphere has now been created.
      The nub of the matter is that every effort should be made in future legislation to dissociate this measure for equality from measures relating to child sex abuse and abuse of trust, however important they may be—I believe such measures are important. They are separate issues. I made that point in an amendment to early-day motion 1612, which
      "calls on the Government to ensure that in future legislation the equalisation of the age of consent at 16 is not linked directly with the issues of child abuse and abuse of trust which are not directly related to the ending of discrimination against gay men."

      203
      It is anathema to people who feel that they are discriminated against to associate actions to bring their treatment in line with our treaty obligations in the European Courts and with decent human rights with action on child sex abuse. Although, sadly, we cannot prevent the association being made in the press, that terrible crime is not associated with homosexuality. It is an abuse of power, and is committed almost entirely by heterosexual men, mainly because they make up a greater proportion of the population.
      I have read carefully the letter that the Home Secretary sent to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth. I note that the Government's compromise is the minimum that the Government had to do to fulfil their legal obligations in the European Courts. I welcome the Government's undertaking to fulfil those legal obligations. I received a copy of this letter from a colleague: I was not sent one myself, which is regrettable. It says:
      "The Government will honour paragraph 2 of the formal undertaking given in the Sutherland and Morris case, by bringing forward legislation on this matter in the next session (1998/9). In doing so, there will be, as before, a free vote on the age of consent so far as the Government is concerned.… The legislation would be introduced first into the Commons in order to ensure the benefit of the Parliament Act if this proves necessary."
      The only more minimum minimum action—if that is not a contradiction in terms—would be to use private Members' legislation. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I welcome the fact that the Government do not intend to use such a chancy procedure. I also welcome the fact they will introduce the measure in the Commons first, and allow the Parliament Acts to be used if necessary. That may be required to get it through in that Session, and is, perhaps, above the minimum minimum action to meet the legal obligation.
      I am concerned about that paragraph in the Home Secretary's letter. It says that legislation will be introduced, and that there will be a free vote on the age of consent. That implies that other legislation may not be on a free vote, and may include measures on other issues as well as the age of consent. A later paragraph in the letter refers to the discussion on the breach of trust, relating to the amendment proposed in June by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).
      The Home Secretary said that he would set up a review group to look at the issue. He also said:
      "We will take decisions in the light of the conclusions of the review as to whether legislation will be necessary."
      As I made clear earlier, I am seeking some reassurance—which was apparently given at the press conference last night, but is not contained in this letter—that legislation on the age of consent will not be directly associated with, but will be entirely separate from, any measures to deal with child sex abuse or the recommendations of the Utting report, which clearly need to be implemented. If the Home Secretary cannot reassure me on that point, I fear that, over the summer and into the autumn, it will become easier to associate human rights for gay men with child sex abuse.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who speaks from the Front Bench on these issues, referred to the need to ensure that people on the sex offenders' register for acts that would no longer be illegal would be removed from that register. The Public
      204
      Bill Office drafted an amendment with the aim of ensuring that people convicted under the Sex Offenders Act 1997 would not be subject to registration requirements after Royal Assent to a measure that decriminalised their offence. I do not believe that it is difficult for the Government to frame such legislation—it is a consequential amendment to the main measure. It could be introduced without widening the scope of the Bill to include extraneous matters.
      I ask the Home Secretary to comment on the undertaking given by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), on 22 June, in response to a debate on my new clause 4 about privacy provisions. He said that there would be a review of those measures that appeared to be discriminatory, and I was pleased to hear him say that from the Dispatch Box. He said that there would be a review of discrimination in criminal law, with a view—I hope—to the Government bringing forward legislation if they saw fit to end that discrimination.
      In that debate, I mentioned the Labour party's manifesto commitment to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it existed. I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm that any new Government measure to deal with the age of consent will not prejudice any future Government measure, which I hope will be introduced very soon, to clear out all the discriminatory measures in the Sexual Offences Acts 1956 and 1967. I want an assurance that a Bill to deal with sexual offences will not kick these other issues into the long grass. Without that, there would be a risk of multiple amendments being tabled to that Bill to show the Government how strongly not only the gay community, but many other people—including some Labour Back Benchers—feel about the discriminatory nature of the current privacy provisions of those laws.
      I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what I think was an inadvertent answer to a written question from me, when I asked about convictions under the Act. He replied that
      "such an act is not regarded as taking place in private if two or more persons are present."—[Official Report, 22 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 358.]
      Hansard should be corrected to read, "three or more persons"; otherwise, people might think that the right hon. Gentleman held a much more illiberal view than that which I believe he holds.
      I want to reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield about the problem of continuing prosecutions and convictions for a consenting victimless act between gay men between the ages of 16 and 18, without there being any benefit to the cause of justice. I do not ask for the law to be changed or for the Government to interfere in the decisions made by an independent prosecution service; I merely ask whether the Attorney-General could request that, in the interim, decisions to prosecute could be made at a high, albeit independent, level within the Crown Prosecution Service. I do not expect the Home Secretary to answer me now; indeed, I intend to table a written question on the matter. The decision should not be left to individual junior prosecutors who may, sadly, be fuelled by the current debates on the issue.

      205
      5.45 pm
      I recognise the Government's reluctance to ask the House not to insist on their amendment. I urge the Home Secretary to respond to the points that I have raised. I hope that, in future, he will try to retain cross-party Back-Bench support for the views that we know that Ministers hold as individuals, and which are held by the vast majority of hon. Members. We need to get legislation on the statute book as soon as possible.
      Sir Teddy Taylor: I feel rather inadequate in this debate, so I simply want to ask the Home Secretary three pedestrian and practical questions. I appreciate that many of my hon. Friends believe that far greater issues are involved. I, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had the pleasure of listening to rabbis, bishops and former Prime Ministers on the radio saying, in effect, that the whole moral fabric of the country is involved. Others argue that freedom and liberty are involved. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), whom we greatly respect, said that a great issue of democracy is involved. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) talked about something called homophobia. I do not know what on earth it is, but I am sure that there is none of it in Southend. However, it is obviously an issue that some hon. Members think is terribly important.
      I do not want to deal with those issues, because we are practical people in Southend. We simply want to know what the effect will be of accepting the view of the other place. The number one question in Southend is, if we do not insist on our amendment, will young men between the ages of 16 and 18, who voluntarily engage in homosexual acts, be prosecuted and perhaps fined or sent to prison? It is a simple question. We have heard some fantastic speeches from hon. Members who feel that great issues are involved, but practical people in Southend want to know the answer to that question. Will we continue to prosecute until new legislation passes into law? Will we continue to fine people or to send them to prison if need be?
      Most people would assume that that would be the case, but those who are desperately anxious for a change in law do not seem to be too worried about it. They agree with the Government's decision to put off dealing with the matter until the next Session. Why are they not worried? Will the Home Secretary tell us whether we shall continue to prosecute, fine or send to prison those aged between 16 and 18 who are breaking the law? Will we say to them, "Don't do it—you'll be breaking the law and you could be in terrible trouble"?
      My second brief question is based on rumour. Some hon. Members have the advantage of receiving faxes from researchers, from Conservative central office or whatever, but other Back Benchers, such as me, simply hear rumours. My constituents ask me about the rumours. They say, "Teddy, is this actually happening now?" The rumour is that people are not being prosecuted. That may be absolute nonsense and the Home Secretary may be glad to tell me so. However, I have been told that people are not being prosecuted for voluntarily engaging in homosexual acts. If people abuse or attack others, they can still be prosecuted—but they are not being prosecuted for voluntary acts. I said to my constituents, "I'll find out the answer and come back to Southend tonight and tell you."
      206
      The Home Secretary has three competent junior Ministers with him who will be able to give him advice. He also has excellent civil servants. My constituents in Southend want to know how many people, over the last six months—no, let us say 12 months, which is quite a long period—have been prosecuted for voluntarily engaging in homosexual acts.
      The third question that my constituents have asked me—I hope that the Home Secretary realises that it is terribly important, as he is responsible for the Bill's passage—is what such a provision has to do with the European thing. I asked the Library what it has to do with Europe, and was told, "Teddy, it's nothing to do with the Common Market—nothing at all."
      Apparently—I am sure that cleverer hon. Members, especially the Liberal Democrats, will already be aware of it—there are two European Courts. First, we have a thing called the European Court of Justice, which is what is called "the Common Market court". Secondly, we have something called the European Court of Human Rights, which apparently has something to do with the European convention. In the past, if the European Court of Human Rights said something, the British Government could tell it to go and jump. However—as we have a very responsible Government—we normally do not do that. Although we took the view that something to do with security in Northern Ireland was none of the court's business, and told it to go and jump, usually we did not want to do that.
      Things have changed. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our Home Secretary and other Ministers have very kindly put the European convention on human rights into British law. I do not know whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, as I do not follow such matters, although I should like to know—it is terribly important—whether including it in our law means that we can still disregard the views of the European Court or disregard what is in the convention.
      My constituents have basically said to me, "This provision is utterly irrelevant. The MPs are wasting their time". But I suppose that it is not the first time that they have done so. I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have seen hon. Members jumping up and down, shouting about what we can do for the fishing industry, whereas there is absolutely nothing that we can do for it. Hon. Members jump up and down and talk about banning exports of live cattle, whereas we can do nothing about that. I tell my constituents that hon. Members jump up and down and talk about agriculture because there is not much left for us to do, and it is far better to talk about issues that we think require some attention.
      The famous Sutherland case was heard, but not completed, in the European Court of Human Rights. I should like to know whether the Home Secretary thinks that Parliament should have the ability, if it so wishes, to establish differing ages of consent. My understanding is that, since we incorporated the European convention into British law, we simply do not have the power to do so, even if we wanted it.
      I appreciate that hon. Members feel strongly about the issue. I appreciate that bishops feel strongly, both ways, about it. I appreciate that rabbis feel strongly about it. I heard one rabbi on the radio, and he was getting very agitated indeed about it. I appreciate also that former Prime Ministers get very excited about it. However, I would really

      207
      like to know whether what we do will make the slightest bit of difference. I think that, as we have incorporated the convention into British law, there is nothing that we can do about it.
      As someone who has been an hon. Member for years and years—hon. Members are probably fed up of hearing me—I think that it is sad and depressing that hon. Members are getting agitated, marching in the street and claiming that they want to do something about an issue, whereas their power has gone and our democracy has essentially been dying.
      I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will give me straight and specific answers to three questions: first, will people still be prosecuted; secondly, how many prosecutions have there been in the past year; and, thirdly, do we have the power to establish separate ages of consent for men and women, bearing in mind the fact that the European convention on human rights is now part of British law? If he will answer those questions, I think that my constituents will be reassured. Regardless of whether our freedom and liberty and the nation's moral fibre will be undermined, and regardless of whether homophobia breaks out in constituencies—Liberal Democrat or not—across the country, factual answers to those questions would help greatly.
      Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the points that have been raised in this cameo debate, as it has become. I should tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that I have rarely been as entertained by a speech as I was by his.
      I should reply first to an important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who asked whether the review group that I have established to examine the issue of breach of trust—which was raised first by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)—will also be concerned with Scots law.
      The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that the Scottish Office will be represented on the group and will take account of its conclusions, as the matter deals with an area of law that will be devolved when the Scottish Parliament comes into being. Meanwhile, it is theoretically open to the Westminster Parliament to legislate on matters relating to Scots criminal law. However, we would do so only on essential issues, and when it is clear that such changes would have the full consent of the Scottish people. We shall consult with our Scottish colleagues in the light of the review. I hope that that satisfactorily reassures my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Dalyell: Thank you very much.
      Mr. Straw: That is the first time than an hon. Member has intervened in a speech only to thank me and nothing else.
      In his very entertaining speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield asked a question that I should perhaps deal with briefly by telling him of a wholly unexpected duty that I assumed when I became Home Secretary—administering the Oath of Homage that full bishops have to make to Her Majesty before taking their see. Although the oath surprised me, it is not an affront to democracy; it is rather a natural consequence of the Anglican Church being the Church by law established. I am not proposing that the Government should introduce a Bill on that matter to be decided on a free vote.
      208
      I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield that the oath is not quite as harsh as he described—it is a little more mellow—although it certainly ensures that there is no ambiguity about new bishops of the Church of England recognising Her Majesty and no one else as the head of the Church. I have had some research done on the oath that I am now required to administer to new bishops, and my right hon. Friend may be interested to know that it was drafted—to my surprise—not by Henry VIII, but by Elizabeth I, in the first year of her reign, in 1558.
      My right hon. Friend said that democracy is more important than the Bill. I think that it would be a defeat for democracy if we were to lose the Crime and Disorder Bill. At the general election, every Labour Member stood on a manifesto stating that, if we were elected, this Bill implementing 12 manifesto commitments would be implemented as soon as possible. I tell the House, with respect, that the problem about following any advice other than that which I have offered—a reluctant but temporary acceptance of the Lords decision—is that we would not only delay achievement of Royal Assent, but could entirely put at risk the Bill, which would have obvious consequences.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) asked me two questions, the first of which was whether legislation on the age of consent would be separate from any legislation on breach of trust. The answer—which was implicit in the ante-penultimate paragraph, on page 3, of my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen)—to that question is that it remains to be seen. We shall await the outcome of the review to determine whether legislation is required and is the most appropriate vehicle for that legislation. This Bill, a separate criminal justice measure or a separate stand-alone Bill could provide that vehicle. We cannot anticipate the most appropriate vehicle, but will have to wait to see the review's results.
      Dr. Harris: I realise that the Home Secretary cannot or will not give an undertaking, and I appreciate the reasons for that. However, does he accept the point that I made—that it will create difficulties for some of us if an amendment to equalise the age of consent and provide equal human rights is directly associated in legislation with issues such as child sex abuse or breach of trust?
      Mr. Straw: Many Bills deal with diverse subjects.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Like this one.
      Mr. Straw: Indeed. The public do not necessarily associate one part of a Bill with another, except in the sense that the whole Bill deals with Home Office criminal law matters. As I have made clear today and in my letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, the review and the legislation
      "will concern both young men and young women and in a non-discriminatory way."
      That is an important assurance.

      209
      I understand the point about the sex offenders register. We need to have discussed and resolved that issue before any Bill is brought forward, but it is more complicated than the hon. Gentleman suggests, partly because of the way in which criminal convictions are recorded. I accept the principle of his point, but further consideration is necessary.
      6 pm
      The hon. Member for Southend, West—or is it Southend, East? I have great affection for both.
      Mr. Robathan: Good Tory seats.
      Mr. Straw: It does not matter. The Kursaal is the same, whether it is Tory or Labour. I spent many happy days in Southend, usually trying unsuccessfully to impress girl friends.
      The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked three questions. First, he wanted to know whether, if we accept my recommendation to comply for the time being with what the Lords have decided, 16 to 18-year-olds may continue to be prosecuted. The answer is yes, they may, because that is the law of the land. As long as the law of the land stands, people are open to be prosecuted. Secondly, he wanted to know whether it was our policy for people not to be prosecuted. The answer is no. Prosecution policy is a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions, who are, rightly, statutorily independent of Ministers. They are supervised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. In that capacity, Law Officers are also independent of Ministers. That is entirely right.
      The hon. Gentleman asked how many people had been prosecuted and convicted in the past year. From the memory of the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—I hope that he has got this right and it is as well that the reshuffle has come and gone, if he has not—there were six prosecutions in the past year, of which four led to convictions. That is not particularly surprising given that we are talking about acts of consensual sex. The police cannot prosecute unless someone retrospectively believes that they have been victimised and goes to the police.
      The hon. Gentleman's third question was about the difference between European treaties—such as those of Rome, Maastricht and Amsterdam—and the European convention on human rights. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows, but perhaps not so many people in Southend know, that there is a difference. The European convention on human rights was drafted principally by two common lawyers, one of whom was David Maxwell Fyfe, a distinguished Conservative lawyer who later became Lord Chancellor for about eight years. The purpose of the European convention was to write into European law the human rights that we have taken for granted in this country. After several years, we are one of the few countries not to have incorporated it. The relevant Bill is still awaiting Royal Assent and will probably not
      210
      receive it until October this year. Had it become law, we might have avoided some of the problems that have arisen with the European Court of Human Rights.
      Mr. Bercow: The Home Secretary has just helpfully told us, from the recollection of the Minister of State, the number of people who have been prosecuted for consensual homosexual activity. May I stretch him a little further and ask how many people were arrested for engaging in consensual homosexual relations, but released without charge?
      Mr. Straw: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman that off hand, but I shall be happy to write to him. If he wants to table a question, I think that there is still time for it to be answered before we rise for the recess.
      Dr. Harris: There are still two questions that the Home Secretary has not answered. Perhaps he will just note that he has not answered them and promise to write to me. First, at what level will decisions to prosecute in the interim be made in the Crown Prosecution Service? I accept that that is not his departmental responsibility, but I should be interested to know what he thinks. Secondly, how does the matter relate to the review and possible legislation on other discriminatory matters on sexual offences? The existence of such issues and the possible need of remedy were acknowledged by the Minister of State on 22 June.
      Mr. Straw: I have laboured the point about the independence of the prosecutors. I cannot intervene on that. The law is there. The duty of prosecutors is to make their decisions in the light of the evidence presented to them and the code of the Crown Prosecution Service. On the second point, the review will deal with the issue of breach of trust first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw. There are always arguments about whether the law should be changed in other respects. There may be a wider review of sexual offences.
      Mrs. Lait: I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm that his officials will be willing to talk to people from the national missing persons helpline on the issue that I raised.
      Mr. Straw: I shall be happy to arrange that. If any hon. Member from either side wants to make representations, I shall be pleased to receive them and to make arrangements for groups of Members to talk to officials involved in the review group, if that would be convenient.
      The defeat by the Lords has placed the House in great difficulty. It caused great anger and concern and great upset to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth and other hon. Friends, as well as the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon, who so courageously and vocally supported her. Speaking personally, not for the Government, I should like to place on record my great admiration for my hon. Friend and her colleagues. I am very grateful to them for their response to my representations over the weekend. My recommendation is the best way forward, preserving the Bill and ensuring that

      211
      it receives Royal Assent by the end of the week. The Government are committed to introducing legislation in the next Session to ensure that the House is able to take a conclusive view on the age of consent.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That this House doth not insist upon its amendment.
      Subsequent Commons amendments not insisted upon.

      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:

      Landmines Act 1998

      Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998

      Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998

      City of Edinburgh (Guided Busways) Act 1998

      Tamar Bridge Act 1998.

  National Minimum Wage Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
  National Minimum Wage Bill
    Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—
    New clause

      EXCLUSIONS
      (". —(1) If it appears expedient to the Secretary of State, he may, by order made by statutory instrument, provide for the total or partial exemption from the provisions of this Act of—

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

      (b) undertakings of different sizes;

      (c) persons of different ages; or

      (d) occupations or categories of persons.

      (2) The power conferred by subsection (1) includes power to make such incidental, supplemental or transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate.

      (3) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section includes the power to vary or revoke its provisions or to limit its operation for a specified period of time by means of a further such order.")

      6.9 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.
      Mr. McCartney: We have no hesitation in asking the House to resist the new clause introduced in another place—but, before doing so, I pay tribute to my noble Friends Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Falconer and Lord Haskel, who dealt with the Bill in a professional and effective way in that place.
      For the life of me, I cannot understand or accept the sight of hereditary peers—the descendants of robber barons and cattle thieves—trying to deny people the national minimum wage. It is even more undignified when the Tories and their Whips arrange for people to come to the House of Lords, probably for the first and only time this year—some did not even turn their engines off while they went to vote before leaving the House again—for one simple reason: to pass a wrecking amendment to try to damage fatally the introduction of the national minimum wage for 2 million of the most vulnerable and lowest-paid workers in Britain. The issue was further complicated by the Liberal Democrats, who should be ashamed of themselves for siding with sweatshop owners and backstreet exploiters.
      Let us look at what happened in the House of Lords. We expected the Conservatives to try everything in a last-ditch attempt to get rid of the national minimum wage, and the Government were defeated by 58 votes. Of the 161 peers who voted for the new clause, 84 were hereditary—67 Conservatives, eight Liberal Democrats, eight Cross Benchers and one other. Counting the votes of life peers alone, the Government would have won the vote by 88 to 77—a majority of 11.

      213
      Some of those who voted against the Government were among the largest landlords and the wealthiest people in Britain. They came in to deny groups of workers the opportunity to have a national minimum wage from 1 April next year.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister not concede that, whatever took place in their lordships' House with hereditary peers, the amendments now under discussion would not require any derogation from the national minimum wage? They would merely provide the Secretary of State—who is now sitting at his left hand; we are pleased to see him in his place—the power to derogate if he considered it desirable.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman talks nonsense; he talks out of the side of his mouth. The amendments would allow a future Conservative Secretary of State—if such a thing ever befell the nation, which I doubt—to exclude areas such as Cumbria, the north-west, the north-east, Scotland or Wales. He or she could also exclude sectors, so all the hairdressers in Britain—the lowest-paid workers in the land—could be excluded from the minimum wage.
      A Secretary of State could also exclude firms of different sizes, so all the hairdressers in small companies could be excluded. When we read the amendments in the context of what I am saying, we see that the proposals are designed to wreck the possibility of millions of workers in Britain benefiting from the national minimum wage. For the sake of expediency, at the whim of a Secretary of State and without further reference to Parliament, whole areas of the country could be excluded from receiving the minimum wage.
      The clause does not improve the Bill. It does not make it operate better. It will not help a single worker to benefit. The amendments serve only to illustrate the lengths to which the Opposition party—indeed, in the House of Lords, the two Opposition parties—will go to undermine the principle of the introduction of the minimum wage.
      Mr. John Redwood: Will the Minister explain why the Minister of State, Lord Simon, did not attend to vote on that occasion? Does that not give the lie to his idea that all the problems arose from Conservative hereditary peers? Surely Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry could have offered some support.
      Mr. McCartney: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can come up with something better than that. My noble Friend Lord Simon, like all Ministers in the Department, goes out and does work on behalf of the Government, and that is what he was doing—unlike the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who, when he was a Minister at the DTI, spent his time trying to close down British industry. Our job—that of my fellow Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the new Secretary of
      214
      State—is to rebuild industry and refashion it out of the shambles that the right hon. Gentleman left us after the election.
      Mr. Redwood: Can the Minister explain why that vote was treated as so unimportant that the Minister of State did not need to attend to ensure that the Government won it?
      Mr. McCartney: Wriggle as the right hon. Gentleman might, the truth is that the Conservatives brought people to the House of Lords in their Ferraris, their Mercedes, or whatever other transport they may have had, to wreck a Government Bill for which we have a national mandate and which the whole of Britain, including two thirds of Conservative voters, supports. The right hon. Gentleman must live with the consequences of the Lords action of inserting into the Bill a new clause that undermines the whole concept of a national minimum wage.
      Mr. David Winnick: Why should we complain about Conservative opposition to a national minimum wage? Should we not welcome it, at least from the party point of view, and wrap it around the Tories' necks at the next election?
      6.15
      Mr. McCartney: I am happy to wrap things around the necks of the Tories between now and the next election. Why miss the opportunity?
      The point was made during a recent debate when the right hon. Member for Wokingham and I had a short intercourse on issues relating to—
      Mr. John Bercow: I think that the Minister means "a short exchange of views".
      Mr. McCartney: No, I choose my words carefully.
      That evening, the right hon. Gentleman made a fundamental comment about how the Conservatives, in this Parliament and in the run-up to the next election, will deal with the new employment rights that the Government provide for vulnerable people in Britain. He made it clear that he will go into the next election on a policy of the abolition of the national minimum wage. What he is offering millions of people in Britain is, "Vote Conservative and take a wage cut."
      The right hon. Gentleman also said that he would review all the other minimum standards and new employment rights that the Government are introducing—with the support, I may add, of large parts of British industry, sick and tired of the Tories' low-pay, low-investment economy, and looking to an ultra-modern economy with good standards of pay, good conditions and investment in the workers, in employment rights and in standards of skill.
      In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to show once and for all that the Conservatives accept the fact that the British people overwhelmingly want good minimum standards in the workplace, and do not expect Her Majesty's Opposition to threaten them with withdrawal of those rights, especially when some of them will have a significant pay

      215
      increase under the national minimum wage, because they are now being paid as little as £1.20, £1.30 or £1.40 an hour.
      For the right hon. Gentleman—who, for a part-time, two-days-a-week job receives £12,000 a year—to stand at the Dispatch Box and try to deny the minimum wage to low-paid workers is nothing short of a personal scandal. Under no circumstances can he wriggle out of the decision taken in another place—a decision clearly calculated to assist his campaign to ensure that the national minimum wage is not implemented by 1 April next year.
      We have no hesitation in opposing the new clause and the other amendments. We were elected to introduce a national minimum wage, and that is what we shall do. We made the Government's position clear in earlier debates, and I shall not weaken now, at the final hurdle. The new clause would provide the Secretary of State with wide-ranging powers to make exemptions whenever he or she felt it expedient. That approach challenges the fundamentals of the policy behind the Bill.
      The House will appreciate that the Bill has been designed in a way that rules out the possibility of exemptions according to sector, region, size of firm or occupation. It permits, in specific circumstances, exemptions or modifications according to age. We received recommendations on that from the Low Pay Commission, which we accepted and which we shall implement.
      The new clause proposes something completely different from the limited range of exemptions or modifications in clauses 3 and 4, and opposing it presents me with the opportunity to reiterate the Government's commitment to a single national minimum wage that will be universal in its application.
      Our approach is diametrically opposed to the direction suggested in the amendment. We want an inclusive policy; we do not want to exclude whole swathes of people. The idea is to provide a floor across the board so that we can get rid of poverty pay. We also want to provide a level playing field, so that companies can compete fairly on the basis of quality, not on the basis of excessively low wages.
      Hon. Members know what our inheritance was after the general election. Whether in the regions of England, in Scotland, in Wales or in Northern Ireland, people suffered as a result of endemic low pay—2 million people earned £2.50 an hour or less. Some people, having worked full time for a week, had to suffer the indignity of having to claim additional benefits simply to live or to make ends meet.
      Mr. Jim Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that when, two years ago, one of my constituents raised the issue of his pay—which was £1 an hour—he was told to apply for family supplement?
      Mr. McCartney: We know that the Conservative Government encouraged such Arthur Daley employers. We remember the advertisements, such as the one for a night shift security guard job, offering 50p an hour and saying: "Bring your own dog and uniform." That was the reality of Britain under the Tories. They made this country the sweatshop capital of Europe, and they were proud of it. They boasted about it across the world, saying: "Come to Britain and pay your workers £1.20 or £1.30 an hour."
      216
      Thank goodness inward investors came to Britain for different reasons; they pay their employees good wages and provide good working conditions.
      We do not want to go back to the Tory years, in which there was a downward spiral of wages. The Tory policy was not to create an economy of high-quality goods and services, in which people's employability is based on the quality of their training and knowledge. The Tories undermined good companies and good company practice; they made companies compete against one another on the basis of a free-for-all downwards wages spiral.
      Tory Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment defended the advertisement of jobs at as little as £1 an hour. The Tory Government, of which the right hon. Member for Wokingham was a member, took away the last vestiges of protection for home workers. The Department of Trade and Industry received evidence that women working for home working organisations were earning as little as 38p an hour. That was not in 1888; it was in the last year of the Tory Government. That is the legacy that the Tory party left this Government to clear up, and we have no intention of allowing the new clause to damage our capacity to do so.
      The limitations in clauses 3 and 4—which the new clause would remove—are necessary. They defend the integrity of the national minimum wage. Despite the widespread acceptance of, and support for, our policy from business and from the electorate as a whole, and despite the broad acceptance of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations, I regret to say that the policy still seems to need defending against Conservative Members, who are hanging on to the idea that we in Britain can somehow succeed by paying people as little as 38p an hour. What an outlook for Britain in the new millennium! It beggars belief that the right hon. Member for Wokingham and his colleagues actually ran the economy.
      The nightmare years are ended—we shall introduce the national minimum wage, and we shall do so on 1 April next year, as we said we would. We have made it clear several times that variations of rate by sector, region, size of firm or occupation would be unfair and unworkable. The same applies even more strongly to exemptions on those grounds, which is what the new clause would provide a power to make.
      There is no doubt about the inevitable unfairness and inequity of the new clause. It is deliberately designed to remove from the Bill's protection the very people whom the minimum wage would most help. The Opposition should be ashamed of themselves, as everybody else is ashamed of them.
      The whole purpose of the Bill is to introduce, for the first time in this country, a national minimum wage that is truly national and that will make a difference to the many workers who strive to exist on poverty pay. It marks an historic step to bring rights to British workers that many of their counterparts in other countries have enjoyed for decades.
      The Bill's fundamental approach is inclusive, but the new clause attacks head-on that approach and the Government's philosophy, which the electorate fully supported. I urge the House to save the Bill, and to reject the amendments.
      Mr. Redwood: I urge the House to keep the very sensible amendments that were made in the other place.

      217
      Once again, the Minister has been extremely disappointing. He has not listened to any of our arguments in the House or in Committee. He dramatically misrepresents the Conservative position. I have never said that we shall abolish the minimum wage; I have said that we shall review the whole raft of regulations and legislation that we inherit, and then decide what needs changing to create more jobs and more prosperity in our country.
      I have never said that we want low pay. We want people to be well paid and to have a good standard of living. It is most important, however, that people are not moved from low pay to no pay—that is the main point that we have urged on the House. The new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), is well aware of that point.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not stated categorically that a future Conservative Government will abolish the minimum wage. Will he give a guarantee that they will not abolish it?
      Mr. Redwood: Of course not. We shall review it, to establish what is best for the country.
      The minimum wage will do most damage on its introduction. That is why we have opposed it. On its introduction, bad employers may decide to sack people rather than to pay them extra. I do not think that the Minister will enjoy meeting people across the country who have lost low-paid jobs as a result of the Bill. Moreover, there may be a wages explosion when the Bill is implemented, as better-paid people will demand large increases to maintain differentials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer warns about job losses arising from wage inflation, yet the Minister is introducing legislation that will trigger it.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have taken account of economic circumstances, and are introducing the minimum wage sensibly. That is why the overwhelming majority of employers and those involved in British industry support the concept of a minimum wage.
      Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain an historical point. Is it not the case that, after the Conservative Government abolished the wages councils, removing basic employment rights that ensured minimal standards and a minimal floor in the labour market, unemployment rose to 3 million?
      Mr. Redwood: That is not cause and effect. The Minister's attempt to make an historical point has misfired. Unemployment rose to too high a level at one point under the Conservative Administrations because we adopted the exchange rate mechanism policy that was strongly recommended by the Labour party, even though it was a mistake. The Minister and I have often debated that point, and I think that I should be straying out of order if I went further into the matter.
      We are not urging lower standards. We want better pay and better standards of living. The debate is about how that can be achieved. We believe that it can be achieved
      218
      by more flexible markets, not by more Government. We are certainly not out to deny workers fair pay; we want them to keep their jobs.
      In a previous debate, the Minister grotesquely misrepresented my personal financial affairs. I notified him of that privately, in the hope that he would have the decency to correct the record. I live in hope that he will, as it does not do justice to debates in the House to mislead people in such a way.
      I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hartlepool is in the Chamber to hear this debate, although I should have liked to hear him, rather than the Minister, move the motion. I offer my hearty congratulations on his appointments to the Privy Council and as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. His arrival at the Department will be welcomed by many, as many people felt that the outgoing President of the Board of Trade—as the job was known—let down British business in a big way, and came forward with a large number of bad proposals, including the proposal for a national minimum wage. Business is desperately in need of a change of policy.
      I had hoped that the new Secretary of State, who arrives at his Department well briefed on the minimum wage because of his active participation in policy discussions in his previous job, would tell us that he welcomed the Lords amendments, which, as we know from leaked correspondence and from his confessions to The Guardian, are precisely the type of amendment for which he argued when he was Minister without Portfolio. I imagine him arriving at the Department of Trade and Industry, elated at achieving his life's ambition of joining the Cabinet, clutching his model of the dome—where the Secretary of State goes, the dome goes too—but nervously asking why the previous incumbent had had such a short stay.
      We have all read in today's newspapers authoritative briefings saying that the Secretary of State has arrived to win back the business support lost by the previous incumbent. In particular, the trade union and minimum wage reforms proposed by the outgoing President of the Board of Trade must be modified, said the briefings, in order to win back business support.
      6.30 pm
      Why is the Secretary of State not standing before us to offer proposals that would modify the impact of a Bill that many in the business community think will do more harm than good? Why has he not come to welcome Lords amendments that would give him the very flexibility in his new role that he formerly sought for someone else in all his interesting correspondence?
      The House may wish to be reminded of what the hon. Gentleman said when he debated these matters from his previous vantage point. In his letter to The Guardian, which explained leaked Government correspondence, he stated:
      "The point I raised in correspondence on this issue with colleagues was a practical one, as to whether the draft Bill as worded allowed ministers sufficient flexibility to refine policy in the light of experience with the actual functioning of the National Minimum Wage."
      I open my dealings with the new Secretary of State in precise agreement with him. I find myself urging the very case that he urged when he was Minister without Portfolio.

      219
      The Secretary of State's letter went on to imply that flexibility was necessary in case jobs were lost. He said that he wanted a lower rate of pay for young people—in those days that meant everyone under 25, although the age has come down to 18 in subsequent discussions. As Minister without Portfolio, the hon. Gentleman saw the point that young people, those without skills and those who needed further training, might be thrown out of their jobs if the minimum wage were introduced in the wrong way. He felt that it would be better to allow flexibility so that they could get a decent start on the ladder of opportunity and employment, and, if necessary, top up their inadequate remuneration with benefits.
      I have often debated that point with the Minister of State, who attacked the previous Conservative Government for saying that low pay should be topped up with benefits. We felt that policy only reasonable, because some rates of pay could not sustain decent family life. Now we discover that the Government have invented a far bigger and more expensive system for doing exactly the same thing—the working families tax credit. On the Minister's own admission, he and the Government propose to subsidise what he calls poverty pay.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: Let us get one thing straight. The previous Government proposed benefits instead of pay. We propose a package of measures that make work affordable. There is an important difference. The previous Government drove down pay, first by eliminating people's entitlement not to be paid below a certain rate through their abolition of the wages councils, and, secondly, by manipulating the benefits system and allowing high levels of unemployment. They drove people to take wages lower than £1 an hour in many cases.
      That is the legacy that we have had to deal with, and that is why we have introduced a range of measures to make work affordable. The difference between us and the Conservatives is that we want a minimum wage to be part of the package, while the right hon. Gentleman wants no level to be set, and would use the benefits system to subsidise poor-paying employers.
      Mr. Redwood: The Minister can rant all he likes, but this Government, like the previous one, admit that there will be people whose pay is not adequate for their family circumstances. We can see from the Chancellor's forecasts that they admit that, even after the minimum wage has come in, large sums will have to be paid as tax forgone or as actual benefits, or as a combination of the two, to top up wages.
      The Minister protests too much. There is not as much difference between Conservative policy and Government policy as he pretends. Both major parties know that, in a free-enterprise market, not everyone will get adequate remuneration for their family circumstances for all their working lives. It is a duty of a civilised society that taxpayers should top up or contribute to incomes in those circumstances.
      The row tonight is about whether the Minister of State and his new-found hon. Friend the Secretary of State are taking too many risks with too many jobs. We submit that, without the Lords amendments, the risk is too great. The Minister would lose nothing by accepting the amendments. The Secretary of State would be given the power to make a judgment. If he judged in future that
      220
      my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were wrong, and that no jobs had been lost, he would not need to make a move. If we were right, however, and the amendment was included in the Bill, it would be easier for him to make the changes necessary to avoid the loss of so many jobs.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend has helpfully reminded the House of earlier contributions to the minimum wage debate by the Secretary of State in his previous capacity as Minister without Portfolio. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Secretary of State has a shred of self-respect, he will speak at the Dispatch Box before the debate ends to explain whether he now believes that there is no justification for exemption from or variation in the rate of the minimum wage by age, sector, region or size of undertaking. What has caused the hon. Gentleman suddenly and spectacularly to change his mind? Why has he not felt it necessary to explain his thinking to us?
      Mr. Redwood: It is quite extraordinary that the Secretary of State has not done so. It is even more extraordinary in the light of spinning in the press to the effect that the new Secretary of State will be business-friendly in a way in which the outgoing President of the Board of Trade is admitted not to have been.
      I trust that the hon. Gentleman did his own spinning. We have not been told whether he remains spin doctor extraordinaire as well as Secretary of State, or whether he will have to rely on others to do his spinning. Whoever did it today, the intention was clear. Downing street has not denied that the Secretary of State is appointed to go to war with his Minister of State, and to overrule him. He is appointed to put a little common sense into the minimum wage and into trade union reforms.
      The Secretary of State sits there, looking as if he has not a care in the world, grinning benignly, but quite unable to intervene decisively at the very moment at which he has his last chance to improve the Bill to give him the flexibility that the spin doctors tell us he will need and will achieve. Does he really think it amusing that many people may lose their jobs as a result of the policy that he and his hon. Friends intend to rubber-stamp through the House? Has he thought at all about the wise words—on this occasion—of the Chancellor about wages? The Chancellor has spelt it out to all and sundry that, if wages go up too much over the next two or three years, jobs will be lost.
      For once, I agree with the Chancellor, and I suggest that the Secretary of State might do so, too—a rare event. If the Chancellor is right, what action will the Secretary of State and his colleagues take to make sure that people do not put in a large number of differential pay award requests for those on earnings much higher than the minimum wage? How will he sort out the mess that Labour policies are already creating? There is a huge gap between the rate of increase in private sector earnings—up 16.4 per cent. since 1995, and accelerating under the Labour Government—and public sector earnings that have gone up by only 8.5 per cent. in the same time. The gap is growing wider under the Labour Government.
      Does the Secretary of State accept that the point will soon come at which public services are short of labour in many parts of the country because wages have fallen too

      221
      far behind? Will not the minimum wage help to trigger a whole series of differential, catch-up and comparability pay increases as it unravels before us? That will undoubtedly destroy jobs. The golden economic legacy of the previous Government will be frittered away on higher wage inflation, and the minimum wage will partly be the reason.
      I therefore urge the new Secretary of State to agree with the Chancellor on this matter, to disagree with the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's economic strategy in the name of standing up for manufacturing and business, which are being throttled and killed by the current economic policy mix, and to come to the Dispatch Box before this short debate concludes and say that he still believes what he claimed to believe when he was Minister without Portfolio. I also urge him to be grateful to the Conservative Opposition in another place—for thinking of him and helping him out of the his difficulty by offering him greater flexibility—and to overrule his Minister of State before No. 10 tells him to do just that.
      Mr. David Chidgey: The Minister of State's remarks—I should use a stronger word to describe them—had a touch of "holier than thou" about them as he set out what he considered to be the arguments advanced by the Liberal Democrats. We debated the issues long and hard in Committee and on Second and Third Reading, and while it may be a habit of politicians to rewrite history, it is surprising to find it being rewritten quite so soon. The record clearly shows the arguments that we put forward at great length and with great thoroughness to demonstrate our concern at some aspects of this legislation.
      The Minister well knows that we have never disagreed in this place about the principle of a national minimum wage. Our argument has concerned how and where it should apply.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman believes in a national minimum age, but does he not accept that it was a gross error of judgment to support a Conservative amendment that would wreck the whole concept? It is one thing to say that one proposes regionalisation and another to put one's name to an amendment that would prevent millions of low-paid workers from getting the wage.
      Mr. Chidgey: I thank the Minister for that intervention, as it brings me to my next point. Throughout many weeks of debate in this place and the long, or extended, Committee stage—which, on occasion, ran through the night to the next lunchtime—the Government, who claim to have consulted and to consult all and sundry, have refused to listen to any of our arguments. I think that I am right in saying that, throughout those deliberations, the Government accepted only one amendment.
      Is it surprising, then, that, when our arguments for flexibility and variation were totally ignored, they should have been put forward again in their lordships' House to give the Government one last chance to rethink their views? I can understand the frustration that was felt in the other place, which led it to make us deal with those issues again.
      222
      One aspect that is so frustrating is that, although the Government claimed to be consulting by setting up the Low Pay Commission, they failed to take on board its full recommendations when it reported. The Government cherry-picked what proposals to accept. As the Minister knows, I asked him time and again, in questions in the House and in interventions, whether the commission would be a fully independent, permanent body, able to monitor and implement recommendations, but he never answered me directly. I am therefore not at all surprised at the frustration that has been felt in Parliament as a whole.
      I was glad to see the Secretary of State on the Front Bench. Sadly, he has left us already—perhaps he has already found the task a little too demanding—but nevertheless, he will know, I trust, having done his research and read the reports of our debates on the minimum wage in the months that have gone by, that the Liberal Democrats have long argued for variations and flexibility in the introduction of a national minimum wage. He also knows that we are extremely concerned about low pay, as he is, but we are also concerned about employment. Those arguments are on the record—one does not have to rewrite history, as they are there and they are clear. Our arguments have not been confounded by the Government.
      To summarise, we have long argued that the Low Pay Commission should have the freedom to examine the issues. It should be a permanent body, and the Government of the day should listen to it and accept what it says. That is the true measure of consultation and of understanding the concerns of those who seek and deserve decent wages and those who employ them. I shall continue to press the Government to recognise those points and allow us to ensure that the secondary legislation that follows the Bill, which will presumably become an Act, starts to listen to the people who matter.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I shall be brief, and I am sorry to take some of the Minister's time for his reply.
      Tonight we have simply heard a reiteration of what we heard every day in Committee and on Second and Third Reading. The arguments have not changed—we have merely had Conservative attempts to undermine the fabric and principle of the Bill. We did not get much in the way of argument tonight—at least in Committee, we had arguments ad nauseam. Today, we merely had the bald statement that the minimum wage would cause unemployment, and the Conservatives certainly know all about how to do that.
      The arguments that we are meant to accept would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. They would allow a future Conservative Administration—should this country ever be unfortunate enough to suffer again from that—to destroy the Bill piece by piece in every profession and every part of the country.
      Mr. Redwood: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he disagrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he says that higher wages mean fewer jobs?
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Morgan: I disagree with the Chancellor about many things, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) will not be surprised to learn. I certainly concur with the proponents of this Bill that the way to

      223
      create employment is not by running a sweatshop economy. Low wages do not create jobs; they mean that we will end up with the sort of economy that we should not be seeking.
      The Government's case would have been even stronger had they grasped the nettle and allied any reduced or second rate for young people to training, instead of the compromise that they produced after the Committee stage. That apart, we must reject the Lords amendments. This Session, many unfortunate amendments have been agreed in the Lords, and these, like most of them, should be consigned to the dustbin.
      Mr. Ian McCartney: The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), speaking for the Liberal party—
      Mr. Chidgey: The Liberal Democrats.
      Mr. McCartney: Yes, I do realise that there is a difference, on occasions. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with arguing, as he has done—he has been defeated intellectually and on economic grounds on each occasion—that certain people should get less than others in another region. He did not set out in any detail why a hairdresser five miles inside one region should be paid less than another hairdresser five miles down the road in another region.
      Secondly, the hon. Gentleman gave no indication of what regionalisation would mean for the benefit system and for those in the regions. It is one thing to table an amendment to put one's case, but it is another to sign up to some of the biggest landowners in Britain and their allies, who come to the House of Lords with no mandate and vote to smash this Bill. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He has a responsibility to low-paid workers, and his party failed that test in the House of Lords. Tonight, he has a chance to apologise and to reverse that decision, by joining the Government.
      Mr. Chidgey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as I know he wants to proceed, but I must remind him that, in Committee, I gave some convincing evidence of the differing costs of employment in different parts of the country. As he knows—it is on the record—independent research has shown the different costs to businesses and small firms of different levels of pay. The argument is sound, and the evidence is there.
      Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman tries hard, but his proposals are flawed. Since the publication of the report by the Low Pay Commission, business after business and company after company have supported the recommendations that it put forward and the Government have accepted. Those organisations and companies range from the CBI to convenience stores and those in the hospitality sector. Across the economy, employers in low-paying sectors support the Low Pay Commission's proposals and want to ensure that they are implemented effectively and fairly.
      Once again, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) has shown his true colours. He could not bring himself, even once, to be on the side of low-paid workers. He has pontificated since the election. The debate reveals one simple fact—the Tories have learnt nothing from their defeat and nothing about why they
      224
      were defeated. One reason why people voted them out is that they are the party of the few, and do not give a damn or a whit about the life style of millions of low-paid workers. Thank goodness the right hon. Gentleman is on the Opposition Benches and we are on the Government Benches, because the Government's motion to disagree with the Lords amendment means that low-paid workers will at last get justice.
      Question put, That this House does disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 121.

      Division No. 349]

      [6.50 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Clelland, David

      Ainger, Nick

      Coaker, Vernon

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Colman, Tony

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Connarty, Michael

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corbett, Robin

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Barron, Kevin

      Cousins, Jim

      Battle, John

      Cox, Tom

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cummings, John

      Beggs, Roy

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Dalyell, Tam

      Benton, Joe

      Darvill, Keith

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Best, Harold

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, John

      Boateng, Paul

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Borrow, David

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bradley, Keith (Wrthington)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Doran, Frank

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dowd, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Drew, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Browne, Desmond

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff

      Burgon, Cohn

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Byers, Stephen

      Flynn, Paul

      Caborn, Richard

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Foulkes, George

      Cann, Jamie

      Fyfe, Maria

      Casale, Roger

      Galbraith, Sam

      Caton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike

      Cawsey, Ian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Chaytor, David

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Clapham, Michael

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clark, Dr Lynda

      Goggins, Paul

      (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Grocott, Bruce

      225

      Grogan, John

      Mandelson, Peter

      Hain, Peter

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Healey, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Meale, Alan

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michael, Alun

      Heppell, John

      Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Milburn, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Miller, Andrew

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hoey, Kate

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hood, Jimmy

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hope, Phil

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretlord)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Norris, Dan

      Hurst, Alan

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hutton, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Pearson, Ian

      Ingram, Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Ms Jenny

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Purchase, Ken

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kemp, Fraser

      Radice, Giles

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kidney, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Robertson, Rt Hon George

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      (Hamilton S)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Laxton, Bob

      Rogers, Allan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooker, Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Rooney, Terry

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roy, Frank

      Love, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      McAllion, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Salter, Martin

      McCabe, Steve

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Sawford, Phil

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Macdonald, Calum

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McFall, John

      Sheerman, Barry

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McIsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Skinner, Dennis

      McLeish, Henry

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McWilliam, John

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      226

      Spellar, John

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Vaz, Keith

      Stevenson, George

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      White, Brian

      Stott, Roger

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      (Swansea W)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Wills, Michael

      (Dewsbury)

      Wilson, Brian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Winnick, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Wood, Mike

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Woolas, Phil

      Timms, Stephen

      Worthington, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Todd, Mark

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Truswell, Paul

      Mr. Clive Betts and

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hayes, John

      Amess, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Arbuthnot, James

      Horam, John

      Bercow, John

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hunter, Andrew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Johnson Smith,

      Brady, Graham

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Brazier, Julian

      Key, Robert

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Burns, Simon

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Cash, William

      Leigh, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Letwin, Oliver

      (Chipping Bamet)

      Lidington, David

      Chope, Christopher

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Clappison, James

      Loughton, Tim

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Luff, Peter

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      (Rushcliffe)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      MacKay, Andrew

      Cran, James

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Day, Stephen

      Maples, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Mates, Michael

      Duncan, Alan

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Faber, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fallon, Michael

      Norman, Archie

      Flight, Howard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Paice, James

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Paterson, Owen

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Gray, James

      Robathan, Andrew

      Green, Damian

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Greenway, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ruffley, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hammond, Philip

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Soames, Nicholas

      227

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Spring, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Steen, Anthony

      Whittingdale, John

      Swayne, Desmond

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Syms, Robert

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Yeo, Tim

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Tim Collins.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Lords amendment disagreed to.
      It being after Seven o'clock, and there being private business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business), further proceedings stood postponed.

      Lloyds TSB Bill [Lords] (By Order)
      Order for Third Reading read.
      7.5 pm
      Mr. Eric Illsley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I repeat the declaration of interests that I made on Second Reading: I contribute to an insurance policy with the Abbey Life company, which is now wholly owned by Lloyds, and my wife contributes to a pension with the Target Life company, which has now also been taken over by that company. I shall try to make my comments as brief as possible, in view of the previous business of the House.
      In December 1995, the TSB Group and Lloyds bank, two of the United Kingdom's oldest and best-known financial services groups, came together in a merger that provides their customers with the largest branch network of any United Kingdom high street banking group and a range of products to match. The promoters' principal intention is to transfer TSB bank customer accounts into Lloyds bank. The Bill will spare 7 million TSB customers the inconvenience of signing forms to effect the transfer.
      On Second Reading, it was apparent that the main issue surrounding the Bill was one of pensions. In recent months, Lloyds has again corresponded with many hon. Members on pensions issues. With the blessing of the House, I therefore propose to devote my speech to the pensions issues that have been raised, or were raised on Second Reading and have been the subject of exchanges and meetings between hon. Members and the bank. I add, in passing, that the Bill was unamended when it left the Opposed Private Bill Committee.
      I have two general points to make first in relation to the pension schemes. The TSB Group pension scheme is among the best in the United Kingdom in terms of the benefits packages that it provides, and it is in the top 10 per cent. of UK staff schemes. A comprehensive framework of statutory, regulatory and fiduciary protection for scheme members is in place, which accords with best practice among UK occupational pension schemes.
      I cannot emphasise too strongly that the issue of pensions is in no way affected by the Bill. The Bill's promoters wish me to reassure the House again that the position of all their pension scheme members remains, and will remain, fully protected. The TSB Group pension scheme, which has been the subject of comment by the group calling itself the TSB Hill Samuel action group, provides one of the best packages in the country. In addition to all that, the promoters are unaware of any pensioners receiving benefits that do not properly reflect their legitimate contractual entitlement.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: My constituent, David Ives, who is a senior former staff member of Hill Samuel, has alerted me to heart-rending stories of pensioners who are living on derisory pensions of as little as £1,000 a year. Naturally, that worries me. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can today give a commitment, on behalf of the companies, that pensioners

      229
      who receive such small pensions will be dealt with satisfactorily by way of regular payment, or at least a satisfactory one-off payment.
      Mr. Illsley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that Lloyds will deal with that matter. It is part of my speech, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make progress. If he had been present on Second Reading, he would know that the issue arose then and was debated extensively. The bank has given assurances to Opposition Members about pensioners on low incomes and has undertaken to conduct a review, to which I shall refer later. The average annual pension for members of the Hill Samuel scheme is £11,700. The average pension under the TSB scheme is £7,800, which compares with a national average for occupational pension provision of £4,800.
      Both before and since Second Reading, the promoters have been engaged in active and constructive dialogue with a handful of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have raised pensions-related concerns on behalf of their constituents—as the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has just done. Several hon. Members who initially expressed concerns on behalf of their constituents about the pensions arrangements of Lloyds TSB have now withdrawn their names from the blocking motion against the Bill. I hope that I can provide sufficient comfort to those hon. Members whose names still appear on the blocking motion so that the Bill may be permitted to complete its final parliamentary stage.
      Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Sadly, I was not able to be in the Chamber for the Second Reading debate. However, several of my constituents have raised matters similar to that mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). One issue is TSB's production of the guidelines. I understand that the guidelines are complex and that the exercise must be comprehensive, but the fact that they have not yet been produced is causing great anxiety to my constituents. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that those guidelines will be produced? I received an undertaking from TSB today that they will be produced within a week or so, but does the hon. Gentleman have further and better particulars? It is essential that the guidelines are produced as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the undertakings that TSB gave to other hon. Members on Second Reading.
      Mr. Illsley: As I said to the hon. Member for Gainsborough, those issues will be addressed in my speech and, if I am allowed to continue, I shall come to them. As I understand it, the guidelines are a matter of negotiation between the Inland Revenue and Lloyds TSB. Once those negotiations have been completed, the guidelines will be available. If I may make progress, I shall address each issue in turn.
      Mrs. Gillan: I understand from TSB that the document is in fact with lawyers and trustees of the TSB scheme.
      230
      Will the hon. Gentleman take further advice on the issue, as I understand from the company that the matter rests not with the Inland Revenue but with the company?
      Mr. Illsley: I shall refer to that matter when I come to it in my speech—if the hon. Lady will allow me to make progress.
      On Second Reading of the Bill, the promoters undertook to put in place a range of measures and initiatives designed to provide comfort to hon. Members, to their constituents who might have concerns and to any other Lloyds TSB pensioners who might be concerned about their pensions. Lloyds TSB has proceeded as fast as practicable, consistent with achieving a reasonable and sustainable outcome. It has adhered to the time scales to which it committed itself. Equally, Lloyds TSB remains acutely sensitive to the necessity of offering help to needy pensioners where appropriate.
      Historically, Lloyds TSB has always attached the highest importance to providing additional assistance to needy and elderly pensioners. That is not something new: it reflects Lloyds TSB's responsible attitude towards assisting those who have helped the company in the past. Lloyds TSB provides that assistance through ex gratia payments and a national framework of dedicated pension liaison officers, whose role is to identify cases of hardship and provide appropriate solutions. In this, I understand that Lloyds TSB is unique among United Kingdom companies. The cost of the activity is borne by Lloyds TSB, not by the pension schemes.
      In a letter to the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on the day of the Bill's Second Reading, Mike Fairey, the deputy group chief executive of Lloyds TSB, confirmed that Lloyds TSB intended to undertake a comprehensive review of the position of pensioners on low incomes. The promoters said that they believed that the review would take up to six months to complete, and they intend to honour that commitment.
      I am delighted to report to the House that the promoters have embarked on a detailed and meticulous analysis of pensioner records going back over the past 30 years. As the House will understand, that is a complex and time-consuming process. A dedicated team is undertaking that task to ensure that the promoters can properly and expeditiously reach a view about the options open to them to enhance pension values where appropriate, with the agreement of the Inland Revenue.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: My hon. Friend will know that I was present for, and spoke during, the Second Reading debate. I have been informed that the number of very needy pensioners is estimated at at least 700 and that, so far, only 100 individuals have been identified. In the light of the assurances that my hon. Friend and Lloyds gave in good faith on Second Reading, we might have expected far faster progress in dealing with the issue.
      Mr. Illsley: As I have said, it is a time-consuming process: a review that dates back 30 years will obviously take some time. The figures cited by my hon. Friend are new to me and they have not been advanced by the promoters. I am aware of the cases that are classed as anomalous—some 200—but I am not aware of those figures.

      231
      The issue of representations to the Inland Revenue is particularly important. As I have said, everyone will receive his or her full entitlement from the Lloyds TSB pension schemes. Therefore, it may not be possible for the promoters to enhance the pensions of pensioners on low incomes as appropriate and as they would wish without the risk of breaching the normal Inland Revenue rules on maximum allowable benefits from tax-approved pension schemes. I can report to the House that, since Second Reading, Lloyds TSB has held an initial meeting with the Inland Revenue to see what further latitude may be given.
      The Inland Revenue has said that it is not prepared to discuss specific concessions until the promoters are in a position to show more clearly how they would structure possible enhancements to the pensions of individual pensioners or groups of pensioners on low incomes. As the House can imagine, that will be a lengthy and difficult task. None the less, the promoters remain committed to continuing this important and constructive dialogue with the Inland Revenue, with a view to seeking a positive outcome. It is open to hon. Members to make their own separate and parallel representations to the Inland Revenue—it would be helpful if they did so—to encourage it to review its position.
      The question of anomalous cases was raised on Second Reading. Lloyds TSB has given an undertaking to the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Aldershot that it will review any cases of alleged anomalous treatment of its existing and deferred pensioners. The promoters are committed to completing their statement of rules and practices as quickly as practicable, and they intend to publish their review as soon as possible thereafter. To date, they have received 200 letters from pensioners, which represents 0.1 per cent. of the total of 180,000 pensioners. Each case is being investigated as a matter of urgency. I have Lloyds TSB's absolute assurance that as soon as it is possible to provide substantive responses to the pensioners concerned, it will do so. A deadline of 3 September has been set for the receipt of alleged anomalies, which will provide ample time for those pensioners who may have concerns to register them.
      The promoters have stated clearly and unequivocally that, if Lloyds TSB is unable to resolve satisfactorily any individual pensioner's concerns, they are willing to go with the pensioner concerned to the pensions ombudsman, whom Parliament has vested with the powers to investigate and decide on complaints relating to occupational pension schemes.
      I am happy to confirm, too, that, if, in such circumstances, the ombudsman were to decline jurisdiction—for example, on the ground of the expiry of the three-year time limit—the promoters would be willing to appoint a legally qualified person with pensions expertise to review the complaint, using precisely the same terms of reference as the ombudsman would have employed. Lloyds TSB has said that it would do so at its own cost.
      An issue that did not arise on Second Reading relates to a situation in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) recently appended his name to the blocking motion, I shall try to reassure him. In addition, the promoters want me to reassure the House
      232
      and, in particular, those Northern Ireland Members present tonight, that they take seriously the issue of the part-time employees of the TSB of Northern Ireland.
      The issue relates to the sale of the TSB of Northern Ireland to Allied Irish Banks by the then TSB Group in 1991. As a result of an administrative error, a number of former TSB of Northern Ireland staff who had transferred their pension entitlements to Allied Irish Banks were subsequently and incorrectly advised that they were eligible for benefits to which they were not entitled. I understand that the matter is now in the hands of the pensions ombudsman. The promoters want me to reaffirm that they regret that error and that they will co-operate fully with the pensions ombudsman.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: The hon. Gentleman acknowledges that the TSB of Northern Ireland had more than 100 part-time staff before the merger with Allied Irish. They have been disadvantaged. May I have an assurance that they will benefit from a satisfactory outcome of any review? I am a little surprised that although the matter has been referred to the ombudsman, it has not yet been fully dealt with.
      Mr. Illsley: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Lloyds TSB will fully comply with any decision made by the pensions ombudsman. The issue is outside the Bill, but, in view of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, Lloyds TSB wishes me to raise the matter to try to give some reassurance. If the pensions ombudsman asks Lloyds TSB to reimburse individuals, obviously it will comply with that request.
      Concern has been expressed on Second Reading and since by a number of hon. Members about the need to ensure that the position of deferred pensioners is fully protected. I am happy to confirm that, on 19 June 1998, the Lloyds TSB board agreed to the appointment of a deferred pensioner, not only to the board of trustees of the TSB Group pension scheme, but to the board of trustees of the Lloyds pension scheme. The promoters are now seeking to put that initiative in place and the trade unions, the retired staff association and the action group have been invited to put forward prospective candidates.
      The deferred pensioner appointee to the TSB pension scheme will be a management rather than a member appointee because, at the moment, a management position happens to be vacant on the scheme's board, providing the quickest way of appointing a deferred pensioner to the scheme. However, I reassure the House that all pension scheme board members represent the interests of all members of the scheme, not just one narrow sectional interest.
      The promoters have been keen to ensure that all their pensioners, not just hon. Members, have been kept fully up to date on the various initiatives and activities that they have been putting in place and that I have described this evening. All 180,000 Lloyds TSB pension scheme members have received communications by a variety of means, including pensioner and staff magazines and directly mailed letters.
      I hope that the House will feel that the initiatives that I have described provide considerable comfort about the way in which Lloyds TSB has sought to address concerns raised by hon. Members.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not participate later,

      233
      but the Select Committee on Home Affairs is finalising its report. We welcome the board's decision to agree to the deferred pensioner appointment. I know that it has sought to fulfil the undertakings that it gave to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), but the hon. Gentleman will know that the action group is concerned that the appointee, whose appointment lies in the hands of the bank, may not be as ruggedly independent as the pensioners would wish. Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House, on behalf of the Bill's promoters, that the bank will appoint a deferred pensioner from management who will be independent? Concern has been expressed that the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union appointments, although BIFU representatives, may themselves be afraid, at a time when the bank is contracting, of being too robust for fear of finding themselves out of a job. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that?
      Mr. Illsley: I am sure that Lloyds TSB will take on board all the comments that have been made about the appointment of the deferred pensioner. As I said, the opportunity arises at this point in time to appoint to the management side of the scheme, simply as a matter of convenience. However, Lloyds asks me to stress clearly that all members of the pension scheme board will act in the interests of all members of the scheme. I am not sure whether that entails anyone acting independently, as the hon. Gentleman would wish, but I am sure that any appointee to the board, because of the rules and duties surrounding trustees, would be obliged to act in the interests of all sides in the pension scheme. Obviously, it remains for pensioners, if they are dissatisfied with the conduct of any appointed trustee, to raise the issue again. I know that Lloyds TSB has given the hon. Gentleman assurances that it will contact him again in future in relation to such matters. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to raise the issue with Lloyds at that stage and to make representations if the appointee does not live up to the assurances given by the bank.
      Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Is the system proposed by management for the appointment of the trustee not a classic example of advise and consent, and an example of a commitment that could turn out to be worthless? Does my hon. Friend not see that there are some of us who are reluctant for the Bill to be given Third Reading until we have a meaningful commitment? The only such commitment that I can think of would be a commitment to appoint a trustee in the future who would genuinely be an elected trustee of the pensioners.
      Mr. Illsley: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, which I take on board. I cannot give him that assurance now, because the issue has not previously been raised with me; I can say only that the opportunity arises for a deferred pensioner trustee at this point in time. As I understand it, few pension schemes in Britain have a deferred pensioner trustee on the board. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that, in the short time since Second Reading, Lloyds TSB has gone a long way towards meeting concerns expressed by hon. Members and by the action group.
      We should also bear in mind the fact that we are talking about a Bill that basically implements a merger that took place two or three years ago. The pensions issues,
      234
      although relevant and interesting to those hon. Members involved, are not directly related to the Bill. As Lloyds TSB has assured hon. Members, those issues can be taken up outside the Bill's passage and in the future. The bank has given assurances to revisit the issue in due course and I am sure that, at that time, it will seek to ensure that any appointee to the board acts properly and that it will take on board the fact that that person has been appointed to look after the interests of deferred pensioners.
      Mr. Cousins: Does my hon. Friend accept that, on the night of the Second Reading debate, the decisive event that prevented a vote was the intervention by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), who brought to the House a concession made by Lloyds TSB—as my hon. Friend rightly said, such a concession was not covered by the Bill—that a deferred pensioner trustee would be appointed? Is it not the case that, as we debate Third Reading tonight, that still has not occurred?
      Mr. Illsley: The bank has undertaken to appoint a deferred pensioner as a trustee. As my hon. Friend knows, Second Reading took place on 20 April. The hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Aldershot no longer oppose the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who originally raised the issue in the House has been satisfied by the assurances given by Lloyds TSB in respect of deferred pensioners. As I said earlier, few pension schemes have a deferred pensioner as a member.
      Mr. Cousins: As my hon. Friend knows perfectly well, the question of the representation of pensioners —of people with preserved rights to pensions—as pensioner trustees in the operation of pension funds is one of the most lively and important issues in pension fund administration at present; indeed, it goes to the heart of all the discussions about flexible labour markets and changing jobs in the course of one's life. If this is an opportunity to address the issue, why not do so?
      Mr. Illsley: I take on board what my hon. Friend says, but, on 19 June this year, Lloyds TSB agreed at its board meeting to appoint a deferred pensioner trustee in accordance with the wishes not only of Opposition Members but of the Hill Samuel action group; thus the bank has dealt with the issue that was raised.
      Mr. Beggs: Did not the action group seek to have the trustee elected by ballot, rather than appointed by Lloyds TSB?
      Mr. Illsley: As I said earlier, the bank approached the trade unions, the action group and the retired staff association within Lloyds TSB for suggestions on how the issue could be dealt with. I am sure that the action group and the association will make suggestions similar to those that the hon. Gentleman has made, to decide who becomes the deferred pensioner trustee in the future.
      Lloyds TSB has acted quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said that there has been insufficient action in the time scale available, but, given that Lloyds TSB has identified a vacancy and sought to fill it with a deferred pensioner trustee, it is moving as quickly as time allows.
      Mr. Peter L. Pike: Has not the bank given way because it knows that, once the Bill is enacted and it

      235
      starts to rationalise its branches, which is what the merger was all about, there will be many more deferred pensioners? It therefore hopes that, because it has conceded a place for a deferred pensioner, it will get the redundancies, closures and rationalisation through. Is that not what this is all about?
      Mr. Illsley: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but, as I said on Second Reading, the bank raised those issues specifically with the trade unions involved. The trade unions had a number of discussions with Lloyds TSB about closures and job losses. I met BIFU to discuss that issue before I even contemplated taking the Bill through the House, because I wanted to be assured on the question of job losses and closures. BIFU assured me that it had received assurances that were sufficient to warrant withdrawing its objections to the Bill. I take on board my hon. Friend's comment about the possibility of further deferred pensioners, but Lloyds consulted the action group, the trade unions and the retired staff association about how the deferred pension issue could be dealt with in the future.
      The House should be in no doubt about the importance that Lloyds TSB attaches to the need to resolve those matters as quickly as possible, consistent with the complexities of the issues involved. Lloyds TSB is one of the UK's largest and most successful companies. It has a deep historical understanding of its corporate responsibilities. It plays a leading role in welfare-to-work and new deal issues, and supports a wide range of impressive educational initiatives, including the new teacher awards sponsored by the Department for Education and Employment. On Second Reading, I referred to the work of the Lloyds TSB Foundation, which is the charitable arm of Lloyds TSB. It still hands out £21 million a year, which makes it the UK's largest corporate donor. Its work is focused on communities throughout the United Kingdom.
      I hope that I have been able to point out that the promoters of the Bill have provided ample evidence of their responsible, sensitive and inclusive approach to the issues that have been raised throughout our debates on the Bill. I hope that the House will now allow the Bill to make progress following the merger that took place in 1995.
      Mr. Leigh: I asked this question before, and the hon. Gentleman said that he would deal with it. I have been asked to ask him what figure the company has in mind, as a one-off or regular payment, for the worst-off pensioners? After all this time, it should be possible for the Bill's promoters to reassure the House on this matter, because, once the Bill gets a Third Reading, we shall lose all power over it, and thus all power to help the poorest pensioners.
      Mr. Illsley: The bank cannot say how much is available until it has agreed with the Inland Revenue what concessions will be available for low-income pensioners. The negotiations with the Inland Revenue will take some time in view of the points that I raised earlier, but the bank is taking the issue seriously.
      7.36 pm
      Mr. Howard Flight: I originally signed a blocking motion against the Bill, but I have subsequently been satisfied that Lloyds TSB has
      236
      given reasonable undertakings, which were reported on Second Reading and which it is now embarked on honouring.
      I appreciate the frustration of the action group, and the points made by other well wishers, that the Bill is an opportunity to encourage Lloyds TSB to deal with the problems, particularly those of low-income pensioners. That opportunity will be lost once the Bill has passed Third Reading.
      May I add to the three areas that have been mentioned my perceptions of the outstanding issues? The issue of poor pensioners has involved Lloyds TSB negotiating with the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue has required Lloyds TSB to deal with sample cases of some 600 poor pensioners. The bank has embarked on that task with a staff of 12. It has advised me that it still expects to complete its negotiations with the Revenue within the six-month time scale that it agreed in April. I have corresponded with the Treasury on that matter because I hoped that it could be simplified from on high. Although pension scheme rules must be abided by, some form of blanket guidance should be given to the Revenue when very modest pension incomes are involved.
      I am satisfied that raising the issue of poor pensioners with the Revenue has not been a stalling mechanism by Lloyds TSB. It has been in earnest and has been negotiating with the Revenue about what can be done. I understand that it cannot give figures about how much it may be able to give, or say what it may be able to do, until it has completed those negotiations.
      Mr. Cousins: Why is the hon. Gentleman satisfied and entirely content that Lloyds TSB should have unlimited time within the generous time scale that it gave itself on Second Reading when it has imposed 30 September as the end-date for aggrieved pensioners to make representations?
      Mr. Flight: First, the undertaking to address poor pensioners was given in respect of a six-month period. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has forestalled a point that I want to come to. Lloyds TSB has told me that, although 30 September has been widely advertised by it to invite pensioners who think that they have been treated unfairly and anomalously to write in with their cases, it is not a cut-off date. I am advised that Lloyds TSB will continue to pursue anomalies if it is informed of them beyond that date, which is not a shut-off date, but an incentive for people to submit their cases.
      I shall deal with my second point at length.
      Mr. Leigh: Before my hon. Friend raises his second point, will he please explain what complex tax arrangements could possibly relate to pensions of as little as £1,000 a year, involve such delays and prevent the company's sponsor, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), from giving hon. Members some idea of what the one-off payments would be? On such low pensions, surely those matters are not complex at all.
      Mr. Flight: They are relatively complex. Pension funds are bound by two sets of rules—those of the scheme itself and the Inland Revenue rules. The Inland Revenue must make sure that any changes to what is paid out, over and above cost of living adjustments, are in line with its rules

      237
      and with the rules of a scheme and the discretion permitted under it. In respect of the 600-sample survey, I understand that the Revenue wants to make sure that Lloyds TSB's proposals fall within the discretion permitted to the pension scheme.
      The second issue is anomalies. Lloyds TSB advertised widely to scheme members for people who felt themselves to have been unfairly treated to put their case. The issue has arisen of the guidelines by which such anomalies will be assessed. Lloyds TSB has had to go back over 25 years to examine the policies on anomalies, and two particular areas present problems. First, if a company is sold, what are the pension arrangements for the staff who go with it? The second problem is in respect of individuals who take redundancy or are made redundant above the age of 50.
      A team of lawyers has worked on producing the guidelines on anomalies, the purpose of which is not to enable anyone to put up a complaint, but to allow those who complain about anomalous treatment to know the rules of the scheme. Such people should be sent of copy of the guidelines. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) raised this issue and has been assured by Lloyds TSB that the guidelines will be available by the end of this month, and certainly within a week. I put it to Lloyds TSB that some people may have held back because they did not know the guidelines and that it would be unreasonable for them to have only a month or so to submit their cases. I also asked whether 30 September was a shut-off date and was assured that that was not the case.
      Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a serious anomaly that the Irish Bank Officials Association has had to take up the case of 120 former part-time TSB staff in Northern Ireland? Does he also agree that that should be addressed urgently and that any discrimination against them should be resolved?
      Mr. Flight: I certainly believe that any discrimination should be resolved. I do not know the details of the problem with the ex-Irish subsidiary, but I understand that the matter has been referred to the pensions ombudsman and believe that, when that happens, an independent and impartial judgment by him is looked for.
      More widely, it is fair to say that, until this April, Lloyds TSB was somewhat slow in addressing those issues and that the blocking of the Bill was designed specifically to encourage it to get a move on. I believe that that has been the case, in good faith. Although the delays in respect of the two United Kingdom issues are frustrating, I believe that Lloyds TSB is not stalling, but is bona fide.
      The third issue is the appointment of a representative for deferred pensioners. That practice is extremely important, because the number of deferred pensioners in all pension schemes will grow and they should be well represented. Staff representatives were appointed to the TSB scheme following the passing of the Pensions Act 1995. Three were nominated by the Banking, Insurance and Finance Union, the trade union representative, and one by the retired staff association. As required under the 1995 Act, the appointments were circulated to all
      238
      members of the scheme, which gave them the ability to object. They did not object; in effect, they endorsed. At present, representatives are nominated by the member representative bodies, but formally appointed by the pension fund trust board.
      In respect of the Lloyds pension scheme, there is already a voting situation. Although there are arguments that elections are preferable, Lloyds has offered the slot of a management representative to achieve speedy representation of deferred pensioners and has requested that the trade union representatives, the Lloyds action group and the retired staff association propose candidates.
      The current arrangements for all staff representatives run until 2002—appointments are for five years—but, given that the Lloyds scheme has an elective basis, it may be better practice and more consistent for Lloyds to consider moving the TSB scheme to an elective basis for all member representatives, as well as for the deferred pensioner representative, by that date. Lloyds has not committed so to do, but it has suggested to me that it will consider the argument and thinks that it may be desirable to move to a consistent basis in this matter for the Lloyds and the TSB pension schemes.
      Mr. Cousins: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his intervention at a similar point in the debate on 20 April led us to believe that a deferred pensioner trustee would be appointed. From the assurances that he gave, not on behalf of TSB but in a speech similar to this, we had every expectation that that would be the case. Now, that is not the case, and his response is to give us a further set of assurances that some no doubt highly desirable things may happen by 2002.
      Mr. Flight: With respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite understands what I am saying. Lloyds TSB will appoint a deferred pensioner representative: it has agreed to do so, it has asked the representative bodies for nominees and it is waiting to receive from BIFU, the action group and the retired staff association the names of candidates that those bodies would like to be appointed.
      We are talking about the issue of appointment versus election. If an election process were embarked on immediately, it would still take at least a year to accomplish, because it would involve the period between getting the election organised and the early retirement of existing staff representatives. Lloyds TSB is taking the speediest route open to it to appoint a deferred pensioner representative.
      I think that, above all, the deferred pensioner representative should be able to discharge his or her responsibilities. While the elective principle is desirable in the round, it is particularly desirable for an individual representing deferred pensioners to know and understand the issues and problems affecting such pensioners in regard to pension schemes. I do not think that it is not in the spirit of, or not in accordance with, the undertaking given by Lloyds TSB for it to agree to the appointment of a deferred pensioner representative, and it is now asking the representative bodies involved to nominate such a representative.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: It is possible that there is a misunderstanding between my

      239
      hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins)—although that is not the fault of the hon. Gentleman. The concession given to my hon. Friend on 20 April stated:
      "However, in the light of your helpful suggestion, we will also consider the possibility of the appointment of a deferred pensioner to the board of the TSB pension scheme."
      I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees with me, but I think that to have achieved the creation of a job within two months constitutes a pretty honourable fulfilment of what began as simply consideration.
      Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. Friend for making in such a fluent way the point that I sought to make.
      Mr. Cousins: It is not the hon. Gentleman's honour that causes me concern; what causes me concern is the progress of events.
      Mr. Flight: That is what causes us all concern. My point is simply this. The process of putting a deferred pensioner representative on to the board is being dealt with, and the nominations of representatives is awaited; but there is a separate issue—whether all staff representatives of trustees of the pension scheme should be elected for the purposes of the TSB scheme, as with the Lloyds scheme. Lloyds TSB has told me that it is prepared to consider that for the next round in five years' time.
      Mr. O'Hara: Would deferred pensioners ever have an opportunity to object to someone who might be selected by management?
      Mr. Flight: I understand that Lloyds TSB is not interested in appointing anyone other than someone with the blessing and support of the three representative institutions. It looks to the unions, the retired staff association and the action group to come up with candidates who have the experience to discharge the obligation, and with whom those representative bodies are happy. It is not thinking of appointing its own candidate.
      Mr. O'Hara: Is the hon. Gentleman assuring me, on behalf of the company, that it will not ignore nominations of deferred pensioners and choose someone else to appoint?
      Mr. Flight: I am not a representative of the company, but I asked it precisely that question. It gave me to understand that—as I have said—it looks to a nominee from those bodies, rather than intending to appoint its own nominee, or a nominee with which the representative bodies are not entirely happy.
      Mr. O'Hara: With respect, "looking to" does not sound as strong to me as a guarantee that that is what Lloyds TSB will do.
      Mr. Flight: I repeat that I am not in a position to give guarantees on behalf of Lloyds TSB; but, having been involved in similar situations, I believe that the company wants a deferred pensioner representative who has the full support of staff and the various representative bodies, and
      240
      has set about organising that. I personally feel confident that that is its good-will intent: I do not think that it wants to appoint some stooge.
      Although opposition to the Bill has hastened and encouraged discussion of issues that needed to be addressed, I believe that management is honouring the commitment given to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and me in April. It has taken time to get where we are now, not because of stalling but because of the complexities of the issues. This is an important day, in that, if the Bill is given a Third Reading, the leverage involved will be lost. Hon. Members must make an important judgment when they vote; but I shall vote for Third Reading. I believe that the way to make progress as quickly as possible is to ensure active co-operation between BIFU, the retired staff association, the action group and Lloyds TSB management. They must be encouraged to get a move on, and to implement the commitments that have been given.
      7.56 pm.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: I regret that we should find ourselves in such an extraordinary situation. The debate should not have been necessary: the matters that were raised in the Second Reading debate of 20 April should have been dealt with conclusively then, or set on a fair course with, demonstrably, no obstacles ahead. If that had happened, this issue would now be being resolved.
      Interestingly, during the intervening time other matters directly related to the text of the Bill have remained unclear. For instance, we still do not know how our largest bank network—Lloyds TSB—will deal with the rationalisation of its branches, and the attendant loss of service and employment. We might have hoped for some clarification of that.
      Pension issues have rightly dominated this short debate. It is not just a matter of detail affecting a particular group of people; it is a matter of fundamental principle. Whose property is the pension fund surplus? Who is the source of the power that should direct pension funds and their distribution? That will be a fundamental issue in other debates on pensions, and it goes to the heart of tonight's debate.
      As the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) rightly said, one of the few opportunities that Members of Parliament have is to impose blocks to try to force conclusions, and it is regrettable that we have not been able to do that tonight. Before this debate, it occurred to me to wonder how matters such as this came to be dealt with at board level.
      Mr. H. R. Freedberg was the leading light in Hill Samuel and was a former director of the TSB. He received £290,461 in compensation for loss of office as a director of the Hill Samuel bank. In addition, £657,000 was paid from a separate fund to enable him to obtain a pension on his earnings that exceeded the maximum pensionable salary allowable under the TSB Group pension scheme. That information is contained in the annual report. Mr. Freedberg did not have to wait. Nobody said to him, "We cannot do anything for you. We have to sort it all out with the Inland Revenue."
      Mr. Freedberg's treatment contrasts with the cases that have been brought to me and to other hon. Members. I shall not give names. Mrs. M. had a deferred pension

      241
      of £375 a year for 17 years full and part-time service. Mrs. N., who is a single parent, received no pension for 15 years' service. Miss F., who was aged 83, was below the poverty line after 29 years' service and was sent to the Bankers Benevolent Fund for a hearing aid.
      According to the annual report, Sir Nicholas Goodison, who was the chairman of TSB, received a payment that was equivalent to 22.5 per cent. of his salary. That was in line with Inland Revenue guidelines. He was caught by the guidelines, but not unfavourably, it seems. That payment was to enable him to contribute to a personal retirement annuity plan. If the plan does not provide Sir Nicholas with a pension at the age of 65 that is equal to two thirds of his final salary, the company has undertaken to make up the difference, subject to a maximum annual payment by the company equivalent to 31.67 per cent. of his final salary.
      The treatment of some of those who directed TSB affairs, therefore, contrasts with how ordinary pensioners with preserved rights, some of them made redundant many years ago, have been treated. The point of our proceedings is to close that gap and force equity of treatment. The debate should not be necessary because these matters should have been dealt with already.
      Mr. John Hayes: I am impressed by the passion with which the hon. Gentleman presents his case. He has presented the purpose of our proceedings. Will he go further and say how the Government should be involved? He describes cases, and rightly calls for equity of treatment. Surely the Government have a specific responsibility to bring some of the fat cats that he describes into line. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
      Mr. Cousins: I cannot join the hon. Gentleman in saying that the pension review should state how we should address the gap between the pension of Sir Nicholas Goodison who, regrettably, may not achieve two thirds of his final salary even with the extra top-up and may need a further top-up from the company equivalent to 31.67 per cent. of his final salary, and the pensions of others. Sorting out his problems should not be a priority for the Government in considering future stakeholder pensions. Perhaps, though, he provides some kind of benchmark, which I understand is the art term that we are allowed to use when discussing such matters, for judging the treatment of other pensioners.
      It was clear on 20 April that legal action was in hand to protect members of the Irish Bank Officers Association in their representations on behalf of former part-time employees of the merged bank. The House was not told about that at the time and the matter came to light only within the past few days. It is regrettable that it, too, has not been addressed.
      Lloyds TSB has not stated the figure that it has in mind for a one-off payment to the worst-off pensioners. Some hon. Members, myself included, have been told the likely sums. Perfectly properly, we have been asked not to share that information with the House. However, by now the suggestions and figures should be public knowledge so that the beneficiaries know where they stand.
      We still do not have guidelines. We are told that the matter is complicated and that teams of lawyers are working on it, but we are debating one of the greatest of
      242
      our financial institutions. In heaven's name, if it cannot produce guidelines for a relatively small section of its business and a small number of people over such a period, that is a poor comment on the institution.
      Mr. Brooke: It has been my understanding, although I realise that the hon. Gentleman has been in frequent touch with the bank, that the guidelines deal with the manner in which the pension scheme has evolved over the past 25 to 30 years, and that they would enable shareholders to determine whether they have sustained anomalies on which they should claim. That is quite different from the review of low-income pensioners.
      Mr. Cousins: Perhaps significantly, the right hon. Gentleman speaks of shareholders when he means pensioners. That confusion is significant because, in a sense, it goes to the heart of our debate.
      Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for picking up a slip of the tongue, if I made one. However, he did not answer my question.
      Mr. Cousins: No, I did not—and I made a brief debating point for which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
      Mr. Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Cousins: Of course.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with one intervention before he starts another.
      Mr. Cousins: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      I shall deal with the guidelines. There are a number of pension schemes with different rules. Although pension schemes have not come together, the organisations that support them have joined together over the years. I do not dispute that there may be some intricacies in that, but it is extraordinary that one of our greatest financial institutions cannot resolve these matters even though they have been brought to its attention over many months. I accept that there may be difficulties, but they should not require so much time to resolve; and still we have been given no sign of when they might be resolved. That is extraordinary.
      Mr. Leigh: Interestingly, the hon. Gentleman said that he had been given some intimation of the one-off payments. He rightly added that he could not share that information with the House. Much has been made of the fact that negotiations are continuing. However, it is not clear why they should be so complex. The Treasury has relaxed its rules on augmenting low pension schemes and presumably it would save money if people could be removed from social security. Could the hon. Gentleman put pressure on his Treasury colleagues to speed matters up; and could he ask why there has so far been no answer?
      Mr. Cousins: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. It is extraordinary that we have had no information on what the sums might be. Such information would

      243
      illuminate discussions with the Inland Revenue. Evidence from correspondence shows that the Revenue wishes to resolve this matter.
      From the Government's standpoint, this is an absurd situation. TSB pensioners are receiving income support and other state benefits, whereas, if this deal were struck, they could be receiving pensions from the pension fund to which they contributed earlier in their working lives, and the Department of Social Security would not have to meet their expenses.
      Of course, the Government will not stand in the way of a deal, and there are clear signs that the Inland Revenue is willing to co-operate. The reference to the Inland Revenue is, frankly, an obfuscation. Even if there were continuing administrative difficulties with the Inland Revenue which might not have been resolved, I do not understand why an intimation could not have been given to the pensioners who were the likely recipients. They would then be able to make representations, if they so chose, through their Members of Parliament and to the Inland Revenue.
      Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman picked me up on the use of the word "shareholder." If the dilemma for the bank is whether ex-gratia payments should be made from shareholders' funds or from the pension fund, which, in turn, is affected by the Inland Revenue's reaction, it seems reasonable for the bank to wait and see what the Inland Revenue's view is. The pensioners might be a great deal better off if the money came from the pension fund.
      Mr. Cousins: The entirely theoretical point that the right hon. Gentleman makes cannot be resolved until actual figures are known by actual people, who can then arrive at a decision, by themselves or with their advisers, about the proper course of action. The House is entitled to argue that the figures should have been known. On Second Reading, the House was told that they would be known very shortly. We now find, three months later, that there are still no figures.
      I am looking at the clock, as I do not want to test the patience of our new regime in the Whips Office unduly. I shall therefore refer quickly to the matter of the deferred pensioner trustee. That issue has been dealt with extensively in the debate, including in my interventions and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley). Plainly, we are not satisfied, as the matter could not have been dealt with in good faith. We accept that it would have been a management pensioner trustee: that would have been the form. None the less, it would have been possible to achieve, even within that form, far greater progress towards the selection of an individual, on the basis of consensus, who would have been satisfactory to all the interests concerned. That would have met the needs of Lloyds TSB perfectly properly, because it would have contributed one of its management trustee places. I do not deny the necessity to satisfy Lloyds TSB on that point.
      The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred to the assurances given. I do not seek to burden him with an obligation to deliver on those assurances, but it is extraordinary that further progress cannot be made.
      To whom do these pension funds belong? That is the fundamental point. How can we protect the interests of pensioners with preserved rights who may have been
      244
      part-time employees for only part of their working lives? Such people will become increasingly common in the pension fund discussions of the future.
      Lloyds TSB, which is a great financial institution, may be thoroughly irritated by the fact that it has to go through a parliamentary procedure during which it is criticised for the delays—I am sure that it feels a certain loss of dignity—but the House is entitled to say that these are important principles, and that before we pass this legislation we should be entirely satisfied. If we cannot be completely sure that everything has been done and dusted, we should be sure that it is clearly on course to be done and dusted. Sad to say, that is not the position tonight.
      8.14 pm
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I shall just say a few words, because many of the key points have already been made, particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and in some of the exchanges. I spoke against the Bill on Second Reading, and for a while acted as a block on it. I have been briefed and counter-briefed by the two parties, and, like many hon. Members, I have sometimes found it difficult to judge what is fair and reasonable in the progress that has been made.
      I have some residual concerns, which have been increased by the fact that the public's interest in this matter—especially my constituents' interest—grows as the delay continues. Until Second Reading, I had received no representations from constituents: I was passing on thoughts from colleagues' constituents. However, within the past 10 days, two difficult cases have shown the importance of the delay that the House has achieved.
      The issues have already been dealt with very well, but a few points have not been made. On low-income pensioners, the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) summarised the state of discussions with the Inland Revenue. It is not clear why, in other cases, such as that of British Coal staff, it was possible to achieve considerable enhancements of benefits for low-income pensioners with the full support and co-operation of the Inland Revenue.
      Mr. Illsley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the enhancements of benefits under the British Coal superannuation scheme. They were within the rules of the scheme. The Government received a half share of the surplus of that scheme because, at that time, they owned the surplus. They were the employer, having taken over from British Coal after privatisation. Those enhancements to pensions were made under the rules of the scheme.
      Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. One category is particularly disadvantaged by the current arrangements and needs some attention. We are talking not only about low-income pensioners but about older pensioners, particularly people who retired before 1972, which was the crucial date. Some of those people apparently have no pension whatever. A significant number of them need particular attention, and I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central clarified that point when he replies to the debate.
      Mr. Flight>: This is a much bigger issue than merely Lloyds TSB. It was only in 1973 that the law changed

      245
      to require the preservation of pension rights. Most company pension schemes and individuals employed by government in its various forms who left before pensionable age suffer from this problem. The question is whether the big issue of preserved rights pre-1973, which applies to all pension schemes and is separate from the more particular issues, can and should be addressed.
      Dr. Cable: Surely the bank had the option of dealing with this issue generously—and had the surplus to do so.
      Mr. Cousins: It is perfectly true that the law changed in 1972, and some companies have addressed the problems. Lloyds TSB, with a pension fund surplus of many hundreds of millions of pounds and a pension contribution holiday of 20 years, has elected not to do so.
      Dr. Cable: That is precisely the point.
      Secondly, there are the anomalies. The bank argues that it had a limited number of anomalies, and that it is grinding through them and taking them seriously. There is a circularity in the argument. The banks ask, "If there is such a big problem, why aren't there more anomalies?" The trouble is that many of the people who are on the threshold of difficulty do not know whether they are the subject of an anomaly. That is why there is a search for clarity and a need for guidelines. Unless there are guidelines, many of the anomalies will not surface because people are not conscious of them. Although I accept what the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) said about the inherent difficulties of producing guidelines and about the long and complex history involved, if we are to get to the bottom of the matter the bank must be a little more forthcoming.
      A third point, which we have debated across the Chamber, is the deferred pensioner representative. The issue is no longer the fear that the bank may put up a stooge, but that it may put up someone who, although he may act independently, has been nominated and can therefore be removed if he asks awkward questions. Several hon. Members have made that point. The election process, although more cumbersome, is not only more democratic but would help to lance the boil and deal with the bitterness that lies, at least in part, behind the argument.
      My final point relates to what the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said—it is partly an issue of principle and partly a point of law—about members of the fund having an interest in the surplus and how that interest is to be guaranteed. I understand that legal judgments have already been made which define the extent to which members of pension funds have an interest in the surplus, but it is difficult for pensioners to pursue that. This is not an academic point; it is a legitimate one, because the bank may make new acquisitions and changes. There are press reports, which may be false, to the effect that the bank has been circling around the Nationwide building society. If there are to be changes that will have a major impact on the pension scheme and its surplus, it is important to make the interest that members have in the fund more concrete.
      As a new Member, I very much value the opportunity to exercise a limited but important power, which in this case has achieved a substantial objective by bringing the
      246
      two parties closer together and advancing the cause of pensioners—although I am not fully satisfied that everything that could be done has been done. However, we have achieved something from our combined efforts.
      8.22 pm
      Mr. Eddie O'Hara: I shall be brief and try not to cover too much of the ground that has already been covered. I declare a sort of interest as I have been a customer of Lloyds bank for almost 40 years and I have many accounts and arrangements with it.
      My concern is for my constituents who are pensioners. It has been said that the question overhanging Third Reading has provided a momentum to the resolution of certain issues. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) pointed out, there is all the difference in the world between having assurances—no matter in how much good faith they are given—and having matters buttoned down. I am not satisfied that, if the Bill is given a Third Reading, the momentum will not cease; I am not satisfied that the assurances, commitments and concessions will come to fruition. Much hangs on the granting of Third Reading tonight.
      The two issues interrelate and I do not think that I need to say more about the issue of the poor pensioners and the anomalies that must be addressed. I would prefer to be able to say that they have been addressed, rather than that they are being addressed, because that would make all the difference in the world.
      The pension fund is very buoyant—£1 billion—with 20 years' contributions stretching up to about 2015. The treatment of the victims of anomalies and the poor pensioners is dependent on the future health of the fund. No one is suggesting that the group will raid the fund, but it is vulnerable to weakening and dilution through being merged with the funds of companies that are taken over by the group. There is also concern that the TSB pension fund, in particular, may be managed in the interests of the shareholders rather than the pensioners. That is why the issue that I have raised several times during the debate is crucial.
      The pensioners have been assured that their interests are protected under the 1995 Pensions Act. However, if they wish to defend their interests in law, that may involve litigation that is far beyond their means, especially if it is resisted by the bank, with all the resources at its disposal. Therefore, it is crucial that their interests are protected by the trustees. They cannot be confident of that if the trustees are management appointees and current employees—who, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, might feel vulnerable. That is why the appointment of the pensioner trustee is so important.
      I shall not repeat my continuing concern about the basis on which the pensioner trustee is to be appointed. I have made my views clear a number of times during this debate. I do not feel able to vote for Third Reading until all the assurances are much more buttoned down, rather than given in good faith.
      8.28 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Like other hon. Members, I come to the debate because constituents have raised the issue with me. I was chided by the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) for not having

      247
      taken part in the Second Reading debate. I apologise for that, but just because someone does not take part in Second Reading does not mean that he or she is not entitled to take part in the Third Reading debate—especially when constituents have raised the issue.
      I come new to these matters, like many hon. Members. We are dealing with a large company, and a large and buoyant pension fund of some £1 billion. I was horrified by the appalling hard luck stories of people who had given a lifetime of service, but were receiving derisory pensions, which is why I decided to come here and try to put the company on the spot. As has been said, this is our last opportunity to do that.
      It is an important issue, especially for Conservative Members, because although we believe in capitalism and in management being given adequate rewards—I do not want to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) in criticising the top management because no doubt it has been instrumental in building up a successful company and fund—we also believe in the principle of morality. We believe in looking after people who are not part of the top management and who have very little power to wield, but who look to us to protect their interests. It was the appalling stories that provoked my interest in the matter.
      I came here tonight with a simple question—will the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central explain the nature of the one-off payment? When he said that that was a fair question, but that difficult negotiations were continuing with the Inland Revenue, I was satisfied. I assumed that those were terribly complex matters which would delay the Treasury for some time. However, the more that I have listened to today's debate, the less I am convinced by those arguments.
      The Second Reading debate was on 20 April; we are now at the end of July. I have been informed that the company went to the Inland Revenue only in June to discuss the matters. I am worried that there has been some dragging of feet, although I may be wrong about that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central can reassure me that that has not happened, and that the company immediately started discussions once the commitments were given in the Second Reading debate. Why did the company even have to wait for the Second Reading debate before starting discussions? Surely the matters must have been considered long ago. Surely Parliament has been considering the Bill for the best part of a year.
      Why—at this last gasp—are we still waiting for the figures? The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central has informed the House that he and other hon. Members have been given some intimation of the figures. I have been told by those who briefed me on behalf of the action group that my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) also have been given some intimation of them. Hon. Members on both sides of the House now tell us, "Of course we cannot share those figures with you." Why is that so? Although I realise that it would be invidious to mention individual cases—people by name, what they receive now and what they might receive in future—I can discern no clear reason why the figures should not now be shared with the House.
      We are debating the Bill's Third Reading. Once the Bill is passed, we will have no more power over those matters. Why cannot the information be shared with us now?
      248
      Why have the negotiations been so complex? I am very conscious that the Paymaster General is in the Chamber and presumably will be replying to the debate. He thoroughly understands the matters that we are debating and is well-respected for that knowledge. As I said in earlier interventions, we are talking about pensioners receiving very small sums under fairly easy-to-understand schemes. We are talking not about great complexity, but about saving public money by getting people off of social security.
      The British Coal point was made by the action group in its briefing for hon. Members. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central dealt with that point, saying that the British Coal scheme was a different type of scheme and that the rules were, therefore, not so complex. However, surely there must have been many other schemes that are similar to the one that we are debating now. Surely similar negotiations have been held in which it has been fairly easy to resolve similar matters.
      It is very important that, when the Minister replies to the debate, we should put him on the spot and discover who is delaying a resolution. I have been told that, when Lloyds TSB was asked whether Inland Revenue consent was the only condition precedent to an additional payment for the worst-off, it was stated that it was not, and that the Lloyds TSB. representative—the deputy chief executive, Mike Fairey—was equivocal about what other issues he had in mind.
      Either the company should have been able to give us the figures today, but for the fact that the negotiations were continuing, or there have been other reasons why they cannot be given to us. One of those must be right. If there are other reasons, they have not been shared with the House today, which is greatly disappointing.
      I very much hope that, in the short time left in this debate, we shall hear from the Minister that the negotiations are progressing satisfactorily and that the Treasury is not in any shape or form delaying them. If the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central is allowed to reply to the debate and catches your eye to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will be able to give us some information—before we pass the Bill into law—about how those very worthy people who have given a lifetime of service can be helped by the company.
      8.34 pm
      Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), as ever, has been excessively modest and excessively moderate. He was really saying—I think that this needs to be said, as the context of the debate is important—that, as the Minister knows perhaps even better than my hon. Friend, unbridled and unfettered capitalism is a harlot.
      The debate is really about small, ordinary people against the big battalions. The House is at its best when it articulates the needs of small, vulnerable people. What greater or more noble goal can there be for hon. Members than to articulate the needs of the most needy and the case of those who are least able to make their own case? Surely that is the most noble role to which hon. Members can aspire.
      There have been unacceptable delays in the matter. I join the debate not because of a specific interest in banking or mergers, but because of a particular interest in

      249
      the needs of individuals who have approached me, as they have approached hon. Members from both sides of the House, with very painful stories. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have told us some of those individuals' very distressing stories, which—although it would be wrong to repeat them in detail—have moved many hon. Members to take a specific interest in a subject in which otherwise they might not have taken such an interest.
      Some specific questions have to be asked. It is all very well to talk about the difficulties of implementing ex gratia payments—I respect the judgment and knowledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on the matter—but some notional figures or estimates could have been given and a firm timetable could have been offered. Such information has not been forthcoming since the Second Reading debate.
      The Government have a critical responsibility in the matter. I ask the Minister to give three specific assurances.
      Mr. Insley: The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members might be under a misapprehension about the Government's role in the Bill's passage. The Government play no role and have no locus in private Bills. It is, therefore, unlikely that the Minister will respond to the issues that the hon. Gentlemen are raising.
      Mr. Hayes: It would have been helpful if the hon. Gentleman had waited for me to articulate the specific points before he stated the Government's responsibilities. Ministers do have a responsibility to give us a view on the more general issues aired by the specific matter dealt with in the Bill: ownership of pension funds.
      Mr. Illsley rose—
      Mr. Hayes: I shall not give way again, because I want to speak only briefly. It would be surprising if the Minister did not deal in a reply with this general matter, which has been mentioned by so many hon. Members speaking in the debate.
      Who is responsible for the delay? We have heard about protracted negotiations with the Revenue, but why were those negotiations so protracted? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, one might have thought that the negotiations should be relatively straightforward for some of the individuals involved. We certainly deserve more than the brush-off of claiming that there are private matters upon which the Government should not take a view.
      We have to receive from the Minister at least some commentary and observations. I am not suggesting that the matters are directly within his competence, but I certainly presume that he will want to make known his and the Government's views on them. If he does not do so, it will not bode well for the Government's reputation among the many pensioners who are very appropriately and reasonably seeking redress and answers to queries.
      I come to the debate in that spirit, and hope that the assurances that various hon. Members have given will come to fruition. I hope also that we will use this matter as an opportunity to explore the wider and broader issues.
      250
      I hope that the matter throws some light on those issues, and that the problems will not be repeated in similar situations.
      8.38 pm
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: I come to the debate late. I must confess that my eye has not been on this ball over the past few months and that my mind has been exercised by other issues. However, I have been alerted to the problem by constituents in recent weeks. As a consequence, I have been in correspondence with Lloyds TSB and had conversations with colleagues on the issue. I have found this evening's proceedings enlightening.
      However, I am still in the dark on a fundamental question. I hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) and those on the Front Benches may cast some light on it. What great injustice is to be avoided by giving the Bill a Third Reading and what great public good is to be lost—what opportunity is to be missed—if the Bill is denied a Third Reading?
      Mr. Illsley: The issues that we have discussed on pension enhancement and anomalies will not be addressed. If the Bill is not passed, what incentive is there for Lloyds TSB to address those issues again?
      Mr. Swayne: I am thoroughly mindful of those issues. I want an explanation of that and of what is to be achieved by the Bill. I am in the dark about the primary purpose of the Bill. I should like that to be explored in the winding-up speeches.
      8.40 pm
      Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered expertly by hon. Members on both sides. I do not have the deep knowledge of some on the problem. I have been alerted by a distinguished constituent who was a public servant for many years and, on his retirement, became an employee of Hill Samuel. He has written to draw my attention to his case and that of a woman who served Hill Samuel in a more humble capacity for more than 20 years.
      While serving with Hill Samuel, the gentleman paid the maximum allowable amount of additional voluntary contributions. When he retired, he was advised that those AVCs should be used to ensure that his pension was index-linked. As his Hill Samuel pension has been upgraded to meet the cost of living increases under the terms of the scheme, it has not been necessary for the trustees to draw on his accumulated AVCs. He considers that he was wrongly advised when he retired at the end of 1991 and requests that the mistake be rectified. It seems straightforward to request that the AVCs should be used to increase his pension, as intended.
      My constituent understands that those who retired from Hill Samuel received enhancements to pensions. He has written more than once to find out the basis on which the enhancements were made and why he was not included. That is a legitimate question. Like many who have spoken in the debate, he does not know the reason for the delay.
      My constituent's secretary worked at Hill Samuel for 20 years until she was made redundant in 1992. She received a lump sum, but no pension, because she had not reached the age of 50. I do not have the figure of the lump

      251
      sum, but my distinguished constituent believes that it was not generous, given her long and faithful service. He wants to know why the initial figure that was quoted to her orally was later reduced for no apparent reason. The lady in question has been unable to get a satisfactory answer.
      Those two cases—one involving a gentleman who received a pension from his previous service and then another one for which he paid AVCs; the other involving a lady who was employed in a more humble capacity—show that something has gone wrong with the company's pensions.
      8.43 pm
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I declared my interests on Second Reading. I shall not declare them again. We agreed on Second Reading that the Bill did not have specific relevance to pensions, although we were allowed to discuss the issue. The concession letter of 20 April to my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), to which frequent reference has been made, was an imaginative lubrication to the Bill's passage, but it did not speak to the tone and text of the Bill.
      I should like to add a personal note to the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). He and I blocked Third Reading initially with a cry of, "Object." In that respect, we have played some part in bringing this evening's proceedings about.
      I would have dwelt on the issues raised by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) had he still been here. I have taken the trouble to verify the actuality in the case of the part-time former employees of TSB in Northern Ireland, and satisfied myself that the company has behaved properly. I shall not detain the House on that.
      We are addressing three issues, relating to those on low incomes, those with anomalies and the deferred pensioner trustee. I shall dwell on each of those briefly.
      Like many great companies, Lloyds TSB has a team, consisting mostly of former employees of the company, who go round visiting pensioners to verify that their conditions are satisfactory. The team reports back on the conditions of those pensioners. Before the Hill Samuel action group was created, Lloyds TSB visited the Inland Revenue to verify whether there were ways in which it could augment those pensions, provided that that augmentation would not be treated simply as a substitute for social security payments, which would be reduced pan passu with the extra pension. The Inland Revenue politely showed the Lloyds TSB team the door, and said that no action could be taken.
      The visit of Lloyds TSB to the Inland Revenue in June, which was brought forward, was a response to the commitment to conduct a full review of all those on low incomes. Lloyds TSB said that that would take six months. We were told on Second Reading how long the review would be. With the debate taking place on 20 April, it would go through to 20 October. The Inland Revenue said that there was no point in discussing the issues unless Lloyds TSB came back with its proposals. The Revenue said that it could not discuss anything without specific proposals to consider.
      We may feel that fate is being unfair and the Inland Revenue is being unimaginative, but Lloyds TSB is doing its best to deliver in line with the Inland Revenue's
      252
      request. That request goes back to the issue of ensuring that what is given by Lloyds TSB is not taken away by the Treasury to return to the Department of Social Security.
      I may be the only Member speaking tonight who does not know the figure that Lloyds TSB has in mind, so there is no need for anyone to intervene on me to ask what the figure is. I see the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) saying that he is in the same position.
      I should tell those who are concerned that the process should be accelerated that, when Lloyds TSB is in a position to know the outcome of its review, it will in all courtesy want to discuss that with the unions that represent 58,000 people before going public on it, so that the issue is agreed. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) said that people have to know what they might be given before they can make up their minds, but that is not the issue. The issue is what the Inland Revenue rules will be. Until Lloyds TSB knows the Inland Revenue rules, it cannot come forward with a proposition, because it does not know from which pocket of its coffers it would be paying.
      As for the anomalies, there has been some criticism about the length of time it is taking to produce the guidelines, although some charity has been exercised in recognising the complexity of the matters concerned. One problem is exactly the same as exists in the context of pensions mis-selling: when pensions were originally granted or arranged, the law of the land did not require the holders of pension funds to keep much of the information that is now required. An enormous amount of archival work therefore needs to be done to examine what circumstances applied to particular individuals at the time. That affects the time it takes to produce guidelines.
      My best understanding of the timetable for the issuing of the guidelines marches with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs—that, although they are now before the lawyers, they still have to be run in front of the chairman of the pension fund. We are talking about weeks, and I am confident that, although 30 September is the deadline by which people should raise their anomalies, if Lloyds TSB fails to produce the guidelines before the middle of August so as to allow a further six weeks for anomalies to be brought forward, we can expect the company to be flexible. However, I have no direct authority for saying that.
      We are all saying that Lloyds TSB is being impatient in terms of the deadlines that it is setting, but it is worth reminding the House that the Hill Samuel action group first approached the bank in November, but did not produce details of a single anomaly before Second Reading. On the Friday—17 April—it sent through the mail a list consisting of a couple of hypothetical anomalies that Lloyds TSB might wish to consider, but those did not reach the company until after Second Reading.
      It therefore cannot be said that, in the period leading up to the proceedings on the Bill, the action group was like Blucher rushing towards the field of Waterloo. By 15 May, two anomalies had been submitted; by 25 June, 80 had been supplied; and I understand that, by yesterday, there were 200. The number is accelerating, and I have no doubt that Lloyds TSB will have a lot to look at by the end of September.
      The Hill Samuel action group said that it had written to its members on 11 May because Lloyds TSB would not take action itself. However, to be fair to Lloyds TSB,

      253
      in the concession letter, with reference to what was agreed with my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs and for Aldershot, it said:
      "We agreed that the HSAG"—
      that is, the Hill Samuel action group—
      "would be asked to write to its members requesting those who consider there to have been anomalies in their treatment, to write to a designated person at Lloyds TSB setting out full details of their concerns."
      So the basis of the concession letter was reasonably straightforward.
      Lloyds TSB had a lot to do in sending circulars to everybody, and by 15 May it was
      "finalising our communications programme to 180,000 members of the pension schemes within the Lloyds TSB Group".
      I am going over ground that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central sketched. Over the next month or so, the bank said, it would
      "be communicating with pensioners through the Group pensioner magazine Stable Companion, to members of staff through the staff magazine Frontrunner, and to deferred pensioners with their annual statements which are due to be dispatched shortly."
      I find that quite a comprehensive programme to have mounted in 60 days.
      Mr. Cousins: I should like to be clear in my mind what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I accept that again, as on 20 April, assurances are being given by Conservative Members, no doubt in perfectly good faith—but not on behalf of Lloyds TSB itself. Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that Lloyds TSB will circulate all its pensioners, produce the guidelines by the middle of August, and, if the guidelines are not produced by that time, the 30 September date will be suspended—and that, in any event, if people come to light after 30 September, their cases will be individually dealt with in good faith?
      Mr. Brooke: As always happens with such a Bill, the only person who can give an assurance on behalf of the promoters of the Bill is the hon. Member who is handling it. However, I, like various other hon. Members in the Chamber tonight, including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, who has been assiduous in his attention to the issue, have been involved in quite a lot of hard work on behalf of people who have written to us—a fair number have written to me—and in terms of conversations with the bank.
      In the end, we have to make our best judgment of what will occur. In the specific terms of the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked me, the sending of circulars has already occurred; as I said, it was foreseen on 15 May. I also said that my own reading was that, if the guidelines were delayed beyond the middle of August, the 30 September deadline would slip.
      Mr. Illsley: On behalf of the promoters, I can give an assurance in the terms outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central.
      Mr. Brooke: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Interventions are not
      254
      always those that one would have sought, but the hon. Gentleman's intervention on this occasion was almost divine.
      I shall now deal briefly with the deferred pensioner trustee. I received the first letter on this subject on 23 March from a constituent of mine who was once a household name in corporate finance. He wrote me a long and reasoned letter, including the words:
      "Our primary concerns are (1) to (4)",
      after which he listed four concerns. He was writing on behalf of the action group, and, at that time, his primary concerns did not include a deferred pensioner trustee.
      Therefore, the conversation that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs had with Lloyds TSB on the day of Second Reading, which produced a suggestion by Lloyds TSB that it would consider the appointment of a deferred pensioner trustee, was somewhat incidental. It was part of the lubrication that I have mentioned, but it was not a central part of the Hill Samuel action group's original proposals.
      I finish with a further quotation from my constituent, who wrote to me on 5 May:
      "It is a very good scheme, and well run: but inevitably with the benefit of hindsight, some people are not properly covered—and they are often the ones who don't like to complain."
      That, and our concern about such people, is exactly the issue with which many hon. Members have been engaged in our debates.
      As I said earlier, with the hon. Member for Twickenham, I played a fulcrum role. Indeed, I took longer to remove my block than he did his. I am now satisfied that the company will honour its obligations. For what it is worth, despite my role in the blocking motion, I am, as I said on Second Reading, the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the headquarters of the institution are situated. In that capacity, I shall myself be concerned that the commitments be met, and I would be astonished—not least in view of the amount of coverage that the events have had over the two debates—if a bank of such a standing did not meet those commitments in a manner of which all of us who have taken part in the debates can be proud.
      8.58 pm
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I did not intend to speak in the debate, but I rise because a number of anomalies need to be clarified. A number of my constituents—concerned pensioners of the Hill Samuel group—wrote to me, so I added my name to the blocking motion. I did my duty by my constituents: I met Mr. Fairey, the deputy chief executive of the Lloyds TSB group, to seek a number of assurances.
      The law on pensions—this has not been mentioned tonight—is one of the most complicated areas of the financial services industry. The Pensions Law Review Committee, whose findings eventually led to the Pensions Act 1995, examined in huge detail the ownership of surpluses in pension funds. Having heard and reviewed a huge amount of complicated evidence, Professor Goode, the chairman of the committee, concluded that a pension fund surplus belonged exclusively neither to the pensioners nor to the employers who had contributed to the fund—it belonged to them both jointly. Trustee deeds show what the trustees are allowed to do in each individual pension scheme.

      255
      Mention has been made of the pre-1975 pensioners who were in schemes for fewer than five years and so did not qualify for a pension. The law was changed in 1975 by the then Government to entitle those who had served for fewer than five years to a pension, but that did not apply retrospectively. Indeed, I believe that it would have been improper for the trustees to apply that decision retrospectively; if they had, the matter could have been subject to judicial review.
      Ever since I have been a Member of Parliament, I have had to deal with cases in which constituents have asked me, after pension law has changed, to request the Government to apply the new law to the state pension scheme retrospectively; in each case, the Government—of whatever colour—have refused to do so.
      Interestingly, the Hill Samuel pensioners did not complain when their pensions were taken over by the TSB group, as the reserves of the TSB pension scheme were substantially larger than those of the Hill Samuel scheme. Only now that the TSB pension scheme is being taken over by Lloyds, whose pension scheme has fewer reserves, have the complaints begun to emerge. However, as far as I am aware, those complaints are being made by only 200 or so members of the Hill Samuel action group out of the tens of thousands in the combined TSB and Lloyds scheme. Although the case of even one pensioner who is in any way deprived should be considered, the trustees have a duty to act in the interests of all their pensioners.
      The matter of low-income pensioners is far from simple. Someone who has served a similar length of service on a similar salary may seem to be entitled to a similar pension, but that person may have taken a lump sum on retirement, which would considerably affect the payable pension. Alternatively, someone may have retired at an earlier age than someone else who had served a similar length of service; again, that would affect the pension that was eventually payable.
      I have investigated this complicated matter at some considerable length—I have corresponded with my constituents and with Mr. Fairey—and I believe that a reasonable balance must be struck between the interests of those pensioners who may be affected and the interests of the pensioners as a whole and of the shareholders. I do not think that the Bill will adversely affect any pensioner over and above what they might have expected in any case under the law of the land.
      I have asked Mr. Fairey, the deputy chief executive of the Lloyds TSB group, to examine in particular the case of my constituent Mr. Jones-Bateman, who was a regional director of the Hill Samuel group. Mr. Fairey has full details of the case, and he has undertaken to consider it sympathetically and in detail—I have no doubt that he will keep his word. On the basis of my investigations, I am satisfied that a fair balance has been struck between all the different pensioner groups that are affected by the merger, so I shall not vote against the Bill.
      9.3 pm
      Mr. Illsley: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond briefly to an interesting debate. As on Second Reading, there have been some remarkable contributions, and we have heard some excellent tours de force on pensions law and pensions issues. They did not much relate to what is in the Bill, but they were interesting all the same.
      256
      I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) who originally blocked the Bill, but have withdrawn their blocking motions and favour progress of the Bill. As the hon. Member for Cotswold said, pensions law has been dealt with by the Goode committee, which dwelt at length on the ownership of surpluses. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made the same point. It is a complicated area, but it is not within the remit of the Bill. Perhaps there should be a debate in future, but, the matter having been so recently addressed by the Goode committee, it may be some time before pensions law is further amended.
      Let me tell the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) that the Bill's purpose is to facilitate the merger that took place two or three years ago between Lloyds and the TSB. All the pensions issues that we have discussed fall outside the Bill. There are anomalies, and there are lower-paid pensioners, but every member of the scheme is being paid his or her entitlement. The bank has given repeated assurances that those issues will be addressed.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) have asked why it is taking so long for the Inland Revenue and Lloyds to reach agreement, but, as the hon. Member for Cotswold said, there are many different reasons why pensioners have low entitlements. Under the TSB scheme, pensioners were obliged to take 50 per cent. of their pensions as a lump sum. That reduced on-going payments, which meant that those people were lower-paid.
      The pre-1975 pensioners would have had contributions returned if they had been members for not longer than five years. That is another area in which there will be no payment, and it has come to light only during our debate. Every pension depends on length of service in the scheme, and final salary.
      Mr. Swayne: Setting aside the anomalies, which I accept are not the subject matter of the Bill, can the hon. Gentleman say what the consequences would be for the merger if the Bill were lost tonight?
      Mr. Illsley: Lloyds and TSB would have to find a different way to do business in future. The reason for the Bill, as with any bank Bill, is to facilitate the merger without the bank's having to take into account the wishes and views of every account holder and customer, which would be impossible, as there are several million of them. It would be an extremely heavy burden on the banks if they were asked to contact every member for permission for the merger.
      I have answered the point made by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) about different categories of people whose pensionable service will have left them with a low-paying pension. Lloyds has addressed that issue. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber when I assured the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster that guidelines will be produced shortly. I hope that the 30 September deadline will be flexible, and that the issues will be addressed.

      257
      I take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) who made a comparison with the coal industry's pensions schemes, but that issue relates to the Goode committee and pensions law, and it falls slightly outside the remit of the Bill.
      After a longer debate than I had expected, and after considerable debate on Second Reading, I hope that hon. Members will give the Bill a fair wind, and a Third Reading, without the need for a Division.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      National Minimum Wage Bill
      Lords amendments again considered.
      National Minimum Wage Bill
        Clause 2

          DETERMINATION OF HOURLY RATE OF REMUNERATION
          Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 11, leave out ("and times at which,") and insert
          ("times at which, or the time for which,").
          9.8 pm
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4.
          Mr. McCartney: The amendments deal with a specific technicality, which became apparent following the Low Pay Commission's recommendations and initial work on drafting the regulations. The general effect of the three amendments is to extend slightly the flexibility of the power to calculate the rate. We want to be absolutely confident that the clause provides us with the power that we need to deliver through the regulations what the Low Pay Commission has recommended regarding the treatment of home workers who are paid by the piece.
          Let me remind the House how clause 2 works. Hon. Members should note that it deals with the determination of the hourly rate of remuneration. The clause was drafted flexibly to enable us to reflect, as far as could be envisaged, whatever the Low Pay Commission might recommend in its report regarding the calculation of the hourly rate for national minimum wage purposes. Basically, it is a technical clause, but one which is important to the flexible operation of the Bill. It provides the flexibility for a wide range of possible permutations in determining what elements of pay can be included or excluded—for example, overtime, bonuses, benefits and holiday pay. It enables a wide range of working situations to be taken into account, including piece work, payment of standard wages at a regular rate and payments on commission or at different rates over different periods.
          Since receiving the report, we have been considering the practicalities of putting into effect the Low Pay Commission's recommendations. In particular, we have been considering those workers who work away from the office and are paid by output, rather than time worked. For that particular case, it has become apparent that the clause may not be quite flexible enough. In particular, the commission's recommendations suggest that piece workers should be entitled to the hourly minimum wage for every hour worked regardless of the piece rate, and that employers of home workers should be able to demonstrate that piece rates have been evaluated to confirm compliance. The fairest and least bureaucratic way to do that is to ensure that there can be agreement between worker and employer about the maximum hours to be worked and the output expected. We need to ensure we have the vires to do that under clause 2. Therefore, we are proposing three amendments to the clause, the third of which is purely consequential.

          259
          Lords amendment No. 2 deals with subsection (3), which relates to how working time is to be treated for minimum wage purposes. The amendment ensures that the regulations can prescribe those times for which a worker can be treated as working. The amendment is a technical rewording to ensure that we have the vires to prescribe in regulations that, where piece workers work at home with no agreed hours, the worker and employer may together agree the maximum hours that are to be worked and claimed.
          Lords amendment No. 3 deals with the same subsection and makes explicit the power to prescribe that an agreement may be reached regarding the maximum or minimum time that a person shall be treated as working. As with Lords amendment No. 2, that change is necessary in the case of the piece worker working at home with no present limit on the hours to be worked. In the interests of legal certainty, it ensures that we have sufficient flexibility to implement the Low Pay Commission's recommendations regarding piece workers and home workers through the regulations.
          The clause was drafted flexibly, but needs to be supplemented by means of those technical amendments to ensure the practical implementation of the LPC's recommendations on piece workers working from home. I ask the House to support the amendments.
          Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendments and explaining them. Indeed, his explanation was consistent with—or almost precisely in the same terms as—that of his noble Friend and former colleague in another place. It is almost six months to the day since the Minister of State—who we are glad is still around to conclude these proceedings—my colleagues and I locked horns in a couple of momentous all-night sessions in detailed consideration of the Bill. The need for detailed consideration remains and it is right that we should study some of the amendments and not merely pass them on the nod. I do not want to agitate the hon. Gentleman unduly by suggesting that it will be necessary to continue our deliberations all night, although it is fair to say for the record—particularly as I suspect that my colleague from the Whips Office would want me to be shown to be earning my keep—that 32 of the 36 amendments under consideration emanate from the Government.
          The whole message of the Bill has been that, although the concepts have been relatively simply, the devil is inevitably in the detail and it is extremely important, in the interests of employers and their employees and of the Government and Ministers, that they get it as right as is humanly possible.
          That brings me to consideration of the amendments. I shall not advise my hon. Friends to object to them, unless a new point arises beyond what the Minister has said. First, I am slightly concerned in one respect about what the Minister said and what his noble Friend said in another place. The Minister emphasised that the amendments provide greater flexibility. That is entirely consistent with the arguments for flexibility that my hon. Friends and I were advancing throughout the Committee proceedings. I do not understand from the Minister's explanation in which direction the flexibility will operate. He said in response to the Low Pay Commission that piece workers should be entitled to the hourly minimum wage for every hour worked, regardless of the piece rate,
          260
          and that employers of home workers should be able to demonstrate that piece rates had been evaluated to confirm compliance. He said that that would have to be achieved by agreement between employers and piece workers.
          Agreement might be reached, but what would happen if the agreement did not coincide with the facts? For example, piece workers might work all the hours that they claimed to have worked but not produce the number of pieces that they agreed to produce. Conversely, piece workers might turn out more pieces than had been agreed but not receive greater remuneration. There are potential problems in those cases.
          I take it that the Minister is saying that, in the interests of legal knock for knock, there should be a functional arrangement and the two parties should come to an agreement. I do not object to that in principle, although, given the points that the Minister made so vigorously in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about the lot of piece workers—I share some of the Minister's concern for their position—it is not always clear that such an agreement would be made on all fours between equal parties. I presume that the amendments concern a privilege that the Minister will want to monitor carefully.
          My second concern for the House is that the proposal for a more flexible agreement needs to be considered alongside the provisions for what might loosely be termed the normal cases of employers and employees who are paid by the hour, week or month. The Low Pay Commission, whose report we did not have in our deliberations in Committee, considered all those points carefully. It came to a conclusion on the pay reference period that the Minister said is highly technical, but which exercised us because of the potential for error. The commission's recommendation is that
          "the averaging period for the National Minimum Wage should be the normal pay period, as agreed between worker and employer"—
          so the element of agreement is included—
          "up to a maximum of one calendar month. We believe this is long enough to capture most fluctuations in earnings."
          The report goes on to say that there could be a case for low-paid workers who are covered by annualised hours arrangements. For the sake of completeness, I remind the House of the point that I made about my employee who works on my farm. He is salaried and receives an even rate whether he works for long hours during harvest or for shorter periods in the middle of winter. The commission's recommendation for a one-month maximum could lead to average hourly pay for employees working the longer hours pattern falling below the national minimum wage. The commission recognises that
          "in such circumstances employers and workers may need to …restructure their pay systems."
          That precisely encapsulates the concern which we expressed in Committee that, for all the efforts to reproduce the flexibility and complexity of economic arrangements and systems for the payment of remuneration in this country, inevitably, the introduction of the national minimum wage would create a need for some systems to be changed, even if they were the most sensible form of payment for the parties concerned.
          In concluding my remarks on the clutch of amendments before us, I tell the Minister that I may not need to intervene on all the groups of amendments, but I wish to raise several points on later groups.

          261
          We understand that home workers are an especially sensitive group. We understand that piece workers—who are not necessarily exactly the same as home workers but have some similarities—will need to be given some flexibility in working out their pay in relation to their output and the number of hours worked, and thereby in working out whether the employer or the employment arrangement complies with the national minimum wage. However, that requirement must not provide an inside track, giving those workers a privileged flexibility that is not available to other, perfectly reasonable, employers and employees who wish to make arrangements that are consistent with the spirit of the Bill.
          In a sense, one vital card is still unplayed; until the Bill becomes an Act and for a time afterwards, the Minister will be unable to give us draft regulations to explain how matters will be dealt with in the normal case. Only then shall we get flesh on the bones of other situations and know whether the provisions are sensible and flexible enough.
          It is right to put down those markers now. Obviously, they have nothing to do with the principle of the Bill, but they are designed to ensure that it operates fairly. I would welcome the Minister's response.
          Mr. Chidgey: I am sure that the Minister would agree that the amendments—which I am sure are eminently sensible—try, to a degree, to clarify what we mean by "working time". I therefore ask him to clarify a specific point.
          Shortly, legislation implementing the working time directive will come before the House. I should like the Minister, if he can, to clarify whether subsequent legislation on the working time directive will use the definition of "working time" used in the Bill, or whether we may have two definitions in two pieces of legislation.
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for his kind remarks. I thank him also because I understand that he petitioned the Prime Minister to ask for me to remain in this job—as did the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses. They are all behind me. The hon. Gentleman's personal warmth and appreciation of my being here is taken in the spirit in which it was intended. The hon. Gentleman and I have spent a considerable part of the last year of our lives dealing with these issues. In Committee and on the Floor of the House—despite our sometimes rumbustious debates—I have welcomed the fact that he has often been more than fair in the way in which he has drawn attention to issues. The questions that he asked tonight were well made and well intended.
          The agreement would concern the hours worked and to be claimed; it would not be about the rate, because the rate will be effected in regulations. We are trying to ensure that there is some capacity for the employer, at the outset of the work to be carried out, to have an agreement with the worker that gives some clarity about the hours and the nature of the work to be carried out within a time scale. That is important because, if we are to give—as we shall do—the right to be paid the minimum wage for all hours worked, it is important that the employer does not
          262
          have an open-ended arrangement by which someone gets paid for 13 hours' work when there is only two hours' work to be done.
          It is important that flexibility works in two ways. There must be good practice, which is not always the case with piece workers or home workers. Employers may turn up and say, "Here is the work to be done; we will come back in the morning and, if it is not completed, we may or may not pay you the following rate." The legislation will ensure good practice and it will mean that the employer must reach an agreement with the employee at the outset about the nature of the work and the hours of work. That will protect the employer from a totally open-ended commitment and from having to pay for work that was not done.
          It will also create some clarity for the employee, who will have an absolute guarantee of receiving at least the national minimum wage. It may mean a different calculation at the end of the reference period. For example, if a worker is entitled to be paid £3.60 an hour and, at the end of the agreed reference period, the piece work is calculated at £3 an hour, the employer must make it up to £3.60 in order to ensure compliance with the minimum wage. It is important that the proposals before us are approved in order to introduce some certainty into the system.
          The hon. Member for Daventry asked what would happen if there was disagreement about the work to be done and the duration of that work. That is a matter for dispute resolution; it is not a matter for these regulations. It is a matter of employment practice between the employer and the employee. I hope that that hon. Gentleman will accept that that is the Government's intention in that regard.
          It is intended that the introduction of both the national minimum wage and the working time directive will impose minimum burdens on business and that they will be enforced effectively. They will be matched as closely as possible, but they do not always measure the same thing. Time worked for health and safety reasons is different from the calculation of time for pay purposes. There may be differences in some cases when considering hours worked for national minimum wage purposes. As far as possible, we shall ensure that the minimum wage and the directive match. However, different issues must clearly be catered for.
          Mr. Chidgey: I acknowledge the Minister's answer—I have probably thrown him a bit of a googly, and I accept that he is doing his best. Does he accept that, with the forthcoming working directive and the minimum wage legislation, employers and employees could have difficulty in trying to meet different requirements for measuring working time?
          Mr. McCartney: I have said clearly that we have conducted extensive consultation on the working time directive. It deals with two issues. The first is health and safety and how we can make sure that entitlements under legislation dealing with health and safety in the workplace are calculated for the purposes of ensuring compliance. The second issue relates to ensuring that people do not suffer any detriment when claiming their rights under the working time directive. There are two regimes within the directive: the first ensures that health and safety

          263
          standards are maintained or improved, and the second ensures that no employee is sacked or suffers some form of discipline for clearly exercising his or her rights under the directive.
          The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) raises a simple matter. We cannot consider health and safety matters in the same way we consider whether someone has received the proper minimum wage for the hours worked. For example, under the working time directive, employers will be required to keep records in order to ensure that night-time workers are not forced to work more than the number of hours set out over the reference period. In addition, the employer will be required to ensure that medical checks and health assessments are carried out from time to time to make sure that the employees' working hours are not detrimental to their health. We are measuring different things and the regulations will be applied differently. That is the sensible way to approach the issue.
          The hon. Member for Eastleigh has not really thrown me a googly. That is rather a nice English phrase. It is not a phrase that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I, would recognise from Glasgow. Other phrases would go well with it, but I shall leave them for another day. However, I get the hon. Gentleman's point. When the Bill is enacted, we will move as quickly as we can to put into the public domain the draft regulations and the consultation. I welcome the opportunity for participation that that will give Conservative Members. It is important to us, as it is to anyone in favour of the minimum wage, to ensure that the regulations work effectively and that employers realise that they are not burdensome while allowing proper compliance with the legislation.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 disagreed to.

        Clause 11

          FAILURE OE EMPLOYER TO ALLOW ACCESS TO RECORDS
          Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 8, line 36, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (8) and")
          9.30 pm
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          This is a technical amendment made on Third Reading in the other place to complete and improve the Bill. It came to our attention only at that late stage, for which I apologise, but such things are inevitable on occasion.
          The amendment affects clause 11(1)(a), which provides a justified ground for complaint about access to records if the employer has
          "failed to produce some or all of the relevant records in accordance with subsection (9) of section 10 above".
          Clause 10(9) sets deadlines for the time within which records must be produced. Failure by the employer to meet the requirement therefore provides ground for complaint.
          Counsel has noted that subsection (8) is also a requirement-setting provision, stipulating the place where records must be produced. However, failure to produce records at one of the places specified is not currently included in clause 11(1)(a). The reference there is only to
          264
          subsection (9), not also to subsection (8). In other words, there is an omission because the Bill creates two requirements but provides a remedy against only one of them.
          The amendment therefore adds a reference to clause 10(8); and I ask the House to support it.
          Mr. Boswell: I read with some interest the debates in the other place on the keeping of records. In the spirit of the Minister's conciliatory remarks a moment ago, we recognise that he wishes to consult on the details and that there will be proper consultation on the record requirements themselves. We welcome that and hope that industry and, if necessary, hon. Members will participate in it.
          One other point before I come to the specific amendment is a touch more critical, but we recognise the pressures under which Ministers and officials are working at this time of year. In preparing for today's debate, I noted a number of references in the other place to correspondence with my noble Friend Baroness Miller on certain technical aspects. That correspondence has not been vouchsafed to Conservative Members or to me, and I should be grateful if it were in due course.
          Mr. McCartney: I offer my apologies to both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey). I have always had a process of maintaining correspondence and meetings. It is an oversight, and I take responsibility for it. I shall ensure that copies of the correspondence are sent to the hon. Gentleman and that I respond to any additional item that he raises this evening to which I do not have an immediate answer.
          Mr. Boswell: I readily respond with thanks to the Minister of State because he is, as ever in these matters, most generous and helpful.
          We are dealing with the production of records and I have the impression that, even if the Minister does not have the style, he would rather like to join me in playing around at being an amateur lawyer. He explained the draftsman's thought process extremely eloquently. However, we should pause for a moment to ask whether there really is a failure to deliver the records at a particular place. The records must exist, unless they have been wilfully destroyed. The offence arises from the inability to deliver within a particular time the records to the worker who has requested them.
          If there is a "failure of place"—the point that the tidy-minded draftsman has tried to pick up—and the records are not offered in the worker's place of work or any other reasonable place, or such place as may be agreed between the worker and the employer, the records will not have been produced at all. They exist, but they have not been made available. I do not argue that that provision should not be in the Bill, but perhaps the draftsman's first instincts were better than his second, because the important point is that the records should be practicably available to the worker within a reasonable time.
          The fact that, for information, the Bill suggests a number of places where the records could be produced does not by itself create an offence because if they are not produced in one of those entirely sensible places, I doubt

          265
          whether they have been produced at all. Of course, they still exist, but records are of no use to a worker who wants to see them if they are sitting in somebody's filing cabinet or have been hidden behind the mantlepiece.
          This is not a matter over which we should go to the stake. My instinct may be wrong, in which case there is no need to make a fuss about the matter. However, it is at least worth pausing to think about it.
          Mr. Philip Hammond: I, too, am delighted to see the Minister in his place. I awaited tonight's debate with trepidation in case he were not there because it would seem inappropriate if, after six months or so, we were to discuss the Bill without seeing his familiar face.
          I find it surprising that, given the extensive work that was done in Committee, we have not discussed this point before. I heard what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said. My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of records having been wilfully destroyed or concealed. Will the Minister assure us that, in dealing with a complaint under this clause, an employer could defend himself by pleading that the records had been inadvertently destroyed or were unavailable as a result of accidental destruction?
          Mr. McCartney: I did not catch the hon. Gentleman's last question. Will he repeat it, so that I do not forget to answer it?
          Mr. Hammond: I shall gladly repeat it. I should like to be reassured that, under the clause, it would be a defence that the records had been inadvertently destroyed as opposed to wilfully destroyed or concealed. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry referred to the wilful destruction of records, but records could have been inadvertently destroyed, or destroyed by fire or some other form of misadventure.
          Another point was discussed in Committee and I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the opportunity of the Bill's consideration in another place to correct it. There is a lack of symmetry between the requirement on employers, and the need for some employees, to produce and keep records. To an extent, we are going over old ground, but this is an important point that is not in any sense intended to undermine the principles of the Bill. There will be occasions, especially in relation to piece work, on which the employer will be unable to defend himself against a claim that he has failed to pay the minimum wage unless the employee has kept appropriate records in his workplace, which may be his home.
          Mr. Boswell: It is nice to have my hon. Friend back in our deliberations. Does he recall the sensitive issue of spouses who may disagree? The employer—the husband, typically—may be required to keep records, but a disaffected spouse may assert that such records have not been kept or that the hours worked in a family business were much longer than he is prepared to concede.
          Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As he knows, I have argued throughout consideration of
          266
          the Bill that, whatever else may be right or wrong, it is clearly wrong to bring businesses that are effectively husband-and-wife operations within its remit. That would bring the full force of the law into the everyday relationship between a husband and wife who operate a small business together.
          My specific point to the Minister is that there is no requirement for employees to keep appropriate records. What defence would an employer have if he were faced with the claim that he had failed to pay the minimum wage in respect of the number of hours worked by a piece worker in his own home when producing a certain amount of work? How would such an employer prove that the claim was not valid if he had no power to require the employee to produce records of the hours that had been worked?
          Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Given that many self-employed people keep and provide records to the people for whom they work as a condition of their payment, does he agree that there can be no reasonable objection under the Bill to requiring them to do precisely that in future?
          Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is precisely right. It would not be at all onerous for employees to keep simple records, where appropriate. That would not be appropriate for an employee who clocks on when he arrives at the factory, does his day's work and goes home. In such circumstances, it is appropriate that the whole burden of record keeping falls on the employer, but it was common ground in Committee that the difficult cases will arise in situations other than the conventional employment situation in which work is done in the employer's workplace.
          Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend's point is made more profound because flexible working—home work and distance work—is on the increase and likely to grow, not diminish. The traditional model of the workplace is not disappearing, but it is becoming less common.
          Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. I am asking the Minister not to impose some additional and unreasonable burden on employees, but to say why he has not considered it appropriate, in suitable cases where it is relevant, to require employees to keep relevant records and to give employers the right to see those records so that they can defend themselves against claims.
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I welcome the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) to the debate. I understand that he has been promoted to the Front Bench since we debated the minimum wage in Committee, so attempting to hold me up for all those hours has worked well for him. I do not want to overexcite him by going through that process again, but I hope that he gets a further leg up the greasy pole. We are not really discussing the amendments, which are about plugging a little technical gap in the Bill. I must tell him that the Bill is clear—the employer has a duty to keep records.
          The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that he and I might like to be amateur lawyers; indeed, many people may say that one of us, at least, has been a barrack-room lawyer on occasion—or even a Philadelphia

          267
          lawyer. It does not take a lawyer to get the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, and I cannot give any succour in that regard. It is a pretty weak excuse to say, "I inadvertently got drunk last night and drove the car home and smashed it up". Equally, it is a pretty weak excuse to say, "I inadvertently burnt all my records, and it is therefore impossible for me to establish whether I paid my home workers the national minimum wage". We cannot allow a coach and horses to be driven through the principle of employers' duty to maintain good records.
          9.45 pm
          Mr.Boswell: Even if the Minister did not climb the greasy pole, we are glad to see him in his place.
          The Minister, perhaps typically, chooses the delinquent employer as his example, but is there not an equally serious problem? I refer to the employer who acts in good faith, but whose records may have been destroyed. Surely the regulations must provide for a workable distinction between the two.
          McCartney: No doubt genuine accidents happen. No doubt places are burnt down in such circumstances. I am sure that Inland Revenue representatives and VAT men are tearing their hair out every week when they visit premises that may have been inadvertently burnt down, or burnt down in entirely innocent circumstances—or, occasionally, even burnt down as a result of an attack. I am sure that such one-off incidents will be seen for what they are, but we are not talking about that; we are talking about compliance with a requirement for good record-keeping, which must be an employer's defence against any unfair, unacceptable or unsubstantiated allegation of non-payment.
          The worker's right of access to records, and clauses 9, 10 and 11, are very important. The amendments are not about the principle of the clauses; they are technical.
          In the Bill, we decided that the burden of proof should be on the employer. That is important, especially given the inability of low-paid workers—home workers, for instance—to establish a balanced arrangement. That was a principled decision by the Government, and it has been accepted in good faith by employers during our debates on the Bill. I therefore ask the House to accept the amendments, on the basis of their technical nature.
          Lords amendment agreed to

        Clause 13

          APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS
          Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 10, line 2, after first ("any") insert
          Minister of the Crown or")
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 10, 12 to 16, 32, 33 and 35.
          Mr. McCartney: The amendments concern ministerial transactions relating to information obtained. They are
          268
          essentially technical, and are designed to maintain the status quo in respect of the enforcement arrangements envisaged in the Bill. Their purpose is to ensure the continuation of the policy to leave open the option of appointing agricultural wages inspectors in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to enforce the minimum wage specifically in the agriculture sector. If the amendments were not made, that option would be closed in relation to agricultural wages inspectors in Scotland.
          We had considerable discussion in Committee about the interface between agricultural wages and the minimum wage, and agreement was established. We simply want to get the technicalities right.
          Mr. Boswell: I want to accept the Minister's assurances, but I should like to be clear about one point. I understand that, when records are compiled for one purpose, for example for the purpose of the agricultural wages inspectorate—as the Minister will know, I am familiar with such operations—they remain the records of that inspectorate, and are available for its purpose. For the purposes of the legislation, they are, if I may produce a non-legal term, transferred to the minimum wage legislation to determine whether that has been complied with. The Minister spoke about agricultural wages legislation in Scotland. Was the case that he quoted an example or is he trying to cover the whole class with this sheaf of amendments?
          Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman is right about the proposals. The amendments will secure the correct interface in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and ensure a smooth operation between the two arrangements for agricultural wages and the minimum wage.
          Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown(Cotswold): Perhaps the Minister would clarify one point. I declare an interest, as recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, in agriculture. It is increasingly likely that farmers will pay their workers in euros in future, particularly if payments from Brussels to farmers are in euros. How will the Minister interpret the legislation in relation to euros?
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to the Minister. His question has nothing to do with the amendment.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

        CLAUSE 15

          INFORMATION OBTAINED BY OFFICERS
          Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 11, line 36, at end insert—
          ("(6A) Subsection (2) above does not affect the title or rights of—

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

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

          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

          269
          The amendment touches on what the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) alluded to on an earlier amendment. I thank him for co-operating with us on this matter.
          The amendment is technical, and it affects clause 15(2) which deals with information exchange. The subsection provides that information that is covered by the clause is vested in the Secretary of State. The information in question is that which an enforcement officer has obtained, for example, from an employer or worker about working hours or pay.
          The current formulation of clause 15(2) might be taken to affect the rights and title of other owners of that information. The amendment makes it clear that the vesting of the information in the Secretary of State for this purpose does not affect others with the title or rights to the information. That is to say, the ownership of the information does not change hands: it is exchanged only for the purposes of the minimum wage legislation. I hope that the amendment clarifies the facility in clause 15.
          Mr. Boswell: I have one short question. If information is disclosed by the inspectorate or by the Secretary of State in an unauthorised way that is outwith the purposes of the statute—I do not suggest that that will occur, but accidents happen—will the office that is responsible for the disclosure, if it gives rise to legal action or a claim for damages, bear the cost even if the information is jointly owned by the two parties?
          Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting debating point and I shall reflect on what he has said. The purpose of the measure is to ensure clarity in the process of obtaining information, the purposes of the information, who can use it and who has good title to it. If the clause is operated effectively, the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises should not arise. However, the point is well made and I shall ensure in discussions and by regulation that there is good professional practice in all those matters.
          Mr. Hammond: I welcome the amendment, which clearly improves the clause. The Minister may recall that in Committee we had a heated debate about precisely this matter. He assured us that, as the clause was originally drafted, there would be no doubt about who had title to the intellectual property in the information to be transferred. He rubbished our arguments, so I am pleased that he has had second thoughts. The provision will be welcomed, if only for the avoidance of doubt.
          Will the Minister clarify whether the provision will give any additional cause of action to an employer who finds that information has been wrongly used and has been transferred outwith the provisions of the Bill? The clause provides that "any relevant authority" that obtains the information may use it
          "for any purpose relating to this Act."
          Should officials of the Inland Revenue or of Customs and Excise be empowered to collect information for the purposes of the legislation, their organisations would have to have Chinese walls.
          270
          On the face of it, the amendment would strengthen the position of the rightful owner of the information—the employer who had the information. Will the Minister confirm for the record that that would give the employer an additional cause of action or additional security?
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I do not remember having a row on this matter. It must have been one of those early morning activities, so I apologise. I shall not go over ground that I cannot remember.
          I was probably robust with the hon. Gentleman because it was never our intention that the clause would change the ownership of the information. The Bill sets down clearly the purpose for which the information can be used and who is responsible for it. Any action taken that is outside the scope of the legislation would be outside the employer's legal powers. I have no doubt that there would be a remedy in those circumstances. I am trying to clarify the position—to put it in an armlock—to ensure that the original intention of the clause is absolutely clear.
          Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for that reply. May I press him on a further point? Information may be wrongfully supplied to another agency or used by an agency that had lawfully obtained it for a purpose beyond the scope of the Bill. Is it correct that such information could not be produced in court as evidence?
          Mr. McCartney: That is a hypothetical case. I have made it absolutely clear that, under the Bill, information can be used only for the purposes of the national minimum wage. Anyone who used it in any other way would be acting outside the scope of the Bill and would be exceeding his powers. The answer that I gave a few moments ago is the same as the answer that I am giving the hon. Gentleman now.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 16 agreed to.

        Clause 19

          POWER OF OFFICER TO ISSUE ENFORCEMENT NOTICE
          Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 14, line 21, at end insert—
          ("(9) The powers of an employment tribunal in allowing an appeal in a case where subsection (8) above applies shall include power to rectify, as the tribunal may consider appropriate in consequence of its decision on the appeal, any penalty notice which has been served under section 21 below in respect of the enforcement notice.
          (10) Where a penalty notice is rectified under subsection (9) above, it shall have effect as if it had originally been served as so rectified.")
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          The purpose is to cut unnecessary red tape, and to prevent enforcement from being weakened in a particular area. Currently, under clause 19(8), an employment tribunal has the power to correct an enforcement notice on appeal, for example if the officer got the amount of the national minimum wage underpayment wrong but an underpayment nevertheless remained due.

          271
          The tribunal may also correct the subsequent penalty notice, which can be issued pending an appeal against the enforcement notice under clause 22(5). There is a technical difficulty—without the amendment, the tribunal would have the power to correct the penalty notice only if a separate appeal against it had been lodged. Therefore, an employer would have to ensure that he made two appeals, on a just-in-case basis, against both the enforcement notice and the penalty notice.
          The amendment would cut red tape by providing that, when an appeal against the enforcement notice was partially successful and the notice was corrected by the tribunal, the tribunal would have the power to correct the penalty notice accordingly, even in the absence of an appeal against the penalty notice. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the amendment is about ensuring—
          It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

          BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
          Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
          That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] and the National Minimum Wage Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
          Question agreed to.
          Lords amendments again considered.
          Question again proposed, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the Minister wish to continue?
          Mr. McCartney: I am happy to sit down, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
          Mr. Boswell: The Minister is trying to be helpful. I have a procedural question, which is whether arrangements will be made for the tribunal to ensure that there is in the papers a box to tick, or some other way to enter the fact that a penalty notice has been served, so that the tribunal may look at both automatically and simultaneously, rather than finding out by accident that a penalty notice has been served. We must remember that there are relatively unsophisticated employers who may not be aware of double jeopardy. Is the Minister nodding or is he reflecting on that point?
          Mr. McCartney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take on board what he has said. It is important in the good employment practice followed in these cases that we should make it as easy as possible for both the employer and the tribunal to ensure that such matters are covered.
          Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister.
          On the more general points, the Minister's explanation has been helpful, but I should like him again to confirm two matters. The first is that the enforcement notice and the appeal against it are free standing and that the penalty notice and the appeal against it are also free standing. They could happen separately. I have not quite thought
          272
          through the implications, but the tribunal could come to different conclusions in different cases. We need to ensure that no one's rights are removed.
          The second matter relates to financial penalties for non-compliance. Although the tribunal will take an interest in the calculation—if that is brought to its attention because, for example, the employer says that the sums have been done wrongly—it is not empowered to rewrite the level of the penalty, other than for a mathematical mistake, if a liability has been imposed. Nor will it look at degrees of culpability as between employer and employee in reaching its conclusions.
          While having regard to the worker's interests, these cases are very much ones where the employer will appeal against enforcement and, in particular, against the financial penalty. Clearly, the worker is enjoined in that and will want to have a say in it, but the case is very much about ensuring that the employer is treated fairly. The enforcement notice comes after due process, from either the employee or an officer acting on his behalf.
          I am trying to get the flavour of the issue. The Minister has it broadly right, but it would be helpful if he could comment on it.
          Mr. Ian McCartney: The answers to the hon. Gentleman's first two questions are yes and yes. On his third question, I think that he—not for wrong reasons—is rather overcomplicating the matter. If there has been an error, the tribunal will ensure that it is corrected.
          Lords amendment agreed to.

        Clause 23

          THE RIGHT NOT TO SUFFER DETRIMENT
          Lords amendment: No. 18, in page 16, line 40, after ("will") insert ("or might")
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
          Mr. McCartney: When I started work on this Bill, I was 6 ft 6 in tall. I am told that I should just rest a bit on this Box.
          This is an important group of amendments, the purpose of which is to ensure that there is no loophole in protection against dismissal or detrimental action for workers and employees who would be entitled to the full rate of the national minimum wage or who were about to qualify for a higher rate, even when no rate has yet been set in the months following commencement of the clauses.
          I am sure that the House will agree on the principle behind the affected clauses. They will protect workers and employees against dismissal or detrimental action on the grounds that they qualify or will qualify for the national minimum wage or for a particular—higher—rate of the national minimum wage. We want to ensure that workers have that protection during the interim—between commencement of the clauses, after Royal Assent and subject to Parliament's will, and the setting of the national minimum wage in the ensuing regulations.

          273
          By adding the word "might" in each case, the amendments are designed to remove any doubt about whether workers are protected in that manner during that period. I trust that the House can accept these linked amendments.
          Mr. Boswell: I think that we have to stop for a moment on this group of amendments. There is nothing wrong with the Minister's intentions, and I do not wish to suggest that we want people to take action by way of detriment against employees who in future
          "might qualify…for the minimum wage".
          I have used the phrase that the Minister has included in his amendment, but, in so doing, I express some doubt about it.
          Circumstances defined in the relevant clause—clause 23(1)(c)—include those in which
          "the worker qualifies, or will qualify, for the national minimum wage or for a particular rate".
          That should be a fairly clear evidential test. Is there an employment when the wage is in force? Is the appropriate rate for the national minimum wage being paid? Is there an employment when the national minimum wage comes in on the appointed day after the conclusion of regulations? If so, is the person being sacked ahead of the introduction as a way of getting them out of the way? I understand those cases. However, insertion of the word "might" creates the types of uncertainty that the newspapers are so good at exploiting.
          There could be a story saying, for example, who "might" today become Government Chief Whip. That is the type of story that the newspapers write. The Government "may be" having second thoughts about inclusion of the armed forces in the National Minimum Wage Bill. That story was spun around until there were second thoughts.
          The word "might" is imprecise. I might have no employment relationship. As an hon. Member, I am self-employed, at least for some purposes, but I might qualify for the national minimum wage. I do not know whether I do. To use "might" is to open the doors to some uncertainty.
          Although I have no particular penchant for drafting, I should have preferred as the test "either that the worker qualifies, or, provided that his current employment contract is maintained, he will qualify"—not "he might qualify". I am not sure that, in the interests of trying to be fair, the Minister has chosen the right wording. I wonder if he might reflect on the point.
          Mr. McCartney: I have been reflecting on what the hon. Gentleman has said and I disagree with him. I know that that was a pretty quick reflection, but we debated at great length in Committee the importance of the principle of protecting people from being detrimentally affected during employment when they are entitled to the minimum wage, and of preventing an employer from sacking an employee who is coming up to the qualifying age for the minimum wage.
          In the interim between Royal Assent and the application of the minimum wage, an employer should not be able to dismiss an employee or affect him or her
          274
          detrimentally. The word "might" is not imprecise. It relates to the period leading up to when people might qualify for the minimum wage and should be protected from an employer seeking to sack them to avoid paying the minimum wage. That would not be acceptable. We are being precise.
          Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I agree that in relation to the transitional period the use of the word "might" could be seen as precise. My hon. Friend was pointing out that, once the transitional period is over, the word becomes rather imprecise. Would it not have been better to deal with the problem by putting a specific transitional provision in the Bill?
          Mr. McCartney: We could go round the houses on that. I think that we shall just have to disagree. I have made our reasons clear. The provision is for the transitional period leading up to the full implementation of the minimum wage. It will remove the loophole that would allow someone to be sacked on the basis that he might qualify for the minimum wage.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 17, line 2, after ("by") insert
          (", or by virtue of, any provision of')
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 20, Lords amendment No. 25, Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 28 and 34.
          Mr. McCartney: Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are tidying up amendments aimed at ensuring consistency and correctness of drafting. Clause 23 protects workers against a detrimental action for asserting their right under the Bill. Amendment No. 19 adds the words "by virtue of in subsection (3)(a) to ensure that the rights to which the protection provided by the clause applies include rights conferred by other legislation that applies for minimum wage purposes by virtue of the Bill—for example, the legislation covering the agricultural wages regimes or regulations made under the Bill—as well as rights conferred directly by the Bill.
          I hope that hon. Members will not feel short-changed by my shortened version of the reasons behind the amendments and will accept them as minor technical amendments.
          Mr. Boswell: I rise not in retaliation for the Minister's foreshortening of his explanation, but to seek an explanation on amendment No. 25. I fear that 1 am ignorant of the nicer points of the arrangements for Orders in Council and drafting. Clause 42(3) provides that
          "An Order in Council under this section—
          (a) may make different provision for different cases".
          The Minister has vehemently resisted the thoughtful provision inserted in another place for some general powers of exclusion, which we debated earlier. We are now dealing with a more precise shrinking of his area of

          275
          discretion by not allowing an Order in Council—in the context of offshore employment—to make different provision for different cases.
          The only conclusion that I can produce by way of explanation is that Orders in Council probably cannot make provision for different cases—or, to put it another way, if the cases differ, differing Orders in Council need to be made for them. As I am puzzled on that score, it would be helpful if the Minister would clarify what is going on.
          Mr. McCartney: I shall assist the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about the effect of clause 42(3), which provides that
          "An Order in Council under this section"—
          applying to offshore workers
          "(a) may make different provision for different cases".
          Counsel has pointed out that that is unnecessary because clause 51(1) provides that
          "any power conferred by this Act to make an Order in Council … includes power … to make different provision for different cases".
          We are therefore deleting paragraph (a) of clause 42(3), thus removing a duplication. I apologise for including such a duplication in the first place, but now we are taking it away. Better late than never.
          10.15 pm
          Mr. Hammond: Can the Minister turn his attention to Lords amendment No. 28 and explain why it is proposed to leave out the words "in writing"? It seems to me normal that a Secretary of State would give notice in writing, and I cannot envisage a situation in which he or she would want to give notice other than in writing.
          Mr. McCartney rose—
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister replies, may I suggest that hon. Gentlemen should allow the Minister to finish a reply before rising to their feet. It is tidier and gives a better flow to what is said.
          Mr. McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman has raised an issue not covered by the amendments. However, in the interests of people who are following the Bill, I shall read what he has said in Hansard, reflect on it and write to the hon. Gentleman.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 20 to 22 agreed to.
          Lords amendment: No. 23, in page 20, line 30, at end insert—
          ("(6) The Department of Economic Development may by order repeal subsection (5) above and this subsection.")
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 36.
          Mr. McCartney: I hope that we can deal with the group quickly. The purpose of these highly technical amendments is to reflect changes in the treatment of dismissal procedure agreements made by the Employment
          276
          Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 as they affect the protection of employees in Northern Ireland against unfair dismissal for asserting their rights under the Bill.
          Lords amendment No. 23 provides a power, in a new subsection (6) of clause 26, for the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland to make an order to repeal subsection (5), as well as the new subsection (6) itself. That will ensure that employees in Northern Ireland are protected against unfair dismissal for asserting their rights under the Bill.
          Mr. Boswell: Why does giving a Government Department power to repeal a piece of legislation help to safeguard employment rights? Given that the legislation in question is supposed to protect employment rights, a power to take them away seems a little odd. I am sure that there is a legitimate explanation, but I should like to hear it.
          Mr. McCartney: All that we are doing is keeping consistency throughout the Bill as it relates to other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman knows about the special nature of Northern Ireland, and the amendment takes account of that—no more, no less.
          Lords amendment agreed to.

        Clause 38

          HOUSE OF LORDS STAFF
          Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 25, line 17, leave out ("contract of employment") and insert ("worker's contract")
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Amendment No. 24 relates to clause 38, which applies the Bill to staff of the House. Before the amendment, clause 38 applied only to such staff who are employees—staff with a contract of employment with the Corporate Officer of the House.
          I should say at the outset that the amendment has the same effect as a similar amendment tabled by the Opposition in another place, but then withdrawn. Both amendments reflect concern raised by some Opposition Members during consideration of the clause in Committee. I have no hesitation in acknowledging that fact—it is nice to welcome, and act on, constructive comments when we receive them.
          The clause was originally drafted to reflect the current reality, confirmed by the House authorities, that all staff in the other place have employment contracts. However, partly in the light of the views expressed in another place, the Government have reflected further on the clause. In particular, it was considered preferable to treat staff of both Houses equally. It was also considered wiser to ensure that the law not only reflects the current reality, but is capable of being applied to any reasonably likely future arrangements.
          I ask the House to support the amendment. I hope that Conservative Members will agree that this is a classic case of great minds thinking alike.
          Mr. Boswell: I am always a consensus person, so we are happy to agree with the Minister. We are glad that the point was spotted and we believe that the outcome is good.

          277
          I have only one concern, which I am sure has arisen simply because of a slip of the tongue by the Minister. As I understand the matter, the amendment relates solely to clause 38, which concerns the staff in another place. Clause 39 applies the same provisions to staff in the House of Commons. We do not like the Bill, but it is clearly important that the provisions should apply fairly.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendment No. 25 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 agreed to.

        Schedule 1

          THE LOW PAY COMMISSION
          Lords amendment: No. 29, in page 36, leave out line 26.
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I beg to move, That this House does agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
          Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 30 and 31.
          Mr. McCartney: The House will be pleased to know that this is the last time this evening that I shall get on my feet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I now want officially to announce that I am on my feet.
          These drafting amendments are designed to avoid wording that some may regard as offensive. Paragraph 1 of schedule 1 relates to membership of the Low Pay Commission. Paragraph 1(6)(b), unamended, permitted the Secretary of State to dismiss a commission member who was
          "incapacitated by physical or mental illness".
          On further reflection, I believe that that formulation is best avoided. Instead, the three linked amendments achieve the result that was originally intended—that the Secretary of State can terminate the duties of any member of the commission who, for whatever reason, is unable to carry out his or her functions as a member. I trust that the House will support the amendments.
          Mr. Boswell: This is positively my last response. I agree with the Minister's intentions, but I have a slight reservation about their implications, which may go further than he wanted. The amendments will mean that the objective test of physical or mental illness becomes a subjective test in the hands or opinion of the Secretary of State.
          I realise that the Secretary of State—who now honours us with his presence—will want to act, as ever, reasonably and sensitively. If a commissioner were to be so incapacitated, I am sure that he would want to handle the case properly. I make that point merely because we should consider the detail of the Bill. There is a slight change in the burden of proof, and we should pause for thought on that point. At this stage of the proceedings, however—I hope that the Minister and his hon. Friends will not be disappointed—I am not disposed to test the will of the House with a Division.
          278
          The Minister has promised not to speak again, and it may be that he will not respond to what I shall now say. It would, however, be churlish of me not to conclude by thanking the Low Pay Commission and the Minister, appropriately given that we are discussing mental capacity. I have not previously had an opportunity to thank the commission for reasons that the Minister will appreciate. Indeed, we have occasionally complained about it. We do not like the context of the Bill, and we do not like the Bill itself, but we pay tribute, as has the Minister, to the commission's work. It will no doubt continue to work in future to monitor the Bill.
          Secondly, when the Minister moved tonight from the class war that he fought before dinner to the conciliatory tones in which he responded to our probing of the amendments later in the evening, he showed that he has on his modest shoulders a sure head. He also, occasionally, has some sensitivity for the concerns of the Opposition, and we thank him for that.
          Mr. Chidgey: I, too, wish the Minister well after the way in which he has conducted the Bill. He has—almost invariably—been courteous, has never gone off the point and has certainly been industrious. He knows of our reservations about the Bill. He has always listened to them, even when he has not accepted them. He knows that we want to see the Bill pass safely through Parliament. We look forward to engaging him again in debate when the Low Pay Commission arises under secondary legislation. I congratulate him on a job well done.
          Mr. Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind remarks. I am not so sure that I am a pussy cat. My new Secretary of State has already nicknamed me Joe Pesci. I accept the hon. Gentleman's points.
          In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I must say that I was precise in the words that I used. The record will show the Government's clear intention to provide non-offensive wording to deal with circumstances that can sometimes be difficult. I am certain that if those circumstances arise—I hope that they do not—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will deal sensitively with the cases.
          I must also say hallelujah, hallelujah to the hon. Gentleman. To hear someone from the Conservative Benches at last acknowledging the tremendous work of the Low Pay Commission is very welcome. I note that the shadow Secretary of State could not bear to be here to hear those words. However, I am sure that he will read them tomorrow. We intend to ensure that the commission plays an effective role in the management of our legislative programme.
          I thank the hon. Member for Daventry for his kind words, but they will not help him if he makes a late application to join the commission. The Secretary of State is not quite ready to bend over so far as to allow the hon. Gentleman to be a member. However, I thank him for his kind remarks about me.
          The Bill's progress has taken a long 12 months. 1 am deeply proud that a Labour Government have made so much effort to tackle at last the issue of poverty pay in Britain. I am proud, too, that I, a former low-paid worker, was given the opportunity to do that. Whatever else happens to me in politics, nothing will beat this moment,

          279
          at which I sit down in the certain knowledge that the National Minimum Wage Bill will become an Act.
          Lords amendment agreed to.
          Lords amendments Nos. 30 to 36 agreed to.
          Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Clive Betts, Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. Tim Collins, Mr. Frank Doran and Mr. Ian McCartney; Mr. Ian McCartney to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.— [Mr. Betts.]
          To withdraw immediately.
          Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

    PETITION

      Mr. Nick Centi
      10.30 pm>
      Ms Beverley Hughes: This is a petition from the family and friends of Mr. Nick Centi, the residents of my constituency and people in the wider locality around Manchester city centre. It concerns the brutal murder of Mr. Centi, an innocent young man who stopped to assist during an argument in the city centre. He was attempting to be a peacemaker, but was killed in a mindless incident of unprovoked violence, which the petitioners believe is all too common in our city centre. So far, 720 people have signed the petition, which reads:
      The petitioners therefore request that the Secretary of State for the Home Department brings forward measures to improve the safety of city centres, strong action against those who commit violence on the streets, and tougher laws against violent crime.
      To lie upon the Table.

      Lloyd's Insurance Market
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
      10.31
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise the important subject of the regulation of Lloyd's insurance market. I welcome the new Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) to her position. I hope that she will have a successful term of office, and that she has received the information that I gave her predecessor and is therefore aware of the issues that I shall raise, as that will make for a more informed debate.
      It is estimated that 30 per cent. of the entire capacity of the Lloyd's insurance market is controlled by offshore-domiciled companies, mostly based in Bermuda. Within a year, that could rise to a staggering figure of more than 50 per cent. I shall explore the far-reaching consequences of that rapid trend for the entire future of Lloyd's.
      Mr. Stephen Walton, who was then in the Lloyd's directorate of the Department of Trade and Industry, said in an excellent wide-ranging article on Lloyd's in the spring 1997 edition of the "Financial Stability Review":
      "Regulations need to ensure that the policy holder protection arrangements at Lloyd's are fully effective, that the regulation system of capital provision works effectively and that the market as a whole, is seen to be a fair and a clean place to do business."
      So perceptive and accurate was Mr. Walton that he was rapidly moved onwards and upwards to a new post in the Treasury.
      Between 1988 and 1992, Lloyd's lost a staggering £8 billion. More than 30,000 names were disastrously affected, many being stripped of almost all their financial assets, including their homes. However, the majority were given a liferaft by the huge £11 billion rescue—the 1996 reconstruction and renewal reinsurance policy into Equitas Reinsurance.
      However, it is increasingly beginning to emerge that names may have been fraudulently enticed into Lloyd's in the late 1980s, when a handful of senior Lloyd's underwriters certainly already knew of the serious long-tail environmental claims, including asbestosis in America. Problems were later compounded by the LMX spiral of multiple reinsurance of the same business. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who have been working on the detail of that problem.
      There are also queries about whether the DTI, which was the regulator at that time, and the insurance directorate ever received written confirmation of the relevant Lloyd's resolution relating to the creation of Equitas. If it did not, how could the Government have had sufficient information to be able to say with confidence in the DTI press release on 4 September 1996:
      "adequate provisions have been made against current and possible future claims and that the minimum solvency margin that was required has been met"?

      281
      How could they have said that when they did not know which names had unconditionally accepted the reconstruction and renewal?
      It is against that background that I want to raise the current trends in the Lloyd's insurance market. As a result of the enormous losses to which I have already referred, in 1994 the council of Lloyd's voted to admit corporate capital. That was on the understanding that it would be done on a spread vehicle basis, which means underwriting over a number of syndicates. That was done without consultation with the members of the society.
      The Lloyd's council amended the rules again, so that those with corporate capital can now form themselves into integrated Lloyd's vehicles, buying up capacity on individual syndicates, which is then not available to the current annual venture Lloyd's names. That has caused concern in some quarters that the end of the individual annual venture Lloyd's name is in sight. Indeed, that was presaged by Max Taylor, the chairman of Lloyd's, who said in the Financial Times of 20 June:
      "over time the current annual venture form of participation will become a minority part of the whole Lloyds Market…and those must expect to bear the costs associated with that form of trading."
      The objective of the Lloyd's council, enshrined in successive Lloyd's Acts from 1870 to 1982, is the advancement and protection of the interests of members, who were at all times understood by Parliament to be individuals participating on an annual venture basis in the Lloyd's subscription market. The whole structure of regulation of Lloyd's is on that basis
      Charles Sturge, the editor of Lloyd's league table, is quoted in Post Magazine and Insurance Week on 11 June as saying:
      "Lloyd's is the best regulated market in the world but once the Names have gone the structure will disappear and it will be turned into a host of mini insurance companies".
      That is the fundamental thrust of my speech.
      Parliament passed the Lloyd's Acts to allow individual participation in the world's leading insurance market. Now there is a major risk that, next year, 50 per cent. of all Lloyd's capacity will be controlled by overseas-domiciled companies mostly based in Bermuda. A further proportion of the capacity—between 5 and 30 per cent.—will be controlled by UK-integrated Lloyd's vehicles.
      If those two predictions are correct, as seems likely, what is to prevent those companies, which will cease to derive any benefit from an overly costly Lloyd's structure, from demanding that Lloyd's council dissolves itself and the society, and redistributes the new Lloyd's central fund, which currently amounts to £144,238,000, to the current underwriting members—or, more likely, ending its support for the central fund altogether?
      If that happened, further far-reaching consequences would follow. The joint American trust fund, on which "finality" in the reconstruction and renewal scheme depends, could be withdrawn. That possibility alarms all the 30,000 names who were reinsured into Equitas, and it may well alarm the long-tail policyholders, who may expect to rely on their policies in the United States, and hence the United States insurance regulators.
      Importantly, the Treasury, not the Department of Trade and Industry, now has responsibility for regulating Lloyd's under the Lloyd's Act 1982 and the Insurance
      282
      Companies Act 1982. In the circumstances that I have described, where the control of Lloyd's would pass outside the jurisdiction of this country to a number of large offshore insurance companies, which may be interested not in Lloyd's licences or the mutual society, but only in buying books cheaply, UK plc would lose its balance of payments advantages and, importantly, suffer reductions in receipts from corporate, income and capital gains taxes.
      On 22 January 1998, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell), in a revealing speech to the Life Insurance Association conference, said on the one hand:
      "These arrangements will continue to allow scope for a major role by the Council of Lloyd's in ensuring that Lloyd's continues to be well-regulated.
      However, she must have considered that that was improbable, because she continued on the other hand:
      "Policies underwritten at Lloyd's should enjoy the benefits of the same kind of supervisory regime as those with policies issued by other insurers … I intend that the Financial Services Act will have … much more extensive supervisory powers in relation to Lloyd's … enhancing powers of intervention … authorisation of managing agents … direct authorisation and supervision of the Members … capacity auctions will be overseen."
      In other words, she had in mind a very tough regulatory regime, which she would have had in mind only if she did not believe that the current self-regulation of Lloyd's was working properly.
      The comments by the then Economic Secretary sit oddly at variance with today's announcement of the closing of the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, without the announcement of any statutory replacement. That is one of the most important things that I shall say tonight. We have just had the publication of the Financial Services Bill, a huge Bill extending to more than 250 clauses. It is unlikely, therefore, that the Bill will be passed into law for at least a year. By that time, it may well be too late—the Society of Lloyd's, as such, may by then be sliding into oblivion, along with the protection of past and present names and corporate capital. In the regulatory vacuum, many agents will make fortunes at the expense of their principals.
      My crucial question to the Minister tonight is: in the vacuum before the Financial Services Act comes into force, should not urgent action be taken to protect the future of the Society of Lloyd's, and to address the balance of advantage between past and present individual names in relation to the dedicated corporate capital increasingly being employed at Lloyd's?
      I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that those are serious, profound and far-reaching issues, which will affect not only the regulation of Lloyd's and the Society of Lloyd's but the insurance market in the City of London, and which will have further knock-on effects. I hope that she will be able to give me some interesting answers tonight. I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
      10.43 pm
      The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): 1 thank the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for his kind remarks and his welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. I also thank him for raising this extremely important issue in the House tonight, and I congratulate him on his success in obtaining

      283
      the debate. I am especially grateful to him for giving me notice of the points that he wished to raise; that is especially helpful to a new Minister. I appear to be the first new Minister in the current round of Government changes to speak in an Adjournment debate.
      I also take this opportunity to pay a very warm tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell). She was, if I may coin a phrase, tough on pension mis-selling and tough on the causes of pension mis-selling. I shall follow her excellent example. I wish her well—as do all my hon. Friends—in her new portfolio.
      I turn to the extremely important issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Reform of the regulation of Lloyd's is long overdue. Lloyd's itself has recognised the need for stronger independent oversight, and the Government announced in January their proposals to provide that oversight through the new Financial Services Authority. Those proposals, like the rest of our reforms, will create a modern and flexible system of independent statutory regulation, capable of coping with the radical changes that will affect all financial markets. We will publish the financial services legislation, in draft, later this week and consult extensively on that draft legislation. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will wish to comment during that consultation period. The hon. Gentleman referred to Stephen Walton, who is now a member of the team that has been preparing that legislation.
      As hon. Members will know, for most of its long history, Lloyd's has been a successful part of this country's financial services industry, making an important contribution to the economy and the balance of payments. Indeed, only a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting Eric Harnmouthe and his colleagues at a very helpful briefing that was arranged for relatively new Members of Parliament to inform us about the Lloyd's position. I was obviously not aware then that I would be rising to respond to this Adjournment debate so soon after that briefing.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Lloyd's was hit by an unprecedented financial crisis, suffering losses of £8 billion between 1988 and 1992. The causes of that crisis have been well analysed. They were primarily a combination of both natural and man-made disasters, but they were certainly exacerbated by some bad underwriting decisions and practices. I am aware that some names have made allegations of fraud. The Serious Fraud Office has reviewed very substantial amounts of material put forward by those names, and has found no evidence to support their allegations. If the hon. Gentleman or other hon. Members have any new evidence, I shall of course be happy to pass it on. I am conscious of the fact that many names were hit very hard. The vast majority shouldered their losses honourably, and I am pleased to say that the legitimate claims of policyholders have continued to be met in full.
      Lloyd's responded to the disastrous losses with its reconstruction and renewal plan, which involved the creation of a new insurer, Equitas, to reinsure the old liabilities. Equitas's provisions for future claims were set after a massive exercise by consulting actuaries, and this was reviewed in detail by the Government Actuary's Department before Equitas was authorised to begin operations. Nothing has happened since then to suggest that the provisions were inadequate; nor does the funding
      284
      of Equitas depend on any annual contribution from Lloyd's. In the almost two years since it began operations, Equitas has made extremely encouraging progress—although of course there is still a long way to go.
      Since reconstruction and renewal, Lloyd's has shown considerable vigour in returning to profitability and renewed financial strength, as shown by the ratings that it has received from major independent agencies. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that has been accompanied by some quite profound changes at Lloyd's. Corporate capital has been admitted, and now accounts for 60 per cent. of Lloyd's capacity. Some of that represents names converting to trade with limited liability, but some is from overseas, including the major insurance centres of the United States of America and Bermuda.
      The involvement of overseas capital providers with Lloyd's is testimony to the continued strengths of the market and there is every sign that they wish to maintain and develop those strengths. One strength of the Lloyd's market is the common security for all Lloyd's policies that is underpinned by the central fund. The council of Lloyd's has reaffirmed its commitment to common security, which is the basis for the system of licences that Lloyd's holds to trade in world markets.
      As hon. Members will know, Lloyd's has been largely self-regulating under the Lloyd's Acts. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Treasury supervises its solvency under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, but less extensively than for insurance companies. Nevertheless, one requirement of that Act is that all premiums have to be paid into trust funds, with deeds approved by the Treasury. There is no question of the joint asset trust fund, or any other trust fund, being wound up without the Treasury's approval, and I can confirm that no such proposal has been made to us.
      Since the crisis, Lloyd's has greatly improved its own regulation, which today is generally acknowledged to be in good shape, but we need to ensure that that standard is maintained. More fundamentally, we need to build a modern system of regulation, with proper statutory oversight, capable of responding to whatever future lies ahead. Regulation must be one step ahead of change, not one step behind, and Lloyd's, like the Government, believes that businesses that are well regulated, and seen to be so, will be in a better position to compete in global markets.
      The first priority of all insurance regulation is the protection of policyholders. As the Government announced in January, we believe that holders of policies written at Lloyd's should enjoy the benefits of the same kind of supervisory regime as those with policies issued by other insurers. That is why we intend to give the FSA much more extensive prudential supervision powers over Lloyd's. Those will be more like the powers that it will have for insurance companies, including checks on key individuals and comparable powers of intervention and discipline. They will also include a requirement for FSA authorisation of managing agents, the people who are responsible for running underwriting syndicates. We also intend that the FSA should be able to authorise and regulate Lloyd's members direct, if it considers that necessary in the future.
      Those powers are intended to give the FSA flexibility to cope with whatever may be the future shape of Lloyd's in a rapidly changing global financial services

      285
      marketplace. If Lloyd's were ever to become simply a group of insurance companies, with no common security, each one could be regulated like a normal insurance company—something with which all insurance regulators are familiar. If a diverse market continues, with common security, that will be reflected in its regulation. Whatever happens, we are determined that the security of policyholders should not be compromised.
      I come now to capital providers. Members' agents advise members of Lloyd's in which syndicates they should participate. Their activity—advising names and potential names—is very like that of financial advisers, and we therefore propose that they should be authorised and regulated by the FSA. That will give increased protection to members of Lloyd's, some of whom have suffered from bad advice in the past.
      Of course, the main risk to members is the risk to which they are exposed through the contracts of insurance which they underwrite. The enhanced prudential supervision arrangements which I mentioned should help to reduce those risks, but insurance is inherently about risk, and those who choose to trade in it must accept that. We do not intend to provide protection against underwriting losses, over and above that needed to give security to policyholders.
      r. Clifton-Brown: The thrust of my whole speech was that the time lapse between now and when the FSA comes into operation could be a year or more. Meanwhile, matters need to be investigated under the present regulatory regime. Will the Minister undertake to have a thorough look at all the issues that I have raised this evening? Will she assure us, in particular, that if an application is made to wind up the society of Lloyd's, the Government will not allow the joint American trust fund to be wound up until the names under reconstruction and renewal have been properly and adequately considered?
      s Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to deal with his point about the transition period before the new Act comes into effect. My officials and the FSA are already in active discussion with Lloyd's about how the new regime will work and how the transition should be managed. All those concerned are aware of the danger that regulatory attention might slip in the transition period, and will work closely together to ensure that that does not happen. I shall happily undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail on the points that he raised. Clearly, if a proposal were made to wind up the joint trust fund, we would have to look at it, but, as I said, no such proposal has been made.
      I should like to say something about capacity auctions, in which the hon. Gentleman is interested. Participation in a syndicate recently moved from being a privilege to a right, with the result that a market has developed in trading capacity on different syndicates. That market currently operates through a series of auctions run by the corporation of Lloyd's. In some
      286
      ways, that market is similar to markets regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986, and I propose that the FSA should have new powers Over Lloyd's.
      Questions have been raised recently about whether advice given to names wishing to sell their capacity in the auctions has been wholly impartial and in the best interests of names. I am reassured to see that Lloyd's own regulatory division has taken up the issue and reminded agents of their duties and obligations in giving best advice and avoiding conflicts of interest.
      An important feature of the Lloyd's market is the part played by the Lloyd's broker, who acts on behalf of a client in helping to obtain insurance. I should like to touch briefly on insurance broker regulation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned today's decision on the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, which was set up by the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977. As he knows, we have consulted the industry, Lloyd's and the IBRC on whether there is a continuing need for that form of regulation. He will see from the draft Bill that we are building on the consensus that has been arrived at that, although the IBRC has provided a valuable service in the past, circumstances have changed and regulation needs to change to reflect that and to build on the IBRC's work.
      The arrangements that I have described, which will be set out in detail in the draft Bill, will continue to allow scope for a major role for the council of Lloyd's in ensuring that Lloyd's continues to be a well-regulated, successful and important part of the UK's financial services industry. That industry is an important part of wealth creation, and we are determined, through effective, flexible and modern regulation, to ensure that Britain's financial services industry, particularly the City of London, remains pre-eminent within the rapidly changing global market.
      Mr. Clifton-Brown: If more than 50 per cent. of underwriting capacity is controlled by offshore, Bermuda-based companies, how can the Minister be so confident that she will be able to regulate and maintain the Lloyd's market in London?
      Ms Hewitt: It is not for the Government to tell Lloyd's, or any other business, how it should raise capital. Our responsibility, which we take extremely seriously, is to ensure that there is good regulation which provides proper security for policyholders and advice of an appropriate quality for capital providers.
      As the hon. Gentleman said, the financial services marketplace is global and changing rapidly. I hope that it is not the policy of the official Opposition that we should venture into some kind of protectionism in financial services or any other industry.
      Mr. John Burnett: On behalf of Liberal Democrat Members, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment. I am diverting the question slightly, but, in hindsight, would the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) have chosen to be a Lloyd's name with limited or unlimited liability?
      Ms Hewitt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, but his question should be addressed to the hon. Member for Cotswold. Happily, it is not an issue on which the Government have to advise him.
      The arrangements that I have set out, which we shall implement through the Act after consultation with Lloyd's, will ensure the strong and successful regulation of Lloyd's. In that regulation, we shall reflect the special role of the council of Lloyd's in controlling the affairs of the society and the powers available to it in doing so.
      288
      My officials, and their colleagues in the FSA, are in active discussion with Lloyd's about how those arrangements will be operated in practice to deliver strong and cost-effective regulation. As a Government, we are committed to reform—
      The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
      Adjourned at one minute past Eleven 0'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of women subjected to domestic violence in Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [52247]

  Mr. Michael
  Recorded crime statistics relate to offence type, not to the relationship between the victim and the offender. There are therefore no overall statistics for the number of violent crimes which are domestic in nature across the United Kingdom.

  Currently, the most reliable nation-wide estimate is provided by the British Crime Survey (BCS). This suggested that in 1995 there were one million incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales. The BCS sample size does not permit a reliable estimate of the number for Wales alone.

  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of pilot schemes based on the Duluth model for dealing with domestic violence; and if a timetable has been set for reporting on the outcome of such pilot schemes. [52229]

  Mr. Michael
  The Duluth model for dealing with domestic violence provides a range of measures for addressing the issue and promotes a co-ordinated response from the interested agencies. We recognise the success achieved by this approach in the United States of America and welcome initiatives such as that in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham where the local Domestic Violence Forum is planning a pilot of the model. It is for the forum to decide how to report on the outcome of this work, but I would certainly read any report with interest.

  Wrongful Convictions
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people whose convictions have been quashed over each of the last five years have(a) applied for and (b) received compensation. [52096]

  Mr. Michael
  Applications for compensation may be made by persons whose convictions have been quashed, but may also be made by persons who have spent time in custody following a criminal charge which is subsequently withdrawn or of which they are acquitted at trial. Information relating to the number of applications made is not available in respect of the full period requested. The information available (which does not 100
  distinguish between applications which arose from the reversal of a conviction and those which did not) is as follows:

  Applications

  Decisions in principle to pay compensation

  1993

  —

  9

  1994

  —

  155

  1995

  —

  139

  1996

  102

  25

  1997

  111

  20

  1Figures include cases stemming from the quashing of a high number of drink-driving convictions in Greater Manchester, following the discovery that swabs contaminated with alcohol had been used to take blood samples for analysis

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been paid during each of the last five years in compensation to persons wrongly convicted; and what was(a) the highest, (b) the lowest and (c) the average sum awarded. [52099]

  Mr. Michael
  The total amount paid in compensation to persons who have been wrongly convicted or charged for each of the last five financial years is as follows:

  £million

  1993–94

  1.506

  1994–95

  1.543

  1995–96

  1.549

  1996–97

  2.701

  1997–98

  6.652

  In the past, no central record has been maintained of the amount of compensation awarded in individual cases so that information concerning the highest, the lowest and the average sum awarded is not available. Arrangements have now been put in place for the information to be collected in future.

  In the past, records have been kept of the number of cases each year where a decision in principle to pay compensation is taken, but the administrative procedures involved in determining the amount of an award and the time taken to complete them are such that there is little, if any, correlation between the number of decisions in principle and the total amount awarded in any given year. The Home Office still awaits the receipt of claims in some cases where a decision in principle to pay compensation was taken as long ago as 1991. Moreover, the total awarded in any given year will include interim payments made in cases where the final amount of the award has yet to be determined. Consequently, it would be misleading to calculate the average sum awarded by dividing the total amount awarded or paid in any year by the number of decisions in principle taken in the same year.

  I have placed copies of a general guide to compensation for wrongful conviction and supporting papers in the Library.

  Young People (National Recognition)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the advantages and
  101
  disadvantages of introducing a central system of national recognition for young people; and what plans he has to introduce such a system. [52095]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The benefits and disadvantages of various national identity card schemes were discussed in the 1995 Green Paper "Identity Cards: A consultation document" (CM 2879) and the 1996 Home Affairs Committee Fourth Report on Identity Cards (HC 172). We are considering the options, but have no current plans for such a scheme, either generally or for particular age groups.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify the oldest(a) man and (b) woman, now held in prison in England and Wales; for how long they have been in prison; and for what offence were they convicted. [52296]

  Ms Quin
  As at 30 June 1998, the oldest male held in a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales was aged 87. He has currently served 28 months of his sentence after having been convicted of rape. The oldest woman was a 71 year old who has been in prison for 15 months following a conviction for cruelty to children.

  Prisons (Drug-free Wings)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons that have drug-free wings. [52295]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to providing access to voluntary testing for all prisoners wishing to prove they are drug-free.

  Prisoners in the following establishments currently have access in varying degrees to voluntary testing:

  Altcourse

  Ashwell

  Aylesbury

  Blakenhurst

  Blantyre House

  Blundeston

  Bristol

  Brixton

  Bullingdon

  Channings Wood

  Chelmsford

  Coldingley

  Dartmoor

  Doncaster

  Dorchester

  Downview

  Drake Hall

  Elmley

  Erlestoke

  Everthorpe

  Featherstone

  Feltham

  Foston Hall

  Frankland

  Gartree

  102

  Glen Parva

  Grendon

  Guys Marsh

  Highdown

  Highpoint

  Holloway

  Holme House

  Hull

  Kirklevington Grange

  Latchmere House

  Leicester

  Lewes

  Lindholme

  Lowdham Grange

  Manchester

  The Mount

  North Sea Camp

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Parkhurst

  Pentonville

  Portland

  Ranby

  Risley

  Stafford

  Stocken

  Styal

  Swaleside

  Swansea

  Swinfen Hall

  The Verne

  Wandsworth

  Wayland

  Wealstun

  Weare

  Wellingborough

  Whatton

  Whitemoor

  Wormwood Scrubs.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria are used to determine the order of priority for cases referred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [51479]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: In determining the priority of the applications it receives, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) takes into account the date of receipt and such factors as the age and health of the applicant and witnesses to the case; any evidential or operational considerations; whether or not the applicant is in custody, and the impact of the case on public confidence in the criminal justice system. The weight attached to each of these criteria will vary case to case. The decision in each case is an operational matter for the CCRC.
  103
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total number of cases referred to date to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [51482]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Cases reach the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) when an application is made to the Commission by, or on behalf of, an individual who claims that he or she has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. In addition, some 284 cases which were pending when the CCRC was set up have been transferred to the Commission by the Home Office. The total number in both categories is now slightly over 1,700.

  Police Authorities (East Midlands)
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the per capita expenditure by the police authorities in East Midlands. [53079]

  Mr. Michael
  Information about police expenditure per head of population is published by the Audit Commission in their reports "Local Authority Performance Indicators". The most recent of these reports is for expenditure in 1996–97 and was published in January 1998. The per capita spend for police forces in the East Midlands is set out in the table.

  Force

  Expenditure(£) per head of population 1996–97

  Derbyshire

  94.12

  Leicestershire

  100.98

  Lincolnshire

  100.19

  Northamptonshire

  98.74

  Nottinghamshire

  107.65

  National average (England and Wales)

  109.11

  Pepper Sprays
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) on how many occasions in the last year, police forces have used pepper sprays; [52464]

  (2) what guidance is issued to police officers in respect of the use of pepper spray at close quarters. [52463]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Police officers in England and Wales do not carry pepper sprays, and no guidance has been issued to them on the subject.

  Either-way Cases (Defendants)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the consultation paper on the question of whether defendants in either-way cases should continue to be able to elect Crown Court trial. [53552]

  Mr. Straw
  In the consultation exercise on the report of the Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System last year, the responses to its recommendation that defendants in either-way should no longer be able to 104
  decide to elect Crown Court trial demonstrated sufficient support to warrant further consideration. I therefore announced that the Government would look at the proposal in longer time with a view to publishing a separate consultation paper on it.

  I am publishing such a paper today. It describes the current arrangements whereby defendants can be tried summarily for indictable offences only with their consent, and discusses two possible options for change: the abolition of election, as recommended by both the Review of Delay and the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, and reclassification of minor theft, which is often put forward as an alternative. The paper is concerned not with the merits of jury trial, but only with whether defendants should be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. In forming a view on this question, the Government will take account of responses to the paper, which are invited by the end of September.

  Women's Prisons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of women who entered prison as non-users of illegal drugs and left as users in each of the last three years. [53107]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The report of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs published in 1996 found that, although some misusers take drugs for the first time inside prison, the numbers leaving prison who misuse drugs is lower than the numbers entering.

  No study has been conducted specifically concerning women prisoners.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the support infrastructure in women's prisons in cases where probation departments have been reduced. [53106]

  Ms Quin
  It is for individual governors to decide on the appropriate level of provision to meet the needs of the establishment and to enter into a contract with the local probation service to provide the necessary staff. Probation departments form one part of a multi-disciplinary team, and the needs of prisoners and the development of the regime will be the governor's main consideration in making any changes in the team. Over the last two years, most women's prisons have in fact increased their probation departments.

  The Prisons and Probation review is looking at ways of improving working and contact between the two services, and the Prison Service's Assistant Director for Women is responsible for developing women's regimes.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52931]
  105
  Mr. Straw
  The following Compliance Cost Assessments (recently renamed Regulatory Impact Assessments) were published by the Home Office between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998:

  Date

  Title

  July 1997

  The Fire Precautions (Workplace) Regulations 1997

  August 1997

  The Police and Firemen's Pension Act 1997; the Firemen's Pensions (Provision of Information) Regulations 1997; and the Police Pensions (Provision of Information) Regulations 1997

  September 1997

  The Lotteries (Gaming Board Fees) Order 1997

  October 1997

  The Licensing Fees (Variation) Order 1997

  January 1998

  The Data Protection Bill

  January 1998

  The Deregulation (Licence Transfers) Order 1998; The Licensing (Fees) Amendment Order 1998

  March 1998

  The Gambling (Bingo) Fees (Amendment) Order 1998; The Lotteries (Gaming Board Fees) Order 1998; The Gaming Act (Variation of Fees) Order 1998

  June 1998

  The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52973]

  Mr. Straw
  The following compliance cost assessments published between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 show a net estimated reduction in compliance costs totaling £4 million per annum:

  The Deregulation (Licence Transfers) Order 1998

  The Licensing (Fees) Amendment Order 1998.

  There is at present no requirement on Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or result in a saving to business.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52932]

  Mr. Straw
  The cumulative net increase in compliance costs estimated compliance cost assessments published by the Home Office between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 is as follows:

  Non-recurring costs: £1,179,286,250

  Annually recurring costs: £742,114,500.

  Of this, the compliance costs assessment for the Data Protection Bill shows estimated non-recurring costs of £1,150 million and annually recurring costs of £742 million.

  Visible Policing
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons he has not retained visible policing as a key policy objective. [52795]

  Mr. Michael
  The Government are committed to the effective use of police resources to cut crime and to keep the peace. Our major reforms, set out in the Crime and 106
  Disorder Bill [Lords], will create a new and dynamic partnership, led by the police and the local authority, to cut crime and disorder locally. Police activity can help to promote community safety and reassure the public. However, we also believe that high visibility policing, which is not targeted or intelligence-led, can lead to an inefficient deployment of resources.

  In setting the national objectives for the police for 1998–99, the Home Secretary decided to reflect the Government's top law and order priorities of tackling youth crime and drug-related crime and reducing local problems of crime and disorder through a partnership approach. Tackling crime and disorder has a crucial role to play in promoting community safety and reassuring the public. Where appropriate, high visibility policing will form part of the response to local crime and disorder problems.

  Performance indicators for the police published by the Audit Commission and reported on by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, include public satisfaction with the perceived level of foot and mobile patrol.

  Witness Protection Programmes
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a review of the comparative effectiveness of witness protection programmes in the regional crime squads of England. [52927]

  Mr. Michael
  The regional crime squads amalgamated to form the National Crime Squad on 1 April 1998. The protection of witnesses involved in investigations carried out by the Squad is an operational matter for the Director General of the National Crime Squad.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in order of frequency the 20 towns and cities of residence given by those English football fans(a) arrested, (b) detained and (c) removed from France by the French authorities during the World Cup. [51997]

  Mr. Michael
  Full details of the places of residence of those arrested are not presently available. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as further inquiries to obtain the information are completed.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many football supporters were arrested or detained by police at each football ground for the last three years for which figures are available for the Premiership and each of the Nationwide League clubs. [51998]

  Mr. Michael
  The information on the number of arrests has been collated on a club-by-club basis only since season 1997–98. Collation of these figures is a matter for the Football Unit of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) and it is expected that these figures will be available shortly.
  107
  For previous seasons, the data have been collated by NCIS on a divisional basis and the information for the past three years is as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Premier League

  Attendance (millions)

  11.2

  10.5

  10.8

  Arrests

  1,713

  1,697

  1,759

  Division One

  Attendance (millions)

  6.0

  6.6

  6.9

  Arrests

  1,227

  945

  891

  Division Two

  Attendance (millions)

  3.0

  2.8

  3.2

  Arrests

  674

  506

  626

  Division Three

  Attendance (millions)

  1.6

  2.0

  1.9

  Arrests

  226

  289

  301

  FA Cup

  Attendance (millions)

  2.0

  2.0

  1.9

  Arrests

  914

  549

  509

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of each official English Premiership or Football League supporters clubs were(a) arrested, (b) detained and (c) removed by French authorities during the World Cup. [52000]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on how many of these individuals are members of official English Premiership or Football League Supporters Groups is not available.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many supporters of each participating nation were(a) detained and (b) arrested during Euro 96 in England. [52001]

  Mr. Michael
  The total number of people arrested for football-related offences during Euro '96 was 1,107. The country of origin is as follows:

  Australia: 1

  Croatia: 10

  England: 916

  Ireland: 6

  Mexico: 1

  Norway: 1

  Scotland: 66

  Switzerland: 7

  Wales: 5

  Bulgaria: 1

  Czech Republic: 1

  France: 17

  Italy: 4

  Netherlands: 17

  Romania: 2

  Spain: 2

  Turkey: 7

  Unknown: 10

  Canada: 2

  Denmark: 8

  Germany: 13

  Malta: 2

  108

  New Zealand: 1

  Russia: 4

  Sweden: 1

  United States: 2.

  Mr. Jim Murphy:
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was spent by each league club in England on policing of football grounds (a) on average per game and (b) for each of the last three years for which figures are available. [52004]

  Mr. Michael
  This information is not held centrally. I am placing in the Library copies of the tables, taken from a survey conducted by the Football League Limited, which show comparative policing costs of non-premiership football league clubs in seasons 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  Muslim Women
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines have been issued to Customs officials in respect of the treatment of Muslim women wearing veils. [53080]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Guidance to Customs officials says that, where it is necessary to remove and examine head-dresses, the maximum tact should be exercised where the head-dress is of religious significance. This type of personal search would be conducted by an officer of the same sex as the person to be searched, and would be carried out only where there are reasonable goods to suspect that the person concerned is carrying smuggled goods.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when vehicle inspectors received full guidance on checking procedures under regulations 46, 47 and 48 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986, on seat belt installation standards in vehicles of eight or more passenger seats; when inspectors started checking such seat belt installations; and how many such vehicles have been inspected in line with the regulations since 1 July. [51872]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Monica Newey to Mr. Tom Brake, dated July 1998:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the training given to Vehicle Examiners on seat belt installations, when Examiners started checking seat belt installations, and how many vehicles have been inspected since 1 July.
  Regulations drawing on the provision of section 100(1) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 requiring the inspection of seat belt installations in addition to the mandatory requirements in the annual test for large passenger vehicles (that is with 9 or more passenger seats) come into force on 1 August. All Vehicle Inspectorate Testers and Vehicle Examiners received full guidance on the standards applicable to, and checking procedures for, seat belt installations in large passenger vehicles initially during February and March this year and again in May and June.

  109
  The Vehicle Inspectorate began providing advice on seat belt installation standards on vehicles presented on a voluntary basis from March. Up to the end of June, 722 vehicles had been seen. The number of vehicles seen since 1 July is not yet available.

  Auto LPG and CNG
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the petrol companies to encourage the sale of Auto LPG and CNG in petrol station forecourts. [51862]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers have regular discussions with the oil companies and the use of road fuel gases has featured in several of these. As detailed in my reply on 5 June 1998,Official Report, columns 629–30, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard), steps taken by the Government to encourage the use of gas powered vehicles are significantly reducing their operating costs and making them a viable alternative to conventional petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, which includes representatives from the oil and motor industries as well as Government, is also looking at ways of expanding their use. As a direct result of these initiatives, there are now about 12 CNG refuelling sites in the UK, the numbers of which are expected to increase significantly in the next few years, and one oil company has recently announced plans to establish a network of some 200 LPG sites on forecourts across the UK by 2001.

  South West Trains (Bicycles)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make representations to South West Trains not to reduce the spaces available for passengers' bicycles. [52014]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Franchise Agreements require train operators to make appropriate facilities available on their services for bicycles so far as reasonably practicable and subject to the availability of space; they do not specify particular provisions. We gave the Franchising Director new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance in November last year which require him to discuss bicycle space with franchise operators ordering new rolling stock. I understand that South West Trains have refurbished their existing class 442 Wessex Electric trains. They have allowed five spaces per five car train for bicycles. The Franchising Director has accepted SWT's provision as striking a balance between the needs of bicycle users and other passengers. In his statement on transport policy on 20 July 1998,Official Report, columns 784–88, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced our plans to set up a Strategic Rail Authority which will have stronger powers and seek more demanding standards of performance by train operators.

  Recycled Land
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the use of economic instruments to make it more attractive to develop new housing on recycled land. [52265]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Department has commissioned research from Oxford Brookes University to inform decisions about the possible reform of the planning 110
  obligations system. The research project involves a series of seminars with local planning authorities, the building industry, and others. These seminars have involved discussing some other options and mechanisms which might better meet the Department's objectives including the development of new housing on recycled land. Officials are also working in-house to examine alternative options for using economic instruments to help meet our planning objectives.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into future trends in cohabitation; and how such trends will be taken into account in the next set of household projections. [52263]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's Actuary's Department (GAD) are responsible for producing marital status projections, both for legal marital status and for cohabitation status. GAD' s 1992-based projections of marital status were used to compile the 1992-based household projections. GAD are currently developing 1996-based marital status projections to be used in the next set of household projections. In carrying out the revision to the marital status projections, GAD are consulting a number of other Government departments, including my Department, as well as a number of leading academics.

  The effects of marriage, cohabitation and divorce are inter-related. Data on marriages and divorces are obtained from civil registration and the census. As well as the 1991 Census, data on cohabitation are collected by the General Household Survey, and the Labour Force Survey, both of which are undertaken by the Office for National Statistics. All this information is currently being considered by GAD in its work.

  Aldermaston (Emissions)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued on the protection to be provided to sewage workers at Silchester in respect of emissions from Aldermaston. [52214]

  Angela Eagle
  I am not aware of any guidance specifically relating to Silchester, although Thames Water Utilities Ltd. would be expected to follow general guidance issued by the Health and Safety Executive which was relevant to their employees. The Environment Agency authorises Hunting-BRAE Limited to discharge low level radioactive waste to the sewer. The authorisation is currently being revised and as a normal part of its consideration of this revision the Environment Agency will specifically be considering the potential impact on sewerage workers. Thames Water will be consulted as part of this process.

  Maritime Rescue Services
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the cover offered by the
  111
  Coastguard Maritime Rescue Centre at Liverpool in the event of a major emergency occurring off the Cumbrian Coast. [52224]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Contingency arrangements to deal with major emergencies which affect persons and/or the environment have been in place for many years, around the UK coastline.

  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), through its Coastguard Co-ordination Centres, liaises very closely with the other Emergency Services, Local Authorities and those organisations both in the private and public sector which may be affected by any major emergency.

  MCA is represented on the planning committee of the Cumbria General Emergency Plan and the Cumbria Pollution Plan which dovetail into the National Contingency Plan. The Plan is exercised regularly and there is no intention that these arrangements should change.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the estimated cost up to 2002 of complying with water quality standards(a) which are required by United Kingdom and EU statutes and (b) which are outlined as desirable in the Environment Agency's paper, A Price Worth Paying; [52210]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Environment Agency's paper, A Price Worth Paying. [52211]

  Angela Eagle
  The price limits set by the Director General of Water Services in 1994 allowed for a capital expenditure programme of £24 billion by water companies in England and Wales over the period 1995–2005, £11 billion of which was for quality improvements to sewage treatment and drinking water quality. Most of those improvements are required under EC Directives. Figures for actual capital expenditure are contained in OFWAT's annual reports on the financial performance and capital Investment by water companies, copies of which are in the Library.

  The price limits for 2000–2005 are currently under review by the Director General. As part of that process, he published on 30 April an open letter to the Secretaries of State, "Setting the Quality Framework", which includes cost information based on water company estimates for possible water quality improvements arising from European and domestic initiatives, many of which are discussed in "A Price Worth Paying". The Government are considering all the representations received in response to "Setting the Quality Framework, including the views expressed by the Environment Agency, in the light of cost information available through water company estimates. They plan to issue guidance to the Director General later in the summer.

  A copy of "Setting the Quality Framework" is available in the Library of the House.

  Cancelled DBFO Projects
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the total compensation payments paid to construction 112
  consortia involved in Design, Build, Finance and Operate road schemes postponed as a result of the Integrated Transport Review. [52091]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Tenderers were invited to prepare claims for compensation for three Design, Build Finance and Operate projects which were cancelled following the accelerated roads review in July 1997. The projects are Weald and Downland, Cumbria to Bradford and South Midlands Network. The total of the on-account payments already made for the three projects is £6 million.

  Weald and Downland DBFO Project
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 29 June 1998,Official Report, column 77, if he will list the consortiums involved in the Weald and Downland Design, Build, Finance and Operate Project indicating the nature of the compensation payments still under consideration. [52090]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The four tenderers (consortiums) are: the Modern Highways Group, Road Management Group, UK Highways and Express Route. Each tenderer has submitted a claim for his tender preparation costs to be reimbursed. However, there are a number of instances where the tenderers have not submitted sufficient information in support of their claims to explain/justify their costs, and this information is being sought before a final settlement can be reached.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total figure for compensation payments to the consortiums involved in the Weald and Downland Design, Build, Finance and Operate Project. [52092]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Secretary of State will reimburse the tenderers their actual costs that were properly and reasonably incurred in preparing their tenders. It would be wrong for me to give an estimate of the likely total cost at this stage as it might prejudice the outstanding commercial negotiations with the tenderers.

  Roadside Signs
  Dr. Vis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what statutory power a highway authority can grant licences for(a) advertising structures, (b) other structures and (c) private street signs, promoting (i) commercial and (ii) sectional interest (1) in, (2) on and (3) under land having (A) public highway and (B) trunk road status. [52233]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Part VIIA (section 115A to 115K) of the Highways Act 1980 (which was inserted by Schedule 5 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982) empowers a council to place objects or structures on, in or over highways of the kind listed in section 115A (mainly for use by non-vehicular traffic), and to grant a person permission to use such objects or structures for a purpose which will result in the production of income, or for the purpose of providing a centre for advice or information or for the purpose of advertising. A street authority may also grant a licence under section 50 of the New Roads and Street Works Act
  113
  1991 for the placing of apparatus, which may include structures bearing advertisements, in, or under, any street (defined in the 1991 Act as including any highway).

  Surface and Groundwater Pollution
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the incidence of surface and groundwater pollution caused by(a) motorway and highways run-off and (b) agricultural activities; and if he will quantify the damage caused by both. [52208]

  Angela Eagle
  The Environment Agency, which is responsible for monitoring the aquatic environment in England and Wales, has recently published a report entitled 'The State of the Environment of England and Wales'. It shows that agricultural activity was responsible for 10 per cent. of the total pollution incidents and the transport sector, which includes motorway and highways run-off, was responsible for 9 per cent. of pollution incidents. While diffuse sources of pollution are difficult to quantify, the Environment Agency is aware of the significance of both these sources of diffuse pollution.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantage of using the settlement size definition in measuring the sparsity of rural populations for the standard spending assessment in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [52351]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: In our discussions with the Local Government Association on possible changes in the SSA formulae for next year, no proposals have been put to us that there should be a change from the way in which sparsity of population is measured currently. If, in future rounds of these discussions, such a case is put forward, we should be willing to discuss it with local government representatives.

  Domiciliary Social Services
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the costs of providing domiciliary social services in sparse rural areas in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [52353]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Norfolk County Council, on behalf of the County Councils' Network, have put forward for discussion information on the costs of providing domiciliary social services in rural areas. In the light of this, they have proposed that the current measure of sparsity of population should be introduced under this part of the SSA formulae. This proposal has been discussed with representatives of local government. We will consider the arguments for and against this change, and expect to announce our conclusions early in December.

  Rural Need
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research 114
  his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the characteristics of rural need separately identifying that relating to rural poverty; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of such research. [52359]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Rural Development Commission is the Government's statutory adviser on the economic and social development of rural areas of England. As part of its national advisory work, it commissions research into rural needs, including rural poverty. The RDC has recently published reports on two major research projects on rural deprivation: Developing Indicators of Rural Disadvantage, and Rural Disadvantage—Understanding the Processes. My Department is discussing with the RDC the findings of these reports.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he will take to monitor the subcontracting of services to operators from outside London, following the licensing of London's private hire vehicle industry. [52832]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is one of the matters which will be monitored by the Public Carriage Office.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to ensure that following the licensing of private hire vehicles in London, private hire vehicles licensed to different criteria outside of London do not work predominantly in London. [52833]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The matter will be considered as necessary in the light of circumstances as indicated by the Public Carriage Office's monitoring.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department spent on IT itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figure are available. [52875]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to legislate to minimise the level of permitted odour during the transport of offal to the site of incineration. [52721]

  Angela Eagle
  The transport of animal by-products (animal waste) is controlled under the Animal By-Products Order 1992 (as amended) which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Among other matters, the 1992 Order requires that:

  "1. Any animal by-product must be collected and transported in suitable containers or vehicles in such a way as to prevent leakage. The containers or vehicles must be adequately covered.

  2. Vehicles, tarpaulin or other covers and reusable containers must be maintained in a clean condition."

  115
  Where necessary, local authorities may use the byelaw powers contained in section 82 of the Public Health Act 1936 and section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 to prescribe times during which "noxious matter" may be carried through the streets in their area. These provisions also enable local authorities to require the vehicles used for the removal or carriage of "noxious matter" through their street to be properly constructed and covered.

  We have received no evidence that these powers are not adequate and the Government have no plans to legislate further in relation to odour control in the context of the transport of animal waste.

  Recycling Facilities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will take to evaluate the effectiveness of the materials recycling facilities in use in the United Kingdom. [52821]

  Angela Eagle
  Our consultation paper,Less Waste More Value, invited views on whether the waste management industry has the necessary capabilities to develop the full range of facilities that will be required in the future (including materials recycling facilities). Consultees have until 25 September to respond. It is for the operators of these facilities themselves to reach a judgment of how effective they are.

  Seed and Biotechnology Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list, with dates, each meeting he or other members of his Department have had with(a) seed and (b) biotechnology companies since 9 July 1998, giving in each case the names of those met. [52852]

  Angela Eagle
  On 20 July 1998 officials for the Department met members from the British Society of Plant Breeders, including representatives from Monsanto and AgrEvo, and later at a separate meeting representatives from the British Society of Plant Breeders, Europabio and the Green Industry Biotechnology Platform.

  Housing Corporation (Rural Programme)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of Housing Corporation allocations in the current financial year for rural areas are targeted on settlements of less than 1,000. [53176]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A target is not set for Housing Corporation allocations in rural settlements of less than 1,000. However around 46 per cent. of the allocations for the rural programme in 1998–99 are in rural settlements of less than 1,000.

  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what target has been set for approvals by the Housing Corporation in its Rural Programme for the current financial year. [53175]

  Mr. Raynsford
  For 1998–99 we have asked the Housing Corporation to aim for around 3.4 per cent of the new social lettings approved under the Approved Development Programme to be in small rural villages with a population of 3,000 or less.
  116
  In addition, local authorities can use the extra resources we have made available to them, under the Capital Receipts Initiative this year, to invest in the provision of new social housing in rural areas in partnership with Registered Social Landlords where such developments are seen as a high priority in their housing strategies.

  Nene and Ouse Rivers
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he expects to make a statement concerning current and future statutory responsibilities for(a) flood, (b) ecological, (c) environmental and (d) navigational management of the rivers (i) Nene and (ii) Ouse; [52985]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the British Waterways Board consultation on its taking over responsibility from the Environment Agency for navigation on the Nene and Ouse rivers; and if he will place them in the Library. [52987]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department has received a number of letters, from Members of Parliament and the public, following British Waterways' (BW) public consultation on its report about the future management of navigation on the Rivers Nene and Great Ouse. There are no plans at this stage to make this correspondence available publicly.

  BW is currently assessing the responses to its consultation and will be submitting a further report to me shortly. I imagine that this will include copies of all written submissions. The proposals in the report on which BW consulted present some complex issues relating to the management of the Nene and Great Ouse and to the impact on the environment, waterway users and other organisations connected with the two rivers. I will want to consider carefully all the responses and other comments on the report before deciding on how to proceed.

  British Waterways Board
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the responsibilities of the British Waterways Board for its role in land drainage and flood relief; and what assessment he has made of the level of its annual grant in aid in respect of these functions. [52986]

  Angela Eagle
  In 1996 British Waterways (BW) and the Environment Agency submitted a joint report to the Department following a series of regional reviews of operational arrangements of the river navigations under their control. These reviews looked at emergency and contingency planning, including arrangements for flood defence. The report concluded that relationships at the local level between the two organisations were good and that BW and the Agency were working well together in many areas. A copy of the report was placed in the Library.

  BW receives annual grant-in-aid to manage and operate the canal and river navigations for which it is responsible. No direct payments are made to BW in respect of its flood defence and land drainage responsibilities.
  117

  Departmental Environmental Policies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 683, concerning the activities of the Green Minister, if he will publish the guidance issued to green ministers on green transport plans. [53037]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Guide to Green Transport Plans—Advice to Government Departments has been published on the DETR website: http://www.environment. detr.gov.uk/greening/fleet/fleet.htm. A copy is also available in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52624]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This information will be available when property managers have reviewed their replacement policy in preparing green transport plans. The first plans are to be completed by end March 1999.

  Leaseholds
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department's research, Flat Dwellers' Experiences of Leasehold Enfranchisement and Lease Renewal, will be published. [53235]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The results of the Department's study to monitor the implementation of the leasehold provisions of the 1993 Act have been published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Library. The findings support our proposals for a review of the enfranchisement process, which will be included in our forthcoming paper on leasehold reform.

  Traffic Speed (London)
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has commissioned on average traffic speeds in London and other cities during(a) peak periods and (b) off-peak periods. [51163]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has commissioned traffic speed surveys in London since 1986. The surveys, covering central, rest of inner, and outer London are conducted on a rotating basis, with each of these three areas surveyed every three to four years. Similar surveys in other cities were carried out in 1993 and 1996. These covered the 19 largest conurbations in England, as well as five randomly chosen smaller towns.

  M25
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to widen the M25. [51229]
  118
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Details on our plans for the M25 will be set out in our strategic Roads Review document which will be published later this week.

  Integrated Transport White Paper
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with Her Majesty's Treasury on the likely impact on inflation of the measures contained in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone"; and what guidelines he has issued on the maximum RPI increase which would be permitted as a consequence of (a) his Department's proposed measures and (b) measures taken as a consequence of reviews instigated under the White Paper; [51961]

  (2) pursuant to the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", what assessment he has made of the economic impact of his proposals, separately identifying their impact on the rate of inflation. [51962]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The measures set out in "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" will help to support business and economic growth by encouraging more efficient use of transport infrastructure, improving reliability for journeys on all transport modes, improving transport links with international markets, enhancing the vitality of urban and rural areas and by promoting more efficient and sustainable transport industries.

  My Department has considered the impact of the measures on inflation with Her Majesty's Treasury. The Government do not think it sensible to issue any guidelines on the maximum permitted RPI increase. The impact on inflation cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty. The impact on prices will, in particular, reflect both the beneficial effect on transport costs—e.g. fuel consumption and fleet and labour utilization—of reduced congestion and the improved efficiency of the transport system, and the effect of the charging and taxation measures themselves. The details of many of these measures are subject to further consultation and/or future decisions by local authorities on whether to take up the charging powers for which the Government intend to introduce legislation.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of proposals set out in the Integrated Transport White Paper on his Department's policy towards settlements in the countryside. [52656]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The White Paper sets out proposals to improve the quality of life for people in all areas, both urban and rural. Addressing the transport needs of rural communities is an important part of the New Deal for transport.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52690]
  119
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A summary of the spaces available for parking cycles is as follows:

  Department/Agency

  Number of spaces

  DETR (Central)

  553

  DETR Agencies

  270

  Government Offices for the Regions

  281

  A breakdown of the summarised information is as follows:

  (1) DETR (Central)

  Headquarters (Eland House)—(secure storage/racks)

  258

  Headquarters (Ashdown House)—(secure storage/racks)

  106

  Headquarters (Great Minster House)—(secure storage/racks)

  60

  ASD (Hemel Hempstead)—(no facilities, chain in covered car park)

  9

  Highwood Pavilions (Bristol)—(cycle racks share with HMC&E)

  8

  Traffic Area Network (various)—(spaces allocated to TANU)

  55

  Rent Assessment Panels (various)

  13

  Air Accident Investigation Branch—(no racks but space in hangars)

  44

  (2) Agencies

  Marine and Coastguard Agency—(10 cycle racks)

  61

  Driving Standards Agency—(rack at Stanley House, others shared)

  6+

  Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency—(covered sheds/dedicated spaces)

  159

  Highways Agency—(secure compounds/racks)

  137

  Planning Inspectorate Executive Agency—(secure compound)

  45

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  0

  Vehicle Certification Agency—(secure spaces)

  6

  Vehicle Inspectorate—(secure spaces (12 Bristol, 25 Swansea)

  37

  (3) Government Offices for the Regions

  [The Secretaries of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, Trade and Industry, and Education and Employment share responsibility for Government Offices in England]

  GO-North East

  15

  GO-North West

  28

  GO-Merseyside

  5

  GO-Yorkshire and Humber

  20

  GO-West Midlands

  5

  GO-East Midlands

  10

  GO-Eastern

  (approximately) 130

  GO-South East

  12+

  GO-South West

  20

  GO-London

  36

  Note:

  The figures do not include DETR NDPBs

  1. The above information is in respect of DETR (Central), DETR Agencies, and Government Offices for the Regions. It does not include DETR NDPBs

  2. The data in several instances are only indicative and variously include the number of spaces which could be occupied by bicycles (i.e. no attempt has been made to identify the number of cycles generally stored) and offices where the facilities are shared with other (non DETR) users and exclude sites where no obvious facilities exist but (e.g) where some staff park cycles in their office

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52691]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Comprehensive and reliable figures are not held centrally. Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

  Area Cost Adjustment
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will implement the conclusions of the review of the area cost adjustment in time for the 1999–2000 financial year. [52926]
  120
  Ms Armstrong
  We shall examine carefully all the findings that have emerged from research on the area cost adjustment both this year and earlier. We shall want to take all of this into account when deciding on our proposals for Standard Spending Assessments for 1999–2000.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52938]

  Angela Eagle
  At present, in line with central guidance, my Department does not normally carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or yield a net saving to business. Of those compliance cost assessments published by the Department since 1 May, one—for the Civil
  121
  Aviation (Navigation Services) Regulations 1998—has resulted in a net reduction of compliance costs for certain geographical areas.

  Floods (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to reach a decision on Worcestershire County Council's application for supplementary credit approvals to fund capital works resulting from the Easter floods. [52734]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Applications for additional supplementary credit approvals for transport capital expenditure are generally considered after the financial year to which they relate. Officials of my Department are investigating the extent to which there is immediate need for additional supplementary credit approvals from the Transport Policies and Programme system for reinstatement of transport infrastructure damaged by the flood. I will make a decision shortly.

  Regional Development Agency (West Midlands)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce the members of the Regional Development Agency Board for the West Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [52731]

  Mr. Caborn
  We cannot formally make appointments to boards until the Regional Development Agencies Bill, currently before Parliament, has received Royal Assent. However, we hope to identify the prospective chairs of the RDAs before then and an announcement will be made as soon as possible. A further announcement on other board appointments will be made in the autumn.

  Housing (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the new house building targets for Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [52732]

  Mr. Caborn
  To date we have received 10 representations expressing concern about Worcestershire County Council's housing development options set out in their consultation document "Shaping the New Worcestershire". This is intended to inform preparations of the Structure Plan for the new county. It is very much in line with the Secretary of State's statement in the House on 23 February 1998,Official Report, columns 21–25, when he said he wanted local people to be consulted as early as possible in the process so that they fully understand the consequences of decisions on releasing land for housing and can have a say in the choice of locations. My Department has chosen not to comment on the options at this stage but we expect to examine the Council's definitive proposals at the next stage of the Structure Plan process.

  Social Housing Grants
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he 122
  received from the Housing Corporation with regard to social housing grant rates for 1999–2000, if he will publish that advice; and if he will make a statement. [52723]

  Ms Armstrong
  Policy advice of this nature is confidential.

  I have recently written to the Housing Corporation asking them to set an average headline Social Housing Grant rate for 1999/2000 of 54 per cent., unchanged from last year despite continued reductions in long term interest rates. I have also asked the Corporation to put greater emphasis on rents in the bidding process and to change grant eligibility rules to disallow new high rent schemes, whether supported through the Approved Development Programme or Local Authority Social Housing Grant.

  Best Practice Code (Telecommunication)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the conclusions of his Department's review of the Code of Best Practice for telecommunications prior approval procedures. [52804]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The working group of local authority and telecommunications industry representatives who have been considering the effectiveness of my Department's Code of Best Practice for telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast/tower development have made representations on a variety of issues arising from the current telecommunications planning controls. We are giving careful consideration to the representations made by the working group, and to those received more generally, and expect to announce our conclusions this week.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to protect(a) organic farmers and (b) consumers of organic food from contamination by genetically modified organisms. [52851]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no specific requirements under the current legislation controlling the release of genetically modified organisms to consider organic farming when field testing genetically modified crops. However, where needed, release consents have specific measures attached that are designed to limit cross-pollination of neighbouring crops whether they are organic or not.

  I am aware of the concerns raised by organic farmers and their customers in connection with the planting of GM crops and my officials are exploring with MAFF, the farming community and organic standards representatives how these concerns can be addressed.

  Building Control Standards
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to promote common standards across the public and private sectors of building control. [53361]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In March I welcomed the establishment by the Construction Industry Council, the Local Government Association and the Association of
  123
  Corporate Approved Inspectors of a Steering Group to draw up recommended standards and monitoring arrangements for building control.

  The Steering Group has had two preliminary meetings, and has adopted the following terms of reference which I am happy to endorse:
  "To help achieve compliance with the regulations of the work supervised, the Steering Group shall:

  1.draw up proposals for a common Building Control Performance Standard for compliance with the requirements of the Building Regulations;

  2.draw up proposals for monitoring the compliance of both local authorities and approved inspectors with the Building Control Performance Standard;

  3.draw up proposals and a time scale for implementing (1) and (2);

  4.consider other relevant issues; and

  5.submit proposals to the DETR for approval".

  The Steering Group has set itself the target of submitting a report to me by the end of the year.

  Pilotage Act
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the report of his Department's review of the Pilotage Act 1987; and if he will make a statement. [53547]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The report of this review has been published today and I will place a copy in the Library of the House.

  We have concluded that harbour pilotage services should continue to be provided by harbour authorities but increasingly integrated into their overall safety systems. These systems need to be reviewed as a whole if the highest standards are to be achieved.

  We therefore propose to develop with the industry and other interests a "Marine Operations Code for Ports". We aim to set a national safety standard, and to create a guide for harbour authorities to prepare detailed safety policies. We look to them to consult local users and other interests in this process and to publish the resulting plans.

  Planning Inspectorate
  Mr. Mike Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the Planning Inspectorate's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98. [53677]

  Mr. Caborn
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales I have today published the Planning Inspectorate's Annual Report and Accounts. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The Inspectorate has just completed the second of a three year programme to restore appeal handling times to optimum levels. Although it has not yet met its timeliness targets, it has improved handling times significantly. We expect them to improve further during 1998/99.

  The Agency has also maintained the programme of development plan inquiries to a high standard, helping to create a greater certainty for all involved in the planning process as more areas are covered by up to date development plans.
  124
  The Inspectorate's quality target was met and exceeded, with reduced numbers of justified complaints against decisions issued. Surveys have continued to show that its decisions are widely respected. It has also produced an outstanding financial performance during the last year. The Inspectorate is very much involved in initiatives to develop the Government's proposals for the modernisation of the planning system. In the climate of a rapidly changing environment it is always ready to take on new areas of work in dispute resolution.

  In December 1997 the Inspectorate achieved Investors in People status—the first Agency within the merged Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to do so. I congratulate all its staff on the very substantial effort that this involved.

  Right to Buy
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he will ensure better value for money for the taxpayer on right to buy sales; and how he will help local authorities buy back ex-council housing from owners in financial difficulty. [53770]

  Ms Armstrong
  My Department issued two consultation papers today setting out our proposals.

  We intend the Right to Buy scheme to continue, and that eligible tenants should continue to buy at substantial discounts. At present, however, tenants get up to £50,000 discount. The annual cost of Right to Buy is currently around £400 million a year.

  We plan, therefore to introduce lower limits to discounts, which would take account of local authority property values in each Government Office region. Details are in our consultation paper "Secure tenants' right to buy; proposals to change the maximum discount limit on right to buy and other home ownership incentive schemes", copies of which are in the Library of the House.

  Subject to consultation, we propose later this year to substitute a new regulation for the Housing (Right to Buy) (Maximum Discount) Order 1989, SI 1989 513, to bring the new discount levels into effect.

  Around 200,000 people in England have bought a council flat. These are mainly council tenants who bought under the Right to Buy scheme and research shows that the great majority see this as good value for money. But a small proportion of buyers are in difficulty with high service charges, and some are unable to resell their flat on the open market: either they cannot find a buyer, or mortgage lenders refuse to give a loan.

  Local authorities have powers to buy housing, but their resources are limited and they have many other people needing help. So we propose to offer them a financial incentive. We plan to reduce the amount they have to set aside from their capital receipts from council house sales, by 25p for every £1 they spend on buying back an ex-council property. This would effectively cover 25 per cent. of the cost of the buy-back. They could use this incentive to buy back houses as well as flats.

  In addition to this incentive, the authority would regain a capital asset which, sooner or later, would be available for reletting. Moreover, it would reduce the cost of

  125
  managing its leasehold property—which, in the case of someone in arrears or unable to resell, could be considerable. And in some cases, e.g. an elderly or vulnerable person in mortgage arrears, it would be helping someone whom it might otherwise have to re-house.

  Local authorities are best placed to judge who is in greatest need and how they should use their resources to help them. So they would be free to decide whom to help, and on what terms. This could include someone who had bought under a local authority voluntary sale scheme.

  We propose to set just two conditions. These are designed to ensure that the concession is available only for buying back properties from individual occupants who want to re-sell. The concession would therefore apply only where the repurchase is from an individual, not an organisation: and it is not done under compulsory purchase powers.

  Copies of the consultation paper "Buying back ex-council flats and houses" are in the Library of the House. Subject to consultation, we propose to implement the change later this year by substituting a new regulation for regulation 104 of the Local Authorities (Capital Finance) Regulations 1997.

  Technetium-99
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements exist for the storage of technetium-99 concentrates at Sellafield; how many waste streams from reprocessing at Sellafield contain Tc-99; and what long-term plans there are for the disposal of Tc-99. [52776]

  Mr. Battle
  I have been asked to reply.

  Technetium-99(Tc-99) arises from both Magnox and Thorp reprocessing operations. The Tc-99 from Thorp is contained in the high-level waste stream and is immobilised in glass in the vitrification plant. Magnox operations lead to a discharge of Tc-99 to sea.

  High integrity tanks provide long-term storage for the concentrate and solvent used in reprocessing operations prior to treatment.

  The disposal of Tc-99 is subject to the limits and conditions in the authorisation to dispose of liquid radioactive waste, issued to BNFL under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Over and above the requirements for BNFL to comply with the limits in the authorisation is a requirement to use best practicable means to limit the activity of discharges. BNFL is actively investigating potential technologies for reducing Tc-99 discharges and part of a development programme agreed with the Environment Agency.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Human Embryos
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years for experimenting on human embryos over 14 days old. [52978]
  126
  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service holds no central records in respect of particular offences. Crown Prosecution Service officials who handle this type of case and might reasonably be expected to recall any such cases do not recall any within the last five years.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Attorney-General how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52617]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him on 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 603.

  Since that reply the Crown Prosecution Service have leased a further petrol engined vehicle making a total of 34 vehicles; 26 of which have diesel engines and 8 have unleaded petrol engines.

  The dates for their replacement are:

  (i) 1998–99: 13 vehicles (including 1 petrol)

  (ii) 1999–2000: 12 vehicles (including 4 petrol)

  (iii) 2000–01: 9 vehicles (including 3 petrol).

  The planned replacements for 1998–99 will be one vehicle using unleaded petrol and 12 using diesel fuel. The Crown Prosecution Service is monitoring development of alternative fuels and, where these prove to be less harmful to the environment and as economical, staff will be encouraged to adopt them.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Venezuela (Imataca Reserve)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to encourage the Venezuelan Government to protect the Imataca Reserve. [51931]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our Embassy in Caracas maintains a regular dialogue with the Venezuelan Government and the non-government sector on a range of environmental issues, including the important one of the Imataca Forest Reserve. The Imataca issue is now with the Venezuelan Supreme Court. In the meantime discussions between the Government, mining companies and local environmental groups are continuing in order to achieve a consensus on sustainable solutions. Our Embassy is in regular contact with these groups.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will set out the mechanisms used by the Commonwealth Development Corporation to guarantee their loans to subsidiaries of multinational companies. [51855]
  127
  Mr. Foulkes
  For loans made to subsidiaries of multinationals, the Commonwealth Development Corporation takes appropriate security, depending on the individual circumstances of the investment. This may include a parent company guarantee.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the export of credit guarantees offered in respect of the loans made to Sierra Rutile by the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [51856]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation does not benefit from any export guarantees in relation to loans made to Sierra Rutile Ltd.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money is currently owed to the Commonwealth Development Corporation from the company Sierra Rutile. [51854]

  Mr. Foulkes
  At 30 June 1998 the Commonwealth Development Corporation was owed £2.4 million by Sierra Rutile. Once their rutile mine returns to production it is expected that the outstanding debt of £2.4 million will be repaid.

  Zimbabwe (Asbestos)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Zimbabwe Government on the production of asbestos in that country and on their policy towards the protection of(a) workers employed in that industry and (b) the surrounding environment. [51866]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Asbestos production and its effect on workers or the environment have not been raised in the Department for International Development ministerial or officials' discussions with the Zimbabwe government. However, since 1996 the Department for International Development has been funding a research project in Zimbabwe to develop alternatives to asbestos sheets as roofing materials.

  South Pacific (Natural Disasters)
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on her Department's contingency planning to assist in the aftermath of natural disasters in the South Pacific region. [52052]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department is ready to provide assistance to poorer countries in the aftermath of natural disasters where there are clear needs and we are asked to do so. In response to the initial appeal for assistance for those affected by the tidal wave that hit Papua New Guinea, we offered up to £250,000 for immediate relief and recovery needs. Over the last year we have also provided over £1 million in relief assistance to the Pacific region.

  In addition, we are keen to help disaster-prone countries to make better use of their own emergency services and skilled personnel, as they are best placed to provide effective help when disaster strikes.

  In the South Pacific, since 1994 we have provided £300,000 to the United Nations for the South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, which aims to mitigate
  128
  the effect of natural disasters by building-up institutional capacity. We are currently considering further support for a new phase of the programme. We also provided nearly £60,000 to the International Red Cross last year for community-based disaster preparedness activities in the region.

  Papua New Guinea
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance Her Majesty's Government will give to those affected by the tidal wave in Papua New Guinea. [52457]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are in close contact with the Papua New Guinea authorities through the British High Commission in Port Moresby. In response to the initial appeal for assistance, we have offered up to £250,000 to meet the immediate relief and recovery needs of those affected by the tidal wave. Of this contribution, £75,000 has been allocated to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to provide family rehabilitation kits containing basic household items, and materials to rebuild houses. A further £44,944 has been channelled through the UK Foundation for the South Pacific, a non-governmental organisation, for the provision of medial supplies and temporary shelters. We have asked other humanitarian organisations active in the region to urgently submit proposals for the remaining funds.

  We shall continue to monitor the situation closely through our High Commission and through the regular reports we receive from the United Nations and the Red Cross.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assistance she has sought from the United Kingdom armed forces for help in Papua New Guinea. [52456]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have been in contact with the Ministry of Defence and have concluded that the services of the UK armed forces will not be required. We are assisting those affected by the tidal wave through the provision of funds to Non-Governmental Organisations for emergency rehabilitation and recovery efforts.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to her answer of 8 July 1998,Official Report, column 533, concerning the 150/500 KV sub-stations project in Indonesia, what plans there are to reinstate the project; what assessment has been made of the project's(a) achievements and (b) value for money; and if she will place in the Library copies of the project appraisal, monitoring and evaluation reports completed to date. [53027]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to her on 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 637.

  Belize
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist Belize with debt relief. [53363]
  129
  Mr. Foulkes
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has agreed with the Government of Belize the cancellation of repayments of aid debt due from Belize to the UK between April and October 1998, amounting to £1.146 million.

  We were able to make the offer under the Commonwealth Debt Initiative in recognition of the Belize Government's commitment to reduce poverty and promote accountable government, and to put in place sustainable economic policies.

  The funds which would otherwise have been used to repay aid debts will now be used for poverty focused projects in education and water supply, specifically:

  rural water schemes in several villages;

  classroom furniture, equipment and materials in schools in poorer areas;

  textbooks for primary schools in poorer areas, under the textbook loan scheme.

  We will hold talks with the Government of Belize early in 1999 to consider further debt relief.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by her Department since 1 May 1997. [52953]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development has not published any compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997. There is presently no requirement on Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or resulting in a saving to business.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the compliance cost assessments published by her Department since 1 May 1997. [52951]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development has not undertaken any compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52952]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development has not undertaken any compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) her Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52615]
  130
  Mr. Foulkes
  Decisions on these questions are not taken centrally in DFID and this information would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  Sudan
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Sudan in the last four weeks about the situation in that country. [52999]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Minister for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), had discussions with the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement during his visit to Nairobi and Khartoum on 14–16 July. Our Ambassador in Khartoum has regular discussions with Government of Sudan representatives at all levels on the humanitarian situation and the political process. Following my hon. Friend's visit, we are in contact with regional governments and international organisations to take full advantage of the three-months' cease-fire agreed for Bahr el Ghazal.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which her Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52662]

  Mr. Foulkes
  38 cycle racks are provided at the Department for International Development's two Headquarters buildings. The Department has no agencies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the employees of her Department and of the employees of each agency for which she is responsible cycle to work; and what measures she plans to increase that proportion. [52663]

  Mr. Foulkes
  This information is not recorded. Measures to increase the numbers cycling to work will be considered in the context of preparing a Green Transport Plan for the Department for International Development.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Public Registers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the public registers which her Department has responsibility for. [47349]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 29 June 1998]: The public registers for which the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments have responsibility for are as follows:

  DANI

  Seed Potato

  Departmental Accounting and Information System (DAISy)

  Cattle herd owners

  Authorised Veterinary Inspectors

  Private Veterinary Practitioners (PVPs)

  Welfare Establishments (Boarding and Riding Premises)

  Livestock marketing operators

  131

  Artificial Reproduction

  Animal by-products

  Animal protein

  Waste food

  Animal feed

  NI LEADER II Programme partnerships' managers

  NI Single Programme Measure 4.1.9. Area Based Strategy Managers

  NI Rural Development Programme (General)—contact names and addresses for local community based organisations

  Egg Packaging Stations in NI

  Egg Wholesalers

  Egg Hatcheries

  EU Approved Dairy Establishments

  EU Approved Meat Premises

  Low Throughput Premises

  Licensed Slaughtermen

  Rural Development Council, client community groups

  Rural Development Council, grants database for Measure 4.1.8 of NI Single Programme

  Rural Development Council, grants database for Community Based Actions Measure of EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation

  Rural Development Council, Project List for "Developing Rural Enterprise"

  Livestock Marketing Commission, Farm Quality Assurance Scheme Members

  Livestock Marketing Commission bulletin circulation

  Livestock Marketing Commission, Retail Butchery Outlets DED

  IDB Board Members' Interests

  T&EA Board Members' Interests

  IRTU Board Members' Interests

  Disqualified Directors

  Voluntary Arrangements

  Deeds of Arrangement

  Companies

  Credit Unions

  Industrial and Provident Societies

  Improvement and Prohibition Notices issued under the Health and Safety at Work (Northern Ireland) Order 1978

  Responses to all Consultative Documents issued by DED in respect of proposed new Health and Safety legislation

  Weighing or measuring equipment which has been certified by DED as suitable for use for trade under Article 10 of the Weights and Measures (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or granted a certificate by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 12 of the Weights and Measures Act 1985

  DFP

  Members of the Public Holding Public Appointments

  Valuation List

  DOE

  Licensed drivers in Northern Ireland

  Keepers of licensed vehicles in Northern Ireland

  Approved Driving Instructors

  Registry of Deeds

  Statutory Charges

  Planning Applications, Simplified Planning Zones, Enterprise Zones and Enforcement Notices.

  132

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [52583]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Northern Ireland Civil Service Departments, like their GB counterparts, are "signing up" to participate as employers in New Deal. The programme does not, however, impose quotes, and it is expected that Departments and Agencies, like other participating employers, will recruit New Deal employers as and when appropriate vacancies arise.

PRIME MINISTER

  Armed Forces
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the pay of medical and dental officers in the armed forces. [53364]

  The Prime Minister
  The Armed Forces Pay Review Body has made recommendations on the pay of Medical and Dental Officers in the Armed Forces. The Review Body recommends that all Medical and Dental Officers, in the ranks of Major and above, should receive a 5.2 per cent. increase, and Officers in the rank of Captain and below should receive a 4.2 per cent. increase, from 1 April 1998. The Review Body further recommends that the pay scales for qualified General Medical Practitioners and General Dental Practitioners in the rank of Major should be restructured to ensure broad comparability of earning with their civilian counterparts, particularly in the first half of a career. The Review Body also considers that the pay of Service General Dental Practitioners has fallen behind their NHS counterparts and recommend that those Officers should receive an additional £1,000 per annum.

  The Government have decided to accept the Review Body's recommendations. In line with all awards to Pay Review Body remit groups, the award will be paid in two stages; 2 per cent. of the award will be payable from 1 April 1998 with the remainder payable from 1 December 1998.

  Cabinet Office
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future of the Cabinet Office. [53365]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government face many new challenges, and must be ready to operate in new ways to meet them. So, in January, I asked the Secretary of the Cabinet to review the effectiveness of the centre of Government.

  The role of the Cabinet Office has traditionally been to help the Prime Minister and the Government as a whole to reach collective decisions on Government policy. Since the election, the three principal parts of the centre—my own office, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury—have worked closely and effectively together, and with other Departments, to take forward the Government's comprehensive and ambitious policy agenda.
  133
  However, Sir Richard Wilson identified a number of weaknesses that need to be addressed. He concluded that the linkage between policy formulation and implementation need further improvement. He found that cross-departmental issues of policy and service delivery are often not handled well. He diagnosed a weakness in looking ahead to future opportunities and threats, and in reviewing the outcome of Government policies and the achievement of Government objectives. Sir Richard confirmed one impression of my own: that, while the civil service has many outstanding staff, it has not always implemented the best systems to invest in their development. Sir Richard found that there was scope to improve the performance of the centre of Government in promulgating best practice and innovation in government and in the corporate management of personnel, IT, Government communications and scientific advice.

  We have already taken some steps to address the weaknesses identified by Sir Richard. The Social Exclusion Unit is an example of our innovative approach to tackling cross-departmental issues. And the new Cabinet Committee on Public Expenditure, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will play a key role in monitoring Departments' performance in meeting objectives. However, Sir Richard has identified an important agenda for reform. I can today announce key reforms to address the problems he has identified. Further details will be announced in the autumn.

  First, I propose to merge the Office of Public Service with the rest of the Cabinet Office from today. The main purpose of the Cabinet Office is to help Departments formulate policy collectively. The main purpose of the Office of Public Service is to help Departments find ways to improve the implementation and delivery of policies and services on the ground. Yet policy formulation and delivery are two sides of the same coin. A unified organisation will help ensure that concerns about policy implementation are properly analysed in the process of developing policy, and help contribute to more effective follow-through when policies are agreed.

  Second, a new Performance and Innovation Unit will be set up in the Cabinet Office. It will complement the Treasury's role in monitoring Departmental programmes and will have two principal functions. First, it will focus on selected issues that cross departmental boundaries and propose policy innovations to improve the delivery of the Government objectives. Second, drawing on the work of the successor to the Committee on Public Expenditure, and other sources, it will select aspects of government policy that require review, with an emphasis on the better co-ordination and practical delivery of policy and services which involve more than one public sector body. The Unit will be a resource for policy development for the whole of Government, building on the experience of the Social Exclusion Unit.

  The new Unit will not carry out these roles in isolation from other departments. It will assemble teams from inside and outside the Civil Service to carry out studies of areas where cross-departmental working needs to be improved, or innovative approaches to delivery put in place, if the Government's objectives are to be delivered. The first group of projects to be carried out by the Unit will be announced in the Autumn. They will include
  134
  studies of the Government's presence in Cities and the Regions, and of how older people can play a more active role in the community.

  Third, I have decided to establish a new Centre for Management and Policy Studies in the Cabinet Office, incorporating a reshaped Civil Service College. If the modernisation of government is to be successful, and Ministers are to get the support they need in finding new approaches to policy and its delivery, we will need to ensure that the Civil Service continues to be a learning organisation, open to new ideas, and that staff at all levels get the training they need. The new Centre will also provide an entry point at the heart of Government for the best new thinking on current issues and new approaches to management. It will commission research into innovation in strategy and delivery. It will act as a repository for best practice in the public sector and elsewhere and be the focus for training the senior civil servants of the future.

  Fourth, there needs to be more emphasis on the corporate management of the Civil Service as a whole. My objective is to meet the corporate objectives of the Government as a whole, rather than just the objectives of individual departments. The reorganisation of the Cabinet Office will give it a new focus as the corporate headquarters of the Civil Service. Ensuring that there is a coherent information technology strategy, and that personnel systems deliver the talent needed for modern government, are just two of the challenges. In order to involve departments in the work of the Cabinet Office as the corporate headquarters of the Civil Service, the Secretary of the Cabinet will establish a team, including a number of Permanent Secretaries, to act as a Management Board for the Civil Service. The Head of the Government Information and Communication Service will from now on be located in the Cabinet Office. The Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government will also work from the Cabinet Office as well as the Department of Trade and Industry.

  So far as possible, the new Cabinet Office needs to be located together. Its main base will continue to be in 70 Whitehall. Plans are being drawn up to locate the rest of the Office, including the new Performance and Innovation Unit and the Centre for Management and Policy Studies, in the currently unoccupied accommodation in Admiralty Arch, Ripley House and Kirkland House.

  The Cabinet Office will continue to report to me as Prime Minister and Minister for the Civil Service. I will continue to account to Parliament for matters of collective Cabinet responsibility; the Minister for the Cabinet Office will report to Parliament on the management of the Civil Service and allied matters and, in particular, will oversee the major programme of reform I am announcing today.

  The aim of this programme is to create a focus for the drive to modernise government to tackle the new challenges it faces. The broad outline of the programme is clear. A lost of work, and consultation with staff, is now needed to put in place the detail and implement the measures I have described. Further details will be set out in the Government's White Paper on Better Government, which will be published in the Autumn.
  135

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointment
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Prime Minister if he has received the first report of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. [53550]

  The Prime Minister
  The Committee has submitted its first report to me and I have today placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses. Since 1975, the Committee has advised the Prime Minister of the day on the propriety of business appointments that Crown servants wish to take up when they leave Crown service. Following a recommendation of the Committee on Standards of Public Life, it now also provides advice directly to former Ministers on their business appointments. The Committee's first report offers an account of their work in advising former Ministers from the time they took on this role in November 1995 through the post-Election period until the end of March 1998. The report similarly covers the business appointments of senior Crown servants for a two year period from April 1996, when a number of changes were made to the rules, which included bringing special advisers into the system. The Committee gave advice to former Ministers on 175 appointments and made recommendations to Ministers on 128 applications from Crown officials.

  The Committee's new responsibilities for giving advice to former Ministers have made their task more onerous. I am very grateful to all the members for devoting their time freely to this important role. The Chairman, the Right Honourable the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC, has served with distinction for a number of years and will be stepping down shortly, as will the Right Honourable the Lord Thomson of Monifieth, General Sir Charles Huxtable and Sir Robin Ibbs. They kindly agreed to extensions of their appointments to see through the introduction of the business appointment system for former Ministers. I thank them warmly for the valuable contribution they have made.

  Panchen Lama
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will request the release of the Panchen Lama during his forthcoming visit to China. [52789]

  The Prime Minister
  We have raised individual human rights cases with the Chinese authorities repeatedly and at the highest levels. These have included the case of the child identified by the Dalai Lama as the 11th Panchen Lama. I will press these cases, as well as wider human rights concerns, during my visit.

  Policy Unit, 10 Downing Street
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to publish the telephone logs relating to the No.10 Policy Unit. [52844]

  The Prime Minister
  By convention it is not the practice of Governments to make such information publicly available—a principle reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information published in January 1997.
  136

  Former Trade and Industry Minister
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will place in the Library the recent report on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) as a Minister prepared by the Permanent Secretary of the DTI; [52500]

  (2) when he received the report on the competence and efficiency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) as a Minister prepared by the Permanent Secretary of the DTI; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [52502]

  The Prime Minister
  There is not, and never has been, such a report.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the reviews his Department and its predecessors, initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48515]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The information requested is available only at disproportionate cost.

  Deaf People
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how guidance interviews with deaf people will be conducted; and if the additional communication costs for interviewing deaf people will be provided centrally. [51142]

  Dr. Howells
  Careers services are required by contract to meet all the information and guidance needs of their clients. This particularly includes those clients with disabilities such as hearing impairment, who stay within the client group until they are settled in their careers intention.

  Learning Direct, the national telephone helpline, which provides free information about learning and careers, launched earlier this year, includes a minicom facility to enable those with hearing impairment to access the service. Where a person's needs cannot be met through Learning Direct, they can be referred to appropriate local guidance networks or the careers service for a more in depth service.

  As policy on various new Department for Education and Employment guidance initiatives develops, the needs of deaf people will be taken into account.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [51270]
  137
  Dr. Howells
  The grants and awards administered by the Department for which bids are invited this year and for which the closing date has not already passed are set

  Item

  Deadline

  Specialist Schools

  2 Oct 1998

  City Technology Colleges1

  30 Sep 1998

  Standards Fund2

  A circular is published annually which offers guidance to LEAs on the Standards Fund programme and invites them to make bids where appropriate. The deadline for the 1999–2000 round has not yet been set.

  Education Action Zones

  Autumn 1998

  Independent/State School Partnerships

  Applications for grant in 1998–99 were invited by 27 March 1998. No decision has yet been taken on whether to extend this funding pilot into 1999 and beyond

  Grants to LEAs towards the extra costs in providing for Traveller and refugee pupils Section 488 of the 1996 Education Act

  LEAs will be invited shortly to apply for three-year projects for work beginning in April 1999.

  Non Maintained Special Schools Capital Round

  31 Oct 1998

  Annual Capital Guidelines to LEAs and Capital and Repair Grants to VA Schools

  Mid-October 1998

  New Deal for Schools

  Mid-January 19993

  European Social Fund4

  Various initiatives, which do not run to the same timetable. The deadline for each round of applications is publicised nationally and by the relevant Government Office when a call for applications is made

  Millennium volunteers5

  Deadline for applications has yet to be set

  Support for community based learning activities

  Arrangements for bidding will be described in a prospectus to be issued shortly

  1 Available only to City Technology Colleges

  2 Grant 11 of the existing Standards Fund programme (football and study support) would not be available to Wakefield as it is limited to LEAs with Premier League and Nationwide Division 1 football clubs

  3 Provisional

  4 Administered in England and Wales by the Department's ESF Unit. ESF objectives 3 and 4 are available nationally. ESF objective 2 is regional and available in Wakefield

  5 Applications will be dealt with nationally and will be considered from all areas of the country

  Careers Service
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent to which companies financed from public funds to provide career information are paying dividends to shareholders and cash transfers to parent companies; and if he will make a statement. [51871]

  Dr. Howells
  The careers service in England is provided by 66 companies operating under competitively tendered contracts. Most are companies limited by guarantee that operate as non profit-making bodies. A number of the contracts are held by commercial companies and where these have been able to generate a surplus through the efficient delivery of their contracts legitimate dividends to shareholders or cash transfers to a parent company may be possible.

  Post-graduate Studies
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on(a) progress towards the adoption by universities and other relevant institutions and agencies of the guidelines for post-graduate studies published in December 1996 by the Higher Education Quality Council and (b) proposals for monitoring the application of those guidelines. [52230]
  138
  out. All these items are either available nationally or regionally in the Wakefield area. This list excludes contracts for services.

  Dr. Howells
  Higher education institutions are independent bodies responsible for their own academic and administrative affairs. The guidelines on postgraduate studies published by the Higher Education Quality Council in December 1996 are intended to help and guide institutional practice. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, which was formed in 1997, has accepted the principles on the HEQC guidelines. In response to the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education the Agency is currently preparing a Code of Practice on Postgraduate Research, which it expects to publish in the Autumn of 1998. The Agency intends to monitor and report on institutions' performance under the Code with effect from late 1999.

  Literacy and Numeracy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the level of literacy and numeracy among adults in Cumbria. [52219]

  Dr. Howells
  The levels of literacy and numeracy among adults in Cumbria will be improved in a number of ways.
  139
  By 2002 we plan to help over 500,000 people a year in England. The working group we have set up to advise us, chaired by Sir Claus Moser, will report in November.

  This year we have provided up to £5.5 million for Further Education colleges to run Summer Schools to help those with low basic skills. All three colleges in Cumbria that bid to run Summer Schools have had their plans accepted.

  We plan to expand the help given by further and adult education institutions and basic skills are a key target area for the University for Industry. We will also provide help through Investing in Young People, the New Deal 18–24, Adult Work Based Training and our new Adult and Community Learning Fund.

  Sixth Form Colleges
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many sixth form colleges there are; how many there were in 1992; when the most recent one was opened; what mechanism exists to establish further colleges; and if he will make a statement. [52257]

  Dr. Howells
  There are currently 109 sixth form colleges. 116 joined the Further Education sector on 1 April 1993 and two sixth form colleges have joined the sector since then, the most recent on 1 August 1995. New Further Education corporations are established by order of the Secretary of State under section 16 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992.

  Training Centre, Colchester
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what alternative training facilities are available for the categories of people who attended the former SEAX Training Centre in Colchester. [52288]

  Dr. Howells
  Following the closure of the SEAX Training Centre in Colchester, training provision was transferred to the Colchester Institute, Otley College and STS Training in Colchester. Endalm Ltd., a training provider in Benfleet, has taken on some hairdressing and business administration trainees and HCTP of Chelmsford have taken on some catering trainees who would have previously been placed with SEAX Training.

  Corrugated Packaging Association
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the decision by a National Training Organisation recognition panel to exclude the Corrugated Packaging Association from the print industry NTO. [52454]

  Dr. Howells
  The National Training Organisation Recognition Panel is an independent body appointed to advise the Secretary of State on the recognition of National Training Organisations (NTOs). The Panel comprises representatives of national employers, academics and the TUC, with an independent chair.

  The criteria which NTOs must satisfy are designed to ensure a strong well-supported network able to address the education and training needs of their sectors. The Recognition panel was pleased to accept a bid from
  140
  the Print and Graphic Communication sector but has not been persuaded that a case had been made to include the Corrugated Packaging Association. I understand that the Corrugated Packaging Association is now working to produce evidence of how the education and training needs of the sector fit with those of the printing industry.

  Optical Fibre Communications
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the potential of modern broad band optical fibre communications within the education system; and if he will make a statement. [52329]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are considering carefully the implications for education of broadband communications in the light of the experience of SuperJANET in linking higher education and research institutions, the outcomes of pilot projects under the Education Departments' Superhighways Initiative, and the overall development of the Government's strategy on the National Grid for Learning (NGfL) following consultation. Further announcements on the development of the NGfL will be made later this year.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the nature and quantity of the material sent by his Department to schools concerning Economic and Monetary Union; what was its source, its publication and distribution cost; how it was funded; and if he will place a full set of the material in the Library. [52717]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  No material about Economic and Monetary Union has been sent to schools by the Department for Education and Employment.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what extra provision of funds there will be to the education sector following the Comprehensive Spending Review to address millennium computer compliance problems. [52904]

  Dr. Howells
  The Comprehensive Spending Review has only just concluded. Accordingly, decisions about more detailed allocations are currently in the process of being made. The outcomes of these deliberations will be available later in the year.

  Modern Apprenticeships (Engineering)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the proportion of the full average costs to employers of providing a modern apprenticeship in the engineering industry that is met by the subsidy payable through training and enterprise councils. [52957]

  Dr. Howells
  The information requested is not available. Funding for Modern Apprenticeships in the engineering industry is agreed through local negotiations between Training and Enterprise Councils and employers/training providers. The level of support will vary according to a range of factors including local circumstances and the needs of individuals.
  141

  Accountancy Qualifications
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by the Higher Education Funding Council in 1995–96 in support of students studying for accountancy qualifications. [52244]

  Dr. Howells
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England allocate block grant to institutions based on a broad funding model. The Funding Council has estimated that in 1995–96 the funding model allocated around £36 million to institutions for students on accountancy courses.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics his Department collects on the fees charged to students by further education colleges for studying towards accountancy qualifications. [52242]

  Dr. Howells
  None.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) from which departmental budget the Education Maintenance Allowance will be paid; and how it will be paid to recipients; [53118]

  (2) if the Education Maintenance Allowance will be linked to parents' income through (a) means-testing and (b) taxation; [53119]

  (3) if he will list the pilot areas for Education Maintenance Allowance; [53120]

  (4) how many people are included in the target groups in the pilot areas for the Education Maintenance Allowance; [53121]

  (5) when the report from the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots will be published. [53122]

  Dr. Howells
  The details of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots are being worked up. Such additional money as is required for EMA pilots is in this Department's budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be making an announcement on the pilots in the Autumn.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52955]

  Dr. Howells
  Neither of the two compliance cost assessments published by this Department between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 identified a net increase in compliance costs to business.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52956]
  142
  Dr. Howells
  Between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 two compliance cost assessments were published by this Department. These related to: The Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order 1998 and The Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1998.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52954]

  Dr. Howells
  Although neither of the two compliance cost assessments published by this Department between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 identified a net reduction in compliance costs, in both cases there was a potential net benefit to business. The Department is committed to considering the effect its legislation has on business, for example in the design of the New Deal.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52683]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department does not collect information centrally on the specific modes of transport used by employees. Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52682]

  Dr. Howells
  The number of cycle parking spaces in DfEE HQ sites is 183. The breakdown is shown in the table.

  Office/site

  Number

  Darlington

  37

  London

  65

  Ranmoor Hall

  12

  Runcorn

  30

  Sheffield

  39

  Total

  183

  The Employment Service (ES) does not keep records of cycling spaces at its 1,200 properties in a wide range of locations. Where a need is identified, and it is feasible, spaces are made available for staff use.
  143

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52612]

  Dr. Howells
  Decisions on fuel type are made as the individual vehicles are purchased. This is because the relevant technology and the availability of different fuels are constantly changing and the Department seeks efficiency, economy and value for money from every purchase.

  Identifiable undergraduate students by last school attended, in higher education institutions in Scotland: 1996–97—by institution and type of school last attended

  Local authority maintained

  Grant maintained

  Independent1

  Local authority special

  Other

  University of Abertay Dundee

  74

  10

  21

  —

  —

  Edinburgh College of Art

  36

  13

  13

  0

  0

  Glasgow School of Art

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Moray House Institute of Education

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Queen Margaret College

  79

  21

  30

  —

  —

  The Scottish College of Textiles

  8

  —

  6

  —

  —

  The Robert Gordon University

  34

  —

  10

  —

  7

  The University of Paisley

  17

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Napier University

  172

  —

  65

  9

  27

  University of Edinburgh

  971

  262

  2,128

  —

  13

  University of Glasgow

  142

  26

  70

  —

  6

  University of Strathclyde

  124

  24

  45

  0

  6

  University of Aberdeen

  503

  —

  228

  6

  20

  The University of Dundee

  351

  99

  245

  —

  10

  University of St. Andrews

  727

  180

  882

  0

  10

  The University of Stirling

  170

  40

  70

  —

  —

  Total2,3

  3,418

  693

  3,820

  29

  106

  1 Includes 10 pupils from City Technology Colleges.

  2 Data not available for Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, Northern College of Education, St. Andrew's College of Education, Glasgow Caledonian University, Heriot-Watt University and the Scottish Agricultural College.

  3Information on last school attended is not available for students who entered HE via FE colleges or similar routes.

  Domestic Abuse
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to ensure(a) adequate and (b) secure funding for services providing information, support and refuge to those experiencing domestic abuse. [52271]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: Local funding is for individual local authorities and other agencies, but nationally, the Scottish Office continues to give grants to Scottish Women's Aid, amounting this year to over £200,000 for their work on developing refuge and other permanent rehousing options for abused women who would otherwise be homeless, and social welfare work and training.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to raise public awareness about domestic abuse. [52792]
  144

SCOTLAND

  University Students
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what, at each university in Scotland, is the current number of undergraduates who are ordinarily resident in England whose secondary school was(a) a public or private school, (b) a grant-maintained or grammar school, (c) a local authority comprehensive school and (d) another type of school. [49707]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: Available information is given in the table. Data are not available on English students at certain Scottish higher education institutions, nor on English students who entered higher education from further education colleges or similar routes (see footnotes).

  Mr. McLeish
  The Scottish Office will launch a further national advertising campaign in early 1999, as one of a number of measures to prevent domestic abuse.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in order of sparsity the local authorities in Scotland using(a) the definition of settlement size used by his office and (b) the definitions of sparsity and super-sparsity used in the SSA formula for England and Wales. [52358]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Three measures of sparsity are currently in use in the calculation of Grant Aided Expenditure Assessments in Scotland. The table lists local authorities in Scotland in order using each of these measures.

  The information required to list Scottish authorities in order using the definition of sparsity and super-sparsity used in the SSA formula for England and Wales is not

  145
  readily available and will take some time to prepare. I shall write to my hon. Friend with the information in due course.

  Rural settlement pattern1

  Sparsity (additive)2

  Sparsity (multiplicative)2

  Eilean Siar

  Eilean Siar

  Eilean Siar

  Orkney Islands

  Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  Shetland Islands

  Shetland Islands

  Highland

  Aberdeenshire

  Highland

  Shetland Islands

  Moray

  Orkney Islands

  Orkney Islands

  East Lothian

  Aberdeenshire

  Aberdeenshire

  Scottish Borders

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Highland

  Perth and Kinross

  Perth and Kinross

  Argyll and Bute

  Scottish Borders

  Scottish Borders

  Perth and Kinross

  Moray

  Moray

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Angus

  Angus

  Stirling

  Stirling

  Stirling

  East Ayrshire

  East Lothian

  East Lothian

  Clackmannanshire

  South Ayrshire

  South Ayrshire

  Angus

  North Ayrshire

  Fife

  South Ayrshire

  Fife

  North Ayrshire

  North Ayrshire

  East Airshire

  South Lanarkshire

  Fife

  West Lothian

  East Ayrshire

  West Lothian

  South Lanarkshire

  West Lothian

  South Lanarkshire

  Midlothian

  Midlothian

  Midlothian

  Falkirk

  Falkirk

  East Renfrewshire

  Clackmannanshire

  West Dunbartonshire

  East Dunbartonshire

  West Dunbartonshire

  Clackmannanshire

  North Lanarkshire

  Inverclyde

  Renfrewshire

  Inverclyde

  North Lanarkshire

  Dundee City

  Falkirk

  Renfrewshire

  North Lanarkshire

  Renfrewshire

  Edinburgh, City of

  Inverclyde

  Edinburgh, City of

  Glasgow City

  East Dunbartonshire

  Aberdeen City

  Aberdeen City

  Aberdeen City

  Dundee City

  Dundee City

  East Renfrewshire

  West Dunbartonshire

  East Renfrewshire

  Edinburgh, City of

  Glasgow City

  East Dunbartonshire

  Glasgow City

  1 Percentage of an authority's population living outwith settlements of 10,000+ population. A settlement is defined as a continuously built-up area that is at least 1km distant from any other built-up area

  2 The measures of sparsity include 3 elements: (1) hectares per person; (2) percentage of residents living outwith settlements of 1000+ population (census of population 1991); (3) average distance between population centre point of local authority and the centroid of each postcode sector or enumeration district weighted by its population (census of population 1991). Each component series is standardised and the 3 are combined either by adding together (the "additive") or multiplying together ("the multiplicative"). The sparsity indicator values for the new authorities are the combined values of corresponding former districts, weighted by district population.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52685]

  Mr. Dewar
  A recent survey showed that 6 per cent. of employees at my Department's main building at Victoria Quay, Edinburgh cycle to work. Equivalent information is not available for the large number of other employment sites for which my Department and agencies are responsible. We are committed to encouraging Green Transport Plans, including measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work, as we explained in our White Paper, "Travel Choices for Scotland" (Cm 4010).

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52946]

  Mr. Wilson
  Details of compliance cost assessments published by The Scottish Office are contained in the six-monthly Command Papers of Compliance Cost Assessments.

  Between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998, ten compliance cost assessments covering the following Scottish measures have been published:
  The Environmental Assessment (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997; and The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Amendment Order 1997;
  The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997—amendments to Parts D and E of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990;
  The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997—amendments to Part J of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990;
  The Building (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1997—amendments to Part K of the Technical Standards for compliance with the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations 1990;
  Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Scotland) Order 1997; and Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development)(Scotland) Amendment (No. 2) Order 1997;
  The Surface Waters (Shellfish)(Classification)(Scotland) Direction 1998;
  The Scheme for Construction Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 1998;
  Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (Scotland) (Commencement No. 5) Order 1998;
  Construction Contracts (Scotland) Exclusion Order 1998;
  Surface Water (Dangerous Substances) (Classification) (Scotland) Regulations 1998.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52947]

  Mr. Wilson
  There is presently no requirement on Departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or result in a saving to business. In the period 1 May 1997 to 30 May 1998, The Scottish Office has produced no compliance cost assessments which have resulted in a net reduction in compliance costs to business, although we have produced some which have indicated that the proposals are cost neutral.

  For the detail, I refer the hon. Member to Cmnd 3938 and the individual compliance cost assessments held in the House Library.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what cost-per-job limits are set on offers of regional selective assistance in development areas in Scotland. [52925]
  147
  Mr. Wilson
  Information on cost-per-job limits is confidential and cannot be disclosed. Regional Selective Assistance offers are made subject to common guidelines throughout Great Britain.

  Football Hooliganism
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many Scotland supporters were(a) arrested, (b) detained and (c) removed from France by the French authorities during the World Cup; [51994]

  (2) if he will list in order of frequency the towns and cities of residence given of the Scottish football fans (a) arrested, (b) detained and (c) removed from France by the French authorities during the World Cup; [51996]

  (3) how many members of each official Scottish Football League supporters clubs were (a) arrested, (b) detained and (c) removed from France by the French authorities during the World Cup. [52002]

  Mr. Dewar
  The number of Scottish fans arrested in France during the World Cup was 6. The number detained and removed from France by the French authorities involved are listed below:Arrests
  Aberdeen (2), Edinburgh (2), Glasgow (1) and Coatbridge (1).
  Detained
  Edinburgh (35), Glasgow (15), Paisley (1), North Berwick (1), Airdrie (1), Harthill (1), Newcastle (1), Kilsyth (1), Kirkintilloch (1) and Milton of Campsie (1).

  Information on how many of these individuals are members of official Scottish Football League supporters clubs is not available.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many football supporters were arrested or detained by police at each football ground in the Scottish Premier and Scottish divisions 1, 2 and 3 for the last three years for which figures are available; [51999]

  (2) how much was spent by each league club in Scotland on policing of football grounds (a) on average per game and (b) each of the last three years for which figures are available. [52003]

  Mr. McLeish
  It will take some time to obtain this information and I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lone parents there are in Scotland; of these how many have children aged under five years; how many, of each of these categories are currently in employment; what proportion of the total of each category in the United Kingdom this represents; and what forcasts his Department has made of these numbers in future years. [52981]

  Mr. Wilson
  In Spring 1998, there were 173,000 lone parents in Scotland, of whom 72,000 were in employment. Of the 65,000 lone parents who had children aged under 5 years, 12,000 were in employment.
  148
  These figures are given in the table, which also shows the proportion of each category in the UK total.

  Lone parents with dependent children by economic status and age of youngest dependent child Spring 1998 (not seasonally adjusted)—Scotland

  Thousand

  As per cent of UK total

  All lone parents

  173

  9.2

  in employment

  72

  8.4

  Lone Parents with children aged under 5

  65

  9.2

  in employment

  12

  6.3

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will provide an analysis by sector, and for small, medium and large scale businesses, of those projects which have been most successful in gaining funding from the European Regional Development Fund. [52728]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information requested is not held centrally. European Regional Development Fund support is delivered through 7 area-based programmes in Scotland and 11 Community Initiative programmes. Successful projects range from the provision of business premises and training facilities to support to the enterprise networks and local authorities to encourage the creation, development and expansion of individual business, particularly small and medium enterprises.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the range of advice and assistance which is given to those seeking assistance from the European Regional Development Fund. [52726]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Potential applicants for funding receive advice and assistance from a number of sources. That, provided as part of the administration of the programmes, includes general information about the availability of European Funds and how to apply for them, detailed information on the respective programmes, guidance on the completion of application (and claim) forms, and the opportunity to discuss proposals with Programme Executives and Secretariats responsible for programme administration and implementation.

  Scottish Trade International
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the structures and methods used by Scottish Trade International for assessing the success rate of Scottish projects in winning assistance from the European Regional Development Fund. [52727]

  Mr. Wilson
  Scottish Trade International is consulted on all European Regional Development Fund applications for export promotion activity. The success of such applications is monitored through STI' s close involvement with the network of Export Partnerships, together with other relevant Scottish Office officials.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what has been the sterling value of European Regional Development Fund assistance to Scottish Trade International in each of the last five years; [52725]
  149
  (2) if Scottish Trade International has made an application to access the European Regional Development Fund to support Scottish export promotion. [52818]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over the past five years, there have been two projects for which Scottish Trade International has been successful in securing European Regional Development Fund assistance. In 1996, Scottish Trade International secured funding of £175,400 over three years for a project which will develop links with European development agencies to find foreign partners for Scottish companies in overseas markets. The project started on 1 January 1997 and £31,000 of the overall award was paid out in the year 1997–98.

  In 1997, Scottish Trade International was also successful in securing funding of £225,000 over two years to establish Scottish Software Centres in California and Virginia. As the project did not commence until 1 January 1998, no payments have as yet been made.

  Potential European Regional Development Fund bids for the current financial year are presently being considered by Scottish Trade International.

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total overall budget for Scottish Trade International for the current year; and what proportion of that total is provided by(a) the Exchequer and (b) the European Regional Development Fund. [52724]

  Mr. Wilson
  STI' s budget provision for the current year, including running costs, is £7.4 million, of which £6.6 million comes from Scottish Enterprise, with the remainder provided by The Scottish Office. Figures relate to core STI activities and cover both staffing and programme expenditure. In addition, STI will receive about £138,000 this year as a result of previous successful bids for ERDF funding.

  Health Boards (External Consultants)
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the expenditure by health boards in Scotland on public relations and media services provided by external consultants in each of the last five years. [52410]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Superquarry, Isle of Harris
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received the report of the public inquiry into the proposed superquarry at Lingerbay, Isle of Harris; and when he plans to announce his decision. [52497]

  Tranche

  Site name

  Contracted capacity

  Status

  NFF03

  01006L3

  Mayton Wood

  1.519

  Application approved

  01007L3

  Blackborough End

  1.519

  Application approved

  01024L3

  Attlebridge

  1.175

  Application approved

  01025L3

  Bramford

  0.81

  Application approved

  01026L3

  Elstow

  1.76

  Application approved

  01027L3

  Sundon

  2.64

  Application approved

  01047L3

  Edgefield Hall Farm

  0.6

  Application approved

  150
  Mr. Macdonald
  My right. hon Friend has not yet received the Report of this public local inquiry. Part 1 of the Report (the summary of evidence led and the Findings of Fact) has been circulated to parties for comment and the Reporter is currently considering the responses received with a view to making any necessary adjustments. Thereafter, Part 2 of the Report has to be completed before it is submitted to the Secretary of State for his consideration. At this stage, it is not possible to indicate when a decision will be issued.

  Scottish Record Office
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the prior options review of the Scottish Record Office. [53606]

  Mr. Dewar
  A prior options review of the Scottish Record Office was carried out recently by my Department. The review concluded that the functions of the Scottish Record Office will be required indefinitely as they are essential to the safekeeping and preservation of the national archives of Scotland, and recommended continuation of Agency status. A number of subsidiary recommendations were made to enhance the strategic management of the Agency and to develop its commercial activities. I have accepted the recommendations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if she will publish the targets set by the Committee for the Proportion of waste to be recycled in each of the categories(a) paper, (b) glass, (c) aluminium, (d) other metals and (e) plastics. [51186]

  Mrs. Roe
  This is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms; I have asked him to write to the hon. Gentleman.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many power projects contracted under the NFFO are at the planning approval stage; and what is the generation capacity of these projects. [51764]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: As at 31 March 1998 there were seventy-nine NFFO3 projects for which planning applications had been approved. A further twelve had submitted planning applications to the relevant planning authority. Details of these NFFO3 projects, including their contracted capacities, are set out in the table. Comprehensive information about NFFO4 projects' progress in obtaining planning permission is not yet available.
  151

  Tranche

  Site name

  Contracted capacity

  Status

  01098L3

  Arlesey

  1.08

  Application approved

  01099L3

  L'field Stewartby

  10.668

  Application approved

  01100L3

  Dogsthorpe

  1.89

  Application approved

  01107L3

  Foxhall

  1.175

  Application approved

  02001L3

  Newton Longville

  0.945

  Application approved

  02003L3

  Portley Ford

  1.82

  Application approved

  02015L3

  Sidegate Lane

  1.33

  Application approved

  02017L3

  Brixworth

  0.575

  Application approved

  02030L3

  Waverley Wood Farm

  0.802

  Application approved

  02066L3

  Judkins Quarry Phase 3

  1.157

  Application approved

  02080L3

  Mountsorrel

  1.519

  Application approved

  04006L3

  Standard

  0.875

  Application approved

  04007L3

  Maw Green

  1.615

  Application approved

  O4O08L3

  Gowy

  1.615

  Application approved

  05002L3

  Himley Wood

  1.82

  Application approved

  05044L3

  Granville

  1.393

  Application approved

  05072L3

  Harn Hill Quarry

  2.61

  Application approved

  06011L3

  Ellington Road

  0.945

  Application approved

  06012L3

  Seghill Village

  1.422

  Application approved

  06029L3

  Harewood Whin

  2.376

  Application approved

  07005L3

  Danes Moss

  1.63

  Application approved

  07109L3

  Butchersfield

  2.874

  Application approved

  08002L3

  Cormongers Lane

  1.82

  Application approved

  08023L3

  Stangate Landfill

  4.5

  Application approved

  08024L3

  Offham Phase 2

  1.18

  Application approved

  08035L3

  Horton

  1.825

  Application approved

  09008L3

  Whites Pit

  6.015

  Application approved

  09014L3

  Ardley Fields Farm

  1.825

  Application approved

  09143L3

  Paulsgrove Landfill

  2.415

  Application approved

  09157L3

  Wapsey's Wood II

  1.72

  Application approved

  09158L3

  Netley

  0.9

  Application approved

  10035L3

  Tythegston

  1.175

  Application approved

  11042L3

  Yanley

  0.945

  Application approved

  12004L3

  Howden Clough Road

  1.82

  Application approved

  12071L3

  Winterton

  3.772

  Application approved

  01045E3

  Elean Business Park

  31

  Application approved

  01106E3

  Thetford Power Station

  38.5

  Application approved

  02043E3

  Phoenix Parkway

  14.25

  Application submitted

  05004E3

  Oakland Farm

  0.3

  Application submitted

  11065E3

  Poole

  10.93

  Application submitted

  12076E3

  Eggborough Power Station

  8

  Application approved

  02027H3

  Holme Pierrepont

  0.89

  Application approved

  02029H3

  Beeston Weir

  1.66

  Application approved

  04024H3

  Ffestiniog

  1.75

  Application approved

  04096H3

  Gelli Lago

  0.18

  Application submitted

  04098H3

  Cwmorthin

  0.41

  Application approved

  05026H3

  Ebley Mill

  0.098

  Application approved

  10003H3

  Llyn Brianne Dam

  4.35

  Application approved

  10004H3

  Elan Valley

  2.95

  Application approved

  11034H3

  Old Walls Hydro

  0.076

  Application approved

  12035H3

  Kirkthorpe

  0.386

  Application approved

  02076W3

  Copt Oak Farm

  0.15

  Application submitted

  02092W3

  Snibston Discovery Park

  0.127

  Application approved

  04011W3

  Mynydd Gorddu

  4.18

  Application approved

  04016W3

  Mynydd Glandulas

  0.119

  Application approved

  04037W3

  Rheidol Windfarm

  1.001

  Application approved

  04050W3

  Carno B Windfarm

  6.321

  Application approved

  04051W3

  Carno A Windfarm

  6.321

  Application approved

  04053W3

  Cemmaes B

  1.365

  Application submitted

  04054W3

  Trysglwyn Windfarm

  2.36

  Application approved

  04068W3

  Hafotty Ucha

  0.257

  Application approved

  04076W3

  Royal Seaforth Dock

  1.535

  Application approved

  04081W3

  Mynydd Clogau

  4.253

  Application submitted

  04103W3

  Mynydd Yr Hendre

  12.492

  Application submitted

  04107W3

  Llanbabo

  9.181

  Application approved

  05001W3

  Lynch Knoll

  0.213

  Application approved

  06019W3

  Great Eppleton Farm

  1.277

  Application approved

  07046W3

  Great Orton Airfield

  1.018

  Application submitted

  07056W3

  Harlock Hill

  1.488

  Application approved

  07124W3

  Siddick

  1.791

  Application approved

  07125W3

  Oldside

  2.303

  Application approved

  07129W3

  Kirkstanton Airfield

  1.023

  Application approved

  07130W3

  Far Old Park Farm

  2.303

  Application approved

  11008W3

  Davidstow Windfarm

  3.371

  Application submitted

  152 153

  Tranche

  Site name

  Contracted capacity

  Status

  11011W3

  Trannack Downs

  0.381

  Application submitted

  11080W3

  Treculliacks

  0.254

  Application approved

  12014W3

  Barms Hill Farm

  0.107

  Application approved

  05032M3

  Dudley Incinerator

  6.2

  Application approved

  05033M3

  Wolverhampton Incinerator

  8.35

  Application approved

  05034M3

  Stoke Incinerator

  12.5

  Application approved

  05036M3

  Tyseley Waste Disposal Site

  28.2

  Application approved

  06002M3

  Haverton Hill

  20.069

  Application approved

  08031M3

  Betteshanger Colliery

  9

  Application submitted

  12049M3

  Bernard Road

  2.1

  Application approved

  Total NFF03

  349.411

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many power stations contracted under the NFFO above 7.5 megawatts are now in the course of construction; and where they are located. [51765]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: There are nine NFFO3 projects with contracted capacities exceeding 7.5 megawatts DNC (declared net capacity) for which

  Site name

  Site address

  Contracted capacity MW (dnc)

  Status

  L' field Stewartby (Landfill Gas)

  Green Lane

  10.668

  Operational

  Stewartby

  Bedfordshire MK43 9LZ

  Wolverhampton (Energy from Waste)

  Crown Street

  8.35

  Operational

  Wolverhampton

  West Midlands

  Stoke (Energy from Waste)

  Campbell Road

  12.5

  Operational

  Stoke on Trent

  Staffordshire

  Tyseley (Energy from Waste)

  James Road

  28.2

  Operational

  Tyseley

  Birmingham

  West Midlands B11 2BA

  Llanbabo (Wind)

  Anglesey

  9.181

  Operational

  Gwynedd

  Haverton Hill (Wind)

  Site B

  20.069

  Planning application approved

  North off Haverton Hill Road

  Stockton

  Cleveland

  Eggborough Power Station (Biomass)

  Eggborough

  8

  Planning application approved.

  Nr Selby

  Under construction

  North Yorkshire

  Thetford Power Station (Biomass)

  Thetford

  38.5

  Planning application approved.

  Norfolk

  Construction underway

  Elean Business Park (Biomass)

  Off A142

  31

  Planning application approved

  between March and Ely

  Sutton

  Cambridgeshire

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much electricity is currently being generated by projects contracted under the NFFO. [51766]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: Electricity generated from all NFF01–4 projects from 1 April 1997 until 31 March 1998 was 2,732 Gwh.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will estimate the savings in CO2, emissions from the use of (a) all power stations and (b) biomass power stations contracted under the NFFO. [51767]
  154
  planning applications have been approved. Of these, five are operational. Details of these NFFO3 projects, including their registered site addresses, are set out in the table. Comprehensive information of similar-sized NFFO4 projects' progress in obtaining planning permission is not yet available.

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: I expect renewable energy projects contracted under NFFOs 1–5 to achieve savings in CO2, emissions of about 2 million tonnes of carbon. Ten to twenty per cent. of this will be attributable to biomass power stations, depending on the number of projects which are successfully commissioned.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many of the proposed power stations which have secured contracts under the NFFO have been refused planning permission by the relevant planning authority. [51768]
  155
  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: Information about planning permission refusals for NFFO1 and NFFO2 projects is not held centrally. As at 31 March 1998 fifteen NFFO3 projects had been refused planning permission. Appeals had been lodged in respect of twelve of these projects, of which five have been dismissed. Comprehensive information about NFFO4 projects' progress in obtaining planning permission is not yet available.

  British Coal
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total revenue from sales of British Coal land and assets in each year since privatisation. [52447]

  Mr. Battle
  The total proceeds received for each year were:

  £ million

  Financial year

  Sale of land and assets

  Sale of subsidiary undertakings

  Total

  1995–96

  48

  48

  96

  1996–97

  76

  35

  111

  1997–98

  49

  13

  62

  Arbitration Legislation
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the recent legislation concerning the arbitration of employment cases will come into force. [52632]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Provision for the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) to provide, fund, and promote a scheme for the arbitration of unfair dismissal disputes, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, is included in the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998. This provision will come into force on 1 August 1998. The scheme, which will be the subject of consultation, is not expected to begin operation until after April 1999.

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has evaluated on the causes and extent of fuel poverty; and if she will make a statement. [51314]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Green Paper A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation highlighted a particular concern that disadvantaged consumers may be benefiting least from emerging competition in gas and electricity supply. In considering how these problems might best be resolved, the review of utilities regulation has considered available papers and research on these issues. Officials from my Department have also been involved in an interdepartmental working group under the leadership of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, which has considered how fuel poverty might be more closely defined and alleviated, and have contributed to the Gas Consumers' Council's Low Income Consumer and Competition working group.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to the answer of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 402, when he expects to publish his
  156
  response to the action plan for the protection of disadvantaged consumers produced by the energy regulators and energy companies in consultation with consumer organisations. [53170]

  Mr. Battle
  The then President of the Board of Trade published on 27 July 'A Fair Deal for Consumers: Modernising the Framework for Utility Regulation:The Response to Consultation'. This details the Government's response to the consultation on the Green Paper on utility regulation, published in March, including the action plan for the protection of disadvantaged consumers. Copies have been placed in the Library of both Houses.

  Foresight Programme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what systems are in place to measure the performance of the Foresight programme. [53083]

  Mr. Battle
  On coming into office my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), as President of the Board of Trade, commissioned an audit of the Foresight Programme across Government. Last October the findings of the audit were published, and the Ministerial Foresight Group was established under my chairmanship to provide top level oversight of the Foresight Programme across Whitehall. A further progress report was published last month. Copies are available in the Library.

  Independent assessments of the impact of Foresight to date have been published by several organisations, including a 1995 report from the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, and a report from the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology shortly after the General Election last year. Impact assessment will be an integral part of the next round of Foresight, starting in April 1999, which is currently the subject of widespread public consultation. The blueprint for the next round will be published in the Autumn.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost of the Foresight Initiative in each of the last three years. [53082]

  Mr. Battle
  The Foresight Programme is spearheaded by sixteen panels drawn from business, the science base, and Government departments. Panel members give their time free of charge. The total cost of staff in the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology servicing panels and managing the development of the programme, related consultancy support, and Panel activities in each of the last three years was as follows:

  £ million

  1995–96

  1.170

  1996–97

  1.502

  1997–98

  1.475

  Mining Industry
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to conclude her deliberations on the issue of dismissed miners. [52751]
  157
  Mr. Battle
  The recently published Coalfields Task Force report recommended that the DTI review the pension entitlements of individuals who were dismissed by British Coal at the time of the 1984–85 miners' strike. The Department is actively looking into British Coal's handling of the issue. However, given the time that has elapsed since these dismissals and the consequent difficulty in establishing the full circumstances, it is too early to say when a conclusion might be reached.

  Strikes
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many days have been lost to strikes in each quarter since the first quarter of 1992. [52980]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Number of working days lost due to labour disputes in the UK

  Year

  Q1

  Q2

  Q3

  Q4

  Total

  1992

  114,800

  85,600

  161,600

  166,000

  528,000

  1993

  194,000

  198,900

  76,300

  180,000

  649,300

  1994

  15,100

  118,900

  90,300

  54,100

  278,400

  1995

  70,600

  101,300

  75,200

  167,600

  414,700

  1996

  102,500

  261,900

  712,700

  226,200

  1,303,300

  1997

  75,500

  97,000

  17,900

  44,300

  234,700

  19981

  62,300

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Provisional data

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Coal Authority
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Coal Authority's report and Accounts for 1997–98 will be laid before Parliament. [53551]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today laid a copy before each House of Parliament.

  Landward Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has concluded his assessment of applications made in the 8 Round of Landward Petroleum Licensing. [53546]

  Mr. Battle
  All applications have now been assessed. No further awards will be made.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 152, if he will establish for what reasons British Intelligence did not provide advance warning of the Indian nuclear tests. [46818]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The performance of the intelligence agencies in meeting the requirements placed on them is reviewed regularly by the Joint Intelligence Committee and subsequently by Ministers.
  158

  GCHQ
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to consult local authorities on the future location of GCHQ. [52205]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  GCHQ has maintained contact with and consulted local authorities at all stages of their new accommodation project and will continue to do so. The development of GCHQ's future accommodation is subject to statutory planning procedures and the short-listed consortia will be required to obtain planning consent from the Local Authorities for their development plans.

  Diplomatic Representation
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on changes to his Department's policy and practice on the maintenance of diplomatic representation with de facto Governments, following the deposition of a democratic Government. [51876]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not changed. Since 1980 the practice of the UK has been to recognise states and not governments. We maintain diplomatic representation when it is in the UK interest to do so. The level at which our representation is maintained depends upon the scale of British interests and the political acceptability of the government in power of the state concerned. The deposition of a democratic government does not necessarily bring about the withdrawal of diplomatic representation or a breach in diplomatic relations.

  Immigration Section, Islamabad
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning conditions in the Immigration Office at the British High Commission in Islamabad; and if he will make a statement. [52048]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During 1997 we received representations from many Members of Parliament about the handling of individual visa applications and the standard of service provided by the Immigration Section at our High Commission in Islamabad. A combination of staff shortages and computer failures during the busy summer season in 1997 had resulted in a deterioration in service standards.

  A programme of change (including increases in staff numbers, training programmes and improvements to public waiting areas) initiated at the beginning of this year has resulted in improvement in the quality of service. We are doing all that we can to maintain standards during the current summer peak season for visa applications.

  Brazil
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in establishing the land rights of the Tapeba Indians in the state of Ceara, Brazil; and how many hectares have been demarcated. [52432]
  159
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Embassy officials in Brasilia maintain regular contact with the authorities responsible for the demarcation of Indian lands.

  4,658 hectares will be allocated to the Tapeba. The period for legal challenge to this decision lapsed on Friday 24 July, meaning that physical demarcation can now proceed. A company has been selected to carry out the physical demarcation and the tender for this was expected to be ratified by the President of FUNAI (the National Foundation for Assistance to Indians) on 27 July.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52689]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In relation to the number of employees, we provide the following proportion of cycle spaces:

  London: 7.2 per cent.

  Hanslope Park (near Milton Keynes): 11.5 per cent.

  There is a fairly high usage rate, but precise details are not available.

  We plan to increase the number of cycle spaces in our London buildings by up to 20 per cent. during this financial year in order to encourage those employees who live within cycling distance to use this method of transport.

  Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  County Court, Evesham
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to reach a decision on the future of Evesham County Court. [52736]

  Mr. Hoon
  The proposal to close Evesham County Court was put out to public consultation in May 1998. Consultation ended on 3 July 1998. All of the responses will now be considered by Court Service Officials before any decision is made on how this proposal is to proceed. If the decision is made to go ahead, the Group Manager will submit a business case (setting out all the points raised against closure and the reply made to them) to the Lord Chancellor for a final decision. It is therefore not possible at this stage to provide a timetable.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52623]
  160
  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is as follows:

  Department

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  The Court Service

  403 x diesel

  153 x diesel

  50 x diesel

  Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters

  4 x petrol

  5 x petrol

  6 x petrol

  —

  —

  1 x diesel

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  —

  —

  1 x diesel

  HM Land Registry

  10 x diesel

  4 x diesel

  8 x diesel

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  UEFA Competitions
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received in respect of the UEFA decision to impose ownership restrictions on clubs taking part in UEFA competitions. [50716]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: I have received a number of representations expressing concern about a recently adopted UEFA ruling preventing football clubs under common control from participating in the same UEFA competition.

  While I can appreciate the concern about the potential impact of the ruling, I believe it is very important that the integrity of football competitions is not undermined. How far the new ruling is proportionate to UEFA's concerns in this regard is, of course, for the football authorities to judge in the first instance, and to pursue as necessary with UEFA. I am due to discuss this issue with the Premier League.

  Sport (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what support he will give to outstanding sportsmen and sportswomen from Worcestershire. [50921]

  Mr. Banks
  Outstanding sportsmen and sportswomen from Worcestershire, who compete at the highest international levels, will be able to benefit from the Lottery funded World Class Performance Programme, which has so far awarded grants worth a total of £28.9 million to support 1,808 elite athletes across the country.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 16 December 1997, Official Report, column 77, that Sheffield was the successful consortium chosen to run and manage the United Kingdom Sports Institute Headquarters. Alongside the HQ there will be a regional network which will provide first class facilities for a range of Olympic and other non-commercial sports for our very best sportsmen and women.

  The Home Country Sports Councils have been asked by Ministers to identify prospective regional centres. The English Sports Council (ESC) have looked very carefully at the siting of the Centres in England and have taken into account many factors including existing facilities, population and transport. The ESC have concentrated on

  161
  finding a solution so that all our elite athletes, wherever they live, will have access to the best training and support services.

  I have received the ESC's recommendations but they will need careful consideration and discussion before any decision and announcement are made.

  School Sports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidelines his Department issues on the minimum number of sports schools should offer. [51319]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: My Department does not issue guidelines on the number of sports schools should offer. The national curriculum for PE is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

  The English Sports Council's National Junior Sport Programme includes the TOP series of initiatives, developed and delivered with the Youth Sports Trust, which provide opportunities for children to become involved in sport and realise their full potential.

  Cricket
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many women he estimates regularly play cricket in England. [51628]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: According to the England and Wales Cricket Board, there were 3,600 women and nearly 500,000 school girls playing cricket throughout this country in 1997. The Government, through the English Sports Council, actively encourage all governing bodies of sport to have programmes in place which promote our policy of "sport for all" and increase participation levels in all sports, from grass roots through to elite competitors.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the possible locations for a national cricket centre of excellence; and what criteria will determine its location. [51627]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: As part of the consultation process on the National Cricket Centre, the England and Wales Cricket Board is exploring a number of possible locations, including English Sports Council's National Sports Centre at Lilleshall.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on the proposals for a national cricket centre of excellence. [51626]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The Management Board of the England and Wales Cricket Board has already supported the idea in principle that a National Cricket Centre should be established, and a project manager is soon to be appointed. This has to be considered in the context of a number of other developments in the game and wide consultation is still taking place to determine the best way forward.
  162

  Millennium Sporting Competitions
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which Millennium sporting competitions his Department is assisting. [51625]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The Department for Culture, Media and Sport worked closely with the Millennium Commission, the other National Lottery distributors and the New Millennium Experience Company to develop the £100 million Millennium Festival Fund. The Fund will support events and activities to mark the Millennium in the United Kingdom throughout the year 2000.

  The English Sports Council is responsible in England for sport's share of the National Lottery. The Council has agreed to support two major initiatives as part of the Millennium Festival. The Millennium Youth Games, launched by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 25 February, will celebrate and promote the role of sport in the personal development of young people by establishing a nationwide series of Youth Games culminating in a National Games in the year 2000. "Awards for All" will operate as a cross-distributor initiative involving three related minor grant programmes providing resources to schools, clubs and non-sporting organisations to promote and widen access to sport. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Sports Councils are developing their own Festival programmes.

  The Millennium Commission will support sports activities from its own contribution to the Festival Fund, where these form part of cross-sectoral Millennium projects or are endorsed by the respective sports councils.

  Sport (Women)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the English Sports Council has received in grant-in-aid for 1997–98; how much money was awarded to women's governing bodies of sport in 1997–98; and how much money was provided at (i) national and (ii) regional level for projects exclusively or primarily concerned with the development of women's sport. [51779]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The English Sports Council (ESC) received £33.725 million grant in aid in 1997–98. Of this: (i) nationally, £541,000 was awarded to women's governing bodies and £35,000 to the Women's Sport Foundation to help women in sport; and (ii) £10,000 was awarded to various women's sporting projects in the regions.

  All governing bodies in receipt of funding must demonstrate that they have policies offering equal opportunities for women; the sums identified do not, of course indicate the total expenditure benefiting women in all sports.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress has been made towards increasing the involvement of women in traditionally male-dominated sports at(a) participant, (b) competitor, (c) coach and (d) administrator levels. [51781]
  163
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The English Sports Council (ESC) is working closely with the governing bodies of football, rugby union, rugby league and cricket to increase the involvement of women in all areas of these sports.

  The Council awards grant in aid funding to sports governing bodies to promote and develop women's involvement and examine ways to increase participation. Governing bodies are required to draw up an appropriate action plan as a condition of this funding.

  The ESC held a conference in November last year with governing bodies in those sports specifically to examine this area closely. A follow-up conference will be held in January to monitor progress.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he is taking to promote the public profile of professional women athletes. [51783]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The Government are determined to raise the profile of all women athletes.

  The Sporting Ambassadors initiative will include top sportswomen to act as role models for young people. By doing so, the initiative will raise the profile of women athletes generally and encourage more women and girls to take part in sport.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to increase the proportion of women appointed to Department-sponsored bodies, including the United Kingdom Sports Council and the English Sports Council. High-profile appointments such as this should also help raise the overall public profile of sportswomen.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on the subject of promoting the health benefits of sport to females of all ages; and what action has subsequently been taken. [51785]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no direct discussions with the Secretary of State for Health on this particular issue. However, there is contact between officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the English Sports Council (ESC) and the Department of Health about issues relating to the Health benefits of sport to women and men alike.

  In considering the development of healthy living centres outlined in the National Lottery Act 1998, Ministers were mindful of the possible role sport can play in promoting the health of women. The draft policy directions for the New Opportunities Fund, currently out for consultation, make specific reference to the need to ensure that projects for healthy living centres cover a wide range of facilities, including sporting activities.

  The ESC will be piloting a project addressing health and physiological issues for young girls starting in October.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Under Secretary of State for Women on the subject of women and sport; and what action has subsequently been taken. [51787]
  164
  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no direct discussions with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women on this particular issue. However, there is contact between officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Women's Unit on a range of issues relating to women and sport. As a result, we, together with the English Sports Council, are examining ways to raise the profile of women in sport in a number of areas.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings(a) he and (b) the Minister for Sport have had with women's sport groups since 1 May 1997. [51788]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer Thursday 23 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had no discussions specifically with women's sport groups; I have had one such meeting. However, we both have regular discussions with people involved in sport, including sportswomen, where issues relating to women in sport are raised.

  Also, the English Sports Council is in continual dialogue with women's sports groups at all levels. The Council reports to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and me on this and a range of other sports-related matters.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he is taking to ensure that the objectives of the 1994 Brighton Declaration on women in sport are being met. [51784]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: I was delighted to announce on 19 May 1998, Official Report, column 309 that the Government had adopted the Brighton Declaration on Women and Sport. We shall abide fully with the aims and principles set out in the declaration.

  The English Sports Council and United Kingdom Sports Council have already adopted the declaration and ensure that their policies reflect the declaration's aims.

  The Government will be guided by the aims of the declaration in developing their sports policies and in their work with the Sports Councils and other sporting organisations.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to encourage more women to take part in sport; and what funding is available to encourage women's participation in sport at each level. [51782]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I work closely with the English Sports Council (ESC) to ensure it has policies aimed at encouraging more women into sport and raising participation levels.

  The ESC has introduced a range of initiatives aimed at encouraging more women into sport and provides funding to women's sports governing bodies, including through the Lottery Sports Fund. The Council also promotes good practice through demonstration projects, advice and guidance notes and action plans.
  165
  The ESC' s Womens Advisory Group examines issues relating to women in sport and gives advice to the Council to ensure that its policies offer equal opportunities for women.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on the subject of increasing sporting opportunities for girls in schools; and what action has subsequently been taken. [51786]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: My department works closely with the Department for Education and Employment to promote sport in schools for all young people.

  I am currently undertaking a number of meetings on the subject of encouraging greater involvement of women and girls in sport.

  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what specific plans have been made to cater for the needs of women in sport within the UK Sports Institute. [51778]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The development of the UK Sports Institute will ensure that any appropriate requirement for top women athletes are taken into account. The Headquarters project is shortly to enter its design phase when these matters will be fully considered.

  Sport Governing Bodies
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 48, when he expects the survey on the profile of officers in governing bodies to be published. [51789]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: My officials recently met the Central Council of Physical Recreation to discuss progress on the survey that the Council is to undertake of its membership. The Council have carried out some preliminary work on how the survey might best be conducted. They now intend to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy) about how the questions he raised in this House on the profile of officers serving on governing bodies of sport can best be addressed. I would hope the results of the Council's survey will be available after the Summer Recess.

HEALTH

  Disability Awareness Training
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS staff have had disability awareness training. [50988]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information about the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was issued to the National Health Service in 1996. Government advice to service providers includes the provision of disability awareness training, and we expect more NHS providers to take advantage of this as they review their policies,166
  practices and procedures in the light of the Act's developing requirements. Such training will be arranged locally.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from representatives of general practitioners on his plans for primary care groups. [50991]

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support he has received from representatives of general practitioners for his plans for primary care groups. [51000]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have had a series of discussions with a range of general practitioner representative groups over the development of Primary Care Groups.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for extending NHS Direct. [50994]

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for extending NHS Direct. [51001]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friends to the oral reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave today.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of NHS Direct. [51014]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the operation of NHS Direct. [50975]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have been monitoring the performance of the three current NHS Direct pilots and they will be independently evaluated to ensure that the service operates to best effect to benefit patients, and to make a significant contribution to better use of resources within the National Health Service.

  The early evidence we have suggests that not only do the public like the service but it is clearly helping to guide them to the right response to their problems. In May nearly 1,500 people or 30 per cent. of callers were given advice on how they look after themselves at home. The service also put 83 people directly in touch with the ambulance service, possibly in some cases saving lives.

  Cancelled Operations
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current trends in the number of cancelled operations. [50995]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the current trends in the number of cancelled operations. [51011]

  Mr. Boateng
  The number of cancelled operations fell by 12 per cent., from 16,374 to 14,460, in the first three months of 1998. This was the second successive quarterly fall.

  Hospitals (Clinical Performance)
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to give patients and general practitioners new rights to information about the clinical performance of local hospitals. [50996]

  Mr. Dobson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply I gave today,Official Report, columns 153.

  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) assess and (b) publish records of clinical performance in hospitals. [51003]

  Mr. Milburn
  Later in the year we will be publishing a number of hospital based clinical indicators on deaths and complications from a range of procedures. These indicators will provide the basis for a better understanding of how hospitals are performing on aspects of their clinical care.

  Primary Care (Redbridge)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to visit Redbridge to discuss local primary care services. [50997]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans at present to visit Redbridge to discuss primary care services.

  Dentistry (Multiple Sclerosis)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to replace free of charge amalgam fillings with non-mercury-based materials for persons diagnosed as having MS. [50998]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service dental treatments are provided on the basis of clinical need. This could include replacing fillings if that is the advice of the responsible medical practitioner. Full or partial exemptions from treatment charges are available for people on low incomes.

  Community Hospitals (Funding)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on community hospital funding between 1999 and 2002. [50999]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced a further £18 billion for the National Health Service in England over the next three years. Provided they meet the same standards of quality, access, efficiency and need, community hospitals will have the same opportunity to access additional funds as other hospitals.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely impact of the current administrative reorganisation and prioritisation of waiting lists on the overall figures. [51002]

  Mr. Milburn
  The impact of our waiting list strategy will be to provide record growth in National Health Service activity to bring down waiting lists over the lifetime of this Parliament by 100,000 from the position we inherited.
  168
  We have already eliminated over 18 month waits for treatment for the first time ever and we intend to continue to deliver this guarantee.

  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current trends in hospital waiting lists. [50993]

  Mr. Milburn
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health told the Health Select Committee last week, provisional data show that waiting lists stopped rising in May and fell by around 21,000 in June. Validated figures will be published in due course. This is clear evidence that we are making real progress in reversing the legacy of rising waiting lists inherited from the previous administration.

  General Practitioners (Vacancies)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of vacancies that currently exist in general practitioner posts. [51004]

  Mr. Milburn
  Surveys by the Medical Practices Committee indicate that the vacancy rate for general medical practitioners remains low at around 3 per cent. Recent policy initiatives should help to ensure that the general practice workforce continues to be maintained at the size required to meet service needs overall.

  NHS Trust Boards
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to whom letters requesting nominations from local authorities for trust boards will be sent for the next trawl for appointments; and if he will make a statement. [51005]

  Mr. Milburn
  Letters were sent to local authority chief executives in November and December 1997 seeking nominations for appointment to National Health Service trust and health authority boards in 1998. A similar letter will be sent to chief executives later this year seeking nominations for appointments in 1999.

  Private Finance Initiative (Trent)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on the completion of PFI projects in the Trent region. [51006]

  Mr. Milburn
  Seven private finance initiative (PFI) projects with a combined capital value of £14.8 million either are complete and operational or have started work on site. Two further PFI schemes (combined capital value of £3.2 million) have had their Full Business Cases approved and are expected to reach financial close this year.

  Two further trusts—Queen's Medical Centre and Fosse Health—are working closely with their preferred private sector partners on major PFI schemes and are expected to submit Full Business Cases before the end of the year.

  Community Hospitals (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of community hospitals in Worcestershire. [51007]
  169
  Mr. Milburn
  Worcestershire Health Authority's strategy for community hospitals forms part of the submission on the Worcestershire Strategic Review which is now with Ministers, and a decision will be announced in due course.

  Kidderminster Hospital
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the unexpired life of the buildings at Kidderminster hospital for the purposes for which they were constructed. [51008]

  Mr. Milburn
  No formal assessment of the recent build at Kidderminster General Hospital has been made.

  Community Pharmacies
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effects of the provisions of the Competition Bill[Lords] on independent community pharmacies; and if he will make a statement. [51009]

  Mr. Milburn
  The effect of the Competition Bill will be to bring such community pharmacies, along with other businesses, within a modern and coherent framework of competition legislation. However, there will be a guaranteed five year transitional period during which the prohibition on anti-competitive agreements is not to apply to resale price maintenance for over the counter medicines.

  NHS Dentistry (Somerset)
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on access to NHS dentistry in Somerset. [51010]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities are responsible for monitoring the availability of general dental services in their area. If access to services is seriously limited, they can apply to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for help under the Investing in Dentistry scheme, to tackle these mainly localised problems. To date, five requests from Somerset Health Authority have been authorised to help improve access where a deficiency in services has occurred.

  Radiotherapy Services (North West Region)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of radiotherapy services in the North-West. [51012]

  Mr. Milburn
  Radiotherapy is currently provided in three centres in the North West: Clatterbridge Hospital in Wirral, Christie Hospital in Manchester and the Royal Preston Hospital in Lancashire. Following a review of cancer services in the North West led by Professor Peter Selby, the £5.1 million Lancashire and Lakeland Unit with Radiotherapy at the Royal Preston Hospital opened to patients in February 1997.

  In order fully to assess the requirement for radiotherapy service provision in the North West and to ensure that deficiencies in access to radiotherapy services for all patients can be identified and addressed, the National Health Service Executive North West Regional Office is undertaking, as a matter of urgency, a detailed analysis of
  170
  the level of service currently being provided and a projection of the level of service required. This will include staffing levels, equipment requirement and costs. The work is expected to be completed in the autumn.

  General Practitioners (Training)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current trend in the number of trainee general practitioners starting training. [51013]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest available data for England show that between 1996 and 1997, there was an upturn in the number of trainee general practitioners (now referred to as GP Registrars) of 2.9 per cent. Between 1987 and 1996 there was an average annual percentage decrease in the number of GP Registrars of 2.4 per cent.

  The number of GP Registrars undergoing vocational training, in England on 1 October in each year from 1987 to 1997, is shown in the table. This is a snapshot of individuals in post on one specific day. 1997 is the last year for which information is available.

  Year

  Number of GP Registrars

  1987

  1,710

  1988

  1,685

  1989

  1,735

  1990

  1,562

  1991

  1,639

  1992

  1,613

  1993

  1,529

  1994

  1,445

  1995

  1,404

  1996

  1,305

  1997

  1,343

  Source:

  Department of Health, Statistics for General Medical Practitioners in England: 1987–1997

  Director of Health Improvement
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the proposed powers and duties of the national Director of Health Improvement. [51015]

  Ms Jowell
  The Director of Health Improvement will be appointed by the Board of the Commission for Health Improvement. The establishment, powers and duties of the Commission for Health Improvement are subject to legislation. Further details of our proposals for the Commission for Health Improvement are set out in the document A First Class Service: Quality in the new NHS, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Insulin Pen Needles
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the extra cost to the NHS of allowing general practitioners to prescribe insulin injection pen needles. [48993]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) on 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 503.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current annual cost to the NHS of prescribing syringes and needles. [48994]
  171
  Mr. Milburn
  The net ingredient cost of syringes and needles dispensed in the community in England in 1997 was £6.4 million. Further detail can be found on page 411 of Prescription Cost Analysis, England 1997, copies of which are in the Library. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income. Information about hospital dispensing is not available centrally.

  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he anticipates a decision will be made on whether general practitioners should be allowed to prescribe insulin injection pen needles on the NHS. [48992]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) on 28 April 1998,Official Report, column 121.

  Human Albumin Solution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safety of human albumin solution. [50118]

  Mr. Dobson
  (holding answer 14 July 1998): The safety of human albumin solution when used in resuscitation of critically ill patients has been questioned in a paper by the Cochrane Injuries Group published in the British Medical Journal (25 July 1998). This presents the findings of a systematic review of more than 30 clinical trials examining the effects of albumin in the treatment of seriously ill patients. Individually, these trials have many limitations but, taken together, they suggest that seriously ill patients given albumin may be less likely to survive their illness than if they are given alternative fluids. However, it is uncertain whether albumin is responsible for extra deaths or why it might be harmful. The paper states that the use of human albumin in the management of such patients should be urgently reviewed but no specific advice is given.

  An article in The Observer of 26 July has questioned the handling of this issue by the Chief Medical Officer and the Medicines Control Agency. Following a telephone call with the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, one of the authors of the paper, Dr. Roberts, sent information on the systematic review to the Chief Medical Officer on 12 March. This was given very careful consideration before the Chief Medical Officer wrote back to Dr. Roberts on 27 April. He reinforced the Deputy Chief Medical Officer's advice that this information should be sent to the Medicines Control Agency, who are responsible for advice on licensed medicines containing human albumin. Dr. Roberts sent a draft of the paper to the Medicines Control Agency which was received by them on 28 April.

  The paper was evaluated and the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines based on the evidence available was sought on 13 May. Further information was requested from Dr. Roberts on 14 May and a reply was received on 19 May. A full evaluation of the findings of the systematic review and the individual clinical trials included in the review was made. It was considered by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 28 May. The Committee's view was that they did not consider withdrawal of human albumin products was warranted and
  172
  advised an Expert Working Party be set up to consider the implications of the review for the use of human albumin. Experts in intensive care, burns, paediatrics, hepatology and cardiothoracic surgery were identified and on 25 June were invited to join the Expert Working Party. It met on 23 July. The Expert Working Party did not consider that withdrawal of human albumin products was warranted but requested further data on similar products to albumin, as some evidence on the colloid alternatives to human albumin also suggests an associated increase in mortality. The EWP is to meet again in September to consider this aspect.

  Information was sent to hospital specialists through the CMO' s Epinet cascade on 24 July, informing them of actions being taken, and an article will shortly appear in the CMO Update which is circulated to all doctors in England. Meanwhile, it is important that when human albumin is to be given, the precautions in authorised product information and the British National Formulary are followed.

  This matter has been considered very carefully. Those responsible for advising me on licensing of human medicines have concluded that on the evidence available to them it is currently more appropriate to leave human albumin available for clinicians who wish to use it for the benefit of their patients than to ban it.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what redress is available to individuals who have been charged by local authorities under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for residential or domiciliary services. [51504]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: Charges cannot be levied for services, residential or non-residential, which are provided as part of the programme of aftercare for a patient who is entitled to such care under Section 117 of the Mental Health Act.

  If a person believes that charges have been levied under these circumstances, they should raise the matter with the appropriate social services authority.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with other departments over the funding for people with mental health problems living in sheltered accommodation. [51316]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government fully appreciate the importance of supported housing for vulnerable people, including those with mental health problems.

  The Department is part of the inter-departmental review of the funding of support services in housing for vulnerable people.

  Shropshire Health Authority
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each of the past 10 years the amounts paid out in compensation by Shropshire Health Authority in negligence claims. [52221]
  173
  Mr. Milburn
  The payments for clinical negligence by Shropshire Health Authority are set out in the table.

  £000

  Year

  Total negligence payments

  1997–98

  3,154

  1996–97

  529

  1995–96

  1,691

  1994–95

  2,143

  1993–94

  173

  1992–93

  87

  1991–92

  414

  1990–91

  418

  1989–90

  54

  1988–89

  19

  Source:

  Shropshire Health Authority

  HIV-positive Patients
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many WV-positive patients have not been admitted to HIV wards in Hampshire for lack of an available bed in the last five years; [52226]

  (2) how many beds there are in HIV wards in the Portsmouth area. [52227]

  Ms Jowell
  This information is not collected by the Department. The hon. Member may, therefore, wish to contact Ms Judith Smyth, Chairman of Portsmouth and South East Hampshire Health Authority, for information on the care of patients with HIV in the Portsmouth area.

  Hysterectomies
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hysterectomies were carried out in the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available; and how many were carried out for fibroids alone. [52067]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information for National Health Service Hospitals in England for 1995–96 (the latest figures available) is as follows:

  Number

  Total number of hysterectomies

  71,559

  Number of hysterectomies where the primary diagnosis was uterine fibroids

  16,311

  Notes:

  Operation codes: QO7–Q8, Excision of uterus

  Diagnostic code (ICD-10): D25 Leiomyoma of uterus

  Data in this table are grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Matters relating to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are for my right. hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland.

  Derbyshire Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will investigate the factors underlying the response time performance of Derbyshire Ambulance NHS Trust in 1997–98. [52107]
  174
  Mr. Boateng
  Derbyshire Ambulance Service has experienced an increase in its emergency workload of almost 50 per cent. since 1993. North Derbyshire and Southern Derbyshire Health Authorities, Derbyshire Ambulance Service and the National Health Service Executive are working together to address ambulance response times in Derbyshire and how these can best be improved.

  Drug-related Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths have occurred in(a) England and (b) Wales in the past five years caused by the use of (i) heroin and (ii) methadone. [50502]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: The information available is shown in the table.

  Deaths from heroin and methadone to residents of England and Wales, 1993–1997

  England

  Wales

  Year

  Heroin

  Methadone

  Heroin

  Methadone

  1993

  54

  215

  1

  5

  1994

  88

  248

  1

  9

  1995

  128

  277

  1

  19

  1996

  182

  334

  3

  16

  1997

  167

  344

  2

  24

  Notes:

  1. Data for years 1993–1996 are based on those that occurred during the year; data for 1997 on those that were registered in that year

  2. Where both heroin and methadone are mentioned on a death certificate, the death is shown twice in this table, once under heroin and once under methadone

  3. In some of these deaths other substances of misuse may be involved

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Ambulance Costs
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the costs incurred by each ambulance trust in England, the total number of patient journeys made by each trust, and the unit costs of each journey in 1997–98. [52105]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the number of patient journeys made by each National Health Service ambulance trust are in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin Ambulance Services, England 1997–98, copies of which are available in the Library. Details of trust expenditure in 1997–98 are not yet available.

  Coeliac's Disease
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to improve the dietary advice available to sufferers of Coeliac' s disease. [52381]

  Ms Jowell
  This is a professional matter. The British Society of Gastroenterology issued "Guidelines for the management of patients with coeliac disease" in September 1996. They include guidance on the dietary treatment of the condition and the need for supervision by a dietitian. The Coeliac Society, a national patient self-help group, also offers dietary information and regularly updated lists of gluten free foods.
  175

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where frozen embryos are currently being stored; and how many have been disposed of since the implementation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. [52977]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are 74 clinics licenced by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to store embryos. These are listed.

  The authority does not routinely keep central records of the number of embryos removed from storage and subsequently disposed of. The number of embryos created in the course of treatment involving in vitro fertilisation that were not frozen or used for treatment or other purposes between 1 August 1991 and 31 March 1996 was 138,450.

  Clinics licenced to store embryos (as of 31 July 1998)

  1. Assisted Conception Unit, University College Hospital

  2. Assisted Reproduction and Gynaecology Centre, London Welbeck Hospital

  3. Birmingham Maternity Hospital

  4. BMI Chelsfield Park Hospital

  5. BMI Chiltern Hospital, Great Missenden

  6. BMI Priory Hospital, Birmingham

  7. BMI Ross Hall Hospital, Glasgow

  8. Bourn Hall Clinic, Cambridge

  9. Bridge Fertility Centre, London Bridge Hospital

  10. BUPA Chalybeate Hospital, Southampton

  11. BUPA Hospital, Norwich

  12. BUPA Murrayfield Hospital, Wirral

  13. Centres for Assisted Reproduction Ltd (CARE), Park Hospital, Arnold, Nottingham

  14. Chaucer Hospital, Canterbury

  15. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital

  16. Churchill Clinic

  17. Clarendon Wing, Leeds General Infirmary

  18. Cromwell Hospital

  19. Cromwell IVF and Fertility Centre, Washington Hospital

  20. Cromwell IVF and Fertility Centre, Singleton Hospital, Swansea

  21. Diana, Princess of Wales Centre for Reproductive Medicine, St George's Hospital, Tooting

  22. Esperance Private Hospital, Eastbourne

  23. Fazakerley Hospital, Liverpool

  24. Glasgow Nuffield Hospital

  25. Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  26. Hartlepool General Hospital

  27. Holly House Hospital, Buckhurst Hill

  28. Homerton Hospital, London

  29. John Radcliffe Maternity Hospital, Oxford

  30. King's College Hospital

  31. Leicester Royal Infirmary

  32. Lister Hospital, London

  33. Liverpool Women's Hospital

  34. London Female and Male Fertility Centre, Highgate Private Hospital

  35. London Gynaecology and Fertility Centre, Harley Street

  36. London Women's Clinic/Hallam Medical Centre

  37. Manchester Fertility Services, BUPA Manchester Hospital

  38. Middle England Fertility Centre, BUPA Hospital, Leicester

  176

  39. Midland Fertility Services, Aldridge

  40. Multicare International, Harbour Exchange, London

  41. New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton

  42. Newham General Hospital

  43. Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee

  44. North Hampshire Fertility Centre, North Hampshire Hospital

  45. NURTURE, University of Nottingham

  46. Princess Royal Hospital, Hull

  47. Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead

  48. Regional IVF and DI Unit, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester

  49. Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter

  50. Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  51. Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast

  52. Royal United Hospital, Bath

  53. Salford Royal IVF and Fertility Centre, Hope Hospital, Salford

  54. Sheffield Fertility Centre

  55. South Cleveland Hospital, Middlesborough

  56. South West Regional Cytogenetics Centre, Bristol

  57. Southmead General Hospital, Bristol

  58. St Bartholomew's Hospital

  59. St James University Hospital, Leeds

  60. St Thomas' Hospital

  61. Sunderland District General Hospital

  62. The BUPA Roding Hospital, Ilford

  63. The Hampshire Clinic, Basingstoke

  64. The Portland Hospital, London

  65. Three Shires Hospital, Cliftonville

  66. University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff

  67. University of Aberdeen

  68. University of Bristol IVF Service, The BUPA Hospital, Bristol

  69. Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry

  70. Wessex Fertility Services, Princess Anne Hospital, Southampton

  71. Winterbourne Hospital, Dorchester

  72. Withington Hospital, Manchester

  73. Woking Nuffield Hospital

  74. Wolfson Family Clinic, Hammersmith Hospital

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the criteria for relocating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority; and if there are currently vacancies on the Authority. [52976]

  Ms Jowell
  There are no proposals for relocating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority.

  There are no current vacancies on the Authority. In respect of future vacancies, I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on 21 July 1998, Official Report, column 529.

  Hernias
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the tension-free reinforcement mesh technique for treatment of hernias relative to conventional surgery; what assessment he has made of possible savings to the NHS of wider adoption of this method of treatment; and if he will make a statement. [52498]
  177
  Mr. Boateng
  The Royal College of Surgeons issued clinical guidelines on the management of groin hernias in 1993. These endorsed the Shouldice technique but recognised that early results from tension-free repairs using prosthetic mesh rivalled the Shouldice repair. The Department has provided funding to the Surgical Epidemiology and Audit Unit at the Royal College of Surgeons to carry out a national audit of the outcome of groin hernia. This will enable current surgical practice to be compared with the 1993 guidelines. The use of prosthetic mesh in hernia repairs has also been advanced by the development of laparoscopic herniorrhaphy which has been the subject of a large randomised controlled trial conducted by the Medical Research Council. Results from that trial are expected early next year. We will, in the light of this work, consider with the Royal College of Surgeons whether further guidance is needed.

  Doctors and Nurses
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many unemployed doctors and nurses there are currently in the United Kingdom. [52802]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about numbers of unemployed doctors and nurses is not available centrally.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what projections his Department has made of the number of doctors and nurses who will have to be recruited from outside the United Kingdom to fulfil his targets of 7,000 extra doctors and 15,000 extra nurses. [52807]

  Mr. Milburn
  Numbers of doctors are expected to increase by up to 7,000 and numbers of nurses by up to 15,000 during the period 1998–2001. Our projections suggest that around half the doctors will be recruited from outside the United Kingdom. More nurses will complete the training each year, in which we have already invested. As the National Health Service offers more supportive and flexible family-friendly working environments, trusts will be able to attract and retain more nurses, some of whom may be from overseas, and encourage back in to practice those not currently working in their profession.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52678]

  Ms Jowell
  All of the buildings and sites for which the Department has management responsibility have facilities for cycle storage either in the form of dedicated spaces (for example cycle racks), by the provision of secure areas, or by arrangement with landlords, as shown in the table. In the majority of buildings additional cycle parking is available in the car park.

  Building

  Dedicated cycle spaces

  Richmond House, London, SW1A

  18

  Skipton House, London, SE1

  35

  Wellington House, London, SE1

  25

  Market Towers, London, SW8

  4

  Eileen House, London, SE1

  10

  Hannibal House, London, SE1

  1—

  West Riding House, Leeds

  2—

  178

  Building

  Dedicated cycle spaces

  Trevelyan Square, Leeds

  8

  Capital Drive, Milton Keynes

  4

  Premier Buildings, Lancashire

  3—

  Bartholomew House, Birmingham

  3—

  John Snow House, Durham

  4—

  Maid Marion House, Nottingham

  4

  Hasketh House, Lancashire

  79

  Millennium Park, Warrington

  3—

  Westward House, Bristol

  3—

  J. Rothschilde House, Nottingham

  3—

  Glenthorne Youth Treatment Centre, Birmingham

  20

  Berkley Square, Bristol

  4

  1 Shares Skipton House facilities

  2 Cycle parking available in landlord's underground car park

  3 Parking available in car park

  4 Secure area available for parking cycles

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52679]

  Ms Jowell
  No information is available on the proportion of the Department's employees who cycle to work. Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its agencies.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52960]

  Ms Jowell
  Since 1 May 1997, the Department has published seven compliance cost assessments:June 1997: Proposal for a Council Directive on Health Protection of Individuals Against the Dangers of Ionising Radiation in Relation to Medical Exposures, replacing Directive 84/466/Euratom (final).
  August 1997: The Prescription Only Medicine (Human Use) (Amendment) Order 1997—the reclassification of analgesic medicines; and The Medicines (Sale or Supply) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment (No.2) Regulations 1997.
  August 1997: The Prescription Only Medicine (Human Use) (Amendment) Order 1997—the reclassification of Terfenadine.
  December 1997: Proposal for a Council Directive on the Advertising of Tobacco Products.
  January 1998: The Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment Order 1998—reclassification of insulin.
  March 1998: The Medicines for Human Use and Medical Devices (Fees and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1998.
  May 1998: The Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (no. 2) Order 1998—reclassification of phenolphthalein.

  Chiropractors
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the Register of Chiropractors to open; and if he will make a statement. [52979]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department is currently discussing a timetable for the opening of the register with the General Chiropractic Council designate. I hope it will be possible to agree a target date very shortly.
  179

  Social Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase funding of social services in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [52733]

  Mr. Boateng
  We recently announced, as part of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review, that Personal Social Services will receive an additional £2.8 billion over the next three years, an average annual real terms growth of 3.1 per cent. over the period. Details of each local authority's share of these increased resources will be announced later in the year.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will respond to representations made on behalf of people infected with hepatitis C by blood products. [53098]

  Mr. Dobson
  I have today written to the Haemophilia Society explaining that, after lengthy and very careful consideration, we have concluded that haemophiliacs who have been infected with hepatitis C through National Health Service treatment should not receive special payments.

  Government policy is that compensation or other financial help to particular patients or groups of patients is paid out only where the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault. The needs of people whose condition results from inadvertent harm is met from benefits available to the population in general. On that basis, we have decided not to make an exception to the general rule in the case of haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C.

  Whilst the Society makes a special case for haemophiliacs because the infection comes on top of a pre-existing serious long term medical condition, the same considerations apply to other individual patients and groups of patients, whether inadvertently infected with another illness or harmed as a result of another medical or surgical procedure who can obtain compensation only if there has been negligence. The Society also argued that, as Government provides financial help to haemophiliacs infected with HIV, this scheme should be extended to cover people with hepatitis C. However, our view is the circumstances were different: the stigma around HIV at the time the original decision was taken, the fact that it was generally considered a sexually transmitted disease and that haemophiliacs could inadvertently infect their partners were all important considerations which do not apply to hepatitis C.

  The Society was particularly concerned that young people were fearful of the possibility of passing on hepatitis C. That is a concern we share. The Department is therefore working with the Society to develop a project aimed at helping young people with haemophilia and related disorders who are infected with hepatitis C to understand their condition and so improve their future health, education and employment prospects. We will help with funding for this project.

  In an earlier decision, we have already agreed that recombinant Factor VIII is made available to children under 16 and to new patients.
  180

WALES

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52303]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The construction industry no longer uses asbestos because safe alternatives are available.

  When asbestos has to be removed from a building, the dismantling, removal from site and ensuring the building is free of all asbestos dust, is strictly controlled by Health and Safety Executive regulations.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people his Department is committed to employing during 1998 under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52578]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Welsh Office intends to employ at least 20 subsidised people under the New Deal this year. The number of unsubsidised people employed will depend on the number of applicants from the New Deal programme who are successful in open recruitment competitions.

  National Assembly
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many car spaces are planned for the new Welsh Assembly building; to whom these spaces will be made available; and how much they will cost to provide. [53099]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The design competition to select an Architect to design the building to house the National Assembly for Wales is taking place at present. A small amount of car parking will be provided for disabled people, but until the design process reaches a more advanced stage, the total number of spaces and the cost of that provision will not be known.

  Trunk Road Programme
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to publish the report on the review of the Welsh trunk road programme. [53228]

  Mr. Hain
  The report "Driving Wales Forward" has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52620]
  181
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The following is the information:

  1998–99: 1 petrol vehicle

  1999–2000: 3 diesel vehicles; 1 other (type of fuel yet to be determined).

  2000–01: 3 diesel vehicles.

  The information for (b) is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52675]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  3.3 per cent. of employees cycle to work. Measures to increase this proportion are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by my Department and its Agencies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52674]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  There are 73 secure cycling spaces located at the following premises:

  Cathays Park, Cardiff: 59

  Carmarthen: 2

  Llandrindod Wells: 3

  Colwyn Bay: 9.

  Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what cost-per-job limits are set on offers of selective assistance in development areas in Wales. [52974]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on cost-per-job limits is confidential and cannot be disclosed. Regional Selective Assistance offers are made subject to common guidelines throughout Great Britain.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list those compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997 which would lead to a reduction in compliance costs; [52930]

  (2) if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997; [52929]

  (3) what is the cumulative net increase in compliance costs resulting from compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52928]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  No compliance cost assessments have been published by my Department in the period in question.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Privy Counsellors
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council, pursuant to her Oral answer to the hon. Member for 182
  Pendle (Mr. Prentice), of 20 July 1998, Official Report, column 779, on the Privy Council, if she will publish the text of the oath sworn by privy counsellors. [52790]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The text of the Privy Counsellors Oath is as follows:"You do swear by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto the Queen's Majesty, as one of Her Majesty's Privy Council. You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted, done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity Royal, but you will lett and withstand the same to the uttermost of your Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same. You will, in all things to be moved, treated, and debated in Council, faithfully and truly declare your Mind and Opinion, according to your Heart and Conscience; and will keep secret all Matters committed and revealed unto you, or that shall be treated of secretly in Council. And if any of the said Treaties or Counsels shall touch any of the Counsellors, you will not reveal it unto him, but will keep the same until such time as, by the Consent of Her Majesty, or of the Council, Publication shall be made thereof. You will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences, and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by Acts of Parliament, or otherwise, against all Foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates. And generally in all things you will do as a faithful and true Servant ought to do to Her Majesty.
  So help you God".

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security under her proposals for reform of the child support system, what the combined loss would be through higher taxes, lower means-tested benefits and higher maintenance of an absent parent with earning of(a) £90 per week, (b) £150 per week and (c) £210 per week with two children from a first relationship and one subsequent child, who is awarded a pay rise of £10 per week, assuming that the proposed working families tax credit has been implemented. [50004]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 10 July 1998]: All children are entitled to the financial and emotional support of both their parents wherever they live. It is not right that so many non-resident parents should seek to avoid paying the maintenance which their children are due. An extra £15 million is being invested in the Child Support Agency this year and next, specifically aimed at increasing the amounts of maintenance which are paid.

  The information set out in the table is based on the current provisions for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, which are themselves under review. The impact of the new child support arrangements would, therefore, need to be considered in the light of any proposals for changes to those benefits.

  Also, an increase in income will not necessarily result in an immediate change in the child support assessment. As with the current arrangements, we propose that most

  183
  cases would normally fall to be reassessed every two years, with interim changes of circumstance taking effect only if maintenance were to increase or decrease by more than a specified amount, for example, £10 per week.

  Changes in income (£ per week)

  Gross earnings

  Assessable income

  Impact on net income (+ = gain, - = loss)

  From

  To

  From

  To

  No rent

  LA rent

  PRS rent

  £90

  £100

  158.07

  164.25

  +2.95

  -1.07

  -1.07

  £150

  £160

  180.73

  183.88

  +2.15

  +2.15

  +0.10

  £210

  £220

  199.00

  202.02

  +3.02

  +3.02

  +1.06

  Notes:

  1. Based on April 1998–99 benefit rates but assumes that the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) taper is 55 per cent. and the threshold is £90

  2. The assessable income in the second column is the sum of earnings (after tax and national insurance) and WFTC entitlement and, as with the current scheme, is the amount to be used in the calculation of maintenance under the new child support arrangements. Assessable income for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit also includes WFTC as well as some other forms of income

  3. Average Rent is assumed to be £41.70 for local authority cases and £66.40 for Private Rented Sector cases

  4. Based on average Council Tax of £11.70 per week

  5. Non-resident parent's new child assumed to be 8 years old

  6. No child care costs

  7. The fall in income includes the effect of increased taxes and employee national insurance; reduced WFTC, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit; and increased maintenance assessments

  8. Figures rounded to the nearest penny

  9. PRS = Public Rented Sector; LA = Local Authority

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what basis child maintenance assessments will be reduced for those earning between £100 and £200 per week under the new Child Support Agency system. [53127]

  Mr. Denham
  Our proposals for a new child support system are set out in the Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" (Cm3992). Where net income is £200 or more a week, maintenance will be assessed at 15 per cent. for one child, 20 per cent. for two children and 25 per cent. for 3 or more children, with allowances for any children in the non-resident parent's second family.

  However, we recognise that a simple percentage approach does not adequately reflect the difficulties faced by non-residents parents on very low incomes. Those with a net income of £100 or less would, therefore, pay a flat-rate minimum amount of around £5. Those with net incomes between £100 and £200 a week would pay the flat rate on their first £100 with a percentage deduction from the balance, using a straight linear progression so that at £200 or more the standard deductions are applied to the whole of the income. The sample tables in the Green Paper illustrate the overall effects, which ensure that levels of maintenance payable on income between £100 and £200 will be lower than would apply using the standard deduction rates.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what exceptional circumstances are being considered by the Government in determining which cases should be referred to the new tribunal under the new Child Support Agency system. [53126]
  184
  Mr. Denham
  Our Green Paper "Children First: a new approach to child support" (Cm 3992) proposes that, where a non-resident parent is already contributing in some way to the cost of supporting his child, for example by meeting housing costs, he would be able to apply for a lower level of maintenance. Other child-related expenses, such as high costs of maintaining contact, will also be considered. The Green Paper specifically invites views on this aspect of the new scheme. However, there is a balance to be struck between making appropriate allowance for exceptional circumstances and simply re-inventing all the complexities of the current scheme by a different route.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [51268]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department is responsible for administering and awarding people's entitlement to a range of Social Security benefits and to child support maintenance. It also makes grants, in the form of subsidies, to local authorities to cover most of the costs of paying and administering the Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit schemes.

  The Department is also responsible for making grants to charitable organisations (Motability and the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association) who offer support in terms of adaptations to motor vehicles for disabled persons who are in receipt of qualifying benefits. Grants are also provided to the Independent Living Fund who offer financial assistance to disabled people who wish to live independently in the community.

  Benefit Payment Methods
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will make a statement on progress in respect of the Pathway Project. [52110]

  Mr. Denham
  At present 204 post offices in the North-East and South-West of England have been automated and are paying Child Benefit by Payment Card as part of a limited trial.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many post offices in Scotland are to be automated for the purpose of social security benefit payments by swipecard under ICL/Pathway; and how many of these post offices have so far been automated. [53116]

  Mr. Denham
  The project provides for automation of benefit payments by payment card at every post office in the United Kingdom. At present 204 post offices have been automated, none of which is in Scotland.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will(a) provide compensation and (b) take legal action against ICL with reference to delays in implementing the project to automate social security benefit payments through post offices. [53125]
  185
  Mr. Denham
  The Benefits Agency, Post Office Counters Ltd. and ICL Pathway continue to work together to plan the next stages of the programme to automate benefit payments at post offices. Commercial and contractual considerations remain confidential to the parties.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many recipients of the disability living allowance have had the level reduced(a) since

  Disability living allowance

  Period 1

  Reviews requested2

  Awards terminated 2,3

  Awards increased4

  Awards decreased

  1 February 1996 to 30 April 1997

  473,446

  155,826

  —

  —

  1 May 1997 to 30 June 1998

  395,752

  172,857

  —

  —

  1 March 1996 to 31 May 1997

  —

  —

  147,140

  31,190

  1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998

  —

  —

  99,300

  36,120

  1 It is not possible to produce two compatible fifteen month periods

  2 Source: Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent, data

  3 Figures cover terminations due to death of the claimant, residence and presence conditions not satisfied, withdrawal from benefit by the claimant or withdrawal of benefit by the Department.

  4 Awards increased and decreased will include reviews requested in an earlier period than that shown.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 5 per cent. Data

  SERPS
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of administering the contracting out of SERPS in the last year for which figures are available. [52379]

  Mr. Denham
  The Contributions Agency's (CA) Contracted-Out Employments Group (COEG) administers the arrangements for employees who are contracted out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) and is responsible for ensuring that the pension rights of such employees are accurately recorded, maintained and safeguarded. This involves the approval and supervision of contracted-out occupational and appropriate personal pension schemes, dealing with notifications relating to scheme membership, and overseeing the payment of contracted-out rebates.

  COEG' s administration costs for the 1997–98 year amounted to £10.926m.

  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost to her Department of funding the contracted out element of SERPS in the last year for which figures are available. [52376]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1996–97, the last year for which figures are available, the cost of funding the contracted-out element of SERPS was £7.368 billion.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance her Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52310]

  Mr. Denham
  Following the PRIME initiative which. transferred the ownership of the Department's estate on 1 April 1998, all building related work, including new
  186
  1 May 1997 and (b) in the previous 15 months; how many requested a review; and how many had the benefit restored. [52259]

  (2) how many recipients of the disability living allowance have had the allowance withdrawn (a) since 1 May 1997 and (b) in the previous 15 months; how many requested a review; and how many had their disability living allowance restored. [52258]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested but some relevant figures are given in the table.

  constructions, is provided to the Department by the private sector consortium Trillium, previously known as PPM.

  Trillium are contractually obliged to use building materials and consumables that comply with any relevant European or British Standard or Code of Practice and, where reasonably able, to procure them from sources that practise environmentally friendly policies. They must also comply with all UK or European Law and all Statutory requirements.

  The agreement with Trillium requires them to bring all existing accommodation up to statutory requirements within 2 years and they have been charged with achieving a very good BREEAM rating for both existing sites and new developments. They must also undertake assessments covering all aspects of the Department's facilities, and sites, to identify significant hazards and risks within the workplace. They will build on and maintain the Department's asbestos register and carry out regular inspections to monitor the condition of asbestos and, when necessary, they will remove it under controlled conditions. Technical Audits will be carried out by the Department's contract management team, with expert consultancy support where appropriate, and if requested Trillium will have to supply evidence to demonstrate their compliance.

  Occupational Pensions
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the number of pensioners who received increased awards from their occupational pension scheme after the point of retirement. [52380]

  Mr. Denham
  Information is not available to be able to make an estimate in the precise form requested. Such information as is available is as follows.
  187
  All occupational pension benefits accrued after 6 April 1997, except those deriving from the payment of additional voluntary contributions, must be indexed in line with the Retail Prices Index (RPI), with indexation being capped at 5 per cent. Before that date, the only indexation requirement applied to pensions accrued as a result of contracting-out of the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS) after 5 April 1988. Such pensions had to be indexed in line with RPI, capped at 3 per cent.

  However, from 5 April 1978, full indexation was effectively provided within SERPS itself for those who had contracted-out. From 5 April 1988 to 5 April 1997, SERPS provided indexation of the balance above 3 per cent, where the RPI rose above this level.

  Numbers of people in the UK entitled under the rules of their scheme to various levels of indexation of pension benefits in payment through private and public sector defined benefit occupational pension schemes

  million

  Indexation

  Private sector

  Public Sector

  With RP1

  0.5

  2.8

  With RPI up to a maximum of 5 per cent.

  1.2

  0.1

  Other indexation

  1.1

  0.3

  None

  0.6

  nil

  Total

  3.4

  3.2

  Notes:

  1. All figures are in millions and have been rounded to the nearest 0.1 million

  2. The statistics refer to rights accorded to members and beneficiaries through the scheme rules. However, schemes may choose to award more generous increases on a discretionary basis

  3. The indexation levels quoted in the table may be applied by the providers to the whole pension benefit an individual receives or only to pension benefits received which have been accrued in excess of any Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) component. However, if the indexation level is applied to the whole pension, then it must be sufficient to cover any increase in GMP to which a pensioner may be entitled

  4. No information is available on indexation arrangements for pension benefits in payment accrued through defined contribution occupational pension schemes, which are converted into annuities

  Source:

  1991 Government Actuary's Department Survey of Occupational Pension Schemes

  Industrial Injuries
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people claimed disablement benefit for(a) vibration white finger and (b) carpal tunnel

  Lone parent with two children aged under 11 and child care costs of £78 per week

  £

  Net Income

  Gross earnings per week

  Income Tax

  NICs

  Take home pay

  Family Credit

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  (a) Family Credit

  210.00

  21.78

  15.88

  172.34

  73.56

  8.06

  0

  274.71

  142.30

  157.50

  9.88

  10.63

  136.99

  84.30

  24.06

  2.95

  269.05

  136.64

  105.00

  0

  5.38

  99.62

  84.30

  45.01

  9.40

  259.08

  126.67

  188
  syndrome in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997; and how many of these had been employed in the mining industry. [52446]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available. Information is available on the number of claims to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit made in respect of individual diseases and on the number of initial assessments of disablement in respect of the industry an individual was employed in when the prescribed disease was contracted. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Total number of claims to industrial injuries disablement benefit for all industries

  Period

  Vibration white finger

  Carpal tunnel syndrome

  April 1995 to December 1995

  4,400

  1,070

  January to December 1996

  16,210

  2,030

  January to December 1997

  15,280

  1,780

  Number of initial assessments in the mining industry

  April to December 1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Vibration white finger

  All initial assessments

  521

  880

  2,585

  2,353

  Assessments of 14–100 per.cent.

  24

  31

  163

  169

  Carpal tunnel syndrome

  All initial assessments

  48

  44

  61

  110

  Assessments of 14–100 per cent.

  3

  5

  8

  12

  Note:

  An assessment of disablement of at least 14 per cent. is required for entitlement to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  Source:

  DSS Analytical Services Division, Data on claims based on a 10 per cent. sample. Data on initial assessments based on a 100 per cent. count. Earlier information is not available

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will list for (i) a lone mother with two children aged under 11 years and (ii) a married couple with two children aged under 11 years, gross weekly earnings and net week incomes taking into account child benefit and family credit/working families tax credit, income tax and NICs in January 1998, at (1) 50 per cent., (2) 75 per cent. and (3) 100 per cent. of average (A) female and (B) male manual earnings, assuming(a) the existing tax and benefit systems, (b) that working families tax credit was in place and (c) that the lone mothers had child care costs of £78 a week in each case. [52333]

  Mr. Denham
  The information is set out in the tables.
  189

  Lone parent with two children aged under 11 and child care costs of £78 per week

  £

  Net Income

  Gross earnings per week

  Income Tax

  NICs

  Take home pay

  Family Credit

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  (b) Working Families Tax Credit

  210.00

  21.78

  15.88

  172 34

  98 62

  0

  0

  291.71

  159.30

  157.50

  9.88

  10.63

  136.99

  118.06

  2.11

  0

  277.91

  145.50

  105.00

  0

  5.38

  99.62

  138.61

  13.04

  0

  272.02

  139.61

  Married couple with two children aged under 11 and no child care costs

  £

  Net income

  Gross earnings per week

  Income Tax

  NICs

  Take home pay

  Family Credit

  Housing Benefit

  Council Tax Benefit

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  (a) Family Credit

  330.00

  49.38

  27.88

  252.74

  0

  0

  0

  273.49

  215.88

  247.50

  30.41

  19.63

  197.46

  1.38

  0

  0

  219.59

  161.98

  165.00

  11.43

  11.38

  142.19

  40.07

  7.6

  1.09

  211.70

  154.09

  (b) Working Families Tax Credit

  330.00

  49.38

  27.88

  252.74

  0

  0

  0

  273.49

  215.88

  247.50

  30.41

  19.63

  197.46

  30.20

  0

  0

  248.41

  190.80

  165.00

  11.43

  11.38

  142.19

  60.60

  0

  0

  223.54

  165.93

  Notes:

  1. All figures are at 1998–99 prices. (This is consistent with published documents and previous replies to questions on Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC))

  2. To reflect the current system as far as possible figures relate to July 1998, so both family types are assumed to receive standard rates of Child Benefit and the family premium in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Net income therefore includes Child Benefit of £20.75 per week for both family types

  3. Gross earnings are based on average full-time manual earnings taken from the April 1997 New Earnings Survey, uprated to July 1998 levels

  4. The non-contracted-out rate of National Insurance Contributions is assumed

  5. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit amounts are based on average local authority rent of £45.01 per week and council tax of £9.40 for the lone parent and £12.60 for the married couple

  6. 'After housing costs' includes rent, council tax and child care costs, where applicable

  7. It is assumed that the earner is working at least 30 hours per week and is therefore entitled to the 30 hour premium in Family Credit/WFTC worth £10.80 per week

  8. A number of other changes to the tax and benefit system, as announced in the Budget, will be in place by the time the WFTC is introduced. This means that the amounts above are not the actual amounts that will be received (in 1998 prices) by these family types in October 1999

  Optical Fibre Communications
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to develop the potential of modern broad band optical fibre communications within her Department and its agencies; and if she will make a statement. [52327]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department currently uses a wide range of data and voice communication services to provide links between its staff and their information technology systems. The bulk of these services are provided under contract and are delivered through technology chosen by our service providers. These service providers all utilise broadband optical fibre communication products for part of the current network. We will look to exploit the value of these and other high speed communications products as part of our drive to create a modern welfare service.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [52584]
  190
  Mr. Denham
  This Department is finalising guidance on recruitment under the New Deal programme and is committed to offering posts to New Deal clients when suitable opportunities arise. At this stage we cannot estimate how many jobs will be offered during 1998.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much her Department spent on IT, itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52888]

  Mr. Denham
  The bulk of the Department's expenditure on IT is accounted for by the Information Technology Services Agency (ITSA) which exists to provide IT services both to DSS and to certain Other Government Departments. ITSA' s expenditure on the provision of such services for the 1997/98 financial year was as follows:

  Current Expenditure: £337.702m

  Capital Expenditure: £17.454m.

  Of this expenditure the Department recovered £29.712m mainly in respect of services provided to other Government Departments.
  191
  Additional Departmental IT expenditure for the 1997–98 financial year (not accounted for by ITSA) is as follows:

  Current Expenditure: £7.363m

  Capital Expenditure: £15.640m.

  It is not possible to separately identify money spent on personal computers, main-frame, mini-computers and file servers as expenditure. It is not recorded in this way.

  In October 1995 the provision of main-frame services was outsourced to EDS. Since that date, EDS have been responsible for the purchase of main-frame hardware which may be needed to provide a new service, or a change to an existing one.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the effect on Treasury revenue(a) in 1998–99, and (b) in a full year, of raising the national insurance ceiling to the same level as the higher rate tax band. [52916]

  Mr. Denham
  Estimated additional revenue of some £1.4 billion would be raised in 1998–99 if the Upper Earnings Limit on employees' Class 1 contributions were increased from its present level to the same level as the higher rate tax band. The additional revenue in a full year would be £1.55 billion.

  The figures assume that the current 10 per cent. Class 1 contribution rate would apply to earnings above the present Upper Earnings Limit and that the current Upper Earnings Limit would remain in place for the calculation of employee and employer contracted-out rebates.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Liable Relatives
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 21 July 1998,Official Report, columns 495–96, concerning liable relatives, if she will review the application of Paragraph 4(b) of the Code of Open Government Practice to such cases. [52279]

  Mr. Denham
  Review of the application of the guidance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 27 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question, pursuant to the answer on 20 July concerning liable relatives, if she will review the application of applying Paragraph 4(b) of the Code of Open Government Practice to such cases.
  Whilst the current guidance relating to liable relatives is not wholly available in the public domain, requests for access to information contained within the guidance is always considered on an individual basis and granted where possible. As I explained in my letter of 20 July certain guidance is restricted to minimise the possibility of abuse.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) regularly reviews its codes in line with current Departmental guidelines. As part of the ongoing move towards open Government the BA will undertake a review of the
  192
  "Residual Liable Relatives & Proceedings Guide" and will make appropriate sections available. Until this review has been completed, requests for information will continue to be considered on an individual claim basis.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer, 29 June 1998,Official Report, columns 118–19, concerning the Benefit Integrity Project, when the Chief Executor of the Benefits Agency will be in a position to set out a firm start date for the exercise. [52610]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated 27 July 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when her Department will start to review the cases of people subject to the Benefit Integrity Project prior to 9 February.
  This programme of work will commence on Monday 3 August 1998.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Welfare Reform
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the Green Paper on Welfare Reform, what targets he has set for the reduction of working-age people living in workless households; and by what date these targets will be achieved. [52988]

  Mr. Denham
  The proposals and success measures contained in the Welfare Reform Green Paper "A New Contract for Welfare" are still subject to consultation which concludes on 31 July.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the Green Paper on Welfare Reform, what targets he has set for the level of an adequate retirement income over the next 10 years. [53114]

  Mr. Denham
  A key objective of the Government Pensions Review is to ensure that pensioners should have an adequate income in retirement; that they should share fairly in rising national prosperity, and that public finances should be both sustainable and affordable. The best way to ensure that pensioners have security in retirement is a combination of the basic state pension and a good second pension. We are concerned about those pensioners who will not have access to a decent occupational scheme. That is why we will create a new framework of secure, flexible and value for money Stakeholder Pensions for those who cannot join an employer's occupational scheme, or whose pay is low or intermittent, and for whom personal pensions are usually unsuitable.

  The Government have announced a £2.5 billion package of measures to help today's pensioners which will give single pensioners a guaranteed minimum income of not less than £75 a week, and £116.60 for a married couple. In addition we have reduced VAT on fuel to 5 per cent. and have committed £400 million to make Winter Fuel Payments last winter and next. We have also

  193
  allocated a further £0.5 billion so that from the following winter all eligible pensioner households will get an annual winter fuel payment of £20.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish his Department's review of benefit rules announced in the Green Paper on Fraud. [53112]

  Mr. Denham
  Reviewing the benefit rules which are most frequently broken will take some months to complete. We will report on our progress in the Government's second annual anti-fraud audit, which will be published next year.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what calculations his Department has made of the estimated(a) maximum and (b) minimum benefit savings from increased (i) prevention and (ii) detection of benefit fraud over the next three years. [53108]

  Mr. Denham
  Our current estimates have been inherited from the previous administration and are for savings arising from detective activity for the next two years by the Department and by local authorities. These savings are £2.4 billion in 1998–99, and £2.5 billion in 1999–2000.

  As we explained in the Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business: Securing the Future", a key element of our new anti-fraud strategy is the development of better measures of the amount of fraud, and the savings which flow from particular preventive and detective activities. This will, over time, allow us to refine our estimates of future savings as well as to direct anti-fraud resources to where they are most effective.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the code of practice on the use of data and data-matching announced in the Green Paper on Fraud. [53113]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 29 June 1998,Official Report, columns 112–13.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what assessment he has made of the monthly level of fraud involving benefit payment cards; [53129]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the timetable for extending the Benefit Payment Card nationally. [53128]

  Mr. Denham
  The Payment Card is designed to virtually eliminate fraud at the point of encashment. To date there have been no recorded examples of this type of fraud using a Payment Card.

  Current plans provide for the automation of post offices nationally to start in the first half of 1999 and to be completed by the end of 2000.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and
  194
  (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52625]

  Mr. Denham
  The table shows for the years 1998–99, 1999–2000, 2000–01 the number of cars currently owned by DSS that are expected to be replaced by vehicles in the categories listed in the questions.

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Petrol

  220

  614

  0

  Diesel

  684

  0

  507

  Natural gas

  0

  0

  0

  Electric batteries

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  42

  263

  273

  The 'other' category represents bi-fuelled (Petrol/Liquid Petroleum Gas) vehicles.

  The Departmental Transport Officer was "highly commended" and runner-up in the Fleet Environmental Award category at this years Fleet Industry Awards. This recognition demonstrates the commitment the Department has made to greening its fleet operation.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997; [52941]

  (2) if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997; [52940]

  (3) if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52939]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of compliance cost assessments (CCAs) published by this Department are contained in Command Papers. Between 1 May 1997 and 31 December 1997 (the last date covered by the eighth such Command Paper—published on 22 April 1998), two compliance cost assessments were published. They both related to what is now the Social Security Act 1998; the estimated net increase in compliance costs set out in these two assessments was between £100,000 and £ 1 million.

  This year to date, two further CCAs have been published (in February 1998) by this Department as follows:
  SI 263/98—The Social Security (Contributions and Industrial Injuries) (Canada) Order 1998—minimal compliance costs were off-set by related savings for business.
  SI 470/98—The Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1998—zero recurring and non-recurring compliance costs, and minimal revenue costs (less than £0.5 million) as a result of adjustment to the Statutory Sick Pay and Statutory Maternity Pay rates.

  There is presently no requirement on departments to carry out compliance cost assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or to result in a saving to business.
  195

  Benefit Statistics
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what statistics his Department collects relating to social security benefits and expenditure; what is the frequency and timetable for release of these statistics; and what statistics his Department plans to release during the summer adjournment; [52983]

  (2) what statistics his Department collects relating to social security benefits, social security expenditure and claimants of social security benefits for Scotland. [52982]

  Date

  Title/author (including series/issue No.)

  August 1998

  Child Support Agency Quarter Ended May 1998

  August 1998

  Jobseeker's Allowance Summary Statistics, May 1998 Quarterly Statistical Enquiry

  August 1998

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1998

  August 1998

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit—new claims and assessments of claims (clerical)—Quarterly March 1998

  August 1998

  Retirement Pension Summary of Statistics, March 1998

  September 1998

  Disability Working Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, April 1998

  September 1998

  Social Security Statistics 1998

  September 1998

  Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, February 1998

  September 1998

  IB/SDA (scan)—official publication—Quarterly May 1998

  October 1998

  Disability Living Allowance/Attendance Allowance/Invalid Care Allowance (scan)—Quarterly May 1998

  October 1998

  Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1998

  October 1998

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Quarterly Summary Statistics, May 1998

  The following list contains information on expenditure publications:

  Title

  Frequency

  Date of issue

  Social Security Departmental Report

  annually

  March

  Fact and Figures

  annually

  April

  Disabled People
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many organisations(a) he and (b) his Ministers have met that represent wheelchair users in Kent; and if he will list them; [53029]

  (2) if he will list the names of the organisations that (a) he and (b) his Ministers have (i) met and (ii) plans to meet in connection with his review of the access to benefits available to disabled people. [53028]

  Mr. Denham
  Our Green Paper 'New ambitions for our country: A New Contract for Welfare' pledged that those who are disabled should get the support they need to lead a fulfilling life with dignity, free from discrimination. In taking our reforms forward, we have given a clear commitment to consult.

  As part of this commitment we have set up a Disability Benefits Forum with organisations of and for disabled people to discuss how disability benefits can be reformed to ensure that they go to those who need them most and that the gateways are clear and robust.

  The Forum initially met on 17 June and continue to meet regularly. Membership includes a number of national/umbrella organisations detailed in a written answer from the then Secretary of State for Social Security, on 17 June 1998, Official Report, columns 243–44, several of which represent wheel chair users.
  196
  Mr. Denham
  Details of the statistical information collected, the frequency and timetable for release, relating to Social Security Benefits, can be found in a publication named "Guide to ASD Statistical Projects Revised May 1998". A copy of this publication can be found in the Library. The information collected covers all areas of Great Britain and can produce analyses for Scotland.

  No information is collected on Social Security expenditure for Scotland.

  The list contains information on statistical publications that are due to be released during the summer adjournment:

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52660]

  Mr. Denham
  A full breakdown of the cycling spaces throughout the Department is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. At the last count there were approximately 4,125 spaces in total.

  To encourage staff to travel to and from work by bicycle, 20 local Commuting Action Plans are to be put in place throughout the Department from 1 April 1999. We also plan to hold a Departmental "Car Free Day" this autumn.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52661]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no information available on methods staff employ to travel to work, whether by cycle or any other means.

  However, at least 20 local Commuting Action Plans (CAPs) are presently being developed for introduction throughout DSS by March 1999. Each will address the means by which staff travel to and from work and will include proposals for the encouragement of a greater use of bicycles in the areas where CAPs will be introduced.

  A further measure to highlight the use of bicycles will be a departmental 'Car Free Day' to be held this Autumn.
  197
  Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

  Residential Care Allowance
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the(a) costs and (b) benefits of paying residential care allowance to people on income support who enter public sector residential care. [53000]

  Mr. Denham
  No assessment has been made of either the costs or benefits of paying residential allowance to people on Income Support who enter public sector residential care.

  Pensions
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets have been set for the time within which payments of the minimum pension top-up will be made. [53165]

  Mr. Denham
  The current targets for Income Support, which are reviewed annually, are for 60 per cent. of new claims to be cleared within 5 days, and for 87 per cent. to be cleared within 13 days.

  Our new national programme to get extra help to the poorest pensioners help ensure that claims are properly assessed with minimum delay.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the minimum pension guarantee will be uprated in line with(a) earnings and (b) prices. [53167]

  Mr. Denham
  On 17 July 1998,Official Report, columns 703–05, the Government announced that Income Support rates would be increased by three times the normal price uprating, to give the poorest pensioners a guaranteed minimum income of £75 per week, with couples and older pensioners receiving more.

  Future uprating of benefit levels will be considered in the normal way.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the minimum pension guarantee will be classed as a benefit or as part of the basic state pension. [53168]

  Mr. Denham
  The guaranteed minimum income will be a benefit.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the oral statement of 17 July 1998,Official Report, columns 703–05, concerning payment of the minimum pension guarantee to be made within one week of signature of the form, whether eligibility for this payment will be established before the payment is made. [53166]

  Mr. Denham
  Clearly, eligibility will be established before the payment is made.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the pilot areas for the minimum pension guarantee; how many people are in the target groups for the pilot areas; and what the publication date is for the pilots. [53169]
  198
  Mr. Denham
  Pilot projects have been running since April in nine areas—East Renfrew, Glasgow, Preston, York, Stroud, South Staffordshire, Torfaen, Torbay and Lambeth. The pilot offices will, between them, be contacting nearly 14,000 pensioners. The results will be evaluated by an independent research company, and we expect to be able to publish the findings early next year.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish his Department's proposals on incapacity benefit reform. [53111]

  Mr. Denham
  We have given a commitment to fundamentally reform Incapacity Benefit for future claimants. We are examining the scope for a new test which focuses on what people can do as well as what they cannot do, recognising that capacity for work is a continuum. We will bring forward our proposals in due course.

  Education Maintenance Allowance
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the educational maintenance allowance will be administered by his Department. [53117]

  Mr. Denham
  Details of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots are still being developed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment will make an announcement about the pilots in the autumn.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) of 5 June 1998,Official Report, column 402, concerning winter fuel payments, when he expects to provide a precise figure for her Department's actual expenditure on winter fuel payments. [53178]

  Mr. Denham
  Total expenditure on Winter Fuel Payments during 1997–98 was £190,646,790. The latest information for 1998–99 shows that during April additional expenditure of £1,184,260 was incurred. Further expenditure will be brought to account as any additional or replacement girocheque payments are encashed.

  Expenditure is classified as being incurred at the point when payments are made by automated credit transfer into bank or building society accounts, or issued by Payable Order. Expenditure on girocheque payments is incurred following encashment.

DEFENCE

  Government Policies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the projects undertaken by his Department since 1 May 1997 to research public reaction to(a) Government policies and (b) potential new policies; and if he will place the results of the research in the Library. [46681]
  199
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 30 June 1998]: Research into public opinion formally commissioned by my Department since 1 May 1997 is set out in the table. This concentrates on Service recruiting issues. In addition, on March 5 this year we published a Green paper, "Defence diversification—getting the most out of defence technology".

  Public opinion research commissioned by MOD since 1 May 1997

  Date

  Description

  June 1997

  RAF advertising strategy

  August 1997

  Navy advertising evaluation

  August 1997

  Technicians Target market research

  August 1997

  RAF Degree Package research

  August 1997

  Army Presentation Team—evaluation

  September 1997

  Attitudes to NATO

  October 1997

  'Be the Best' branding research

  October 1997

  Territorial Army advertising development research

  January 1998

  Image of RAF/reactions to advertising concepts

  February 1998

  Army fitness video research

  March 1998

  RAF attitude survey and advertising tracking

  March 1998

  Army Campaign Development research

  March 1998

  Catterick Garrison Radio Trade evaluation

  March 1998

  SGE and OM qualitative research

  March 1998

  OG8 Dropout research

  May 1998

  Evaluation of marketing effects on walk-ins to AFCO IACIO offices

  May 1998

  Advertising tracking

  May 1998

  Public presentation of the SDR

  June 1998

  'Be the Best' tracking research

  September 1998

  Events evaluation research

  November 1998

  Army Ethnic Minority Initiative evaluation

  December 1998

  Officer profiling research

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if, pursuant to paragraph 72 of the Strategic Defence Review, Cm. 3999, he will list the current location of the(a) 7.6 tonnes of plutonium, (b) 21.9 tonnes of highly enriched uranium and (c) 15,000 tonnes of other forms of uranium. [51412]

  Mr. Spellar
  The majority of the holdings of plutonium, highly enriched uranium and other forms of uranium referred to in paragraph 72 of Cm. 3999 are held at various BNFL and Ministry of Defence sites. Smaller quantities are also held on various Defence contractors premises. Additionally, and subsumed in the overall totals of these materials, are the amounts in our nuclear weapons and the reactor cores of our nuclear submarines. To provide further information on locations would be contrary to national defence and security interests and details are being withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to paragraph 72 of the Strategic Defence Review, Cm. 3999, what is his Department's definition of weapons grade plutonium. [51413]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence defines weapons grade plutonium as that which contains greater than 92 per cent. of the Plutonium-239 isotope.
  200

  Future Large Aircraft
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the Future Large Aircraft for use in heavy lift. [51501]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: Since 1 May 1997, the Ministry of Defence has received 17 Parliamentary Questions and 7 letters from MPs on the subject of the Future Large Aircraft, FLA. No representations have been received on the use of the FLA in respect of the short term requirement for additional strategic lift as announced in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper. The FLA will not be available in time to meet that requirement but remains a contender for a longer term requirement to replace our current air transport fleet.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the deployment plans for Trident under the Strategic Defence Review include warheads assigned to a sub-strategic role. [52216]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Yes.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures are being taken to maintain a minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident should this prove necessary; and what the estimated annual cost of this commitment will be. [52165]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since Trident should meet our needs well into the next century, there is no work under way to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. No decisions on any successor system will be needed for several years.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many crews are assigned to each of the four Trident submarines; and if he will make a statement. [52161]

  Mr. George Robertson
  HMS Victorious and HMS Vigilant each have two crews of 140. HMS Vanguard has a single augmented crew of 200. We plan over time to move to single augmented crews for all our Trident submarines.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place the annual report on the Progress of the Trident Programme in the Library. [52181]

  Mr. Spellar
  Given the comprehensive nature of the Strategic Defence Review White Paper and supporting essays, we have no plans to produce a separate report on the Progress of the Trident Programme this year.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which Trident would be used. [52178]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The United Kingdom would consider the use of nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence and in accordance with international law.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Trident submarine in the operational cycle, apart from one on patrol, will be loaded with 48 warheads. [52136]
  201
  Mr. George Robertson
  All three Trident submarines normally in the operational cycle will have 48 warheads loaded.

  Hunter-killer Submarines
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which two hunter-killer submarines are to be retired as a result of the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. [52182]

  Mr. Spellar
  As a consequence of the Strategic Defence Review, HMS Splendid and HMS Spartan will be taken out of service earlier than previously planned.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of fitting each nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarine with Tomahawk missiles. [52172]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The overall cost of procuring Tomahawk for the Royal Navy is some £180m at 1997–98 prices. This includes the procurement of missiles, test and training systems, submarine weapon handling and fire control systems, and provision of a mission planning and targeting facility. In addition, the average cost of fitting out each submarine is estimated to be some £1.4m.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide a breakdown of AWE running costs for 1997–98 into(a) staff costs, (b) waste management and disposal, (c) research and development, (d) production and dismantlement, (e) construction costs and (f) payments to Hunting-BRAE. [52170]

  Mr. Spellar
  I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the Strategic Defence Review White Paper Supporting Essay Five which contains a general breakdown of costs for the nuclear warhead programme for the Financial Year 1997–98. Staff costs and payments to Hunting-BRAE are commercially confidential and I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Third Party commercial confidences.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount paid in each year since 1993 to Hunting-BRAE Ltd for managing the atomic weapons establishments. [52171]

  Mr. Spellar
  Payments to Hunting-BRAE are commercially confidential and I am, therefore, withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Third Party commercial confidences. My hon. Friend will find a general breakdown of costs for the nuclear warhead programme for the Financial Year 1997–98 in the Strategic Defence Review White Paper Supporting Essay Five.

  Anglo French Nuclear Co-operation
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Anglo-French nuclear co-operation. [52186]

  Mr. Spellar
  We continue to maintain close contact with France on defence nuclear matters, including through our Joint Nuclear Commission.
  202

  Nuclear Warheads
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the yields and total amounts in the British stockpile of the WE177 nuclear warhead; [52188]

  (2) if he will list the yields, amount deployed per missile and total amount in the British stockpile of the Chevaline nuclear warhead. [52185]

  Mr. Spellar
  As stated in paragraph 10 of Supporting Essay 5 to the Strategic Defence Review White Paper, each of our Polaris submarines carried 32 Chevaline warheads and, at the end of the Cold War, we had a stockpile of several hundred WE177 free-fall nuclear bombs. Precise details of the total numbers of weapons held and on explosive yields are covered by exemption 1 of the Code of Practice governing access to Government information.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British involvement there is in the US SLBM Warhead Protection Programme. [52177]

  Mr. George Robertson
  To date British involvement in the US SLBM Warhead Protection programme has been limited to briefings.

  US W87 Life Extension Programme
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what British involvement there is in the US W87 Life Extension Programme. [52187]

  Mr. Spellar
  The UK is not involved in the US W87 Life Extension Programme.

  South Korea
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what armaments and of what value have been sold by UK firms to the South Korean Government over the last five years. [52911]

  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 equipment exported with annual values. When the Report has been issued I will write to the hon. Member in regard to the information requested for previous years.

  Occupational Welfare Service
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the performance of his Department's civilian management (Welfare) unit sections; and how many cases relating to(a) grievance and (b) disciplinary procedure took (i) six and (ii) twelve months or more to reach a conclusion in (1) 1996–97, (2) 1995–96 and (3) 1994–95. [52831]

  Mr. Spellar
  The performance of the Ministry of Defence Occupational Welfare Service, OWS, is assessed through a range of Performance Targets and Performance Indicators. The key Performance Target is the provision of an efficient service for all Ministry of Defence UK based civilian staff. Performance is assessed and reported on by senior officers within the OWS. As part of this
  203
  assessment, discussions are held with senior personnel and line managers across the Department. The Performance Indicators relate to response times; these have been consistently met. An Annual Report on the activities of the OWS is sent to all Chief Executives and Senior Managers in the MOD.

  Records detailing grievances raised are not kept, as many are resolved locally and at various levels throughout the Department. The number of disciplinary cases which took between six and 12 months were, in 1996–97, 11, and in 1995–96, 21. In 1996–97 there were no cases which took longer than 12 months; in 1995–96 there were two. These cases were among a total of 309 in 1996–97, and 339 in 1995–96. Records for 1994–95 are not available. In all cases the aim was to reach a decision within two months at most, but unfortunately this was not always possible.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52627]

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

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52680]

  Mr. Spellar
  Cycle facilities, both open and covered exist at a number of Ministry of Defence and Agency sites, but records of the precise number and type are not held centrally. The provision of cycle parking facilities will be considered during the preparation of my Department's Green Transport Plans.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997; [52934]

  (2) if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997; [52935]

  (3) if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52933]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence is not a regulatory department and rarely places legislation before Parliament which requires compliance cost assessments. As a consequence, no such assessments have been carried out or published by the Ministry of Defence since 1 May 1997.
  204

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of DERA within his Department. [52798]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 737.

TREASURY

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the reviews his Department initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48523]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: Information published on reviews initiated in the years in question in the Chancellors' Departments is:

  Inland Revenue

  1974–75

  Consultations on:

  taxation of expenses payments and benefits in kind

  capital transfer tax

  wealth tax

  oil taxation

  1979–80

  Consultations on:

  taxation of husband and wife

  taxation of company profits

  construction industry tax deduction scheme

  Reviews on:

  capital taxation

  enforcement powers of Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise

  1992–93

  Consultations on:

  income tax treatment of company cars

  tax treatment of foreign exchange gains and losses

  a simpler system for assessing personal tax

  surplus advance corporation tax

  Customs and Excise

  Review on:

  administration arrangements for Gaming Machine Licence Duty

  HM Treasury
  Financial Services Regulation—Making the Two Tier System Work.

  Further information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Sierra Leone
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if discussions took place between officials and political advisers in his Department and officials and political advisers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the answer given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 618. [49483]
  205
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 July 1998]The normal contacts occurred which would take place when a question concerns an issue which involves more than one Department. No special advisers were involved.

  Quangos
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 193, if he will specify the quangos which will be cut, indicating the total sum saved as a consequence. [51460]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Government have decided to abolish the following NDPBs: Cardiff Bay Development Corporation; Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work; Rural Development Commission (to merge with Countryside Commission); County Court Rule Committee; Development Board for Rural Wales; English Partnerships (to merge with Commission for New Towns); Funding Agency for Schools; Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland; Land Authority for Wales; Local Government Property Commission (Scotland); National Disability Council; North Hull Housing Action Trust; Residuary Body for Wales; Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council; Supreme Court Rule Committee; Tai Cymru (Housing for Wales); Advisory Committee on Service Candidates; Central Adjudication Services; Child Support Appeal Tribunals; Commission for Racial Equality (NI); Crime Prevention Agency Board; Disability Appeal Tribunals; Disability Council (NI); Equal Opportunities Commission (NI); Fair Employment Commission (NI); Firearms Consultative Committee; Health and Safety Agency (NI); Medical Appeals Tribunals; Metropolitan Police Committee; Poisons Board; Social Security Appeal Tribunals; Vaccine Damage Tribunals.

  At this point in time, the aggregate level of savings is not known.

  In addition to this, the following NDPBs have been abolished since 1 May 1997: Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit; Advisory Committee on Design Quality in the NHS; Advisory Committee on Plant and Machinery; Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales; Assessment Panel for Construction Research; Citizen's Charter Panel of Advisers; Deregulation Task Force; Local Government Staff Commission (England); National Advisory Council for the Employment of People with Disabilities; National Council for Vocational Qualifications; Northern Ireland Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel; Race Relations Employment Advisory Group; Regional Panels in MAFF (9); School Curriculum and Assessment Authority; Scottish Economic Council; Scottish Seed Potato Development Corporation; Sheffield Development Corporation; Staff Commission for Wales; Supported Employment Advisory Group; Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee; Ulster Folk and Transport Museum (2) (merged with Ulster Museum); Urban Development Corporations (8); Welsh Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education.

  Consultation papers were issued on 24 July proposing streamlining of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's NDPBs to reduce bureaucracy. Decisions will be made following the consultation.
  206

  Subsidies
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his oral statement of 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 191, if he will list the subsidies that he has assessed as no longer justifiable together with the most recent estimate of their cost in the last year. [51509]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government are reviewing the system of industrial subsidies across Departments to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money. The largest specific industrial subsidy is support to the agricultural industry which totalled £4.5bn in 1997–98. The Government also played a leading role in negotiating the phased abolition of shipbuilding operating subsidies across Europe by the end of the year 2000: these subsidies cost the UK £10m in the last financial year.

  Land Acquisition and Sales
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the dates and circumstances on which consent(a) before the event and (b) retrospectively in the past five years has been sought for land acquisition and sales involving (i) the Welsh Development Agency, (ii) the Scottish Development Agency and (iii) English Partnerships. [51223]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]Some of the information that my hon. Friend requires will take considerable time to provide. I will therefore write to my hon. Friend and place copies in the Library of the House. Details of Welsh Development Agency cases will be provided only for the last three years because of the disproportionate cost of providing details before then.

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide figures on the same basis as Tables A1, A2 and A3 in the Comprehensive Spending Review, Cm. 4011, for 1992–93. [51657]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The figures are not readily available.

  International Debt
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by country(a) the amount recovered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department and (b) the amount repaid under aid loans in each year since 1979 by (i) severely indebted low income countries, (ii) moderately indebted low income countries, (iii) severely indebted middle income countries, (iv) moderately indebted middle income countries, (v) Afghanistan, (vi) Cuba, (vii) Gibraltar and (viii) Iraq. [51546]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Neither ECGD nor DFID maintain their records on a basis that would enable them to provide the breakdown requested back to 1979 without disproportionate cost. I list the cash that ECGD has received in the last two financial years. Figures are in £ millions and are given to two significant figures.

  Severely indebted low income country

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1997–98

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1996–97

  Afghanistan

  0

  0

  Angola

  0

  0

  Bosnia and Herzegovina

  0

  0

  207

  Severely indebted low income country

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1997–98

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1996–97

  Burkina Faso

  0

  0

  Burundi

  0

  0

  Cameroon

  0.54

  0.030

  Central African Republic

  0

  0

  Congo-Brazzaville

  0

  0

  Cote d'Ivoire

  0.60

  3.8

  Equatorial Guinea

  0

  0

  Ethiopia

  0.24

  0.24

  Ghana

  3.5

  1.3

  Guinea (Conakry)

  0

  0.18

  Guinea-Bissau

  0.13

  0

  Guyana

  0

  0

  Haiti

  0.27

  0

  Honduras

  0

  0

  Liberia

  0

  0

  Madagascar

  0

  0

  Malawi

  0.56

  0.19

  Mali

  0

  0.32

  Mauritania

  0.31

  0.020

  Mozambique

  0.12

  0.29

  Myanmar

  0

  0

  Nicaragua

  0

  0

  Niger

  0

  0.060

  Nigeria

  1.9

  5.5

  Rwanda

  0

  0

  Sao Tome and Principe

  0

  0

  Somalia

  0

  0

  Sudan

  0

  0

  Tanzania

  0

  0

  Uganda

  0.030

  0.17

  Vietnam

  0

  0

  Yemen

  0.29

  0

  Zambia

  0

  0

  Moderately indebted low income country

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1997–98

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1996–97

  Bangladesh

  0

  0

  Benin

  0

  0.28

  Cambodia

  0

  0

  Chad

  0

  0

  Comoros

  0

  0

  Gambia

  0.18

  0.73

  India

  0.70

  0.58

  Kenya

  8.8

  0.11

  Lao PDR

  0

  0

  Pakistan

  0.080

  0

  Senegal

  0.010

  0.010

  Togo

  0.010

  0.12

  Zimbabwe

  0.020

  0

  Severely indebted middle income country

  Receipts of ECGD FY 1997–98

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1996–97

  Algeria

  0.010

  4.7

  Argentina

  11

  11

  Brazil

  81

  86

  Bolivia

  0.13

  0

  Bulgaria

  0

  0

  Cuba

  0

  0

  Ecuador

  0.06

  0.43

  Gabon

  2.6

  0

  Indonesia

  0.35

  0.37

  Iraq

  0.08

  0.16

  Jamaica

  0.41

  0.52

  208

  Severely indebted middle income country

  Receipts of ECGD FY 1997–98

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1996–97

  Jordan

  8.4

  4.2

  Peru

  0.020

  0.020

  Syrian Arab Republic

  3.9

  0.83

  Moderately indebted middle income country

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1997–98

  Receipts by ECGD FY 1996–97

  Chile

  0

  0

  Colombia

  0.020

  0

  Georgia

  0

  0

  Hungary

  0

  0

  Macedonia

  0

  0

  Malaysia

  0

  0

  Mexico

  32

  23

  Morocco

  10

  22

  Panama

  0

  4.2

  Philippines

  11

  5

  St. Vincent

  0

  0

  Thailand

  0

  0.030

  Tunisia

  0

  0

  Turkey

  0

  0

  Uruguay

  0

  0

  Venezuela

  0.050

  4.9

  Gibraltar

  0

  0

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by country the value of the outstanding debts on(a) United Kingdom aid loans and (b) loans guaranteed by the British Government through the Exports Credits Guarantee Department, for each of the countries defined by the World Bank as severely or moderately indebted middle income countries. [51543]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I list the value of outstanding debts on both UK aid loans and loans guaranteed by the British Government through ECGD, for each of the countries defined by the World Bank as severely or moderately indebted middle income countries. The figures on aid loans are the value of principal and interest outstanding as at end-1997. The figures on ECGD's claims are the total outstanding principal as at end-March 1998. All figures are given to two significant figures.

  £million

  Middle income country

  Value of outstanding aid loans

  Value of outstanding ECGD claims

  Severely indebted

  Algeria

  0

  220

  Argentina

  0

  62

  Brazil

  2.6

  440

  Bolivia

  0

  8.1

  Bulgaria

  0

  15

  Cuba

  0

  51

  Ecuador

  12

  31

  Gabon

  0

  83

  Indonesia

  0.91

  5.4

  Iraq

  0

  630

  Jamaica

  55

  3.2

  Jordan

  30

  320

  Peru

  7.5

  73

  Syrian Arab Republic

  0

  0.37

  209

  £ million

  Middle income country

  Value of outstanding aid loans

  Value of outstanding ECGD claims

  Moderately indebted

  Chile

  0

  0

  Columbia

  0.22

  0.080

  Georgia

  0

  0

  Hungary

  0

  0.020

  Macedonia

  0

  3.4

  Malaysia

  3.8

  0.060

  Mexico

  0

  120

  Morocco

  0

  45

  Panama

  0

  0

  Philippines

  3.5

  22

  St. Vincent

  3.5

  0

  Thailand

  0

  0.26

  Tunisia

  0

  0

  Turkey

  34

  0

  Uruguay

  0

  0

  Venezuela

  0

  0.78

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce tax incentives for the works required by businesses to ensure the millennium compliance of their computer systems; and if he will make a statement. [51811]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Most expenditure of this kind incurred by businesses is already likely to attract tax relief under current rules. Normally a business will be able to deduct such expenditure in full in calculating trading profits except where the expenditure is capital in nature in which case it qualifies for capital allowances.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will extend Tables B14, B15, B16 and B17 in the Budget 98 Red Book to include plans for the next three years; [51761]

  (2) what is the total annual allocation for PFI schemes in (a)the current year and (b) the next three years; and if he will list the allocation to each department alongside the figure for capital spending by each department. [51760]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The information on public sector capital expenditure as given in Table B 14 of the March 1998 FSBR was updated in Table A5 of the Comprehensive Spending Review—Statistical Annex.

  The information in Table B 15 of the March 1998 FSBR will not be updated until September.

  Table B16 of the March 1998 FSBR still gives the latest figures for estimated payments under PFI contracts.

  Table B17 of the March 1998 FSBR sets out figures for General Government sales if fixed assets, debt sales and privatisation proceeds. Projections of disposals of fixed assets by central and local government over the next three years are set out in paragraph 4.2.3 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998.
  210
  Debt sales and privatisation proceeds, both of which are classified as financial transactions, lie outside Total Managed Expenditure. Projections of financial transactions over the next three years are set out in table 4.4 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998.

  Local Authorities (Asset Sales)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out his reasons for his decision to allow local authorities to reinvest most proceeds of asset sales and his reasons for continuing to limit reinvestment of the proceeds of council housing and associated land. [51759]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The Government want to encourage local authorities to sell surplus assets to help pay for new investment. Allowing reinvestment of most of the proceeds of non-housing assets provides authorities with the right incentives to identify and dispose of such assets. However, sales of housing assets mainly arise as a result of tenants exercising the Right to Buy, not because of active asset management by Councils, and produce substantial proceeds which do not accrue in a pattern that reflects need to spend. Because this is a national scheme, we have to have regard to the capacity of the economy and of the construction industry to cope with substantial levels of reinvestment, and to bear in mind the distributional impact. For all these reasons, we will continue to limit reinvestment of new Council housing sale proceeds.

  Gas-powered Vehicles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will allow a write down allowance of 100 per cent. in the first year for fleet operators converting a vehicle to gas power. [51859]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We already have a number of positive measures in place in the tax system to promote the use of gas powered vehicles. For example, duty on road fuel gases has been frozen in the last two Budgets and the cost of enabling company cars to run on gas is now disregarded when calculating an employee's taxable car benefit. There are no plans to offer enhanced capital allowances for the costs of converting vehicles to gas power.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the advantages of exempting commuter motorcycles from vehicle excise duty under the forthcoming review of vehicle excise duty rates. [52024]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: A consultation document containing the options for reforming vehicle excise duty will be published shortly. The Chancellor will make his proposals for vehicle excise duty in the next Budget in the light of this consultation.

  Optical Fibre Communication
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to develop the potential of modern broad band optical fibre communications within
  211
  (a) his Department, (b) the Inland Revenue and (c) Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [52325]

  Mrs. Liddell
  New technology is adopted whenever it answers a business need and offers value for money.

  Pay Negotiations
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 10 July 1998,Official Report, column 669, what assessment he has made of the effect of current headline RPI inflation on wages and salary negotiations. [52548]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is up to individual companies to negotiate with their workforce over remuneration and the level of inflation should be only one of a number of factors in any individual settlement. The Government have repeatedly stated the importance of pay in the public and private sectors being related to what the economy can afford.

  Retail Trade
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net impact on United Kingdom retail trade if the Commission's option on the successor regime duty and tax-paid sales after 30 June 1999 is adopted. [52521]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  No specific assessment has been made in the form suggested. However, Customs and Excise have been in very close touch with the trade regarding duty frees and the successor regime. In this way, the views of the trade are being taken into account in the Government's consideration of all the options, including the Commission's suggestion for a successor regime.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52302]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Her Majesty's Treasury is not currently constructing any buildings. Guidance on the use of asbestos is contained in the "Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987" and the two approved codes of practice: "Control of Asbestos at Work" and "Work with Asbestos Insulation, Asbestos Coating and Asbestos Insulating Board" produced by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Environmental and Sustainable Development
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what efforts he is making to raise the awareness of environmental and sustainable development issues within his Department; and what specific training will be made available to staff. [52374]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Included in the Treasury's Environmental Strategy is a commitment to maintain publicity campaigns to increase staff awareness of particular environmental issues.
  212
  Articles and notices have been run on: recycling schemes and achievements; energy awareness; a "Bag It and Bin It" campaign; and the "Going for Green" campaign. These have been made available to staff via the Accommodation Services bulletin, the in-house staff journal; and by the electronic message system; and to the wider public via the Treasury's website. Copies were circulated to every member of staff of the Government's consultation paper on a revised UK strategy for sustainable development "Opportunities for Change".

  Depending on the requirements of their post, most policy staff in the Treasury undertake training in microeconomics. The courses introduce staff to the concept of environmental and other externalities, and the need to take these non-costed effects on board in policy appraisal.

  DETR recently circulated guidance to other Government Departments on policy appraisal and the environment. Copies of the DETR guide have been circulated widely to staff in the Chancellor's Departments. A series of seminars have been arranged to make sure the main messages are understood.

  Social Landlords
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effects of Customs and Excise proposals to limit VAT group relief on the activities of registered social landlords, the rents of their tenants, and housing benefit costs. [52455]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The proposal to restrict eligibility for VAT group treatment to fully taxable companies is currently the subject of a public consultation. Since the consultation period has not ended, no such assessment has been made.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the level and value of tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom. [53093]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  The table sets out Customs' most recent estimate of the total revenue (excise duty and VAT) lost to the Exchequer through cross-Channel smuggling of tobacco products in calendar year 1997.

  Revenue lost to the Exchequer from smuggling in 1997

  £ million

  Product type

  Revenue lost

  Hand-rolling tobacco

  540

  Cigarettes and other tobacco products

  145

  Total

  690

  Note:

  Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million. Components may not therefore sum to the totals given

  There are no official estimates for the revenue lost through smuggling in freight consignments or by air passengers, and the estimates given do not include any amounts for these types of supply.

  The share of UK consumption represented by cross-Channel smuggling is about 1½ per cent. for cigarettes, and about 69½ per cent. for hand-rolling tobacco.
  213

  EU Financial Contributions
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the per capita financial(a) contributions and (b) receipts of each EU member state for the last year for which figures are available. [53081]

  Contributions to and receipts from the EC budget in 1996

  Gross contribution

  Gross receipts (mecu)

  Population (millions)

  Gross contribution per head (ecu)

  Gross receipts per head (ecu)

  Belgium

  2,743.0

  1,996.8

  10.194

  269.1

  Denmark

  1,359.9

  1,553.3

  5.247

  259.2

  Germany

  20,766.9

  9,872.0

  81.825

  253.8

  Greece

  1,107.1

  5,039.8

  10.530

  105.1

  Spain

  4,538.9

  10,511.1

  39.312

  115.5

  France

  12,410.9

  11,951.1

  58.388

  212.6

  Ireland

  710.2

  2,970.5

  3.584

  198.2

  Italy

  8,935.2

  7,532.9

  57.370

  155.7

  Luxembourg

  163.2

  83.9

  0.411

  397.1

  Netherlands

  4,435.7

  1,988.9

  15.534

  285.5

  Austria

  1,872.6

  1,600.4

  8.046

  232.7

  Portugal

  906.1

  3,680.4

  9.856

  91.9

  Finland

  961.3

  988.4

  5.126

  187.5

  Sweden

  1,957.4

  1,204.9

  8.920

  219.4

  UK

  8,227.1

  5,951.1

  58.680

  140.2

  Notes:

  1. The Court of Auditors uses ecu figures, the unit of account for the EC Budget

  2. Gross contribution figures are after account has been taken of the UK's abatement (including corrections in respect of earlier years) and for adjustments to VAT and GNP-based contributions in respect of earlier years

  Sources:

  Contributions and receipts data taken from Court of Auditors Report on 1996 Community Budget

  Comparative population data taken from the European Commission's document "European Economy"

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the single currency on the CFA franc. [52467]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Government have made no assessment of the impact of the single currency on the CFA franc, which is a matter for member states participating in the euro and, in particular, France.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the state of preparations by businesses and other organisations in the United Kingdom for the implications of EMU. [53549]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government today publish their first six-monthly report on preparations for EMU, "Getting ready for the euro: first report July 1998". Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make an announcement on the tax consequences of EMU. [53680]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Finance Bill provided a power to make regulations in order to prevent unintended tax consequences arising from the start of the single currency in other member States. Following consultations with business, the Government have identified some technical changes that need to be made in order to achieve this. Details of the proposed changes are being published in an Inland Revenue Press Release today, and we shall make the draft regulations available for consultation in the Autumn.
  214
  Mrs. Liddell
  1996 is the latest year for which information about Member States' contributions and receipts is available. The information requested, in respect of that year, is set out in the table. The amounts shown are in European Currency Units, the unit of account for the EC Budget.

  The Government's proposals will help business and other taxpayers by clarifying before the single currency comes into existence on 1 January 1999 how transactions and contracts involving participating currencies will be treated for tax purposes.

  Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government will publish the outcome of the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review. [53548]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The report is being published today and copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House. HM Customs and Excise will be issuing a press release setting out how the resources made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, are to be developed.

  Departmental Environmental Policies
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he(a) has taken, and (b) plans to take, to discourage car use by his Department's employees. [52407]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: In line with Government policy, the Treasury has set a target to have Green Transport Plans in place by March 1999. We are currently preparing the first draft of our Green Transport Plan and within this we are taking the opportunity to review our car parking policy.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the current energy consumption of his Department; what targets have been set to reduce this
  215
  level; and what plans there are for including energy efficiency performance figures in his Department's annual report. [52408]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Treasury's energy consumption figures up to and including 1996–97 were incorporated in the Government estate energy efficiency performance tables which were announced by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) on 1 April 1998, Official Report, columns 529–30. Energy performance figures for 1997–98 are not yet available.

  The Department supports the Government's target to achieve a 20 per cent. improvement over 1990 levels by 31 March 2000.

  The Department will consider including energy performance figures in its annual report in the light of core requirements.

  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of his Department's waste is recycled at present; and what targets have been set for increasing this percentage in the future. [52409]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: 11 per cent. of the Treasury's waste was recycled during 1997–98. We are currently revising and updating the Department's Domestic Environment Policy and are considering what targets we can realistically set to increase this percentage of waste we recycle.

  Economic Forecasts
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the forecast issued on 22 July by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research; and what assessment he has made of the areas in which it diverges from his Department's Economic and Financial Strategy report. [52528]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Treasury regularly monitors a wide range of independent forecasts for the UK economy, none of which we would expect to be identical to our own. In this particular case, the National Institute projections for the economy are not very different from those set out in the Budget and Economic and Fiscal Strategy Reports or indeed the independent consensus. The Institute noted that their forecast showed the Government's fiscal objectives being broadly met.

  Competitiveness
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to improve the competitiveness of United Kingdom firms. [52394]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Government are pursuing long term economic policies which will allow firms to improve their performance and competitiveness over time.

  The Government have introduced a wide range of policies since May last year to promote enterprise. These include cutting both the main and small business rates of corporation tax to their lowest ever levels, and the lowest of any major industrialised country.
  216
  The Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) introduces new spending plans, including over £1 billion of investment in the UK's science and engineering base.

  Together with the President of the Board of Trade the Chancellor is conducting a series of seminars with leading business people addressing the wide productivity gap between Britain and our main competitors. In addition the Government are undertaking a wide ranging review of the UK's R&D performance.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the Government's policy on tax-relieved profit-related pay in relation to(a) the proposed national minimum wage legislation and (b) the existing agricultural minimum wage legislation; and if he will make a statement. [53679]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government accept the Low Pay Commission's recent recommendation that incentive payments—and, in particular, payments of tax-relieved profit-related pay (PRP)—should be included in the earnings that count towards the National Minimum Wage. This represents a significant step towards achieving the Commission's aspiration that the definition of the National Minimum Wage should be "simple and fair". Also, in order to ensure that employers and employees in the agricultural sector are subject to the same PRP rules as employers and employees in other business sectors, the present PRP rule that tax-relieved PRP should not count towards the existing agricultural minimum wage, will be repealed in the Finance Act 1999, with retrospective effect from today. This change will not affect an agricultural worker's right to be paid at least the appropriate agricultural wage—which must not be less than the National Minimum Wage.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52622]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The number and fuel types of the vehicles which are due for replacement in the years in question are as follows:

  Replacements

  Fuel type

  1998–99

  1999–01

  2000–01

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

  Petrol

  733

  736

  739

  Diesel

  203

  204

  207

  Natural gas

  1

  3

  5

  (b) Bodies listed in the National Assets Register

  Petrol

  4

  1

  4

  217
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, columns 653–54, concerning the National Asset Register, how the information on the numbers of vehicles was collected. [53038]

  Mrs. Liddell
  From information provided by the relevant organisations, namely National Savings and the Bank of England.

  Employment Service (Privatisation)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the value of the Employment Service if sold to the private sector. [52796]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have made no such estimate.

  Taxation (Investment Income)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 23 July 1998,Official Report, column 652, concerning the reclaim of 10 per cent. tax credit, when he expects to conclude his review and announce a decision. [53036]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  I shall announce the outcome of my review as soon as I am in a position to do so.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what savings he estimates will arise from switching child benefit to the Education Maintenance Allowance for children between the ages of 16 to 18 years. [53123]

  Mr. Byers
  The details of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots are being worked up. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment will make an announcement on the pilots in due course.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52672]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treasury has 60 covered cycle parking spaces in the GOGGS building in Parliament Street and 5 in the satellite office in Allington Towers. Information for the Chancellor's other Departments and agencies is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52673]

  Mrs. Liddell
  From an analysis of the number of cycles stored in the department's buildings, it appears that approximately 5 per cent. of Treasury employees cycled to work. A more detailed figure could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  218
  Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

  Disabled Person's Tax Credit
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the pilot areas for the disabled person's tax credit, the number of people in the target groups and the report date for the disabled person's tax credit pilot schemes. [52998]

  Mrs. Liddell
  There are no plans to pilot the Disabled Person's Tax Credit before it is introduced in October 1999.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Car Service
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many cars are currently made available from the Government Car Service for the use of the Prime Minister; and how many cars were made available to his predecessor in 1996–97. [52316]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Two secure cars, a Daimler and a back-up car, are made available from the Government Car Service for the use of the Prime Minister.

  The same number were made available to his predecessor in 1996–97.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people his Department is committed to employing during this calendar year under(a) the subsidised job option and (b) the unsubsidised job option of the New Deal programme. [52580]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For the purposes of this question, this department includes the office of the Prime Minister.

  The Cabinet Office, including its agencies, is committed to employing five people during this calendar year under the subsidised option of the New Deal Programme. The extent of our participation in the unsubsidised job option depends upon the number of vacancies for jobs which arise.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the non-departmental public bodies the Government have(a) established and (b) abolished since 1 May 1997. [52569]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Since
  1 May 1997, the Government have established 25 NDPBs and abolished 39. These are listed. Additional proposals to create NDPBs to deliver the Government's Manifesto commitments, and to abolish further bodies, have also been announced; a number of these will be subject to Parliamentary approval. Ministers will continue to examine all the NDPBs they sponsor with a view to identifying further candidates for abolition.
  219

  NDPBS established since 1 May

  NDPBS abolished since 1 May

  Advisory Committee for Disabled People in Employment and Training

  Advisory Committee for the Joint Environmental Markets Unit

  Better Regulation Task Force

  Advisory Committee on Design Quality in the NHS

  British Potato Council

  Advisory Committee on Plant and Machinery

  Civil Justice Council

  Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales

  Civil Procedure Rule Committee

  Assessment Panel for Construction Research

  Commission for Racial Equality (NI)

  Citizen's Charter Panel of Advisers

  Development Awareness Working Group

  Deregulation Task Force

  Disability Rights Task Force

  Local Government Staff Commission (England)

  Expert Panel on Sustainable Development Education

  National Advisory Council for the Employment of People with Disabilities

  Expert Group on Airborne Particles

  National Council for Vocational Qualifications

  Expert Group on Cryptosporidium in Water Supplies

  Northern Ireland Citizen's Advisory Group

  Football Task Force

  Race Relations Employment Advisory Group

  Historic Royal Palaces

  Regional Panels in MAFF (9)

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  School Curriculum and Assessment Authority

  National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland

  Scottish Economic Council

  New Deal Task Force

  Scottish Seed Potato Development Council

  New Opportunities Fund

  Staff Commission for Wales

  Police Information Technology Organisation

  Supported Employment Advisory Group

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

  Treasure Trove Reviewing Committee

  Race Relations Forum

  Ulster Folk and Transport Museum

  Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly

  Ulster Museum

  Security Vetting Appeals Panel

  Urban Development Corporations (9)

  Skills Task Force

  Welsh Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  Treasure Valuation Committee

  Pendle Witches
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will take steps to open to the public those dungeons at Lancaster Castle, which held the Pendle witches. [52400]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The dungeons which are alleged to have held the Pendle witches are located in that part of the Castle which is let to Lancashire County Council and which is sub-let to the Home Office for use as a prison, although the dungeons are not in use for that purpose. It is not possible to provide access to the dungeons other than through the Prison area.

  No. 10 Policy Unit
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the telephone logs relating to the No. 10 Policy Unit would be available for public inspection under the proposals within the Freedom of Information White Paper. [52845]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  In considering the disclosure of information, the Government currently apply the provisions of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Second Edition, published on 14 January 1997). Disclosure under our Freedom of Information proposals would depend, as with any such information, on an assessment of the substantial harm and public interest tests that are integral to the access provisions described in the White Paper.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the vehicles due for replacement by(a) his Department and (b) bodies listed in the National Asset Register in (i) 1998–99, (ii) 1999–2000 and
  220
  (iii) 2000–01 will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other. [52626]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This answer covers the Prime Minister's Office, the Cabinet Office (including its Agencies), but excludes the Government Car and Despatch Agency, for which I have asked its Chief Executive, Mr. Nick Matheson, to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  A total of 65 vehicles are leased, of which 17 fall due for replacement during 1998–99. 14 of these will use unleaded petrol and three will use diesel. 44 of the remaining 48 vehicles become due for replacement during 1999–2000, of which six will use unleaded petrol and 38 will use diesel. The replacement of the remaining four vehicles will depend on the success, or otherwise, of a PFI exercise currently under way. Should it prove necessary to replace them, it will be done on a like for like basis. There are no vehicles due for replacement in 2000–01.

  Letter from Nick Matheson to Mr. Paul Burstow, dated July 1998:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service, has asked me in my capacity as Chief Executive of the Government Car and Despatch Agency to reply to your Parliamentary Question about this Agency's vehicle replacement programme.
  As I stated in my letter of 21 July I anticipate replacing a total of 172 vehicles over the next three years.
  This Agency has been investigating the use of alternative fuels since 1993. In November 1997 the Prime Minister announced that this Agency would be replacing its car fleet over the next five years with vehicles that can run on both gas and petrol. The figures quoted for gas refer to these bi-fuelled vehicles. Replacement of petrol only fuelled vehicles will continue where there are no gas conversions available for replacement models, or where security or other factors require petrol only fuelled vehicles to be retained.
  The Agency has also looked at the use of electric powered vehicles, and worked closely with Ford on the development of its Ecostar van. However, these alternatives are not yet commercially viable.
  221
  An exact breakdown of the information you requested is set out in the following table:

  Year

  Petrol

  Diesel

  Gas

  Electric

  Other

  1998–99

  23

  19

  20

  0

  0

  1999–2000

  9

  20

  10

  0

  0

  2000–01

  26

  19

  26

  0

  0

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52669]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  For the purposes of this question this Department includes the Office of the Prime Minister. My Department and its agencies do not formally monitor the use of the cycling parking facilities that are available. Consequently, we cannot give an estimate of the number of employees that cycle to work.

  Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part for the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its agencies.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52668]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Cabinet Office and its Agencies have a total of 203 cycling spaces in their buildings, broken down as follows:

  Buildings

  Number

  Cabinet Office

  Central London Sites

  126

  Basingstoke

  18

  Agencies

  Civil Service College, Sunningdale

  8

  PACE

  London Office

  25

  Manchester

  6

  CCTA

  Norwich

  20

  COI

  Central London Office

  8 with proposal to increase to 26

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Civil Servants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many civil servants in his Department(a) have a degree in science and (b) have held a position using that expertise. [50897]
  222
  Mr. Morley
  We do not have the information in precisely the form requested. However, within core MAFF there are approximately 900 staff who have professional/vocational qualifications and are working in posts for which their qualifications are directly relevant, although not all of these will have science degrees. From the remaining 5,900 staff it is not possible to separately identify for statistical purposes those with science degrees who have held relevant posts.

  The Executive Agencies are the responsibility of their Chief Executives. I have asked them to reply direct to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about the number of civil servants in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate a) who have a degree in science and b) have held a position using that expertise.
  There are currently 39 staff in the veterinary and scientific grades, 37 of whom have a degree in science. Of the remaining staff it is not possible to identify separately those with science degrees who have held relevant posts.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning how many civil servants in the Agency have a degree in science and have held a position using that expertise.
  There are currently 123 staff in scientific grades and the vast majority of these have relevant degrees. From the remaining 89 staff in other grades it is not possible to identify for statistical purposes those with science degrees who have held relevant posts.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on how many civil servants in his Department (a) have a degree in science and (b) have held a position using that expertise.
  In the VLA, there are currently 549 staff in scientific grades and the majority of these have relevant degrees. From the remaining 568 staff in other grades it is not possible to separately identify for statistical purposes those with science degrees who have held relevant posts.

  Letter from Dr. V. J. Bye to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 28 July 1998:
  In the absence of the Agency Chief Executive, I am responding to your question to the Minister of Agriculture in relation to the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science Agency (CEFAS). Your question related to the number of civil servants with science degrees.
  In the CEFAS Agency at 1 April 1998, of 233 staff in professional grades (mainly scientific and technical), the breakdown is:

  a) 181 with a degree in science

  b) 127 holding a position directly using that expertise

  If you require further information please contact me.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 28 July 1998:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food enquiring about the number of civil servants who have a degree in science and who have held a position using that expertise has been passed to me to respond as regards this Executive Agency.
  The MHS is responsible for enforcing meat hygiene, inspection and animal welfare at slaughter legislation in all licensed fresh meat premises in Great Britain. The MHS directly employs 48 veterinary staff, and contracts the services of 156 veterinary staff (on a full

  223
  time equivalent basis), all of whom have a relevant degree in science and operate as Official Veterinary Surgeons in licensed premises using that expertise.

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated 28 July 1998:
  The Minister has asked me to reply, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question about how many civil servants have (a) a degree in science and (b) held a position using that expertise.
  In FRCA there are currently 317 staff in professional grades and the vast majority of these have degrees which are relevant to their current positions. For the remaining staff it is not possible to identify separately for statistical purposes those with science degrees who have held relevant posts.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Dr. Ian Gibson, dated
  28 July 1998:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory (CSL), to your question concerning the number of staff who hold a degree in science and have held a position using that expertise.
  CSL currently employs 637 staff, 482 staff are employed on scientific work and of these 276 hold relevant degrees. In addition, 29 of the 155 staff employed in support positions hold a science degree and the majority are employed in a capacity that utilises this expertise.

  Grants and Awards (Wakefield)
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the grants and awards that require bids from applicants which his Department is responsible for administering and awarding(a) nationally and (b) that people and groups within Wakefield Metropolitan District are eligible to bid for; if he will publish the deadlines for these applications; and if he will produce this list on a regular basis. [51267]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department administers a wide range of grants and awards for which individuals and groups may apply. Some schemes are open to application from Local Authorities; however, the majority are in support of individual farmers or landowners. The geographical area to which they apply varies according to the objectives of the scheme. Comprehensive information about the Department's national grants and awards for the year ending March 1998 is contained within the 1998 Departmental Report (Cm 3904), copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Organophosphates
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into the possible link between the use of organophosphates and the spread of BSE; and if he will make a statement. [52108]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC) has not found any evidence of a link between BSE and the use of organophosphates. The EU Commission's Scientific Steering Committee reached a similar conclusion in June. SEAC feels that consideration of a role for organophosphates in the epidemiology of BSE is an area where more work could usefully be done, but has not recommended to Government that it should be given priority over other research.
  224

  Horses
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps his Department is taking to prevent the potential loss of native-breed, semi-feral horse bloodlines; and what plans he has to introduce a compulsory register for all equines. [52101]

  Mr. Rooker
  The various semi-feral horse breed societies and associations do a lot of valuable work in preserving, maintaining and promoting semi-feral horse breeds. The Government believe the breed societies themselves are best placed to do this work. The Zootechnical Standards Regulations 1992 already exist to protect recognised horse breed societies and their members. The Government have no plans to introduce a compulsory register for all equines.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safeguards exist to prevent the entry of identified TB infected cattle into the human food chain; and if he will make a statement. [52104]

  Mr. Rooker
  All fresh meat produced in Great Britain which is intended to be sold for human consumption must be produced in licensed premises in accordance with the requirements of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. The Regulations, which implement the EC Fresh Meat Directive (64/433/EEC), require, amongst other things, full ante-mortem and post-mortem veterinary checks and health marking of the resulting meat at all stages of production. In Great Britain, veterinary supervision and meat inspection in licensed meat plants is carried out by the Meat Hygiene Service.

  Under the Regulations, no animal may be slaughtered for human consumption if, at the ante-mortem health inspection, it shows any clinical signs of any disease which can be transmitted through fresh meat to humans, including tuberculosis. In addition, where it is found at post-mortem inspection that an animal was suffering from generalised tuberculosis or tuberculosis with emaciation, the Regulations require that the whole carcase be rejected as unfit for human consumption. Where only localised lesions of tuberculosis are found, these parts of the carcase must be rejected as unfit for human consumption.

  The risk of contracting bovine tuberculosis by eating improperly cooked contaminated meat is considered to be extremely small, and there have been no recorded instances of the transmission of the disease to humans by this route. I am satisfied that these procedures provide appropriate public health safeguards.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52305]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department issues no guidance to those constructing its buildings on the use of material containing asbestos. Our contractors, however, must guarantee not to use asbestos.
  225
  An asbestos register is maintained of our existing buildings and those working on them must take responsibility to comply with all health and safety requirements pertaining to asbestos.

  Farming Diversification
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals his Department has to promote diversification in farming. [52118]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: Funding to encourage a wide range of agricultural activities, including farm diversification, is available in the six areas designated to receive assistance under the English Objective 5b Structural Fund Programmes. No grant aid for farm diversification is available outside these areas. However, in order to assist farmers in developing successful diversified enterprises, the Ministry has produced a series of advisory booklets on farm diversification.

  Hill Farming
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent trends in the number of hill farmers. [52114]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 24 July 1998]: The table sets out the number of farmers classified as being in the Less Favoured Area (LFA) of England from 1990 to 1997:

  Year

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1990

  12,741

  3,690

  16,431

  1991

  12,437

  3,965

  16,402

  1992

  12,503

  4,096

  16,599

  1993

  12,514

  4,334

  16,848

  1994

  12,115

  4,298

  16,413

  1995

  11,713

  4,030

  15,743

  1996

  11,160

  3,878

  15,038

  1997

  10,738

  3,859

  14,597

  Over the period 1990–1997 there has been a reduction in the number of full-time farmers and an increase in the number of part-time farmers in the English LFA. This trend is broadly consistent with the overall decline in the number of farmers in agriculture generally. Our aim is to contribute to the well-being of rural communities in upland areas by promoting a viable and sustainable farm sector. We will continue to pursue this aim with appropriate support for hill farmers.

  Lobsters
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the success of artificial lobster reefs off(a) Louisiana and (b) Hong Kong in relation to similar proposals by the Harwich Haven Authority; and if he will make a statement; [52481]

  (2) what is his assessment of the effects of the dumping of dredging material on the catch rate of lobsters off the North Essex coast; [52483]

  (3) what environmental safeguards he will demand to ensure the viability of the lobster fishery off the North Essex coast; [52482]
  226
  (4) what is his assessment of the environmental impact of the Harwich Haven Authority's proposals to dump dredging material on the Tails of Rough in the North Sea; and if he will make a statement. [52480]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 22 April 1998, Official Report, column 666.

  Although no final decisions have yet been taken on the licence applications, Harwich Haven Authority (HHA) are proposing that the stiff clay and rock materials will be carefully placed to form a bund at the Roughs Tower disposal site and part of that site would then be capped with gravel and rock material to provide suitable reef habitat for lobsters. In considering the design of this reef, Ministry scientists are taking account of the experience gained in a number of artificial reef experiments both in the US and in Hong Kong.

  Recognising concerns about the possibility of fine grained material drifting onto adjacent lobster fisheries, HHA, with assistance from Ministry scientists and in consultation with fishermen, have been investigating a new disposal site further offshore. It is the Authority's intention that all dispersible silty material from the Harwich dredging work would be deposited at this site except where other beneficial uses for it are proposed.

  It would be a condition of any licence which might be issued that HHA should undertake a rigorous monitoring programme to ensure that there are no adverse impacts of a disposal operation on all aspects of the marine environment including the North Essex lobster fishery. That programme would also study the behaviour of the dredged material and the speed of recruitment of lobsters and crabs to the reef. In addition, HHA have offered to supply additional juvenile lobsters to increase stock on the reef in due course.

  Seeds Regulations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the requirements of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 were not complied with in the matter which was the subject of Regina v Secretary of State for the Environment and MAFF ex parte Watson. [52495]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: Regulation 11(3) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) provides, for certain species, that no application shall be entertained for entry of a variety in a National List unless it is accompanied by the results of replicated trials undertaken in the UK.

  The requirement to submit the results of replicated trials was introduced to reduce the volume of National List applications for the common species to a manageable level. Its purpose was to encourage breeders to screen varieties before entering them into the statutory system and to deter them from entering varieties which had little chance of addition to the National List, at a time when the trialling system was overloaded and also heavily subsidised by the tax payer. Some limited use was made of the results of these trials, but only to persuade applicants to withdraw applications with little chance of success. The results of breeders' replicated trials were never used in reaching decisions on whether a variety should be added to the National List.
  227
  A fundamental review of the National List trials system was undertaken in 1992, in consultation with plant breeders. Following this, a streamlined system of trials for Value for Cultivation and Use (VCU) was introduced, which reduced the burdens on the trials system. The staged reintroduction of fees for official VCU trials in 1994 and 1995 reinforced these measures.

  The requirement to submit the results of replicated trials had no value once the pressure on the system was relieved. It was felt that a requirement to provide information which served no purpose and which was not used placed an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on applicants. In accordance with the Court of Appeal judgment, I am seeking urgent legal advice on how the position can be resolved speedily and across the board for all plant varieties affected by the judgment.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Pesticides Safety Directorate. [53599]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Pesticides Safety Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. [53674]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Veterinary Medicines Directorate were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service. [53675]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Central Science Laboratory
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will publish the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Central Science Laboratory. [53676]
  228
  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to announce that the 1997–98 Annual Report and Accounts for the Central Science Laboratory were laid before Parliament today. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I should like to congratulate all staff on their achievements during the year.

  Livestock Research
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 July 1998,Official Report, column 415, if he will make a statement on the terms of reference of his Department's research into livestock science. [53232]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department's research into livestock science aims to assist in creating conditions in which a competitive and sustainable livestock industry can thrive in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those organisations which have contributed financially to his Department's research into livestock science. [53202]

  Mr. Rooker
  The following organisations have, within the last 5 years, contributed financially to the Department's research into livestock science:

  Acorn House Veterinary Surgery

  ADAS Consulting Ltd.

  Agricultural Research Institute of Northern Ireland

  Anglo Beef Producers

  Associated British Nutrition Ltd.

  British Association of Green Crop Driers Ltd.

  Barclays Bank

  Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

  BOCM Pauls Ltd.

  Borregaard UK Ltd.

  BP Nutrition

  British Pig Association

  Cans Agriculture

  Cobb Breeding Company

  Cotswold Pig Development Company

  Criddle Billington Feeds Ltd.

  Dalgety Agriculture Ltd.

  Dalgety plc

  David Filmer Ltd.

  Dengie Crops Ltd.

  Department of Agriculture, Northern Ireland

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Dynamic Nutrition Services Ltd.

  Ecosyl Products Ltd.

  FAC

  Frank Wright (Feeds) Ltd.

  Genus Management

  Germinal Holdings

  Hanford Feeds Ltd.

  Hannah Research Institute

  Heygate and Sons Ltd.

  Hoechst

  Holstein Friesian Society

  Hydro Agri

  229

  Ivor Bending

  J. Bibby Agriculture Ltd.

  Johnson's Seeds

  John Thompson and Sons Ltd.

  JSR Healthbred

  Maize Growers Association

  Massey Bros. (Feeds) Ltd.

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  Milk Development Council

  Mole Valley Farmers

  Newsham Hybrid Pigs Ltd.

  Nutec Ltd.

  Nutrico

  Nutrition Services (International) Ltd.

  NWF Agriculture Ltd.

  Pedigree Pet Foods

  Pig Improvement Company Ltd.

  Premier Poultry Ltd.

  Purina Mills

  Pye Farm Feeds

  Rattlerow Farms

  Rhone-Poulenc Animal Nutrition

  Roche Products

  Roslin Institute (Edinburgh)

  Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  SAC

  Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

  Stonefield Systems Plc

  Tesco Stores plc

  Trident Feeds

  UK Association of Fish Meal Manufacturers

  UM Group

  United Distillers

  Wynnstay & Clwyd Farmers plc.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those compliance cost assessments since 1 May 1997 in which there is a net reduction in compliance costs resulting from a legislative proposal. [52969]

  Mr. Morley
  There is presently no requirement on Departments to carry out Compliance Cost Assessments where legislative proposals are expected to be cost neutral or resulting in a saving to business. However, between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998, the Department has published the following Compliance Cost Assessments or Regulatory Appraisals which show a net reduction in estimated compliance costs:

  Potatoes Originating in the Netherlands Regulations 1997

  Home Grown Cereal Authority (Rate of Levy) Order 1998

  Plastic Materials in Contact With Food Regulations 1998.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52967]
  230
  Mr. Morley
  For the period 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1997, details of Compliance Cost Assessments or Regulatory Appraisals published by the Department are contained in Command Papers CM 3801 "Compliance Cost Assessments: 1 January 1997 to 30 June 1997" and CM 3938 "Compliance Cost Assessments: 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1997", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  For the period 1 January 1998 to 30 June 1998, Compliance Cost Assessments or Regulatory Appraisals which the Department has published to accompany legislation are as follows:

  January

  The Beef Carcase (Classification) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  The Feeding Stuffs (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  February

  The Spreadable Fats (Marketing Standards) Amendment Regulations 1998

  The Specified Animal Pathogens Order 1998

  The Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Order 1998

  The CAP (Wine) (Amendment) Regulations 1998—amending The CAP (Wine) Regulations 1996 (The Principal Regulations)

  March

  The Beef Labelling (Enforcement) Regulations 1998

  The Cattle Identification Regulations 1998

  April

  The Fertilisers (Mammalian Meat and Bone Meal) Regulations 1998

  The Medicines (Exemptions for Merchants in Veterinary Drugs) Order 1998

  The Feeding Stuffs (Establishments and Intermediaries) Regulations 1998

  The Plant Breeders Rights (Fees) Regulations 1998

  The Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  The Plant Breeders Rights (Information and Notices) (Extension to European Plant Variety Rights) Regulations 1998

  The Plant Breeders Rights (Information Notices) Regulations 1998

  The Bovines and Bovine Products (Trade) Regulations 1998

  The Implementation of Council Directive 96/51/EC Amending Directive 70/524/EEC Concerning Additives in Feeding Stuffs. This Regulatory Appraisal was prepared for the parent Directive for the four Statutory Instruments listed below:

  The Medicines (Sale or Supply) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Regulations 1998

  The Medicated Feeding Stuffs Regulations 1998

  The Feeding Stuffs (Zootechnical Products) Regulations 1998

  The Medicated Feeding Stuffs and The Feeding Stuffs (Zootechnical Products) (Consequential Provisions) Regulations 1998

  May

  The Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (England and Wales) Regulations 1998

  The Razor Shells, Trough Shells and Carpet Shells (Specified Sea Area) (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 1998

  The Welfare of Livestock (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  The Home Grown Cereals Authority (Rate of Levy) Order 1998

  231

  June

  The Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  The Seeds (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  The Plastic Materials and Articles in Contact with Food Regulations 1998.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the cumulative net increase in compliance costs has been estimated in compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52968]

  Mr. Morley
  The cumulative net increase in compliance costs estimated in compliance cost assessments or regulatory appraisals published alongside new regulations made by the Department between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 is £280 million, of which £55 million are non-recurring costs. £40 million of the possible recurring costs could result from certain products having to be withdrawn from sale but are likely to be largely offset by increased sales of alternative agrochemical products.

  Bankrupt Farmers
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers were declared bankrupt in each of the last five financial years. [53174]

  Mr. Morley
  Data for the 1997–98 financial year are not yet available. The table sets out calendar year data.

  Number of bankruptcies in the agricultural and horticultural sectors England and Wales 1993–1997

  Year

  Bankruptcies of self-employed individuals

  Company1 insolvencies

  Total

  1993

  277

  157

  434

  1994

  231

  166

  397

  1995

  218

  99

  317

  1996

  168

  89

  257

  1997

  155

  51

  206

  1 Including partnerships

  Source:

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Flooding (Peterborough)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement concerning the responsibilities of statutory authorities to take action to(a) prevent and (b) give earlier warning of the risk of flooding within the area of the City of Peterborough. [52984]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is the lead flood defence operating authority in England and Wales and has powers to undertake flood defences on designated Main Rivers, which include the River Nene. On non-main 232
  rivers, flood defence powers rest with local authorities or, in areas of special drainage need, with internal drainage boards.

  The responsibility for disseminating flood warnings in England and Wales rests with the Environment Agency.

  Cycling
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what parking facilities for cycles exist at each office or site for which his Department is responsible and for each agency for which he is responsible. [52670]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department and the Agencies are made up of more than 200 separate sites and this information is not readily available. The position at the Ministry's principal headquarters sites is as follows:

  Ministry building

  Number of spaces

  Eastbury House, Albert Embankment, London

  8

  Nobel House/Ergon House, Smith Square, London

  41

  Whitehall Place and 55 Whitehall, London

  20 plus secure space (not racks) for another 20

  Epsom Road, Guildford

  30

  Hook Rise South, Tolworth

  30

  Kings Pool, York

  210

  Total

  339 (+20)

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the employees of his Department and of the employees of each agency for which he is responsible cycle to work; and what measures he plans to increase that proportion. [52671]

  Mr. Morley
  This information is not readily available. Measures to increase the proportion of employees cycling to work are being considered as part of the development of green transport plans for buildings occupied by the Department and its Agencies.

  Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those countries excluded from the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996. [53198]

  Mr. Rooker
  The countries exempted from regulation 3(1) of the Fresh Meat (Beef Controls) (No. 2) Regulations 1996 are Argentina, Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Mauritius, Namibia, New Zealand, Paraguay, Poland, South Africa, Swaziland, Uruguay, United States of America and Zimbabwe.

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

Baroness Buscombe
Mrs. Peta Jane Buscombe, having been created Baroness Buscombe, of Goring in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Seccombe and the Lord Parkinson.
Lord Bach
William Stephen Goulden Bach Esquire, having been created Baron Bach, of Lutterworth in the County of Leicestershire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Janner of Braunstone and the Lord Hattersley.

Scottish Universities: Support for Students
2.48 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why their treatment of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities was not part of their election manifesto.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the concession for Scottish students in their final honours year of first-degree courses at Scottish universities was made following a recommendation from the Dearing Inquiry and its Scottish committee under Sir Ron Garrick. The inquiry did not recommend extending the concession to students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We made it clear before the election that we were awaiting the inquiry's recommendations before finalising our policy on support for higher education students. With the support of your Lordships' House, we have now agreed to appoint an independent review.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. However, there was no suggestion in the manifesto that there should be discrimination against any students in this country. Discrimination apparently now exists in law, but a review is being appointed. Does this mean that the manifesto is negotiable?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I said in my earlier response, prior to the election the Labour Party made it clear that it supported the setting up of the
1340
Dearing Inquiry into higher education and that it would wait for the results of that inquiry. Given that the inquiry had not reported before the election, the Labour Party could hardly have put in its manifesto that it intended to do anything about making a concession for students in Scotland in the fourth year of their honours degree course.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether a migrant worker from the European Economic Area who lives in England for a year before applying to a Scottish university will pay fees for one year less than his English neighbour who has lived there all his life?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no, I can confirm that there are residence requirements for students who are from overseas but who live in the UK. However, a European Union student from a European Union country rather than from another overseas country would have to be treated under EU law in exactly the same way as British nationals.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in the run-up to the general election, the Prime Minister said that the Labour Party had no plans to introduce tuition fees. Was that not misleading?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in the run-up to the election, the Labour Party gave support to the Dearing Inquiry set up by the previous government. We made it clear that we were concerned about the funding crisis in higher education created by the last government and that we were prepared to consider various options which did not rule out seeking a contribution towards fees from those who benefit from higher education.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is not the Scottish anomaly an absurd consequence of the Government's equally absurd and grossly unfair decision to charge fees at English universities?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. The Government accepted the recommendations made by the Dearing Committee that those who benefit from higher education should make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition. That has been widely accepted as fair and reasonable. Indeed, an opinion poll survey carried out last year revealed that just under 70 per cent. of parents think it reasonable that they should make a contribution towards tuition fees.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, is it right that membership of the European Union allows students from all other parts of Europe to attend cut-price? Why does not England, as a member of the European Union, have a cut price, too?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, while the EC treaty requires member states not to discriminate on grounds of nationality against nationals of other member states on matters within the scope of the treaty, EC law does not intervene on internal matters. It does not require

1341
each member state to treat all its nationals in exactly the same way. Therefore, under EU law we are not obliged to make precisely the same financial assistance available to students who are ordinarily resident in England, Wales or Northern Ireland as to those ordinarily resident in Scotland; just as we are not required to make exactly the same arrangements for part-time students as we do for full-time students or for further education students as we do for higher education students.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, the Minister quoted the opinion poll figure of 70 per cent. of parents being in favour of contributing towards fees. Will she accept the same figure when it is used with regard to clauses of the Crime and Disorder Bill?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I cannot answer questions about the Crime and Disorder Bill. I am not sure that a survey has been conducted similar to that in relation to parents making a contribution when they can afford it to the costs of their children's higher education.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Scottish parliament will be allowed to be kinder to English students?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I would not dare to anticipate anything that the Scottish parliament might decide.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, what will happen to a student of proven Scottish nationality who is resident in England?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the issue has absolutely nothing to do with nationality. There is no discrimination on the grounds of nationality. It is a matter of two different education systems, one north of the Border and one south of the Border, which is why the Dearing Committee recommended that a concession should be made to students educated in Scotland. Students educated in England will have had a different educational background before they go to university.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, has the noble Baroness ever heard of equal treatment?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, of course I have heard of equal treatment. But the purpose of the concession which the Dearing Committee recommended was to allow those students from Scotland who had had only one year of education at the sixth-form level to gain a degree for the cost of £3,000, which is the same as for students south of the Border.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, in relation to the Minister's remark about wealthy parents being able to pay, is she aware that at the Labour Party Conference last year the Prime Minister stated: "No parent will have to pay more"?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Prime Minister was entirely accurate in what he said, as we are asking
1342
parents to make a contribution towards the tuition costs of their children's education. However, we are in addition providing extra loan finance so that a student can borrow more money and pay it back when his or her income as a graduate makes that possible. Therefore, the parent has to contribute less in maintenance as a compensation for contributing to the fee. That is why the Prime Minister was entirely accurate in what he said.

Scientific Advice to Government
2.57 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are content with the present level of communication between Ministers and leading scientists.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, this Government continually seek the involvement, by various means, of a wide range of eminent scientists in order to inform their decision-making and policy development.
The Chief Scientific Adviser issued guidelines last year on the use of scientific advice in policy-making. These advocate obtaining the best available scientific advice from a sufficiently wide range of sources.
As a demonstration of our commitment to communication and to these guidelines, we have re-established the Council for Science and Technology, which is chaired by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and has three additional independent members.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the last part of his Answer must be wholly welcome? We will await the results. Is he also aware that some of the Answers given in your Lordships' House have about them a wooden and repetitive quality which suggests that a little fresh air let in before they are drafted would be rather a good thing? Can I take it from his Answer that the Government accept that in a fast moving age they cannot be other than right in taking every measure to inform themselves fully about the perils and the opportunities which come from scientific sources?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Lord that we must inform ourselves as best we can and take account of every avenue of scientific advice available to us in order to improve both the science base and our competitive performance in industry, which is vital. If the Answers appear wooden and dismal it is because the Questions appear so repetitive.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, as the individual to whom the Minister is probably referring, may I ask him whether he accepts that science tends to follow fashions and that different scientists have different ideas? One of the problems with experts is that they

1343
know all the answers so they do not ask the questions. Therefore, will the Minister accept that the Government's latest proposals are very welcome to me? I hope that we shall have a fresh wind blowing through MAFF and the Ministry of Defence.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am extremely glad that there is a supportive comment on the whole question of the way in which we consult and develop policy. I took the noble Countess's comments to be very supportive, particularly in relation to those areas which apply to scientists and the science base. We have a wide range of research councils and extremely good advice on science. Long may that continue.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is sometimes a language problem when scientists communicate with lay people and that when, for example, scientists say, as they frequently do—and I am talking about the meaning of the word "evidence" here—that there is no evidence to show such and such, often what they mean is either that they are not yet 95 per cent. certain or else "We haven't actually looked"?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as a modern linguist it has often proved difficult for me to understand some of the submissions from scientists that I have received in my industrial career. It has struck me recently that their ability to give evidence to require the political system to provide answers has been successful to the extent that they have secured an extra £1.1 billion on their spending budget, which was already, in private and government hands, at £14.4 billion. Therefore, it seems to me that there is evidence that their communication is both successful and clear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if the Minister has found the noble Countess's Questions repetitive, does he agree that on occasion that may be because they have been answered at the seventh rather than the first time of asking? Do I take it from the encouraging words that I have heard exchanged that that will no longer take place?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I can only speak for my own position in response to the noble Earl. I am now answering for the second time. I hope that I bring wholly good news on a series of repetitive questions that amount to two.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Lord makes much of the business of repetitive questions. Will he accept an assurance from this side of the House that Questions will cease to be repetitive just as soon as they receive satisfactory answers?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with an increase of £1.1 billion in the science budget over three years and the extension of research councils. I am sure that all noble Lords will look forward to the good news which the Prime Minister may bring about these matters when he makes a Statement later in the day.

Asylum System: Abuse
3.2 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made since 31st December 1997 in reducing the number of bogus asylum seekers in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, provisional figures show that more than 3,000 failed asylum seekers have been removed from the United Kingdom in the first six months of 1998. The White Paper Fairer, faster and firmer: a modern approach to immigration and asylum published yesterday includes measures to minimise further the scope for abuse of the asylum system and to increase our ability to remove those who have no basis of stay in the United Kingdom.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and for what he is doing in trying to deal with this problem. Bearing in mind that tyranny has greatly increased in the world in recent years and that a very high proportion of asylum seekers prefer to come here rather than to spread themselves elsewhere, perhaps even to other countries within the European Union, has not the time come to renegotiate the 1951 convention on refugees?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, tyranny has certainly spread and that means that the victims of tyranny have increased substantially. One of the reasons that people seek to come to this country is that they hope they will receive a civilised reception. Certainly I bear in mind carefully what the noble Lord said. His namesake made the same point a few days ago. The 1951 convention is now historic but it still has a good deal of underlying validity.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the proportion of refugees attempting to enter Germany continues to be substantially higher than in this country; and that proportionately, the number seeking to enter Holland—a country considerably smaller in population terms—is higher than in this country? Does he agree that the central dilemma for the Home Office is to distinguish between those seeking to enter this country for entirely economic reasons and those who have great cause to seek asylum because of the positions they have taken in fighting tyranny?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is certainly right to observe that Germany and Holland bear an enormous burden of refugees. In many ways, they have discharged their burden admirably. It is a mistake to concentrate always on the pressures on the United Kingdom.

1345
The noble Baroness identifies the dilemma absolutely correctly. We must say no to economic migrants. We have treaty obligations and, I dare say, moral commitments to behave properly to those who are genuinely in need of asylum.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that everyone in this House will welcome the steps which the Government are taking to deal with bogus asylum seekers? But will he recognise this country's honourable and ancient tradition of providing asylum for people who are in real danger? Will he give the House an assurance that every step will be taken to try to preserve their right to seek asylum in this land?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I confirm that. Quite apart from treaty and moral obligations, I believe that this country—and many in your Lordships' House are testimony to it—has benefited infinitely from giving an open, generous welcome to refugees, not least in the years before 1939. It is a difficult dilemma. Those who abuse the system, or try to, are causing great damage and distress, which is avoidable damage and distress, for those who have genuine claims.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no litmus test which makes it possible to distinguish between a bogus asylum seeker and a genuine refugee before their claims are heard? Therefore, will he agree further that the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is one to which neither he nor anyone else can possibly know the answer?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not believe that the absolutist nature of the noble Earl's proposition is absolutely right in every conceivable circumstance. I can think of some instances—I have seen them myself—when it is obvious that people are not coming here on the basis of genuine asylum claims. In some circumstances, one can detect the bogus quite easily. But that is not so in all cases, which is why we must have a regime such as the Home Secretary is about constructing.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, in the context of the encouraging White Paper published yesterday, it becomes imperative to encourage all those handling detained asylum seekers to remember the overriding commitment at all times to preserve their dignity and to respect their potential rights and not to fall into the trap of being afraid of public opinion whipped up by the use of words like "bogus"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. Case working is an extremely difficult job. It deserves the admiration of us all. Everyone who works in this area needs to be aware that people are frightened; they come from different cultural backgrounds; they are unhappy in a foreign land; and, very often, their linguistic skills are limited. That is a constant theme of training which the Home Office encourages.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us who have spoken in this House in the past about the need for provision for asylum seekers to be a national responsibility are delighted that the White Paper is now taking away the burden from particular centres such as London which were carrying that burden? I am pleased to see that there will be one offer of accommodation for people. At present, Westminster Council and other councils arrange for people to go to, for example, Liverpool and Great Yarmouth. Many people who have extremely desirable accommodation arranged for them simply vanish. Only a very small number arrive at their destination or they arrive, and then vanish. How do the Government propose to deal with that problem?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful for the generous welcome that the noble Baroness has given to the White Paper. However, this matter must be dealt with on a national basis. If one has a genuine asylum seeker and accommodation, shelter, food and clothing are needed—in other words, the necessities of daily life—then, by definition, they are likely to be within the accommodation provided. The noble Baroness is quite right: absconders are a very difficult problem to deal with. One then has the further dilemma of using detention, which we want to avoid if we possibly can, as opposed to people coming to this country and simply departing. One of the things that we are looking at is more rigorous reporting restrictions so that a reasonable burden may be put on an asylum seeker without it becoming an unfair burden.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while I fully understand the problem and appreciate what the Government are trying to do about it, does the Minister realise that, apart from Germany and Holland—which, strangely enough, are not as over-populated as the places here to which asylum seekers come—many other countries just do not bear their fair share of dealing with the financial and social problems that arise through having a large number of asylum seekers?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a perfectly legitimate point. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is determined to deal with these matters in a European and international context, rather than simply on a national basis. I revert to what I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby. In many ways, Germany has a pretty good record in this context.

Hearing Aids: NHS and Private
3.11 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are proposing to modernise National Health Service hearing aids to close the technological gap between them and privately bought hearing aids.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government appreciate the importance of effective modern hearing aids and how vital they are to millions of people. The NHS has made progress in the past few years in providing more up-dated aids, such as high frequency and mini-aids. However, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, different people have very different requirements and demands to help deal with their hearing difficulties. It has been difficult for the NHS to establish sufficiently broad criteria for successful improvements as regards bulk purchases of any one type of new aid and making them cost-effective. We hope that this kind of assessment of new technology will become easier and improve once the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is established during the next year.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I have no personal interest to declare because I use a cochlear implant. However, despite her Answer, is my noble friend aware that the overwhelming majority of NHS patients using hearing aids—some 99 per cent.—do not have those specially adapted and improved hearing aids; indeed, they have the old-fashioned aids? They lack modern developments such as automatic adjustment, the multi-direction microphone and the reduction of background noise, all of which are important and are all embodied in private hearing aids. Therefore, bearing in mind what my noble friend said about bulk buying and the fact that it is the biggest buyer of hearing aids in the world, why can the NHS not use its strength as a bulk buyer to buy more modern hearing aids at bargain basement prices?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's great interest and expertise in the area. As President of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, I believe that he will be aware that it is precisely because Ministers in the Department of Health were concerned about the points that he raises that a national working group was set up last September by the NHS Executive. It is now working on the outcome of those deliberations and is to put a ministerial proposal to my honourable friends the Minister for Public Health and the Minister for community health during the next few weeks. It is to be hoped that some of the improvements that my noble friend mentioned will come out of those discussions.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of the problems with hearing aids might in some ways be ameliorated if more attention were paid to teaching people how to use them properly? Indeed, it was brought to my attention that only about 10 per cent. know that they have something called a "T' switch on their hearing aid which can help cut out background noise. Surely teaching people how to use their hearing aids properly would be a much better way of progressing if we cannot purchase the exact up-to-date equipment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a most important point. It is the inexpert or perhaps one should say ill-informed use of some of the
1348
equipment which seems to lead to it not functioning in the way that it might do at its optimum. One of the issues that the NHS has to consider is the expense of specialised training for audiology departments of NHS trusts which may be providing such services. That is an extra expense which must be considered when one is looking at the upgrading of the whole service.
Earl Howe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the RNID has found that about 3 million people who could benefit from having a hearing aid do not in fact have one? Indeed, many people lack awareness of the potential benefits of hearing aids and of their limitations. That also applies to many GPs, who consequently fail to refer people on to NHS hearing aid services. Therefore, will the Government consider how both patients and professionals might become better informed in that area?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I believe that this was one of the subjects discussed in the national working group to which I referred. As the noble Earl may be aware, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People was part of that working group. I am sure that the institute made those points very clear in the discussions with the Department of Health.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, I believe that modern hearing aids are a great deal more expensive than the old-fashioned ones. Therefore, can the Minister assure the House that it is not cost which is controlling this service?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, there are resource issues involved, as I said in response to the noble Lord who asked about the knowledge of and training for people using hearing aids. Indeed, there is a wide range of expenses as regards providing hearing assistance to many people. We are trying to achieve the most cost-effective service for a large number of people—I believe several million—who could benefit in this way. Clearly cost has to be a factor; but cost-effectiveness is the most reasonable thing to try to achieve.

City of Edinburgh (Guided Busways) Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Scotland Bill
3.16 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
Clause 30 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Scottish Executive]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 15, line 31, after ("statement") insert ("to the Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish from the Chamber, perhaps I may say what a great pleasure it is to be able to start a Committee day promptly. I am sure that the Ministers are as determined as I am to make good progress in this fullish day that we have before us.
The first group of amendments comprises Amendments No. 228, 229 and 232. I seek to propose amendments to Clause 30 which, falling upon a similar provision in the Human Rights Bill, provides that when a member of the Scottish executive in charge of a Bill brings the legislation before the parliament he shall,
"on or before introduction of the Bill in the Parliament, make a statement to the effect that in his view an Act of the Scottish Parliament containing the same provisions as those in the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
The three amendments that I propose are designed to achieve, first, that the statement is made "to the Parliament"; and, secondly—this is a very important suggestion—that the view which the member of the Scottish executive puts forward should not be his own view but that of the Scottish executive. Thirdly, Amendment No. 232 seeks to ensure that the statement should be made in two stages during the passage of the Bill. It should be made primarily during the general debate on the Bill, which is provided for in Clause 34(1)(a), and then it should be repeated during the debate on the final stages, which is provided for in Clause 34(1)(c). Quite obviously, the last amendment is designed to take account of the possibility, as one anticipates will happen with the Scottish parliament—as, indeed, happens with Bills going through this House—that not only opposition members but the minister in charge of a Bill will seek to bring forward amendments on behalf of the Scottish executive.
In my view it is important that the view which is placed before the members of the parliament is the view of the Scottish executive itself. This is because the issue as to whether or not the provisions set out in the Bill would lie or do lie within the legislative competence of the parliament is a question of law. When a Bill becomes an Act of the Scottish parliament, there are devolution issues which fall to be determined in accordance with the procedures set out in Clause 91 in Schedule 6 of the Bill. The first of these is whether an Act of the Scottish parliament or any provision of an Act of the Scottish parliament is within the legislative competence of the parliament.
So the issue is a question of law. And, with the greatest respect to those who will serve as ministers in the Scottish executive, it is not their personal view as laymen that matters, it is the view, on this important question of law, of the Scottish executive.
Anyone who had the benefit of hearing the long Pepper v. Hart statement read into the Official Report last week by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will know that that issue is a highly complicated one. If such a statement is made to the Scottish parliament it will be open to members of the parliament to ask questions about the statement, raise queries as to whether it is entirely correct, and no doubt identify particular provisions in the Bill where there may or may not be some doubt as to whether the provision lies within the legislative competence.
It is important that the views that are being defended should be clearly identified as the views of the Scottish executive as a body. It is inconceivable that any such statement will have been made without the benefit of legal advice. One suspects that the statement will be drafted or at least revised by those lawyers who are acting for the Scottish executive, whether solicitors within the department which the first minister will no doubt establish, or people advised by the Scottish law officers and the legally qualified staff of the law officers.
If lawyers are having an input into the statement on behalf of the Scottish executive, it seems to me appropriate that it is the view of that body which should be made clear. We do not yet know what conventions will apply to the advice given by the Scottish law officers to the Scottish executive. My amendment does not require one of them to come before the parliament and defend the view on behalf of the executive. I do not seek to trespass on that area at the moment. All I seek to establish is what I believe is important; namely, that the Bill should not remain the personal view of the Minister but should reflect the view of the Scottish executive. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: It is undoubtedly correct to incorporate the content of these amendments into the First Reading procedure in the Scottish parliament. I am sure that the Scottish parliament will do that. But, as the question of the vires of the parliament will always be a major component of the scrutiny process in the Scottish parliament, on these Benches we do not believe that it is necessary to incorporate the amendment on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Amendments Nos. 228 and 232 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, are, in our view, unnecessarily prescriptive. We agree with the views put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. We do not believe that we should be trying to prescribe how Scottish ministers should make the statement required by Clause 30. We should leave it to the parliament and Scottish ministers to agree on how the information required by Clause 30 is presented both to the parliament and the public at large.
It is possible, for example, that the statement would be included as part of the memorandum accompanying the Bill when it is introduced, just as at present the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum accompanying a Bill introduced in this House includes information on various matters. On the other hand, if we accepted the

1351
amendment it could be read as implying that the minister must make an oral statement to the parliament on the introduction of a Bill. I believe we should leave it to the discretion of the minister to decide on the form of the statement as the Bill provides.
Equally, if any member of the parliament decides that it would be helpful to have a view from the executive on the legislative competence of a Bill at some stage after introduction, it would be up to that member to seek the view of the minister during debate. We do not need Amendment No. 232 to allow that to happen, and it seems quite inappropriate to require that such a view must be given in every case at two stages of the passage of a Bill.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that we are right to leave it to the Scottish executive and the parliament to develop its working practices which will ensure that questions relating to legislation, including the vires of legislation, can be revised and addressed as appropriate. It is our intention that the parliament should be allowed, where appropriate, to decide for itself how it should operate day to day.
We also consider that the other amendment in this group, Amendment No. 229, is inappropriate. It is likely that a member of the Scottish executive will want to seek the approval of his colleagues before making a statement about the legislative competence of a Bill before it is introduced into the parliament. But, at the end of the day, it will primarily be his responsibility to satisfy himself that the Bill he is responsible for is within the legislative competence of the parliament. It is therefore appropriate that the statement will record his view. However, there is the safeguard that all the ministers will be legally responsible for any such statement through Clause 48(4) which provides that, among other things, any act of a member of the Scottish executive will be treated as an act of each member of the Scottish executive.
I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was interested in that reply. I expect to an extent that it holds water well. However, I remind the noble Baroness that this matter and others which we are about to deal with are not just questions of the law and legal mechanics. How the public view the progress of the Bill in the parliament, the discussion and so on will matter very much. The reputation of the parliament and the quality of Scottish legislation will hang on the smooth working of the system.
The noble Lady said that the Government do not mind whether this statement is made prior to the Bill being laid before the parliament or whether it is in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. If one thinks this through and tries to imagine how the procedure will work, I think it would be much better if the statement was made before the Bill appeared. Once the Bill is printed, the die is cast and the Bill has to be discussed. People will want to know that it is considered to be intra vires, and why, before they begin to discuss it at all.
1352
I wonder whether the Government have thought that out. Are the alternatives equally good? Of course the parliament needs to have a say in as much as possible of its proceedings, but these matters are of great importance to the extent that the quality of law is affected and as regards the way in which people view the parliament. Have the Government really considered whether these alternatives are equally good?
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness that this is not just a question of legal mechanics. I also agree with her that the workings and the proceedings of the parliament and how they are viewed by the public are matters of the utmost importance. But does not the noble Baroness think that the members of the Scottish parliament would think of that as well? The Government have thought through carefully what the Bill contains on these points and, as always, the amendments that are proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. The view of the Government is that they are unnecessarily prescriptive, as I have said, and that there is adequate coverage of the basic principles underlying them in the Bill as it stands.
Lord Hylton: I appreciate what the Minister has said about Clause 48 which asserts collective responsibility within the executive, but so, in my view, does Amendment No. 229. It would have the merit of building in the legal point of view of the Scottish Law Officers at the earliest possible stage. Here I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that it is desirable that this clarity should be introduced into the proceedings of the parliament at the earliest possible stage in each Bill.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I appreciate the concern of all Members of the Committee to make sure that the best practice is in force in the Scottish parliament. That is something we all agree on. However, if I may say so, I think there is a tendency to try to second guess the members of the Scottish parliament in dotting every "i" and crossing every "t" as to what they should do at all times. The Government trust the good political sense and the good common sense of the members of the Scottish parliament. I stand by our opinion of these amendments which is that they are over-prescriptive and unnecessarily prescriptive.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I hope the noble Baroness can help me. I, of course, understand the point that she makes about trusting the Scottish parliament and, presumably, the Scottish executive. Can she explain the practice of this clause? She mentioned en passant Clause 48(4) giving rise to some kind of collective responsibility on the part of the Scottish executive. I understand that; but what is the nature of this responsibility? If the statement turns out to be wrong—it has been made for some purpose which I do not quite follow—what is the nature of the responsibility which is being shouldered by the Scottish executive for that statement?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: This would then become a question of vires and may be challenged in the way that any question of vires may be challenged.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I understand that. The question is, what is the responsibility which the Scottish executive shoulders by making the statement? Will it become liable for damages to people who have relied upon the statement? What exactly is the purpose of the statement and what is the nature of the responsibility that is assumed?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The purpose of the statement—which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, also seeks in his amendment, and which the Government have laid down in the Bill—is that the Scottish executive assumes the responsibility of saying that in its judgment the Bill (or whatever it is bringing forward) is within the vires, the power and competence of the Scottish parliament. I do not think it is any more or any less than that. It would be challenged in the usual way if there was anything wrong. It is not intended to be a legal responsibility on the executive; it is a statement to ensure that the executive has properly considered the issue and made a proper judgment in so far as it is competent to do so—one would hope it would have considerable competence—that the measure is within the power and competence of the Scottish parliament.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving such a full response. However, I have some difficulty with Clause 48(4). As I understand it, it seeks to deal with situations where some form of legal liability or legal rights may arise as a result of the acts or omissions of one member of the Scottish executive which binds the executive and any other member of it. Over the Recess I shall think carefully about the reliance which the Government place on that.
I began to think that in her closing remarks the noble Baroness was coming round to the view that there may be some merit in the approach that I advocate because she talked of the Scottish executive putting forward a Bill which in its judgment—those were her words—fell within the legal competence of the parliament. I am sure she is correct about that. It is inconceivable that a Bill will be put forward without the Scottish executive as a body being satisfied that the Bill falls within the legal competence of the parliament. If that is so, I have some difficulty as to why it is the personal view of the member that is provided for in Clause 30(1) and not the view of the Scottish executive. I do not regard the giving of the view as an act or an omission. I regard it as an expression of opinion on what I have already suggested is a highly complicated question of law.
This matter will benefit from some thought over the Recess, particularly when we consider in detail the long Pepper v. Hart statement about Clause 28 which was made some days ago. On the understanding that this matter may be worth revisiting, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 229 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 230:
Page 15, line 34, at end insert (", and
(b) of his view as to the economic, social and environmental impact and sustainability of an Act of the Scottish Parliament containing the same provisions as those in the Bill").
The noble Earl said: This amendment continues the subject of the introduction procedures for legislation in the Scottish parliament. The amendment has the purpose of ensuring that Ministers of the Scottish executive bring forward legislation which is certified to be not just intra vires, as we have just discussed, but also economically, socially and environmentally friendly and sustainable. Indeed, I wish to extend this amendment to any member of the Scottish parliament who is introducing a Bill.
The amendment has been proposed to me as a probing amendment by the RSPB in Scotland. I believe that the issue is an important one for the Committee as it would give a guarantee that the Scottish parliament will enact only sustainable legislation. The prohibition in effect on unsustainable legislation will save the Scottish parliament a degree of scrutiny time, although it will by no means eliminate the need for scrutiny. While there has been a general desire for a minimum of restrictions on the activity of the Scottish parliament intra vires, I believe that we are allowed to set down some minimum philosophy on the face of the Bill. The complex nature of compliance with existing Scottish, British and Community law will ensure that most enactments are ultimately compliant. I therefore see no reason why they should not be required to be in compliance at the start.
Amendment No. 242 is grouped with this one. It is aimed at ensuring that all Scottish Acts are compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as adopted by the United Kingdom Parliament. It is important that Scottish Ministers, indeed any proposer of legislation in the Scottish parliament, should have the convention on children's rights firmly in front of them when drafting legislation. For a Bill to be presented in an incompatible state would be a demonstration of incompetence and possibly contempt. The presentation of incompetent legislation is always a waste of parliamentary time. I am absolutely confident that, even in the friendly Scottish parliament, those who form the Opposition will pounce on incompetent legislation and that which is ultra vires. The inclusion of this new clause on the face of the Bill would ensure that the Scottish parliament understood its responsibilities right from the start and that all citizens interested in children's welfare and their future would have confidence in the legislation passed by the parliament. The children's rights "proofing" measure must be seen as an asset to the Bill and to the parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: The noble Earl suggests that Amendment No. 230 would ensure that the legislation coming before the parliament was economically,

1355
socially and environmentally friendly. The amendment does not actually state that. It states that the Minister would be required to give,
"his view as to the economic, social and environmental impact and sustainability of an Act of the Scottish Parliament containing the same provisions as those in the Bill".
Looking back on the history of legislation, I believe that that assumes a degree of wisdom and omniscience that has been sadly lacking in our previous attempts over a wide area of policy. The thought that a Minister would be able to make a full and comprehensive statement of the likely economic, social, environmental and sustainability impact of any single piece of legislation is one that I find quite daunting. However, I have little difficulty in recognising and supporting the sentiments to which the noble Earl wishes to draw attention. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, would have made a similar case were he in his place today.
The difficulty is that this degree of detail, as to the type of introductory statement that should be made and the sort of matters a Scottish Minister should include when introducing a Bill, comes down to minutiae. I wish to see the Scottish parliament and Scottish Ministers continue their commitment to sustainability, which has been well established in the Scottish Office over recent years. However, it is not right for the Bill itself, which sets up the framework within which the parliament and the executive can decide their own policies, to take that step and begin setting out in detail how the parliament should go about its business. I have no qualms at all in fully supporting the noble Earl's wish for the Scottish parliament to move forward on a comprehensive front in terms of economic, social, environmental and sustainability issues. However, I do not believe it right for this Parliament to impose that sort of statutory duty on a Minister.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I support my noble friend on Amendment No. 242 dealing with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is surely only right that every Bill should be considered in terms of its compliance with the convention. The future of our children is one of the pre-eminent issues that we should bear in mind: survival rights, development rights, protection rights and participation rights, all of which are contained in the convention. UNICEF wholeheartedly supports the amendment and the positive impact it sees it having on the lives of children in Scotland. Given that backing, the amendment should be hard to resist.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I would listen to the Minister before intervening. I was puzzled when the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said on the previous amendment that he did not think a statement should be made as a statement, and he now comes forward with a whole raft of matters on which a statement is to be made. All the noble Earl has missed out is motherhood and apple pie.
This is an instance of where the "trust the Scottish parliament" theme enters into the argument. Any government bringing forward legislation believe that they are doing the right thing. They may not be doing
1356
the right thing, but they believe they are. They certainly think they are doing the right thing in relation to economic and social issues. I suppose, in matters of social security, the Government believe the clear-out they have had over the past two days in the Department of Social Security to be the right thing. I am sure all governments believe that the environmental impact of their legislation is the right thing. As for obeying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, I assure the Committee without giving away any secrets that the L Committee never talked of anything other than these matters. It is certainly advised by the learned Law Officers about EU legislation and conventions and United Nations conventions to make sure that the legislation is correct. We should be extremely careful about going overboard in regard to statements.
After hearing the Minister's reply, I wonder what is the difference between Clause 30 and all the matters that the noble Earl wishes to see included. I believe that they would be unnecessary words on the face of the legislation. Equally, I think that the whole of Clause 30 is unnecessary. Frankly, if the Minister tells the Committee that the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament can be trusted not to bring forward measures that are environmentally, economically or socially unsound, or disobey a convention, then surely we can also trust the parliament not to bring forward legislation which is against its legal competence. The Minister's answer suggests that the whole of Clause 30 could easily be dropped. Perhaps the noble Lord should move against his own clause. If the Scottish parliament does not need to hear statements about all these other matters, surely it does not need to hear a statement about the competence of legislation. I should have thought that if the L committee exists, as I am sure it will, in the Scottish parliament, one matter about which it will be concerned, and the one question that it will ask is: is this within our legislative competence? The matter will have nothing to do with a statement to the Scottish parliament. It will be a question of whether or not it is hauled before the courts of this country if it attempts to go outside the legal competence. I agree with the Minister's argument against the noble Earl's amendment. But, frankly, his argument convinces me that the whole clause should be dropped.
Lord Sewel: I cannot resist replying to that point. There is a fundamental difference between Clause 30 as it now stands and the amendment offered by the noble Earl. Clause 30 deals with the basic issue of a statement about competence and whether the proposed legislation is within the competence of the parliament. That is a fundamental issue. The noble Earl's amendment deals with policy content, which can be discussed only after the issue of competence has been decided. So the noble Earl's amendment is very much a second order amendment, while the clause is a first order clause.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: But surely, if one is considering policy, one must look at Schedule 5 where sometimes policy on the same issue is partly reserved and partly not reserved. Therefore, the question of competence will have to run through the whole of the Scottish government's legislative programme. It will

1357
have to address the issues all the time as it draws up the legislation. As it will have done that, the idea that the minister appearing before the parliament and saying "We believe this is within the legislative competence" will carry any weight in a court of law is, I suspect, Cloud-cuckoo-land.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: I hesitate to get in the way of the ping-pong between the two Front Benches on the issue. I support the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who made valuable points on Amendment No. 230.
I wish to address some of the questions that have been raised in the past few minutes. Recently we have passed Article 3(d) of the Treaty of Amsterdam, which brought environmental protection requirements right to the heart of all Community policies. I assume that the Scottish parliament will be a good European in that respect and perhaps might need a shred of comfort in addressing its environmental and sustainable development duties in all its legislation.
I also wish to pick up the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, taunted me in my absence last night in terms of consistency. Recently, in the Government of Wales Bill, we had debates in this House and another place on strengthening the clear sustainable development duty that the Welsh assembly will have. We will shortly debate the sustainable development duty of the regional development agencies in England. Last night the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, called for consistency from the three absent noble Baronesses. I should have thought one element of consistency might be some reference to sustainable development on the face of the Bill.
The importance of sustainable development for Scotland cannot be underestimated. The Committee has heard me speak on many occasions of the economic value of Scotland's environment; it is a hugely important part of its economic future. I hope that the words of support that we have received from the Minister will indicate that not only in its legislative programme but also in all its works the Scottish parliament will put sustainable development at the heart of all it does.
I thank Members of the Committee for being so animated about the point. I hope that means that people are interested in it as a topic, as well as simply part of the machinery of government. It is vital to see sustainable development not simply as another policy area that can be added to a string of policy areas, but as a process and an approach for the future in Scottish legislation.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness knows a great deal about such matters but she has forgotten that the procedures of this Parliament include pre-legislative scrutiny. It seems to me that the noble Earl has also forgotten that, and I am not sure that the Minister had not forgotten it. Surely, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which the noble Baroness has been such a distinguished office-bearer, will have a tremendous opportunity to influence legislation in
1358
Scotland through pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe I am right that that is where such bodies will say to the Scots parliament that a Bill needs to contain this, this and this element. Likewise, in respect of the convention on the rights of the child there are groups in Scotland which are already very assiduous in watching what the Westminster Parliament does. They will watch the Scots parliament. At that stage, before legislation comes to the Scots parliament, they will intervene. They will be good at it and look forward to it. That is the great merit of the system.
I do not understand why the noble Lord talks in terms of what should happen when the Bill is presented to the parliament.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank Members of the Committee for their support, wherever it came from. It is interesting to see how those noble Lords who sit on my left are already becoming the guardians of the procedures of the Scottish parliament.
I am certain that, whenever legislation is introduced, where it will have a harsh impact it will be pounced upon by the opposition in the parliament. We are discovering that the nature of opposition in the Scottish parliament will not just be concerned with the usual test of whether legislation will work—that is, whether it is seaworthy—but will also involve close scrutiny of whether it will contravene other legislation.
This was a probing amendment and therefore I should withdraw it at this moment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 15, line 34, at end insert (", and shall at the same time secure that a copy of the bill is transmitted to both Houses of Parliament").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I wish briefly to speak to Amendment No. 233. The amendments provide, first, that when a member of the Scottish executive is on the point of introducing a Bill to the parliament and issues a statement of the nature we have already been discussing under Clause 30, he shall at the same time secure that a copy of the Bill is transmitted to both Houses of this Parliament.
Secondly, we propose as an amendment to Clause 31, under subsection (1), that in reaching his decision as to whether or not a Bill should be introduced to the parliament, the presiding officer would be entitled to take account of any representations he received from either House of this Parliament.
The suggestions incorporated in the two amendments are put forward in the interests of promoting good relations between the Scottish parliament on the one hand and this Parliament on the other. One hopes that it will be possible for the Scottish executive and the

1359
United Kingdom Government to keep in good contact, whether at ministerial level or at official level through working parties of officials. The civil servants, after all, will be members of the same Home Civil Service and, whether or not concordats exist and cover the matters under discussion, it is to be anticipated that at official level there will be good consultation at the pre-legislative stage. One imagines that drafts of Bills, or certain parts of them, to be presented to the Scottish parliament will be widely circulated among members of the Scottish executive and that there will possibly be consultation upon them with officials and Ministers of the United Kingdom Government.
A different situation applies to parliamentary bodies. What happens in this Parliament will be of interest to members of the Scottish parliament and vice versa. The purpose of the first amendment is therefore to ensure that, as a matter of courtesy, just as in this Parliament numerous documents are presented every day, recorded in the Minutes of proceedings and are available for Members to consult if they are interested, the same procedure should apply to Bills of the Scottish parliament before the presiding officer decides whether they should be introduced.
Inevitably, from time to time, views may be expressed. It will be for this House and another place to decide how they will respond to Scottish legislation. They may not wish to comment in some instances, but there may be others where they may feel it would be of value for a committee to examine the legislation and communicate its views. That is not in the sense of seeking to interfere, but to inform the members of the Scottish parliament what views are held.
These amendments touch on an important innovation which arises in relation to the Scottish parliament; that is, that the presiding officer—namely, the speaker—will be in a position to refuse to introduce a Bill to the parliament. Indeed, the standing orders require that it should not be introduced if the presiding officer is of the view that the Bill or any provision of it would not be within the legislative competence of the parliament.
This is a novel power. It may be interesting for the Committee to hear from the Minister the reasoning that lies behind it. It gives rise to a number of interesting legal questions. If the presiding officer decides not to allow a Bill to be introduced, would anyone have the legal right to challenge that decision? If so, whom? Would it be competent to challenge that in a court? There is a reverse side to those questions. If it was anticipated that the presiding officer was going to introduce a Bill to the Scottish parliament, having formed the view that it would be within its legislative competence, would anyone have the right to challenge such a decision by going to the court and seeking at that stage a declarator from the court that, ex facie the print of the Bill, the Bill lay outwith the legislative competence of the parliament? If such an argument could be successfully advanced, would it be open to the court in Scotland to grant an interdict against the parliament considering the terms of the Bill or some amendment to it?
These are real, live questions which I hope the Committee, in the fullness of time, will be persuaded should not be allowed to arise. A later amendment will address the whole issue of giving the Scottish parliament the privilege which accords to this Parliament. But as we touch for the first time on the role of the presiding officer in these matters, it may be helpful for the Minister to indicate what is the Government's thinking on them. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: In the latter stages of his remarks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, was straying on to the next group of amendments. However, I want to deal only with Amendments Nos. 231 and 233 and to indicate that I and my colleagues are strongly opposed to them.
In sum, the amendments seem to be saying that, when the Scottish parliament is established, it must hang on to nanny's hand and that nanny must be able to say, "Go and find out what little Johnny is doing and tell him to stop it". That appears to be the basic thinking behind the amendments.
The Scottish parliament must be free-standing. Once it comes into being, it should not expect to be second-guessed the whole time by the Westminster Parliament. To suggest that by an Act of this Parliament the Scottish parliament should be required to send any Bills to the headmaster's study before it can consider them, is entirely out of keeping with the spirit of the Bill. We are strongly opposed to the amendments.
Lord Gray of Contin: I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. I do not believe that that is the purpose behind the amendment. I support my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.
We must remember that we are dealing with a completely new parliament which will operate in a completely different way. It will be a single chamber parliament; there will not be anyone at a second stage able to pull back anything that it does wrong. What it finally decides will be there for all time.
Whatever those of us who spoke against the Bill on Second Reading may feel about the principle of a Scottish parliament, that stage has passed. We are all now united to try and produce legislation which will make a Scottish parliament as workable as possible. Anything that we can do to prevent a Scottish parliament from getting itself into trouble should be applauded.
I do not take the view that this amendment necessarily makes the Scottish parliament subservient to this Parliament in any definite way; it is a co-operative measure. None of us knows what the pre-legislative arrangements will be and they could vary from government to government. For example, we do not know whether every Scottish Bill, before it ever reaches the Scottish parliament, will be canvassed for comment among United Kingdom Ministries. At the present time, when a department has legislative proposals, other departments are given the opportunity of commenting upon them. Whether that will be the way in which the new Scottish parliament will work, nobody knows.

1361
Therefore, the amendment would be, in a sense, a safeguard so that, before the Scottish parliament embarked upon something which might be quite radical and new, other departments would be aware of it. Let us not forget one of the points with which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Steel, would heartily agree. The Scottish parliament is still going to be operating within the United Kingdom. It will not be an independent parliament and therefore, if it is within the United Kingdom, surely it is right that other departments within the United Kingdom should be allowed to comment upon it and that Members of both Chambers should be kept fully informed as to what it proposes. There will then be no danger of it doing anything that will put the Union at risk.
Lord Renton: I support my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin and wish to add one or two points to this rather important discussion.
It is essential that the arrangements that we make under the Bill for the proceedings of the new Scottish parliament should avoid delays and uncertainties. If subsection (2) remains and the parliament has to debate whether or not a decision of the presiding officer is to be accepted, such a debate could take up a vast amount of time, be extremely controversial and not help at all.
The presiding officer in the new parliament will be analogous to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Those of us who served in the House of Commons remember well that when the Speaker made rulings, the House accepted them. It is important that the presiding officer of the new Scottish parliament should be a person with a reputation for independence and one who has the ability to command authority. To have his or her rulings challenged in this way would cause uncertainty and delay and should be avoided.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Perhaps I may quickly read Clause 31. It states:
"Standing orders shall, subject to subsection (2), ensure that a Bill is not introduced in the Parliament if the Presiding Officer decides that the Bill or any provision of the Bill would not be within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
Presumably the presiding officer has the benefit of advice from lawyers and would decide properly. The amendments propose extra nannying measures and there are plenty of those on the face of the Bill right now.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: The thought passes through my mind that part of the legislative process is the manifesto. What will happen when legislation comes forward as a result of a manifesto commitment and is not found to be within the competence of the parliament?
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): In relation to Amendments Nos. 231 and 233, it appears that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and other Members of the Committee who spoke in support of him—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin—are trying to create an opportunity for the Westminster Parliament to become involved in the
1362
legislative process of the Scottish parliament. They seek to impose a duty on responsible Scottish ministers to send to both Houses of the United Kingdom Parliament a copy of any Bill which is to be introduced into the Scottish parliament.
It is not clear how either House of Parliament would consider a draft Bill before it was even introduced into the Scottish parliament. The second amendment gives the United Kingdom Parliament the chance to make representations to the presiding officer about the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament's proceedings on a particular piece of legislation, with a view to persuading the presiding officer not to introduce the Bill. The second amendment puts in the words, after "decides":
"either at his own hand"—
so the presiding officer can make up his own mind—
"or following representations from either House of Parliament".
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. It is essential that there should be good relations between the Scottish parliament and the Westminster Parliament at official, ministerial and executive levels, and, one hopes, at member level. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the civil servants who will service the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament are part of the United Kingdom Civil Service. It is inconceivable that there will not be good relations at official level between the civil servants of Scotland and the civil servants serving the United Kingdom Parliament. It is envisaged that there will be an interchange; and that civil servants will move between one jurisdiction and the other to maintain co-operation and understanding between them. I am confident that at their level Ministers will keep each other advised of what is happening and what they are proposing.
I have no doubt that there will be informal arrangements to allow Bills to be considered. Equally, if the Scottish parliament wished to provide copies of its Bills to the United Kingdom Parliament on a formal basis that would undoubtedly be within its competence and would happen. I anticipate, whatever the politicians may decide, that civil servants will make Bills available to their counterparts on an informal basis, as they are drafted, and explain what is happening north of the Border so that civil servants south of the Border can consider what is being proposed.
Lord Torphichen: If a civil servant gives away the contents of a Bill a little too soon, that is a leak. There is a fine line between keeping people informed and going through the normal channels of providing information. It is a very difficult area.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: I do not accept that it is a difficult area. If we have got to the stage of a Bill having been prepared with a view to its being introduced, there is no question of it being seen as a leak to provide a copy of the Bill to civil servants in London for their consideration and any input that they wish to make from their own departments.

1363
From my comments so far the Committee will not be surprised to hear that we do not accept these amendments. We share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. We are apprehensive that by allowing these amendments there would be accusations, albeit unjustified, that the United Kingdom Parliament was trying to interfere in the internal workings of the Scottish parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, the position of the presiding officer or Speaker is a special one. All parliaments are sensitive about the independence of their Speaker or presiding officer, whatever you wish to call him or her. The Scottish parliament will be no different. It will be jealous about the independence and the position of its presiding officer.
These amendments could well be presented as giving an opportunity to the United Kingdom Parliament to exercise undue influence over the presiding officer. I am sure that that is not the intention of the noble and learned Lord but that may well be how it is viewed by others. We must allow the Scottish parliament to enact its legislation without interference by the United Kingdom Parliament. It would not be appropriate for Westminster to have a role in formally commenting on the vires of a Bill before it is introduced or considered by the Scottish parliament. It will be for the Scottish parliament to give careful scrutiny to any Bill. Members of this House and another place should not attempt to prejudge the outcome of the deliberations of the Scottish parliament.
The Bill already provides a scheme for the resolution of disputes about the competence of Scottish legislation. Once the Bill has been passed by the parliament the Lord Advocate and Law Officers of the United Kingdom Government can refer questions about the competence of an Act to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
The noble and learned Lord raised the question of who will challenge a decision of the presiding officer. That is provided for in subsection (2) of Clause 31. It states specifically:
"Standing orders may provide for the Parliament to overrule any decision of the Presiding Officer".
So the parliament can challenge the decisions of the presiding officer. We will come to that in the next set of amendments. That is one way of challenging such a decision.
As to judicial review, I find it difficult to envisage who would have a title to challenge the presiding officer. In any event, as I indicated to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on a previous occasion, the whole question will be considered.
If the Law Officers take the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council the Bill cannot be submitted for Royal Assent. Even if it gets through that and becomes law there is another provision. Clause 91 and Schedule 6 enable the Law Officers of the United Kingdom and of the Scottish executive to challenge an Act of the Scottish parliament as being outwith its competence.
I hope we all agree that after devolution it will be important for the parliaments to keep in touch with each other. Legislative provisions which could be presented
1364
as this Parliament interfering in the legislative process in Scotland, or interfering in the independence of the presiding officer, should not be accepted. They are not required or desirable. I hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the noble and learned Lord answer one question that concerns me? He said that during the drafting of a Bill civil servants of the Scottish parliament might well be discussing points which related to the drafting of the Bill with other civil servants in the United Kingdom. The Bill says somewhere that civil servants in the Scottish Office are part of the United Kingdom Civil Service. Would it be possible for the members of the Scottish executive or the presiding officer to instruct Scottish Office civil servants not to consult United Kingdom department civil servants?
Lord Hardie: The simple answer to that question is yes. It would be possible for the executive to give instructions to civil servants not to provide information. However, I hope that we will not reach that stage in our relations between the two parliaments.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for a number of the points that he has made, but I am a little puzzled by the basic approach that has been taken to competence in relation to this Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, appreciates that none of us who is concerned about this has the least intention of trying to introduce a further stage for Scottish legislation which would necessarily bring some part of that legislative process to Westminster. At the very most, we want to ensure—this seems eminently sensible if there is even the risk of challenge as to competence—that those who are engaged in these matters at Westminster should have such legislation drawn to their attention.
As the noble and learned Lord will appreciate from Clause 32, the Advocate General—I understand that he will be a Member of this Parliament, in this House or in another place—would have the responsibility to challenge in certain circumstances. The Bill provides for that at a later stage. However, it seems to me to be appropriate that at the earliest possible stage, if a Law Officer of this Parliament is to mount a challenge—be that the Advocate General or the Attorney-General—he should be aware of that and be able to make his argument about the Bill's incompetence at an early stage rather than having to wait for the whole Bill to proceed through all its stages in that parliament. That seems to me to be a fairly simple and fundamental way to approach this matter.
The most interesting thing that the noble and learned Lord said was that he could not imagine anyone having a title to raise legal proceedings by way of judicial review in respect of the legislative competence of this Parliament. I agree with him that it might be difficult to imagine that, but I would like to be reassured as to whether he is offering the view that nobody, in any circumstances, is entitled to raise issues of legislative competence before the courts other than the Law Officers to whom the legislation refers.

1365
What troubles me about the clause is that, first, it is for the presiding officer to reach a view as to whether something is within the parliament's legislative competence. He offers a view; he may or may not be right. We must assume that in certain circumstances he may be wrong. Clause 31(2) then states that the standing orders provide for the parliament itself to override that decision.
Perhaps I may outline the circumstance that troubles me. Let us assume that I am a member of that parliament. I am in the minority. I have failed to get the majority in the parliament to overrule a decision of the presiding officer, but it is still my view that the Bill is beyond the legislative competence of the parliament. At that point, would it be open to me to take the matter to the courts and to have the issue tested at that stage? If I have missed something and the answer is no, and if at that point there is no opportunity for an individual or a group of persons who might be affected to raise the issue, it would be extremely helpful to have that spelled out.
If I have a concern about the totality of the provisions it is that I fear that there is a set of ambiguities that do not reveal—certainly, they do not reveal to me—exactly what the position would be. That seems to me to be a much more important issue to address rather than the essentially ancillary points about how such issues are brought to the attention of Members of the Westminster Parliament, members of the Scottish parliament or, indeed, informed citizens in Scotland or elsewhere. Until I have a clearer understanding of that, I believe that we face the risk of paddling around in confusion and failing to make much progress.
Lord Torphichen: Perhaps I may answer that point so far as I can. The Government have set their system fairly firmly in favour of review after a possible non-conforming Act has passed through the Scottish parliament. I am sure that it would be much easier to rule out an offending clause or to modify the intention slightly at an early stage rather than wait until that Bill has passed through the Scottish parliament when such phrases as, "It is now the settled will of the Scottish people", will be bandied around.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said that this is making another "nannying" rule for the Scottish parliament. The whole of this Bill is a set of rules, established by this Parliament, relating to the future parliament in Scotland. One more or one less rule does not make for nannying. The whole Bill is a nannying process. Given that sooner or later somebody will wish to test the limits of what can or cannot be done, I believe that this is the point at which we can choose between not being independent or going for full independence—and the Scottish National Party will make use of this provision over the years until independence is brought about.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: We have had an interesting debate on a topic which I fully confess has strayed slightly further than the scope of my two amendments. Perhaps I may deal first with the reply
1366
which the Lord Advocate gave on the issue of who might have the right to challenge a decision by the presiding officer on whether to introduce a Bill, the premise for such a challenge being that the individual concerned took a different view of the legislative competence of that Bill from that taken by the presiding officer. It may, indeed, be difficult to identify somebody who has a title and interest to challenge, but one of the grounds upon which an Act of the Scottish parliament can be challenged is that convention rights were infringed by either the provisions of one part of that Act or by the whole Act. If legal challenge is competent at that stage, I believe that it is not impossible to envisage somebody qualifying a title and an interest. Therefore, there may be force in making it clear on the face of the Bill either at this stage or later whether legal challenge should be open to anybody.
Perhaps I may make my own position on that quite clear: I do not think that it would be prudent for such a legal challenge to be open. It should be a matter between the presiding officer on the one hand and the parliament on the other hand—that is, if subsection (2) is to remain part of the Bill.
On the more general issue, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was kind enough to acknowledge that it was no part of my argument to try to suggest that this Parliament had some form of supervisory or nannying role over the activities of the Scottish parliament. However, the Scottish parliament will have to learn that a variety of people will be interested in its affairs, in the Bills that it is considering and in the Acts of Parliament that it is passing. Those persons will include not only individual Members of your Lordships' House and individual Members of another place, but quite possibly also the Houses of this Parliament themselves. Therefore, it is not impossible that in the fullness of time, whether as a consequence of a debate in this House or the deliberations of a committee, a decision will be taken to convey to the Scottish parliament the views of, say, your Lordships' House.
Only a few days ago we debated whether to present an humble Address to Her Majesty on a matter which was causing considerable concern to a number of Lordships. If views come from here, one likes to hope that the Scottish parliament will not behave as if it is a child being talked to, or talked at, by a nanny. When tabling these amendments, I did not for one moment think that that would be appropriate. I thought it appropriate to set up some form for communication between the two parliaments on the Bills that they will be considering.
We have had a useful debate. I do not intend to press any of these amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hardie: At this stage perhaps I should deal with some of the points raised in the debate. I am advised that there will be concordats, about which we have heard already, to ensure that prospective legislation in both Scotland and Westminster is drawn to the attention of the other side. That will enable points on vires to be raised early, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, was anxious to secure.

1367
As to title and interest, I apologise if I have not been clear. I was referring to title and interest to challenge the decision of the presiding officer, not to the whole question of the competence of the parliament. There is provision in the Bill for the Law Officers to challenge the title and interest at pre-Assent stage, and in any proceedings other people can challenge the competence of a Scottish Bill. The various Law Officers can intervene at that stage.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I readily acknowledge that the draftsman of the Bill has put together an extremely elaborate and sophisticated set of arrangements for various Law Officers to intervene if the parliament acts beyond its legislative competence. That ties in elegantly with a number of provisions to be found in the Government of Wales Bill. All of that seems to be well settled. But what concerns me is that the whole issue of legislative competence has been approached too singularly from the point of view of the Scottish government, the Westminster Government and the Law Officers. What remains unclear to me is what would happen if an individual regards his human rights as being breached by proposed legislation. Does he have the right to go to the courts in Scotland at that stage and attempt, perhaps by way of interdict, to prevent the legislation proceeding? That is an absolutely fundamental question to which we must have an answer.
Lord Hardie: The noble and learned Lord may recall that in answer to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, at an earlier stage of the proceedings in relation to interdict I said that the Government were considering the matter and would come back with either a statement or something else.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. We should like to see that. If it is of any help to the Government, both I and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay believe it is desirable, if a solution is suggested, perhaps to prevent individuals at that early stage from interrupting the legislative process, without obviously excluding their right at a later stage to come before the courts and challenge what is proposed.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: When consideration is given to this matter I presume that it will include the terms of Clause 6 of the Human Rights Bill which is now being considered by another place. Clause 6(1) provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. I presume that the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive are public authorities for the purposes of Clause 6(1) of that Bill. I join with others in believing that in that situation it is necessary to consider very carefully the position at the interim stage and whether or not there is a remedy open to an individual, who would be a victim within the human rights legislation, if he could put himself into that position, or whatever other case might be appropriate, to challenge the legislation at that stage—in other words, while the legislation is going through the House—on the basis that it was incompatible with human rights and
1368
therefore was unlawful. It may be that in due course we shall see some alignment of the Scotland Bill with the Human Rights Bill.
We have been promised this from time to time but it has not yet come to pass. It will be interesting at that stage to see exactly how much scope there is for such a challenge to be made. Obviously, this is a matter of great importance from the point of view of the courts and the parliament and all those involved in the workings of it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will wish to deal with this matter in writing. I do not put any further questions at this stage. I am sure he readily accepts that there is a genuine concern as to what role, if any, the courts will play at this stage.
I should like to seek clarification on one matter. In his most recent intervention the noble and learned Lord spoke about concordats on either side. I am not sure whether it is proposed that there should be any concordats involving either this House or both Houses of Parliament and/or the Scottish parliament itself. As I understand it, the concordats are to be between Government Ministers and departments on the one side and the executive on the other. If so, it may well be that concordats would not formally cover the transmission of Bills or proceedings of this Parliament. That is a matter that may be reflected upon before we debate concordats in a day or two. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 232 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Presiding Officer]:
[Amendment No. 233 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 233A:
Page 15, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 233A has the purpose of removing subsection (2) of Clause 31 and in so doing averting the humiliation and resignation of the presiding officer. The Bill allows the Scottish parliament to overrule the presiding officer on a matter of legislative competence concerning a Bill that is about to be introduced. We have had a good deal of discussion about this. I do not see why the power to overrule the presiding officer should be in the Bill at all. In a fixed term parliament the presiding officer has a different and greater statutory role than has evolved in this undocumented Westminster Parliament. I do not see how the presiding officer acting on professional advice and support can be overruled by the parliament and continue in office. A vote based on Clause 31(2) will be a vote of no confidence in the presiding officer. The mere calling of such a vote will weaken his authority.
There is a further concern about the significance of such an overruling of the presiding officer in the event of later judicial proceedings. A court is likely to be asked to decide upon the significance of such a ruling.

1369
Any measure that has attracted Clause 31(2) action will be seen as a highly marginal issue in terms of its vires. I believe that this measure is outwith the bounds of a fixed term parliament which is itself a creature of statute. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I warmly support this amendment. When discussing Amendment No. 231 I referred to the important part played by the presiding officer. I was very much fortified by the confirmation provided by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the position of the presiding officer would be analogous to that of the Speaker of another place. I believe that it would be chaotic if the decision of the presiding officer then had to be debated in the parliament. It would perhaps be a very long debate with an uncertain result. That would seriously diminish the authority of the presiding officer.
I hope that the Committee will agree on the need to leave out subsection (2). But with this amendment we are also discussing Amendment No. 234 in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. According to that amendment,
"A decision made by the Presiding Officer under subsection (1) shall not be capable of being overruled by the Parliament".
It is arguable that from a drafting point of view that is unnecessary, but I believe it would be desirable to have it in for the removal of doubt. I have great faith in the Lord Advocate, but I hope he will keep an open mind on this matter. I am very worried about it and, as I mentioned when discussing the earlier amendment, we must try to avoid uncertainty in the provisions we put forward for establishing this new parliament. We must avoid uncertainty and delay. I believe that subsection (2) of Clause 31 is asking for trouble.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I support my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie in his amendment and I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has just said. The presiding officer—a horrible name, to which we will come later—in the Scottish parliament will have, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, an even more authoritative position than the Speaker of the House of Commons, because this is a whole area with which the Speaker of the House of Commons does not deal. It is important that we get it right.
As a layman, I must confess that I was a little disturbed by the tone of the previous discussion among so many distinguished noble and learned Lords who seemed to be imagining a process, which I find very difficult to contemplate, where legislation in embryo could be challenged in the courts. I am not aware that such a procedure has ever existed. It is highly undesirable.
Clearly, responsibility should lie with the presiding officer to declare whether something is or is not ultra vires. He will not do that off the top of his head. Presumably, he will take into account all the representations he has received; from his expert advisers within the parliament; from the Civil Service; and, no doubt, from Her Majesty's Government at Westminster.
1370
Anyone who cares to give advice can register it. He has that responsibility independent of the executive. That is the important thing. Parliament must trust him. One cannot have a situation where the parliament says, "We have decided to overturn your judgment today, but expect you to remain in office tomorrow". It seems to me that is an inconceivable position.
Moreover, I should like to ask a question of the Government Front Bench. In Clause 31(1) there are these words:
"if the Presiding Officer decides that the Bill or any provision of the Bill would not be within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
I assume from this that the presiding officer would have the job also of declaring whether any amendment that might come forward to a Bill was ultra vires. Furthermore, I wonder whether, in the process of going through the proceedings of the parliament, something might not happen to render the Bill ultra vires. Going back to the previous discussion, does that mean that someone could make a legal challenge at that stage? It seems to me an impossible position. Greater clarity is required here. I believe that we can at least make a start by removing subsection (2) of the clause.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble Lord said that he found the previous discussion somewhat unedifying or alarming. Indeed so, and that is precisely why we have spent so much time seeking to have the matter clarified. In my view, the noble Earl is absolutely right in bringing forward this matter. I believe that the situation could become even more absurd. It may be that the presiding officer—whose title we shall certainly change before we get to the end of this Bill—will reach a view that what has been proposed is not within the legislative incompetence of the parliament. If he has reached such a view it would seem to me to be almost a matter of inevitability that the Lord Advocate would have reached the same view about the legislative incompetence of the matter.
It seems to me to set a new parliament off on a course that is really quite absurd if, as it begins to debate something, the presiding officer says, "I believe this to be legislatively incompetent" but the Lord Advocate has said, "You can carry on with this, but once it is all over I am going to challenge it." If we want to have a sensible, effective legislative process, it seems to me that the proposal to delete subsection (2) is eminently sensible. I would certainly also suggest that the proposal of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay for a new amendment to put the matter beyond doubt is equally desirable.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Members of the Committee who have just spoken have put forward extremely powerful arguments which the Government ignore at their peril. It is necessary for the Lord Advocate to state what precedents there are for Speakers or presiding officers—not just in this country but throughout the world—having powers to decide over issues of legislative competence. I do not believe that Speakers generally have those powers. In the House of

1371
Commons the Speaker has the power to specify a money Bill, but certainly does not have power in areas of legislative competence. I believe that Clause 31(2) is exceedingly unfortunate because it would diminish the standing of the presiding officer. It would make the position of the presiding officer infinitely more vulnerable than the position of the Speaker of the House of Commons and it could very readily bring the presiding officer into direct conflict with both the executive and the parliament. I do not believe that should be the role of the presiding officer. I hope that it will be the role of the Lord Advocate to specify the legislative competence of Bills.
Surely it should be inconceivable for any Bill to be brought forward by any regime or government in Scotland if it is not within legal competence. I do not imagine for a single moment that most presiding officers in Scotland will have the legislative ability of the present Lord Advocate or, indeed, of virtually any Lord Advocate; at least, it would be extremely unusual if that were to be the situation. It is exceedingly likely that the presiding officer would, in reality, follow the advice given by the Lord Advocate because he or she would almost certainly lack the same qualifications; and, of course, if the Lord Advocate were to be wrong, then it would be for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to sort that out.
The possibility of overruling the presiding officer could not arise in the same way in the House of Commons. This provision puts the presiding officer in a desperately vulnerable position. The presiding officer should not be in such a weak position. He or she should not be brought into conflict with the executive and should not be brought into conflict with the parliament. It is a basic instability in the Bill and it is one which I believe cannot endure.
Lord Desai: Perhaps I may briefly say that the House of Commons or the Westminster Parliament is not a good model for considering this question because there are no limits on its competence that it ever admits. Therefore, the question does not arise for the Westminster Parliament or for the Speaker. However, where there are written constitutions, especially where there is a federation, although we are not here discussing a federation, battles like this frequently have to be settled. This is not an unknown thing.
I would modestly suggest that we should not confuse the role of the Lord Advocate with that of the presiding officer. These are two different branches of government. I believe that it is quite likely—and why not?—that they would disagree. In that case the matter would be settled by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. This will be an interesting experiment. This is not Westminster politics; these are different politics; and why not?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Where the presiding officer's view has been overridden, is he or she nonetheless under a duty to submit the Bill for Royal Assent? Subsection (3) is a curious provision. It simply says:
"Standing Orders shall ensure that the Presiding Officer".
1372
It sounds as though it might be goodness knows who, if it were not provided that it were the presiding officer who submits the Bill for Royal Assent. Is that saying also that he is under a duty to present the Bill for Royal Assent? Does that duty apply—this is really where the question comes up—even if he remains of the view that it would be outwith the power of the parliament to pass the Bill—for example, that it would be unlawful in terms of the human rights legislation?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Perhaps I may briefly mention the amendment which is grouped with Amendment No. 233A and indicate my support for virtually everything that has been said. Perhaps I should make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, if my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has not already done so, that, as lawyers, we believe this is highly undesirable. We may be raising all kinds of issues but we think it is undesirable that the courts should be involved at this stage.
It is important to bear in mind that however the new parliament goes about its business—I am not in any way seeking to be cynical—if the consensus approach does work on the ground at Holyrood, when issues come before the court I would be very surprised indeed if consensus comes with it. The party acting for individual parties will seek to have the legislation struck down or construed in a way that benefits the interests of their clients. The matter will be raised at this and subsequent stages in the hope that it will assist the Committee to address the fundamental issue: the extent to which the courts should have a greater role in the affairs of Holyrood than they are permitted to have in your Lordships' House and another place.
My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser referred to the Lord Advocate having the same view as the presiding officer. We have to accept that the current drafting of Clause 31 admits the possibility of different views. One cannot imagine a member of the Scottish executive making the statement referred to in the previous subsection unless the Lord Advocate, if called upon to do so in the parliament, were prepared to defend it. Therefore there is a possibility of the presiding officer reaching a different view on a question of law—no doubt with the benefit of legal advice—from that reached by the Scottish executive and the Law Officers when framing the legislation.
In that event two courses seem open. First, the individual member promoting the Bill should consider whether a drafting amendment on his own initiative before the Bill is introduced might take account of the presiding officer's concerns. The second alternative would apply unless subsection (2) is left out: that members of the parliament, many of whom would not have access to legal advice, would be asked to vote on essentially a question of law against the view of the presiding officer backed by his own lawyers. The latter alternative would be highly undesirable and, as the noble Earl said, would tend to diminish the standing of the presiding officer. Therefore I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate or the Minister who is to reply will address the various concerns raised.
Lord Hardie: First, I agree entirely with the last comment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. It is conceivable that the Lord Advocate may take a different view from that of the presiding officer. Although I would anticipate that the presiding officer would take legal advice from his equivalent to the Speaker's counsel and would not act capriciously, it is possible that there could be a difference of opinion. Secondly, the presiding officer will consider all Bills that are being introduced into the parliament and not just government Bills. One may have a Back Bencher's Bill on which the presiding officer will take a view.
A noble Lord asked about the thinking behind this unusual power given to the presiding officer. It is not a power enjoyed by the Speaker in another place although the Speaker has certain powers in relation to a money Bill. But so far as I am aware, the Speaker in another place could not prevent a Bill being introduced into the House. The thinking underlying Clause 31 is to provide a first check so that if the presiding officer takes the view that something is ultra vires, he can say so. If that is accepted, it is an end of the matter. Again, one would hope that in the majority of, if not all, cases, it would be acceptable. However, one has to anticipate that the presiding officer may on a rare occasion get it wrong; and if he or she gets it wrong what happens? If no remedy is afforded to the parliament to overrule that decision, the presiding officer is acting effectively as the adjudicator and is almost usurping the ultimate function of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the body given the task of adjudicating upon legislation.
If the presiding officer gets it wrong and subsection (2) is omitted, what alternative remedy is available to the parliament? I do not anticipate that any executive would act without the advice of its law officers. If the parliament, on advice, believes that the presiding officer has got it wrong, what is to be the remedy? If subsection (2) is deleted, there is no remedy.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. A series of rhetorical questions have been asked. But it occurs to me that one should not entirely disregard the fact that the parliament is made up of individual members. One of the problems that may well arise is that a private member has an interest in a Bill which is then declared by the presiding officer to be outwith the legislative competence. If I were asked what his remedy is, my advice would be to seek a judicial review in the court of the presiding officer's decision. That takes us back precisely to the argument we discussed previously. The two provisions are very much interrelated on that aspect.
We should not ignore the fact that the individual private member may want to take those remedies in order to make progress on a Bill about which he feels strongly.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble and learned Lord resumes, we need to consider this issue the other way round. It is not just that the presiding officer may
1374
be wrong. As the clause is drafted, the presiding officer may be right but under subsection (2) none the less the parliament has the right to set his opinion aside. That seems to me exceedingly dangerous. If I am right, amendment must be required.
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I may deal with the noble Lord's point. Just as the presiding officer may be wrong on occasions, the executive or the parliament may be wrong in challenging his decision. The noble Lord is correct; the parliament could overrule that decision. However, if that were to happen, the protection is the entitlement of the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General to challenge the legislative competence of the Bill and to make a reference prior to the Bill obtaining Royal Assent.
If the executive, having been involved in a decision of the majority of the parliament, overrules the presiding officer it is inconceivable that the Lord Advocate would be involved in that challenge. One imagines that the Lord Advocate would have advised the executive. But it is conceivable that the executive might be in a minority in deciding to overrule the decision of the presiding officer. If that were the case, the Lord Advocate undoubtedly would challenge the competence of the Bill at the appropriate stage.
However, if the executive were in the majority, it is inconceivable that the United Kingdom Law Officers would be unaware of that exercise and the Lord Advocate or the Attorney-General would take action in accordance with Clause 31(4). Therefore the fear that legislation which had overridden the correct view of the presiding officer would be passed without proper scrutiny is unjustified.
I should like to turn to the question relating to the effect on the standing of the Speaker. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, stated that the presiding officer would be brought into conflict with the parliament or the Scottish executive. I do not necessarily share that view. The provision simply enables the parliament to allow a Bill to proceed in the knowledge that once it has passed through the various legislative stages, if there is any uncertainty about vires, the Bill can be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Therefore the parliament and the executive would be in no doubt that there could be a reference if the presiding officer took a considered view that it was ultra vires.
I feel that the presiding officer would command the respect of the parliament and his decision on legislative competence would usually be upheld and respected. However, as I previously indicated, it is important to make provision for the exception.
5 p.m.
Lord Renton: Will the noble and learned Lord give way? I regret to say that the noble and learned Lord is not right. Subsection (2) is perfectly plain in its statement that parliament may overrule any decision of the presiding officer. In practice parliament may agree

1375
on most occasions but if it decides to overrule it may only do so after a vote, and it would be very unusual for a vote to be taken without a debate having taken place. For the presiding officer to be the subject of a debate in the Chamber, frankly, to divert attention away from that situation to the possibility of the matter ultimately being referred to the Judicial Committee avoids the difficulty that is certain to arise.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to reply? The Bill allows the executive or one of the Law Officers to take the Bill to the Judicial Committee before it goes for Royal Assent on the grounds that it is ultra vires. That is a sensible provision. However, to refer the matter to the courts before then, even allowing for the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to challenge the decision of the presiding officer in the courts is highly undesirable, just as the reference in the Bill is undesirable.
The ultimate remedy of the Scottish parliament if the presiding officer mucks about and gets it totally wrong is to do what is done in another place; namely, to table a substantive motion of no confidence in the Speaker. That provision is very familiar. It is a remedy that can only be used once, but it does exist.
Lord Hardie: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Suppose that the presiding officer genuinely made a mistake. Would it be appropriate for the parliament to table a vote of no confidence and to have the presiding officer removed? It would be less severe for parliament to consider the matter and overrule the presiding officer in that situation. The protection the public has is that if parliament is wrong and the Speaker is right, then the ultimate adjudicator is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
If the provision is not allowed to enable the presiding officer's decision to be reviewed, then, subject to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, the effect is that the ultimate arbiter of the competence of proposed legislation is the presiding officer rather than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is only subject to whether the executive or an aggrieved member has the right of judicial review of the decision of the presiding officer. As I indicated, this matter is being considered in detail.
The question of the executive judicially reviewing the presiding officer would undermine the presiding officer more than if parliament considered whether or not the presiding officer had got it right. To drag the presiding officer through the courts would be quite inappropriate. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, is nodding in agreement that it would be quite inappropriate. If that remedy were not available to the executive or to an aggrieved member, what would be the remedy where the presiding officer got it wrong and effectively prevented legislation from being considered?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. The answer is that we are living in the real world of politics as well as law. If the presiding officer got it wrong on a Private Member's Bill it is open to that private Member to reintroduce the Bill in the next Session, having made a great row in public and in the press, through agitation, to amend two lines in it. The presiding officer would then get it right. We have to live in a practical world as well as a legal world.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is far too reasonable a man. He advanced his argument carefully on the basis that if anyone enters into a dispute about the limits of the legislative competence of this parliament, they do so in good faith. It is not impossible to envisage circumstances where the majority in the Scottish parliament when it is first established do not accept the limits placed on the legislative competence of the parliament and may take every opportunity to test it further. Having looked at the framework, they may appreciate that it would be a legally futile gesture to make because, sooner or later, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council would knock it out. However, it is not difficult to envisage 18 months of political turmoil. A majority group, having overridden a presiding officer who had looked at the law, taken the best advice and reached a view, and a Lord Advocate, who had looked at the law and offered a view, could nevertheless spend a considerable time trying to establish that what fell within the legislative competence of the parliament was inadequate. It might wish to take the opportunity to spell that out. That seems to me to be the real role of politics which the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, referred to. For those reasons we wish to have as precise and clear a set of arrangements as possible, allowing the least possible opportunity for mischief.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Since the presiding officer will enjoy a very difficult and lonely role, will the Government consider giving him the kind of right that the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate and the Attorney-General are given in Clause 32(1) to refer the matter to the Judicial Committee? That might provide him with a back-up. I fully accept that 99 times out of 100 the Advocate General will take the point but it might bolster his standing when he is given the role of taking decisions on the competency of legislation if he too could refer the matter to the Privy Council at an appropriate stage.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Committees of this House do not normally take so long to discuss amendments that I put forward. The truth will always out! I have received a considerable amount of support for the amendment. I still believe that Clause 31(2) is unsustainable as regards the position of the presiding officer; that is, unless the provision is one of those quaint devices whereby one calls for a resignation or it is a means of introducing a vote of no confidence in the

1377
presiding officer. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has told us that that might well be a routine procedure and not a major and last-resort means of getting rid of an errant presiding officer.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, about the opportunity to reintroduce a Bill believed to be ultra vires after some discussion with the presiding officer and his advisers. I believe that we should pursue the amendment and therefore I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 233A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 119.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Addington, L.

Hampton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Hamwee, B.

Aldington, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Alport, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Holderness, L.

Ampthill, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Balfour, E.

Home, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooson, L.

Beloff, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Blatch, B.

Howe, E.

Boardman, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Bowness, L.

Hylton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inchyra, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jopling, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cadman, L.

Kintore, E.

Calverley, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Carlisle, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Long, V.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Ludford, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lyell, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

McNair, L.

Davidson, V.

McNally, L.

Denbigh, E.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Denham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mersey, V.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Middleton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elibank, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Minto, E.

Falkland, V.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Fookes, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

Garel-Jones, L.

Naseby, L.

Glasgow, E.

Nelson, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Newall, L.

Grey, E.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

1378

Noel-Buxton, L.

Sharpies, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Stockton, E.

Pender, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Rawlings, B.

Swinfen, L.

Rees, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Renton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Thurlow, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thurso, V.

Rowallan, L.

Tordoff, L.

Russell, E.

Torphichen, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Weatherill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wilcox, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Wise, L.

Sempill, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Amos, B.

Hoyle, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Bach, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Barnett, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Berkeley, L.

Islwyn, L.

Blackstone, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blease, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blyth, L.

Jeger, B.

Borrie, L.

Judd, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Burlison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Levy, L.

Carew, L.

Lockwood, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lovell-Davis, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Mallalieu, B.

David, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Molloy, L.

Desai, L.

Monkswell, L.

Diamond, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dixon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nicol, B.

Dubs, L.

Orme, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Paul, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gallacher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gilbert, L.

Puttnam, L.

Glenamara, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Goudie, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Serota, B.

Grantchester, L.

Sewel, L.

Grenfell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hacking, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Hardie, L.

Simon, V.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Haskel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hayman, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

1379

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Varley, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Thornton, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Uddin, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 15, line 42, in place of the words last left out insert—
("(2) A decision made by the Presiding Officer under subsection (1) shall not be capable of being overruled by the Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 16, line 5, leave out (", the Lord Advocate or the Attorney General") and insert ("or the Lord Advocate").
The noble and learned Lord said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 238 and 239. In the light of observations which have been made, I do not intend to speak to Amendments Nos. 240 and 241.
These three amendments deal with the provisions of Clause 31(4) and Clause 32. They raise a number of issues relating to the making of a reference to the judicial committee on the question of whether a Bill, or any particular provisions of a Bill, would be within the legislative competence of the parliament. It can be seen from Clause 32(1) that that power is proposed to be given to the Advocate General, who will be a member of the United Kingdom Government, the Lord Advocate, who will be a member of the Scottish executive and the Attorney-General who will also be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament.
The first question which this amendment addresses is why the reference should be initiated by a Law Officer as opposed to the Secretary of State in relation to the United Kingdom Government or the first minister in relation to the Scottish executive. Clearly, the issue which the judicial committee will require to address will be a question of law. However, the decision as to whether or not to seek such a reference may well have a political element to it. In those circumstances, it is inconceivable that either a Law Officer of the United Kingdom Government or the Lord Advocate, as the Law Officer of the Scottish executive, would initiate such a reference unless he did so on behalf of and with the full consent of the executive members of the executive body of which he was a member.
The second question is why both the Advocate General and the Attorney-General should be given such a right. They will both be members of the same government: namely, the United Kingdom Government. I would like to think that it is inconceivable that one would seek to initiate such a reference if the other was not content that that should happen, and vice versa. That
1380
is why one of the amendments seeks to delete the Attorney-General from any involvement at that pre-legislative stage.
It is extremely important to bear in mind that such a reference can be made only prior to the Bill becoming an Act of parliament. The suggestion that the Attorney-General, who has responsibilities for England and Wales and, to a limited extent, for Northern Ireland, should have a role to play in initiating such a reference seems somewhat bizarre.
Thirdly, it raises the question as to whether or not the Bill should make it clear whether, in initiating those references, the Lord Advocate, if it be he who initiates a reference, or the Advocate General, if it is he, is acting in the public interest or on behalf of the executive body of which he is a member.
It seems to me to be difficult for the Advocate General and the Lord Advocate both to be acting in the public interest if appearing on different sides of a case. It is not impossible but it is certainly difficult. In all probability, they will be on different sides and they will be arguing the issue of law as to whether or not it falls within the legislative competence of the parliament. That should be done in the name of a Minister rather than a Law Officer.
I raised this matter on the Second Reading and in response the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said:
"In the exercise of that function the Lord Advocate is acting as a Law Officer, and Law Officers do not act other than in an independent fashion at present. They act independently of the Government. They give independent advice. If they think at any stage that a Minister is about to transgress the proper boundaries of activity, it is the function of the Law Officer to pull back the Minister and to advise him or her accordingly. For the Lord Advocate to have the power to intervene and to refer a Bill independently of the executive is consistent with the actions of the Law Officer".—[Official Report, 18/6/98; col. 1782.]
Therefore, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was explaining that provision on Second Reading, he was clearly of the view that that power was to be exercised in the public interest but, as I say, the difficulty that I have is that the Advocate General may be on the other side.
At a recent seminar which I attended, a speech was made on this issue. Views were expressed to a contrary effect. In particular, it was suggested that realistically, there is bound to be a political element in any decision to refer a question to the judicial committee, particularly in the early stages of devolution. Therefore, it will be important to ensure that there is agreement within the United Kingdom Government that such a challenge should be mounted. The speaker therefore envisaged that the Advocate General, in exercising that power, would act only with the agreement of his ministerial colleagues.
Such references are bound to attract a measure of controversy, referring back to what my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said a few moments ago. It is not unrealistic to expect that some members of the Scottish parliament may well seek to test, on a fairly regular basis, the limits of the legislative competence. Let us suppose that a Bill gets half way

1381
through its parliamentary passage and then either the Advocate General, as a member of the British Government, or the Lord Advocate, acting as a Scottish Law Officer, seeks to stop the Bill in its tracks by initiating a reference to the judicial committee and it is argued that the Bill does not fall within that legislative competence, it is not difficult to envisage the political fall-out which that may generate. In those circumstances, I propose Amendments Nos. 235, 238 and 239. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Renton: I find it very difficult to understand what the division of function is to be, not only in relation to Clauses 31 and 32 but also in the general administration of the law and the advising of parliament in Scotland in the years to come. We have great respect for the present Lord Advocate as we have had, if I may say so, for his predecessors in this House in recent years. Indeed, there was even a former Attorney-General present in the Chamber a short while ago, but that is no longer the case.
The Attorney-General normally has jurisdiction only in England and Wales. However, we now have a new person of legal eminence—namely, the Advocate General—as proposed in the Bill. I have looked carefully through the "Notes on Clauses" as well as trying to study the Bill itself, but I am at a loss to understand how the Advocate General is to be appointed and exactly what his functions will be. As a background to these two clauses, it would be most helpful if we could be told what is to be the division of function between these three learned people.
In relation to the particular function in Clause 31 of reference to the judicial committee, I wonder what would happen if the three learned people did not agree with each other. Let us suppose, for example, that two of them say, "Yes, this should be a reference to the judicial committee", but the other one disagrees. What would happen in that event? Indeed, could any one of them use his own initiative, whatever the others might feel, and decide whether to refer the matter to the judicial committee? This is a complex matter on which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate must enlighten the Committee. It will be very difficult for us to understand the position unless he does so.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I should like to add something to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, about the relationship between the Lord Advocate and the Ministers. If I may be so bold, I make such comments from the point of view of the judicial committee of which I am a member. If these issues about legislative competence are brought before the judicial committee for decision, questions will arise from time to time which are questions of fact or questions about which information may be necessary in order to enable the committee to reach its decision. Indeed, that happens quite frequently in our proceedings and, sometimes, in the relatively informal way that these hearings are
1382
conducted, we put questions to counsel who have the advantage of having with them people from the relevant jurisdictions who can provide answers.
If such references are to be conducted with expedition, which is essential if the parliament is to be assisted to do its job, the less opportunity there is for delay and confusion the better. Indeed, if someone appearing in a reference is not representing the true originator of the issue or has no immediate access to the information which the committee needs to resolve the point, the more unfortunate the position will become. It seems to be very important to identify correctly the true initiator of the decision to bring the matter before the judicial committee. Broadly speaking, it is for that reason that I would be inclined to support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I may deal, first, with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. While I can understand that the judicial committee frequently deals with factual matters, it is difficult for me to understand how that would arise in this situation. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that the reference in terms of Clause 32 relates to the question of whether or not a Bill, or any provision of a Bill, would be within the legislative competence of the parliament. That strikes me as being purely a legal question. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I am much obliged. Perhaps I may just elaborate on what I said. One only has to look, for example, at the contents of Schedule 5 and the reservations listed therein to understand my point. Indeed, I happen to be looking at the section relating to medicines on page 81 of the Bill which says:
"Regulation of prices charged for medical supplies",
and so on. Indeed, it does not seem very far fetched to suggest that issues of fact might arise to which the judicial committee would like to have a quick answer to enable it to get to grips with the true issue of law which needs to be decided. The problem is that the whole idea of the reference to the judicial committee is written into the Bill in about one line, without really establishing the nature of the jurisdiction which the committee will have to exercise at that juncture.
Lord Hardie: I understand the point raised by the noble and learned Lord. However, even if a question of fact should arise, I do not understand the point about the title of the person appearing. For example, if the Lord Advocate were appearing in his own right in such circumstances, I would be surprised if he did not have the ability to answer factual questions relating to medicines, and so on. I am sure that it would be within the ability of the Lord Advocate to obtain the necessary information to enable him properly to instruct the committee. Before taking the reference, no doubt the Lord Advocate, the Advocate General or, indeed, the Attorney-General would have considered such factual issues if they related to a particular matter.
I turn now to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as to the relative functions of the three Law Officers. Of course, the office of Lord Advocate

1383
will be devolved, so he will be the senior Law Officer to the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament. He will have no role in relation to acting as a Law Officer for the UK Government. As far as concerns the Attorney-General, he will of course retain his present role.
As the noble Lord will appreciate, at present the Lord Advocate has certain functions in respect of the UK Government as regards giving advice on Scots law in relation to UK departments, and has an input into UK policy and its Parliament. Therefore, by taking the Lord Advocate north and confining him to Scotland and to the Scottish parliament, we have created a gap which the Advocate General will fill. He or she will be a Scots lawyer of standing who will assume the roles which the Lord Advocate presently exercises in relation to the UK Government and the UK Parliament.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation as far as it has gone. I bear in mind what he has said about the Lord Advocate and that the Lord Advocate will continue to have his United Kingdom responsibilities—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Renton: Well, who will have them in respect of Scotland because Scotland is to remain part of the United Kingdom.
Lord Hardie: I am sorry. I obviously have not made myself clear. After devolution the Lord Advocate will not have the responsibility to the United Kingdom Government which he has at the present time. That is why the new office of Advocate General has been created. He will take over the responsibilities of the Lord Advocate in relation to the United Kingdom Parliament. The Advocate General will be a senior Scottish lawyer appointed by the Prime Minister to perform the roles relating to the United Kingdom Parliament and Government which the Lord Advocate presently exercises.
5.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: Can the noble and learned Lord say what is the position of the Attorney-General in this case?
Lord Hardie: As I sought to explain, the Attorney-General will be in exactly the same position as he is at the moment. He is the English Law Officer for the United Kingdom Parliament.
I turn to the group of amendments which we are considering at the moment. Amendments Nos. 235 and 239 would have the effect that the Attorney-General could not refer matters about the legislative competence of Bills of the Scottish parliament to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government do not think that it would be appropriate to remove that right from the Attorney-General. If one goes on through the Bill, one can see that in terms of Part III of Schedule 6—that is, after legislation is in place—the Attorney-General has a specific role to play in
1384
proceedings in England. If, in the course of proceedings in England, there is a challenge to the question of the vires of a piece of Scottish legislation, it would be for the Attorney-General to raise the matter or, indeed, he could institute the proceedings themselves. In that situation the Lord Advocate would defend them.
It is envisaged that the Attorney-General will have a specific role in relation to legislation which has Royal Assent. We think that it is illogical to remove from him the role to challenge legislation prior to Royal Assent. There may be issues of English law and issues with which he is concerned which he wishes to raise at the pre-assent stage. That is why we are leaving the Attorney-General with the right to challenge legislation prior to Royal Assent.
Amendment No. 238 effectively removes the question of reference from Law Officers and hands it over to Ministers. The position which was outlined in the White Paper is that the Government recognise that the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Executive may take different views of the Scottish parliament's legislative powers. In providing that references to the Judicial Committee should be made by a minister—whether it is the Secretary of State for Scotland or the first minister—noble Lords would run the risk of politicising the process and shifting the focus away from the determination of the legal argument. Essentially, whether it is competent or not is a legal issue and should not be a political issue. For that reason it was decided that the Law Officers were the appropriate people to raise proceedings about the competence of a Bill which had passed through its stages but was awaiting Royal Assent.
It is important to realise that the Judicial Committee will be concerning itself with technical questions of law and not matters of politics, although there may be issues of fact, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has pointed out. In our view, in that situation it is appropriate that the references should be by the Law Officers rather than by other Ministers.
To deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, we do not see the Law Officers acting in a representative capacity here. If the Law Officers consider that the Act is ultra vires, then they will intervene and raise proceedings in their own right.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he address this question? Does he envisage that before initiating such a reference, the Law Officer would consult his political colleagues and act in accordance with their views as to whether a reference should be made?
I fully take his point that the issue for the Judicial Committee to decide is a legal issue. But I do not demur from the suggestion I made earlier that the decision as to whether to initiate a reference could have a highly political content. The problem about the Law Officer initiating this reference, particularly if he is the Lord Advocate, is that a few months or possibly a few weeks earlier, as a member of the Scottish executive he would have been involved in the formulation of a view, which

1385
would have been given to the parliament by the Minister in terms of Clause 30, that the Bill is in accordance with the legislative purpose of the parliament.
However, a few weeks or a few months down the line there may be uncertainty as to whether he is still acting in his capacity as a member of the Scottish executive or in an independent role representing the public interest. Traditionally, over the years Lords Advocate have been called into cases, such as the Law Hospital case in which I appeared. In the application by the Law Hospital as to whether or not feeding should be withdrawn from a patient in a permanent vegetative state the court required the Lord Advocate to represent the public interest. He did so in his own right. How he goes about working out what is the public interest is a matter for him. But there is no suggestion in that event that he is representing the Government.
I have a concern that there is an element of confusion here. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord would confirm whether he envisages that this would be the decision of the Lord Advocate, the Attorney-General or the Advocate General alone, or would it be one in which he took on board the views and acted in accordance with the wishes of his political colleagues?
Lord Hardie: I should like to draw a distinction, first of all, between Acts of the Scottish parliament which are initiated and introduced by the executive as part of the government's programme of legislation, and the legislation introduced by others such as Back-Benchers.
In the latter case the Lord Advocate would not have been involved in any statement in terms of the legislation by the person who is introducing the Bill. It is understandable in that situation how the Bill could go through. The Lord Advocate would say, "Well, I am not happy with this. It is outwith the competence and I am raising proceedings".
I turn to the situation where we are talking about government legislation. Of course, ultimately the workings of the executive will be for them. But I would envisage that the Lord Advocate, as Law Officer, would have a role similar to the one which he exercises at the moment in advising the executive about the legality of proposed legislation, and so on.
If the Lord Advocate has advised the executive that he or she considers that the proposed Bill is within the competence of the parliament, and then it goes through the parliament, it is inconceivable that the Lord Advocate will take a different view just before Royal Assent. Therefore I do not see that difficulty arising.
If the Lord Advocate is minded to raise proceedings challenging the competence of legislation which is about to be presented for Royal Assent, I would certainly anticipate that the Lord Advocate of the day would advise his ministerial colleagues that he had taken this view and that he was proposing to intervene and to present the necessary application to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not anticipate—and I would not myself accept—that the executive would be able to discourage the Lord Advocate from that course because, if he has taken the view that this
1386
matter is ultra vires and outwith the competence of the parliament and has decided that he will proceed, clearly he ought to explain to his ministerial colleagues why he considers the matter is ultra vires. However, that would not be a political decision and he ought not to be influenced by any political consideration not to proceed in that situation.
As I said, this may be an interesting academic exercise or discussion because at the earlier stages, if it is a government Bill, the Lord Advocate will have expressed a view about the competence of the legislation. If he has taken a view at the earlier stages that it is not lawful, he ought to make that clear to the executive and, if need be, consider his own position if that advice is not accepted.
I hope that it follows from what I have said that I see this as a public interest issue. The Government consider it important that the making of the reference should be left in the control of the independent Law Officers because of the constitutional significance of this matter and bearing in mind the desirability of having harmony between Scotland and the United Kingdom. It should not be left to politicians to decide whether or not they will challenge legislation. I take up the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, alluded to earlier. If there were extreme people in power who wanted to push the parliament to extremes and to challenge Westminster, the independent Law Officers may well be seen (I hope they will) as a protection against such excesses. I hope it will be considered that the independent Law Officers would not simply accept instructions from a group of politicians who were clearly acting outwith the competence of the legislation. With that explanation—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am concerned not so much about the political aspect but rather about the mechanics of the matter which I do not understand. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out that the judicial committee would need to ask various questions and to be able quickly to acquire the facts that were needed to enable it to reach a decision. According to Clause 32(1) the Attorney-General could make the reference right from the start. However, he is an English Law Officer. Would he have been in Edinburgh while all this was going on? Is it right that he should be included in that clause at that point? The noble and learned Lord said that at a later stage there may be an English dimension to all this. Obviously the politics of that would be fairly tricky. One can understand there may be occasions when the Attorney-General would be involved. However, if a measure has come from the Scottish parliament and it concerns Scottish legislation and decisions to be made by that parliament, why is it possible for the Attorney-General to make the reference? I should have thought that that would be pretty unacceptable and not an easy matter for the judicial committee. However, I may be quite wrong.
Lord Hardie: We are concerned with the legislative competence as to whether the parliament has exceeded its powers and encroached on the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament. By the word "encroached" I mean

1387
encroached in an unacceptable way because there will always be certain overlaps. The Attorney-General may well have an interest if the effect of the Scottish legislation is to encroach to an unacceptable extent upon his jurisdiction.
As regards the ascertaining of facts, the Attorney-General will, of course, have that within his power, just as much as the Advocate General. The Advocate General will essentially be concerned with United Kingdom issues. The Attorney-General will have the ability to obtain the necessary factual material, just as much as the Advocate General. I refer to the example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Medicines are a United Kingdom matter. It would be easy for the Attorney-General to obtain the necessary factual material for the judicial committee. I am bound to say I still feel that the likelihood of the judicial committee requiring factual evidence is probably more remote in this kind of case than in the other kinds of case that the noble and learned Lord is accustomed to deal with.
Lord Renton: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord another rather vital question. He has made clear that the Advocate General is to be a member of the Scottish executive.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Renton: I am sorry. I made a slip of the tongue. I meant to say that the Lord Advocate will be a member of the Scottish executive and his first loyalty will be to the Scottish executive. Therefore he is unlikely ever to refer to the judicial committee a complaint about the Scottish executive's legislative intention. In those circumstances, if the Advocate General thinks that a complaint should be made, will he be able to overrule the Lord Advocate?
Lord Hardie: I am sorry. I should have picked up the point the noble Lord made earlier about what happens if two out of the three agree. With respect, that may be due to a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Lord. Any of these people may take proceedings. The Lord Advocate could take the decision himself to challenge legislation. Equally, the Attorney-General could take the decision himself to challenge legislation. If legislation had been challenged by the Attorney-General, which the Lord Advocate had advised the executive was perfectly competent, I would anticipate the Lord Advocate being on the other side of the litigation. Similarly the Advocate General may, on his or her own account, take the decision to raise proceedings. Therefore all three do not need to agree; anyone can decide that he or she thinks that the legislation is outwith the competence.
6 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Perhaps I may return to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. It relates to a question of procedure which is not clear from this clause but may be provided for under the Orders in Council referred to in Clause 94. The judicial committee would be in grave difficulty if it did
1388
not have two parties before it—a contradictor to the argument put forward by the party initiating the proceedings. I should welcome a comment from the noble and learned Lord. Does he envisage that if, to take an example, the Attorney-General were to raise an issue, the judicial committee would have power to order the proceedings to be served upon a Scottish Law Officer, or possibly a Scottish minister, in order that a proper contradictor can be presented to the committee before the case is heard?
Lord Hardie: I believe that this matter may be dealt with by orders. I will write to the noble and learned Lord to confirm that.
As I understand it, proceedings against the parliament or the corporate body will be served upon the Lord Advocate. Therefore, if the Attorney-General raised a question as to the competence of the legislation, that would be done in the form of an initiating writ, which would then be served upon the Lord Advocate.
As I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if the Attorney-General raised proceedings and the Lord Advocate had advised the Scottish executive that the matter was within its competence and had supported the legislation through parliament, then the Lord Advocate would undoubtedly enter the process and argue the case for the Scottish parliament as to the legality of the legislation. Similarly, if the Advocate General raised proceedings, again they would be served on the Lord Advocate.
The only question might arise when the Lord Advocate initiated proceedings as to the legality of legislation. As I said, the most likely situation would be if legislation were introduced by a Back-Bencher or someone other than the Scottish executive, if the Lord Advocate had taken the view all along that that was not within the powers of the parliament, then the Lord Advocate would raise the matter. I will examine the question as to who should be the contradictor in that situation. Clearly, in that situation I should not anticipate the Attorney-General or Advocate General entering the proceedings. I shall certainly consider that matter and come back to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will consider one other matter. I should have raised it had I been present during discussion on Clause 28(8). It arises also in relation to Clauses 30 to 32. Subsection (8) of Clause 28 gives a direction as to how,
"Any provision of an Act of the Scottish Parliament is to be read";
and it is to be read,
"so far as possible, so as to be within the legislative competence of the Parliament".
Therefore I presume that if there were proceedings in relation to an Act, that is the way it would be read.
If, however, one were the lonely presiding officer, or the accompanied members of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, acting under Clause 32, in that situation would one read the provisions in such a way, if possible, so as to be within the legislative competence

1389
of the parliament; or would one, since there is ample time to put the matter right if it is outside the competence, not use that presumption? In other words, at the pre-legislative stage would one use a different test from that which would be used in terms of Clause 28(8)? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will respond to that matter during the course of our debates this evening.
Lord Hardie: I may be able to deal with the point now. The noble and learned Lord has far greater experience and expertise in statutory interpretation than I. However, I should have thought that the reference in Clause 28(8) to an Act would refer to an Act that has passed through all its stages, including Royal Assent; whereas when it comes to scrutiny under Clause 32, one is looking at a Bill. The question before the judicial committee is whether a particular provision of a Bill, or the Bill as a whole, is within the competence of the parliament. I should not have thought that those arguing for legality could rely upon Clause 28(8). The whole question would be whether this provision would apply. If I am wrong, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will correct me.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Anyone who doubted that lawyers might make some money out of devolution will have had those doubts dispelled by the discussion of the last half-an-hour.
I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble and learned Lord about the fact that, as a Law Officer, he would be able to obtain all the information he required from his political colleagues. Looking round the Chamber as he uttered those words, I did not feel that they struck an overwhelming chord with his three predecessors who are present. However, I am sure that he will pay attention to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. What is clear is that, if references to the judicial committee take place at a pre-legislative stage, speed in determining a matter is of the essence.
I do not intend to press these amendments to a Division. However, I invite the Government to think again as to the politics of allowing the Attorney-General to intervene at this stage. I can readily accept that some questions of English law might arise; but if those have to be debated before the judicial committee, it would be perfectly possible for the Advocate General, if he were appearing, to be accompanied by a lawyer qualified in the law of England if the Advocate General were not so qualified. The politics of allowing the Attorney-General to intervene at this stage might go down very badly in Scotland. As he will be a member of the same government as the Advocate General, I hope that it might be possible to restrict the right to the Advocate General.
I am interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's remark about the role of the law officers acting independently of their executive bodies, albeit having advised them in advance as to what they propose to do. I shall reflect carefully on that matter over the Recess.
1390
Finally, to take up another point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, about information, I invite the Government to consider whether a provision such as Clause 93(4) or paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 might be written into the procedure at this stage to ensure that the appropriate contradictor has information given to him so that the judicial committee has the benefit of a full debate on the legal issues that arise. I seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 235.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 16, line 10, leave out ("Standing orders shall ensure that.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 236 and 237 are small drafting amendments. They seek to amend Clause 31 to delete the reference to standing orders in subsection (5). If the judicial committee has decided that a Bill or any provision of a Bill is not within the legislative competence of the parliament, that should be the end of the matter. It should be on the face of the Bill that the presiding officer shall not submit a Bill before Royal Assent. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, indicated, Amendments Nos. 236 and 237 would prescribe on the face of the Scotland Bill, that the presiding officer must not submit for Royal Assent a Bill, in its unamended form, if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council decides that the Bill or a provision of it would be outwith the legislative competence of the parliament. As currently drafted, the Scotland Bill provides that standing orders must make the detailed provision to ensure that this does not happen.
I agree with the noble Lord that it is important that in such cases unamended Bills are not submitted for Royal Assent. However, I believe that the Bill in front of us already makes appropriate provision for this. It essentially places a duty on the parliament to provide in its standing orders for the procedures under which the presiding officer may and may not submit Bills for Royal Assent. These procedures must include procedures to prevent a Bill being submitted if the circumstances in Clause 31(5) apply.
I also accept that the end result of the noble Lord's amendments is likely to be the same as what is provided for in the Bill. But how we achieve that end is important. As I have indicated, the detailed procedures about the submission of Bills for Royal Assent will, quite rightly, be set out in standing orders, not on the face of the Bill. It will also be necessary in these procedures to build in the safeguards to ensure that Bills which have been declared to be ultra vires do not go forward unless they are amended. Clause 31(5) ensures that that will be done. I therefore believe the approach chosen by the Government is the correct one.
As I have explained on other occasions, we believe that it is important and indeed necessary that detailed matters concerning legislative proceedings in the parliament should be a matter for the Scottish parliament. That is why the Bill provides for this matter

1391
to be dealt with through standing orders. It is consistent with the approach we have followed throughout this particular clause, which prescribes the framework within which standing orders will cover detailed procedures dealing with the presiding officer's duties in scrutinising Bills and in submitting Bills for Royal Assent, as well as being consistent, with the general approach we have taken throughout the Bill.
I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The sweetness of the noble Baroness's smile becomes greater, but her generosity remains at a fairly low level. This is not a matter which I intend to press, but it brings to mind a question which I asked some days ago and to which I still await a reply. What happens if the standing orders passed by the parliament do not comply with the provisions of the Bill? Who has the right to challenge it? No doubt I shall receive a reply to the question over the Recess and, if necessary, we can return to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 237 not moved.]
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Scrutiny of Bills by the Judicial Committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 238 to 241 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 242 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
Clause 33 [Power to intervene in certain cases]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 243:
Page 16, line 34, after ("obligations") insert ("or the interests of defence or national security").
The noble Lord said: I am speaking to Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 and 262 to 267. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there are adequate safeguards for those matters which the White Paper intended should be reserved. I spoke to related amendments to Clause 28 and Schedule 4—I am advised that it was last Tuesday, but it is all rather a fog at the moment.
While for the Scottish parliament to have a workable legislative competence, its legislation for devolved purposes needs to be able to have ancillary effects upon reserved matters, the Government recognise that there need to be safeguards in cases where Acts of the Scottish parliament could have adverse effects on the law as it applies to reserved matters. For example, legislation about housing or local taxation could possibly have an impact on the operation of social security legislation. Clause 33 therefore empowers the Secretary of State, by order, to prevent a Scottish Bill from being submitted for Royal Assent in certain circumstances. Clause 54(4) provides a complementary power to revoke subordinate legislation. Under Amendments Nos. 243 to 247 these powers would be available to a Secretary of State if the Bill contains
1392
provisions which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters. The change from the current wording in the Bill is necessary to take account, first, of the amendments to the tests of legislative competence in Clause 28 and, secondly, of possible adverse effects on the operation of any aspect of the law, whether statute law or the common law, as it applies to reserved matters.
Clauses 33 and 54(4) also enable the Secretary of State to intervene to ensure that the United Kingdom's international obligations are met. Amendments Nos. 243 and 263 provide for the interests of defence and national security to be treated on a similar basis. These powers would be available, for instance, where the Secretary of State considered on reasonable grounds that a Scottish Bill dealing with planning which affected defence establishments would be incompatible with the interests of defence or national security.
Amendment No. 247 would enable the Secretary of State to use his power of intervention in a four-week period after a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council that a Scottish Bill was intra vires. Without this amendment, the Secretary of State would have to use his power of intervention before the vires of a Scottish Bill had been established.
These powers of intervention are of course meant to be long stops. Their use would require to be justified and would be liable to be scrutinised by judicial review. The amendments establish a series of tests which limit the extent to which legislation by the Scottish parliament can affect reserved matters. But the powers of intervention provide essential balance to ensure that there is a sensible outcome in relation to reserved matters. Their existence should be sufficient to ensure consultation between Whitehall and Edinburgh so that there may be no need for them to be used. But there should be no doubt that this Government will be willing to use the powers of intervention if it became necessary.
We have also taken the opportunity to make a number of clarificatory amendments to Clause 54. Amendments Nos. 262, 265 and 267 correct the wording of Clause 54 by making it clear that the Secretary of State's power to revoke subordinate legislation applies to existing legislation and that the requirement for the Secretary of State to state his reasons for making orders under that clause applies to orders made under all subsections, not just that under the power to revoke subordinate legislation.
I hope that this explanation of the amendments has been helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Lang of Monkton: I believe that I understood the explanation that the noble Lord gave of the amendments he has tabled to Clauses 33 and 54. Since, as I understand it, this is the first time that there has been any reference of substance to the powers of the Secretary of State in the Bill, I wonder whether we might explore a little more fully the role and function of the Secretary of State in future in the context of the amendments to his powers that the Government have tabled.

1393
Formerly, the position of Secretary of State for Scotland was powerful because he presided over a complete range of domestic areas of government, a substantial department and a substantial budget. He was therefore able to act with some authority within Scotland and to defend Scotland's powers within government at Westminster and in Whitehall. One can think of many examples—Tom Johnston and Willie Ross spring to mind—of those who have done this. But now there is to be something of a role reversal. We are all familiar with the constitutionally illiterate challenge of any Secretary of State: "Are you the Government's man in Scotland or Scotland's man in Government?". As I see it, under this Bill that question need not be asked. It is quite clear that the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland can in future only be that of the role of the Government's man in Scotland.
Clearly, from a position of strength, the Secretary of State is now moving to a position of considerable weakness. He will no longer be at the centre of government. He will be an outsider but with power to intervene to prohibit a Bill of the Scottish parliament after it has passed through the Scottish parliament. Indeed, through Clause 54 he will have power to intervene to control and prohibit action by the Scottish executive.
If I read the Bill correctly, that does not bode well for the future relationship between the parliament in Edinburgh and the Parliament at Westminster. Therefore I ask the Government how they see the role, function and status of the Secretary of State. In the context of this clause and subject to the amendments as tabled, to which Secretary of State are they referring? Is it the Secretary of State for Scotland or another? I looked at Clause 112 for enlightenment on interpretation and found it silent. In the context of the amendments it may be the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs or the Secretary of State for Defence who will be the relevant Secretary of State. As most Secretaries of State these days seem to be Scots, that may not be perceived as being a problem at the present time.
I suspect that the answer I will receive is that it is the use of the generic term "Secretary of State", which is normally used in legislation. But it is all the more important, therefore, to clarify precisely what the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland will be. It is he who is most likely to find himself dealing from Westminster with the Scottish parliament.
Will there be a Secretary of State for Scotland? Will he be a Secretary of State for Scotland alone or might he be grouped together with other territorial parts of the United Kingdom as a sort of revived and some may think insulting concept of Colonial Secretary? Will he have a seat in the Cabinet? What roles would he have other than those that might—and only "might"—arise under Clauses 33 and 54? What would be his powers and authority?
1394
I assume that the Secretary of State will have no department and that in itself will underline the weakness of his position—something on which Mr. Jack Cunningham may care to reflect in the days ahead. Will he have junior ministers to assist him? Will he receive advice from officials and, if so, from which officials? Will they be from the Scottish Office? If so, how will that reflect the advice that those same officials will be giving to the Scottish executive whose actions the Secretary of State might then be advised to overrule?
I am not seeking to raise artificial hurdles, difficulties and problems; rather, I am trying to anticipate the kind of problems that will arise once the legislation is in force. The argument may be better raised at Clause stand part, at which time I may be tempted to return to the charge. But I should like the Government's views and thoughts on how they see the role of the Secretary of State.
I suspect that the Government have given little thought to this matter. Their preoccupation has been so entirely with the role, powers and functions of the Scottish parliament that they have regarded the Secretary of State's function as something that will just wither away into irrelevance. If that is the case—I hope that the Minister can reassure me that it is not—it is an extremely dangerous posture to adopt. Links between Edinburgh and Westminster will be vital if we are to retain the integrity of the United Kingdom following the creation of this parliament. There is a possibility that the role of the Secretary of State will be pivotal in sustaining and nurturing that relationship. Therefore, we should be told where the Government stand in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State.
Lord Kirkhill: Before the noble Lord resumes his seat and before I make one point, I want to say that his remarks are pertinent, important and certainly demanding of specific reply. I am sure that it is my own stupidity, but I did not understand the point he made in relation to various Secretaries of State. Perhaps he could elaborate a little on that point so that I can fully understand his comments.
Lord Lang of Monkton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the chance to try to make myself more clear. Under subsection (1)(a) of Clause 33, the Secretary of State may take certain action to prohibit the presiding officer from submitting a Bill for Royal Assent, where he has reasonable grounds to believe that such action,
"would be incompatible with any international obligations".
The Government's amendment added to that criterion the further consideration that he should intervene where the interests of defence or national security are concerned.
I imagine that the Secretary of State who would be in the lead in such intervention would be, first, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; secondly, possibly the Secretary of State for Home Affairs and, thirdly, the Secretary of State for Defence. That may be

1395
so, in which case the Minister and I understand each other. But it still does not answer the question in relation to what powers the Secretary of State has.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I can deal with those issues now, if it is convenient to the Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Lang, will receive the reply he anticipated. Reference in the Bill to "Secretary of State" is a generic reference. It is applicable to any Secretary of State. If we move on to the broader point, it comes up elsewhere in the Bill on the future role and function of the Secretary of State. We must remember that everything to do with the Secretary of State—the future role and function of the Secretary of State—is largely a matter for the Prime Minister of the day. We imagine that there will be an important task to be done, particularly in the early stages of the parliament's life, in terms of establishing and cementing good relations between the UK Government and the Scottish executive.
Clearly, this is an area where everyone recognises that the role of the Secretary of State in a devolved context is likely to change and evolve over time. It is difficult at this juncture to be prescriptive or precise in terms of how the relationship between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the UK Parliament, the UK Government, the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive will change.
We are in a situation where, although we are establishing the framework for devolution, much of the relationships and practices are of a dynamic nature. There will be change; and there will be evolution. I am not confident that I can predict at this stage what that will look like five years down the road.
Lord Hope of Craighead: Perhaps the Minister will explain a little more the thinking behind Amendment No. 247. That is the provision which creates a relationship between the Secretary of State and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Clearly, some provision has to be made to deal with a situation where a reference has been made to the Privy Council and to provide a timetable within which the Secretary of State takes the step provided for in Clause 33.
From the way in which Amendment No. 247 is presently worded, it seems to me that, even if the Secretary of State decided that in the interest of defence or national security he should make an order under Clause 33, nevertheless, the Judicial Committee would have to go through the process of hearing the application or deciding it, or otherwise disposing of it before the period of four weeks began. Perhaps it would make more sense if the period of four weeks were to run from the date of reference to the Judicial Committee. It seems unfortunate, if the Judicial Committee is to have other things to do, that it should have to go through and decide an issue which will be immediately rendered academic by the decision of the Secretary of State.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I can intervene briefly. I can reassure the Minister that I welcome Amendment No. 244. The Bill as it stood made my head throb and this amendment makes it somewhat simpler to understand. It is therefore
1396
to be welcomed. However, we will want a fuller reply at some point about the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland—whether combined or however it is to be.
It seems to me that the only thing one can say with confidence about the Secretary of State for Scotland under these new arrangements is that his first task will be to see whether the Advocate General is free for lunch every day; he has so little else to do. Otherwise all that he would be doing on an annual basis is adjusting the seating plan for the annual visit of the Moderator of the General Assembly before he delivers his customary sermon in the Palace of Westminster. I wonder what his role would be. The only prediction one can make with any certainty is that he will not be residing in the splendour of Dover House for much longer from what one reads about the intentions of the Prime Minister.
I do not expect an answer from the noble and learned Lord at this time but I would be grateful if he reflects on it and writes to me. In Clause 33 he is proposing after "international obligations" the words,
"or the interests of defence or national security".
What exactly are "international obligations?" Before the Minister leaps to his feet, I am aware that international obligations are defined in Clause 112(10). They are defined there in the context of separating out from international obligations those obligations which are to be treated as Community law.
If this Parliament wished at any time in the future to remove from the Scottish parliament the powers that have been devolved—to increase again the extent of the reservation—as I understand it this Parliament could do so under Clause 29 by way of an Order in Council. Am I correct in understanding that if the Government of the United Kingdom entered into international obligations—and they could achieve international obligations without reference to this House; the obligations would already be in place—it would allow the Westminster Government by, as it were, a back route to impinge upon those matters which had been devolved to the Scottish parliament?
This is not simply to raise an exceptionally arcane point; although it may appear to be such. It is my understanding that the device has been used by the Federal Government of Australia when wishing to restrict the activities or the powers of the states. As a consequence of entering into international obligations, what had been within the remit of the states was necessarily limited. I am not sure what the answer is but it is something we ought to be alive to. It would be helpful, if not now, then during the long Recess, if the Minister would reflect on it and write to me.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: As I understand it, Clause 33(1) will, as a result of Amendment No. 243, give the power to the Secretary of State to make an order where he believes legislation would be incompatible with international obligations or the interests of defence and national security. Clause 54(4)(a) has a similar theme in respect of subordinate legislation. Why is it that there is no reference in Clause 54(1) to the interests of defence or national security? In other words, the

1397
Secretary of State cannot stop a proposed action by a member of the Scottish executive even if he believes that it is contrary to the interests of defence and national security. He can only do so if it is incompatible with any international obligations. Is that intentional or just an omission?
Lord Sewel: I shall try to respond to the points made by noble Lords. I am enormously gratified that the amendment has helped the throbbing head of the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. His comments have added to my throbbing head. He invited me to write to him over the Recess and that is an invitation that I take up with alacrity. If he does not mind, I will leave the point there.
As to the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I accept the commonsense attraction of what the noble Lord said. Again, it is a matter upon which I would like to write to the noble and learned Lord.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, asks why Clause 54 does not require or prohibit executive action in relation to the interests of defence and national security. We consider that it is appropriate to have powers of intervention in order to protect the interests of defence and national security from the possible adverse effects of Acts of the Scottish parliament or subordinate action made by Scottish Ministers. That is what the amendments set out to do. The powers therefore match those in relation to the possible adverse effects of legislation on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters. We do not consider that it is necessary to provide the Secretary of State with powers to prevent or require action in relation to the interests of defence or national security to match those which are available for international obligations.
Clearly, a judgment has to be made about the extent of the powers of intervention. We have concluded that it would go too far to extend the power of the Secretary of State in relation to defence and national security to executive action by the Scottish Ministers. It is a matter of judgment. I take the noble and learned Lord's point. I would like to revisit the matter and give it another round of judgment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: While the Minister is doing so, he may wish to consider Amendment No. 263. As I read it, the amendment seeks to eliminate the anomaly to which the noble and learned Lord drew attention. As I construe it, it seems to write certain provisions into Clause 54. I may be wrong about that.
Lord Sewel: It is the difference between subordinate legislation and executive action. We are covering subordinate legislation but we are not insisting on the prohibition of executive action.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 244 to 247:
Page 16, line 35, leave out from ("which") to ("which") in line 37 and insert ("make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and").
Page 16, line 39, leave out ("an enactment") and insert ("the law").
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("and").
Page 17, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) if a reference is made in relation to the Bill under section 32, the period of four weeks beginning with the reference being decided or otherwise disposed of by the Judicial Committee").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Stages of Bills]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Each Bill shall be considered by the Parliament at the following stages—

(a) a general debate on the principles of the Bill;

(b) a stage during which a committee of the Parliament may hear evidence on and shall consider representations received from interested parties on the subject matter of the Bill, and at the conclusion of which, the committee shall report to the Parliament on the evidence and representations it has received;

(c) a stage for a further general debate on the Bill, in the light of the report prepared in terms of paragraph (b) hereof, with an opportunity for members to vote on the general principles of the Bill;

(d) a committee stage for members of the Parliament to consider and vote on the detail of the Bill;

(e) a report stage to consider any amendments subsequent to the committee stage in paragraph (d);

(f) a final debate and vote on the Bill, at which the Parliament can either pass or reject it.

(1A) A period of not less than three calendar months shall separate the stages of the Bill mentioned in subsections (1)(c) and (1)(e) unless otherwise provided for by a resolution of the Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 248 is grouped with the amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour, Amendment No. 249. The Committee will remember that on the first day of Committee we had an interesting debate about the second Chamber. The Government indicated very firmly, including in the Division Lobbies, that they did not want a second Chamber. They also indicated—as they have done all along when we have discussed these matters—that somehow or other the Scottish parliament would deal with its business, especially its legislative business, in a different way. The implication was, of course, in a better way than the House of Commons. Therefore the need for a second Chamber would not be there and a case could not be made for one.
We see in Clause 34 what the standing order shall provide as regards the procedures dealing with a piece of legislation, a Bill. It is interesting that we keep on being told that all such details should be left to the parliament to work out for itself. However, every now and then—on every other clause, I suspect—up come some details which are not to be left to the Scottish parliament, but to be set out in legislation. This is one of those occasions when the Government's usual line has been stood on its head.
The proposals in Clause 34 sound remarkably similar to the way in which the House of Commons deals with Bills. There is first to be a general debate on the Bill. That is to be followed by detailed consideration of it. There is then to be a final stage at which the Bill can be passed or rejected. That sounds awfully like Second Reading, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading. Furthermore, there is to be no second Chamber for the Scottish parliament. I was under the impression—I was continually told—that there would be different procedures in the Scottish parliament. Even if the Scottish parliament wants to have different procedures, Clause 34 ties it down to a system that looks remarkably like that in the House of Commons.
As we all know, even if the House of Commons is not hurrying through the legislation, a Bill takes on average about three months to complete all its stages. One of the advantages of your Lordships' House is that a Bill also has to take roughly about the same amount of time passing through. Often by the time a Bill reaches this House, various outside organisations with an interest in it have caught up with what the Bill actually does and they then lobby Members of your Lordships' House to change the Bill. That is certainly what happened on some of the major legislation in which I was involved at the Department of Social Security.
In my amendment I suggest an alternative to what I might call "the House of Commons pattern" as outlined in Clause 34. In Amendment No. 248 I suggest that there should first be a general debate on the principles of the Bill—a bit akin to Second Reading. Then, as the amendment states in, I hope, reasonably plain English, there should be a stage during which a committee of the parliament goes out to take evidence, to meet people who are interested in the subject matter of the Bill, and generally to listen to what is being said. That is not dissimilar to procedures that have been used in your Lordships' House on one or two occasions when a committee of your Lordships' House has held hearings, not just here in London, but also in Scotland. It is certainly true as regards one piece of Scottish legislation. I meant to check before the debate, but I believe that certain deer legislation went through that procedure and that some of my noble friends went to the Highlands to take evidence from the people directly involved.
I envisage a similar sort of operation, except that it would apply to every Bill. I believe that we have attempted to apply such a procedure only to Bills about which there has not been a great deal of political controversy. In some ways, however, I believe that it is more important that it is done for politically controversial Bills. During that stage, outside bodies could make representations to a committee of the parliament and suggest amendments. At the end of the period, the committee should report to the parliament on the evidence and the representations it has received.
At that point, there would be considerable input from outside the parliament. That suggests to me that the parliament would be "inclusive". I now come to some buzz words so beloved of government Ministers. The Bill would "involve" the people of Scotland. It would be "non-confrontational." Given those words, so beloved of
1400
Ministers, I hope that the Government will accept my amendment, at least in principle. I accept that it could probably be worded better, but it is the principle with which I am really concerned.
There would then be a further general debate, a kind of Second Reading mark two, when members would have before them the evidence and representations made to the committee. That would give members of the parliament the opportunity for a better informed debate than may have been the case the first time round. We would then move to a Committee stage in the normal way. I have teased out that the final stages might look more like those in your Lordships' House than in the House of Commons. There would be a Report stage, at which any amendments suggested subsequent to Committee stage, could be considered. There would then be a final debate and vote on the Bill—a sort of Third Reading—when the parliament could either pass or reject the Bill.
I have made clear in what would be new subsection (1A)) that there should be a period of time between those two events so that the parliament is not rushed in its consideration of legislation, given that it is unicameral, and to ensure that Bills should take the same amount of time to go through the only House of the Scottish parliament as they do to go through both Houses of this Parliament.
I suspect that many Members of the Committee will offer variations on the theme of how the Scottish parliament ought to legislate as a unicameral legislature. I gather that unicameral legislatures around the world deal with such problems in different ways. However, it seems to me—as I am sure that it must to many Members of the Committee—that Clause 34(1) does not sound at all innovative. It sounds and reads very like the House of Commons procedure translated to the Scots parliament in Edinburgh. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): It may be convenient if I advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 248, in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is accepted, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 249, which stands in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour.
The Earl of Balfour: I agree very much with what my noble friend on the Front Bench said. On my reading of Clause 34 it appears to offer only one opportunity for a Bill to be amended. In my amendment I suggest two stages as a means of winning at least a tiny slice of the cake. I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in his amendment, although I feel a little unhappy about what will be the new subsection (1A). I believe that the delay would be rather trying for the parliament in Scotland.
I have never been a Member of another place, but I do not want amendments to be "chosen" in the Scottish parliament. I understand that that is done by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the other place. That is because—I say this quite loosely—I know of

1401
amendments which were never called in another place but which were accepted in this House. I believe that that leads to defective legislation.
Without making a long speech, I should like to refer to what happens in this House and why I think it is so good. Your Lordships' House goes through Bills properly, from end to end. That does not appear to happen often in another place. We also have a total of three bites at the cherry. I feel that there should be at least three opportunities for legislation to be amended although I have set down only two in my amendment. I say that on this principle. It is extremely difficult for a noble Lord from any corner of this House to table an amendment—obviously, it must not contradict the principles of the Bill—which is legally correct and in language that the parliamentary draftsman is likely to accept.
As so often happens, the Government have accepted the principle of the amendment and agreed to table an amendment of their own at Report stage. Even when that happens, occasionally a consequential amendment should be taken into consideration. There is then an opportunity for the Government to tidy up any loose ends at Third Reading in your Lordships' House.
Referring to my noble friend's proposed subsection (1A), there is a rather nice rule in this Chamber that there should be an interval of two weekends between the stages of a Bill. That is sensible. I hope the Government accept that back-benchers of the Scottish parliament should have every opportunity to discuss Bills and table amendments in the same way as Members of this House. I have the executive very much in mind. I want to make quite certain that when a Bill has gone through parliament it does not have defects. Occasionally Bills have had defects, with disastrous results. Sometimes the courts have found that legislation is not as good as it should be. That leads to complications. One of the difficulties is that primary legislation is required to alter primary legislation. The Scottish parliament should be given every opportunity to get legislation right in a reasonable time with a reasonable opportunity for debate so that every clause is discussed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that the Committee will be told that this matter should be left to the Scottish parliament and that it is wrong for us to interfere. The main element of my noble friend's suggestion is that the public in Scotland should have time to absorb what the Scottish parliament is trying to do and to react to it before legislation proceeds too far. There are examples of what happens when the Government decide in the course of a Bill to make a hurried change which does not work. This is a sensitive matter at the present time. We have the example of the proposal to lower the age of consent where there has been a last-minute change. The public have not properly absorbed what is proposed. Noble Lords had to take a view on it rather quickly. Public opinion is still developing on the subject. It was a pity that that happened so quickly.
1402
Another example is Scottish student fees. One understood how the issue arose. A decision was taken hurriedly on the basis of the Dearing Report. A mistake occurred and another hurried decision was made by the Scottish Office to put it right. That turned out to be another doubtfully convenient decision. That is what happens when governments decide matters too quickly without public opinion having time to make itself heard.
It is quite wrong that this Chamber, which has enormous experience of how public opinion develops during the passage of legislation, should not insert into this Bill an extension of the period of time during which the parliament legislates so that public opinion can develop and react properly. It is very important for Scotland. If that does not happen many beginners who have not before dealt with legislation will become very disappointed with the process. They may let down their constituents and the country as a whole. The parliament may have been unduly influenced by Civil Service advice and not enough by public opinion. I believe that that will occur in a number of ways. The Scottish Civil Service is a marvellous body of men and women who do their utmost. However, it is not their job to test the opinion of people about legislation; it is the job of politicians.
On one or two occasions this afternoon the Government have said that they will look again at certain matters. I hope that they will either accept this or look at it again. It will be the greatest possible mistake if they do not.
Lord Hylton: I have great sympathy with what has just been said by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. I should like to explore other possible alternative procedures for the Scottish parliament. If Clause 34 is accepted as drafted, do the Government believe that it would be possible for the Scottish parliament to consider Bills while still in draft and before they had been finalised by the executive or by private members? If so it would allow for the taking of evidence from interested parties and either specific or broad pressure groups on particular Bills.
I understand that there is already in existence in the other place a special standing committee procedure whereby evidence can be taken. I believe that when Parliament resumes that procedure will be adopted for certain Bills. I am trying to elucidate the idea of scrutiny in advance of the terms of legislation becoming fixed. Anything that the Government can say to throw light on that matter is most welcome.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I understand the purpose of Amendments Nos. 248 and 249. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, have done a lot of very useful work in considering a possible procedure. I quite like it but I will not have it, in that I do not believe that this amount of detail is a matter for us. Good work has been done on this. There is no disagreement with it as far as concerns my party. It provides a chance for a proper examination of legislation in a unicameral parliament. I cannot say the same about the efforts of the Government in Clause 34

1403
in relation to the first stage where the Government simply follow a pale imitation of the procedure adopted in this Parliament.
The Government appear to adopt an attitude that is contrary to what was said in the debate in the House of Commons when Mr. McLeish gave the following reply:
"The all-party consultative steering group on the Scottish Parliament, which has been alluded to, agreed at its first meeting that arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny should be introduced. The exact form that that might take will be considered carefully in the coming months".—[Official Report, Commons; 19/5/98; col. 750.]
Why on earth are we now putting on the face of the Bill detail in the form of recommendations that simply form parliamentary procedure? While I believe it would be wrong to put Amendment No. 248 onto the face of the Bill, it appears to me that Clause 34 is badly drafted and is certainly in need of modification.
7 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I appreciate that in Amendments Nos. 248 and 249 noble Lords want to ensure that the parliament will have sufficient opportunities to consider and vote on Bills in front of it. I agree with that wholeheartedly. I also agree that it is important that the parliament is able to hear and consider the views of bodies interested in a Bill. However, the Government believe that it is not for us to prescribe the working practices of the parliament. We cannot accept these amendments because they would intrude too far into the legislative processes of the Scottish parliament. I am afraid that I am not disappointing the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, in saying that.
We consider that the Bill prescribes the three minimum stages of parliamentary scrutiny. This is a very minimal and generalised laying down of three stages of parliamentary scrutiny—not with capital letters. It is not unique to Westminster to have a general debate on a Bill with an opportunity for members to vote on its general principles, then consideration of, and an opportunity to vote on, the details of the Bill and a final stage at which the Bill may be passed or rejected. One could not get a much more generalised description of what most democratic legislatures go through when they are trying to get a Bill through. Of course, it does not mean that the detail of how then to proceed is in any way curtailed by what is in this Bill. Everyone has their own way.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, immediately saw Westminster and another place in the way that we have done that. But these are very generalised principles. It is very difficult to work out other ways that one could get a Bill through.
The Earl of Balfour: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness in what she is saying. But she did refer to three stages? Would the Scottish parliament be able to make its procedure enter four stages if it so wished?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Yes. I thank the noble Earl for making that point. If I said "stages" that certainly was an error; I did not mean stages, I meant
1404
three points. I will not go through the points again as I have already stated them. It does not mean that consideration of, and an opportunity to vote on, the details of the Bill needs to be at one stage. There could be as many stages as the Scottish parliament wanted to make it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the parliament from considering a Bill in draft form—before it was introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that he has been told that there are many variations on a theme. That is true. These principles are very generalised and very basic; and on that basic theme the Scottish parliament could produce any variation it wanted. All could be possible within the framework we have laid down. Working procedures for the parliament may well be different from those of this and another place. Personally, I rather believe that they will be. They may or may not be. That is for the Scottish parliament to decide.
We should not assume that Bills will be developed and introduced exactly as they are at Westminster. Ultimately, it will be for the parliament to decide on its own procedures, including arrangements for the scrutiny of legislation. These will be governed by its standing orders.
We have recognised that it would be unrealistic to expect the parliament to be in a position to put in place standing orders on day one of its operation. That is why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland established the all-party consultative steering group which has been mentioned. This group is chaired by my honourable friend Mr. Henry McLeish. This group will prepare a draft report recommending what the standing orders should cover. It is expected to report by the end of the year. Initial standing orders will be included in a transitional order to be made by the Secretary of State in good time to be in place from the outset. I remember giving an identical answer earlier in the Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, who is not in his place at the moment. It will then be for the parliament to develop and adapt the standing orders in due course, as it sees fit.
The consultative steering group has already begun to consider how the legislative process might be handled by the Scottish parliament. It is very likely to recommend a vigorous pre-legislative process so that proposals for legislation which come before the parliament have been subject to rigorous scrutiny and participation and that the effects of the proposed legislation have been well considered. The group is looking at the form in which legislation might be required to be presented and at the details of the various stages of scrutiny which the Bill should undergo in the parliament. The results of the group's consideration will inform the parliament's eventual decisions on the legislative process. I am sure that the parliament will want to establish a system of legislating which will deliver well thought out, quality legislation.
I can assure the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the parliament from including in its standing orders appropriate opportunity for detailed consideration of a Bill. For example, it

1405
could even include a Report stage in our terms if it considers that necessary. Personally, I would agree that there are advantages in allowing a second stage for dealing with the detail of a Bill, if only to allow the proposers of the Bill to respond to points raised in earlier debates. However, I believe that we should leave it to the parliament to decide about that.
The amendment would impose a very detailed and time-consuming process on the parliament which I think we should hesitate to impose. There are certainly interesting elements in the proposal and I agree that consultation with outside bodies will be a necessary feature of the parliament's work. However, I repeat yet again that we should leave it to the parliament to decide precisely how to do that. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: The noble Baroness has told us that the consultative steering committee will probably report at about the end of the year. What we do not know is whether its recommendations will have to be accepted by the Scottish parliament, quite apart from the fact that we do not know what its recommendations are going to be.
In scrutinising the Bill we have a duty to do all we can to make sure that legislation passed by the parliament which this Bill brings into being will receive thorough and adequate scrutiny. That is our duty to the people of Scotland.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As the noble Lady said, the group will prepare a draft report recommending what the standing orders should cover. It is expected to report by the end of the year. The initial standing orders will be included in a transitional order to be made by the Secretary of State in good time to be in place from the outset. But it will then be for the parliament to develop and adapt those in due course as it sees fit. It will be for the Scottish parliament then to deal with the standing orders.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I am baffled as to why we are discussing this matter. Perhaps I may refer back to what Mr. Henry McLeish said in another place and continue the quotation which my noble friend read. He said:
"It is useful to stress the work that is being done by the consultative steering group, which involves representatives of all parties, who are all making an excellent contribution. They are aware of the unicameral nature of the Scottish Parliament. They are keen to achieve consensus on legislation. Indeed, they are keen to improve radically on the Westminster model, which is important".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/5/98: col. 750.]
Therefore, although the noble twins Mackay had a very good run at doing this work for the committee, they have their representatives on it. I believe that they should put their thoughts to that committee.
By no stretch of the imagination could one consider Clause 34 to improve radically on the Westminster model. One might as well pass a provision in the Bill that the parliament shall be in favour of motherhood and apple pie; it has no real effect. I do not see why the
1406
clause is in the Bill. The standing orders for the Scottish parliament will be adopted by the Scottish parliament. We are well on the way to getting them through an all-party process; and I think we should leave it at that.
The Earl of Balfour: I was going purely and simply on what I read in the Bill. When I read Clause 34, I had the impression that the clause will give the parliament only one chance to amend a Bill. I am glad to have that impression corrected, but that is how I read the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate on the amendment. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and those who supported my idea. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, liked it but would not accept it. Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. My stages one and two could easily be achieved on the basis of a draft Bill. I think that that would be a good idea. But as my noble friends Lord Balfour and Lady Carnegy said, it is important that we have proper scrutiny of legislation.
The Minister spent half her time watering down Clause 34 and the other half trying to tell me that it did not mean what I think it means. I noted she said that Clause 34 does not go through three stages; it makes points. With all due respect, it does not make points. Clause 34(1)(c) states:
"Standing orders shall include provision for a final stage at which a Bill can be passed or rejected".
That implies that Clause 34(1)(a) and (b) were also stages.
We have three stages in place of the six stages in this Parliament. There is no getting away from that simple fact. It cannot be said that what is provided here is a minimum, generalised approach. It is in the legislation. If the Scottish parliament did not have standing orders which included those three things and someone were aggrieved, it could possibly find itself in court.
But the most ridiculous factor is this. It is not for us to prescribe working practices. While I shall withdraw my amendment, will the Government withdraw their prescription of what working practices should be? They are hoist with their own petard. If I am at fault because I am prescribing working practices, I should have thought that the Government were at fault. Clause 34 need only provide that, "Standing orders shall include provisions for the procedures to be followed for the passage of a Bill". We can then allow the consultative steering group to put forward its proposals and, after the parliament starts, it can amend them as it sees fit.
I have found the debate unsatisfactory. I am glad that I started it off because I hope that the Government, the people on the steering committee, and those who will be in the new parliament are at least listening to the point we are making: that in a unicameral parliament it would be a mistake—I think a serious mistake—to reflect, as does Clause 34(1), the procedures of the House of Commons, which has this House to back up and revise its legislation, and to give outside bodies a second bite at the cherry of campaigning and lobbying against a piece of legislation.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend sits down, one should get on the record that what is proposed in subsection (1) of the Bill does not fully represent even the procedures of the House of Commons. In the House of Commons there is a procedure very similar to that in subsection (1)(b) of my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I gather that there are now some new procedures in the House of Commons which are somewhat like those in subsection (1)(b), but the fact is that they are not used in every Bill. As I said earlier, I suspect that, as in this House, they are used by and large on Bills of no political controversy. It is the Bills of political controversy that most need good scrutiny and good provision.
However, as I indicated, for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the Government will reflect on their argument and will consider withdrawing Clause 34.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 249 not moved.]
7.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 99; Not-Contents, 83.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Grantchester, L.

Alli, L.

Gregson, L.

Amos, B.

Grenfell, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hardie, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Barnett, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L. [Teller.]

Berkeley, L.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blyth, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Borrie, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Islwyn, L.

Burlison, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jeger, B.

David, B.

Judd, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Levy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lockwood, B.

Desai, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Monkswell, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Nicol, B.

Gilbert, L.

Orme, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Goudie, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Puttnam, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

1408

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Rea, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Thornton, B.

Sewel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Uddin, B.

Simon, V.

Varley, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Whitty, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Aldington, L.

Ludford, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lyell, L.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Balfour, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Brentford, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cadman, L.

Minto, E.

Calverley, L.

Montrose, D.

Carlisle, E.

Mountevans, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Munster, E.

Chesham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Newby, L.

Coleraine, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Colwyn, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Dartmouth, E.

Razzall, L.

Denham, L.

Rees, L.

Dholakia, L.

Renton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dundonald, E.

Rowallan, L.

Effingham, E.

Russell, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Glasgow, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hampton, L.

Sempill, L.

Hamwee, B.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Hooson, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strange, B.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Hylton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Jopling, L.

Thurso, V.

Kingsland, L.

Tordoff, L.

Kintore, E.

Ullswater, V.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Weir, V.

Lawrence, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and clause agreed to accordingly.
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I beg to move that the House do now resume and that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.25 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Chesham): 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:

Landmines Act,

Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act,

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act,

City of Edinburgh (Guided Busways) Act,

Tamar Bridge Act.

Economic and Fiscal Strategy
7.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That this House approve the Government's assessment as set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 and Comprehensive Spending Review for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this debate is being held to satisfy Section 5 of the Maastricht Act. Parliament has to approve the government reports on economic policy that contain the information that is sent to the Commission or the Council for the purposes of Articles 103 and 104c of the Maastricht Treaty. The Act requires that Parliament approves an assessment of the medium-term economic and budgetary positions, including public investment expenditure as well as social, economic and environmental goals. These are the aspects of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Comprehensive Spending Review upon which I will focus.
This will be the second Section 5 debate this year. After the Financial Statement and Budget Report was published, a Section 5 debate was held in the House of Lords so that we could send the information in the Budget to the Commission. However, the public finance projections are now out of date. The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report and the Comprehensive Spending Review are a major statement on fiscal policy, setting out the Government's latest fiscal projections based on new spending plans. It is appropriate that these form the basis of submissions to the Council and the Commission. We must have Parliament's approval before we send information taken from these documents to fulfil our obligations under Articles 103 and 104c, the broad economic guidelines and excessive deficit procedure respectively.
The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report outlined a new regime in public spending control and the Comprehensive Spending Review set out new priorities for public spending and investment. This strategy combines prudent and stable public finances with investment and reform in public services.
The Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report also helps to pave the way for the introduction of resource accounting and budgeting, which represents a landmark change in the
1410
way that the Government undertake financial planning and reporting. The first set of resource accounts are on track to be published in 1999–2000. These will be accruals-based accounts similar to those prepared for private sector companies but with two additional features—a statement showing use of resources approved by Parliament, and a statement analysing spending by objective.
Resource accounting and budgeting will underpin the Government's golden rule by making a clear structural distinction between current and capital spending, which will no longer be treated as though they are equivalent economic categories. It will also lead to improvements in the efficiency of public spending and underpin the drive towards better stewardship of public assets so that they are used as productively as possible. Thus RAB is integral to the strategy of investment, reform and modernisation that underpins the Comprehensive Spending Review.
Within a stable fiscal and macroeconomic framework, the Government can fulfil their objectives of promoting growth and employment, enhancing opportunity and fairness, tackling social exclusion and providing an efficient and modern public sector.
The EFSR shows that public sector net borrowing is expected to fall from 1 per cent. of GDP in 1997–98 to zero in 2000–01 and net debt is projected to decline to below 40 per cent. of GDP over the Parliament. Nonetheless, net public sector investment is projected to rise from less than 1 per cent. of GDP in 1997–98 to stabilise at around 1½ per cent. of GDP per annum.
This public investment will allow the renewal and modernisation of the United Kingdom's infrastructure and public services by increasing the level of public investment within the fiscal rules. It will be used in the most cost-effective way, with departments having to set out in detail how the resources will deliver the Government's objectives, provide the best value for money, and ensure positive social returns.
The CSR and EFSR, especially the increase in public investment, show how the Government will tackle their social objectives. This investment will help the Government fulfil their manifesto commitment of reducing class sizes to 30 or less for children between five and seven. The past under-investment in council housing will be alleviated by extra investment of £3.6 billion.
In the year of its 50th birthday, the NHS is being allocated an extra £21 billion over the next three years. Spending in England will increase by an average 4.7 per cent. in real terms over this period. This will provide real improvements in services, including a reduction of 100,000 in the waiting list that we inherited.
The CSR will help us meet our environmental objectives. A doubling of resources for the revised home energy efficiency scheme, and an increase of 300 per cent. of resources for local authority public transport to tackle car congestion and pollution will help us to meet our legal obligations under the Kyoto Protocol to cut UK emissions of greenhouse gases by 12½ per cent. on 1990 levels by 2010.
Sending details about our economic policies set out in the EFSR and CSR to the Commission and the Council is not merely an obligation under the Maastricht Treaty. The Government are committed to the sharing of information. And we support this type of multilateral surveillance in different organisations such as the IMF and OECD.
Sharing information will help to promote the adoption of sound economic policies throughout the Community. Only if we play our full part in these discussions can we influence the way Europe solves its economic problems which will be particularly important at the launch of the single currency.
Our achievements during our presidency show what can be done by working closely with the other member states of the European Union. We have established a new European way for economic reform, examining how to improve labour markets, product markets and capital markets. We have begun to address the reforms necessary for successful enlargement to the east. In our presidency the single currency was successfully launched.
As your Lordships know, the Government have decided not to participate in the single currency at its launch in 1999. However, we want the single currency to be successful as we will be affected whether we participate or not. Most of our trade is with the EU, and our economic future is bound up with Europe. Sharing information will help ensure that the single currency is a success.
Approving this Motion will enable the UK to meet our treaty obligations, to provide information and to participate fully in the important process of multilateral surveillance and economic co-operation as provided for in Article 103 and 104c of the treaty. I hope that the House will support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House approve the Government's assessment as set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 and Comprehensive Spending Review for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, first, I should declare an interest to the House. I have the honour to be standing for my party in my home area of Yorkshire in the Euro elections next year. Of course, I doubt whether the electors have as strong an interest in the Government's assessment as set out in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1998 and Comprehensive Spending Review for the purposes of Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act as I have. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has ably demonstrated, this seemingly innocuous proposal addresses some of the key issues which face our country in the years to come: namely, the Maastricht criteria; our adherence to the criteria; cycle convergence; and the possibility of our entry into the euro. These are issues of great importance for the House, for the electors of Yorkshire as well as elsewhere, and I crave the indulgence of the House to address them for a few minutes.
1412
I should like to start from the proposition that it is a very tall order for a central bank to achieve the correct interest rate, however correctness is defined, for 11 countries with 11 differing economies. By way of illustration, Mr. Eddie George and his very able advisers at the Bank of England find it hard enough to come up with the right interest rate for only this economy in this country. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a further illustration. The reality is that the current level of interest rates in Britain is probably about right for, let us say, the housing market in SW1. But arguably—and I believe it—interest rates are much too high from the point of view of manufacturing industry in the North West, the Midlands and in Yorkshire.
The 11 countries joining the euro on day one have set themselves a massive task. I should like to make it clear—and in so doing I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—that we wish them well. We want the euro to work. It is in our national interest that the euro should work. However, confidence in the eventual success of the euro is hardly helped when one observes the way in which the politicians of continental Europe have systematically evaded treaty obligations and the Maastricht criteria have been comprehensively fudged as the British president stood by. That is why the fact of this submission to the European Communities has an almost Salvador Dali surrealist quality.
I wish to make the important point, which is hardly ever made, that the British economy is different both in cycle and in structure from the continental economies. It is different in cycle precisely because it is different in structure. I do not wish to impose too much on your Lordships' patience, but perhaps I may give four lightning examples of how our economy differs in structure from the continental economies. We have a bigger services sector; we have a much bigger financial services sector; we have a housing market financed almost entirely by variable mortgages as opposed to fixed-rate mortgages; and we are an oil exporter while continental Europe is not. I could continue. Our economy significantly mirrors the economic cycle of the United States. If one had to choose a country for Britain's economic cycle to mirror, the objective choice would have to be the world's largest, most dynamic, most job-generative economy; that of the United States.
Furthermore, the current exchange rate of the pound and our interest rates, to which I alluded earlier, are much more aligned with the dollar and interest rates in the United States than with the deutschmark and the current level of interest rates in continental Europe. How bizarre, therefore, that so many of the political establishment regard it as a desirable aim in itself, needing no logical justification, for Britain's economy to converge with the stagnant, high-employment economies of continental Europe. The material problem facing the 11 countries entering the euro in phase one is not the number of currencies but the number of unemployed. That is very largely because of high taxes, high costs and unnecessary regulation.
My final and most substantive point is that in the Thatcher/Major years, Britain painfully restructured and began to become competitive in the world economy. Until and unless the 11 follow that example, whatever

1413
the convergence may appear to be and whatever this government assessment may purport to give, it will be folly for this country to enter the euro.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, since he pointed in my direction at some point in his speech, perhaps he will answer a small question. When he talks about continental Europe, does he exclude Eire from membership of the European Union or does he look both ways?
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I should be delighted to answer a very large question from the noble Baroness, not just a little question, which she asks with her customary charm. I am conscious of imposing on the good will of the House. I could have listed all 11 countries, 10 of which are in continental Europe and one of which is not. Continental Europe is simply a shorthand term for all 11 countries. But on another occasion, if the noble Baroness is in the Chamber, I shall enumerate all 11 countries, mentioning Eire first.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I rise during the dinner hour to make my maiden speech on the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh about the Government's Economic and Fiscal Report and their Comprehensive Spending Review. I shall speak in support of the Government's actions in respect of those matters.
I was offered two main observations about your Lordships' House before being introduced last Tuesday. The first was that your Lordships' House is a friendly and extremely courteous place. I am pleased to say that I have found that to be so. The second observation was that your Lordships' House is a quiet place. Since I was introduced, it has certainly not been that. We have debated the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, the National Minimum Wage Bill, the Scotland Bill and the Commons amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill, which contained at least one issue of great interest to the press. I do not complain; I feel honoured.
As many of your Lordships will know, I cut my teeth in business. I run a large media company which I founded with two partners several years ago. I welcome the Government's stated economic objectives of,
"high and stable levels of growth and employment, and sustainable public services, built from a platform of long term stability".
As a businessman and company director, I can say that a stable economic environment helps long-term planning and avoids short-term decision-making. I strongly endorse the measures which the Government have outlined towards achieving those objectives, some of which have already been implemented, particularly as many of those measures have been standard practice in business for many years.
As your Lordships know, the process of reform outlined by the Chancellor of the Exchequer took place through a two-stage process. I should like to pay particular tribute to the Chancellor for his achievements in relation to those reforms and both his Budgets.
1414
First was the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, which was published on 11th June. That report set out the Government's four main objectives for fiscal and monetary reform: first, prudence and responsibility and the golden rule that over the cycle, current spending will be covered by revenues—for all business, that is an essential principle and for the business of government it is a good principle that is well heeded; secondly, redefining the role of government through spending priorities so that, where the Government should act, they do so vigorously and, where government interventions are unnecessary or restricted, they do not act at all; thirdly, not taking a dogmatic or ideological stance on publicly-owned assets but applying a new test to meet the public interest; and finally, investing for reform by linking departmental spending to the Government's modernisation and reform programme.
The report outlined also the underlying principles which underpin the Comprehensive Spending Review; namely, breaking the short-termist climate. Short-term decisions made by government or in a board room lead inevitably to long-term problems. I welcome the abolition of the annual spending round and its replacement with departmental plans and fixed budgets for three years. I welcome also the division between revenue and capital budgets, which for many companies has been standard practice for many years. I welcome also the promotion of new public/private partnerships to pay for the Government's investment programme. There are many people in the private sector who can help the Government to achieve their objectives while furthering their own commercial aims.
I welcome also the review's commitment to promoting opportunity and fairness and to providing efficient and modern public services. I also welcome the announcement of a substantial investment programme for our public services—£19 billion for education. Before the general election, the Prime Minister made clear that his top priority was education. As a board member of the Teacher Training Agency, the government organisation responsible for the recruitment and retention of teachers, I welcome the Government's commitment to education. Investment in education is not only an investment in our young people; it is an investment in the future of us all. Our young are our future. However, I accept that education is not only for the young.
Another area which I am particularly keen to highlight is investment in the arts, media and sport. I am also a member of the Government's Creative Industry Task Force. I welcome the extra £290 million announced last Friday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I pay particular tribute to the Secretary of State for securing that investment when so many before him have failed. All that extra investment in our public services is to be welcomed. The Government are to be congratulated.
Since this is my first opportunity to comment on the Government's economic policy, I should like, with the indulgence of your Lordships, to comment on one other reform. I welcome most strongly the Government's decision on independence for the Bank of England. Given that one's maiden speech is not supposed to be

1415
controversial, I think it particularly appropriate to mention independence for the Bank of England since that courageous decision took the politics out of monetary policy.
To conclude, I strongly support the Motion, for the reasons that I have outlined. I am gratified to have made my maiden speech. I can now get on with the job that I was appointed here to do. No, that is not to vote in the Lobby which the Government Chief Whip tells me to, although I shall certainly expect to, but my job is to call to account the executive, to scrutinise legislation and to contribute to the very high standard of debate in your Lordships' House.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alli, which I do most warmly. It was an excellent contribution. I can think of scarcely anything in it with which I disagree. That means that it must pass the standard test of non-controversiality, although one must always read the small print nowadays to work out exactly what is controversial. That is not the same as it used to be. The noble Lord speaks with great authority on these matters. He will be a huge asset to our debates. As he rightly said, the issues that we are discussing this evening in the two government documents—the Economic and Fiscal Report and the Comprehensive Spending Review—are matters which have been common practice in business almost forever. Some of us have been campaigning over many decades to see those perfectly sensible ideas incorporated, so far as possible, in the vastly more complex area of government.
Therefore. I repeat my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord. What I say to him is not just the natural form of words, although, as he will discover, everyone is quite uncannily polite to each other in this place most of the time. He has spoken a lot of excellent good sense.
I cannot resist commenting that it is a little odd that we should find ourselves debating such gigantic strategic issues in the dinner hour and not in "prime time", as in the world of television scheduling. I do not quite understand why. However, it is one of the features and consequences of the Maastricht Treaty that the Government have to gain the approval of both Houses for these proposals. I suppose that that is a small mercy and one of the better outcomes of the much-criticised and, in my view, deeply flawed Maastricht Treaty. It is very hard to cover these colossal issues in a few minutes. My remarks will be directed mainly to the technicalities of trying to lock in public spending for some years ahead and create what is called "a platform of stability", a "tough new regime", or all the other nice phrases with which one could not disagree. Indeed, they are like motherhood: they are excellent aspirations.
However, having said all that, I must strike a critical note. If one examines all the statements in the two documents, while the aspirations are excellent there is, in my book, a slightly old-fashioned tone about the whole approach and some signs of inexperience or, shall we say, total unawareness of what has happened in the past. This is not the first time that government have
1416
attempted to cover this ground and produce such solutions to meet the ambitions which businessmen share by trying to bring more certainty into an uncertain world.
The first criticism that I have to make is that extrapolating from the recent past is at the best of times a dangerous business, as indeed is assuming that things will always go on in the future as they have in the past. We must think of our economy operating in a global and not just a European context. It is operating under global forces which are very complex and very volatile. One can safely say, with no more controversy than that contained in the excellent maiden speech that we have just heard, that there never was a more dangerous time to assume that what went on before will go neatly on in a straight line into the future. It is never more likely that one will draw the wrong conclusions than if one attempts that sort of extrapolation and concludes that, because the economy has grown at such a rate during the past two or three years, it will carry on in exactly the same way.
The general argument against that kind of approach and that kind of economic modelling is now very strong and it arises from the globalisation of the economy. The predictability that economists used to need to make those models and make such assumptions and projections is just not there any more. Indeed, not even a market can absorb the vast complexity and quantity of information in the global economy in order to make safe judgments. Certainly planners in a national economy cannot do so. That really explains why no models are safe and why public interest in all this modelling—for example, the Swedish, the Japanese, the German, the French and all the Anglo-Saxon models—has declined and the credibility of economists (of whom I used to be one) has also slid down to zero. Economists are really not able to make sense of these conditions in the global economy. People sense that, when they try to predict such outcomes for even a few years ahead, they are not really on very sound ground.
That is one reason why I would question whether this is the right time to start locking in public expenditure plans for three years ahead as a government, however much businessmen may want it and however sensible it may sound. My second reason is more immediate; namely, the Asian turmoil. I know that there is a fashion for saying that it is all right here in Western Europe and in the transatlantic area—in other words: "We are all right as regards the Asian turmoil. After all, we don't export very much to Asia when all is said and done and, anyway, they are getting themselves straight again". That is a total and complete underestimate of what is happening in both the South-East Asian economies and on the Pacific Rim.
I have tried not to bore the House, but I did suggest to your Lordships some months ago—in fact, well before Christmas—that the Asian turmoil had only just begun; that it would get worse and would last for many years. I believe that more strongly today. Indeed, we are just about to enter a new and more horrific round of instability in the Asian economies which will have a far greater effect on the Western economies and on the British economy than mere export or import figures may

1417
suggest. The yen will go down; the Chinese bubble which, in a way, is as bad as the Japanese bubble, will burst. The Chinese economy will get into increasing difficulties and be dragged down. There will be political difficulties there, which I believe will undermine the Hong Kong situation. All the economies struggling to get off the floor, without success at the moment—like Malaysia and Indonesia, which is on the verge of civil collapse—will fall back into the quagmire out of which they have been trying to struggle.
Those developments will have colossal effects on our GDP projections; indeed, much greater than people realise. It will not only be a question of no export markets because they are already shrinking, as the poor Chinese are finding as their markets wither away; at the same time, there will be a considerable amount of cheaper imports coming in from Asia, although there is a constraint, in that many of the excellent, competitive Asian firms cannot get export finance or working capital at present. However, that may change.
The flow of capital and the savings coming in from Asia will wither, as has already begun to happen. However, more than that, investment and growth are about confidence and the sort of psychology of the promise and possibilities ahead. The Eastern promise has evaporated. The whole glittering hope of the past 10 years of growth and investment—in other words, the hope that, at the end of the corridor, even if it had risks, there was this shining area of the new Asia which could produce colossal returns for the more adventurous and those not too averse to risk-taking has gone. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that what goes down must come up?
Lord Howell of Guildford: Yes, my Lords, but when? We are talking about timing and about a situation in which the Government of this country have tried in response to perfectly legitimate business interests—the kind that we have just heard about—to plan three years ahead. Let us suppose that what goes down comes up in 10 years. Let us suppose that what went down in Japan in 1989, and has not yet begun to come up eight years later, has another six years to go. I believe that timing is everything. Those are some of the reasons why I believe that the three-year plan is well meaning but full of dangers. It may be simple in business, but it is very complicated in government.
In this short debate I have only one other point to make about the dangers of extrapolation and in support of my, I hope not too dismissive, comment about the slightly old-fashioned nature of the documentation. The claim in the documents is that new forms of performance control are to be installed to ensure that, even if the world remains uncertain, public expenditure plans will somehow remain on the railway tracks. A great deal is made of the fact that this is a tremendous break with the past—a tough new regime—and that it has never been tried before. Indeed, I believe that it actually says somewhere in one of the documents that nothing like this has happened since 1961. I find the
1418
latter worrying because it is not true. It has obviously been written by people who either have very short memories or who are perhaps rather young. There is no criticism of that, except that, if you are not fully informed about the past because you did not live through it, it sometimes pays to read the history books.
All this has been tried before. In 1970, the government of the day learned from the American programming, planning and budgeting systems (PPBS) and decided to instal throughout Whitehall a gigantic system of programme analysis and review with precisely the intention of forward planning expenditures in the spending departments so as to remove some of the uncertainties. The same problems that damaged that cause then, and eventually undermined it, are still extant today. I hope that those who are carrying out this planing and devising these new ideas in the Treasury here in London are at least aware of some of the snags. However, I must say that the document shows little sign of awareness that they are treading a very dangerous path and one full of traps.
When we installed programme analysis and review in the early 1970s, which was intended to deliver performance in return for expenditure allocations by the Treasury and to secure analysis by outputs rather than inputs—in other words what we were trying to achieve rather than the resources needed to achieve it; for example, not how many paperclips you had been using but how many were needed and why they were needed at all—we did so with very high hopes. We were full of good intentions; but the project failed. Why did it fail? It failed because it became absolutely impossible in the political milieu, unlike the business milieu, to analyse how to define the outputs. Was an output really just a question of how many more houses were built or how many more miles of road were built? Or was an output some political achievement, some gain in the political and social sphere? Such gains are legitimate for governments and yet cannot be measured as outputs as businessmen would. We rapidly got into a quagmire of disputes in those days on how you define the outputs and whether they are just managerial or political as well.
The second difficulty we ran into—and these papers run straight into it again—was that of defining what is capital and what is current spending. A great deal is made in these papers of the golden rule. It is proclaimed as a gigantic new insight, something that has sprung up from the brow of some Treasury guru or even from the Chancellor himself.
We have all been thinking about the golden rule for four decades. Everyone has been saying, "Why can't the Government somehow define capital and current spending, just cover the capital spending with borrowing and never borrow for current spending?" That sounds simple common sense to a businessman. However, I have to say to your Lordships that in the government sphere every aspect of that proposition is under constant and continuous dispute. No one will ever agree on what are the capital spending items and what is current spending. Is capital spending that goes wrong and does not produce a return, current or is it capital? Nobody knows.

1419
The situation has been made worse by the attractive device—but it is pure "spin doctoring"—of calling all spending investment, or nearly all public spending, investment. Of course it is not; a great deal of it is consumption. Nobody has ever managed to establish whether even issues like building hospitals or army barracks are capital spending and investment, or current spending. That debate will go on and will drive a coach and horses straight through this golden rule which is paraded as such a virtue. That is really all I wish to say.
I leave aside the other points that have been made in another place and are fair game. So far, the hope that one could reduce part of the welfare budget to pay for other excellent things such as education does not seem to have worked too well. The Minister concerned seems to have walked out on the whole project, which is a pity.
I leave aside the reflection that the public sector unions, once they see that there is talk about locking in and money certainly coming, will say, "Let's have substantial wage increases to overcome the disparities with other earnings in the private sector". I am quite sure that we shall see enormous erosion of the benefits of this public spending—even if it can be sustained and even if the GDP projections are right—by union pressures.
The real hazard is that we are now at the classic point of the trade cycle where deterioration begins. It is perfectly normal that it should, and the economy will slow and probably shrink over the next two years. That is even if we did not have the Asian turmoil, which, to my mind, will make it certain. The trade cycle is deteriorating, revenues will be lower than the estimates in these books and public spending will be higher. That is what happens when the economy slows down. It is not just a question of the revenues falling away; all the social expenditures increase, so the gap widens at a geometric pace. The platform of stability which we all hope for, and which the noble Lord as a businessman of authority has just spoken about, will turn out to be a platform made of quivering jelly.
I believe that if the Chancellor and some of his advisers had the kind of business experience of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others, they would realise that it is not that simple. Although these are good aspirations, it is dangerous to raise hopes too high for things that cannot in practice be achieved.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I intervene briefly in what is rather inelegantly known in your Lordships' House as "the gap". Many of the issues which might otherwise have been appropriate to comment on in relation to the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report or the other major public expenditure strategy reviews are perhaps more appropriately made tomorrow when the House will have the opportunity of debating the Finance Bill, rather unusually, I understand, on a Wednesday. For the last three years, at least, it has been on a Friday. So I hope the House will understand if I do not go into any great detail.
1420
I should like, first of all, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alli. We shall look forward with great interest to his expert comments on various aspects, particularly of the micro-economic situation, in the future.
I hope my noble friends will forgive me if I do not comment on either of their extremely cogent and knowledgeable speeches. I should like to put a couple of simple questions to the Minister, who rightly pointed out that this matter is before the House in relation to the commitments under the Maastricht Treaty and in particular to Articles 103 and 104.
The object of the exercise is, in effect, to reassure our Community partners that all is well in the British economy, in particular with regard to public borrowing. In that context, it seems to me to be appropriate that one should consider carefully what is in the figures and particularly, perhaps, to enclose with the covering letter, which presumably is written with these documents, a health warning.
I had occasion on 14th July to ask the noble Lord who is due to reply to this debate whether or not the extraordinary use of the so-called "accounting adjustment" had the approval of the Office for National Statistics. He said that its views had been taken into account. However, my understanding is that it does not approve of the way in which something like £5 billion of expenditure on social security—in particular the working families tax credit—suddenly disappears into a black hole of the accounting adjustment. In total, I think that something like £15 billion is disappearing into it. That is not merely a margin of error; that is really quite important.
Can we have an assurance that if it is indeed the case that the Office for National Statistics does not like the way the figures are presented, at least our European Community colleagues will have that drawn to their attention?
The other relevant point is that the documents seek to assure our community partners and other members of the European Union that the level of borrowing, and so on, is appropriate and not something about which we should be concerned. The Minister provided a particular set of statistics. But he also said that we are debating these matters this evening—they have been debated once before—because the figures have been overtaken by events; the figures are out of date. He can certainly say that again. There has been a very significant change.
At the time when the figures were last produced we were told in the Budget Red Book, for example, that there would be a budget surplus over the period covered by the Red Book. Is it not the case that this is no longer so? If that is so, surely the Chancellor, at least, ought not to be satisfied with the way in which the public finances are going.
Secondly, we were told at that time—and presumably that is what the House debated in that context—about a reduction in national debt. My understanding is that, again, that will not be the case. The figures, as the Minister has rightly said, are out of date. Thirdly, we were told that there would be a reduction in the percentage of national income taken by the state.

1421
I understand that in many ways the figures which the Minister quoted may well give our friends elsewhere in Europe a feeling that all is well. But surely it cannot be the case that the Chancellor is as happy with the situation now as he was at the time when the House last debated the matter. That is surely a matter of considerable concern.
I hope therefore that on each of these two points which I have made we can have a response from the Minister. I shall certainly look forward to going into the matter in greater detail tomorrow, should I have the opportunity.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on his excellent maiden speech. I know that in only 10 days in this House he has had the opportunity of seeing it at its worst, at its least generous. But I am pleased that he has also experienced its more customary generosity of spirit. I have to say that when his appointment was announced I felt a slight twinge of jealousy. I believe that until he was appointed I was the youngest Life Peer in your Lordships' House. I rather enjoyed this completely meritless distinction. However, I have enjoyed it only for a few months. We on these Benches warmly welcome the noble Lord to our debates and look forward to hearing him speak regularly in the future.
The debate this evening is really about the medium-term prospects for the British economy. In our view the Government have quite rightly placed great importance on moving from the boom and bust approach towards a more stable and sustainable economic environment. The Government have undertaken a range of measures which have moved us in that direction. I refer to the operational independence of the Bank of England, the institution of the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule, and the code of fiscal stability. All these measures are welcome, as indeed is the Government's more positive attitude towards Britain's EU membership.
However, we believe there are two areas where more needs to be done. The first relates to environmental goals in relation to sustainable growth, which is still very much in the embryonic process. The documents that we are discussing tonight refer to the ongoing work to produce environmental accounts and indicators and to produce a sustainable development strategy before the end of the year. In our view such a strategy is long overdue. I agree with the conclusion of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee that, reviewing the Government's leadership as a whole, there appears to be some failure to grasp the overarching nature of sustainable development and apply it.
The value of such a strategy is that it will not only give us a much better assessment than the current accounting conventions of the environmental sustainability of economic performance, but it will also help decide on medium-term taxation priorities. We on these Benches have for some time advocated shifting the balance of taxation towards environmental "bads" and
1422
away from employment. Having a more credible set of environmental indicators will assist in this process. I welcome anything that the Minister can say about the likely timing of the publication of that sustainable development strategy.
The second area where we believe further action is needed relates to the exchange rate and EMU membership. It will come as no surprise to the House to learn that. After inflation the one variable which has caused British governments most grief in the past 30 years is the exchange rate. It continues to do so today. Since the equivalent debate last year, the large majority of our EU partners have committed themselves to joining EMU at the outset for the stability it will bring in the exchange rate with their principal trading partners. We, along with all our EU trading partners, trade about 60 per cent. of our goods intra-Community. There may be differences but that single vital fact remains at the heart of our trading position. This is of crucial importance in looking to our medium-term prosperity.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I submit that the fact of greater importance is that our cycle mirrors that of the United States and not the continental economies. I suggest that the noble Lord might address that point.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in looking at the progress of economic variables over any time period, rather too much is often made of the past than of what is desirable in the future, or indeed what is likely to happen in the future. If one had said to the noble Earl last year that there would be so many EU member states joining the single currency at the outset, I am almost certain he would have said that was impossible. If he had looked at the debt ratios of member states and their inflation performance, I think he would have said that the likelihood of 11 being able to get within a mile of joining was negligible. However, economies change. The nature of our trade has changed fundamentally since we joined the EU. Simply to project forward from the past is a misleading approach to economic analysis.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I bring to the noble Lord's attention the fact that the whole point about the debt ratios is that they were systematically fudged.
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is common practice in this country that when another EU member state does something which one did not expect it to do, but which is in itself desirable, instead of saying, "There is joy in the sinner that repenteth", one may say that he has not repented at all and he is really on the bottle behind the arras. The assumption that all this is fudged is, in my view, a gross exaggeration.
Lord Desai: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the markets have judged that, whatever the fudging, they value the debt in such a way that there is a convergence in the bond yields across the 11 countries? That is a true test of convergence.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree with his comments. I think that what the

1423
markets are doing is judging the extent to which those governments who have made those strides—which, fudge or not, have been extremely painful in some cases—have shown a commitment to the kind of fiscal rectitude which underpins the Maastricht agreement. The markets are judging that.
I return to the position in the United Kingdom. I think that, given the uncertainty with which the Government are approaching this issue, it is hardly surprising that many firms in the United Kingdom are still unprepared for EMU. Whatever happens with regard to current policy, we shall not join for at least four to five years. We obviously welcome attempts by the Government to disseminate information about the euro, but we hope that when we have this debate again in a year's time the Government will have made real progress in telling us how they intend to move from the current unsatisfactory position towards a clear process and timetable of entry.
I have talked about two areas where I believe that more action is needed on the part of the Government. However, the one area of major uncertainty which in a sense hangs over all our economic debates is whether the Government will hit their targets on inflation and borrowing. The Chancellor is gambling that the level of inflation will hit his target, even though for the first two years of this Government it will clearly overshoot that target. Of course higher inflation would wipe out much of the big increases promised by the Chancellor in real terms for health and education and leave the Government with a record on public services which will be significantly worse than that of the previous government, and certainly will not correspond with the impression that the Chancellor tried to portray last week.
Borrowing depends crucially on growth rates which, according to the Government's projections, already look decidedly optimistic. By setting firm spending plans for the next three financial years, which in reality takes us to March 2002—a long way ahead on any view—the Government are committing themselves far into the economic future. The degree of uncertainty in forecasting is acknowledged in the Government's own economic and fiscal strategy report which states that,
"over the past 10 years, the average absolute error for year ahead forecasts of the PSBR was 0.9 per cent. of GDP. Forecasts further ahead were considerably less accurate".
The report argues that by adopting a prudent approach in relation to the golden rule and the level of public debt, such errors should not accumulate to the point where they constitute a threat to the fiscal position. I hope very much that the Treasury is right. But even within a matter of weeks of the production of the report, the projections are already looking rather shaky. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggested last week, for example, that a fall in profits and slower than predicted economic growth could lead to a deficit on the current balance which would drive a coach and horses through the golden rule. Research undertaken by the House of Commons' Library for my colleagues in another place also shows the vulnerability of the Government's plans to the economic cycle. A
1424
slowdown in the economy of the scale of the early 1990s, for example, would send public borrowing back to the £50 billion per year level.
No one should take any pleasure from such gloomy forecasts. We certainly hope that they do not become a reality. We do, however, believe that the Chancellor has made life unnecessarily difficult for himself by failing to tighten fiscal policy on the consumer last year, by having a negligible contingency reserve—much lower than his predecessors—and by ruling out as a matter of principle any possibility of income tax increases during the lifetime of this Parliament, whatever happens to the economy. His scope for manoeuvre is now tightly circumscribed and his ability to stick to the golden rule is thrown into question by his own actions.
We shall debate the Government's fiscal stance in more detail tomorrow in our debates on the Finance Bill and therefore I do not propose to detain the House any longer this evening. However, as I have made clear, we have concerns about the Government's economic assessment and we shall watch with great interest to see the extent to which it is realised in the coming months.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I wish to add my tribute to my noble friend Lord Alli. He made a most impressive maiden speech. He is only starting on his business and political life. I spent 40 years in business with nothing like his financial success. I recognised in his remarks the kernel of business success, and I admire it without having any hope whatever at my stage in life of emulating it. I am grateful to my noble friend for the contribution he made to our debate.
The noble Earl, Lord Dartmouth, made a very effective pre-election speech in his campaign for the European Parliament. I hope that he will use Hansard appropriately in his election material next year. I am sure that he will. I was very interested in the noble Earl's remarks about our relationship with Europe and the United States. It occurs to me to ask a rather naïve question. If the noble Earl seriously thinks that in 1998 or 1999 we should be tying our economy to the dollar rather than the euro, there are a large number of questions to be asked to which he did not refer. If that had been possible, perhaps it should have been achieved a long time ago.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, my point is that, de facto, it is already. In order to tie it to the euro, the economy has to be put in a straitjacket, as it was during the years when Britain was in the ERM.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I admire the noble Earl's adherence to the tenets of his party. I do not think that he will find much reassurance from business or economists in relation to such a policy. You do not have to like it but it is the case that our economy and our fiscal and monetary policies are closely linked

1425
to Europe, and will be more closely linked. Whether or not we join EMU, it will be there. The noble Earl will have some difficulty next year in his election campaign in the face of a single currency which works, as I believe it will.
My noble friend Lord Alli made reference in his excellent maiden speech to the fact that the Chancellor has abjured short-term decision-making. As one who lived for 30 years running a company, for most of the time not knowing where the wages bill would come from three months hence, I very much appreciate the force of his remarks. It is possible—indeed, most governments have done so—to panic at short-term changes in economic indicators. One of the reasons why we delegated decisions about short-term interest rates to the Bank of England was the danger of the kind of panic that is perfectly possible when those who are assiduous, as some of us are, in reading financial and economic comments in the broadsheet press are too inclined to listen to the wise men or women and pay attention to what they say. One of the great things about the British people is that, on the whole, they listen to the wise men, pay due obeisance to them, and then go away and do something else. That is what I hope we shall do. I hope that we shall not respond to day-to-day pressure. It is certainly my impression that the Chancellor has a steely determination to adhere to long-term policies and that he will not be swept aside by short-term pressures.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, in a typically thoughtful speech, gave a welcome for which I am most grateful to the introduction of accounting practices in government. As he said, they have been common practice in business for many years. The noble Lord was right to say that it is a dangerous time to assume that we can extrapolate from the past to the future. However, if the noble Lord does not mind my saying so, when has there been a time when it was not dangerous to do so? It has always been the case that past experience cannot be taken as a guide to the future. If the noble Lord is asking for predictability in economic policy, he is asking the impossible. There is no such thing.
I detected in the noble Lord's resistance to three-year budgeting, which we are determined to introduce and shall be introducing, a Civil Service attitude; namely, he does not like the commitment we are making to the medium-term or longer term future, and he is afraid that there might be changes which would make our predictions over a three-year period unsustainable. That may be the case. We may be wrong about all sorts of things. But the public service, like private business, needs a degree of security in relation to the way in which it will be treated by government. What we have achieved by moving towards research accounting and budgeting is exactly that degree of security. There may be marginal adjustments to be made, and there will be possibilities for such adjustments. But proper investment decisions are not made on a 12-month basis. Anyone who has ever been in business knows that that is the case.
1426
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, seemed to back up the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I was disappointed to hear that from the Liberal Democrats. I thought that they were just that much more adventurous in relation to public finance policy. The noble Lord quoted the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. I read the NIESR comments very carefully. Although they differ marginally from our forecasts, on the whole they come to the conclusion that, even if the result is a deficit in GDP of 1 per cent. rather than the break-even which is involved in the forecast, none of that affects the validity of our fiscal projections and therefore none of it affects the validity of our expenditure projections. There have been perhaps 45 independent economic forecasters' predictions of the future of the various indicators in the economy. I do not claim that the Government are the most cautious. That would be absurd. However, I am certainly claiming that we are in line with the general trend of independent economic forecasting and that therefore our predictions for growth, public expenditure and revenue are prudent and cautious rather than what the most pessimistic, doom-laden predictions would lead us to expect.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, also referred to the difficulty of distinguishing between capital and current spending. That is a counsel of despair. It has existed for something like 50 years, during which the Treasury insisted—it does not now insist—that £1 of revenue plus £1 of capital equals £2. Of course there are difficulties at the margin. But the determination to make that distinction—which is made year by year, week by week and day by day by every public business—is an essential determination. I do not for a moment resile from our determination to do that. If from time to time we get the difficulties of definition wrong, the independent Office for National Statistics is there to put us right. It will simply not allow us to say, for example, that expenditure on skills training is an investment. Although we all know that in one sense it is, we are not allowed to count it in the accounts as an investment; we have to include it as current expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made a brief warning intervention and I know that he will speak at greater length and to equal effect tomorrow. But he talked as if the objective of the exercise were to reassure our European partners about the economy. It is no such thing. In this debate and in the submission we shall make to our European partners, our intention is to share information about our economy with those who share information with us. That in turn will be valid. If it is called "multilateral surveillance" so be it. I do not care for the long words, but it is legitimate. We are not trying to put anything over on our European partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked about accounting adjustments and gave warning that he would raise the matter tomorrow, so perhaps I should deal with it tomorrow. The Government have provided the Treasury Select Committee in another place with further detail on the category of accounting and other adjustments, to be published in due course as part of the Treasury Committee's report.

1427
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about the timing of the sustainable—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as that will not be published until after tomorrow, perhaps the noble Lord could put a copy in the Library.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when it is available for publication of course it will be available in the Library. A personal copy with my signature will be sent to the noble Lord and all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about the timing of the sustainable development strategy. That interesting report—
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I apologise for intervening again. The point is that we need to know, either tonight or tomorrow, whether or not the figures in the accounting adjustment which are large are approved by the Office for National Statistics to which I referred. We welcome the answer, "Oh well, it will eventually appear in the report of the Treasury Committee" but it does not help us at all as regards tomorrow. If it is not possible to publish it because it is still confidential to the committee, can the Minister at least ensure that we are made aware of whether it approves of what is done?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall respond to the noble Lord when he makes the point tomorrow, to the fullest extent possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, rightly referred to environmental issues because they are referred to in Section 5 of the Maastricht Act. If the noble Lord turns to page 8 of the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report, he will see that there is specific recognition of environmental issues in line with our obligations under the Maastricht Act. We shall publish a sustainable development strategy later this year.
I suspect that behind these more specific comments lies a general fear that the economic situation is deteriorating and that our projections for public expenditure and revenue will not be realised. We have examined our projections against all the possible alternative objections, the alternative ways of running the Treasury model. We are convinced that what we have done has been cautious, rather than adventurous. If there is any risk it is the risk that we have underestimated revenue and overestimated expenditure, rather than the reverse. The average of the Treasury's latest survey of independent forecasters shows growth expected to be 2.2 per cent. in 1998 and 1.7 per cent. in 1999. The Government's fiscal projections based on growth of 2 per cent. in 1998 and 1¾ per cent. in 1999 therefore seem to us entirely reasonable.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, says about the dangers from the potential collapse in Asia and I do not underestimate the seriousness of it for us. It is essential that the Japanese economic management should take control of its economy and should revive demand in a way that has been discussed in your Lordships' House within the past few days. It is true that the effect of any default in the Japanese economy on Asian economies generally would be serious on
1428
economies in this country. I can only say to the noble Lord that we have taken serious account of it in the way in which we have made our projections for the future. We have not allowed for a complete meltdown in the world economy, but we have allowed for everything that it is reasonable and proper for us to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about sustainable convergence which provoked a response from my noble friend Lord Desai. My noble friend rightly pointed out that if the markets had not rejected the Government's thinking, then perhaps for capitalists there is no good reason to suppose that we have got things wildly wrong. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Desai would extrapolate his comments for all aspects of economic policy. I do not think he would, but he had a valid point because the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report was published more than a month ago. It affected the decisions of the Monetary Policy Committee last month and it is clear that our most important decisions, about the way in which we handle, understand and present our public accounts, have been subjected to the scrutiny of the Monetary Policy Committee and of the markets. They have been supported both by the MPC and by the markets.
We have been entirely open about our economic and fiscal strategies on the basis that we are saying realistically and soberly to the European Community, to the Commission and the Council, what is our understanding of the economic situation in this country. I commend the Motion standing in my name.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Bill
8.37 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 35 [Acts of Union]:
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I momentarily seek to oppose Clause 35. First, I wish to set down my disappointment about the state of the treaty between Scotland and England which in practice we are in the process of modifying. Half the treaty's articles are abandoned and it cannot be said to be a working document any longer.
This failure to keep the treaty up to date leads me to call for its renewal. A new treaty would be constitutionally healthy in a diverse and voluntary multi-national state. Not to describe the United Kingdom as such would be to accept the fact of annexation.
Secondly, I am concerned that the two Acts mentioned in Clause 35 are both largely not in force. Thirdly, the Union with England Act, passed in the Scottish Parliament in 1707, is not available on the Lexis computer system, whereas the Union with

1429
Scotland Act is. If the Union is as important as I keep being told it is, then this foundation Act should be electronically recorded and widely available.
Fourthly, I must say to the traditional Unionists that at present they are failing to explain to people in Scotland the benefits of the Union. This is exemplified by the failure to teach in schools the formation and purpose of the United Kingdom and its constitution. For example, out on the streets the treaties of 1536, 1706, 1800 and 1921 mean little, if anything at all.
I said that I shall not delay the Committee for long, and I shall not. I conclude with the statement that that all needs to be remedied before Clause 35 can be seen as a useful clause of the Bill.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may just make clear what is the effect and intention of Clause 35. The Government may be held responsible for many things, from natural calamities to the weather and the awful summer we are having, but I do not believe that we can be held responsible for which Acts and treaties appear on Lexis.
The intention behind Clause 35 is to make it clear that the provisions of the Bill should be given effect notwithstanding anything in the Acts of Union. That sends a clear signal that the provisions in the Bill are to take priority in the event that it may be alleged that there are inconsistencies. The Government are satisfied that there are none. That will reduce the potential for any uncertainty or legal challenge in the future.
I am aware of cases that have been brought in the past based on the Act of Union, not with great success. This provision will remove that possibility. That is the simple, straightforward reason for including the clause in the Bill. I do not accept the invitation from the noble Earl to go down the road of discussing whether or not we need a new treaty. I leave that to others.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can intervene briefly and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, a question. Does that mean that the two Acts of Union will not be amended by this Bill and that, therefore, when I look at Statutes in Force, I will not find them with the amendments, deletions or whatever that are consequential on this Bill?
Lord Sewel: Let me repeat what I said. The provisions in this Bill are to take priority in the event that it is alleged that there are any inconsistencies between this Bill and the Acts of Union. I said that the Government are satisfied that there are none.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Does that answer mean that no changes will be made to the Acts of Union and Statutes in Force? It is a simple question and I should have thought it deserved a simple answer.
Lord Sewel: I gave the noble Lord a simple answer. There is a difference between a simple answer and an abrupt and abbreviated answer. I hope the noble Lord will accept that I answered his question.
Clause 35 agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 249A:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—

COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF EUROPEAN UNION: ACCOUNTABILITY TO PARLIAMENT
(" .—(1) Before any Minister of the Crown attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Union at which consideration is to be given to any issue related to devolved matters, the Secretary of State shall consult the Parliament and seek its views on the issue.
(2) Following a meeting of the Council of Ministers at which any issue related to a devolved matter has been discussed, the Secretary of State shall forthwith make a report to the Parliament on the substance and the outcome of the meeting and shall respond to any questions that members of the Parliament may put to him.").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment we return again to the subject of the relationship between the Scottish parliament and indeed Scotland, and the Council of Ministers of the European Union. We discussed this rather late on the night of the fourth day of Committee when we debated the relationship between the Scottish parliament and the executive and the European Union. As far as I can gather, the Government have no clear view as to how that relationship will be developed, other than that it will be via the UK Government and, in some mysterious way of which I am not entirely sure, the Scottish executive will play a part in the UK government delegations.
On the night of the fourth day—this becomes a little like Genesis—I discussed my amendment specifically in relation to agriculture and fisheries. I do not want to repeat what I said then, though I do not believe that the answer I received was in the least satisfactory. However, in the light of the answer I received, I have tried, in Amendment No. 249A, to firm up the arrangement; to build a bridge between the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive and the European Union and its Council of Ministers and make that bridge the Secretary of State. In fact I mean the Secretary of State for Scotland though, in the conventional manner, I did not specify that. If it were related to agriculture or fisheries matters, it could be the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But I am not specifying that.
I am looking at the reality, which is that members of the Scottish executive will not be able to attend the Council of Ministers and lead and speak for the United Kingdom. I am still left with the two examples sent to me by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, after our debates on the Government of Wales Bill. They were supposed to satisfy me as to the attendance of ministers of governments—not the member states' governments—at meetings of the Council of Ministers. At the risk of being accused of repetition, I should like to read out the important parts of the letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I asked him to give examples of where members of German Länder or provisional governments elsewhere in Europe, like Spain, actually attended the Council of Ministers and

1431
spoke on behalf of their countries on subjects like agriculture and fisheries where serious decisions are made and policies taken. The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said this:
"The more obvious instances which have been identified relate to the German Länder. Because of its particular expertise, Bavaria, for example, has represented the German government at EU meetings where cultural issues have been the main agenda item. Similarly, members of the Catalan autonomous government have attended meetings on behalf of the Spanish, where language issues were under consideration. I trust this information goes some way to removing your scepticism that in practice it would not be possible for an assembly member to be part of a UK government delegation, nor indeed to lead such a delegation, if that was the view reached by the UK government".—[Official Report, 1/7/98; col. 736.]
I am afraid my scepticism remains. I see that there may be some issues in a European Union meeting which are specifically Scottish and the UK Government may decide to send a minister from the Scottish executive. But the issues that worry me do not relate to culture and language where no hard policy decisions are taken which are binding on all the member states of the European Union. My concerns relate more to agriculture, fisheries, transport, Department of Trade and Industry matters, assisted area status and all those subjects which are important to the economic life of our country. Those are the issues that bother me and on those issues it is almost inconceivable—I go further; it is inconceivable—that there will be a policy item for a whole Council of Ministers meeting which will be only of relevance to Scotland and not relevant to any other part of the United Kingdom.
I am afraid, therefore, that I am as unconvinced as I have ever been about these rather vague statements that Scottish ministers, members of the Scottish executive, will somehow be able to play a full part as though Scotland were a member state of the European Union in meetings of the Council of Ministers and the peripheral meetings which are so important. I have therefore devised Amendment No. 249A. I accept that is not the most satisfactory arrangement but, short of reserving some major issues to the United Kingdom Parliament, which I know the Government will not do, my amendment makes the Secretary of State the bridge. It proposes that before meetings of the Council of Ministers, in addition to the usual round-robins which circulate in Whitehall,
"the Secretary of State shall consult the Parliament and seek its views on the issue".
It will therefore be the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland to seek views on those issues. Then he would be able easily to represent them to his colleagues and, if necessary, he could accompany a colleague to a meeting of the Council of Ministers in order to speak on behalf of Scotland as a Minister of the United Kingdom Government.
I see that my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton has returned to us. I have no doubt that he, as Secretary of State for Scotland, attended Council of Ministers' meetings. I know that I did. I know that my noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden—who I also see in the Committee—attended meetings on agriculture and fishery matters. I certainly did, especially on fishery matters, which are so important to Scotland. That is the first part of the amendment.
The second part is that after the business is done in Brussels, in which any matter relating to Scotland and a devolved issue has been discussed and perhaps resolved, the Secretary of State should report to the parliament and should be available to answer questions from members of the parliament. "Answerability" is also important.
I still have not had an answer to my question. If a negotiation takes place in Brussels, on any subject, and the Minister comes back to the House of Commons, and it is a devolved subject, and the Minister makes a statement and answers questions, what does he do when a Scottish Member of Parliament pops up and asks a question about Scotland on a matter which has been devolved? Does the Speaker of the other place rule that out of order because the subject has now been devolved in the legislation we are discussing? Does the Minister—especially if it is a difficult question—simply duck it and say, "That is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Scottish parliament and for the Minister there"? I do not know the answer to that question. I have failed miserably to get out of the Government any positive indication of what will happen in those circumstances on the question of answerability.
I am saying here that the Secretary of State would report to the Scottish parliament and would answer questions that any members of the Scottish parliament might put to him. That would lead to the kind of accountability that is essential if Scotland is to be properly represented at the Council of Ministers and in the councils of the European Union.
Brussels is no longer some sort of peripheral place where people go for a nice day out and the business does not matter terribly much. It matters hugely over a whole raft of policies. I am deeply concerned, whether it be Wales—and I see the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in his place—or whether it be Scotland, that one of the results, unintended I grant the Government, of these devolutionary proposals will be that Scotland will lose its direct representation, its clout and influence at Council of Ministers' meetings in Brussels. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I wonder whether it will be convenient to discuss Amendments Nos. 268 and 269 at the same time because they are on the same topic. If I may say, modestly, to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, our amendment is rather better than his. It is on the same subject and I do not see why we should debate it twice.
Lord Sewel: With enormous respect, there is a difficulty. The opportunity to group was available earlier and they were not grouped together. It would be more appropriate to take them as they are presently grouped.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: Perhaps I can intervene on this amendment. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that there is not much difference in the sentiment behind what my noble friend is suggesting

1433
here and the amendment of the Liberal Democrats. They refer to the very difficult situation that arises as a result of this Bill.
Those of us who have had experience in Brussels know only too well—and I said this at Second Reading—how difficult it is to get government departments, whether north or south of the Border, whether Irish or Welsh, to agree on matters even when they are of the same party. We are passing this Bill when we do not know in the future whether the party in government in Westminster will be of the same colour as that north of the Border. We have to be particularly careful when we are dealing with the situation in relation to the European Union.
There is no easy answer. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that there will be a very sensible concordat between Ministers in Westminster and the Scottish parliament. I am afraid that this will be a very difficult situation, particularly in agriculture and fishing, which rely so very heavily on good relationships between Brussels and the United Kingdom.
My noble friend is taking a step in the right direction. As he said, it is not an ideal step because it is a very difficult situation to resolve. As I said at Second Reading, I am very concerned about one aspect. Unrepresented though it is in this Chamber, the Scottish National Party will look at this very closely indeed. If it sees the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and the chairman of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation deciding that there is absolutely no point in discussing matters with the Minister in the Scottish parliament with responsibilities for agriculture and fishing and that the best thing they can do is go straight to London to see the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who has the clout in Brussels, that is doing no good service to the new Scottish parliament. It will weaken the whole thing.
These issues that the House must consider most carefully before the Bill is passed. They are capable of undermining the good sense that I hope to see, although I have reservations, from a Scottish parliament. These are the aspects of the legislation that worry me intensely. Those of us who have had experience know how difficult negotiations in Brussels are; how long they take; and how much give and take there has to be. The Minister knows that; he is doing it.
There is perhaps a note attached to the Minister's briefing which says, "Resist these amendments". He may well resist today but perhaps over the summer holidays he will consider the matter more closely. I do not believe that concordats are necessary. They may be good but they do not get to the root of the problem. If agriculture and fishing are to be devolved, the Scottish parliament must have some say, somewhere, in the chain of command.
9 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I recognise that many noble Lords regard this as a very important issue, as I do myself. A number have direct experience of representing Scotland in negotiations with colleagues in UK departments and
1434
then as part of the UK team in Brussels. I freely recognise that this is a sincere attempt to try and "protect" Scotland's interest in Europe in the context of the devolved settlement.
In an attempt to build a bridge, as he described it, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has created something of a constitutional mishmash; a failure to recognise that UK Ministers are accountable to a UK Parliament and Scottish Ministers are accountable to the Scottish parliament. Those are the two direct lines of accountability. Nothing is to be gained by trying to blur the structure by saying that a UK Minister is required to consult the parliament and then subsequently that a UK Minister has a duty to report to the parliament on the substance of the outcome of the negotiations and to answer the questions of the parliament. That is a significant blurring of the lines of accountability between Ministers and Parliament. As I have said, the basic line is between the Scottish Minister and the Scottish parliament and between the UK Minister and the UK Parliament. I believe that that should be preserved.
Scottish ministers and UK Ministers will agree the UK line on negotiations in Brussels. That is the whole point. It is the responsibility of Scottish ministers to report to the Scottish parliament and of UK Ministers to answer to the UK Parliament for the conduct of EU negotiations even when they affect devolved matters. If the Fisheries Council were deciding questions of TACs and quotas—many of us have been involved in long nights of macho negotiations on quotas—it would be perfectly proper for a Westminster MP to ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a question on TACs and quotas, perhaps on how they affected Scottish interests. Similarly, a question on dairy quotas and the Agriculture Council could quite properly be asked of the Minister by a Scottish Member of Parliament at Westminster.
We have consistently made it clear both in the White Paper and during the passage of this Bill that Scottish ministers will be closely involved in the formulation of the UK position as presented to our EU partners at Council meetings. They may also attend the Council and, where appropriate, speak on behalf of the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, tends to mock that formulation. I ask him not to do so because it is offered in good faith as a way forward and as a way of ensuring that Scottish interests are properly represented. The noble Lord quoted back to us the figure from his letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It has to be said that the right of members of regional parliaments to attend Council meetings was obtained only as recently as the Treaty of Amsterdam. I understand that the noble Lord is not awfully keen on that treaty at the moment. However, that is something on which we can build because it now provides the European framework in which this type of representation can be accommodated and expressed.
Throughout the whole European process Scottish ministers will be accountable for their actions to the Scottish parliament. That is how the Scottish parliament will be able to call the executive to account in its handling of EU business—not by trying in some rather

1435
strange way, which I do not understand, through questioning and report to make the Secretary of State accountable to the Scottish parliament, but by directly making Scottish ministers accountable to the Scottish parliament for their conduct and involvement in negotiations.
If we keep it like that, the lines of accountability are clear and easily understood. I see nothing to be gained by muddying the waters. I should point out in addition that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—drawing upon his experience, which I recognise, as a former agriculture and fisheries Minister in the Scottish Office—consistently warns that the position of Scottish agriculture in relation to Europe will be undermined as a result of the Bill. That is not my view. That is not the view of the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, who enjoys the support of his members. His electors clearly knew his position on this. He believes very strongly that the way forward that we have indicated means that Scottish agricultural interests will have a much more clearly focused forum in which to be debated and that what we have set down provides a means by which the Scottish voice will be heard more consistently in Brussels, particularly through the informal regional organisations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I notice that the Minister is praying in aid the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. Is it not a fact that, unusually for presidents of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, he has taken a party political role and is a candidate for the Liberal Democrat Party for the Scottish parliament? I simply ask: can a man serve two masters, the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish parliament and the NFU? I am not alone in wondering about that. Many senior farmers wonder exactly the same thing. I am afraid that praying him in aid increases, rather than decreases, my concern.
Lord Sewel: On the business about serving two masters, I believe that the convener of the hill livestock committee is trying to do the same thing. He is seeking nomination in the Conservative interest for the Scottish parliament while serving the National Farmers Union.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the Minister have it in mind to accept Amendment No. 268 when we reach it? If not, why is he not reading out his reply to that amendment when dealing with this grouping, because it is on precisely the same subject? I do not know what the Minister's ploy is in knocking down this amendment when we do not know what he will say about the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who said that he wants his amendment to be considered in this group and who asked whether he could speak to it now. Is the Minister going to accept Amendment No. 268?
Lord Sewel: That is a false accusation if ever there was one. I offered the view that the opportunity was available earlier in the day for amendments to be grouped by agreement. I received no requests—I do not believe that the usual channels received any requests—
1436
for Amendment No. 268 to be grouped with this amendment. Members of the Committee may wish to speak to the later amendment, but not to this earlier amendment. We have our arrangements. Amendments are grouped and we work through the groupings.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: When noble Lords want amendments to be grouped, unless the Government have major difficulty in turning the page and referring to another brief, they are usually allowed to do it. I would have been very greatly helped had that occurred in this case. This is one of the major faults of the Bill to which we want to find a solution. We have heard everything that is thought to be wrong about my noble friend's amendment, which I believe is a possible solution. However, I see that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, has another good idea. Can we not deal with it now?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: The Government are responsible for grouping amendments. I believe I am right in saying that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was tabled after my amendment which appears later in the Marshalled List. I did not immediately notice that it dealt with much the same subject. They should have been grouped together. But I believe that my amendment which comes later offers a much more logical solution and does not trespass on what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has rightly referred to as the blurring of responsibilities as between Scottish and UK Ministers. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes me to pursue my amendment now. I am quite happy to wait until later.
I do not agree with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, about the president of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. Both he and the chairman of the hill livestock committee are perfectly entitled to stand as candidates. It is not without precedent. I suspect the reason why the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is annoyed is that the people of Argyll and Bute have decided to dispense with his services and are likely to embrace the services of Mr. George Lyon. That appears to be more down to his temper than anything else.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Since the noble Lord has referred to precedents, can he name a former president of the NFU who while in office has become a candidate for a political party?
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I shall check but I am fairly certain that I am correct in what I say. I do not want to name names and get it wrong. I have someone in mind who is also a member of my party. The fact is that he was elected president by his own members, who knew of his political allegiance. Some of us believe that Scottish Ministers attending European Council meetings will enhance the voice of Scotland in Europe, not detract from it. They will not be tag-end Charlies to UK delegations but will have their own status as Ministers of the Scottish parliament. I believe that that is a better solution. I shall reserve my fire until I come to my own amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Does the noble Lord agree that a man can serve two masters if both are benign?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I see that the Minister has completed his remarks. I shall sum up and decide what to do with my amendment. I believe that there is little difference between the president and the chairman of the hill livestock committee. Mr. Scott, as chairman of the hill livestock committee, considered very seriously whether or not the two offices were compatible. A year ago he would not have considered that they were compatible and would have resigned as chairman. He did not resign as chairman simply because the president had already introduced politics into the senior offices of the NFU. This is a serious matter and I look forward to hearing about the precedents to which the noble Lord has alluded. I have spoken to the immediate past three presidents, none of whom was in any doubt that they should not be members of or be active in any political party while they held the presidency of an organisation whose constitution said that it should be non-political. But that is another matter. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not political.
Interestingly enough, the Minister has helped me, and for that I am grateful. He appreciates that this amendment does not seek to wreck anything. Like my noble friend Lord Sanderson, as someone who has been involved in these negotiations I am extremely concerned that the important role that Scottish fisheries Ministers, agricultural Ministers and other Ministers—for example, industry Ministers play in these issues should continue after devolution.
I am grateful to the Minister for answering a question that the Government failed to answer in relation to the Government of Wales Bill both in the other place and in this Chamber; namely, whether it would be in order for Members to ask UK government Ministers questions on devolved matters. The Minister has made an interesting revelation which I failed to extract from the two Ministers who dealt with the Government of Wales Bill.
Lord Sewel: For the avoidance of doubt, I was very careful in what I said. It would be perfectly proper and reasonable for a Scottish Member of Parliament and a Member of this House to ask a UK Minister questions on the outcome of Council meetings; for example, in relation to tax or dairy quotas.
Viscount Thurso: We discussed this matter when considering Clause 29. I believe that at that time the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, gave us the benefit of his reminiscences of the period during which the Stormont Parliament was in operation. He recounted how the Table Clerk next door would tell Northern Ireland Members what questions they could and could not ask. I thought that the Government had given us an assurance that that would be the convention with regard to the devolved parliaments. Therefore, the vast majority of questions, and certainly all questions with regard to devolved matters, would be, by convention, ultra vires in this Parliament.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for renewing my concerns about this issue, as he has just done. The Clerks in the other place and, indeed, the Clerks here are mindful of the vires of questions. The Speaker is also mindful, as seen the other day when someone was pulled up for asking the Prime Minister a question about the Scottish National Party, for which the Prime Minister, of course, has no responsibility. The Speaker actually asked the questioner to resume his seat and said it would be a long time before he was called again, so it did not do him any good being "on message" with the Labour Party; he will not be "on message" for some considerable time, I gather.
The noble Viscount re-emphasised my worry. In fact, the Minister has not helped me either. The point is that before Ministers go to Council meetings there are often debates. After their return there are debates and there are questions. What I am concerned about is whether Scottish MPs and, indeed, Members of your Lordships' House will be able to take a full part in those debates and questions on matters relating to any subject which has been devolved but which comes within the ambit of one or other of the Council of Ministers of the European Union. Agriculture and fisheries are key subjects. For a while I had thought that the Minister was helping me. However, I am not sure that the noble Viscount has not dashed the lifebelt away from under me. I am still as concerned as I was.
I shall read what the Minister said. Perhaps he can read it as well and, if he cares, we have an opportunity for clarification later this evening, which means that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, is useful, and we also have the long Summer Recess during which the Minister can correspond with me. He can also, perhaps, correspond with me about the Treaty of Amsterdam, because that argument was not used by the two Welsh Ministers. The question, therefore, is which Ministers are giving the correct steer. Perhaps I can have a letter about that; some noble Lords might be interested.
With later amendments in mind, I shall withdraw my amendment. However, the Minister will not be surprised to know that I shall be thinking about the matter during the Summer Recess.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I can help finally to put this particular matter to bed. It starts from the basis that the conduct of foreign relations, including EU negotiations, is a reserved matter. That is the starting-off point. UK Ministers, therefore, can properly be made accountable to the Westminster Parliament for that, even when the content affects devolved matters. They are answerable to all Members of the Westminster Parliament.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble Lord sits down, I asked him a specific question and he did not answer it. I completely accept what he has just said in relation to foreign affairs. That was not my question. My question was whether the summation I gave and the

1439
answer I thought he gave the other day was correct in relation to devolved matters. If he can confirm that, I shall be most grateful.
Lord Sewel: We are talking about Europe, and at the moment I am happy to clarify the position about Europe. I shall be more than happy to clarify other positions at later stages.
Viscount Thurso: Perhaps the noble Lord will write to me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have made some serious progress in the last 34 minutes, and in the last minute. I am grateful to the Minister. I understand the point he made. He has discussed philosophically the different heads from which matters come. I can understand that if matters relating to the European Union are reserved to the United Kingdom Government, the United Kingdom Ministers are answerable to this Parliament on any matter which is debated and discussed or negotiated in the European Union, even if it is a devolved matter. I believe that that will be of considerable interest to many of the Members of the other place, Members of your Lordships' House and to many people in the world outside. That has not been very clear up to now. I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 250:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—

ROLE OF SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND
(" —(1) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall be entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the Parliament.
(2) Subsection (1) does not confer on the Secretary of State for Scotland—

(a) any right to vote, or

(b) a right to attend or participate in the proceeding of any committee of the Parliament or sub-committee.

(3) The standing orders shall include provision for any documents which—

(a) contain material relating to any proceedings of the Parliament which have taken place or are to take place, and

(b) are made available to the members of the Parliament,

to be made available to the Secretary of State for Scotland no later than the time when they were made available to members of the Parliament who are not members of the Scottish Executive.").
The noble Earl said: None of us can forecast which will be the major political party in the Scottish parliament. It has already been clearly stated by my noble friends Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that the position of the Secretary of State is vague in the Bill. We shall be setting up a new parliament in Scotland. Many members may not have had much political experience. I believe that the amendment gives the Secretary of State, who is bound to be an experienced politician and a Cabinet Member, the opportunity to guide the new Scottish parliament in its first few years of existence.
After the first few years, the proposed amendment on the role of the Secretary of State could be repealed as being unnecessary. Some provision needs to guide the new parliament in its brand new functions and activities. I believe that the amendment is one way to achieve that. It would give the Secretary of State an opportunity to guide and assist the parliament to start off on the right tracks. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: After the turmoils in the Welsh Bill on this issue, I support the amendment moved by the noble Earl. It is interesting to consider paragraph 4.12 of the White Paper Scotland's Parliament. It states:
"The role of the Secretary of State for Scotland will be to secure the passage and implementation of the legislation to establish the Scottish Parliament; and then to support its initial development".
That is the point the noble Earl made. Once the Scottish parliament is in being and the Scottish executive established, the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland will change. The focus will be on promoting communication between the Scottish parliament and executive, and between the United Kingdom Parliament and Government on matters of mutual interest, and on representing Scottish interests in reserved areas.
It follows that the plan behind the legislation is that there should be easy communication between the Secretary of State and Scotland, and, through the Secretary of State, between Scotland and Westminster. No machinery exists in the Scotland Bill to facilitate that. The noble Earl's amendment is taken word for word from the original clause that was contained in the Government of Wales Bill. (I am still campaigning for a Welsh parliament, notwithstanding the concessions that the Government have made on the issue).
It was laid down originally in the Government of Wales Bill in the terms of this amendment that the Secretary of State for Wales should have the right to attend and participate. But as the Bill passed through your Lordship's House, an amendment was accepted by the Government, who phrased it in their own way, that the Secretary of State for Wales could be required once a year to attend the Welsh assembly in order to discuss with the members of the Welsh assembly the legislative programme that the Government had in mind.
Of course it is a matter for the Scots themselves to determine what communication they want. But a machinery of the nature which the noble Earl proposes in the amendment, and which follows the machinery in the Welsh Bill, facilitates that essential communication. The Secretary of State is the person who links the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments together. Whether he represents Scotland in London or London in Scotland is a matter which experience will show.
I go further than the noble Earl and ask the Government to introduce at Report stage not simply this amendment but the amendment that was introduced into the Government of Wales Bill which would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to attend the proceedings of the Scottish parliament at least once a year.

1441
We are dealing with a new body for which the privileges that these Houses of Parliament have enjoyed for so long are not as yet set in stone. It would be in the interests of Scotland and the Scottish people if, from time to time, persons who are not necessarily elected members of the Scottish parliament, such as the Secretary of State for Scotland, had the right to attend, and the Scottish parliament should have the right to require him to attend.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has rightly pointed out the significant difference between the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. I am sure that I know the answer that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will give but I am not going to give it for him. I do think that there is a point here, whether or not it is along the lines of my noble friend's amendment. No one is sure of the role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, earlier asked some penetrating questions about the future role of the Secretary of State for Scotland, but largely about his role here at Whitehall. What will his role be when his whole power base, which is a large government department with a budget of £14 billion, is removed? In my view, he will not sit in the same prominent position around the Cabinet table as he does today and he may well find himself below the proverbial salt.
The amendment addresses his relationship with the Scottish parliament. I can understand the difficulty of allowing him to be a participant and an attender. While this Parliament would not countenance any such arrangement by an outsider, I remind the Government that we are setting up a new parliament which must not be tied by all the traditions of Westminster. This is a brave new world where we can reinvent and change things. Noble Lords accuse me of doing this, but we should not get tied down to the Westminster model on all occasions and, dare I say it, neither should they. There may be something in my noble friend's amendment.
As my noble friend stated, none of us can forecast who will form the largest party, and he felt that that added to the importance of the Secretary of State being allowed to attend and participate. I have to say to my noble friend that the Prime Minister has forecast which party may become the largest party, and he does not like the forecast, hence the side shift of Mr. Brian Wilson and the fact that Mrs. Liddell has been sent to restore the position in Scotland.
I always thought from the nursery rhymes that it was the knight who was sent to help the damsel in distress but in this case the damsel is being sent to help her benighted party in its distress in Scotland. As I am a confirmed Unionist, I suppose that I ought to wish her well, but I do not think that I would have sent the honourable lady to defend the Union, given some of the things that she has said in past years from the Opposition Benches. However, that is another matter.
Whichever is the major party in the Scottish parliament, it is right that we should establish a proper line of communication between that parliament and the
1442
Secretary of State for Scotland and the United Kingdom Parliament. My noble friend may not have got it entirely right but the Government have accepted the importance of this link in the Welsh Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, and it is included in the legislation. The Government should consider something like that for the Scottish Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I am grateful to the noble Earl for explaining that the intention in moving the amendment is to ensure that the new parliament in its early years will be able to benefit from the guidance and assistance of an experienced politician. I have to say that I do not believe the parliament will be short of politicians, some of them considerably experienced—at least if some Members of your Lordships' House have their way.
Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I do not believe that there is a great deal of difference between us. We both recognise that there is a need to establish good lines of communication, but we have reservations about the right to attend and the right to speak.
I also believe that it would be a little patronising to say to the Scottish parliament, "Look, you are so inexperienced and immature that in those first few years you need someone to show you the ropes". I do not believe that that would go down well and I believe that any possible advice and guidance that a Secretary of State could give would tend not to be accepted for that very reason.
I am also conscious of the comparison that has been made with Wales, because the wording of the amendment is drawn from the Government of Wales Bill. As we have tried to explain during the passage of the Bill, there is a fundamental difference between the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament. There was an interesting slip of the tongue when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the Welsh parliament. The difference is that the Welsh parliament—there we are, be careful! The difference is that the Welsh assembly does not have primary legislative powers, so it is quite understandable that the Secretary of State for Wales will be required to attend the Welsh assembly and describe the legislative programme of the United Kingdom Government in relation to Wales. That situation simply does not arise in the context of the Scottish parliament. The Scottish parliament has primary legislative powers. It is very much master in its own house in terms of primary legislation. Therefore, the Welsh comparison is not well founded.
Although the amendment's objectives are perfectly laudable in trying to establish a sound basis of communication, it runs into troubles such as blurring the lines of accountability and setting up a relationship which in itself will lead to the kind of advice which the noble Earl wished to be transmitted actually being discounted. The comparison with Wales is wrongly based.

1443
My preference is for the parliament and the Secretary of State to work out what they consider to be the most effective way in which communication can be enhanced and subsequently maintained. On that basis, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am obviously happy to withdraw the amendment. One of the reasons I tabled it was that the position of the Secretary of State once the parliament is set up appears to me to be so very vague. That was one of the reasons why I felt that it was worth while to bring the amendment forward. However, after hearing what has been said, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Defamatory statements]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 18, line 17, at end insert (", and
(c) any written or oral communication by a member of the Parliament to a member of the Scottish Executive, to the Presiding Officer or his deputies, or to a Minister of the Crown,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment raises a very short point; namely, whether the provisions in Clause 37, which extend the concept of absolute privilege to statements made in parliament and publications made under the authority of the parliament, should also be extended to written or oral communication by members of the parliament to the various persons set out in my amendment.
It is important that members of the new parliament should be able to discharge their duties both within and without the chamber vigorously and responsibly without the fear of being sued. That is recognised in the clause as presently drafted. My amendment would take it one stage further. I hope that a constructive response will be forthcoming from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I find this a most interesting amendment because it raises a matter of historical and constitutional importance. The privileges of this House have long been protected. I hope that the Committee will forgive me, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Russell, for going back to the 17th century. In 1621 the other place declared that the privileges of parliament were the birthright and inheritance of the subject. Those ancient privileges were enshrined in the Declaration of Rights of 1688, which was given statutory form in the Bill of Rights of 1689, Article 9 of which stated that,
"the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or place out of Parliament".
Notoriously, Members of both Houses abused their privileges in the 18th century in respect of immunity from civil actions and from arrest. It was said that many Members of Parliament had to flee when Parliament was not sitting and spend their time in France rather than
1444
face the bankruptcy court. And so by the Parliamentary Privilege Act of 1770, Members were rendered liable to ordinary proceedings for their normal private behaviour, together with their menial and other servants.
The question then arose as to the extent of their privileges and what was meant by the term "proceedings in Parliament" in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights. A resolution in 1837 stated that,
"by the law and privilege of Parliament, this House has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine upon the existence and extent of its privileges and that the institution or prosecution of any action, suit or other proceeding, for the purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision before any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament, is a high breach of such privilege and renders all parties concerned therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punishment consequent thereon".
But did it extend, as this amendment seeks to do, privileges to correspondence with Ministers? That was a matter which came before the other place on 8th July 1958. Your Lordships will forgive me for this tour through history but it helps to illustrate the extent to which the noble and learned Lord's amendment goes far beyond anything that we have ever known before.
On 7th July 1958, there was a debate in the other place which was concerned with a letter that Mr. George Strauss had written to the then Minister of Power concerning the London Electricity Board and its manner of dealing with scrap. That was passed by the Minister of Power to the chairman of the London Electricity Board, who then threatened a libel action, and the matter went to the Committee of Privileges and also to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was a most unusual proceeding that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council became involved.
The Committee of Privileges said, yes, there had been a breach of privilege because that letter to a Minister—which is what this amendment is about—was privileged; it was part of the proceedings of Parliament; but that no action should be taken. Those are the circumstances in which the debate then took place.
The view was hotly contested, not least by the then Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, as he then was, who said:
"The conclusion of the Committee of Privileges in this case that there was a breach of Privilege depends on the conclusion that the action of the right hon. Gentleman [in sending a letter to a Minister] was a proceeding in Parliament, within the meaning of the Bill of Rights".
He went on to say:
"The Bill of Rights is a Statute, and the meaning to be attached to the words in that Statute, 'proceedings in Parliament', is a question of law. This House, of course, can put its own interpretation upon those words, but … that will not be binding on any court of law, and it is because the courts may reach a different conclusion as to what are the Privileges of Parliament from what this House may reach that a conflict may arise.
We are not here concerned with any Privilege based on any custom or usage, but with a Privilege enshrined in a Statute. In my opinion it would be wrong if this House sought to give a meaning to a Statute which that Statute does not and cannot have. I feel bound to advise the House, as I advised the Committee of Privileges, that in my opinion there cannot be the slightest doubt that the answer to the question whether the letter written by the right hon. Gentleman [to the Minister] was a proceeding in Parliament is 'No'".

1445
He was supported in that conclusion by Mr. Dingle Foot, who was, of course, from the Labour Party, and construed the statute in the same way. He said that the Bill of Rights was concerned with interference by the Crown, and added:
"I imagine that they had in mind particularly the case of Sir John Eliot who died in the Tower as a victim of Royal vengeance for the words he had spoken in this House".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/58; cols. 250, 251 and 299.]
He came to the firm conclusion that correspondence by a Member with a Minister could not, save in the sort of circumstances where the draft of a Parliamentary Question was sent forward, be considered as a document entitled to absolute privilege, which is what this amendment seeks to secure for the Scottish parliament. After a lengthy debate and on a free vote, the House of Commons resolved that the letter of Mr. Strauss was not a proceeding in Parliament and was of the opinion, therefore, that the letters from the chairman of the London Electricity Board threatening libel constituted no breach of privilege.
So far as I am aware, the next thing that happened was what one might call the "Neil Hamilton Act 1996"—in other words, the Defamation Act 1996, which contains further definitions of what are "proceedings in Parliament". I shall not weary Members of the Committee with the various matters which were considered to be proceedings in Parliament. However, what the 1996 Act does not suggest is that a written or oral communication by a Member of Parliament to a Member of the Cabinet, to the Speaker or to a Minister of the Crown can be absolutely privileged. Of course it has "qualified privilege"; that is to say, a communication between a Scottish member to the Scottish executive, and so on, will be entitled to qualified privilege in a libel action, which means that an aggrieved plaintiff would have to prove malice. I see nothing wrong in the proceedings being challenged if there is malice, but I do not believe that we should have the absolute privilege suggested by the amendment.
I apologise for taking Members of the Committee so far through constitutional history. However, it seems to me that the amendment goes way beyond the privileges of this Parliament. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble and learned Lord will decide not to pursue it.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I should like to add just a few points to the very interesting comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. It seems to me that the amendment raises a practical problem and an issue of principle. The practical problem arises in the following way. Written communications are subject to the modern disease; namely, proliferation by means of the photocopier. Although the amendment is carefully drawn to restrict itself to communications from a member of the parliament to certain persons, it is quite possible that copies of such documents may pass to other people by various means.
Similarly, in the case of oral communications, they may form the basis of a memorandum or a note which may then, in the same way, pass outside the files of the recipient. Recent experience I have had indicates that in
1446
various ways, either by discovery under the English civil process or by the disclosure rules which apply in the criminal process in England, substantial numbers of documents may pass well beyond the confines of the files to which they were originally consigned. It is quite possible that communications which the Member of Parliament thought would be personal to him and the person to whom he has written will find their way far beyond the original communication into the hands of someone who may feel aggrieved or defamed by what is contained in it.
That is the scale of the problem. There is certainly an issue to be addressed. I am bound to say that I take the same view in principle as the noble Lord. To give absolute privilege to these communications, whatever the circumstances—whether the communications are made outside Parliament or whatever else—goes further than is necessary. As has been said, there is the protection of qualified privilege. English law at least, and maybe Scottish law as well, is developing other mechanisms to protect people who are or may be affected by the release of documents by discovery and also by the release of documents in the criminal process. Those protections are available too.
On balance, I think that the amendment goes further than is needed despite the scale of the practical problem to which I referred.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Perhaps I may say, with respect, that I agree with what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Nonetheless, I am aware, because I was summoned to give evidence before it, that there is a joint committee of this House and the House of Commons under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, which is considering many of the issues concerning parliamentary privilege.
When I gave evidence I was struck by the fact that that committee was amazed that in considering questions of privilege, and so on, in relation to the parliament in Scotland, little consideration appeared to have been given to all the various pieces of evidence received about exactly the same matters in relation to the Westminster Parliament.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I rather think that the amendment goes too far. I wonder what thought has been given to the possible recommendations—I do not think that any have yet been made—of the committee which has been set up. The committee has considered in great detail the complicated issues which arise, for example, in relation to communications between Members of Parliament and Ministers in relation to privilege. What consideration has been given to these issues in relation to the Scottish parliament?
It seems to me that although there is no reason why the Scottish parliament should ape the Westminster Parliament, equally there is no reason why the Scottish parliament should ignore all the experience which has been built up over the years and, in particular, all the consideration which has been given in recent months by

1447
a distinguished committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, which has great experience, both as regards the position in the Commons and the position in this House. I wonder what consideration has been given to all these matters in formulating what appear to me rather brief provisions in the context of the Bill.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will forgive me. While, of course, I appreciate what he says, namely, that the committee has done a great deal of work, it is some little distance from reporting, as he knows. In those circumstances it would be difficult for the Government to give consideration to its conclusions.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I fully accept the caveat which the noble and learned Lord puts because I think he is a member of the Committee. Nonetheless, I think he may have been struck, as I was, by the fact that we seemed to be going down one road when the committee was considering these matters in relation to Westminster. Here we are taking decisions in connection with the parliament in Edinburgh which seem not altogether to be synchronised.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful for the comments of noble Lords and noble and learned Lords. I particularly enjoyed the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with regard to the history of the question of privilege. I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, for moving this amendment, as it gives me an opportunity to explain why we have included Clause 37 in the Bill. This may go some way towards answering the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.
I think it is important to understand the thinking behind the way in which we have approached the issue of defamation. As noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have acknowledged, it is quite proper that we should provide the parliament's proceedings with some shelter from the risk of actions of defamation. Absolute privilege is, of course, the strongest form of legal protection from defamation proceedings. It confers a powerful protection in any circumstances in which it applies.
For that reason we need to be clear about why that protection is conferred and to be sure that we have applied it no more widely than is justified. I believe that was the thrust of some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. For that reason we have deliberately framed Clause 37 so that absolute privilege applies only to any statement made in the proceedings of the parliament, and to any publication made under the parliament's authority. This is deliberately done to ensure that the work of the parliament is not hindered or inhibited by fear that actions for defamation may be raised, while at the same time restricting the areas which are protected.
I hope it will be helpful to the Committee if I clarify that we intend that the same broad construction should be placed on the term "proceedings of the parliament"
1448
in this Bill as applies in relation to the equivalent privilege at Westminster. Therefore we are going no further than the Westminster privilege but we would hope that the same approach would be taken. The words "proceedings of parliament" have not been defined in statute for the purposes of Westminster. However, their meaning has been established by convention and case law over many years.
We are aware that attempts have been made for some purposes to make explicit what activities the term "proceedings of the parliament" may include, albeit not in an exhaustive way. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the Defamation Act 1996. Section 13(4) of that Act sets out a range of activities which are to be construed as falling within the definition of things said or done,
"in the course of, or for the purposes of or incidental to, any proceedings in Parliament".
These include, for example, communications with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or with any person having functions in connection with the registration of members' interests.
In this Bill we are deliberately choosing to make a simple reference to "proceedings of the parliament". However, I recognise that there is an element of judgment being exercised in taking this approach. As I have mentioned, we intend that this reference should be taken to have the same broad scope as it has in the case of this Parliament. By relying on this general term, we also leave room for the development of new ways of working in the parliament which may not be easily foreseen at present, and we ensure that the privilege conferred by this clause need not be limited only to the particular types of parliamentary activity we are able to identify at the present time.
We cannot accept this amendment. We have deliberately drawn the line around parliamentary proceedings. Provided that a particular statement can be construed as being made in that context, we think it right that it should benefit from this broad protection. The amendment, by contrast, seeks to protect in general terms communications between members of the Scottish parliament and particular types of person. Many of those may well in practice fall within the boundaries of parliamentary proceedings. For example, communications between a member of the Scottish parliament and the presiding officer may well fall within that category in certain circumstances. However, where for any reason such a communication does not fall into that category, we do not see that we could justify conferring this privilege upon it. Absolute privilege absolves a person from having to defend his statements on grounds of truth or absence of malice. Accordingly, the protection must be restricted.
I do not think it is helpful to speculate on the circumstances in which the types of communication mentioned in the amendment might, or might not, be deemed to fall within the definition of being made in proceedings. Members of the Scottish parliament will have to judge where the boundaries lie in any particular case—as indeed do Members of this Parliament at present. We see no good reason for introducing any kind of blanket exemption on the lines proposed—that would

1449
not be in line with the thinking behind this clause, which is properly concerned with the context within which statements are made.
Finally, perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. Once the Nicholls Committee reports, the contents and recommendations of the report will be taken on board and will be given proper and full consideration. With that, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: This has been a useful debate arising out of what I originally saw as a comparatively small amendment. I fully accept the force of what the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Advocate, says about not wishing to extend to members of the Scottish parliament greater protection than might be available to Members of this House or another place. Equally, it is important that we raise the issue. As I understand it, the Nicholls Committee is seeking to examine the whole issue thoroughly. We may well return to some of the matters discussed by the committee in the taking of evidence when we consider Amendment No. 219G. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Contempt of court]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): I must point out that, if Amendment No. 252 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 252A under the rules.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 252:
Page 18, line 25, leave out ("a") and insert ("an accurate").
The noble and learned Lord said: I can put the Minister out of his agony. I do not propose to insist on my Amendment No. 252. It is clear that Amendment No. 252A addresses the same issue in a broader way. We are uniquely agreed that Amendment No. 253 should be allowed. I hope that these two small amendments will prove acceptable to both sides of the Committee.
[Amendment No. 252 not moved.]
Lord Hardie Lord Hardie moved Amendment No. 252A:
Page 18, line 25, after ("a") insert ("fair and accurate").
The noble and learned Lord said: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, tabled Amendment No. 252, which has not been moved. I am pleased to say that Amendments Nos. 252A and 253, in the name of both the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, and my noble friend Lord Sewel, seek to address a minor defect in the Bill. We are in the happy position of accepting the suggestion put forward by the noble and learned Lord. My only regret is that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, did not put her name to these amendments, in view of the discussion that we had outwith the Chamber.
The position is that, as framed, the provision in Clause 38 does not get the balance quite right so far as concerns the reports of proceedings. Our intention is to ensure that those reporting proceedings are not hampered in their work of keeping the public properly informed. The purpose of the amendments is to rectify the minor defect in Clause 38. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support the amendments but ask the noble and learned Lord to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, in relation to the Government of Wales Act, that the wording which the noble and learned Lord has just condemned as defective appears in its full glory in the Government of Wales Bill.
Lord Hardie: I cannot be responsible for the Welsh!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 18, line 25, at end insert ("made in good faith").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has today been promoted, it would be churlish to spoil his happy day through conveying the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Calculating time for meeting of the Parliament]:
[Amendment No. 253A not moved.]
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [The Scottish Executive]:
[Amendments Nos. 254 and 255 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 255A:
Page 19, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
("(1A) Neither a Scottish Law Officer nor a Law Officer of the United Kingdom may be a member of the Scottish Executive").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is one of a series of amendments which deal with the position of the Scottish Law Officers. Although later we turn to the question of whether the post of the Lord Advocate should be devolved, the amendments apply irrespective of the outcome of that discussion.
Amendment No. 255A seeks to provide that neither a Scottish Law Officer nor a Law Officer of the United Kingdom may be a member of the Scottish executive. Amendment No. 257B seeks to amend Clause 48 on page 22 at line 2 by inserting the words,
"save that a Scottish Law Officer may not exercise any statutory function of a member of the Scottish Executive who is not a law officer".

1451
Amendments Nos. 271R and 271S are of a fairly consequential nature.
The real issue is to seek to establish that the Scottish Law Officers should be independent of the Scottish executive and also independent of the United Kingdom Government. As the Committee will be aware, the Law Officers of the UK Government have separate departments. The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General are Ministers in the Law Officers' Departments in London and the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland are Ministers in the Lord Advocate's Department, which has offices in Edinburgh and London.
While the Law Officers' advice is regularly sought on policy development and in the planning and programme of Bills and discussions of major policy initiatives, and while they play an important role in taking Bills through this House and another place, they are in departments which are physically, administratively and constitutionally separate from the departments that contain the political Ministers. In my view, that separation is extremely important. It means that there is a separation between policy making and responsibility for such policy on sensitive and important political issues and, on the other hand, the role of the Law Officers, which is primarily involved in giving legal advice to government Ministers and assisting them with their parliamentary work.
Constitutionally, a veil has been drawn over the role which Law Officers play in giving advice to Government Ministers and their departments. The convention is that, in this Chamber and in another place, it is improper—I believe I use that word correctly—for a Minister at the Dispatch Box to acknowledge the existence of such advice, let alone the contents of it. I do not in any sense demur at the view that those are sensible conventions.
However, the giving of such advice is not just a casual part of the everyday work of government. When a Minister or his department require advice, civil servants in his department—possibly working with their own solicitors—prepare instructions for the Law Officers which are then sent to the Law Officers' department to provide that legal advice at arm's length.
I have a number of reasons for suggesting that the Law Officers of the new parliament should not be members of the Scottish executive. First, it is not normal for a lawyer to give advice to a body of which he is a full member. That is not just the position within government; it is also the situation in private practice. When one looks at Clause 48(3) and (4), on which we have already had some discussion, it will be seen that not only are the Law Officers full members of the Scottish executive, but that the statutory functions of the individual Ministers can be exercised by any member of the executive, whoever that person is—subject of course to how the first minister may allocate individual responsibilities.
Secondly, there is the role which the Government seek to give the Law Officers on devolution issues. We have already discussed that. Reference is made to the judicial committee prior to a Bill becoming an Act of
1452
the Scottish parliament and it is obvious from the provisions of Schedule 6 that such role will continue after the Acts receive Royal Assent. I do not intend to rehearse what was said earlier, but the importance of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, if they are to be the Scottish Law Officers, taking an independent role cannot be overstressed.
A third reason why I believe it to be inappropriate for the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland to be members of the Scottish executive is that the Lord Advocate will continue to discharge the role of independent public prosecutor. In exercising that role and discharging his duties, he will have to have regard to the public interest, not only of the people of Scotland, but also on occasion to the interests of the whole population of the United Kingdom. A number of the cases he has to handle are not necessarily just high profile ones, but the more routine cases which will involve the prosecution of people in England and working with UK bodies such as Customs and Excise.
A fourth reason for the view I hold is this. We are heading towards a parliament elected by proportional representation. That must increase the prospects of an executive having to be formed by some coalition or other. If members of more than one political party form the Scottish executive, there is a strong argument that the Lord Advocate should be outwith the executive. Whether he be a member of one political party or another, in a situation where he was a full member it might be much more difficult for him to be perceived to be acting in the independent way in which Law Officers are expected to act; a way in which anyone who holds a post as a Scottish Law Officer would wish to act.
I shall be interested to hear what the noble and learned the Lord Advocate and other noble Lords have to say in response to my amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: With the noble and learned Lord's experience of office as a Law Officer, he will know that one of the responsibilities—and it is perhaps the least desirable and least enviable responsibility—is from time to time to advise the Government that they cannot do what they would like to do. As I understand it, the convention which applies within the United Kingdom system is that where a Law Officer so advises in firm terms—in particular terms—the Government do not act against that advice. Can the noble and learned Lord say whether anything in this Bill—or anything at all—indicates that in the context of devolution the same convention will apply to advice given by the Lord Advocate? That is a matter of considerable importance in connection with the various matters that have been discussed in relation to vires and so on. It has a bearing on the kind of issue that has been raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in this amendment.
Lord Hardie: I shall answer the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry.

1453
There is nothing specific in the Bill which would mirror that convention. It is expected that the convention would continue. Certainly I would be surprised if it did not.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Why is it expected? We have heard a good deal about how the parliament will have a new convention. Everything will have to be redevised. In that context, why does he expect that it will be reflected? I hope it will be reflected. I share the noble and learned Lord's view that it should be reflected. If that is so, why are the Government not putting that on to the face of the Bill? If that is what they expect, if that is the way in which the parliament and the executive should behave, why is it not in the Bill? On what basis is it expected that the convention which exists will be applied? On a number of occasions, in this House and elsewhere, I have raised the point that there is nothing to replicate the conventions upon which the whole system works at present. If it is not replicated, upon what basis other than optimism does the noble and learned Lord believe that that will be replicated in this context?
10.15 p.m.
Lord Hardie: If by "optimism" the noble and learned Lord means "confidence in the parliament", I accept that it is optimism and confidence that I have that the politicians and the executive will behave in a responsible manner. It is inconceivable that with the creation of Law Officers with the independence enshrined in the Bill that politicians would not follow this well-known practice.
The policy which the Bill reflects was summarised briefly in the White Paper. It recognised that the Scottish executive would require the services of Law Officers to provide it with advice on legal matters and to represent its interests in the courts and that the role and responsibilities of the Lord Advocate as prosecutor were to be devolved with his traditional independence maintained. The Bill delivers that policy and safeguards the Lord Advocate's independence in a number of its provisions. I do not propose to rehearse those in any detail.
The effect of Clause 45(3) is that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will cease to be Ministers in the United Kingdom Government and to be the United Kingdom Government's Scottish Law Officers. It is envisaged that that will take place shortly after the first appointment of the first minister so that the Scottish law officers will be part of the Scottish executive from the beginning and will be able to influence and to shape the working practices of the executive even before the principal appointed day when the Scottish ministers will acquire their full powers.
Clause 45(1) provides for the appointment and removal from office of the Scottish law officers. When the Lord Advocate ceases to be a member of the United Kingdom Government and becomes a member of the Scottish executive, it is proposed that he should retain his existing and traditional functions as head of the systems of criminal prosecution and investigation of deaths in Scotland. Those functions are to be retained
1454
by him in his own name and will be capable of being exercised only by him or, when he is unavailable, by the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
The Lord Advocate will be entrenched in that role by Clause 28(2)(e), which prevents the parliament from removing him from his position as head of those systems. This does not prevent the parliament from amending those systems, but Clause 45(2) confirms the continued independence of the Lord Advocate in his capacity as the head of those systems by providing that any decision of the Lord Advocate in that capacity,
"shall continue to be taken by him independently of any other person".
Those provisions secure the protection that the Lord Advocate requires to fulfil his responsibilities in a way that will uphold his traditional independence.
As I explained previously in answer to a question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, it is proposed that all the other functions currently exercised by the Lord Advocate which do not relate to his Law Officer functions will be transferred from him before he ceases to be a Minister of the Crown and becomes a member of the Scottish executive. That is important. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the Lord Advocate has functions which are executive in nature in relation to, for example, certain functions which are the responsibility of the Scottish courts' administration. Those functions, and involvement in the recommendations for appointment of industrial tribunal and other tribunal chairmen, are executive functions. Three other transfer of functions orders will be needed in order to effect that and, for the information of the Committee, I have laid working drafts of those transfer of functions orders in the Printed Paper Office.
One of the transfer of functions orders proposes to transfer to the Secretary of State functions which the Lord Advocate currently exercises in relation to devolved matters, apart from the functions which he is retaining. Those are executive functions. They will then be transferred to the Scottish ministers on D-day under Clause 49. All functions conferred on the Scottish ministers will be capable of being exercised by any of them. It will be for the first minister to determine the portfolios of individual Scottish ministers. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will be Scottish ministers and the first minister could allocate some of those functions—or, indeed, additional functions—to them as Scottish ministers.
In the light of that background, I turn to the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. At present, because the Lord Advocate has certain executive functions—as a Law Officer, he gives legal advice to the Government—what is proposed is not incompatible with his present role in that regard. Nor is his involvement with the executive and these other executive functions incompatible with his role as an independent public prosecutor. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that throughout the centuries the Lord Advocate has been very jealous of the independence of his role as public prosecutor and has continued to act in the public interest both for the people of Scotland and for the

1455
people of the United Kingdom. That will continue after devolution. There is no inconsistency in his role as independent prosecutor and his role in performing certain executive functions.
Amendment No. 257B would prevent the Scottish law officers from exercising any of the statutory functions of a member of the Scottish executive other than those that are specific to a law officer. The Government cannot accept this amendment. It goes against the general approach in the Bill, which is to make all the functions transferred to or conferred upon Scottish Ministers capable of being exercised by any of them in accordance with whatever allocation of functions is decided upon by the first Minister.
The amendment would also prevent the Scottish law officers from exercising any of the functions which are transferred to Scottish Ministers under Clause 49 or 59. It would deny them the opportunity to exercise the administrative and policy functions which are currently exercisable by them, for example, in relation to civil jurisdiction and procedure, diligence and the law of evidence and which will be transferred to Scottish Ministers. In practice it is likely that these kinds of policy functions which relate to the Scottish judicial system will be exercised by the Scottish minister responsible for civil justice matters. At the present time that is the Lord Advocate. There is no reason to deprive a future Lord Advocate of the opportunity of performing these functions if the first minister considers that it is appropriate that he should do so.
That will also be the case with regard to a number of functions which are currently exercised by the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State in relation to tribunals concerned with reserved matters which it is proposed should be transferred to Scottish ministers by an order under Clause 59. These functions involve making, or being consulted about, appointments, procedural rules and other procedural matters. We also expect the first minister to allocate these functions to the Scottish minister responsible for civil justice matters. At present that is the Lord Advocate. Why after devolution should the first minister not be allowed to allocate that function to the Lord Advocate again if he considers that to be appropriate? In exercising those functions, the role of the relevant Scottish minister, whether it is the Lord Advocate or any other minister, will relate to his involvement in the civil justice system rather than any other policy interest of the Scottish executive in the matters concerned.
It is appreciated that it may not be appropriate for the first minister to allocate certain of the functions of the Scottish ministers to the Scottish law officers, such as those which impinge on the criminal justice system, in view of their present prosecution responsibilities. That is observed at the present time. It is inconceivable that any Lord Advocate would accept any responsibility which conflicted with his independent function of prosecutor. However, the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord do not seem to be sufficient grounds to prevent certain appropriate policy functions from being allocated to the Scottish law officers if the first minister wishes to do so.
1456
In the light of these explanations, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is with some trepidation that I venture into this field in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and former holders of that office. It is not entirely clear why the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General should be Scottish ministers within the Scottish executive who do not necessarily exercise law functions. Under Clause 26 of the Bill it is not necessary for the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland to be a member of the Scottish parliament. In all probability the law officers will not be elected members of the parliament. They will no doubt be appointed under Section 45(1), and the traditional role, certainly of the Attorneys General in this jurisdiction and in Commonwealth jurisdictions, is to give independent advice to government on legal issues which that government have to consider. But making them members of the Scottish executive suggests to me that the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility has to be dented. The Scottish executive cannot have in its number the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland, who may be charged with other duties beyond their normal functions, and yet expect them to be bound by Cabinet collective responsibility or anything of that nature. Yet, if it is suggested that they should be, they are the people who, under Clause 32, for example, may refer questions as to whether a Bill or any provision of a Bill is within the legislative competence of the parliament.
They have to stand away from the decision of the Scottish executive if they consider that the Scottish executive is acting outside its powers. I can see the practicality of having Scottish law officers within the executive from the beginning to guide the new body, as the noble and learned Lord explained. I can see its practical utility; nevertheless, it seems to me that there cannot be collective responsibility for the decisions of the Scottish executive if they are part and parcel of that Scottish executive. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord can tell me whether I am entirely wrong in that assumption.
Lord Hardie: The noble Lord is wrong. The position, as I sought to explain, is that at present the Lord Advocate has certain executive functions which are separate from the Law Officer functions and separate from his functions as a prosecutor. In exercising those functions, such as the responsibility for civil law, civil evidence and procedure, the Law Officers, in exercising those functions, are exercising an executive function as part of the executive. To that extent they would have collective responsibility in that regard.
On the other hand, when they act as Law Officers they do separate themselves from the executive and they give advice independently; similarly, when they act as prosecutors. The law is quite different from that in England in relation to the prosecution function. That is quite separate from the executive and there is no executive interference in the prosecutorial role and that would not be accepted or tolerated by any Lord Advocate, nor would the executive seek to interfere in that.

1457
At present, the existing Law Officers, both Scottish and English, are part of the UK Government, so why should the position be different for the Scottish parliament? Why should the Scottish Law Officers not be part of the Scottish government and part of the Scottish executive, able to perform executive functions which are not incompatible with their functions as Law Officers or their functions as prosecutors, just as they perform certain executive functions now which are not incompatible with these functions?
As I said, it would be inconceivable that the first minister would allocate any of the responsibility for criminal procedure or anything of that kind to the Lord Advocate. That might well conflict with his role as a prosecutor. It might be seen to be influencing the prosecution by undertaking that. That is allocated to a different Minister, not the Law Officers in Scotland. I hope that that will have reassured the noble and learned Lord.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down—I should know the answer to this question—is there to be any form of parliamentary scrutiny of the first minister's allocation of duties among the members of the Scottish executive, in particular as to which functions he allocates to the Lord Advocate?
Lord Hardie: I, too, should know the answer. My recollection is that there is not. The parliament will be involved in the approval of the appointment of Ministers, but the allocation of duties as between Ministers would be a matter for the first minister.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: That accords with my understanding of the Bill, unless the function came from a Minister of the Crown through a Section 59 order. That might be an exception to it.
This debate has been useful. I do not believe that there is anything between the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and myself about certain important parts of the future role of the Scottish Law Officers. First, if the Lord Advocate is to be devolved then his independent role as public prosecutor has to be protected. I fully acknowledge that in provisions in the Bill, as he says, his independence is enshrined.
Beyond that, I still have some uneasiness that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General will be members of the Scottish executive and not part of a separate government department, as the UK Law Officers are. It is true, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the Lord Advocate has certain executive functions. I have a copy of the draft order and the briefing guide with it to which he referred. A long list of Bills sets out where his powers are to be found. Most of them relate to the making of appointments and the laying down of certain procedures to be followed by different tribunals. But, as the noble and learned Lord said, he has responsibility for civil procedure. He also has considerable responsibilities under the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. It is appropriate that fully paid
1458
Law Officers should have responsibility there. He also has responsibilities under the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997.
I am not against the Scottish Law Officers having executive functions of a non-political nature. My concern is as regards the provisions of Clause 48 which may make it possible, however unlikely, for more political responsibilities to be handed over in a situation where, as the noble and learned Lord said, it would be for the Law Officers to give advice which he is optimistic would be followed in accordance with the conventions applying at Westminster.
This is not an appropriate matter to press to a Division at this stage of the evening. However, I hope that over the Recess the Government will reflect on whether it may be possible to work out some means of establishing greater independence not just in the prosecutorial functions but also the other functions of the Lord Advocate. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, indicated, it is important that everyone is clear about the role of the Law Officers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No.255B:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The Solicitor General for Scotland shall be the law officer to the Scottish Executive").
The noble and learned Lord said: This touches on another matter which I consider to be of importance, although I fully accept at the outset that it was dealt with in the White Paper and formed part of the Government's proposals when the White Paper was placed before the people of Scotland prior to the referendum.
The purpose of the amendments is to retain the Lord Advocate as a member of the United Kingdom government and to provide that the Solicitor-General for Scotland should be the Law Officer to the Scottish executive. Those amendments are Amendments Nos. 255B, 255P, 255Q, 255R and 255S. Amendment No. 257A is slightly different and seeks to provide that the Lord Advocate should maintain a separate office, part of the theme I argued for in the previous group of amendments.
There are a number of reasons for the view I hold, which I shall endeavour to place briefly before noble Lords. The principal function of the Lord Advocate is to act as the independent public prosecutor in Scotland. He is in charge of the investigation of sudden deaths and in complete control of the prosecution system by which those accused of criminal conduct are brought before the courts. He has certain statutory powers to direct the police in their investigations, and his staff, the procurators fiscal and advocate deputes from time to time give instructions in individual cases.
In exercising that function the Lord Advocate and those who work under him act in the public interest. As I have observed, that public interest is not limited to the interests of the people who live in Scotland, nor is it limited to devolved matters.
Assessing the public interest requires taking account of much wider considerations, not least the national issues which arise relating to the misuse of dangerous drugs, firearms, health and safety at work considerations, et cetera. As we were scrutinising Schedule 5 to the Bill it would have been abundantly obvious that in those fields the legislative power is not being devolved because they are all reserved matters. Many of the offences currently prosecuted in Scotland in the name of the Lord Advocate are for breaches of legislation made in this Parliament, and that will remain the position when the Scottish parliament comes into existence.
In considering this issue I thought it would be helpful to look back at what happened in 1978 when the Scotland Bill was promoted by the Labour government of the day. The decision reached by the constitutional team, which formed part of the government and which included John Smith, who was a very successful Queen's Counsel in Scotland as well as being a highly respected politician, the then Solicitor-General for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the Lord Chancellor of the day who took part in certain of the debates in the Bill, was that the Lord Advocate's position should not be devolved.
It is interesting to see what was said in the White Paper at that time. At paragraph 144 the separate character of Scottish law and the Scottish legal system was described, being especially recognised when the Union between Scotland and England came into being. It was said that in this distinctively Scottish field the government believed that extensive evolution was particularly appropriate. There were paragraphs dealing with Scottish private law and civil law and the role of the Law Commission. In paragraph 147 the White Paper dealt with the question of the criminal law. The Scottish administration and the devolved executive would also be given responsibility for the general criminal law including the right to create new offences, to redefine or abolish existing offences, to determine penalties and to regulate the treatment of offenders. However, it went on to point out certain exceptions, such as the misuse of drugs, explosives, firearms and so forth.
The important paragraph states:
"The enforcement of the criminal law through the police and the prosecution system, which in Scotland is not in any way under the control of the police, is part of the responsibility of the Government for the maintenance of law and order and the security of the state and will extend to offences within both devolved and other fields. It would not be right that responsibility for law enforcement should rest with members of an administration not directly answerable to Parliament".
I have to say that that summarises my concern most succinctly. It would not be right that responsibility for law enforcement should rest with members of an administration not directly answerable to Parliament.
Once devolution comes along and if the Lord Advocate becomes part of the Scottish executive, he will no longer be answerable to this Parliament for prosecutions which may be of concern to Members of Parliament for a variety of reasons; whether it be because the prosecution involves a major national interest or whether it be because it involves the prosecution of someone who resides in England but is
1460
prosecuted in Scotland and whose MP is in England and who has no representative in Scotland. For whatever reason, from time to time cases will arise in respect of which Members of your Lordships' House and of another place will wish to question why a prosecution took place. They will no longer have that right. I believe, as the authors of the 1978 White Paper believed, that that would not be correct.
Although it is a lesser point, I also believe that it is important that the Lord Advocate, because he has to prosecute for contraventions of legislation passed by this Parliament, should have direct access to this Parliament and be a Member of the Government who have the responsibility of putting legislation through this Parliament. That right will be lost, even if it is possible, as may well be the case, that future Lords Advocate, if they were to be devolved, could be appointed Members of your Lordships' House.
Finally, and again it is a lesser consideration, it would no longer be possible for the Lord Advocate to represent the United Kingdom whether in the courts of Luxembourg or Strasbourg or at any other international and Commonwealth conference which over the years Lords Advocate have attended.
I fully accept that there will be an Advocate General who will do so, according to the Government's proposals. I fully accept it is possible that he will be able to discharge some of the roles. But he will not be capable of being answerable to this Parliament for the prosecution of crime. I believe that that is a serious flaw in the Government's proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. Does he anticipate that the Lord Advocate, in carrying out his role as head of the prosecution service and dealing with a crime under, say, the Misuse of Drugs Act, would have to adopt the public policy interest as defined in the United Kingdom legislation, even though he was not a member of the United Kingdom executive? In other words, would he have to take the view that it was public policy as laid down in that statute rather than, for example, the view which he as a member of the Scottish executive might take on the issue of drugs, which would have a bearing on whether in any particular case a prosecution would be mounted?
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have one small point to make from a completely lay point of view. Scotland is a very small place. When the Lord Advocate is appointed, the first thing that will happen is that the elected members of the Scottish parliament will have to approve his appointment before the first minister can make a recommendation to Her Majesty. I believe that is right.
There may be a squabble. We do not quite know how the whole thing will work out. The public will know that there has been a squabble. At the moment, they respect the system. They do not question it at all. They never wonder whether Her Majesty has appointed the

1461
right Lord Advocate. Other lawyers may, but members of the public do not. It seems to me that his status will be very different as a result of this change. That is part of the problem which my noble and learned friend raises.
I look at this matter as I believe the public will see it. They would discover, if there was a problem, that the Lord Advocate can be dismissed by the first minister and that that has nothing whatever to do with this Parliament. It will be very different. The Lord Advocate will be a much more local figure in the public view. Consequently, he will be more vulnerable to criticism. That is very important. I hope that the Government have thought this out carefully.
Lord Hardie: I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that we have thought carefully about this. It follows on, to some extent, from the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, about the position in the 1970s when one was speaking about a Scottish assembly as opposed to a Scottish parliament.
Since the 1970s, a lot has changed. There has been the Scottish Constitutional Convention which deliberated long and hard on the question of the devolution of the legal system. I am sure that the noble Baroness and noble Lords will accept that one of the peculiarities and specialties of Scotland is its independent and separate legal system. Therefore, if one is devolving power to a Scottish parliament, one of the particular functions that is an obvious candidate for consideration is the legal system.
As I say, that was considered at great length and in some considerable detail by the constitutional convention. The decision was that it should be devolved. Thereafter, the Government considered that matter and accepted that. That was reflected in the White Paper, which was the basis for the referendum.
The logic of the position adopted by the noble and learned Lord is that the legal system and, in particular, the peculiarly Scottish criminal legal system, should not be devolved. That is the logic, and can only be the logic, of his position because the Lord Advocate is head of the prosecution system. If you retain or reserve the Lord Advocate in London as a Law Officer in the United Kingdom Parliament, it is inconsistent with devolving the prosecution system, unless you are going to say that the whole system should change and that the Lord Advocate, after several centuries, should no longer be head of the prosecution system and that that should be passed, perhaps, to the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
But there is another flaw in the noble and learned Lord's approach. He is seeking to separate the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General, leaving one in London with the United Kingdom and one in Scotland with the Scottish parliament. But that just will not do. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, having held the office of Lord Advocate, the Law Officers Act 1944 provides that the Solicitor-General will be in a position and is empowered to discharge any functions of the Lord Advocate where the office of the Lord
1462
Advocate is vacant; or where the Lord Advocate is unable to act for any reason; or where the Lord Advocate authorises him to act on his behalf in a particular case. So, by splitting the two Law Officers, is the noble and learned Lord suggesting that the provisions of the 1944 Act should be cast aside? If that is the position, it will have very serious implications for the prosecution service in Scotland. I give way to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am much obliged. In moving the amendment I was proceeding on the assumption that, if the Committee was with me in principle, the Government would follow the normal convention of carrying out any necessary amendments to implement the wish of this Chamber. I fully accept that one could trawl through various Acts of Parliament and no doubt find provisions which might, on one view, be inconsistent with the principal amendment that I seek to make. I do not for a minute demur to the suggestion that the Scottish parliament will need Law Officers. However, I seek to raise the simple question as to why—and, indeed, it is suggested that my reasoning in this respect is flawed and my logic incorrect—if it was considered to be sensible in 1978, it is illogical, flawed and, quite frankly, a nonsense in 1998. I find that difficult to follow. That is the issue which I hope the noble and learned Lord will address.
Lord Hardie: I thought that I had done so. The position is that 20 years have passed since that time and the intention then was to have an assembly. However, that did not work out and it did not come into being. It may be that the noble and learned Lord and others regret that fact and wish to turn back the clock, but that is not possible. Since then we have had the constitutional convention and there has been much thought about the future governance of Scotland. It has been decided that the proper form of devolution, which the Government have adopted, is to devolve the criminal justice and the civil justice systems. The logical consequence of that is that the Lord Advocate will be devolved.
If one is arguing for the retention of the Lord Advocate in London, then the logic behind that is that one is arguing for not devolving the criminal prosecution service. The reference by the noble and learned Lord back to the 1970s and the original arrangements of 20 years ago, where the Lord Advocate and the criminal prosecution service were not being devolved, suggests to me that what he really wants is the retention or the reservation of the criminal justice system. In my respectful submission, that fails to recognise the fact that it is sensible to devolve to Scotland the system of law and the system of prosecution, both of which are peculiar to Scotland.
Perhaps I may attempt to answer the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger. The Lord Advocate will, of course, have to take account of legislation, whether it is passed by the Scottish parliament or by the UK Parliament, and will have to decide whether it is appropriate to prosecute under it. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the simple fact that a piece of legislation creates an offence does

1463
not automatically mean that prosecution follows in every case. The Lord Advocate of the day and local fiscals exercise discretion and operate certain policies in relation to what may be considered to be less serious breaches of the legislation. The policy of the United Kingdom Parliament, in creating an offence, will be an overlay of the policy of the Lord Advocate himself in determining whether to prosecute.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I accept, as the noble and learned Lord would readily understand, that anyone who has held the office knows that in the case of minor breaches or breaches involving young people, particular factors come into account. Leaving all these things aside, is it the position that the Lord Advocate would be bound by the public policy, as stated by the United Kingdom Parliament, for example in the case of drugs, in precisely the same way as he would be bound by the policy he has expressed in an act of the Scottish parliament in some devolved matter giving rise to a criminal offence? That is the issue which I am seeking to identify, leaving aside the particular factors which might of course apply in any given case.
Lord Hardie: The short answer to that is yes. The question that I should like to propose to the House is why should noble Lords go against what was decided in the referendum which followed upon the White Paper, where it was quite clear that the question of the criminal justice system would be devolved and that the law officers would also be devolved?
It is flattering to think that the noble and learned Lord wishes to retain me in London. I am flattered by the obvious affection in which he holds me. I regret that the legislation is such that, if I am fortunate enough to be appointed Lord Advocate, I would not remain in London, although I would hope to visit this Chamber on occasions.
So far as concerns Amendment No. 257A, I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord spoke to that. The position there is that this amendment is unnecessary. The Lord Advocate will remain responsible for the appointment of staff within his office—namely, the particular legal staff that form the procurators fiscal—and would have a say in the appointment of senior members of the Civil Service serving in his staff.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the position. If he is devolved, I know that he will be welcomed back in this Chamber, although, like the rest of us, he will be on more modest pay and rations than he currently enjoys. He will also be in the fortunate position of not having to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer questions which, from time to time, Government Ministers find difficulty with.
I am not entirely convinced that a great deal has changed over the last 20 years. The office of Lord Advocate goes back for many centuries. To suggest that there has been such a sea change in thinking over the last 20 years or so is not a convincing argument. Equally. I am not convinced that the role of the Scottish
1464
constitutional convention in this matter is of crucial importance. I may be wrong, but I was not aware of the convention carrying out detailed consultation with those who were actively involved in the criminal justice system. Jim Wallace, who is of course a Queen's Counsel, was an active member. I am not suggesting that there were not others but I have some doubts as to whether this important issue was as fully thrashed out as it might have been to give the decision of the convention, as it is described, quite the significance that the Government appear to have accorded to it.
I acknowledge, however, as I did at the outset of my remarks, that this was in the manifesto. For that reason, I do not think it would be constitutionally appropriate for me to seek the opinion of the Committee. But I have to say, quite frankly, on my own behalf, that long before I read the 1978 White Paper I considered the decision to be wrong. I am reinforced in that conclusion by the views which are set out there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 255C:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) The Parliament may change the terms "Scottish Executive" and "First Minister" to such other terms as it considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: In this amendment we are getting away from the heavy water of legal matters to rather simpler issues which I think I can deal with quickly. I hope that I shall receive a positive reply from the Minister, who will accept my amendment without hesitation! The Committee will recall that we discussed the, in my view, rather odd names that have been selected for the principal people in the Scottish parliament. The "top guy" is to be called the presiding officer and the "top political guy"—if I may call him that—is to be called the first minister. The government, so to speak, is to be called the Scottish executive. As always, when I suggested we might make the names more user friendly, I was chastised by the Minister, who said these were matters for the Scottish parliament. However, in this case I do not think I was told that. I should have been told that if the Government were being logical as regards their usual arguments; namely, that whenever we propose any change to Standing Orders or to anything else we are told that we should not attempt that here and that we should trust the new parliament. That is exactly what my amendment proposes to do.
In case the Committee thinks this is not a sensible amendment, I should say that I do not think the term "first minister" will be accepted, any more than the title "presiding officer". At the risk of a little laughter at my expense, I have mentioned another title created by government in the mid '80s which was not accepted for long either. However, I shall not let that title cross my lips this evening. I draw the Committee's attention to a Children in Scotland factsheet No. 41, which I read with

1465
my usual interest. I could not avoid a double-take when I read the following paragraph describing the Scottish parliament,
"Members of the Scottish Parliament will be elected by general election every four years. The parliament will have a Presiding Officer (the Speaker), Ministers, a Clerk and a First Minister (effectively the Scottish Prime Minister)".
The simple fact of the matter is that whatever this Chamber decides, the popular press—I am not sure whether you call the other lot the unpopular press—and the heavyweight press, as it were, will use these shorthand titles which people understand. I have been round this course before. My amendment does not state that the first minister should be called the premier or the prime minister. It does not state that the Scottish executive should be called the government of Scotland or anything like that. It states simply that the parliament should be able to change the terms to any other terms it thinks appropriate.
Let us start off with what the Government want in the Bill, as I have learnt that what the Government want they will jolly well have, like spoilt children. So let the Government have what they want, but let us give the parliament—in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale—the power to change that, so that we stand by what we believe to be the good sense of the parliament and do not second guess what titles the parliament or the people concerned will be given. It seems to me this is an amendment the Government ought to accept to give the parliament the power to make changes to these titles as it thinks fit. If it thinks what we have handed down from this Parliament is appropriate, it will adopt those terms. Let us trust the parliament as Ministers here have said. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My noble friends and I strongly support this amendment. It is akin to my Amendment No. 256, which we have already debated but to which we shall return in the running order of the Bill.
Not only do I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that these words will not survive; they are thought to be rather ridiculous. To me, a presiding officer is a person sitting at my village polling station, and I know of no other use for the phrase. I could go on, but do not want to be repetitive.
I wish to make one important point. I distinctly recall that, when the White Paper was published and presented in the other place, the Secretary of State for Scotland made it clear that these names were not set in stone and that they were simply there as handy guidance since some words had to written into the Bill. I hope that that will be the attitude of the Government. What a splendid relief it would be to us all if, just occasionally, a Minister would come to the Dispatch Box and say, "You have a point, we'll accept it. Let us move on to the next subject".
Lord Renton: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend. Many years ago, as an Under-Secretary at the Home Office, I had the responsibility of maintaining liaison with the "government of Northern
1466
Ireland" as it was called. It was not called an "executive"; it was called a "government". The head of that government was known as the Premier.
It is only right that we should have some flexibility in this matter to enable the Scottish parliament/government in years to come to choose those expressions that it thinks most appropriate. The amendment deserves support.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The amendment would allow the Scottish parliament to change the titles of various officers in the parliament and of the executive. It represents a course that we have been over before in Committee, rather thoroughly as I remember it, on one of the early days which have all merged into one in a haze in my mind at this stage. We went into the details at some length.
I am afraid that I shall be consistent, in that I can only repeat my earlier remarks. I appreciate the noble Lord's arguments, which have not changed since our earlier discussions on the subject. I give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Before she goes on to develop this argument, I must remind her that my previous amendment stated that "First Minister" should become "Premier". This amendment does not say that; it says that the term should remain the same, but that the parliament should be allowed to change it if it wishes. It is quite a different argument. I hope that we are not to hear a repeat of the previous argument advanced by the Government.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing that out. We were aware of it. He could not possibly be moving the same amendment as he proposed earlier. The principle is the same. While we appreciate the noble Lord's argument that the parliament should be able to decide for itself the titles of its executive, its Ministers and its key officers, we believe that the certainty and consistency achieved by prescribing the titles from the outset is essential. The prescription is necessary to maintain a consistency in references throughout the Bill and in future legislation, as well as in other formal documents through successive sessions of the parliament.
We are well aware of the speculation as to other titles that might be used. Incidentally, I did not see the significance that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, seemed to give to a factsheet for children explaining that the first minister in a Scottish parliament would be what they knew as a Prime Minister in the Westminster Parliament. That does not seem any great argument for changing the title of first minister.
The titles used in the Bill are clear and unambiguous and suit their purpose. "First Minister" describes the role and avoids confusion with office holders in Westminster—a not unimportant point which noble Lords opposite never seem to accept. It is consistent with the Northern Ireland Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, mentioned Northern Ireland, but I must point out that that assembly here and now has a First Minister. That seems to have been readily accepted

1467
across the media in respect of Northern Ireland, and I do not see why it should be different when it comes to Scotland.
The Welsh assembly is to have a first secretary. Generally, the titles were used throughout the White Paper and therefore they were the titles that the people of Scotland became familiar with during the referendum campaign. During that campaign, of which I was very much a part, as were some other Members of your Lordships' House, those titles were used all the time. I do not think noble Lords opposite are suggesting that the referendum meant that everything to do with the parliament did not have a good airing in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was good enough to mention more than once, the results were a resounding victory of "Yes" to both questions.
The titles have been carefully chosen to avoid confusion with the Westminster Parliament and Whitehall Ministers. No doubt people will develop their own way of referring to them, and I do not want to speculate on that. Different titles might be used in the day-to-day operation of the parliament. For example, people might want for working purposes to add to the titles of Scottish ministers so as to distinguish them according to their portfolios. That would mean people would refer to a particular Scottish minister as "the Scottish minister for health", "the Scottish health minister", "the Scottish education minister" and so on. But the titles would have no legal status. By prescribing simple, straightforward titles, we hope to ensure that there is no confusion between officers and positions so that everyone knows where they stand and what their responsibilities are. I ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.
Lord Renton: I hope that the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene. She said that in Northern Ireland the head of the government was called "the First Minister". Did I mishear her? I have always understood that it was the practice that first Lord Brookeborough and then his successors were always referred to as "the Premier".
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am not talking about the past; I am talking about the present. The Northern Ireland Assembly will have a First Minister.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have to disillusion the noble Baroness. I know she does not have much time to go to Scotland at the moment. We all understand that. But there is enormous confusion about who these people are. The fact that the referendum was a resounding "Yes" has not sorted out in people's minds who the first minister is and who is the presiding officer. There is much confusion; people do not know what is what. Some laugh about it when you explain. So the die is not cast and I do not believe the Minister should use that argument, whatever other argument she uses.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am afraid that the noble Baroness will have to allow me to choose which arguments I use. As for my presence in Scotland, since the referendum I have been much more in Scotland than
1468
in London. I hope other Members of your Lordships' House can be a witness to the regularity of my visits to and from London.
I do not want to get into a competition about how many hours one clocks up in Scotland or England. It is not relevant. However, I have no reservations about believing that I am just as much in touch with the people of Scotland as any other Member of your Lordships' House.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Perhaps I may press the noble Baroness as to what she meant when she said that, although the titles would not have statutory effect, parliament could decide to call those in the parliament what it liked. That would square with what the Secretary of State said in answer to questions in the House at the time the White Paper was published.
Perhaps we may be clear. The Minister is not saying that anything in the Bill prevents the Scottish parliament deciding that its first minister should be called the premier or that the presiding officer should be called the speaker. That would square with the undertaking given by the Secretary of State at the time of the publication of the White Paper.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I shall make two points. First, that is not what I said. I said that what people might develop as their own way of referring to the office holders was something on which I would not speculate. They may well decide to refer to people in different ways. I was not talking about the parliament changing the title.
Secondly, what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State was indicating when he spoke was that at the time this was still going to be looked at. We have looked at it. This is the Bill; not the White Paper. This is what the Government have decided is the best way forward on these titles. I made that very clear earlier in Committee. I am being consistent. It is still the view of the Government. There is no contradiction in what was said by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State then and there is no other meaning to what I said just now.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Is the noble Baroness saying that this Bill, if passed into legislation in its present form, will prevent the Scottish parliament from choosing better names than it contains? If that is what she is saying, we shall have to come back to this matter at Report stage.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I am saying that in statute these are the titles.
Lord Clyde: On another occasion we passed an amendment to Schedule 4 which provides, among other things, that the Scottish parliament may amend,
"any enactment … by changing the name of

(a) any court or tribunal or any judge, chairman or officer of a court or tribunal,

1469

(b) any holder of an office in the Scottish Administration which is not a ministerial office or any member of the staff of the Scottish Administration".

What is the consistency in allowing the alteration of names of judges—as it is delightfully put—but not the names of senior Ministers?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: In fact, to put it bluntly and in layman's terms, because they are different jobs.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The real answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, is that there is no answer to that. The noble Baroness ought sometimes to score out the word "resist", because it sounded as though we were attacking one of the pillars of the whole devolutionary settlement, such was the vigour of her resistance.
To be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, I confirm to my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour that the Minister does indeed spend most weekends in Scotland. I know this—I suppose I had better be open about it—because I meet her on the aeroplane, though nowhere else.
In relation to my quote from the Children in Scotland fact sheet, that is a serious organisation. It is in fact the Scottish all-party parliamentary group for children whose convenor is Maria Fyfe MP. So it was not a kind of child's guide to the Scottish parliament; it was a serious guide for people—grown-ups—who are interested in the family policy of the Scottish parliament. I drew the attention of the Committee to that paragraph because it is an indication of what inevitably is going to happen.
I must say that I felt that the resistance of the noble Baroness was about the worst piece of resistance we have seen. I cannot believe that the instructions from on high are such that they will not allow any give and take—as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said—on a subject which seems to be not at all peripheral to the whole project of devolution. My suspicions are that it has got "Downing Street" stamped all over it and there must be nobody else in the United Kingdom who is called "Prime Minister" or anything vaguely like that. It is amazing how other countries in the world with federal constitutions are able to cope with having people of the same name. I am so appalled at that answer that I shall seek the opinion of the Committee.
11.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 255C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 48.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Balfour, E.

Clyde, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller]

Cranborne, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Cross, V.

Chesham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

1470

Ellenborough, L.

Minto, E.

HolmPatrick, L.

Montrose, D.

Home, E.

Mountevans, L.

Hooper, B.

Northesk, E.

Kintore, E.

Renton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Strange, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thurso, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alli, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Kirkhill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monkswell, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

David, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Puttnam, L.

Desai, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Goudie, B.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Gregson, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Grenfell, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hacking, L.

Thornton, B.

Hardie, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.26 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 255D:
Page 19, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) No Minister of the Crown may be appointed as a Scottish Minister or as a Scottish Law Officer.").
The noble Lord said: Those Members of the Committee, such as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who were keen on the Welsh Bill will readily recognise this amendment. It deals with the subject of the interrelationship between this parliament and the Scottish parliament. I am one of those who think that if people wish, and if the electorate is willing, they should be allowed to be Members of this Parliament and of the Scottish parliament, of this Parliament and of the European Parliament, and of the European Parliament and of the Scottish parliament. One could throw local government into the combination as well. It seems to work reasonably well on the Continent and I do not see why it should not work here.
However, there is a difference when it comes to people holding responsible office in either this Parliament or the Scottish parliament. This amendment deals with the question of whether somebody could be a Minister of the Crown here at Westminster and a minister or a law officer in a Scottish parliament. That assumes that that person was elected to both bodies.
We have had some problem with this question in the Welsh Bill because Mr. Ron Davies actually and actively thinks that he can be both Secretary of State and first minister of the Welsh assembly. The position is different in Scotland. Mr. Donald Dewar thought that he could be both—that is, for about 10 minutes. He then realised that the position was untenable and indicated quickly that, as he wished to stand for the Scottish parliament and wished to be considered as first minister, he would not keep the office of Secretary of State in those circumstances. I am not too sure whether he said that he would resign the office of Secretary of State before he stood for the Scottish parliament. I rather suspect that that is, indeed, what he did say, but in any case he made it clear, as far as I can recall from the press reports, that he did not think that it was consistent to be Secretary of State for Scotland and first minister.
This has been debated in some detail in the course of the Welsh Bill and I believe that it will be debated in your Lordships' House again tomorrow when the Welsh Bill makes a reappearance here along with the Commons amendments. Last week, on 22nd July, Mr. Peter Hain, one of the Ministers at the Welsh Office, was discussing this and said at col. 1181 of Commons Hansard:
"Nobody seriously argues that the same person can be the Secretary of State for Wales and Assembly First Secretary in perpetuity. It would be politically unacceptable and constitutionally undesirable".
To be fair to Mr. Hain, he believes that for a short period to begin with it may be possible but that in the long term it is not. Mr. Hain is nearly right, by which I mean that he should not qualify his comment; namely, it is not possible in the short term or long term. How can someone who is a Minister along the corridor or here—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, not necessarily the Secretary of State—be elected to the Scottish parliament and be a Minister in that parliament?
I ask those noble Lords who have had ministerial office to remember the guidance for Ministers, in particular about collective responsibility. At nine o'clock this evening the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in replying to another debate, gave a certain answer. I wrote it down and might not have recorded it exactly. He said that UK Ministers are accountable to the UK Parliament and Scottish Ministers will be accountable to the Scottish parliament. How can the same person be accountable to both? They are different parliaments and governments. Such a person cannot be part of the collective responsibility of one parliament and part of the collective responsibility of another. He will break the collective responsibility of one or the other. Even if it is the same party in government—frankly, there is some doubt about that on the basis of Scottish opinion polls—there will be times when inevitably there will be differences in emphasis or priorities.
There is no point in devolution if the Scottish parliament and executive always adopt the same policies as the UK Government. Obviously, those differences will be greater if there is a coalition government in the Scottish parliament, as is perhaps inevitable, and a single party government in Westminster, even if there is an overlap of parties. The differences will be greater still
1472
if there are governments of different parties here and in Scotland. If there were a coalition in Scotland one could envisage that a minor partner in it might be the main party in the House of Commons down the corridor. Therefore, if a Minister in the one could be a Minister in the other the position would be almost impossible.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sewel—if it is he who is to reply—of his answer at nine o'clock this evening. I do not believe that, as Mr. Hain said the other day, it is possible to be a Minister in both parliaments, aside from the fact that it appears to be taking greed for ministerial office to the nth degree. I beg to move.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: It is quite clear that the concept of a person being a Minister in the Scottish parliament while also being a Minister in the UK Parliament raises some constitutional niceties. The question is whether we need to deal with that expressly in the Bill or leave it to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in the first instance and the First Minister in Scotland to decide if there are any quite exceptional circumstances in which perhaps for a short period there is merit in one person being a Minister in both governments.
I fully recognise the concept of collective responsibility and how that concept strains the constitutional convention. But it is a constitutional convention. Constitutional conventions have the ability to evolve, change and adapt to circumstances at the time. It is quite possible that this particular constitutional convention will be capable of an evolution and an adaptation in the way that makes an accommodation to the particular circumstance to which the noble Lord is referring.
There may be a case. Let us take an example. Let us look forward, say, 25 years. I use 25 years because by that time we may have a Conservative government, if things go badly wrong; there may be a Conservative government here at Westminster and, who knows, a Conservative administration in Holyrood. Let us suppose that there has been a long-running crisis on the common fisheries policy and there is one man in Britain who everybody clearly sees and identifies as the man who can actually square the circle and deliver a proper settlement, not only for Scotland but for the United Kingdom. That man is, of course, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Lord Mackay steps forward for a short period of time to deal with this major crisis, this major disrupting influence in the politics of Europe and in the politics of the United Kingdom; the Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish carries the heavy burden. As Cincinnatus was called from the plough, Lord Mackay is called from the salmon, and he delivers this signal service to his fellow countrymen by being, for that short period, able to represent the interests of the Scottish administration and the interests of the United Kingdom Government.
Of course, that is very far fetched, but there is an element of truth in the situation that could arise. It would arise only in exceptional circumstances, only for a very limited period of time when, in the initial judgment of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the First Minister in Scotland one person could do

1473
a particular job in very exceptional circumstances. At this stage I would not like to rule that possibility out. I believe that it is something that is extremely unlikely, but we do not have to rule it out by putting the prohibition in the Bill.
Lord Renton: Having listened very carefully to what the noble Lord has said, I wonder whether he can clarify his argument by giving us a single example of any devolved or regional government anywhere in the world in which a minister of the central government was also a minister of the devolved or regional government. Is there the slightest precedent anywhere?
Lord Sewel: If my memory serves me correctly, there have been cases in the French regions where people—I do not know whether the term "minister" is used, but I believe so—where ministers have been used while serving as ministers in the central government. I am not absolutely certain on that, and I shall try to make that clear and shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Renton: With the greatest respect, in France, which I heard the noble Lord mention, the only example that one can find is not really this example. There has been more than one case of a Prime Minister of France having been the mayor of one of the cities, but that is quite different.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Renton is right. The only merit in the noble and learned Lord's answer is that he at least tried to cover the total inadequacy of the answer with some amusement and in that way hoped to divert the Committee's attention from the total vacuum at the centre of the ministerial argument.
I think that the Minister failed to convince any Member of the Committee. I suspect that he even failed to convince himself. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon said that in 25 years I should probably have to be called from the grave. I thought that that was rather unkind, especially with the excellent example of my noble friend Lord Renton who at this deep hour of the night, at long past 85 years, is still here and asking penetrating questions. Frankly, on this amendment my noble friend may agree that he did not have to be very penetrating to get through the Government's guard.
That was perhaps the Minister's poorest argument. When he awakens in the morning he might reflect on his worst argument in the Bill. I suspect that this is it. If he and his officials cannot conjure up a better argument than that, they had better bring forward an amendment of their own at Report stage to ensure that we cannot have this double ministerial office. If they do not do so, I shall return to the matter at a time of day when I might have a better chance of winning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255DA not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [The First Minister]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 255E:
Page 19, line 15, at end insert ("or persons").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 255E and 255F are two small amendments to Clause 42. They deal with the situation where there is a vacancy in the office of first minister. Subsection (4) provides that in such situations the functions exercisable by him shall be exercisable by a person designated by the presiding officer.
Such a situation could arise after the parliament had been dissolved and voters and potential members were awaiting the next general election. It could arise where parliament for whatever reason had failed to agree on a first minister and an extraordinary general election required to be called. In circumstances far less remote than those we have been discussing, it might be desirable to have more than one person involved in the discharge of the first minister's duties. For example, if the only way in which an administration could be formed were by some form of coalition, the presiding officer might take the view that it would be sensible to involve members of political parties who were standing for election to the parliament as the persons who should discharge these functions.
I hope that this will be accepted as a constructive suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: I accept that the intention underlying the amendment is constructive but I regret to say that I do not think that the amendments are appropriate.
With Amendment No. 255E, the noble and learned Lord is attempting to provide that the presiding officer is able to appoint more than one person to carry out the role of the first minister.
The provisions in Clause 42 are intended to ensure that there is always someone able to perform the functions of the first minister and act as head of the administration. In practice, it is expected that each first minister will hold office until replaced by a successor. But there could be circumstances where the post falls vacant, for example on the death of a first minister, or where the first minister is unable to act temporarily. In that situation the presiding officer is authorised to designate someone.
However, it is a single office and we think that it would be inappropriate to enable more than one person to be designated to perform the duties of that office. If more than one person were designated, two or more people would come within the category of first minister; and how would it be decided who would do what in these circumstances?
With Amendment No. 255F the noble Lords would introduce yet more inappropriate words into the Bill. It is already quite clear that the person designated to act as first minister would be doing so in the capacity of a caretaker. It is not necessary to require the presiding officer to specify how long such arrangements will be in place, nor, on purely practical grounds, would it be reasonable to require him to do so. In the case of illness

1475
it would not be known how long the first minister might be incapacitated, and accordingly it would not be appropriate to fix a determinate period.
With that explanation I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am disappointed that my suggestion has not been accepted, but it is clearly not a matter of any great importance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 255F not moved.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Choice of the First Minister]:
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 255G:
Page 19, line 24, leave out ("If') and insert ("When").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 255H. Amendment No. 255G is a drafting amendment. Its purpose is to sharpen up the language of the opening sentence of Clause 43, which deals with the choice of the first minister.
I contend that the word "when" is more appropriate than "if'. The first sentence in Clause 43(1) gives the wrong impression. It is not a case of "if' in regard to the choice of a first minister after a general election, a death in office or some other event; it is a case of when one of these events has occurred.
Apart from the insertion of one other condition, that of mental ill health as in Amendment No. 255H, there are no other opportunities for a first minister to be chosen. The word "when" is therefore correct, that is, unless a first minister does not have to be chosen. I do not believe that that is an option open to the Scottish parliament.
The more substantive amendment, Amendment No. 255H, introduces a further example of when a first minister would have to be chosen. The amendment describes the situation where a first minister will stand down because of admission to hospital under the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or in the event of him or her becoming subject to a guardianship order or having a curator bonis appointed to supervise his or her affairs. These would clearly be very sad occurrences, but they could happen, for example after a bad road accident in which the injuries sustained rendered the first minister permanently and legally incapable.
There are two points to raise in this connection. The Mental Health Act 1983, an English Act, is not only a reserve matter within the Bill but the reservation ties members of the Scottish parliament and the presiding officer into Section 141 of that Act. How can this be? The Mental Health Act 1983 does not extend to Scotland. Surely a reservation should be made introducing an amendment to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. I hope that on Report the Government bring forward a suitable amendment to deal with that.
My second point relates to the urgent need for a Scottish Bill to modernise and overhaul the legislation relating to incapable adults. I believe that this should feature in the first session of the Scottish parliament—it is that important. When that incapable adults' legislation is passed by the Scottish parliament, it will be necessary to approach the Westminster Parliament to update Section 141 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
I believe that this issue is in need of amendment and further thought. How can this English Act run with any credibility in Scotland? I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: Although it would be extremely tragic, the first minister could have an accident. Provision was made in the Government of Wales Bill in case the first minister became incapable of doing his job properly. I was under the impression that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, intended to make a similar provision in the Scotland Bill.
It would be tragic, but it could happen. Will the Minister consider that point, because the Scotland Bill makes no such provision?
Lord Renton: I am most doubtful about these two amendments. The word "when" indicates that various events to be mentioned later are inevitable, but not all of them are inevitable. They may never occur. One may occur during the poll at a general election while the first minister is in office. Frankly, in this context, "when" and "if' are virtually synonymous and I do not see the need for the change.
As for adding to the Bill references to the first minister being in hospital for mental reasons, or becoming subject to a guardianship order, or having a curator bonis appointed, they are sad events and if any of them occurred the first minister would inevitably be required to resign. I believe that it is over-zealous of us to try to write it into the Bill.
Lord Sewel: Clearly, my efforts at defending the Government's position on the last but one amendment have been recognised and rewarded and I am left with the job of dealing with the mad first minister!
As regards Amendment No. 255G, I am at a loss to understand how the substitution of "if' with "when" leads to any greater precision. I am tempted to the view that if we explore that at any great length we might finish up falling under the auspices of Amendment No. 255H. I shall not detain the Committee any longer on that business. I do not understand the argument that in this context "when" is of greater precision than "if'. I do not see that at all. Furthermore, I do not believe that the Government need to accept Amendment No. 255H, which we consider inappropriate and unnecessary, partly for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Renton adduced.
The noble Earl argued that there is no provision in the Bill to take account of the incapacity of the first minister. That is not the case on a proper reading of the Bill. I suggest that the Bill makes more than adequate provision to deal with cases where the first minister is unable to act. For example, if at any time it appeared to

1477
the presiding officer that the first minister was unable to act for whatever reason, including mental illness, it would be open to him, under Clause 42(4) to designate an MSP to exercise the function of the first minister. That provision is sufficiently wide to enable the presiding officer to deal appropriately with every eventuality.
Should it become clear that the first minister's inability to carry out his function was not merely temporary, we should expect the first minister to resign, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, indicated. But should he not resign and should it be a particularly grave mental illness, the Scottish parliament could effectively remove him and his executive through a vote of no confidence, which would have the effect of bringing about the resignation virtually automatically. In turn, that would lead to the appointment of a new first minister. That would be a fairly drastic turn of events but it would operate in a way which would allow as much dignity as possible to be maintained with the need for effectiveness. Therefore, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary and on that basis, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I do not wish to continue the argument about "if" and "when" except to say that I believe that "when" sounds more definite.
With regard to Amendment No. 255H, we have now established that the presiding officer may have to relieve the first minister of his command. That is always tricky because if you are wrong, you are guilty of whatever is the political equivalent of mutiny by relieving someone of his command when he did not deserve it. I shall say no more. I continue to hope that the Government will think further about the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 255H not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Ministers]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 255J:
Page 20, line 4, leave out (", with the approval of Her Majesty,").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I can offer the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, some advice on "if" and "when". If we think about finishing this Bill, it sometimes becomes not a matter of "when" but "if' we finish the Bill.
This group of amendments deals with the appointment of Ministers and junior Ministers in Clauses 44 and 46 respectively. The amendments address the same points in both clauses. If I pair the amendments, that may be the quickest way in which to probe and ask the Minister for his advice on a number of matters.
First, I deal with Amendments Nos. 255J and 255T. Both amendments deal with the words,
"with the approval of Her Majesty".
1478
Let us take just one of the clauses because they are mirror images of each other. Those words are in the very first line of Clause 44. When I became a member of the Privy Council and when I was elevated to the House of Lords, I was aware that Her Majesty's hand was somewhere in the background. When I became a junior Minister at the Scottish Office and even a Minister of State at the Department of Social Security, I was not aware of the approval of Her Majesty being sought or being granted. Therefore, I wonder whether we have similar arrangements here at Westminster other than for the great offices of Secretaries of State who, I know, must trot up to Buckingham Palace when they leave and take up office. I just wonder how that approval will be sought and how it will be indicated.
In the same vein, Amendments Nos. 255M and 255W relate to Clause 44(3)(a) and Clause 46(4)(a) respectively and deal with the words,
"shall hold office at Her Majesty's pleasure".
But what exactly does that mean in practical terms? Amendments Nos. 255L and 255V deal respectively with subsection(2) of Clause 44 and subsection (3) of Clause 46 which say:
"The First Minister shall not seek Her Majesty's approval for any appointment … without the agreement of the Parliament".
I wonder what the latter words—
"without the agreement of the Parliament"—
actually mean. In other words, how is that to be achieved? Is there to be a vote on every appointment of a Minister or a junior Minister? That would be rather unusual. In this Parliament, if the Prime Minister appoints people and he has the approval of the House of Commons, everyone else follows in his wake, so to speak. If that were not the case, we would be having quite a few votes over the next few days given all the changes that have recently taken place. Indeed, we might be voting to keep some of the people who have gone and also voting to get rid of some of them who have not gone.
Amendments Nos. 255N and 255X seek to introduce some new words to the two clauses. For example, subsection (3)(c) of Clause 44 currently says that a Minister,
"may at any time resign and shall do so if the Parliament resolves that the Scottish Executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament".
I understand that if the whole executive does not enjoy the confidence. But what if that applies to one Minister? My amendment would make the paragraph say that a Minister,
"may at any time resign and shall do so if the Parliament resolves that either he or the Scottish Executive no longer enjoys the confidence of the Parliament".
It would deal with the situation where the parliament loses confidence in an individual Minister. I do not believe that this Chamber has ever become involved in such matters, but, in the other place, there is a Motion to reduce a Minister's salary, which is a vote of no confidence in that particular Minister.
Finally, I turn to Amendments Nos. 255K and 255U which deal with the number of Ministers to be appointed. In Clause 44, I suggest that we should have

1479
up to six Ministers, and in Clause 46 I suggest that we should have up to six junior Ministers. That makes a total of 12. Currently—at least this morning—there were six Ministers in all in the Scottish Office. I am not sure whether that total has been kept because my recollection is that there were only five Ministers in the Scottish Office before the last election. I suspect that the Government needed another one because of this Bill, so I make no complaint in that respect. It means that six Ministers are doing this work. Therefore, I think that I am being pretty generous when I limit the number of Ministers in the Scottish executive doing, by and large, the same work, to 12. In fact, I am being more than generous, but I am trying to look after the interests of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who, if he manages to get to the Scottish parliament and if his party manages to win, may want a ministerial job. So the more Ministers I create the better his chances will be, although I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord is terribly appreciative of my efforts on his behalf.
However, seriously speaking, I believe that up to 12 Ministers is sufficient. I should like to know how many Ministers the Government envisage. On the face of it, they will probably tell me that I ought to leave this to the good sense of the parliament. But, as I have not been allowed to leave much to the good sense of the parliament this evening, I do not think that that argument will do. As I said, I should like some indication of how many Ministers the Government envisage in this respect. I beg to move.
Midnight
Lord Renton: I wish to refer only to Amendment No. 255J, which proposes to leave out the words,
"with the approval of Her Majesty".
Those words raise a rather important constitutional matter. The constitution is, to some extent, flexible and, to some extent, obscure. However, as far as we know, the broad principle, or perhaps I should say, the usual practice is that Her Majesty acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister and is normally required to accept that advice.
It is suggested in this amendment that the first minister of the Scottish executive should seek the approval of Her Majesty before other members of the executive are appointed. That introduces a new constitutional concept. One wonders, is the Queen expected to obtain the advice of the Prime Minister before giving that approval? How do the Government envisage that? We really must get it right. Our constitution is something for which we should have great respect. We should not alter any broad principle of it unless there are strong reasons for doing so. Where Her Majesty is concerned, I should have thought that we needed to have Her Majesty's approval before doing so.
Lord Sewel: The noble Lord gives us a package of amendments which seek to rewrite the machinery for the appointment, approval and removal of ministers and junior ministers of the Scottish executive. We cannot accept them.
1480
What the Government propose in this Bill is a carefully thought out set of arrangements which build on the provisions of the White Paper. Before turning to the detail of the amendments, I think it might be helpful to explain why Clause 44 and Clause 46, which deal with junior ministers, are framed in the way they are.
We propose that it will, quite properly, be for the first minister to select whom he wishes to serve in his ministerial team from among the members of the parliament. We have provided that the appointment of ministers and junior ministers must be approved by Her Majesty, as we promised would be the case in paragraph 9.6 of the White Paper. However, we have also built in a formal role for the parliament in approving the appointment of ministers. We are giving discretion to the first minister to remove ministers from office and we are ensuring that if the executive loses the confidence of the parliament, then all ministers shall cease to hold office. That is the framework that we are providing.
I must say that I find the amendments put down by the noble Lord to be an interesting but curious bunch. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of what prompts his proposals, but I am not attracted by his solutions.
Taking each proposal in turn, Amendments Nos. 255J, 255M, 255T and 255W in effect remove the involvement of the Crown in the appointment and removal of ministers and junior ministers of the Scottish executive. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, observed, the appointments of UK Government Ministers are of course all approved by Her Majesty and UK Ministers hold their office at Her Majesty's pleasure.
Some of us have been poring over the recent press release from No. 10, which contained the words, "Her Majesty has approved the appointment of" and then lists them all.
Does the noble Lord wish to argue that after the establishment of the parliament the status of a minister carrying out significant duties, say, in relation to education in Scotland, should be different from what it is at present and will continue to be elsewhere in the United Kingdom? I think that that sort of gesture sends completely the wrong message, particularly from someone who wishes to maintain the strength of the Union.
It seems to me that it would be completely wrong to say that, although a UK Minister is appointed by the Crown and holds office at the pleasure of the Crown, that is not the case for a Scottish minister. It would clearly give the impression of some sort of second-class citizenship among Scottish ministers. I do not think that is advisable.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 255K and 255U. I am not surprised to see an attempt to impose a limit on the numbers of ministers who may be appointed. However, I think it is quite wrong to impose such a limit. I was interested to hear about the magic number six. It seems to be a case of using what one already has, and that is considered sufficient. I think we must accept that we

1481
cannot make an assumption about how the first minister will want to organise and distribute the various ministerial portfolios.
Those of us who have been involved in the debate and the discussion in Scotland are fully aware of a small kind of sub-market in pamphlets, as it were, that have been doing the rounds which indicate how a Scottish executive should be structured. I am not saying any one of these is the right structure. I am saying that different structures of different degrees of attractiveness are being discussed. However, I think it would be extremely constraining to put a limit of six on the number of ministers whom the first minister could appoint.
Are we trying to prevent excess? I think the best guardians against excess are the Scottish people themselves and the Scottish parliamentarians. If they see a bloated executive, they will reach their own conclusions and they will deny it support either within the parliament or at the subsequent elections. Therefore it is not just a matter of leaving it to the Scottish parliament, it is a matter of leaving it to the judgment of the Scottish people too.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 255L and 255V. These would remove from the Bill the provision that the parliament should agree the ministers and junior ministers whom the first minister wishes to appoint. As I understand it, the Opposition object to what they see as some kind of constitutional novelty, but I am afraid I think they have failed to understand the way in which the role given to the parliament in the appointment of ministers has been constructed. This is a provision which we regard as vitally important in terms of the ability of the Scottish parliament to hold the executive to account. Indeed it links with the provisions to which I have just referred and provides a balance with the powers of the first minister. The first minister appoints ministers, but subject to the approval of the parliament. I think that is particularly important in the context of a parliament which may well—as has been alluded to on more than one occasion—be more delicately balanced than is usual under the first-past-the-post electoral system. The fact that the executive as a whole has received the endorsement of the parliament—in a parliament where there may not necessarily be overall majorities or stable majorities—will lead to a greater degree of stability. That is something that should not be lost sight of.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 255N and 255X. These would allow individual ministers to be forced to resign as the result of a vote of no confidence. Again, I think that fails to recognise the way in which the doctrine of collective responsibility will apply to the Scottish executive. Ministers will exercise their responsibilities as part of the executive, and it is right that Clauses 44 and 46 should reflect that position. As the noble Lord has already said, these clauses provide that only a vote of no confidence in the executive as a whole would formally compel resignation, and in that case it should be the executive as a whole that resigns. To put it another way, the Bill is properly concerned
1482
with the relationship between the executive and the parliament, and not with the relationship between individual Ministers and the parliament.
Of course there will be nothing to prevent the parliament resolving that it has no confidence in an individual. But that will be a matter to be dealt with as part of the normal political processes and not through the formal machinery set out in the Bill. The Bill is about establishing a proper relationship between the parliament and the executive as a whole. It does not, however, prevent the parliament taking a view in terms of confidence or no confidence, passing judgment on an individual Minister. But that is not a matter for the Bill; it is a matter for the politics of the parliament. In all reality, it would be virtually impossible for a Minister who had received a vote of no confidence by the parliament to carry on. The political pressures would be too great.
The amendments proposed are an attempt to recast the whole basis of the appointment, nomination and removal of Scottish Ministers and the number of Scottish Ministers who are available to the first minister. I believe that that would disturb the relationship, structure and framework that we have tried to establish through the Bill. We are providing a more coherent and defensible structure for the making of ministerial and junior ministerial appointments. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord for his reply, although he started out in a rather "crosspatch" mood. As I indicated clearly, I tabled these amendments in order to ask why the words were there, what they meant and what were their implications. If the noble Lord had not used the prepared speaking note, whereby it looked as though I merely wanted to knock them out of the Bill, perhaps we might have got to the essence of the matter more quickly.
I absolutely accept that new Ministers in the United Kingdom are appointed with the approval of Her Majesty. I must check how that worked in my case. I think that will probably come as news to most lay people—by "lay" I mean those who are not great constitutional experts. As I said, I know that great Secretaries of State are appointed in that way, and I suspect that important people such as Law Officers are appointed in that way; however, it never seemed to me that junior Ministers like myself were appointed in that manner. However, I accept entirely the answers given by the noble Lord on those points and I am quite content.
On the limit of 12, I knew that the noble Lord would tell me to leave it to the parliament. During the long Recess I shall count the number of times that he tells me that, and when we come to Report we shall not allow him to complain when we suggest to him that he should leave it to the parliament when we propose that certain matters should be taken out of the Bill. I thought I should receive that response.
I do not think that I looked at the figure six and said that six Scottish Office Ministers is enough. I am far more generous: I doubled the number and proposed 12.

1483
I received no indication from the Minister as to how many he thought might be used. Six senior Ministers could be appointed under the terms of Clause 44 and a further six under Clause 46.
I understood the noble Lord's answers about the parliament's approval. I am slightly interested in the concept that the parliament is to be asked to approve each appointment. I see where the Minister is coming from, if indeed we have a parliament with a coalition. It will be interesting politically to see whether the parliament decides not to approve of a particular—
Lord Sewel: For the avoidance of doubt, I certainly did not mean to say that it would necessarily be approval of each appointment; it could well be approval by an en bloc slate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understand that; it probably would be. But if someone in the parliament or a group in the parliament did not like one of the appointments, they would use the procedures to tease that one out and look at it individually.
On the point about the vote of confidence, I accept collective responsibility and was pleased to hear the Minister accept that if the parliament found a way to propose a vote of no confidence in one individual, then he or she would probably be sacked by the prime minister or feel obliged to resign. Dare I say it, I do not think my three words to be added, "either he or" would have made all that difference to the Bill. However, in the spirit that these were probing amendments to ask exactly how the two clauses were worked and why they were put together in the way they were, I am reasonably satisfied with the answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 255K to 255N not moved.]
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [The Scottish Law Officers]:
[Amendment No.255P not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 255Q:
Page 20, line 19, at end insert—
("(1A) The Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland shall be qualified as either—

(a) an advocate, or

(b) a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is a very small amendment. I may be wrong but I believe it was suggested at some stage by the Law Society of Scotland. I am well aware that mentioning that support does not always meet with approval on the Government Front Bench, but on this occasion there is no reason why it should not. All it seeks to provide is that both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland should be qualified either as an advocate or as a solicitor under the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate qualifies under the first branch of the amendment; he would formerly have qualified, the last one being, like myself, a struck off
1484
solicitor. It seems eminently sensible that this should be on the face of the Bill and I hope that for once the Law Society's suggestion might prove acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As a member of the struck off solicitors' club, I also support the amendment. It seems to me that if a solicitor today can appear in the High Court, the Court of Session, the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he ought to be qualified to be the Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General for Scotland. I support the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: There is just one matter which does not directly arise out of the amendment. I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether he could help with this matter.
Clause 44(3)(c) envisages that a minister appointed under that clause may resign. Clause 45 envisages, so far as I can see, only that the first minister may recommend the removal of a person as Lord Advocate. It is not unknown for Lords Advocate to adjourn from time to time to resign their office. Is it possible, under this legislation, for the Lord Advocate to resign? I ask that because, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know in general terms, although he will not have studied it from his point of view, the Lord Advocate's resignation or, as it is put in the more genteel language of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, the demission of office, has certain important consequences from the point of view of the prosecution of crime, the office of advocate's depute, indictments and so on.
In that situation, it is important that the question as to the resignation or demission of office of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General should be dealt with. Because under the Bill they become creatures of statute, if one looks at Clauses 44 and 45 together, one might wonder whether the Lord Advocate could resign.
Perhaps the Government could look again at the terms of Clause 45 and consider whether an amendment to deal with the resignation or demission of office of the Lord Advocate might be appropriate.
Lord Hardie: There is some force in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, says. I shall look at the matter and come back to him either in writing or at a later stage.
In relation to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, apart from the debate in the other place, so far as I am aware, the last time that this issue seems to have been considered was in 1924 when Ramsay MacDonald formed a Labour Government.
It is said that it was a radical suggestion that a solicitor should be appointed as Lord Advocate. The Lord President of the day—Lord President Clyde—wrote a memorandum to Downing Street, which was published. That memorandum states clearly that it is part of the unwritten constitutional law of the land that the

1485
Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General for Scotland are appointed from among the members of the Scottish Bar. That springs, in the same way as other parts of the law, from long custom. It has not been felt necessary in the past to prescribe the qualifications for office of the Scottish Law Officers and it is not clear why that should be necessary now.
To deal with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, although certain solicitors have rights of audience in the supreme courts, they may only have rights of audience if they satisfy certain criteria, and even then they only have rights in the civil courts, the criminal courts or both. It is my understanding that few solicitors in Scotland qualify for rights of audience in both. It would not be appropriate, therefore, to have someone who did not have a right of audience in both the civil and criminal supreme courts to hold office as Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General.
Again, this is not something which ought to be enshrined in statute and I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I regard that reply as unsatisfactory because it seems to me that it is against the grain of how things are moving both in England and Wales and in Scotland. I note that the Law Society of Scotland suggested that the first appointment of a King's solicitor in 1587—Mr. William McCartney—was of a man who was regarded as a King's Clerk, writer and special agent, which suggests he was a solicitor in those days. It was later that the office became the preserve of the members of the Faculty of Advocates.
We are moving forward with rights of audience. I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor might have a word with the noble and learned Lord on this topic. I know that he is concerned to advance the rights of audience of solicitors and is making proposals to that effect. I do not believe it is enough to leave the legislation as it stands; there should be specific provision in the Bill for solicitors to hold those offices.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I too find the reply of the noble and learned Lord a disappointment. He said that he did not consider it appropriate that the positions of the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General should be held by anyone who was not a member of the Faculty of Advocates. But we have to be clear what the Government's view is on this issue.
It is quite possible that solicitors will be elected as members of the Scottish parliament. Equally, it is quite possible that members of the Faculty of Advocates will be elected as members of the Scottish parliament. If it falls to the first minister to say to a potential law officer, "I am sorry, I cannot make you a law officer because you are a solicitor", then whether or not rights of audience are extended is neither here nor there. If he says, "I cannot make you one", I can see that that will create considerable unrest both within the parliament and within the profession. I hope, therefore, that before we come to Report this matter can be looked at more fully.
1486
My understanding is that the Lord Advocate can appoint as one of his deputes, to act in his name and to prosecute in the High Court of Justiciary, someone who is neither a member of the Faculty of Advocates nor holds extended rights of audience. As some Members of the Committee will be aware, that understanding followed from advice from the committee which examined the issue. As we move forward to a new parliament, it would be a retrograde step to be apparently moving backwards to 1926. I do not expect the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, to seek to defend his grandfather's views but he would acknowledge that they might fall to be reconsidered some 70 years on.
For reasons which will be obvious to many noble Lords, this is not a matter to press to a Division at half-past twelve, but we shall return to it unless there is some change of heart. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.30 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 255R and 255S not moved.]
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Junior Scottish Ministers]:
[Amendments Nos. 255T to 255X not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 256.
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

POWER TO CHANGE TITLES
(". The Parliament may change any of the titles listed below to titles it considers more appropriate—

(a) Presiding Officer;

(b) Deputy Presiding Officer;

(c) Clerk of the Parliament;

(d) First Minister;

(e) Scottish Executive;

(f)Scottish Minister;

(g) junior Scottish Minister.").

The noble Lord said: This matter has already been debated, not once but at least twice. I give notice that it will be debated again, but not at this hour. I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 256 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 257:
After Clause 47, insert the following new clause—

INTERPARLIAMENTARY CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION
(" .—(1) There shall be an Interparliamentary Consultative Commission (referred to in this section as "the Commission").
(2) The Commission shall comprise—

(a) the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the leaders of all opposition parties in the House of Commons;

1487

(b) the First Minister, the Presiding Officer and the leaders of all opposition parties in the Parliament.

(3) The functions of the Commission shall include—

(a) ensuring co-operation between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament on—

(i) issues of legislative competence;

(ii) compliance by the United Kingdom with Community law and other international obligations;

(iii) cross-border matters; and

(iv) negotiation of international treaties, including amendment to and modifications of European Community and European Union treaties; and

(b) facilitating communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive.").

The noble Lord said: I shall speak to the amendment quite briefly. It seeks to insert into the Bill a new clause regarding the establishment of an interparliamentary consultative commission. The White Paper Scotland's Parliament, in paragraphs 4.12 to 4.14, made proposals regarding liaison machinery. This included meetings between officials and United Kingdom Ministers and Scots Ministers. The Bill does not make provision for any formal exchange to take place between the United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish parliament or between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish executive.
There is need for a body along these lines for a variety of reasons: first, to ensure exchange of information; secondly, to provide an accountable framework in which communication can take place; and, thirdly, to ensure that there is adequate co-operation on the matters listed at subsection (3)(a) and (b). In such important issues it is inappropriate to rely on any informal machinery. There has to be some adequate mechanism to ensure that the Scottish executive and Westminster Ministers speak to each other, especially if they are not of the same party.
If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, why should it not be good enough for us? In the Northern Ireland Bill there are arrangements laid down in Clause 66 to the effect that the first minister and the deputy first minister acting jointly should ensure that there is participation in the north/south ministerial council. Clause 67 lays down that certain reserved matters relating to Northern Ireland are to be discussed at a meeting of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference. So there is a precedent for setting out mechanisms to ensure that the necessary co-operation takes place.
If there is an obvious need for co-operation in the context of Northern Ireland, surely there is every bit as strong a need when the issue does not involve two separate states but different nations within a unitary state. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I think that we would all agree that, post-devolution, it will be important for the parliaments to keep in close touch with each other and to share ideas and experience in areas of common interest. That being said, we do not think that the amendment is necessary. It is for the parliaments
1488
themselves to decide what arrangements might be appropriate. Further legislative provision is not required in order to enable them to do so.
The amendment refers to
"facilitating communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive".
I can assure the noble Lord that the Government intend that all the devolved administrations should be as fully involved as possible in discussions with the UK Government about the formulation of their policies on all issues which touch on devolved matters. Indeed, a great deal of thought has been given to how the UK Government and the devolved administrations should interact on matters of communal interest.
The Government intend that there should be standing arrangements for the devolved administrations to be involved by the UK Government at ministerial level when they consider reserved matters which impinge on devolved responsibilities. It is envisaged that this would be achieved through the establishment of a joint ministerial committee of which the UK Government and the devolved administrations would be members. The joint ministerial committee will be an entirely consultative body, supported by a committee of officials and a joint secretariat. Further details of the standing arrangements will be announced later. Where there is agreement between the parties that it should do so, the JMC could also discuss the treatment of devolved matters in the different parts of the UK.
These standing arrangements will run in parallel with and underpin the bilateral concordats between the Scottish executive and departments in the UK Government. These arrangements would be non-statutory. The Scottish executive cannot, of course, be committed in advance to any particular form of liaison. That said, however, the UK Government believe that there will be strong mutual benefits from such liaison arrangements and we would expect the devolved administrations to recognise this also. The Government believe that these non-statutory arrangements, together with the provisions in the devolution Bills, will enable the United Kingdom to work more effectively in future, giving due and appropriate weight to each of its main components. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I rise to say that we on these Benches feel that this amendment proposes something which is both unnecessarily large and bureaucratic. There will be a need for liaison and a facilitator for discussion and co-operation and communication. The joint ministerial committee, which the noble Baroness suggested, sounds ideal, but surely the Secretary of State would also have a central role to play. What is proposed is not only large and cumbersome, but also would put more control in the Westminster Parliament than would be desirable. It would also create a greater level of bureaucracy between the two parliaments than we would wish to see. Therefore, we do not support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, perhaps

1489
I may explore something which is almost certainly not in the Bill; if it is, I have missed it. I refer to the concept of joint ministerial committees between the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell me whether that is in the Bill. If it is not, is it just a hope that the two parliaments will agree to those joint ministerial committees, and have we any indication of what they will do and how that relates to the idea of concordats? Perhaps we shall explore that later, but it is a bit of a mystery to me. Are the JMCs in the Bill, and do we have any papers which explain to us how the Government envisage they will be set up and how they will work?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: There will be one joint ministerial committee. The idea is that the devolved administrations will be represented on it, plus representatives of the UK Government. There will be representation of each administration. That representation will vary according to the specific issues under consideration. Fisheries Ministers would be involved on fisheries matters, for example. As to the joint ministerial committee, I do not believe that I can add much to what I have already said. The detailed arrangements are still being developed and will be announced later in the year, well before the devolved administration starts work after the elections next year.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Presumably, based on the reply by the noble Baroness, the arrangements will be announced after this Bill has completed its passage through Parliament. It might be better if the announcement were made before October so that these proposals would be to hand in looking at issues such as those raised by my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I can give no such undertaking. The detailed arrangements are still being developed.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I thank the Minister for accepting the principle of my amendment. In those circumstances I shall not press the matter. But I respectfully suggest that the issue be looked at before the next stage of the Bill in case it is necessary to make a suitable provision concerning the arrangements now being worked up with regard to a joint ministerial committee, bearing in mind that the Northern Irish legislation sets out specifically such arrangements. With that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 257A to 257C not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 258:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY
(" .—(1) The Scottish Executive shall make appropriate arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people.
(2) After each financial year of the Parliament, the Scottish Executive shall publish a report containing—

(a) a statement of the arrangements made in pursuance of subsection (1) which had effect during that financial year, and

(b) an assessment of how effective those arrangements were in promoting equality of opportunity.").

The noble Earl said: The amendment seeks to provide equality of opportunity. This appears to be a very good measure in the Government of Wales Bill. I tabled the amendment to see how such a provision would apply in this Bill. I believe that the intention of the amendment is clear and I shall not say any more. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The new clause reflects a concern to support equal opportunities which I wholly share. I have already spoken to this in Committee. Equality of opportunity will be fundamental to the Scottish parliament both in the way it conducts its business and the policies it adopts through legislation. Our White Paper made this clear. The matter of equal opportunities, as noble Lords will recall from an earlier debate, is generally reserved: it is right that there should be common standards across the Border. However, the Scottish parliament will be able to encourage equal opportunities generally. The exceptions to the reservation are designed to ensure that the parliament can exercise a role in respect of equal opportunities such as by supporting advertising campaigns and developing non-discriminatory policies in all devolved areas. The parliament will also be able to improve duties on certain public bodies to make arrangements to secure that their functions are carried out with due regard to the requirements of equal opportunities law.
The new clause would impose new duties on the Scottish executive to observe equal opportunities in the exercise of its functions and would require an annual report. It seems to me that it should be for the Scottish parliament, not the Bill, to impose such duties on the Scottish executive. This is one of the reasons for which provision is made in Section 2, Head 11, in Schedule 5 for the Scottish parliament to impose duties on certain public bodies to make arrangements with a view to securing that its Scottish functions are carried out with due regard to the need to meet the requirements of equal opportunities law.
Amendments Nos. 222B to 222E which we debated yesterday clarified what the Scottish parliament would be able to do in this respect. It will be able to impose this duty on any member of the Scottish executive, so the Scottish parliament will have the power to impose duties on the Scottish executive to make arrangements with a view to securing that its functions are carried out with due regard to the need to meet the requirements of equal opportunities law.
We believe that this is an area in which the Scottish parliament can be expected to take the lead. I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Earl that the amendment is unnecessary and that he should seek leave to withdraw it.
The Earl of Balfour: I am surprised it is regarded as necessary that an annual report should be made on the matter. I had not intended to take the matter that far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Devolved competence]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 23, line 6, leave out second ("so") and insert ("in such a way").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 259A not moved.]
Clause 50, as amended, agreed to.
12.45 a.m.
Clause 51 [Functions exercisable with agreement]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 259AA:
Page 23, line 8, after ("provision") insert (", or any provision not contained in an enactment,").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 259AA would extend the scope of Clause 51(1) so that it would disapply non-statutory as well as statutory requirements for functions transferred to the Scottish ministers under Clause 49 to be exercised after consultation with, or with the consent, of another minister.
At present the clause disapplies only statutory requirements. However, the case for disapplication applies as strongly for non-statutory requirements. For example the Royal Charters of Scottish Sports and Arts Councils provide for the form of annual statements of account to be determined by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury. After devolution the function of determining the form of accounts will be exercisable by the Scottish ministers, as would the function of approving their own determination. That clearly makes no sense, and so Clause 51 as amended will remove the unnecessary approval requirement.
The Scottish ministers can be expected to develop their own internal mechanisms for financial control and, as they will be accountable to the Scottish parliament, it would generally not be appropriate for the requirement for the Treasury's consent to be retained, except in a few special cases which we have provided for in the Bill.
I trust that with these explanations the Committee will agree that this amendment is necessary, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 259B:
Page 23, line 13, leave out from ("enactment") to end of line 15.
The noble Lord said: This is a serious amendment, and will take some time. I shall probably withdraw it and return to it at Report, but there we are. This was labelled the "Margaret Beckett amendment" when it was in the House of Commons. It has now of course changed to become the "Peter Mandelson amendment" and that, as far as the Scottish parliament and Scottish economy are concerned, is much, much more serious.
As it stands, Clause 51(2) of the Bill excludes two paragraphs of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 from subsection (1), which states that,
"a Minister of the Crown to exercise a function with the agreement of, or after consultation with, any other Minister of the Crown shall not apply to the exercise of the function by a member of the Scottish Executive by virtue of section 49".
We are into industrial and economic policy. The Local Government, Planning and Land Act which is being excluded by this clause designates enterprise zones. Paragraph 5 designates enterprise zones and begins:
"If a body adopts a scheme under this Schedule, the Secretary of State may (if he thinks it expedient to do so) by order designate the area to which the scheme relates as an enterprise zone".
It goes on to say:
"No order may be made until … the expiry of the period of six weeks commencing with the first publication (whether in the London or Edinburgh Gazette…)",
and that should please the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who I believe has an amendment relating to the Edinburgh Gazette somewhere else in the Bill,
"under paragraph 3(7) above, or … if an application in relation to the scheme is made under paragraph 4(1) above, the time at which any proceedings arising out of the application are disposed of. The power to make the order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and"—
naturally—
"only with the Treasury's consent".
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, were with us at this time of night he would probably draw the Committee's attention to the fact that those words are unnecessary.
Paragraph 15 of Schedule 32 to the Act deals with modification orders by the Secretary of State. It states:
"Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, the Secretary of State may (if he thinks it expedient to do so) by order modify any order made under paragraph 5 above".
Paragraph 15(2) states that an order under this paragraph,
"may extend the period for which the zone is to remain an enterprise zone; and may provide…if the enterprise zone is in Scotland, that the enterprise zone authority shall be the planning authority exercising district planning functions…for the zone for different purposes of the 1972 Act, or in relation to different kinds of development".
The power conferred here does not include,
"Power to alter the boundaries of an enterprise zone; power to designate a different enterprise zone authority for the zone; or power to reduce the period for which the zone is to remain an enterprise zone".
I have read out those parts of the Act to emphasise how important these powers are with regard to enterprise zones.
Enterprise zones are an important part of the way we attract industry and commerce to areas of Britain where unemployment is high and employment prospects are poor. There are some criticisms of the enterprise zones. Those criticisms can come from other parts of the kingdom where it is felt that the special provisions of an enterprise zone can poach a company from one place to another. If my recollection serves me aright, an issue was raised in this House recently about a company that

1493
left, I think, Berwick and moved to an enterprise zone. It was said by those worried about Berwick's position, understandably in the light of subsequent closures by Dawson, to be unfair. I have some sympathy when enterprise zones are used like that.
When my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie was MP for East Angus, he had a similar problem, although I believe that he was the recipient of the move from one area of Scotland to an assisted area. It can cause difficulties. But those difficulties are as nothing compared with the advantages an enterprise zone can confer on an area when inward investment is sought.
What worries us about this clause is that it is clear to us—it is why we have nicknamed it the "Margaret Beckett amendment"—that the Government are planning to end Scottish control over inward investment matters by centralising those powers in the DTI. This clause centralises those powers in the DTI. Indeed, Mr. Ian McCartney, a DTI Minister (I am not sure whether he is still a DTI Minister; I suspect that he is) confirmed last November that the department had plans to strengthen Whitehall's control over Scottish aid packages aimed at wooing major job creation projects by multinational companies. That was reported in the Scottish newspapers too.
I have already raised this matter in relation to other issues. But it is related to assisted area status which is very important indeed. Locate in Scotland, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise have been successful in bringing new jobs into Scotland, in particular into assisted areas, and in safeguarding jobs there. In 1995–96, the number of new or safeguarded jobs associated with inward investment was at a higher level than at any time since Locate in Scotland was set up in 1981. Indeed, 10,136 of 12,500 jobs were new jobs; and that was the highest figure ever. It was an increase of 1,000 on the corresponding figure for 1994–95. These jobs are important. Over the five years to March 1996 there were 400 inward investment projects with an investment total of £3.4 billion and 50,000 jobs associated with them. We are talking about something that is of huge importance to the Scottish economy. Everyone in Scotland knows how successful we have been in attracting US investment, and the United Kingdom as a whole has been very successful in attracting Japanese investment. This is particularly important in Europe's semi-conductor industry. In Scotland, what is called Silicon Glen now produces 13 per cent of Europe's semi-conductors.
I have indicated, as briefly as I can in view of the serious nature of the subject, the importance we attach to aspects such as assisted area status and how suspicious we are of the Department of Trade and Industry. That suspicion is increased by the arrival of Mr. Peter Mandelson at that department. I refer to the proposal in Clause 51.
My honourable and right honourable friends in another place and my noble friends here are extremely suspicious that this power will be taken away from the Scottish parliament and placed here where the defender of Scotland's interests will be a Secretary of State for
1494
Scotland who, frankly, will not have nearly as much clout as the Secretary of State has had to date, for reasons we have touched upon today.
If the Minister tells me that I need not worry because Mr. Brian Wilson has been sent to join Mr. Peter Mandelson, I have to tell him that my worries merely increase because, after the incident of the student fees at Scottish universities, I would not depend on Brian Wilson to defend any Scottish interest at all, and against Mr. Peter Mandelson I suspect he would not even be in the game; if he could not defend Scotland's interests against the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, what chance would he have against Peter Mandelson?
Even if he were to be successful in the short term, he is not always going to be the Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, nor will there always be a Scottish Member at the Department of Trade and Industry. I just feel that this is a very difficult position for the Scottish minister, some of the Scottish executive and the Scottish parliament. Here is a power that is important to Scotland: it relates to the designation of assisted areas, the changing of assisted areas, increasing the time during which the assisted areas can operate, yet the Scottish parliament will not have anything to do with it. I find that situation very worrying. I hope that the Minister, even at this late hour can give me an answer which relieves a worry of mine and of some of my noble friends, who, had they been here this evening, would have gone into this matter in greater detail. I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for that comprehensive explanation because I spent most of this afternoon trying to work out what this meant. I even went so far as to go to the Library and photocopy both the paragraphs. I can confirm that, with one very small exception, the noble Lord read them out perfectly.
I would like to comment generally on the issue of assisted area status and enterprise zones. In this I concur with the noble Lord; these are a very important tool in Scotland, one which is much appreciated and which has been responsible for bringing in much needed jobs in areas with a particular need. I suspect that we are all in agreement on that matter.
I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I had read the combination of Clause 51 and Clause 49 differently and put a slightly different interpretation on it. If these matters are taken away from Scotland to be dealt with by the UK Parliament, that will be a retrograde step. I hope that the Government will look at devolving these matters.
1 a.m.
Lord Sewel: I shall try to deal with the fears and perhaps unwarranted nightmares of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, just by pointing out that Clause 51 is about Treasury control of enterprise zones. It has nothing to do with the DTI or whoever happens to be the President of the Board of Trade. We can remove the DTI from this debate entirely.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for that piece of comfort. But I have to say that, after all my years of dealings with the Treasury, I am not sure that I would not prefer the DTI.
Lord Sewel: I am only trying to help the noble Lord to get a good night's sleep. Clause 51 disapplies generally any requirement to consult or act with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown in respect of functions which are within devolved competence and which therefore transfer to the Scottish ministers under Clause 49. In general, it would not be appropriate for the UK Government to have a veto over action by the Scottish ministers within devolved competence. Rather, it should be for the Scottish ministers to develop their own control mechanisms.
The noble Lord's amendment would delete the exception to this general rule—the requirement to obtain the Treasury's consent prior to exercising powers under paragraphs 5 or 15 of Schedule 32 to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. These powers relate to the designation of enterprise zones. As Members of the Committee will be aware, perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of enterprise zones is the considerable tax advantage which designation brings. It is because of that reason there is a proper need to seek Treasury approval.
The Treasury consent requirement is essential for the continued oversight of the tax privileges conferred by the grant of enterprise zone status. With this one proviso, the Scottish parliament will have competence for matters relating to economic development, including area regeneration through the use of enterprise zones. I have already brought forward an amendment to Schedule 4 (Amendment No. 167A) entrenching the consent requirement so that it is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament.
As regards assisted areas, in an earlier debate the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Lang, made an important contribution. He pointed out and agreed with the case that the designation of assisted areas could not be devolved to the Scottish parliament simply because of the EU requirements that member states were allocated a percentage of the population that could be covered by assisted area status and the further requirement that in drawing the lines on the map they had to follow a common methodology within the member state. Therefore, it was impractical to devolve the drawing of assisted areas because of the EU requirements for commonality within the single member states.
Perhaps I may touch on inward investment generally. The White Paper made it clear that there would be a concordat on financial assistance between all parts of the UK. In that concordat, we are seeking to have simple and transparent arrangements based on co-operation and partnership. We hope shortly to be in a position to publish the draft concordat. It will allow Locate in Scotland to maintain its excellence of securing inward investment for Scotland. It will also give assurance of value for money for the taxpayers and fairness to all parts of the United Kingdom, while allowing effective negotiations to attract inward investment projects.
1496
I understand and appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to ensure that we have a strong and effective regional development policy and strong and effective regional development tools at the hand of the Scottish executive. I believe that we do and I honestly believe that his concerns are unfounded. I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Will the Minister tell me whether the money comes out of the block grant or direct from the Treasury? Is the only reason for Treasury permission because of the tax advantages?
Lord Sewel: Yes, the only reason for the Treasury permission is because of the considerable tax advantage that enterprise status provides. Basically, if you went around creating enterprise zones at your own hand, that would very quickly have an effect on taxation and macro-economic policy generally. It is because of that particular characteristic of enterprise zones that there is the requirement for Treasury consent.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I understand the point about the Treasury. The Treasury's consent is one thing. I wonder whether the Scottish parliament will be able to suggest enterprise zones to the Treasury. In other words, will the Scottish parliament be able to make a proposal that such and such a place which may have had serious closures, or whatever it may be, should be made an enterprise zone? The Treasury will then be able to consider that. Whether it gives its consent is another matter. But will the Scottish parliament or executive be able to trigger that? If the Minister cannot tell me now, perhaps he will write to me so that we can consider the issue.
Lord Sewel: I shall write to the noble Lord but this falls under the general heading of trying to maintain the best and most effective dialogue between the Scottish parliament and UK departments. That would be an example where one would wish to see the most effective dialogue possible.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That reply probably means that yes, the Scottish parliament would be able to say to the Treasury, "We think you should have an enterprise zone." I can understand that the Treasury may say "We would be quite happy with that but you have rather too many. If you have that one, you may have to lose one. Would you agree to us removing enterprise zone status?" I can understand that.
I see the point of the Treasury's consent being needed. But I am not entirely persuaded about that part of the drawing of the boundaries and that the suggestion of an enterprise zone or an assisted area cannot be devolved. After all, the parliament will have to act under EU law and regulations in many spheres, including agriculture and fishing which we have discussed on a number of occasions. Therefore, I do not see a problem with the Scottish parliament having to operate within EU rules when it comes to these matters because it will have to do that in other areas.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may go further on the earlier issue as to whether the Scottish parliament can suggest enterprise zones. The simple answer is yes because it is Scottish Ministers who will actually designate enterprise zones, subject to the Treasury consent. That is how the relationship will work.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: While I accept that the dead hand of the Treasury tends to be everywhere, the Treasury does occasionally give consent for enterprise zones. It has done so in the past. One hopes that it thinks they are good value for money as regards the number of jobs that have been brought to this country.
For the moment, I shall thank the Minister for his reply. I shall consult my noble friends who, from their experience in ministerial office, know a great deal more about these matters than I do. We may return to the subject on Report; on the other hand, the Minister may have satisfied me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 52 and 53 agreed to.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Carter.)
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I understand that the Motion is debatable. Therefore, before we agree that the House do now resume, I think that we should press the Chief Whip to be a little more frank with Members of the Committee as regards his intentions. In other words, is it his expectation or even his hope that we can conclude these Committee proceedings on Thursday, bearing in mind the fact that we have to finish by 11 o'clock? I am genuinely seeking information here and, if that is not his hope, it will mean that we will have to resume the Committee stage in the spill-over.
If that is the case, perhaps the noble Lord can give us two undertakings. The first is that this Bill will have clear priority, given the demands of the Irish legislation which we all understand; and, secondly, that he will move a Motion to dispense with the requirement to have two weekends between the completion of the Committee stage and the commencement of the Report stage. Without that, we shall find ourselves seriously behind in proceeding with the Report stage of the Bill.
Lord Carter: There has been agreement that we will get as far as we can on Thursday, and if we need any time in the spill-over we have allowed a day for this in the first week back. I believe that that should be enough. I cannot give the undertaking regarding the truncation of intervals because that is up to the usual channels. As I said, we have allowed a day should we need it. We realise that we are in fact short of time on this Committee stage because of all the other pressures on
1498
our time. We have allowed an extra day during the first week back, which I believe is the first Tuesday, when we should be able to finish the Committee stage.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the Motion is put, perhaps I may express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for his indication that we will have a day in the spill-over. That will actually make up for the number of half days we have lost. I am most grateful to him.
Lord Carter: I should point out that it may well be that the day allocated will be quite a long day, but we will finish the Committee stage on that day.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I am sorry to press the noble Lord on the matter, but my concern is not that we go into the spill-over with the Committee stage; my concern is that, if we had finished before the Recess, that would have provided the quarantine period between the Committee and Report stages which is normal. If we do have this day on our return, which I also welcome, there will necessarily be a gap in the short spill-over before we can even start the Report stage. That is very worrying.
Lord Carter: There will be time when we get back. Because of the exigencies of the spill-over due to the time that we need for the Northern Ireland Bill we can, with the agreement of the usual channels, fit this Bill in. If everyone agrees on the Report stage, and so on, we will be able to get the Bill through on time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Tamar Bridge Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
Crime and Disorder Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the amendments to which the Lords had disagreed not insisted on.

National Minimum Wage Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to with a consequential amendment to the Bill and with the remaining amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; the amendment and reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past one o'clock.

  Kosovo Liberation Army
  Kosovo Liberation Army
  UN Security Council Members: Nuclear Force Readiness
  UN Security Council Members: Nuclear Force Readiness
  UN Staff: Peacekeeping Training
  UN Staff: Peacekeeping Training
  NATO, WEU and the United Nations
  NATO, WEU and the United Nations
  NATO
  NATO
  British Forces and the UN
  British Forces and the UN
  AS90 Regiments
  AS90 Regiments
  British Servicemen in Cyprus: Assaults
  British Servicemen in Cyprus: Assaults
  Youth FM
  Youth FM
  Medical and Dental Officers: Pay Recommendations
  Medical and Dental Officers: Pay Recommendations
  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  The Cabinet Office
  The Cabinet Office
  Haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C: Financial Help
  Haemophiliacs with Hepatitis C: Financial Help
  Building Control Performance Standard
  Building Control Performance Standard
  Pilotage Act: Review
  Pilotage Act: Review
  Right to Buy and Buy-back of Former Council Housing
  Right to Buy and Buy-back of Former Council Housing
  Leasehold Enfranchisement: Review
  Leasehold Enfranchisement: Review
  Planning Inspectorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Planning Inspectorate: Annual Report and Accounts
  Ghana: External Debt
  Ghana: External Debt
  Kensington Palace: Memorial Proposals
  Kensington Palace: Memorial Proposals
  Millennium Dome: Commonwealth Presence
  Millennium Dome: Commonwealth Presence
  EMU: Preparations
  EMU: Preparations
  Education: Government Spending
  Education: Government Spending
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Association of Chief Police Officers
  Foreign Motorists: Speeding Penalties
  Foreign Motorists: Speeding Penalties
  Indictable Offences: Crown Court Trial Election
  Indictable Offences: Crown Court Trial Election
  Boards of Visitors: Publication of Annual Reports
  Boards of Visitors: Publication of Annual Reports
  Passenger Arrivals in Britain 1990–97
  Passenger Arrivals in Britain 1990–97