Sitting of 30 July 1998

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

    DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Oman) Order 1998, the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport) (Hong Kong) Order 1998 and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kazakhstan) Order 1998 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords]
    Order for consideration read.
    To be considered on Thursday 22 October.

    ALLIANCE & LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 22 October.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  The Minister was asked—
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Fur Farming
    Mr. Robin Corbett: What has been the response to the public consultation on the future of fur farming. [51685]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The response to the public consultation exercise carried out last year on the future of fur farming showed that there was overwhelming support for the Government's position to ban fur farming. I want to announce that it is the Government's firm intention to end fur farming in
    512
    this country. Primary legislation will be required, and we will be seeking the most appropriate route by which to achieve that.
    Mr. Corbett: I congratulate my hon. Friend, and through him the Government, on making for the first time a pledge that a Bill is to be introduced to ban fur farming. Does he agree that fur looks better on the backs of animals that are born with it than on the backs of bimbos?
    Mr. Morley: The public certainly find fur farming unacceptable. We know from the many representations that we have received from welfare and other organisations and consumer groups, as well as from our own specialist advisory bodies, such as the Farm Animal Welfare Council, that there has been long-standing concern about the practice of fur farming. I want to make absolutely clear our commitment to bringing it to an end through legislation.
    Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate the Minister on his announcement; I know that he takes the matter very seriously. I am sure that many hon. Members were pleased to hear it. Can he give an undertaking that legislation will be in the Queen's Speech? Will he give a definite undertaking that fur farming will have been stopped by the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Morley: The procedure will be announced in due course, although there are several ways in which such legislation can be brought forward. It is right and proper that the details of legislation, including such aspects as the phase-out period, will be announced for consultation among interested parties.
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that that news will be especially welcomed by the very many young people who write to us, and who find it inconceivable that a modern Government cannot end such an immoral and barbaric practice as soon as possible?
    Mr. Morley: I agree with my hon. Friend. From the many representations that we have received, it is clear that many young people find it very strange that, in our society and in this day and age, animals are kept in such conditions for no other reason than to produce fur.

    Common Fisheries Policy
    Mr. Andrew George: What representations he has received on proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy. [51686]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Ministry receives many suggestions—I cannot truthfully say that I have seen them all yet—for improving the common fisheries policy, including some from the hon. Gentleman, who has been assiduous in his efforts on behalf of fishermen from St. Ives, Newlyn and Hayle.
    Mr. George: May I first warmly welcome the Minister to his new post? Now that he has taken on the brief, is he aware how anxious fishermen in the United Kingdom are for reform of the common fisheries policy, especially in terms of the need to ensure equality in monitoring and

    513
    enforcement throughout the European Union? Is he prepared to make a statement this afternoon about the previous proposals to ensure that licensing arrangements for all fishing vessels, including quota hoppers—the new arrangements to establish a clear economic link—are introduced soon?
    Mr. Brown: I am aware of the concerns in the fishing community about enforcement. My predecessor in this job, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), made it the centrepiece of the British presidency and took tough action. I have inherited the fruits of that, and will continue to do as he did.
    On quota hopping, I understand the need to ensure that all British-registered fishing vessels that use United Kingdom quotas also bring benefits to our fishing communities. Last year, the Prime Minister secured a clear statement from the President of the Commission about the steps that we could take, and my predecessor put to the Commission proposals based on careful discussions with all concerned. I am pleased to say that we have now secured the agreement of the Commission to our proposals.
    I shall make a detailed announcement later today, but I am certain that the House will want to know now that our measures will require all United Kingdom vessels to demonstrate, by one method or another, that they have real economic links. Choices will be available, including landing, crewing and other economically significant activities. I believe that those measures will make a real difference to the benefits that we receive from United Kingdom quotas—and will achieve that with the minimum burden for vessels that already have economic links.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his accession to the most important job in British government today. May I also express the hope that he adopts the same firm but conciliatory policy towards the fish and the fishing industry as he adopted towards the parliamentary Labour party? I also hope that he will accord a big role to the proposals made by the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation about coastal state management, so that power is transferred down from Brussels to coastal states to manage their own waters and control their own conservation, with better effect than a centralised policy.
    Mr. Brown: Those proposals are under consideration by the Ministry now, and I hope to meet in the relatively near future representatives of those most interested. I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for me to my new responsibilities; as he will know, I had quite a bit to do with him in connection with my previous responsibilities.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new position in the Government, may I pursue some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)? Much serious consideration has been given to the issue of coastal management, and I would like to know when the Government will decide how they will argue that case in the renegotiation of the fisheries policy.
    Mr. Brown: Those are important matters, and there will be several consultation meetings. As the hon. Lady
    514
    knows, probably in more detail than I do at the moment, some of the issues will be devolved and will eventually fall under the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. I intend to discuss the Scottish aspects of fisheries matters closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I hope to be able to give the hon. Lady a fuller reply soon.
    Mr. Frank Doran: May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new job? For the record, I should say that we have had very little contact over the past year. He is taking over an extremely important brief, and I look forward to welcoming him to Aberdeen to meet the fishermen and fish processors. He has made an important announcement this afternoon; we look forward to hearing the details later. Will he say more about his intentions? In particular, will the scheme have the flexibility to allow fishermen choices about how they operate?
    Mr. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to my new duties. I look forward to visiting Scotland to discuss these matters with his constituents and their representatives. He is right to say that I did not have much to do with him in my previous capacity; I look forward to having much more to do with him in my new one.
    My hon. Friend rightly asks whether there will be a range of choices for compliance. The answer is yes. There are proposals, for example, that 50 per cent. of the catch of quota species should be landed in the United Kingdom; that 50 per cent. of the crew must be resident in United Kingdom coastal areas; and that a certain level of operating expenditure must be incurred in United Kingdom coastal areas. Other measures will be spelled out in more detail at 4 pm.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: In welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his post, may I commiserate with him on having to exchange one bed of nails for another? He will soon find that the common fisheries policy has been an unmitigated disaster for our country, ecologically and economically—communities round our coasts have been economically devastated by it. Will he, in the recess, take the ferry from Newcastle to Norway to sound out fisheries communities? If he does, he will find that Norway's national fisheries management has been an unbounded success—it provides an example that we should follow.
    Mr. Brown: I intend to take a close interest in all these matters, not only because my responsibilities require it, but because I want to do so anyway. I think that the hon. Gentleman's approach is wrong. We must negotiate with the other interested parties rather than assert that they are all wrong and that somehow, we have a solution for the United Kingdom that we can adopt without reference to our friends and neighbours. The hon. Gentleman says that I have moved from one bed of nails to another, but my previous job was no bed of nails.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new position and thank him for his announcement about quota hoppers. He may be aware that the Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation recently invited 38 Anglo-Spanish vessels to join it, and that the grant that Wyre district council is

    515
    offering to the local fishing industry is tied in with various conditions on local economic links. Will he advise local fish producers associations, port managers and local authorities on the details of his proposals on quota hoppers, which I am sure will be greeted with much interest in my local community?
    Mr. Brown: I am sure that they will and, yes, everyone with an interest will be advised on exactly what the Government propose. As I said to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George), the Government take enforcement seriously; it is right that everyone should know precisely what will be enforced, as, I assure the House, enforced it will be.
    Mr. James Wallace: I offer my congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman; if he can make such an announcement after two days in office, we wait with bated breath to see what he can do in the first two months. I echo what has been said about coastal state management. Will he assure us that regional management of fisheries will be developed and that fishermen will be involved in setting total allowable catches, as they have expertise as well as a stake in the outcome? Concepts such as the north of Scotland or Shetland box should also be developed in any renegotiation of the common fisheries policy.
    Mr. Brown: I am very keen to make sure that we make progress in renegotiating the common fisheries policy. I am also keen to ensure that we examine how much room for manoeuvre we have within the regime in terms of making adjustments in decision making, and perhaps even devolving some decision making. Nevertheless, the parameters are fixed, and I shall not take the approach urged on me by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). The approach of the hon. and learned Member is far more constructive.
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the beach-based, under-10 m fleet at Hastings has this year recorded its lowest catch in history, wholly as a result of quota hopping? I refer to quota hopping not from other countries, but from former over-10 m fleets which have shortened their vessels and moved in to take the historic catch of my constituents. Will he take some form of enforcement to ensure that that does not continue to occur?
    Mr. Brown: I promise my hon. Friend that I will consider his representations. I am sorry to hear what he has to say about Hastings, not least because I grew up in Hawkhurst, which is only 15 miles away. I regard Hastings as part of my home.

    Bananas
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What assessment he has made of the potential benefit to the economies of developing nations through the promotion and recognition of fair trade principles in the export of bananas. [51688]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Fair trade bananas may have a part to play in strengthening the
    516
    economies of developing countries. As part of the successful negotiations on the EU's banana regime which the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), recently chaired in Luxembourg, the Commission has agreed to bring forward a communication and a proposal on fair trade bananas by 1 March next year.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I thank my hon. Friend. What progress is being made in fulfilling our Lomé convention commitments? Does he agree that the purchase of fair trade bananas in our supermarkets and food shops ought to be encouraged, for the good of both our children and developing countries?
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the banana is the highest-selling fruit in this country, averaging two per person per week—a substantial number. As regards the question of third-world countries, the deal that was successfully concluded at Luxembourg fully meets this country's commitments under the Lomé convention and, we believe, our World Trade Organisation obligations—not every other country on the planet takes that view.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: Will the Minister confirm that the agreement on fair trade bananas—which is welcome—is not WTO-compatible in two respects? First, the quota is not agreed within the WTO, and is therefore subject to challenge; it is likely to be challenged by the United States and countries from central America. Secondly, the agreement under which bananas can be imported into Europe under WTO waiver ends in 2002, and this agreement is designed to run to 2004. Therefore, an extension of the WTO waiver will be necessary.
    Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is right on the latter point. On his former point, we are disappointed that the United States continues to take a confrontational stand on the issue. We sincerely hope that, following mature consideration and a look at what was agreed, the United States will see that we have found what we consider to be a reasonable way in which to honour our international obligations.
    Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that the description of the future of the banana industry as being between straight and curved bananas is a gross caricature? There are two large problems here: one is the British consumer preference for the smaller, Caribbean banana, and the second is the desire of former colonial territories—particularly in Africa and the Caribbean—for trade rather than aid. However, countries such as the Windward Islands in particular cannot compete with the same economies of scale against the large multinationals operating in central America, such as Dole and Chiquita. They look to the British Government and the EU to provide fair trade.
    Mr. Rooker: As former colonial powers, we and some of our European partners have a moral obligation to ensure that the economies of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries are not wrecked by other forces. The United States is not a banana grower, but it has close

    517
    relations with Latin American countries that are. Companies such as those that my hon. Friend mentioned gave some countries the name of banana republic. I will not go into the reasons for that. We would prefer trade and not aid, and so would those countries. It would be wholly unacceptable for Caribbean countries' economies to be wrecked—which is a possibility—and for them to be forced to grow cash crops.

    British Beef
    Mr. James Gray: What measures he is taking to promote the sale of British beef. [51689]
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The Government have continued to support various initiatives to help to promote the sale of beef. As a result, there has been a significant increase in beef consumption and, in the first four months of this year, a substantial increase in the United Kingdom share of the domestic market.
    Mr. Gray: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. I hope that he will forgive me for adding a slightly discordant note when I say that I hope that he will show more interest in and concern for the beef industry and beef producers than his predecessor did, and that he will find the way from the Smoking Room to the Chamber for important debates.
    The beef industry is deeply disappointed by the lack of progress towards lifting the ban, despite the Government's constant boasts about their Euro credentials. Assuming that the ban is eventually lifted, will the right hon. Gentleman give mainland farmers the same help, on a pro rata basis, that he recently gave Northern Ireland farmers? He gave them £2 million to help with their marketing abroad; pro rata, that would work out at about £11 million for the mainland. Will he undertake to give the same help to mainland farmers?
    Mr. Brown: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my job, but I cannot accept what he said about my predecessor. Only as a result of my predecessor's efforts was I able to make an important announcement yesterday about a further step that we are taking to ensure that we can get British beef sales back in the European Union. I did not make the decision—it would be nice to claim the credit after 48 hours in the Ministry—and the momentum was entirely due to my predecessor's hard work and consistent negotiating skills. I pay tribute to him.
    The £2 million spent in Northern Ireland was a one-off payment related to the peace process and not support for the industry in the United Kingdom.
    Charlotte Atkins: How much has been paid to fanners under the present Government, and how much agrimonetary compensation did the previous Government pay?
    Mr. Brown: The answer to the latter part of the question is none. The figure for total payments is huge, and the vast majority of it is driven by the Government's endeavours to eliminate BSE.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister agree that the promotion of the
    518
    sale of beef is primarily a question of confidence; that great strides have been made domestically in the re-establishment—and indeed, in some cases, the extension—of consumer confidence; and that it is vital for that to be extended beyond these shores? I welcome him to his post, in which he has inherited a problem about which it may not be too late to do something. The producer confidence of British farming would be greatly assisted if he reconsidered the statement of aims agreed by his predecessor, which rightly mentions the environment and conservation, but does not mention the word "farming". It is coupled with a set of figures that represent a phasing out of support for some of the most fragile parts of the beef-producing sector of the UK economy, which would be of no great help towards the lifting of the ban in the longer term.
    Mr. Brown: I regard the lifting of the beef ban as a top priority for me and for the Ministry. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take it very seriously. His point about confidence was also right; I accept that I have a duty to set a lead. Yesterday, I went to Asda to look at its display of British beef—[Interruption.] I am trying to make this answer an all-party effort by including both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), who is the Conservative Member most connected with Asda, although he is not here. [HON. MEMBERS: "He's writing out redundancies."] I know. He is writing them out at Conservative central office. I will do what I can to set a lead, and to support the British beef industry.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who sit on the bank of seats below the Gangway have just had a quick check, and even we have decided that, after only 48 hours, we cannot blame the new Minister for what has happened with BSE? He may have sent us some nasty letters from time to time, but we cannot blame him for BSE. Does he agree that the real blame for the billions of pounds that the British taxpayer has had to spend on BSE arises entirely from the Conservatives' total and utter neglect when they were in government? That money could have been spent on the national health service and schools, which would have made farmers themselves better off.
    Mr. Brown: In view of our relationship when I was in my previous job, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for not blaming me. Of course the money could have been better spent. No one wanted to get into the position we are in, and, although some good may come of it for the future, the cost of getting out of it has been enormous. I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend for not asking me to divert the subsidy into the mining industry, but I suppose that that will come.
    Mr. James Paice: May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new duties? If he is in any doubt about the need to rekindle confidence in his Government among farmers, he need only step outside London to meet them. They lost all confidence during the term of office of his predecessor.
    The beef market is affected not only by BSE, but, possibly seriously, by tuberculosis. Herd outbreaks have increased by 30 per cent. over the past year, which is causing concern about our notional status of being free of

    519
    TB. The right hon. Gentleman has just received the report of the expert group. Will he ensure that there is no further delay in implementing the Krebs recommendations? Will he consider levels of compensation for fanners who currently see no help coming for the five years of the study?
    Will he ask the expert group to consider movement restrictions on farms that break down to see whether all of them are needed? Krebs did not consider that, but I ask the Minister to request that the group does so. As the right hon. Gentleman has decided to end the calf processing scheme, farmers producing calves will need to rear them if they have a breakdown, because they will not otherwise be able to dispose of them.
    Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to me. Some political issues divide the parties, but where there is a clear national interest, and where it is possible for us to co-operate, I hope that we can do so. Many issues involve not purely domestic arguments, but how the outside world perceives our country. We have a responsibility to do the best we can for the nation.
    The Krebs report is before me, and I also have all the Ministry's advice. I am holding a meeting this afternoon on the matter, and I hope to have something positive to say before the House rises for the recess. Bovine TB is important, but I am not able to make a statement now. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the industry's attitude, and I can tell him that I will be meeting the president of the National Farmers Union and his colleagues later today to discuss a range of matters, of which I am sure that that will be one.
    Mr. John Smith: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new post, in which he will do an excellent job for the farmers of my constituency? Promotion and sale of beef is primarily carried out through our major supermarkets. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to this morning's reports that the Office of Fair Trading is to look at the purchasing power of the supermarkets to see whether the price of beef is kept artificially high in the shops?
    That, in turn, is not helping our farmers at all. Next month we have the agricultural show in the Vale of Glamorgan at Fonmon castle. Does the Minister plan to meet John Bridgeman to discuss this important issue?
    Mr. Brown: I have already had discussions with the Secretary of State for Wales, and he has invited me to visit the agricultural communities in Wales, which I intend to do on an early occasion. I accept what my hon. Friend says about the power of the big retailers and I shall also be meeting representatives of retailing organisations, probably in the autumn. The Government have always taken the view, however, that competition policy is a matter for the regulatory authorities.

    BSE Compensation Payments
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: If he will make a statement on the future of BSE compensation payments. [51691]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have no plans to change the formula for calculation of the compensation payments to owners of BSE suspect animals. But as the number of animals with BSE continues to fall, and fall dramatically, the total amount of compensation paid to farmers will decline accordingly.
    Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yesterday the Government announced that the calf processing aid scheme would end on 30 November. What grounds does the Minister have for assuming that hard-pressed dairy and beef farmers will be able to cope with the sudden termination of this benefit?
    Mr. Rooker: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the scheme is of benefit. The end date has been known since the scheme started and was agreed in 1996. There is nothing new about the end date of 30 November this year; it was agreed in the European Union and by the previous Government. There has never been any doubt about the change. We cannot enter into a voluntary arrangement. We shall monitor carefully the consequences of finishing the scheme, not least for possible difficulties regarding animal welfare.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that British beef is seen to be safe? Is it not true that the return of beefburger companies to British beef is proof that the Government's policies are working, and that more progress has been made in the past 15 months than was made in 18 years of Tory government?
    Mr. Rooker: At the risk of being partisan about this, I remind my hon. Friend that during a short discussion of the beef industry in the recent debate on the estimates I set out 23 positive steps that the Government had taken to assist the beef industry. On safety, I repeat that two thirds of cattle farms have never had a case of BSE and 80 per cent. of beef farmers have never had a case of BSE, which is why they are so angry about the overall restrictions on the industry imposed by the European Union ban.
    We have made food safety our top priority. We have not knowingly allowed any BSE infectivity into the food chain—hence the beef on the bone ban. As I said a few weeks ago, in the first four months of the year beef imports decreased by 22 per cent. and consumption of beef increased. That means that British consumers are consuming more British beef because they know that this Government are not playing fast and loose with the safety of British beef.
    Mr. Michael Jack: I welcome the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) to his post. It resumes a former acquaintanceship that we had in our business careers. At one time he was one of the fairies, but he has moved on since then. Although beef is the only item mentioned in the Government's annual report, can the Minister of State explain why, given that every single sector of British agriculture is in a state of crisis, there is only one paragraph on agriculture in the report, and beef is the only issue discussed?
    Mr. Rooker: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to my right hon. Friend.

    521
    I understand that at one point one of them dealt with Daz and the other with Ariel. We shall be judged by our actions, and by our actions we know that at the end of the day we shall deliver a much better programme for British agriculture than the previous Government ever began to think about.
    Mr. Jack: In the light of the Minister's answer, if he will be judged by his actions, why did his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirm yesterday—in his written answer on the response to the comprehensive spending review—that farm support will fall in real terms during the three years covered by that review? Why did he confirm nothing more than the target of resolving the BSE crisis, giving no firm commitment to campaign to end it, and ending the early retirement scheme, which had never begun, as well as the calf processing aid scheme? Why was there no commitment to negotiate on hill livestock compensatory allowances? Is that really the priority that the Minister gives to agriculture?
    Mr. Rooker: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to re-read that five-column answer in Hansard. He has picked out certain passages for his convenience and ignored all the positive points in the report and the answer concerning what we will do for agriculture. Several other answers given yesterday added to the arrangements. We have had to make some hard decisions in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and no one denies that. From the figures in the answer yesterday it can be seen that the legacy of BSE is so great that this year the BSE programme is £4 million greater than the running costs of the Department.

    Fishermen (Northumberland)
    Mr. A. J. Beith: If he will make a statement about the eligibility of Northumberland fishermen for PESCA assistance. [51692]
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): In the United Kingdom, aid under the PESCA Community initiative is available in areas that have been designated as fisheries dependent. There are separate PESCA sub-programmes for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and each has its own priorities for aid.
    Mr. Beith: How can it be right that a fisherman in Eyemouth can get a substantial grant to put refrigeration in his boat when a fisherman in Amble, just down the road in Northumberland, cannot do so because MAFF interprets the rules much more restrictively than the Scottish or Northern Ireland Departments? Since the Minister has agreed to review that matter and hopes to make an announcement in a matter of weeks, can we hope for a sympathetic response; and if his response is positive, can we hope for a review of the cases that have been turned down in recent weeks?
    Mr. Morley: When PESCA was set up, different regions had different priorities. The priorities that the Government inherited in the English region were based on structural aid rather than aid of the sort to which the right hon. Gentleman refers as regards Scotland. We have
    522
    had correspondence on the matter and I understand the case that the right hon. Gentleman makes. That is why we have agreed to review the situation as it applies to England and Scotland. Of course, we will take into account the problem that the right hon. Gentleman's constituent had to face because of the differences of approach.

    Advisory Committees
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: What steps he has taken to widen membership of advisory committees to include representatives of consumers and environmental organisations. [51693]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): We have widened the membership of the independent advisory committees that deal with food, health, veterinary medicines, pesticides and environmental concerns to include at least one and sometimes two relevant consumer or lay members where appropriate; and we have some more announcements to make in the next couple of weeks.
    Mr. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and am pleased to hear that there is considerable progress in that direction. However, does he accept that the advisory committees have always tended to be heavily populated by industrialists or academics who derive their livelihoods—consulting fees or research grants—from the industries concerned? It is important that consumers and environmental organisations be strongly represented on the committees if we want a balanced report and if we want to retain public confidence.
    Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is quite right. We are satisfied—I must repeat this, as people have been under attack—with the integrity of all members of the independent advisory committees. We are open and transparent about declarations of interest. Of course, some are statutory committees, such as the one on veterinary products in which the Medicines Commission is involved.
    I am pleased to say that most of the lay, non-scientific, consumer representatives appointed to the committees in the past 15 months have been women, which contributes to righting the imbalance that we inherited. My hon. Friend is right to say that the committees have to engender confidence. They are not independent committees as such, although we want them to be committees of independent people—that aspect is crucial—whatever the background from which they come: academia, the health service, industry, and lay and consumer members.
    Mr. Tom King: Does the Minister agree that the need in the present crisis in agriculture—the latest figures for the south-west show an 80 per cent. fall in incomes—for regional agricultural committees could hardly be greater? Will he urge the Minister of Agriculture, on taking up his new office, to note not only the seriousness of the situation but the feeling that has grown among farmers that the Government do not care? The best thing he could do in the recess would be to make early visits to as many regions as possible. Will he put the south-west high on his list?
    Mr. Rooker: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although there was a note of criticism behind it.

    523
    It is true that the farmers panels were abandoned when we came into office. However, on our regional visits, my ministerial colleagues and I have met liaison groups that have included farmers' representatives and others to take in a much wider spectrum of rural interests and the rural economy than could have been involved if we had stuck to the panels. It goes way beyond agriculture because of the spin-off into other areas. We do not apologise for that.
    We will continue our regional visits, as we have for the past 15 months. The pace will be faster now that we have ceased to hold the presidency of the European Union.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister refer to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides the examination undertaken by The Guardian newspaper on the basis of the Environmental Protection Agency report that multinational chemical companies are paying substantial sums to students to use them as human guinea pigs for testing dangerous organophosphate pesticides?
    Mr. Rooker: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's question. The research reported in The Guardian today, which was also reported in yesterday's Daily Mail, was done in 1992 and 1996–97. It is therefore not possible to get all the necessary information. Where a contract research laboratory in the United Kingdom undertakes work on pesticides on behalf of an overseas client, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is not involved. It is for the client laboratory to satisfy itself that the ethical and medical conditions under which the work is carried out are in line with international guidelines under the Helsinki declaration and the guidance issued by the Royal College of Physicians in London.
    My inquiries in the past 48 hours lead me to believe that the experiments were conducted in line with international guidelines and in conformity with the guidelines of the Royal College of Physicians. The reports merit further inquiry.

  The Attorney-General was asked—
  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Oliver Heald: If he will make a statement on the adequacy of his Department's funding for the implementation of the recommendations of the Glidewell report. [51715]
    The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): To facilitate early progress on implementation of the proposals for the internal restructuring of the Crown Prosecution Service, the Treasury has agreed, subject to Parliament agreeing the change in the expenditure estimates, additional provision of £5.3 million for the CPS in the current year. Provision for subsequent years is included in the three-year settlement announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 14 July 1998. There are now both a commitment to change and the necessary resources. I look forward to providing the House with a progress report in the autumn.
    Mr. Heald: The comprehensive spending review shows an increase from the current year's figure of
    524
    £281 million to £312 million for 1999–2000. Does the Attorney-General agree that that is grossly misleading, because spending in 1997–98 was £321 million? Has he secured some increase, or is there a substantial cut in CPS funding as it faces a major reorganisation that will cost a great deal of money?
    The Attorney-General: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find a cut. I told him that we are seeking parliamentary authority for an increase of £5.3 million for the present year. If he looks back, he will find that the Government whom he supported planned significant reductions in 1997–98 and 1998–99. I have never suggested that the settlement is anything but tight. He may know that there is a difference between prosecution costs and the running costs of the Department. We shall see as we go how tight the settlement is, but I am confident that we have succeeded in ensuring that money is available for the early implementation of the Glidewell report.
    Mr. Kerry Pollard: What has been the reaction of the CPS staff to the publication of the Glidewell report?
    The Attorney-General: I am conscious of the attitude of the staff and I am aware, of course, that there will be further uncertainties. These can be minimised, but they cannot be avoided altogether if we are to get the CPS on a sound footing and provide a new start for it. Since the report, the former Solicitor-General and I have made a number of visits to CPS offices. We have been impressed by the warm welcome that CPS staff have given the report. The new chief executive, whose appointment I announced on 1 June, is putting in place mechanisms for receiving feedback from staff on the reorganisation.
    Mr. John Burnett: I am delighted to see the new Solicitor-General in the House. We congratulate him and welcome him to his appointment. Will the Attorney-General confirm that securing and enhancing the independence of the Crown Prosecution Service will be at the core of his proposals for its reform? Will he confirm that any integrated unit with police officers attached to it will be under the control and supervision of the Director of Public Prosecutions or one of the 42 chief Crown prosecutors?
    The Attorney-General: I am aware of the concern of the hon. Gentleman. The criminal justice units were recommended by the Glidewell report in order to ensure better preparation and integration between the work of the police and the prosecution process, which are distinct. The proposals will be considered by my ministerial colleagues and me. I am sure that whatever changes occur will be aimed at the working relationship between the CPS and the police and at making them closer, more effective and more efficient in the fight that we all share against crime.
    I assure the hon. Gentleman that decisions on whether cases are to be prosecuted will remain the sole responsibility of the independent prosecutors applying the code for the Crown prosecutors. I am confident that in the way forward we shall not undermine the independence of the CPS.
    Sir Nicholas Lyell: I join in welcoming the new Solicitor-General to his post. I hope that he will last longer than his predecessor, who appears to have been shuffled off to be the Government's junior enforcer, or perhaps we should say enforcer's apprentice.
    Getting back to real business, does the Attorney-General agree that securing an extra £5.3 million for the CPS over the rest of this Parliament cannot possibly meet anything but the most elementary requirements of the Glidewell report? Does he agree that Glidewell recommends that the CPS take over many of the duties of the police admin support units? Does he know—the Home Office failed to answer—how many people are employed in those admin support units? I suggest that it is almost as many as are employed in the CPS itself. Does he agree that, if the CPS is to take over any significant portion of those duties, a massive injection of cash will be needed, which the comprehensive spending review simply does not provide?
    The Attorney-General: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to his post after his recent illness. He will have heard what I said a moment ago about the reductions that took place in the CPS provision in the last two years. Built into the provision is £6.5 million of transitional costs for the next two years for the implementation of Glidewell. I emphasise that the running costs are obviously cash-controlled, whereas the prosecuting costs have to be looked at as they occur. I am confident that the provision is a good start and will provide the necessary beginning for the implementation of Glidewell.

    International Court of Justice
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: How many of his officials are engaged in cases before the International Court of Justice. [51716]
    The Attorney-General: None.
    Mr. Dalyell: In view of the careful and obviously considered form of words used by the Prime Minister in the House on 22 July in respect of Lockerbie, who in the Government is causing the delay of an announcement that there will be a trial in The Hague under Scottish rules of justice and under a Scottish judge nominated by the Prime Minister; and why is the delay being caused?
    The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's long interest in the matter. I read carefully his speech in the Adjournment debate of 21 July and he has confirmed that he followed closely the considered reply of the Prime Minister on 22 July, which the whole House heard. I have nothing to add to that reply.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: May I press the Attorney-General further? The House should be in a position before the recess to know when the case will be brought to trial.
    The Attorney-General: That is a matter not for me, but for the Lord Advocate.

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr. Bowen Wells: When he expects to appoint a new Director of Public Prosecutions. [51717]
    The Attorney-General: An open competition is at present being conducted under the auspices of the first civil service commissioner. I expect an appointment to be made in the autumn.
    Mr. Wells: The Attorney-General has not really answered the question asked by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) about the implementation of the Glidewell report—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's question must relate to the Director of Public Prosecutions, as it says on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Wells: I am coming to the appointment of 42 Crown prosecutors, whom the Attorney-General promised would be appointed by 1 April this year. He ordered that they should be appointed on 27 May, but a study of the comprehensive spending review suggests that those Crown prosecutors will not be appointed until the end of the Parliament—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's original question to the Attorney-General was about when the right hon. and learned Gentleman expects to appoint a new Director of Public Prosecutions—appointment in the singular. Is that not what the Order Paper says?
    Mr. Wells: Yes, but the DPP has to make those appointments. My question is: when are those appointments going to be made, and is the money available to make them?
    The Attorney-General: Now we are there. The answer, very simply, is that the post of the new DPP has been advertised; we have had responses, which will be considered over the summer; and in the early autumn, I hope, an appointment will be made. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that one has to have a DPP in post first; but once the new DPP is in post, it follows naturally that we can proceed as quickly as practicable, having regard to civil service considerations, to appoint the new chief Crown prosecutors. One follows the other.
    Mr. David Winnick: Will not one of the tasks of the new DPP be to try to ensure that those responsible for the murder of Stephen Lawrence are brought to justice? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Lawrence case thus far is a denial of justice as great as the miscarriage of justice in the case of Derek Bentley, who was hanged in January 1953?
    The Attorney-General: I know of my hon. Friend's deep and long-standing concern about the Lawrence case. Individual cases are for the CPS and important matters are for the director herself. Obviously she, or her successor, will have to consider the evidence as it stands.

    Lobbyists
    Mr. Nigel Evans: What meetings he has had with representatives from (a) GJW, (b) GPC Market Access and (c) LLM to discuss the prosecution services. [51718]
    The Attorney-General: My Department does not have substantial policy responsibilities, and meetings with interested groups outside Government are quite rare. It is not the practice of this Government to make information about such meetings or their content publicly available. The Prime Minister published guidance on Monday setting out the basic principles that should be followed in any contact with people outside Government, including lobbyists.
    Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. Does that mean that the Attorney-General has changed procedure in his Department since the Derek Draper cash-for-access
    528
    cronygate scandal, or is he happy that the procedures in his Department were sufficient not to soil its good standing, which was not the case with Downing street?
    The Attorney-General: I have made my Department's position clear. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read and study over the recess and improve his knowledge. I know that he is a graduate in politics. During the summer holiday he has 11 weeks to consider the guidance to all civil servants setting out the principles.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) could begin his lessons by learning to read and to understand that in the civil service, and certainly in the Law Officers Department, everything is totally above board and always has been?
    The Attorney-General: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's observations.

Local Government
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on local government.
I have today laid before the House a White Paper, "Modern Local Government: In Touch with the People." Copies are available in the Vote Office, together with a summary leaflet.
Today my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister published the Government's annual report. It shows that we have made a cracking start in modernising Britain: 177 manifesto commitments, 50 kept or done and 119 under way. There is plenty more to do, and our White Paper today is part of doing more.
The Government are building a modern Britain and a fair society. The White Paper that I am publishing today will help to achieve both. After two decades of creeping centralisation, the White Paper returns power to the people. It sets out proposals to modernise English local government. Those reforms are at the heart of our programme for constitutional change.
The Parliament for Scotland, the Assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland, a mayor and assembly for London and the regional development agencies are all part of a package for decentralising power in Britain. It is the most radical and comprehensive package of local government reforms for generations. Previous Governments have changed local government boundaries and structures. Those are not unimportant, but they are not the whole story either. We have seen over the past few years what a distraction such boundary and structure changes can be.
The changes that we are proposing today are about how councils work and how they can be more in touch with the people whom they serve. The changes have been developed in consultation with local government. I have been pleased to work with the Local Government Association, and I want to place on record my support for the LGA. I fully support a single all-party voice for local government. It has enabled my right hon. Friends and me to have regular dialogue with the leaders of the LGA in our central-local partnership meetings.
We want the changes to be the start of renewed, stronger and more accountable local government. It is a programme of reform for the next decade. Councils educate our children, house the homeless, care for the elderly, encourage arts and sports for all, plan better health care, help to regenerate local communities, plan better local transport and create real and lasting jobs. People look to the local council for support when things go wrong. From family breakdown to factory closures, from fire to flood, the local council picks up the pieces.
Earlier this year I visited Warwickshire, where communities were devastated by the worst floods in memory. I spoke to local families whose houses had been wrecked and who had nowhere to go. They looked to the local council and its emergency services. They knew that the council was there for them. When I visited Manchester, I saw the public-private partnership rebuilding the city after its centre was shattered by a terrorist bomb. I spoke to local business people whose enterprises were brought to the brink of disaster. They were dependent on their local council and they knew that their council was there for them.
530
It is right that the House should be reminded that councils serve the country well. Many thousands of councillors of all political persuasions do an excellent job under difficult circumstances. It is time for the House to make that clear when so many criticisms, often unjustified, are levelled at our councils.
I want all our councils to be up to the standards of the best, not hampered with political organisation from the previous century as they face the new millennium. These proposals will help councils to modernise, to improve their performance and, where necessary, to rid themselves of old-fashioned and inward-looking attitudes. The best councils will act as beacons to the rest. They will be pace setters and centres of excellence, and they will gain new freedoms to show how much the best councils can achieve.
Through best value, all councils will have to learn from and adopt best practice in the delivery of efficient public services, so I want to strengthen local accountability and streamline decision making. I am therefore proposing to allow local choice on new ways of running councils. I want voters to know who is responsible for taking local decisions and how to hold those people to account.
Councils will be required to review their political management structures and to draw up a plan, with a timetable, to introduce new arrangements which will separate the executive. Too often today, too many councillors get sucked into the meetings culture in their town hall, rather than representing their community to the council. We want to give all councillors clear and important roles in representing their communities—some as mayors and cabinet members, and others holding the executive to account.
At present, by law, passed by this House, councils have to conform to a single model of political organisation—the 19th-century committee structure. In place of centralised conformity, we propose a local choice. The local choice will be from a range of models including: an executive mayor directly elected by the people, with a cabinet of council colleagues; a cabinet with a leader appointed by the council; a mayor directly elected by the people to give a political lead, with a full-time manager to run the council; or local people will decide whether they want to keep a directly elected mayor. In special circumstances, if the authority tests the opinion of the electorate, the existing structure can be retained if the electorate so decide. Local people will vote if a council proposes a mayor, and they will have the right to demand a referendum themselves to create a directly elected mayor.
Local systems of political management can be adapted to suit local needs, but the Government will not allow complacency. All councils will need to review their structures and make proposals for change. The Government also want to improve accountability.
We want more people to vote, thus giving more local responsibility for taking crucial spending decisions. Reading the beginning of the White Paper—I cannot recall the page—it is remarkable to learn of the low level of participation in voting in this country as compared with others.
Mr. A. J. Beith: That is because of the first-past-the-post system.
Mr. Prescott: It is indeed a challenge for all of us to secure a better voting system, but I might add that the

531
countries that do better do not necessarily have proportional representation, which is the Liberals' answer to everything. [Interruption.] I must be protected, Madam Speaker.
Our proposals are as follows: yearly elections in most areas, with councils also having a new power to hold referendums on local issues; improved procedures for councils to consult local people; and making it easier to vote. Councils will be able to try out new ideas to make voting easier—wider use of postal votes, electronic voting, mobile polling stations, and voting in supermarkets, railway stations and town centres.
Crude and universal council tax capping is over. As we said in our manifesto, new safeguards will mean more responsibility locally for council spending and taxation, and protection for local people from excessive council tax rises through new reserve powers. As I told the LGA conference earlier this year, I will have those reserve powers, and I will not hesitate to use them if necessary. It will not be crude capping, but it could be called crude Prescott.
Like all public servants, councillors must be beyond reproach. The overwhelming majority of the 2 million people who work for councils and the 20,000 councillors who serve on them perform an outstanding service to the public. They have a tough job and they do it well. Those councillors and public servants resent the doubts that are cast on their integrity by the activities of a few. Hon. Members have much experience, some of it as councillors. I have never been a councillor but I have a great deal of respect for councillors' hard work, dedication and commitment. It is my respect for the greater majority that makes me intolerant of the tiny minority who are guilty of dishonesty, corruption and sleaze.
Local government already has a strict regime—I might point out that it is stricter than the one that operates in the House. However, it has not proved enough, just as our arrangements here have not necessarily proved enough. We shall introduce for local government a tough new ethical framework with strict codes of conduct for councillors and council employees and an independent standards board to deal with complaints about improper behaviour. There will be no hiding place for dishonesty, corruption or sleaze. This is not a political issue: it must be the aim of all those who are in public life.
I now turn to the delivery of local services. I am pleased to announce the end of compulsory competitive tendering. It was divisive and was not always the best way to provide efficient services to local people who had no say whatever in those contracts. We propose a new and demanding duty for councillors to deliver best value. It will give councillors the flexibility that they need to be fair to the many dedicated people who work to provide our public services and it will guarantee the best deal for those who use and depend on those services.
Councillors will give more say to service users and, in partnership with local people, they will set clear service standards and targets for continuous improvement and will publish them so that local people will know the standards that they can expect. Services will be subjected to regular and independent inspection, and I am pleased to announce the creation of a new best value inspectorate as part of the Audit Commission. Local people will play
532
a part in the inspection process. The Government will act swiftly and effectively if councils fail to tackle serious or persistent failures.
We propose a new duty on councils to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of their areas in co-operation with public, private and voluntary bodies and local people. That will make councils more effective in leading their communities and serving their people. The capital finance system will be made simpler, so that councils can organise their capital investment and assets in the best way.
Just as I want to improve the accountability of councils to voters, I also want to strengthen the relationship between councils and their businesses. National business rates will stay but, within defined limits, we want councils to be able to vary the rate locally, with councils and business agreeing on how any extra money that is raised will be spent. Once again, that will give councils a stake in the success of their local businesses, and local businesses a stake in the success of their councils.
The proposals are good for councils and will enable them to fulfil their potential to be a powerful force for progress and social justice. The proposals are good for councillors because they will be able to do more for their local communities and able to serve and represent their voters more effectively. Above all, our proposals are good for local people. They will have better services that will be delivered by more accountable councils. The purpose of the proposals is to give people a bigger say and a better deal—to put local people first. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Mr. Tim Yeo: I am grateful to the Deputy Prime Minister for making his White Paper available to us at 2.45 pm. I warmly welcome the fact that the Government are now addressing a wide range of local authority issues. The Opposition share the right hon. Gentleman's view that the vast majority of councils and councillors conduct themselves properly and responsibly. I should mention that, of course, it is not councils that educate our children but teachers, many of whom, although not all, are employed by councils.
The Opposition will judge the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, first, by whether they improve value for money for service users and for taxpayers and, secondly, by whether they increase the accountability of councils to voters. Is he aware that the White Paper is published at a time of great concern about the rising cost of local government? This year, there were record rises in council tax, averaging 8 per cent. in England, which is more than double the rate of inflation.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures that I received from the Library this week, which show that, as a direct result of the comprehensive spending review, council tax will rise by 5 per cent. a year in real terms for each of the next three years? Will he confirm that council tax payers will therefore pay substantially more council tax every year for the rest of this Parliament just to maintain existing services? Is he aware also that there is great concern about abuses in local government, to which he made some reference?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the replacement of compulsory competitive tendering by best value is in danger of being a smokescreen behind which the discipline of competition is removed? Will he not

533
admit that CCT did bring huge improvements in the quality of service and delivered massive savings for the taxpayer? Will he confirm that many Labour councils are already anticipating the end of CCT by awarding more contracts in-house?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the reserve powers that he retains over council spending mean that, effectively, capping continues in all but name? From the point of view of councils, does that not simply replace crude and universal capping, which he has pledged to abolish, with crude and arbitrary capping, another broken Labour promise, alongside tax, class sizes, waiting lists and the welfare state.
On business rates, are not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals in effect just another new tax on business? Do they not mean that, for the first time since the uniform business rate was introduced, all businesses face the possibility of above-inflation increases in their business rate? Will he explain how businesses, especially small businesses, will be consulted before councils put the business rate up?
Will all types of council apart from parish councils be invited to adopt a new model of operation? Will councils be forced to choose one of the models that he has referred to, or can they opt to continue with present arrangements? If they choose the option of a directly elected mayor, with a full-time manager, what will be the role of elected councillors? Does he believe that those new models will involve more or less spending on administration? Does he claim that any of those new models will improve the scrutiny of council decisions?
I welcome the concern that the right hon. Gentleman expresses about ethical standards. I fully agree that concern about that issue is not a party political matter. Nevertheless, will he not admit that he is worried, as his Scottish counterpart is, about evidence of widespread abuse in Labour councils, of which we have had more reports even today?
I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about the level of turnout. In the light of his comments—which were not in his written statement—I invite him to join the campaign against proportional representation that Conservative Members will shortly launch. Can he produce any evidence that introducing annual council elections will increase voter turnout? Indeed, given the poor turnout in the recent London referendum, what makes him think that the turnout in other local referendums will be any higher?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we will examine the detail of his White Paper because we have found that the fine print of new Labour documents often contains nasty surprises? Finally, is he aware that best value will not automatically improve services or cut costs; that a new model of political organisation does not put a single extra teacher in the classroom or care for one more old person; and that no one will be persuaded that allowing him to select beacon councils, as the White Paper suggests, will return power to the people?
Mr. Prescott: It is nice that the Opposition have finally found some policies and are prepared to campaign on proportional representation. We await with interest what else will come about. We have applied different voting
534
systems to elections to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the mayor and the assembly for London. Lord Jenkins's commission is looking at proportional representation and we are committed to a referendum in respect of parliamentary elections. We will have to see how those matters affect local councils, but no decision has been taken, and the White Paper does not address the issue.
The Opposition seem to have changed their mind since they were in government about a mayor and assembly for London, devolution and a Scottish Parliament. They soon adjusted to the reality of political life, and we await their proposals on proportional representation.
Mr. Yeo: You have changed your mind.
Mr. Prescott: I have given examples of adjustments that have to be made. It is up to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) to show whether I have changed my views. I certainly welcome his endorsement and that of many in the House of my view that, despite all the attacks that have been made on local councils, we should remind ourselves what an effective job they do.
There is common agreement on the need to improve the position of local councils, to give them powers and resources to be more accountable; and for local people to have a greater say. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition made that point to the local government conference when he said that he wanted people to have a greater say in matters relating to local councils. I welcome those remarks.
The hon. Gentleman referred to value for money. The efficient production of services is important and the White Paper is designed to achieve it. The compulsory spending review—[Laughter.] I gave the Opposition the chance to get a laugh in, but I think I was well ahead of them. I have done it before and perhaps that shows an attitude of mind.
On the comprehensive spending review, the settlement to local authorities is generally agreed to be most generous as compared with previous settlements. It also covers a three-year period so that local authorities have sufficient time to settle their planning priorities. Our projections for inflation and growth in the economy are consistent with that. We must wait to see what happens in the coming years, but most people would agree with us.
We have planned for three years instead of one. That will provide greater stability to local authority financing and it is what local authorities wanted. It is at the heart of what we have done. As for efficiency and value, the idea of having beacon councils is to say that certain councils are excellent and that we want to reward excellence and encourage other local authorities to reach their standards. That is another step in the right direction of getting good service efficiently at the best price and for the best value.
In regard to best value, it is generally agreed that compulsory competitive tendering was extremely expensive in the long run. It concentrated solely on price, largely at the expensive of the people employed in the industries concerned, and it resulted in a reduction in the quality of services. I do not have to make the case; it has been pretty well made by any analysis of compulsory competitive tendering.
Although we are interested in efficiency and price, other issues of best value must be considered. That has come out of all our surveys, and we intend to bring it

535
home to people. It has been demonstrated in the 40 pilot areas where we have implemented new systems. There were some improvements in productivity under compulsory competitive tendering, and certain practices were changed that should have been changed.
The activities of some local authorities show that the initiative for change—whether or not it arose in that way—is to be welcomed, but other factors must be taken into account in achieving best value. That is why we have highlighted the fact that under compulsory competitive tendering there was much too concerned to pay contractors—
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The unions.
Mr. Prescott: In many areas, they were not trade union members. If the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) looked at the facts instead of indulging his obsession with trade unions, he would discover that many of the people involved were not trade union members. They could not be protected because, under compulsory competitive tendering, local authorities were obliged to accept the cheapest price.
The hon. Member for North Essex might also be concerned for the taxpayer because the consequence of reduced wages under CCT was very often a considerable rise in the cost of family credit. The taxpayer paid for the low wages enforced by CCT. The Opposition often lecture the Government on cutting expenditure on welfare and subsidies, yet at the same time, they propose policies that would have the opposite effect. Under CCT, employers avoided their responsibility to pay employees a fair wage for providing a decent service. That is the argument concerning best value and CCT.
I have made the position on capping reasonably clear. We need legislation on the reserve powers to which I referred. Present laws will, of course, apply in the next financial year. We have made absolutely clear to local authorities that they have a three-year expenditure programme and that we want them to take that into account. We will be setting rates for average council tax increases over that period on which we will make an announcement in—I think—November. It is then up to councils to act responsibly, as I hope they will.
To be fair, most councils spent within their expenditure ranges. Only a handful found themselves facing conflict and the imposition of capping. That applied only once most recently—and there were special circumstances—as it did the previous year. We are quite prepared to allow councils a three-year programme, and we want them to be flexible on it. We are not indifferent to levels of council expenditure—no Government can be. After all, central Government provide councils with about 75 per cent. of their expenditure. I will properly take into account the reserve powers.
On the issue of new model organisations, we provide different choices. If we move more towards having paid councillors and reducing allowances, if we want to attract more and different people to council work, and if we have full-time mayors or executives, there will be some cost involved. That is the same for Parliament, where we have moved more towards full-time than part-time conditions. That is a price that one can pay for democracy. We want an improved democratic local council structure, which allows much more open and accountable decisions to be made and which gives councillors more power to check the executive's decisions.
536
All the models split the decision-making power between, on the one hand, an executive, as we have in Parliament, and, on the other, councillors who can openly question what is going on. All too often, decisions at council committee meetings are decided beforehand and councillors merely act as administrators, putting their hands in the air. We want to change that; I do not think that people like that. We want fundamental change, and that is what we will bring about.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I welcome the White Paper. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in order to implement it, we need legislation? What timetable does he envisage for such legislation, and when does he hope that it will begin affecting local councils?
Mr. Prescott: As early as possible, I sincerely hope. My hon. Friend will know that the matter is for the Ministerial Committee on the Queen's Speeches and Future Legislation, since it proposes which Bills are to be in the Queen's Speech. I cannot comment on that at the moment.
Mr. Paul Burstow: We very much welcome much of the language in the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, although, when we look at the White Paper in more detail, I think that we shall find quite a few areas in which our approach will substantially differ from the Government's. The Liberal Democrats believe that local government is in need of reform. Too many councillors do not listen to the public. Too many councils are one-party states, and complacent about the way in which they run town halls. That is why the White Paper is a missed opportunity. Rather than a White Paper that tackles the first-past-the-post voting system, which so undermines local government legitimacy, we shall have annual elections and supermarket voting. We will return to the subject time and again, no matter how much certain hon. Members snore.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that the prospects of a close result, the possibility of a change of council, and councillors who are more than just mere agents of Whitehall will do more to increase voter turnout and interest in local government? Is he aware that a fair voting system based on the single transferable vote would have done more to open up town halls and challenge one-party states? Will he confirm that the proposals give the Secretary of State wider powers to intervene in the affairs of town halls? If councils deliver new Labour's agenda, they will be rewarded with beacon status, which is not so much freedom as a slightly longer leash from Whitehall.
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his proposed changes to the capping and financing regime fail to clarify accountability, and that local electors will still be left wondering whether Ministers or their councillors are responsible for council tax rises? Will he also take this opportunity to go a little further with the proposals for citizens' initiatives with regard to directly elected mayors, and provide for the electorate to seek to recall a directly elected mayor if he proves incompetent?
The White Paper hands more power to central Government and reduces local discretion; it sees democratic local government as nothing more than an

537
administrative arm of Whitehall. Do not the Secretary of State's proposals therefore represent another victory for Whitehall over town hall?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, especially his congratulations on my use of language—not something with which I am usually associated, as Mr. Parris will tell us if he is in the Press Gallery. That is welcome praise, wherever it comes from, and I thank the hon. Gentleman.
Nevertheless, like many hon. Members on the Government Benches—and, I suspect, on the Opposition side too—I still do not feel that many of the evils and wrongs in our society could be removed simply by changing the electoral system to one of proportional representation. I do not want to enter into that argument now, but we can examine electoral systems in different parts of the world and see that such changes are not necessarily guaranteed by this or that voting system. Participation in voting is crucial, and there are also other factors, as well as the type of vote.
I do not dismiss other ideas entirely; we have tried different types of votes, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in Scotland, in Wales and in the London mayoral elections, so we are being quite radical in introducing change. We may not perhaps be as radical as
—
Mr. Burstow: We want more.
Mr. Prescott: I understand that, but we choose to strike a balance. We are not convinced of the argument for local authorities, although we are now examining it in connection with constituencies, through Lord Jenkins's commission on proportional representation. I am not a great fan of that myself, as hon. Members may have guessed. None the less, that is where we are at the moment.
We need to make a judgment, and turnout certainly does not depend simply on the voting system. We will consider the commission's findings and all the ideas; I agree that it may contribute to the arguments and debates on the Government side of the House. However, new ideas will have to be judged in terms of accountability. I have always thought that proportional representation means that 5 per cent. of the electorate run the Government, as we have seen in Germany and other countries. So I am not convinced about that either. [Interruption.] Of course, the 5 per cent. in Germany were Liberals, so I can see why some hon. Members argue that case.
As for the Secretary of State's powers of intervention, on balance, Secretaries of State will have to reserve powers for themselves. They cannot be indifferent to levels of expenditure on providing services when 75 per cent. of it comes from the state. Both the Government and local councils will carry the responsibility for what the electorate feel about the bills for council spending, because people are aware that it is both the Government and councils that make the choices. We are saying that it is reasonable to expect a certain level of services to be provided and a certain level of finance to be required. That is a matter for political decision.
As we said in the White Paper, if councils want to spend more than we allow, they can, but they will not necessarily get a subsidy from central Government to do
538
so. Councils can make that choice and explain it to the electorate. That is taking things further than any previous capping system, and it is a step in the right direction. Local authorities have to make the decision themselves.
As for the powers of intervention and the powers of local authorities to get on with some jobs, new powers and new resources are involved, and the procedures that we have set out for partnerships give them greater authority and autonomy to do some of those things within the balanced framework that we have set.
I cannot read my notes here; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman made one last point—[Interruption.] The point about Whitehall—
Mr. Burstow: I said "recall".
Mr. Prescott: I am sorry; the hon. Gentleman was talking about the right to recall the mayor. Where a council does not carry out any of the changes, the electorate will have the chance to have a kind of referendum—a 10 per cent. petition, we could say—to call for a mayor. However, the argument that, once the mayor has been elected, there should be a right of recall if he has not done too well after 12 months in office will, I imagine, send a shiver through the House, when hon. Members think that judgments could be made on individual Members' competence within their first 12 months. I am not convinced of the argument, and I suspect that, if I invited hon. Members to vote for it, I would not carry the Liberals with me, either. None the less, it is another interesting idea from the Liberals, who never get the chance of having the power to implement their ideas.
Mr. Derek Foster: Will my right hon. Friend totally reject the lectures from Conservative Members, who brought us the poll tax, continually denigrated local government and changed our constitution by making local government merely an agent of central Government? In wholly welcoming the White Paper, may I say that his celebration of local government's performance will be widely welcomed in the county of Durham? His words represent one of the best ways in which to ensure that local councillors will embrace his modernising agenda. May I ask him to go further and to pay tribute to all local councillors, who in many cases have sacrificed their careers, families and social lives without any thought of return?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks; I very much agree with what he says. To be fair, the Opposition have agreed with us on the need for change and I welcome their commitment. Indeed, that was almost bound to come, as the Leader of the Opposition said to the Local Government Association:
"I've come here today to tell you the Conservative Party is changing."
That little I accept and welcome; change in the right direction is for the good whether in the Tory party or in the Labour party.
My right hon. Friend was right to say that councillors feel almost besieged by press comments. We should say loudly and more often that the great majority of councils are not involved in any wrongdoing. As I know from my experience in Hull, if I may be so bold as to mention it,

539
the press pays a great deal of attention to any allegations that are made. I wish the same amount of publicity was given when it is found that there is no evidence to support the allegations and the allegations are withdrawn. We would all welcome balanced reporting and more credit being given to the work that councillors do.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain the intellectual paradox whereby the Government are delegating greater powers to local authorities, but power in the Labour party nationally is being increasingly centralised?
Mr. Prescott: I will not pray in aid Mr. Archie whatever his name is. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was going to say that the intellectual paradox was that central Government wanted both to give local government more power and to retain some influence and control—striking the right balance is the problem at the centre of any debate about local government. In the White Paper, we have tried to strike a balance; it will not be acceptable to all, but at least we have tried to outline the proper responsibilities of central Government and local government.
I am happy that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the thrust of the White Paper is to decentralise, as that is contested in other quarters. If I have time, I shall tell him all the things that the Labour party has decentralised in the past two or three years—they are considerable, they are consistent and they work.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that he is taking to lift the shackles that the Tories imposed on local government over the past two decades. I also thank the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who has worked hard to improve the relationship between the House and local government—long may she continue to do so. I believe that the problems in local government commenced in 1974, when the Tories reorganised local authorities and moved responsibilities from local communities to remote metropolitan district authorities.
As chairman of the special interest group of metropolitan authorities in the House of Commons, may I ask my right hon. Friend to look at financing? The distribution of resources needs to be fairer. Some London authorities receive one and a half times as much as some metropolitan authorities do to teach a pupil, and the same applies to community care. I thank him for tackling the problem of capital debt, but will he also ensure that resources are much more fairly channelled to local government nationally? The electorate would be much more interested in electing people to serve them if they realised that they would receive the services that they wanted.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. The House will have listened to him with considerable care owing to his long experience, not only in local authorities but as an Opposition spokesman on these matters. He made some interesting points. He asked whether we should begin to change the financial distribution between different types of authorities, and he referred to metropolitan, unitary and district authorities.
540
There is an argument there. We have talked about changing the standard spending assessment distributions, and our commitment to a three-year review will bring some stability to achieve that.
I was struck by all the delegations which used to come to see me and my Ministers each year to discuss and marginally change the SSAs—in most cases, not change them. That was not a good use of the time of councillors or of Ministers. I have said that we needed to change that, and the three-year financial programme for local authorities means that we can settle down and look at how SSAs can be properly distributed. There are many complaints about the system.
Finally, I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong). Anyone standing at this Dispatch Box as Secretary of State knows that much of the hard work is done by Ministers of State and by Under-Secretaries. I could not be better served than by the present Minister of State in this matter.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does the Secretary of State accept that a rising group in local government are concerned at his replacement for capping which they see as interventionist and subjective? What will be his criteria for action in that matter?
Mr. Prescott: We have said that capping is unfair and we have made our case on that. We accept the responsibility for public expenditure in that area. We have chosen to use an element of reserve powers which identify what councils can spend. That will have an implication, as I will announce, for what we think the average rises will be. If a council chooses to go above that figure, it will face the first penalty—it will not receive the Government support. With the reserve powers under the new legislation, persistent offenders will be faced with a situation where the penalty is made retrospective, and we will take that into account in the settlement of their expenditure over that year. That allows us greater flexibility.
The hon. Gentleman will know from his considerable experience in local government—he has more experience than me—that capping was very much limited to the one year. People had to make the case within that year. In some cases, authorities got into difficulties with public expenditure or Government financial support—as was the case in Derbyshire—and to ask them to try to settle that in one year was absolutely impossible. Councils could face real penalties of cuts, as in Derbyshire. We did not concede everything that Derbyshire wanted, but we thought that there was a case because of the difficulties over the years. This three-year programme will allow us to deal with the matter in a fair and flexible way, and with a great deal more social justice.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the new scrutiny powers there will be strong powers for back-bench councillors to inquire into the activities of councils—powers sadly lacking under the present system, which so frustrated those of us trying to dig out the Westminster scandal during the 1980s? A condemnation of the Westminster scandal by those on the Opposition Front Bench is sadly lacking. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there will

541
be powers to take enforcement action where such scandals are detected, and that these can be brought into effect quickly—rather than waiting years and years for, so far, no outcome whatever in the Westminster scandal?
Mr. Prescott: This is an area of some difficulty, but I do not wish to enter the party political exchanges. We can all reel off councils, but the response should not be just to turn round and say, "What about Westminster?" That does not help us. We should all agree that something has to be done. That is the general will of the House. To name councils with problems does not help the House and certainly does not help the councillors.
We need to ensure that councillors have the powers to deal with the problems. We are increasing the powers of scrutiny by introducing a new structure. There will be an executive—it could be a mayor or a leader—for councillors to scrutinise. Council decisions are generally taken in groups. That is the same for any political party. Even when there is power sharing between political parties, agreement has to be reached.
The overwhelming majority of councillors are asked simply to have a little discussion and put up their hands in a committee meeting to endorse a decision that has already been made. Scrutiny is a far better system, and we have endorsed it and put it at the heart of our White Paper. Councillors will be able to check the executive and the chairs—even those of their own party—and scrutinise decisions.
When the citizens listen to councillors putting their case, they often complain to their Member of Parliament that the decision had already been made and that all the councillor could do was say, "I'm sorry, I can't say anything." That does nothing for accountability or for democracy, and it affects turnout at elections. Scrutiny will put greater pressure on the executive, and decision making will be much more open and transparent. The press and everyone else will be able to see an open, public debate on decisions that affect so many people's lives.
Scrutiny is a major step towards dealing with wrong decisions, corruption and other problems. The strengthening of the standards board will mean that there will be a readily accessible body for people to complain to, which will serve democratic accountability in councils.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On the matter of finance, I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will look sympathetically at the authorities that share the characteristics of urban and rural areas and are represented by the town and country finance issues group.
The White Paper, however, is more about restoring the credibility and integrity of local government, which must be an important task for us all. Is it not therefore all the more deplorable that, when we are seeking to ensure that taxpayers' money is not used for party political purposes, the White Paper should be published on the same day as the most deplorable example of such an abuse that I have seen in 15 years? Page 31 has the caption, "I am still hopeful that Tony Blair will keep his promises." That is no different from a party political document, but it
542
is funded by the taxpayer nationally. That is no example to set local government, and I intend to take the matter up with the Cabinet Secretary.
Mr. Prescott: I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will be worrying about that. I say that with a certain amount of cynicism, because most of us remember the practice of the previous Administration in their 18 years in office. I do not normally get into slagging off different periods of government, because it is not useful, but I remember that the Government's policies and achievements used to be recorded by asking Ministers what a Department had done since such and such a date, and that that would always happen to be the date of that Government's election.
All we have done is put our achievements in a proper annual report, record what we have done and be accountable for it. I call that democratic accountability. I would have been very happy for the previous Government's achievements to have been in a report that we could have debated in the House. The report makes it easier to have a debate than under the old system, whereby a question had to be put to the relevant Minister.
This is a new form of accountability. Much recent argument in the House has concerned whether the Labour party is keeping its promises. That is constantly asked at Prime Minister's Question Time. The Prime Minister can make a statement here, so why cannot we as a Government make a comprehensive statement in an annual report? I hope that all Governments will follow that practice. Governments can be in favour with the electorate one year and out the other. Good year or bad, Governments will now be accountable for their record: the record of what happened and not of what the Opposition put about.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that only a minority of the country still has two-tier local government. Does his White Paper give such authorities the option to become unitary authorities? If that is not possible in the short term, does not the fact that the authority that spends the least—less than 20 per cent. of the total—has to collect the money go against the accountability that he seeks? Should not county councils have to collect their own money so that there is direct accountability, and so that people know where the money is being spent?
Mr. Prescott: I said at the beginning of my statement that much legislation over the past couple of decades, has been about organisational structure rather than services. Unitary authorities exist, and the general opinion on both sides of the House is supportive of them. Unitary authorities have increased during the past few years. Two-tier government remains in metropolitan areas and in county areas where there are district authorities.
Mr. Jenkin: Three-tier.
Mr. Prescott: In the background, there is also regional government, which I have always supported, which may shock the hon. Member for North Essex. There are questions about the structure of local government, but it would take two Parliaments to be able to deal with them. Anyone who considers organisational change in local government will know that there must first be a consultation document, then legislation that will take time

543
to pass. I am an advocate of regional government, but for now there exist local authority structures that are both unitary and two-tier. We will seek to make authorities work as best they can. Where there are injustices, particularly as regards finance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, we shall seek to make matters fairer.
Mr. Christopher Chope: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that the consequence of today's announcement will be that people up and down the country will pay a lot more in council tax without any improvement in quality of service? His White Paper is entitled "In Touch with the People", but does he accept that he is out of touch with the people if he cannot tell us that people will get better quality services for the same or less council tax?
Mr. Prescott: Some of our changes to local authorities will make for better value, greater efficiency and improved provision of services. If we can do that, we can get more services for the same money. That is what efficiency and effectiveness are about. We have made changes to local authority financing regarding Treasury rules with which I was in considerable disagreement. Trading corporations in local authorities, such as airports—Manchester was a classic example—found themselves in difficulties because they had to borrow against the requirements of local government, instead of the requirements of a profitable company with considerable assets.
Changes to those rules will relieve local authorities of some expenditures and difficulties, and will enable them to put resources into providing better services. That will not cost the taxpayer one penny. We are making more intelligent use of the financial framework in which local authorities operate. Along with our best value system, that will mean better services. That belief lies at the heart of the White Paper, and we will be able to judge it over the next couple of years.
Judy Mallaber: I welcome the Secretary of State's reaffirmation of the value of public service, and the measures for greater local accountability and local scrutiny that must go with it. Would he say more about the criteria that will be used to assess progress by local councils in considering political structures to meet that aim, and the aim of being closer to the people? Who will decide, and how, which councils are beacon authorities?
Mr. Prescott: The final point is highly relevant, and the White Paper contains a considerable section about beacon authorities. We use the term to identify centres of excellence. Some authorities, as we know, can build houses or provide services more efficiently than others. We want to highlight those authorities as offering the standards that we want for local authorities.
Mr. John Bercow: Like Wandsworth.
Mr. Prescott: It might be Wandsworth, or it might be a Labour authority. I do not seek to make any ideological point about it. Where best practice exists, we should try to use it. Where good practices do not exist, we should
544
act to say so. The White Paper says that they will be unacceptable, and that we are quite prepared to take action in areas that do not improve.
Local democracy is not about having the worst, inefficient services; it is about being proud of running local services. Most citizens have no chance of determining a council one way or the other, and we are obliged to do something about services. Beacon councils meet that argument. On setting targets, whether for housing, or for provision of services, the Audit Commission has already done some work.
We should like to talk more about the outputs than about the inputs. The Audit Commission is largely concerned about getting value for money. That is quite proper, but the services that emerge are equally important. That is where we draw the distinction between compulsory competitive tendering and best value. We shall negotiate those targets with the local government associations and we shall take that matter into account. Governments always come under a certain amount of pressure when dealing with public expenditure to bring about the best practice. We stand for better quality services and best practices. That is what the White Paper is about.
Mr. Mike Hancock: I am delighted with much of what the Secretary of State has had to say this afternoon. When the White Paper materialises into a Bill, I hope that he will not give up completely on the idea of having a change in the voting system for local government. Some of us think that that exercise would bring more accountability.
Can he explain how the options for change in the way in which a local authority is organised and run will be put to the people? I know from my experience of over 30 years in local government, some 20-odd elections and four changes in local government organisation that the party in power at the time decides on how the options are put to the people. The end result is nearly always geared to support the continuation of power rather than to give more democracy to the people.
I am refreshed to hear that the matter of regional government remains high on the Secretary of State's agenda, as it is on mine. As his White Paper passes through its consultation exercise I should welcome him adding weight to the idea that regional government is an option to which we should look forward.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, particularly for his words about regional government. As we all know, these major constitutional changes or, at least, boundary changes, are extremely controversial. There great heat generated by whether the area we live in is called one thing or another. I shall not pick an example because these matters get particularly hot. I believe in these changes and I shall take every opportunity to push in that direction.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have set up the Jenkins commission to look into types of political representation and voting systems. We have a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on the issue also. Those are some steps towards what he is asking for. We are trying different electoral systems for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, the London mayor. The system of election for the mayor is different from that for the assemblies. It tries to encourage the maximisation of the vote.

545
The election of mayor requires a candidate to achieve 50 per cent. support. We will use a system of voting that will encourage that. If there are more than two or three candidates, it will allow for it to be judged which of the last two candidates gets more than 50 per cent. of the vote. The maximisation of the vote is designed to encourage support for the mayor. Indeed, the additional member system allows for a combination of the system of direct election of a member to a constituency and the top-up principle.
Given our proposals for these elections, it is fair to say that this is a radical agenda and a major change in our electoral process. It is right for us to claim that, even if we do not go as far as the hon. Gentleman wants us to do.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: These are innovative proposals which will transform the face of local government and will be widely welcomed. My right hon. Friend said that local authorities could trigger referendums. Given that we want local authorities to speak on behalf of their entire community, will there be any restriction on the types of issue and question that can be put to the voters in a referendum? Is there any provision for the voters themselves to trigger a referendum?
Mr. Prescott: Our White Paper may not go as far as my hon. Friend wants in regard to questions in referendums. We have chosen to suggest ways forward. For example, with regard to the mayor, the local authority is required to put its proposal forward and have a vote on it. If citizens are to initiate a referendum they must produce a petition signed by 10 per cent. of those involved. That is not a unique idea. It is used for parish councils—where a certain area calls for a parish area. In Hull, either Beverley or East Yorkshire—I think it was Beverley—was campaigning hard for that. My hon. Friend has granted Beverley the right to have a parish area because 10 per cent. of the people involved produced a petition.
We are prepared to consider a number of suggestions and one could be a proposal for an authority that wants either the mayor, the chief executive or the change in structure. We should also bear it in mind—I have said this once, but think that I should repeat it, particularly for those councils that might not like the idea of changing those structures—that, if the existing structure is found to be acceptable, that option can be put to the electorate,
546
who can say, "We don't want a change. We're happy to accept the council's verdict." In many cases, the referendums will not be decision-making referendums but will merely offer advice.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Deputy Prime Minister go into more detail about his conclusions on page 40 of the White Paper regarding more frequent elections? What will be the position for councils affected by the Local Government Commission's ward redistribution, whose cases are before his Department and which have not taken into account the possibility of yearly elections? Will he take it from me that such elections are not necessarily the answer that he seems to think they will be?
Derbyshire Dales district council is elected every four years, whereas Amber Valley district council has yearly elections, but the turnout in Derbyshire Dales is, in the main, higher than that in Amber Valley. Therefore, annual elections will not necessarily result in a great increase in turnout. There is a difference between district councils, which do not spend much money, and county councils, which provide the majority of services in the shire county areas. The White Paper states that the counties will have elections every two years. However, as the wards will be much larger, that policy is worrying, particularly in large rural areas such as mine.
Mr. Prescott: We made it clear in our manifesto that we wanted more regular elections and we are taking into account the different election cycles. For example, some unitary authorities are elected by thirds, with elections each year for three years and the fourth year fallow. That will also be the case in London, where we propose to hold the elections for the mayor and the assembly in the fallow year; so we will have elections there every year.
There are real difficulties in having multi-member arrangements for the counties, so we have decided to allow elections for half the seats every two years—so all the seats will be covered in four years—with a district holding its elections every two years. That will allow more regular and frequent elections, but will also take into account the fact that whereas towns and highly populated areas can have multi-member constituencies, that is not the case in the county areas and so we have to provide a proper balance for them. That is why we have arrived at that conclusion and why we have received a certain amount of criticism about the fact that there will not always be yearly elections. I hope that we have found the best way to make elections more frequent and will achieve that.

Business of the House
4.34 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business of the House for the first week back after the summer recess.
MONDAY 19 OCTOBER AND TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the conclusions of the Government's strategic defence review.
WEDNESDAY 21 OCTOBER—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Remaining stages of the Human Rights Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 22 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on the 10th report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee on housing; followed by a debate on the seventh report from the Trade and Industry Committee on reform of European structural funds. Both debates will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 23 OCTOBER—The House will not be sitting.
Sir George Young: I am grateful for notice of the business for the first week back. I welcome the right hon. Lady to her first business questions, and look forward to working with her. In that spirit, may I suggest that she glance at the website at No. 10, whose Cabinet page still shows her as President of the Board of Trade?
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that there will be an oral statement at 11 am tomorrow on the roads review, and explain why all the other oral statements after the comprehensive spending review took place within a few days of it, while this one was held back until the Friday that the House rises? When we return, can we have a debate in Government time on the new role of the enforcer at the Cabinet Office, to give the House a clearer idea of how he will operate and what his remit is? How will he kick-start the stalled programme of welfare reform, caught, as we heard yesterday, between two warring Departments? How will he arbitrate between No. 10 and No. 11 on such issues as the future of the Paymaster General?
When do the Government hope to receive and publish the report of the Jenkins commission on electoral reform? Can we have a debate on it? Will the Labour party do what the Conservatives have done, and place in the Library of a copy its submission to the commission?
On today's costly and revisionist annual report, should the Prime Minister not hold himself to account in the Chamber of the House of Commons rather than in the rose garden at No. 10? Should he not do so before all Members of the House, rather than a hand-picked team of Ministers?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. It is not my first business questions, because I have been shadow Leader of the House. I do not know whether he thinks that I am on performance-related pay but he asked a lot of questions, all of which I will endeavour to deal with. I assure him that there is no significance in—and nothing sinister about—the roads statement being made tomorrow,
548
which is a sitting day. It has not been held back; it is a matter of it being ready. At business questions, Members always want statements, but every other day they do not want them, because they take time from debates. It is always difficult.
The right hon. Gentleman seeks a debate on the role of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office. I am sure that there will continue to be Opposition days, so it is a matter that he and his colleagues can continue to pursue. I know that they are looking for ways to fill the time, as they have no policy of their own to debate. He will have to consider that.
On the Jenkins commission, I do not know the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question. I will inquire about the issues that he raised on that. He asked about why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's annual report was not presented to the House. He overlooks the fact that, obviously and inevitably in the annual report, the Government report on what has already been done and that a parliamentary question on the annual report was answered. Scrutiny in the House through statements and questions and so on are for future policy. I assure him that all the issues have been aired in the House. I commend the example of producing such a report to the Conservatives, though I am not sure what they would put in it.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back at the Dispatch Box—I know that all my colleagues join me in that. I particularly commend her good sense in debating the Select Committee report on housing in the week we return. Having set such a good example, will she also allow us to debate the Select Committee reports on regional airports and other aspects of transport, because they are all equally good?
Mrs. Beckett: Any report produced by a Committee in which my hon. Friend had a role would be worth reading. I shall bear in mind her view that the reports merit examination in the House—but not, I fear, in the first week back.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In welcoming and congratulating the right hon. Lady, may I say how much we appreciate the work of her predecessor as Leader of the House? I hope that she will extend my felicitations to her predecessor.
I remind the right hon. Lady that the Leader of the House has two roles. She must ensure that the Government's business is carried through, but she must also represent the views of all Back Benchers and parties. I draw her attention to early-day motion 1569.
[That this House is appalled at the behaviour of a small but organised group of Tory honourable Members who appear to be acting as 'a party within a party' in blocking the progress of Private Members' Bills that have the support of the House; notes the inability of the leadership of the Conservative Party to deal with these backbench honourable Members who seem to be running the Party; and hopes that the House can find time in this Session to consider and pass those Ballot Bills that were blocked by those Tory honourable Members in the order that they appeared on the Order Paper for 3rd July, namely the Fireworks Bill, a safety measure which would decrease firework accidents, the Energy Conservation (Housing)

549
Bill, which would help people living in cold homes to keep warmer, the Weights and Measures (Beer and Cider) Bill, which would ensure that customers get full measures in public houses, the Breeding and Sale of Dogs Bill, which would help stamp out cruelty in puppy farms, the Energy Efficiency Bill, which would help home buyers insulate their homes and cut fuel bills and the Local Authority Tenders Bill; and further hopes that, if necessary, provision can be made to bring proceedings to a close on each of those Bills after reasonable time.]
A total of 180 hon. Members of all parties have expressed concern about the treatment of private Member's Bills. I appreciate that a debate will not be possible tomorrow, but will she see if some action can be taken in the spillover period to deal with the matter?
Can the Leader of the House give us any information about the timetable for the freedom of information Bill? Will there be time in the second week of the spillover Session for a debate on the White Paper on local government published today and just introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister? During the long recess, when she perhaps has more time for reading than has yet been available to her, will the right hon. Lady carefully examine the recommendations of the Modernisation Committee's first report on the legislative programme, in the hope that they will be of use to her and her colleagues in deciding how next Session's business may be undertaken in the House?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I am aware of the excellent work done by my predecessor, and I know that she will be grateful to him for his observations. She said that the Committee would examine the procedure for private Members' Bills. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that, in due course, the Committee will examine that matter.
I have taken due note of what the hon. Gentleman said about what we might discuss in the spillover. I cannot, I am afraid, cast any light on the timetable for the freedom of information Bill. I hear his concern to debate the White Paper that has just been announced, and I will bear it in mind. I assure him that I intend to take some time during the recess to study the work of the Modernisation Committee.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position? When she is thinking about business for next Session, will she consider the possibility of holding a series of debates, preferably opened by the Prime Minister, to give the House an opportunity to debate the performance of each Government Department?
I do not wish to cause my right hon. Friend any embarrassment, but will she ensure that the Department of Trade and Industry is at the top of that list of debates, so that we can highlight its achievements over the past 15 years——[Interruption.]—-15 months—including the national minimum wage and the White Paper "Fairness at Work"? It is necessary that we highlight those achievements and the work of the previous Secretary of State, who introduced those measures. If we have such a
550
debate opened by the Prime Minister, we shall be able to question him on the reasons why changes were made in that Department recently, as well as in other Departments.
Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting suggestions for discussions in the House, and for his kind remarks. I take seriously the observations of all hon. Members. I will certainly take seriously his suggestion that we should debate the way in which Government Departments handle their business. He will know that the time of the House, especially with a heavy legislative programme for a reforming Government, is always at a premium, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said about the achievements of the Department that I previously headed, where a great deal of work has been done. I am confident that work will be taken forward in the future.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I look forward to the debate on the strategic defence review. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that a specific issue is raised with the Secretary of State for Defence in the context of the new spirit of openness and open government to which we are committed? I received a reply from him on the 28th of this month about costs relating to the nuclear weapons establishment, in which he declined to come up with the information, on the basis that it was exempt on grounds of commercial confidentiality.
As the information was already available in Companies House, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the full costs associated with the nuclear weapons programme are as available to Members of Parliament in the House as they are to members of the public outside, so that a full and proper debate can take place here.
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly hear the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. All that I would say to my hon. Friend is that, if the material that he describes is available in Companies House, it is available to hon. Members as well as more widely to the public.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—in the modern vernacular, the enforcer—come to the House at 11 am tomorrow to make a statement on the ethical implications of the appointment of Lord Sainsbury to the Department of Trade and Industry, and how he will dispose of his £1.4 billion of supermarket shares, in view of the fact that his Tuscan tycoon friend the Paymaster General is trying to promote the sale of individual savings accounts through supermarkets, and that is germane to Lord Sainsbury' s responsibilities at the DTI?
Mrs. Beckett: There is no question of any need to make such a statement. There are no ethical implications in Lord Sainsbury' s appointment. He has already met the permanent secretary of the DTI to discuss the handling of his affairs. The ministerial code sets out roles on avoiding conflicts of interest, and they will of course be followed.
Mrs. Irene Adams: Early after our return, will the Leader of the House make way for a debate on the increasing number of deaths from drugs

551
overdoses in Strathclyde this year, especially the recent alarming reports that the deaths may have resulted from heroin taken from a missing batch imported into this country by Customs and Excise for use in tracking drug traffickers?
Mrs. Beckett: I certainly share my hon. Friend's concern at the tragic events that she describes. I am not familiar with the report to which she draws attention, but the Ministers in the relevant Departments may be. If they are not, I shall ensure that it is drawn to their attention.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I welcome the right hon. Lady back to business questions. May we have a debate in the spillover period on departmental responsibilities in the Scottish Office? It will not have escaped her notice that the new Minister of State at the Scottish Office has a dramatically lighter work load than that of her predecessor. The reason seems to be that she has been given the "bash the Nats" portfolio.
I welcome the sign of panic from the Labour party. I welcome the recognition that they have been trounced in the polls in Scotland. I even welcome the ministerial changes that acknowledge that, but is there not an issue as to whether a part-time Minister should be given a full-time salary? Should not the Labour party pay for its own politicking rather than ask the public to do it?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. His question seems to be hypothesis piled on hypothesis. I have not studied, I fear, the detailed allocation of work in the Scottish Office, but we have excellent and hard-working Ministers there. I am confident that they will do an excellent job in handling the affairs of the Scottish Office. If that handling has some impact on the electoral fortunes of the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that it will be a job well done.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Looking ahead to business on our return, may I invite my right hon. Friend to make a statement following the resignation comments of Lord Richard, who has implied that it is unlikely that there will be any Lords reform other than setting up the wholly undemocratic, unelected council of life peers? As a proud moderniser and, along with her, diligent custodian of the Labour manifesto—[Interruption.]—new Labour manifesto—may I draw to her attention the commitment we gave to set up a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament to look into reform? In other words, we gave a commitment that the further reform would be Parliament-led, not Executive-led. Is it not time, first, that we had some specific proposals on the reform of the House of Lords, and, secondly, an indication that we will see this right through to the end, and to a democratically elected House?
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware that my hon. Friend is a diligent custodian of the Labour party's manifesto. I heard some, though perhaps not all, of the remarks of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Richard. I must admit that I did not read into them the implication that has been read in by my hon. Friend. The reform of the other place is an issue that will certainly be thoroughly debated in this House, and I am confident that, in the end, my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the outcome.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. Will she be able to
552
give us a debate both on the Government's annual report, and on the way in which the Government deal with the House? She will know that I pressed both her predecessor and the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has also lost his job, to ensure that we found out how long it is taking Ministers to reply to letters from Members of Parliament, but we have still not been given that information.
I know that the right hon. Lady's former Department, the DTI, had one of the best records under her control—indeed, one of the Ministers said that he was sacked because he had achieved too high a return rate for letters from Members of Parliament. Can we have an early debate on that issue, because it does concern all of us, and affects how we can do our job for our constituents?
Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to find time, although I can generously offer that the Opposition might find time, to debate the Government's annual report, but I shall certainly bear the request in mind.
As for the way in which the Government deal with the House and the length of time taken to reply to letters, all Ministers are anxious to get the turn-round as fast as possible. My predecessor will probably have told the hon. Gentleman that, in every Department under the Labour Government, the level of correspondence, not only from Members of Parliament, but from members of the public, and the overall work load has actually gone up like that—almost vertically. That is one of the things that is making it harder to achieve a fast turn-round. When a Government are reforming and modernising, as this Government are, it increases the work load.
Mr. Michael Clapham: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her new job, and I associate myself with the remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). Will she look in the new parliamentary year for time for an early debate on health and safety? That would be particularly pertinent, as the first week back is European Safety Week; and the 20th, which is the second day back, is the 21st anniversary of the expansion of the role of the health and safety representative under the Health and Safety at Work Act, etc. 1974.
Such a debate would give us an opportunity to discuss the Health and Safety Executive report on the reporting of accidents in mines, which shows 52 per cent. under-reporting. That figure is contested by the mining unions, which argue that the level of under-reporting is far greater. An early debate would be much appreciated.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I must admit that I was not aware that it would be European Safety Week when we come back, and I am grateful to him for that information. At present, I cannot undertake to find time for such a debate in that week, but I shall certainly bear his views in mind.
Mr. Edward Garnier: I too congratulate the right hon. Lady on her new appointment. May I return to the issue drawn to her attention by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—that ministerial correspondence is being returned far too slowly?
I wrote to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on 4 April, but I have still not had a substantive reply. If a difficult question were posed in the

553
correspondence I sent to the Minister, I could understand the need to look into it with some care, but the correspondence does not deal with a difficult matter. I invite the Leader of the House, as the protector of the interests of Back Benchers, to ensure that Ministers get their heads around their correspondence rather more quickly than they are currently doing.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks, but, without knowing the particular issue to which he refers, I cannot know what the reason is for the delay, although I agree that the delay is not usual. It would be a matter for regret in any Department, and I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister. However, all I can tell the hon. and learned Gentleman is to repeat that the work load undertaken by Government Departments has, in most cases, quadrupled, and inevitably that has implications for the time it takes to deal with these matters.
Mr. Martin Salter: Does the Leader of the House share the concern of hon. Members, the Playpen Campaign, many parents and child care professionals about the apparently conflicting statements emanating from the Government in respect of child care regulation? On the one hand, the former Secretary of State for Social Security published the excellent Green Paper "Meeting the Childcare Challenge" which made the case for better regulation; but, on the other hand, we had the better regulation task force report, which made the case against better regulation.
Is there not an urgent need for these matters to be clarified? Is there not an urgent need for a debate in the House, so as to ensure that we have no more Louise Woodwards, Helen Staceys and Louise Sullivans?
Mrs. Beckett: All hon. Members on both sides of the House share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend that there should be no more tragedies, but I must admit that it does not appear to me that there is a conflict on the issue. Everyone is well aware of the importance of ensuring the safety and welfare of children; the issue is how best it can be secured. My hon. Friend will know that the consultation document was issued in March. The Government are studying the responses to that consultation, and will come forward with proposals in due course.
Mr. Peter Brooke: Now that we have the constitutional innovation of the Government Chief Whip being in the Cabinet, will there be a slot for the House to put oral questions to her?
Mrs. Beckett: That would certainly be a constitutional innovation. I must confess that I had not considered the matter, but I shall certainly do so.
Mr. John McDonnell: My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that, on four occasions, I have raised the case of my constituent Ricky Reel in the House. He was the young man who, last year, following a racist attack, went missing and was found dead in the Thames a week later. There was a Police
554
Complaints Authority investigation into the investigation of his death; that has now come to a conclusion, and it is hoped that the report will be available during the recess.
May I ask that we have a debate on the PCA report as soon as possible after the recess; and that the report be made available, together with all the investigatory evidence? That will ensure that we can have a thorough debate on the case, which will help to restore the confidence of the family in the overall investigation, and to identify where possible what actually happened to Ricky.
Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of the great interest and concern that my hon. Friend has shown on behalf of his late constituent and his family. I cannot today give any indication as to whether it will be possible to find time for a debate, although it is open to him to seek an Adjournment debate. However, I shall certainly draw his remarks and his request for full publication to the attention of the relevant Department.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the right hon. Lady reconsider her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), and ask the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement to the House about the role and responsibilities of the new Under-Secretary of State for Science and Technology? She will no doubt be aware that Lord Sainsbury has indicated that, because of his commercial interest, he does not intend to involve himself in matter relating to food technology, and that is welcome.
However, does the right hon. Lady recognise that, to name but a few, plants and soil, wood and metal, textile and garment manufacturing technology are also matters in which, because of Lord Sainsbury's commercial interest, he should in future have no ministerial involvement? An early assurance on that point would be greatly welcomed.
Mrs. Beckett: There will, of course, be opportunities to put questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Trade and Industry questions in the autumn. I can only repeat what I told the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood: there are rules to prevent conflicts of interest arising, and those rules will be followed.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: What has become of the much heralded statement on the proposal for a trial in a third country—Holland—of the Lockerbie suspects? Since Madeleine Albright apparently agreed, the idea that American objections are stopping such a trial is somewhat question-marked. Is it because of the nine-year-old cynicism of the Crown Office in Edinburgh? To put it quite cynically, the last thing it wants is an actual trial to take place, because, if it did, the poverty of the evidence that the Crown Office claims to have would be exposed. Is that the real trouble?
Mrs. Beckett: No. I can assure my hon. Friend, who I know has taken a long and sustained interest in the matter, that the Government continue to give priority to seeing justice done through a criminal trial of those who are accused. There have been discussions about the possibility of trial in a third country. A great deal of work has been and continues to be done on the matter. Complex issues are involved. If and when they are resolved, we shall

555
make an announcement. I can assure my hon. Friend that the matter is not being held up by any concern of the kind to which he referred.
Mr. Derek Foster: May I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to her new post, and congratulate her on her outstanding performance in her previous job, which was widely appreciated on the Back Benches. [AN HON. MEMBER: "But not by business."] I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1589 on freedom of information, which is now signed by 185 colleagues from all parts of the House.
[That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement in 1996 that a Freedom of Information Act 'is not some isolated constitutional reform' but 'a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years'; congratulates the Government on its Freedom of Information White Paper; expresses concern at the prospect of any delay in bringing the measure forward; and calls on the Government to publish its draft Freedom of Information Bill before the end of the current session and to ensure that the actual Bill is introduced in the coming session.]
Can we have either a debate or a statement when we return in the autumn, so that we can remind ourselves that, before the election, we campaigned on the basis that a freedom of information Act was crucial to restore trust between Government and the people? I understand that that is a major theme of the Prime Minister's annual report.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks.
May I say to the Opposition Member—I did not identify the culprit—who said that my stint at the Department of Trade and Industry had not been welcomed by business, that he is wrong, and that I have had a number of nice letters from people in the business community, expressing their appreciation.
Of course I am aware of the great interest across the House in proposals for freedom of information legislation. As my right hon. Friend will know, I cannot promise at this stage an early debate or a statement when the House returns, but I shall bear his views in mind. He is entirely right to say that that pertains to trust, which is central to the Government's record and understanding. The annual report has been published today so that the Government can make it plain how they are delivering against the benchmarks we set ourselves before the general election. I understand why that is so objectionable to the Opposition, just as I understand why they never did it.
Mr. David Winnick: With regard to the House of Lords, has my right hon. Friend seen the comments of her former Cabinet colleague, Lord Richard, who said that an elected second Chamber would undoubtedly be troublesome for the Commons? As Leader of the House of Commons, will she bear in mind that there are differing views about that?
Although I am strongly in favour of getting rid of the hereditary peerages, as there is no justification for such people to remain in the House of Lords, it would be unacceptable, to some of us at least, that there should be an elected second Chamber, which would be a direct
556
challenge to the authority of this House. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the Government consider proposals for the House of Lords.
Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view, as do the whole Government, that the continuation of the hereditary principle in another place, and of it being the basis of the right to vote there, is unacceptable. As he rightly says, there are differences of view about what should be done in place of the present situation. It would be unacceptable for those differences of view to be used as a further excuse to prolong the process of reform, as has happened when the issues have been debated in the past.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her appointment as Leader of the House. Will she ensure that, before the debate on the strategic defence review in October, the Ministry of Defence publishes all its estimates on expenditure for this year which have not yet been published?
In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), will my right hon. Friend also ensure that the Ministry of Defence publishes all the costs of nuclear weapons, which under section 13 notices it has tried to hide by refusing to reveal them to the House? Without all the details of nuclear weapons research expenditure by the Ministry of Defence and by my right hon. Friend's former Department, a debate on defence expenditure and its implications would be rather unbalanced.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. He has made a number of requests for information that he considers should be available before the debate in the autumn. I shall draw those views to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who I am sure will take them on board.
Mr. Christopher Chope: May I join my hon. Friends in calling for an early debate on the Government's annual report, and in particular the choice of illustrations and the words put into the mouths of the people illustrated? I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to page 17 of the annual report, which shows a lady pushing a supermarket trolley owned by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The lady is portrayed as expressing views about the Government. Does the Leader of the House think that perhaps she was expressing views about the quality of the supermarket produce?
Mrs. Beckett: I only glanced at the cover and the photographs in the report. My understanding from that glance was that a photographer went around, took photographs of people, and asked them to comment on the Government's record so far. It is therefore wrong to suggest that words were put into anyone's mouth. Those words were, I understand, their words.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I join others who have congratulated my right hon. Friend on her new position. May I bring to her attention the issue of private Members' business? Even after just a couple of days, she will be aware that this year little private Members' business has completed all its legislative stages in the House, primarily because of the blocking manoeuvres of the Opposition.

557
Can the process be examined by the Modernisation Committee? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement about the matter early in the new Session?
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I can confirm that my predecessor told the House that she thought that the Modernisation Committee should consider the handling of private Members' business. I am happy to share that view. However, as the Committee has not yet done so, I fear that it is unlikely that we will be able to make a statement early in the new Session. I have taken on board my hon. Friend's comments. I share his view that it is always a sadness, and it is difficult for people outside to understand, when worthy and sensible pieces of legislation are lost as a result of maverick behaviour by Members of the Opposition.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: In the current climate of pay restraint, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate about boardroom pay excesses, in particular the example set by some company directors, including none other than: the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as a director of Gartmore Shared Equity Trust, gave himself a 13 per cent. pay rise; the deputy leader of the Conservative party, whose board gave themselves a 40 per cent. pay increase; and the shadow Home Secretary, whose board of directors on Aggregate Industries plc gave themselves an astonishing 64 per cent. pay increase?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent and powerful point on an issue to which he and others will no doubt wish to return in the new Session.
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I welcome my right hon. Friend to her post. In line with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), may I ask the Leader of the House whether she will find time in the new Session for a debate on a Select Committee report published today on the welfare of former British child migrants? That excellent report outlines the appalling scandal that took place under the auspices of British Government agencies and the receiving agencies. Many children, supposedly in care, were subjected to appalling physical and sexual abuse.
Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am indeed aware of that report, and understand that it identifies some appalling treatment and practice. I share his view that it is an issue of importance. I cannot at present say whether or when we might find time for a debate, but I shall bear his views in mind.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to her new position, after an outstanding stint at the Department of Trade and Industry. Is she aware that today the Association of Professional Political
558
Consultants described Derek Draper as "a rogue elephant" who brought the lobbying industry into disrepute, and that the chairman of the firm that formerly employed him, GPC Market Access, has written to the Prime Minister, the Lord Chancellor and to you, Madam Speaker, calling for a statutory register of lobbyists?
Given that the Prime Minister on Monday issued advice to civil servants on how they should deal with approaches from lobbyists, who are absolutely everywhere these days, is there not a compelling case for an early debate on the role of lobbyists when the House returns from the recess?
Mrs. Beckett: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I was not aware of the report to which he has just drawn attention, and I do not think it will be easy to find time for a debate early in the new Session or in the overspill. All I can say is that it is an issue to which various agencies of the House—perhaps even the Modernisation Committee—will have to pay attention at some point, as it seems that it is a developing role.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about the Government's annual report—this colour supplement to end all colour supplements.? Is she aware that the first page states that it is "presented to Parliament"? Should it not be presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister in person? Should there not be a debate in which he answers to Parliament rather than to a small coterie in the rose garden at No. 10?
If this is to be an innovation—I am not opposed to it as an innovation—does the right hon. Lady agree that there should be an end-of-term debate in Parliament led by the Prime Minister, so that hon. Members from all parts of the House have the opportunity to probe, scrutinise and criticise, and to expose the fallacies within the document?
Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the document reports on issues that have been thoroughly debated in the House—indeed, it makes a point about the scale and size of the Government's legislative programme—and that, in that sense, the Prime Minister has been available to discuss these issues on many occasions. I also remind him that the matter was laid before the House in answer to a parliamentary question. It is, of course, open to the Opposition to use some of their own time to debate the Government's annual report—they have no policies of their own, so they might as well debate ours.
I find it interesting that Opposition Members are so keen for the Prime Minister to lead a debate in the House. It was, after all, during the 18 years of the Conservatives' period in office that it became so rare that Prime Ministers took part in debates. I agree that it is important that the Prime Minister is available to the House to be questioned, and he is regularly, every week. Full advantage is taken of that.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland Bill
  As amended (in the Committee)considered.
New clause 2

  SOCIAL SECURITY, CHILD SUPPORT AND PENSIONS: CONSULTATION AND CO-ORDINATION
  '.— (1) The Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister having responsibility for social security ("the Northern Ireland Minister") shall from time to time consult one another with a view to securing that, to the extent agreed between them, the legislation to which this section applies provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom.

  (2) Without prejudice to section 21, the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury, and the Northern Ireland Minister with the consent of the Department of Finance and Personnel, may make—

  (a) arrangements for co-ordinating the operation of the legislation to which this section applies with a view to securing that, to the extent allowed for in the arrangements, it provides single systems of social security, child support and pensions for the United Kingdom, and for making any necessary financial adjustments; and

  (b) reciprocal arrangements for co-ordinating the operation of so much of the legislation as operates differently in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Northern Ireland, and for making any necessary financial adjustments.

  (3) The Secretary of State may make regulations for giving effect to arrangements under subsection (2); and any such regulations may for the purposes of the arrangements provide—

  (a) for adapting legislation (including subordinate legislation) for the time being in force in Great Britain;

  (b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the enactments in force in Northern Ireland have a corresponding effect in relation to Great Britain (but not so as to confer any double benefit); and

  (c) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Northern Ireland, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned.

  (4) The Northern Ireland Minister may make regulations for giving effect to arrangements under subsection (2); and any such regulations may for the purposes of the arrangements provide—

  (a) for adapting legislation (including subordinate legislation) for the time being in force in Northern Ireland;

  (b) without prejudice to paragraph (a) above, for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the enactments in force in Great Britain have a corresponding effect in relation to Northern Ireland (but not so as to confer any double benefit); and

  (c) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both in relation to Northern Ireland and in relation to Great Britain, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned.

  (5) This section applies to—

  (a) the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

  (b) the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992;

  560

  (c) the Child Support Act 1991 and the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991;

  (d) the Disability (Grants) Act 1993;

  (e) the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and the Pensions Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;

  (f) the Jobseekers Act 1995 and the Jobseekers (Northern Ireland) Order 1995;

  (g) the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995;

  (h) the Child Support Act 1995 and the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1995;

  (i) the Social Security Act 1998 and the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.

  (6) The following provisions (which are superseded by this section and section (Social security, child support and pensions: the Joint Authority)) shall cease to have effect—

  (a) sections 177 and 178 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (co-ordination and reciprocity with Northern Ireland);

  (b) sections 153 and 154 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (co-ordination and reciprocity with Great Britain);

  (c) section 56 (2) to (4) of the Child Support Act 1991 (co-ordination with Northern Ireland);

  (d) Article 49 (2) and (3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (co-ordination with Great Britain).

  (7) Section 189 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general) shall apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (3) as it applied in relation to the power conferred by section 177 (4) of that Act.

  (8) Section 165 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general) shall apply in relation to the power conferred by subsection (4) as it applied in relation to the power conferred by section 153 (3) of that Act.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  5.12 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3—Social security, child support and pensions: the Joint Authority.
  Government amendments Nos. 50, 51, 53, 55, 61, 66, 68 and 69.
  Mr. Murphy: The amendments that we have to consider today are of two kinds. The first are technical ones, which we hope will improve the drafting of the Bill; the others are part of our response to our consultation with the parties, as well as to the views that have been expressed in the House. As we examine them this evening, I shall be able to give an explanation.
  I apologise for the length and complexity of the first group of amendments and new clauses, but they are not as difficult as they might appear on the surface.
  As the House knows, social security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Services, and therefore passes under the Belfast agreement to the devolved institutions. However, there is close parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and there are close links between the two social security systems. Reciprocal arrangements must exist to ensure,

  561
  for example, that entitlements to benefit can be transported by someone who moves house. There must also be arrangements for recognition of reciprocal agreements with other states, and there is much practical co-operation between the two systems—for example, the use of UK-wide computer systems.
  There is also a question of finance. There are arrangements for topping up the Northern Ireland national insurance fund from its counterpart in Britain so that benefits in Northern Ireland can be paid at the same rates for the same contributions.
  New clauses 2 and 3 provide for the Secretary of State for Social Security and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make arrangements for co-ordination. They do not require parity, but they provide a means by which the practical consequences of divergence can be managed. If the Assembly decides, for example, to move from parity between Britain and Northern Ireland, the cost would have to be met by the Assembly itself. Arrangements under the new clauses extend to child support and pensions, as well as to other social security benefits. In other words, if the Assembly wishes to vary benefits in Northern Ireland—presumably upwards—it will have to pay.
  Government amendments Nos. 50 and 55 deal with another related point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in March that the Inland Revenue would assume responsibility for national insurance contributions from next April, taking over that function from the Department of Social Security in Great Britain and from the DHSS in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 55 makes them an excepted matter by adding them to schedule 2, but, of course, we hope that devolution occurs before April—perhaps some time in February or March. The amendments transfer responsibility for these matters to the Secretary of State for Social Security for those few months, or possibly weeks, so that responsibility for the administration of both national insurance funds would transfer to the Inland Revenue at exactly the sane time.
  The amendments and new clauses are a sensible way of dealing with the difficulties arising from the transfer of responsibilities and are in line with the agreement. I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. New clause 2 (1) refers to
  "the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Minister".
  Is that a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister? If it means a Minister from the Assembly, why does the new clause not say that?
  New clause 2(2) (a) refers to arrangements
  "for making any necessary financial adjustments".
  Will the Minister explain in what circumstances it would be necessary to make any financial adjustments? Subsection (2)(b) contains the same phrase.
  New clause 2(3)(a) refers to arrangements "for adapting legislation". What does that mean? When would it be necessary to adapt legislation if there is reciprocity
  562
  between the two systems? Subsection (3)(c) refers to cases where
  "rights accrue both in relation to Great Britain and in relation to Northern Ireland".
  Will the Minister give examples of where rights would accrue? I concede that people should not be able to receive child benefit in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland at the same time. One cannot have rights to two benefits in different jurisdictions. Can the Minister give an example of the rights that would accrue in Great Britain or Northern Ireland that would require the Secretary of State to decide where the benefit—be it child benefit or any other—would be drawn?
  New clause 2(6) proposes some repeals. What is the effect of those? Schedule 15 also proposes repeals. New clause 2 refers to section 177(2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which provides that the joint authority will be the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the head of the Northern Ireland Department. However, new clause 3 states that the joint authority will consist of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor is reputed to have interfered in other areas. Why has he been added to the joint authority?
  What aspects of social security business can still be raised in the House? What opportunities will be open to hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom to ask questions on social security matters in Northern Ireland when the Assembly is in place? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions. He will probably say that he will write to me. If he does say that, I shall understand.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his understanding. I shall try to answer some of his questions. He has taken a personal interest in these matters for some years. The reference in new clause 2 to a Northern Ireland Minister means a Minister from the Assembly.
  Mr. Forsythe: Why is that not stated in the Bill? Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are Northern Ireland Ministers. Why does not the Bill say Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers?
  Mr. Murphy: The Bill proposes the establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and throughout the Bill it is clear that a Northern Ireland Minister is an Assembly Minister. Of course, if we were debating a social security measure, matters would be different, but in this context we are discussing a Northern Ireland Assembly Minister.
  The financial adjustments refer to two matters, the first of which is the use in one country of benefit books that have been issued in another—for example, when someone is on holiday. The other matter relates to the topping up of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund. Adapting legislation allows account to be taken of, for example, waiting days in one country so that they can be counted towards benefit in another. The payment of double benefit would have to be avoided where someone has worked half his life in Great Britain and half in Northern Ireland; the details of who pays his retirement pension have to be worked out.
  The repeals in the new clause are duplicated in the Bill and they must appear in the Bill in the right way. As the hon. Member for South Antrim (Mr. Forsythe) said, these

  563
  are important matters. It is appropriate to add my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to the joint authority because of the financial implications.
  The last point made by the hon. Member for South Antrim was about matters that can be raised here. Northern Ireland Members will have the same rights as other hon. Members to raise issues at Westminster. If I have not covered some of the more detailed aspects,I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a detailed reply.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: The answer to my question should be brief. I should like the Minister to clarify the relationship between new clause 2 and new clause 3. New clause 2 seems to make it explicit that the extent of consultations is a matter for agreement. Therefore, disagreement is possible. However, it is closely linked to new clause 3, which deals with the joint authority. That will have three members, only one of whom will be a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That means that the Member of the Assembly could be outvoted by the two other people on the joint authority. How does the Minister reconcile those two new clauses? They seem to be linked, but one provides for agreement between a United Kingdom Minister and a Northern Ireland Minister while the other suggests that the Northern Ireland Minister would be consistently outvoted.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. For the sake of good order, I remind the House that on Report hon. Members may speak only once and the Minister twice in each debate on an amendment. We may get into difficulties if the debate becomes a question and answer session. However, as a specific question has been asked, the Minister may care to answer it.
  Mr. Murphy: Some clarification is required, although it will not necessarily mean altering the new clauses. I shall write to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) about the matter.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

  SOCIAL SECURITY, CHILD SUPPORT AND PENSIONS: THE JOINT AUTHORITY
  .— (1) The Joint Authority continued in being by section 177 (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992—

  (a) shall consist of the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Minister having responsibility for social security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and

  (b) shall continue in being by the name of the Social Security, Child Support and Pensions Joint Authority for the purposes of the legislation to which section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination) applies.

  (2) The responsibility of the Joint Authority shall include that of giving effect to arrangements under section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination)(2), with power—

  (a) to make any necessary financial adjustments, including adjustments between the National Insurance Fund and the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund; and

  (b) to discharge such other functions as may be provided under the arrangements.

  564

  (3) The Joint Authority shall continue—

  (a) to be a body corporate; and

  (b) to have an official seal which shall be officially and judicially noticed;

  and the seal of the Authority may be authenticated by any member of, or the secretary to, the Authority, or by any person authorised by the Authority to act on behalf of the secretary.

  (4) Any member of the Joint Authority shall be entitled, subject to and in accordance with any rules laid down by the Authority, to appoint a deputy to act for him at meetings of the Authority.

  (5) The Documentary Evidence Act 1868 shall apply to the Joint Authority as if the Authority were included in the first column of the Schedule to that Act and—

  (a) as if any member or the secretary, or any person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary, of the Authority were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule; and

  (b) as if the regulations referred to in that Act included any document issued by the Authority.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

  EXAMINATIONS BY COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL
  '.— (1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the finances of the Assembly, the Comptroller and Auditor General—

  (a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents in the custody or under the control of the Assembly or any other person audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, or of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, as he may reasonably require for that purpose, and

  (b) shall be entitled to require from any person holding or accountable for any of those documents any assistance, information or explanation which he reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose.

  (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

  (a) consult the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, and

  (b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland,

  before he acts in reliance on subsection (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Assembly under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).

  (3) In section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983, after paragraph (c) of subsection (3) there is inserted—

  "(ca) the Executive Committee established by section 16 (1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and any other person to whom sums are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland.".'.—[Mr. David Davis.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. David Davis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 7, in clause 52, page 25, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

  '(1) There shall continue to be a Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland.

  (1A) The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland shall be an independent person appointed by Her Majesty on the nomination of the Assembly; but for the purposes of this section

  565
  the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland in office immediately before this section comes into force shall be treated as having been so appointed.

  (1B) A recommendation shall not be made to Her Majesty for the removal from office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland unless the Assembly so resolves and, if the resolution is passed on a division, the number of members voting in favour is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats in the Assembly.

  (1C) A person is independent for the purposes of subsection (1A) if he is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Executive Committee or of the Assembly in the exercise of his functions.'.

  Amendment No. 8, in page 25, line 14, at end insert
  '; and the accounts so audited shall be presented by the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland to the Assembly and to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State shall thereupon lay them before the House of Commons.'.
  Amendment No. 9, in page 25, line 16, at end insert

  'enacted before section 5 of this Act comes into force or to any Act of the Assembly; but no Act of the Assembly shall have effect which—

  (a) prejudices the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland conferred by Article 3 of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, or

  (b) reduces the powers of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland conferred by Part III of that Order or by subsection (2),

  unless the provision in question or a draft of it has been laid before the House of Commons by the Secretary of State and approved by a resolution of that House.

  (4) The expenses of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland (including those of the Northern Ireland Audit Office or such other Office as he may from time to time be empowered to maintain) shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by the Assembly.

  (5) For each financial year of the Assembly after this section comes into force other than the first, the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland shall prepare, and submit to the Assembly (or, if a committee of the Assembly has been designated by the Assembly for the purpose, that committee), an estimate of the income and expenses of his office.

  (6) If the estimate is submitted to a committee of the Assembly, the committee shall examine the estimate and lay it before the Assembly with such modifications as it thinks fit; but if the committee proposes to lay it with modifications, it shall first consult the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State and have regard to any advice which they may give.

  (7) The Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland may assist the Comptroller and Auditor General in reporting any matter to the House of Commons or in providing information or papers requested by the Committee of Public Accounts of the House of Commons.

  (8) Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 6 of the Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 are hereby repealed.'.

  Government amendment No. 43.
  Mr. Davis: On Second Reading, I commented on the unfortunate but, as I accepted at the time, necessary speed at which the Bill was going through the House. Hazards are associated with speedy Bills. In 1920, the Government of Northern Ireland Act created problems that lasted 50 years and ended in misery and the end of Stormont in the 1970s. I fear that, if we are not careful with some aspects of the Bill, we will create not necessarily the same problems—
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The legislation that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is the Government of
  566
  Ireland Act 1920. I ask him please not to give all the blame to Ulster. He should remember that the southern part gave a great deal of trouble.
  Mr. Davis: I am happy to be corrected, but I was not blaming Ulster: in part, I was placing the blame on the United Kingdom Government of the time and speaking about the problems that can be caused by speedy legislation on serious and complex constitutional issues.
  Three matters need further thought. The first relates to guaranteeing the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. The second is the problem of long-term corruption in some aspects of Northern Ireland business and the Assembly's ability to deal with it. The third is the rights of the United Kingdom taxpayer as they are reflected—or, more accurately, not reflected—in the Bill.
  Amendments Nos. 7 to 9 aim to guarantee the independent appointment, tenure, funding and action of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. They underpin that independence by setting it in UK law, rather than in law that is susceptible to change by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  The Minister has been kind enough to write to me on the issue, and he indicated some sympathy with my argument. I elaborated on that on Second Reading, so I will not press it further. I say merely that that is the purpose of those amendments—all today's amendments are probing amendments.
  5.30 pm
  I move to a more worrying question: long-term corruption in Northern Ireland. We start from a bad base. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, my 1990 study of paramilitary racketeering showed that the Provisional IRA made about £5 million a year from a dozen different scams and rackets that it ran to fund its activities. These days, I suspect that the amount is a little lower because of Government action. Nevertheless, the joint actions of a number of paramilitary organisations probably raise several million pounds, and perhaps more. Many of those rackets focus on the public sector.
  A large proportion of the money that is acquired illegally arises from corruption in one form or another in the public sector, be it public works, housing projects, welfare or other matters. That will be familiar to the Minister and, I should think, to almost every hon. Member in the Chamber.
  The problem of corruption is compounded by the understandable wish of Ministers and civil servants in Northern Ireland not to let any social project that is aimed at dealing with sectarian problems fail because of lack of money. That means that there is a tendency to throw money at problems, which leads to waste and slackness, which we have seen too many times and which have been reported by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and by the Public Accounts Committee in the past few years.
  Systematic waste, fraud and corruption have become a serious and permanent threat in Northern Ireland public expenditure. I am concerned that the Assembly will have difficulty in dealing with those problems because many have their origin, as I have said, in sectarian and paramilitary organisations. Some of those will be represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly by their

  567
  political arms, which may have power and executive responsibility for areas that are susceptible to fraud—housing, for example.
  Corruption is a threat to any free and democratic system of government. It is a particularly virulent problem when the same party or same coalition stays in power for a long time; we have seen that in local government in our own country. It is also a problem in small communities, so we have a difficulty that is likely to be made worse, not better, by the solution that the Government have, understandably, come up with for Northern Ireland. The form of government that is proposed for Northern Ireland is not very good at dealing with corruption.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Corruption in the former Northern Ireland Parliament was minimal compared with what went on even in local government in England, but may I remind him that, when questions were asked in this House about social security payments to Mr. Gerry Adams, we were told that he was not getting such payments, even though the strange claim was made that he was an unemployed barman in Belfast? However, when he had a job to go to, we ultimately discovered, although it was denied in the House, that he was getting social security payments, so the problem affects the Administration here, who do not act on reports of auditors and accountants.
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman helps to make my point. The difficulty is partly the activities of the paramilitaries, but it is also—I reiterate this point—the Assembly's structures, which make it difficult for the Assembly to deal with the problem. The old Northern Ireland Parliament—Stormont lid not have that structure. There are reasons for the new structure—I understand that—but it will have difficulties in dealing with this problem because political parties are still linked to paramilitaries, the structural legislature is poorly designed and there is already some corruption in place.
  It would be easy to imagine that this is simply a financial problem, but it is not. Corruption in circumstances such as this has a corrosive impact on the communities that are supposed to be served by the Assembly, and on the political environment.
  If hon. Members want an example of that, they can look back simply to post-prohibition American racketeering days and what happened to city and state government as a result of that racketeering. I worry much more about the impact on the politics and the communities of Northern Ireland than about the money itself. That is one reason why I think that this is vital.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: It has been suggested that at least £5 million has been misappropriated in Northern Ireland by the activities of paramilitaries. Without close scrutiny by the CAG, who is answerable to this House, that sum may be quadrupled, especially if we end up with a head of a Department and a Minister who represent paramilitary groups?
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman restates in starker language the point that I was making. That is why subsection (7) in my amendment No. 9 would allow the Northern Ireland CAG to assist the United Kingdom CAG in reporting matters to the Public Accounts Committee.
  568
  This is not full House of Commons scrutiny—we should not misunderstand this—but it would act as a reserve parachute for Northern Ireland scrutiny if fraud were to become a more serious problem. The Minister is setting up a constitutional arrangement that is supposed to last for generations, one presumes, and we must at least do what we can to ensure that that awful circumstance does not arise.
  The last issue that I want to take up is that of the accountability of the House of Commons for the £3 billion or so of UK taxes that subsidise Northern Ireland expenditure. This is the primary reason for new clause 1 and amendment No. 6. I do not expect to persuade the Minister today of this issue, but it is of fundamental constitutional importance, so I am obliged to raise it.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting many figures and raising serious matters that need consideration by the House. I am not asking this in any way other than constructively, but will he give us some idea of where his evidence is for the fraud that he speaks about in Northern Ireland? On what is he basing it?
  Mr. Davis: There are two sets of data. I referred at the beginning of my speech—if the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully he would have heard me say this, although I am surprised, given his previous work on the Northern Ireland Committee, that he was not aware of it—to a survey that I conducted in 1990 on paramilitary racketeering. At the time, the Northern Ireland Office handed it out to the press as a guide to what went on. The Public Accounts Committee published a number of reports about waste in Northern Ireland—I could cite half a dozen; I will write to him if he wishes to know the exact number—that showed weaknesses in Northern Ireland, some of which will create opportunities for fraud, which is what we are trying to eradicate.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Is the right hon. Member aware that there have been questions on this matter in the House and that three times more disability living allowance is awarded in some constituencies than in others, which suggests that something strange is going on?
  Mr. Davis: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. He may be aware that I took the Public Accounts Committee to Northern Ireland and that we met at Stormont to consider that very issue. Disability living allowance claims in Northern Ireland are higher than one could reasonably expect in the rest of the United Kingdom, and I am aware of the problem that he raises.
  I now turn to a constitutional issue. The accountability for money spent rests finally with the Parliament that raises the taxes to finance that expenditure. It underpins the most basic of Parliament's functions. It is not a new argument. The provision of supply has been behind Parliament's functions for a long time. Indeed, that argument lay behind the "no taxation without representation" issue that led to the war with the American colonies, so it has some hundreds of years' provenance.
  Nearly 40 per cent.—the exact figure is 39 per cent.—of Northern Ireland expenditure is met by the rest of the United Kingdom and not from local taxation. It is obvious

  569
  that it demands severe United Kingdom scrutiny. At this point we run into what I shall call the Scottish dimension. I do not blame the Minister, as I understand entirely where it comes from.
  The same argument was applied less dramatically in the Scotland Bill and the Government found themselves in a difficult political position. If they had allowed United Kingdom scrutiny of Scottish expenditure, they would have been outflanked by the Scottish National party for giving in to the English, or some such other slogan, so the Government had to invent a constitutional fiction. They raised a constitutional non sequitur to the level of an argument when they proposed that a Parliament or Assembly that was responsible for primary legislation should scrutinise its own expenditure and that no one else should do so. That is nonsense. Those who raise taxes are accountable for the expenditure. We can delegate power, but we cannot delegate accountability. We are held accountable by the people who elect us, from whom we raise taxes.
  The ludicrous nature of the Government's position is shown by amendment No. 43, which states:
  "The Treasury may require the Northern Ireland Ministers and departments to provide, within such period as the Treasury may specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may specify."
  In other words, the Executive, through the Treasury, want access to information that the House is being denied. They will not agree funding for Northern Ireland without the right to that information, but the House will be required to approve the funding without access to the information, which demonstrates the paradox of the Government's argument. Yet again, a large sum of taxpayers' money—£3 billion—is being spent outside the control and scrutiny of the House, which is completely against the traditions of the House.
  Mr. William Ross: I have considerable sympathy with the new clause because I believe that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) has put before the House serious issues that should concern us all. As he pointed out, the House is ultimately responsible not only for raising revenue, but for its expenditure and for protecting public finances and the public purse.
  In my experience, the Northern Ireland audit is highly efficient. Every time I have approached the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, he has been extremely helpful. If the Treasury can second-guess his figures, that information should also be available to the House. There are times when right hon. and hon. Members wish to raise matters of concern to our constituents and to Northern Ireland generally. I would not wish to be inhibited in raising those matters in future by a lack of information.
  We all know it is often years before allegations of fraud are investigated and conclusions are reached. However, that is no excuse for giving up our control of the finances of any part of the United Kingdom and I am certainly happy to support what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said.
  Amendment No. 43, which the right hon. Gentleman read out, refers to the Treasury. I would have been much happier with it had it referred to the Comptroller and
  570
  Auditor-General as that would have brought it within the ambit of this place. It is not acceptable to me or to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we should be excluded from access to such information.
  I believe that the new clause sets the direction in which the Bill should go. I hope that the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden will be given favourable consideration by the Government because of the right hon. Gentleman's long experience in these matters. It is not a light matter or even a party political matter; it is a House of Commons, Government matter and we are concerned about the expenditure of UK taxpayers' money for which we are ultimately responsible.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: Obviously, we raised this issue on Second Reading and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) is right to raise it again. It is extremely important, not just to taxpayers but to democrats throughout the United Kingdom, that if we are to have a devolved system of Administration in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, there should be proper scrutiny of public funds and public expenditure. No one disagrees with that principle.
  We should all be aware that the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland has done, is doing, and I am sure will do an excellent job. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the independence of that office should be enshrined in statute and we should be able to reach an accommodation between us as to the wording necessary to achieve that. It would be very useful if the right hon. Gentleman and I were to get together with the appropriate officials during August or September to look at this so that the House of Lords can consider any amendments.
  The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he would not press his amendments and I am grateful for that. I am also grateful to him for drawing to my and the House's attention the provisions of the Scotland Bill that place particular emphasis on the independent status of the auditor in Scotland, although we must remember that the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland has been in place for some time now.
  I am not so convinced about systemic corruption in the Northern Ireland Administration—if that is the phrase the right hon. Gentleman used, I am not sure whether it is accurate. There have been examples of corruption in public bodies in England, Wales and Scotland. Of course all hon. Members would condemn that, but I do not think that there is a particular difference in respect of Northern Ireland and I hope that there will not be one in future.
  Mr. David Davis: I thank the Minister for his constructive approach and I shall certainly not press the amendments. First, I am happy to take up the Minister's offer and talk to him in detail about guaranteeing the independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. Secondly, he should not take what I said about systemic corruption as a criticism of the vast majority of civil servants or politicians who work in Northern Ireland. However, the assault by paramilitary organisations in particular, as has happened in the past, will tend to corrupt. The Minister will be aware that such organisations have raised large sums of money. I would

  571
  not like what I said to be taken as a criticism of civil servants and politicians, but rather as a concern about the conditions under which they will have to work in future.
  Mr. Murphy: I understand the difference between the right hon. Gentleman's two points. He also raised the question of an Opposition/Government. In this place, the Chairman of the PAC is always a member of the Opposition; there is a great deal of sense in that. In Northern Ireland, the situation is not quite the same. Is there an Opposition? Is there a Government? Parties are entitled to membership of the Executive and to hold ministerial posts based on the strength of their election success and the number of seats that, consequently, they hold.
  There is not as obvious a distinction as there is in our system in Westminster. Indeed, it could be said that parties around the table in the Executive would be politically very much opposed to each other. In some ways, that could be reflected in a Public Accounts Committee in the Assembly. We shall certainly be tabling an amendment in the other place that will lay on the Assembly a statutory requirement for a PAC, with all the necessary controls that such a Committee could exercise.
  The problem that the Government have with new clause 1 and amendment No. 8 boils down to the question of devolution and accountability. An Assembly in Belfast is of course elected by the people, so the Government of Northern Ireland and their expenditure should be scrutinised by the legislature of Northern Ireland through its own PAC. That is the best way, and it will certainly occur in Scotland. When we meet to discuss these issues, we may find that, on some occasions—I can think of one—we will be able to lay the accounts of the Northern Ireland Assembly before the House of Commons. The accounts would, after all, be a public document. We would have to do so in such a way that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales were treated equally; so that in no way would devolution in Northern Ireland be weaker, different or less significant than it is in Scotland or in Wales.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is surely forgetting something. He drew attention to the laudable practice in the House of the Chairman of the PAC always being a member of the Opposition. In the concept proposed for Northern Ireland, there will not be an Opposition. The Minister must face that problem. He should pay careful attention to what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is saying, because we are talking about where the ultimate responsibility lies; and he should know what is going on.
  Mr. Murphy: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; what will happen in Northern Ireland will be fundamentally different from what will occur in Edinburgh where there will be a Government and an Opposition in the sense that he and I know. In the next few weeks and months, we must reflect on how best a PAC can operate in Belfast, who will chair it and what its rules and procedures will be.
  Mr. Davis: The Minister drew comparisons with the bodies in Scotland and Wales, yet their treatment is very different. I for one do not see the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland as a precedent for either of them, just as Wales is not a precedent for Scotland or vice versa. It is much more important that we get the system in
  572
  Northern Ireland right than to worry about an inappropriate consistency. If Northern Ireland is consistent with one of the examples that he picked, it would be inconsistent with the other.
  Mr. Murphy: There is a big difference between Wales and Scotland because the Scottish Parliament is a legislative body—as will be the body in Belfast. The similarities between the situations in Northern Ireland and Scotland are greater than those between Northern Ireland and Wales. It is clearly important to have some comparability. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it does not have to be exact; it has to fit the circumstances—but in such a way that it in no sense demeans the Belfast Assembly. The Assembly must have its own controls and methods of scrutiny that are not in any way derived from the House of Commons. Our job is, obviously, to deal with the United Kingdom Government.
  I take the point about subvention. If the people of England, Scotland and Wales have to give extra money to Northern Ireland, that is clearly a matter of interest to the House of Commons, just as it is when they have to give money to Scotland or Wales. The new clause and the amendments would not achieve what I think the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden wants to achieve. Nor would they ensure that, on one hand, proper scrutiny, and on the other, the proper accountability of the Assembly and the Executive which is in everyone's interest.
  To sum up, first, we can look very favourably on the idea of putting into legislation some sensible independence of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Secondly, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and I ought to meet in order to deal with some of the matters to which he referred. Thirdly, when the Bill goes to the other place, amendments will certainly be tabled, including one to establish a PAC for Northern Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman feels able to withdraw his new clause.
  Mr. Davis: In view of the Minister's very constructive reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

  TRANSFERRED, EXCEPTED AND RESERVED MATTERS
  Mr. William Thompson: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
  the Government of Ireland" means the Government of the Republic of Ireland, as defined in section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949.'.
  In Committee, an amendment was tabled so that, in clause 1(2), the Bill would refer to the Government of the Republic of Ireland instead of the Government of Ireland. That was resisted by the Government. The Minister first described the importance of terminology in Northern Ireland, and then explained that the British Government had agreed to the Irish Government's wish to be termed "the Government of Ireland" in British legislation.
  I understand that the Minister and the Government believe that they are entitled to make such a change because of the use of the word "may" in the Ireland Act 1949. Clearly, there are those of us who doubt that that is possible under the Act. There needs to be clarification of

  573
  the matter. Those of us who are Unionists are very concerned when we see in United Kingdom legislation for the first time the term "the Government of Ireland". It makes us rather suspicious of what is going on.
  I have tabled the amendment for clarity. Accepting it would confirm that "the Government of Ireland" means "the Government of the Republic of Ireland", as defined in section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949. That would make clear that references to the Government of Ireland are to 26 and not 32 counties, which would give some solace to those of us who are Unionists.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: I support my hon. Friend's amendment. By far the best way for the Government to deal with the matter would have been to maintain the conventions and precedents of the House and continue to refer to "the Government of the Republic of Ireland" as such. It is an outrage that the Government of the Irish Republic should lay claim to the territory of Northern Ireland in their title.
  Although we were told that the Belfast agreement was designed to remove the territorial claim over Northern Ireland, the title that the Government of the Republic have adopted for themselves, and which they require to be used in British legislation, is in itself a territorial claim. The term "the Government of Ireland" clearly suggests that that Government govern the whole of the island, not just part of it. That is the distinction between "the Government of the Republic of Ireland" and "the Government of Ireland" as a whole.
  The Minister has therefore allowed the Government of the Republic of Ireland to lay claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. If the amendment is not acceptable, the Minister must go back and consider the whole issue of the naming of the Dublin Government, so that the title used clearly shows that they are responsible only for the 26 counties in the Irish Republic.
  6 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I support my colleagues on this issue. It amazed me that the Minister admitted that during the talks the Irish Republic's representatives were prepared for the first time to use the proper title of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not the title that the Republic uses in its legislation.
  I would have thought that, if the Minister was so keen to achieve a balance, he would say to the Republic, "If you want us to use your title in our legislation, you must reciprocate." The trouble is that throughout the Bill the Government have leaned over backwards to accommodate the claims and wishes of the Irish Republic. We see that with the abolition of the 1920 Act, despite the fact that the referendum outcome in the south does not come into operation with regard to the territorial claim until the Republic is satisfied that everything is going according to its wishes. The Minister should have insisted.
  I must take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)—that the present terminology represents an effort by the Government of the Irish Republic to insist on their territorial claim. The proper name of the south, chosen by itself, is the Republic of Ireland, which defines the 26 counties. Why, when the Republic is supposed to have
  574
  given up its claim, is the Minister insisting on recognising that claim by putting the title "the Government of Ireland" into the Bill?
  Mr. Grieve: There appears to be some force to the amendment, for reasons that I shall explain. I fully understand the Government's position that in the course of the negotiations it was agreed—it was a matter of mutual respect between two sovereign states—that the descriptions used should be those by which each state wished to be known. In one case that description was "the Government of Ireland" and I understand that there is reciprocity in relation to the United Kingdom.
  Everybody will know that both those descriptions are capable of interpretation, and that in reality the interpretation of the reference to "the Government of Ireland" is indeed the Government of the Republic of Ireland—as, I suspect, it is defined in section 1 of the Ireland Act 1949. Whether that fact appeared at this point in the Bill or simply in the interpretation clause, it would clear up an ambiguity that seems to have troubled Unionist Members while, I respectfully suggest, in no way derogating from the manner in which, in the text of the agreement and the Bill, proper reference is made to the Government of Ireland.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: We went over the ground at some length in Committee, and I do not want to burden the House with a long debate on the issue now. However, the hon. Members for Belfast, East and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) attribute much more power to me than I possess; it is not right to suggest that the territorial claim on the north is a consequence of my actions.
  Certainly the terms of the agreement are reproduced in the Bill, and during the negotiations leading up to that agreement a great deal of what I consider to be improvement took place in the way in which we describe the countries from which we each come. The Irish prefer the term "the Government of Ireland" and we, of course, prefer our right name—"the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".
  As I told the House some days ago, that was the first time that that had happened, and I think that it was a significant milestone in the way in which we deal with the nomenclature. It is not right to suggest that the terminology represents a territorial claim; it certainly does not. All it represents is a reasonable and sensible compromise—an agreement arrived at in the talks, put into the agreement and now reproduced in the Bill.
  If we used anything other than those two terms—"the Government of Ireland" and "the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"—we would be going against the spirit of the agreement. I cannot accept the amendment because I believe that progress was made on the subject in the talks, so I ask the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) to withdraw it.
  Mr. Thompson: The Minister has spoken a lot about what went on before the agreement was signed. He has also said that it was agreed that the words "the Government of Ireland" should be used, and those words appear on the face of the Bill. The problem is that those of us who are Unionists are not happy with the use of that term. If "the Government of Ireland" means the

  575
  Government of the Republic of Ireland, there seems no reason why the Government cannot use that term, at least when explaining what the words "the Government of Ireland" mean.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not strange that the statement that the Minister has now made was not announced at the talks while they were going on? It was not announced that the two Governments had decided to call each other by those names. If that was such an important matter and there was a great feeling of unanimity, hatchets had been buried and bows and arrows put away, they should have announced it. The people at the talks never heard about it. When we attended the talks the matter was never mentioned, and I am told by those who were in the talks to the end that it was never mentioned.
  Mr. Thompson: Those of us who were present for the Committee stage will realise that many of the amendments that were accepted came from the Government, while few if any amendments have been accepted from the Opposition. It should be remembered that those of us who sit on this side of the House represent the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: Am I to understand that, notwithstanding the points that the Minister has made and the fact that the agreement seems to have been quite clear, the term is causing a serious and genuine problem and concern among Unionists in Northern Ireland, and that there is some feeling that the ground has shifted a bit because of the use of that terminology instead of the terminology that would more conventionally be used by people in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Thompson: I heard the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) suggesting that we do not represent the majority of the people of Northern Ireland—but 13 Unionist Members of Parliament out of 18 seems to me to be a fair majority.
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I noticed during our previous debate that the hon. Gentleman had great difficulty in accepting the normal interpretation of mathematics: 71 per cent. is the great majority, not the 29 per cent. that he now represents. May I ask him further to correct his suggestion that the terminology to which he objects and to which his amendment relates was not mentioned in the document but was in some way kept secret? The agreement document states, in bold, clear print, that the agreement is
  "between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland."
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the document was sent to every household in Northern Ireland and that the people of Northern Ireland voted to support it?
  Mr. Thompson: I am not disputing the words in the agreement. We are discussing what the words actually mean—that is the issue. The Government say that, in the Bill, the Government of Ireland means the Government of the Republic of Ireland—at least, I think that is what they are saying. However, I suspect that when the hon.
  576
  Gentleman refers to the Government of Ireland, he does not mean the Government of the Republic of Ireland as we understand it—the 26 counties.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I want to put it on the record of the House of Commons that, in this debate and in the Bill, the Government of Ireland means the Government of the Republic of Ireland—of course it means that. The Bill replicates the words of the agreement, so it does not need to be changed.
  Mr. Thompson: The Minister has made the position very clear, and it is good to have it on the record, although I suspect that it will not make the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) very happy, as he means something different by the phrase. There is no doubt that the words of the agreement are in the Bill, but we want clarification; we want what the Minister said to be confirmed. Why cannot the Government accept the amendment?
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 257.

  Division No. 354]

  [6.11 pm

  AYES

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Thompson, William

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Rev. Martin Smyth and Mr. Roy Beggs.

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ainger, Nick

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Caborn, Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Allen, Graham

  Canavan, Dennis

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Casale, Roger

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chaytor, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Austin, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Battle, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Cohen, Harry

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coleman, Iain

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Colman, Tony

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cooper, Yvette

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Best, Harold

  Cotter, Brian

  Betts, Clive

  Cousins, Jim

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cox, Tom

  Blizzard, Bob

  Crausby, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Borrow, David

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Browne, Desmond

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Burden, Richard

  Denham, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Dismore, Andrew

  Burnett, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  577

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  McCabe, Steve

  Doran, Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Dowd, Jim

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Drew, David

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Macdonald, Calum

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  McDonnell, John

  Efford, Clive

  McFall, John

  Ennis, Jeff

  McGrady, Eddie

  Etherington, Bill

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McNamara, Kevin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McWalter, Tony

  Fisher, Mark

  McWilliam, John

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Mallaber, Judy

  Flynn, Paul

  Mandelson, Peter

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Foulkes, George

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gapes, Mike

  Meale, Alan

  Gerrard, Neil

  Michael, Alun

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Miller, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  Mitchell, Austin

  Goggins, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Gorrie, Donald

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hain, Peter

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mudie, George

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hancock, Mike

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Hanson, David

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Olner, Bill

  Heppell, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Pendry, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hood, Jimmy

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pike, Peter L

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Plaskitt, James

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Pond, Chris

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pope, Greg

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Pound, Stephen

  Hurst, Alan

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Hutton, John

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Illsley, Eric

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ingram, Adam

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Rammell, Bill

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jamieson, David

  Rendel, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Salter, Martin

  Keetch, Paul

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Kemp, Fraser

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Sawford, Phil

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Lepper, David

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Skinner, Dennis

  Linton, Martin

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McAllion, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Soley, Clive

  578

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Vaz, Keith

  Stevenson, George

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  White, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wills, Michael

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Winnick, David

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wood, Mike

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Timms, Stephen

  Wyatt, Derek

  Todd, Mark

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Touhig, Don

  Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Keith Hill.

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

  LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 20, leave out 'or with Community law'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 12, 20 to 22, 44 to 49, 59 and 60.
  Mr. Murphy: These are technical amendments, necessary to ensure that certain aspects of the Bill relating to the compatibility of Assembly legislation and ministerial actions with convention rights and community law are dealt with properly, and to ensure that the provisions dealing with religious and political discrimination apply in all the circumstances that they should. I commend them to the House.
  Mr. Öpik: I wish to make one point regarding amendment No. 22. I would have been pleased to see a wider definition of equal treatment in that amendment. This matter has been discussed earlier, and I will not rehearse the arguments. However, I hope that the Minister will realise that there is potential on that basis.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 12, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—
  '() it is incompatible with Community law.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 11

  STAGES OF BILLS
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 5, line 16, at end insert—
  '() Standing orders may, in relation to different types of Bill, modify provisions made in pursuance of subsection (1).'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 14 and 15.
  Mr. Murphy: Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 would amend clause 11. Clause 11(2) merely provides that the

  579
  Standing Orders of the Assembly may include provision for the setting up of a Committee to examine measures or proposals for legislation for their conformity with equality requirements. This is one of the most important safeguards in the agreement, designed to develop an atmosphere of confidence and trust.
  Consultation with parties has revealed a feeling that the existing text of the Bill is not sufficiently clear, providing only that Standing Orders may include provision of the Committee. The effect of the amendments is that the Standing Orders must include provision for establishing the Committee, and may also include provision for the details of a Bill to be considered by the Committee in circumstances specified by the order. That will permit paragraphs 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the agreement to be reflected. The Assembly will not be obliged to put every Bill to such a Committee—that is not part of the agreement. I believe that the amendments give effect more precisely to the agreement itself, and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 14, in page 5, line 17, leave out from 'orders' to 'such' in line 18 and insert—
  '(a) shall include provision for establishing'.
  No. 15, in page 5, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert
  'and
  (b) may include provision for the details of a Bill to be considered by the committee in such circumstances as may be specified in the orders.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 14

  FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 11, leave out 'The Assembly shall' and insert
  'Each Assembly shall, within such period beginning with its first meeting as is specified in standing orders,'.
  The amendment provides that there should be a new election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister after every election, and that that election shall take place within a period specified in the Standing Orders. Clearly, that is a sensible arrangement and I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: It occurs to me that the Minister might like to clarify whether there is any mechanism for disposing of First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers. There is none in the Bill, except by their own resignation—which, apparently, has to be forced. Will the Minister consider whether it might be appropriate to have such a mechanism?
  Mr. Murphy: I think that the term "disposal" might be a little extreme under the circumstances, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. They can be excluded under clause 23.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 7, line 33, after second 'office' insert
  'which, together with the code of conduct to which it refers, is'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 56.
  Mr. Murphy: These are minor amendments, proposed for convenience's sake. They have the effect of setting out the code of conduct from annexe a to strand 1 of the Belfast agreement in schedule 5 of the Bill. The provision was lifted word for word from the agreement and placed in the Bill. It will be more convenient for those who wish to look at the legislation. It should avoid any possible confusion between the code of conduct that was specifically agreed in the talks and any code of conduct that applies to Westminster Ministers. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The amendment is linked to Government amendment No. 16. The code of conduct is part of the pledge. A breach of the pledge could lead to the First Minister and Deputy First Minister losing their places, but there is no other mechanism if they have lost the confidence of the Assembly on a political matter. They can be removed only if they breach their pledge of office or are involved in or support terrorism.
  Amendment agreed to.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 9, line 6, leave out 'or under'.
  The amendment is entirely technical. Clause 15 deals with the allocation of ministerial posts by the d'Hondt formula. Subsection (14), as drafted, provides that, if a party is excluded and its period of exclusion has not come to an end,
  "the party shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (4) to (9) as applied by or under subsection (13)."
  On reflection, we believe that the words "or under" are redundant, and the amendment will delete them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 9, line 9, at end insert
  'or an officer nominated by him for the purposes of this section'.
  The amendment concerns the powers of political parties to nominate people to ministerial posts that fall to the party under the d'Hondt formula. It clears up what we believe is an anomaly. Clause 15 provides for the d'Hondt formula to determine how many posts each party is entitled to. The political party that gains the highest figure when the formula is run can then choose a ministerial post. Clause 15 gives the nominating officers—usually, but not necessarily, the leaders—of political parties the power to select a ministerial office and nominate a person to hold it who is a member of the party and, of course, of the Assembly.
  Subsection (15) enables the nominating officer of a non-registered political party to delegate his functions under the clause, but it does not enable the nominating officer of a registered party to do the same. There seems to be no good reason for the distinction, and I would expect that most Northern Ireland parties will want to take

  581
  advantage of the registration scheme when it is finally introduced. The amendment removes the anomaly by giving the nominating officers of registered political parties the same power to delegate their functions.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

  COMMUNITY LAW AND CONVENTION RIGHTS
  Amendments made: No. 20, in page 9, line 37, after 'act', insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 21, in page 9, line 37, leave out 'or' and insert—
  '(b) is incompatible'.
  No. 22, in page 9, line 38, at end insert—
  ', or
  (c) discriminates, or aids or incites any person to discriminate, against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion.'.—[Mr. Paul Murphy.]
  Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 9, line 39, leave out ', 21 and' and insert 'to'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 3, in clause 22, page 11, line 18, leave out from 'equal' to end of line 20 and insert
  'consideration shall be given to both the number of Ministers and the number of Chairmanships allocated to the respective parties in allocating the already remaining Chairmanships in an equitable manner.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
  Mr. Murphy: I believe that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) may want to speak to amendment No. 3, which is closely related to the other amendments. It may be convenient for the House to listen to his points before I wind up.
  Mr. Öpik: Ministers seem to have discounted the importance of the points that I made on this matter in Committee. In simple terms, amendment No. 3 would ensure that, in the event of a tie between two parties in the allocation of chairmanships, the number already allocated plus the number of Ministers already appointed would be taken into consideration. The Bill takes account only of the number of chairmanships.
  I do not want to go too far into the algebra, for fear of being labelled an anorak, but I can assure the House that the amendment fits exactly into the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to ensure that there is a fair and equitable distribution, in a proportional fashion, of the positions of office in the Assembly.
  There is a danger that a large party could easily get an additional chairmanship when a small party has none, but with the smallest of changes that small party could benefit by picking up one chairmanship. If the amendment were made, there would be a genuine opportunity for small parties to increase the likelihood of having a chairmanship in the Assembly.
  582
  We must remember that, although the larger parties picked up the lion's share of the vote, smaller parties, such as the Alliance party and others, did very well in terms of the absolute number of people who chose to support them. It would be sensible and popular to make the modification that I have suggested. I hope that the Minister will give us a rather more encouraging response this time. I am looking for an assurance that he will entertain the possibility of revisiting the matter over the summer.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) wants to see that which is fair and equitable, and he wants to be the one to decide what is fair and equitable. He does so in a manner that just happens to be to the advantage of his sister party in Northern Ireland. The reality is that, if a party cannot get enough seats in the Assembly, it cannot expect chairmanships. That is what democracy is all about.
  Government amendment No. 25 concerns the allocation of Committee places. I cannot recall our having considered that matter at all. It has been thrown in at the last moment. I wonder why.
  Mr. Malcolm Moss: In fact, we discussed the matter on an amendment that we tabled in Committee, where it was amendment No. 14. I thank the Minister and his team for accepting it more or less verbatim.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification.
  Government amendment No. 25 says that a nominating officer must prefer a Committee on which his party does not have a ministerial post. Is that absolutely necessary when we move from the chairmanships to the deputy chairmanships?
  In many cases, who is the Chairman or Vice-Chairman will depend largely on the person's skills, so the nominating officer's flexibility will be curtailed. I see the necessity for the provision in relation to chairmanships, as one wants more objective scrutiny of the Minister's actions, but in the case of deputy chairmanships, I would have thought that the Government could have been more relaxed.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I have some sympathy with amendment No. 3. I would have had more sympathy with it if the same pattern were applied here. In 1982 and 1983, we were told that Northern Ireland parties had four places on Select Committees, and this year we have been cut down because the Government party demanded a majority of two in every Committee, and our Liberal Democrat friends decided that they also wanted places. The harsh reality is as the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) described it. Where a party has members, it gets places. My sympathy lies with the amendment, however. The concept of cross-community partnership should run right through the process, and it is strange that a Government who have gone down that road are withstanding the amendment.
  Those who berated us in the 1975 constitutional convention for being obscurantists fighting a rearguard action who were not prepared to give places to others of different viewpoints would be surprised to find that

  583
  committees then would have been 50:50, with the chairmanships divided equally between the majority group and the minority group. We made that decision because we could not see that any party would ever win control under proportional representation. If the Government want to keep to the spirit of the agreement, they should not treat the amendment as cherry picking, but they have perhaps done some raspberry picking of their own.
  Mr. Öpik: I assure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that amendment No. 3 applies also to the larger parties. If there is a tie between two large parties, they could benefit from the proportional process. It was not intended simply to help small parties, but to provide an equitable solution in the event of a tie.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept that. That is why I sympathise with the amendment. However, the tragedy is that the House of Commons, the mother of Parliaments, has not always followed its own democratic procedures.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I fear that I must give the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) the same answer that I gave in Committee. The spirit of the agreement is proportionality, and there is an opportunity in the Assembly for smaller parties to exercise responsibility in the large number of chairmanships and deputy chairmanships that will be meaningful jobs there. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to Ministers, but if there is a tie, the only real answer is to re-run the d'Hondt system. The number of first preference votes for each party would then be reconsidered, instead of the number of seats that it had won in the Assembly. That is a fairer and more proportional system for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Öpik: I have visions of algebra. The amendment refers to chairmanships, and I fear that the Minister slightly misunderstands our intent. The amendment is not intended to create an unfair skew towards small parties, but to increase proportionality in the allocation of positions. I must emphasise that, because the assumption has been made a few times that the amendment is designed to favour small parties. I intend only that distribution should truly be fair.
  Mr. Murphy: My understanding was that the amendment would favour smaller parties. That is why we do not favour it, but we may be able to discuss the point, and, when the Bill reaches the other place, perhaps it could be more clearly made. For tonight, however, we must reject it.
  Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 provide that Northern Ireland Ministers, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, should not also be Chairmen or Deputy Chairman of Committees. That is sensible. Although the agreement is silent on the matter, there is no case for overlap. The amendments also deal with whether Committee Chairmen and Deputy Chairman should come from the same party as the Minister whose Department the Committee is advising and assisting. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) has referred to the Opposition amendment that would have prevented any overlap, and we agree with the sentiments of that amendment. As I said in Committee, there may be
  584
  cases in which overlap is impossible to avoid, and that may answer the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about flexibility.
  Amendment No. 25 refers to the nominating officer of a party preferring
  "a committee in which he does not have a party interest to one in which he does."
  That is not as rigid as saying that he cannot be on one in which he has an interest, but that he should prefer the other. It is sensible to have a spread, and to try to avoid overlap.
  Amendment No. 23 is consequential. Clause 19 defines "Minister", for the purposes of clauses 19, 20, 21 and 23, as meaning
  "the First Minister, the deputy First Minister or a Northern Ireland Minister."
  Government amendments to clause 22 include references to Ministers that need to be construed in the same way, and the amendment extends the definition to cover clause 22.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

  INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 10, line 18, at end insert
  'and may make provision having retrospective effect'.
  The amendment is technical, and would come into play when the Secretary of State made an order under clause 20 revoking subordinate legislation of the devolved authority that was incompatible with international obligations, or that had an adverse effect on provisions relating to accepted matters. It permits such an order to take retrospective effect. There is a natural presumption against retrospective legislation, but it is justified in this case. The House reached that conclusion when it approved a corresponding provision in clause 54 of the Scotland Bill, from which clause 20 borrows heavily.
  Mr. Grieve: I seek clarification of one point. I do not object to what the Minister is trying to do, but I am puzzled about where the amendment is being inserted. If the purpose is to provide for retrospective effect to an order revoking legislation, the amendment should be tagged on to the end of line 16. It has nothing to do with reciting the reasons for revoking the legislation, which are dealt with in subsection (5), which includes line 18.
  What the Government seek to achieve is that, when an order is made to revoke legislation, there may also be provision for giving it retrospective effect, and I understand the reasons for that. I hope that the point is not too pedantic, but at some point, somewhere, someone will have to interpret the Bill, and it seems that the proper place for the amendment is in line 16.
  Mr. Murphy: I shall raise that matter with those who drafted the Bill, because I agree that we need to consider it.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

  STATUTORY COMMITTEES
  Amendments made: No. 25, in page 11, line 20, at end insert—
  '(5A) Standing orders shall provide that—

  (a) a Minister may not be the chairman or deputy chairman of a statutory committee; and

  (b) in making a selection under the provision made by virtue of subsection (3)(a), a nominating officer shall prefer a committee in which he does not have a party interest to one in which he does.

  (5B) For the purposes of subsection a nominating officer has a party interest in a committee if it is established to advise and assist a Northern Ireland Minister who is a member of his party.'.
  No. 26, in page 11, line 23, leave out '(5)' and insert '(5A)'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 23

  EXCLUSION OF MINISTERS FROM OFFICE
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 11, line 29, at end insert 'or'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 28.
  Amendment No. 1, in page 11, line 35, leave out 'If the Assembly resolves' and insert
  'If a motion is tabled, supported by at least 30 members, stating'.
  Government amendment No. 29.
  Amendment No. 2, in page 11, line 40, leave out from 'Ministers' to end of line 41 and insert
  'following the next Assembly sitting unless and until a resolution expressing confidence in that Party is approved by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
  Mr. Murphy: I expect that several hon. Members want to speak on the amendments, and I shall answer their points at the debate's conclusion.
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in particular, which stand in my name and the names of other hon. Members.
  The clause deals with the mechanism for excluding individuals or parties from holding office in the New Northern Ireland Assembly. The mechanism as at present set out in the Bill requires in each instance a vote in the Assembly of cross-community support for a Minister to be excluded from office. The Bill sets out three options by which a resolution may be brought before the Assembly, but in each and every instance, for a motion to lead to the exclusion of a Minister or party, a cross-community vote is required. We believe that it should be the other way round.
  On Wednesday I listened to the Prime Minister telling us in response to questions that it was he and he alone who decided who was in his Cabinet. Yet, in reality, in the Executive which will be the Government of Northern Ireland, the only way in which a Minister can be excluded from holding office is if there is a cross-community vote in the Assembly. That means that a Minister who enjoys the confidence of no other party in the Assembly but his
  586
  own may remain in office, provided that his own party has sufficient numbers to block a cross-community vote. That is unhelpful.
  Let me give as an example a Minister who belongs to the SDLP. For the cross-community vote to operate, the SDLP is required to support it because the SDLP represents over 40 per cent. of the nationalist community. Therefore, in effect, the SDLP can veto the exclusion of one of its Ministers under any circumstance. That is unhealthy in a democratic institution.
  We believe that, for a Minister to stay in office when a motion is tabled—in respect of amendment No. 1—by at least 30 Members, the Minister or his party has a responsibility to gain the support and confidence of other parties in the Assembly. Otherwise, the mechanism as it is set out in the Bill effectively gives a veto to individual parties. Indeed, it effectively gives a veto to my party on the Unionist side, because at the moment it has more than 40 per cent. of the Unionist seats in the Assembly. Therefore, at least two parties now under the mechanism in the Bill can veto the exclusion of any Minister, including a Minister belonging to their party, even if that Minister has lost the confidence of every other party in the Assembly. The mechanism is unhealthy and unworkable.
  The Minister will be aware of our serious concerns, particularly in relation to parties connected to terrorist organisations. We have a deep anxiety that a Minister will be appointed to the Executive who is linked to a paramilitary or terrorist organisation. If those terrorist organisations are in breach of the terms of the agreement—for example, by refusing to co-operate on the international commission on disarmament, by committing murders or carrying out punishment beatings—it will be virtually impossible to have that Minister removed from office or his party excluded from holding ministerial office unless the support of the SDLP is secured. That position does not imbue the Unionist community with confidence in the mechanisms of the Bill.
  I ask the Government to think again and to consider accepting amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the spirit that is intended—to make the institution more workable and to help it enjoy wider confidence than it presently enjoys.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Without changes such as would be effected by amendments Nos. 2 and 3, the Bill and the process becomes a farce.
  Last night, when the same criteria as are in this Bill were applied in relation to the release of prisoners, the Government were prepared to close their eyes to the murder of one man, the beating up of many others, punishment beatings and shootings in Londonderry and all other acts of terrorism, and to allow those prisoners to be released. The same criteria applied in this case would allow IRA representatives to be in government. That may be acceptable to the Government, but it is unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. I suspect that it is not acceptable to a majority of the elected representatives.
  That is not to say that there would not be a significant section who would be prepared to take any action against such Ministers. If the vote were taken today in the Assembly to exclude Sinn Fein members, I have no doubt that a majority would vote for exclusion, but it would not be a cross-community vote sufficient to ensure their exclusion. Therefore, the reality is that we do not have a working Assembly. The Executive cannot work on the

  587
  basis that some of those who are within its membership are still associated with death and destruction in the Province.
  I notice that the Government have tabled amendment No. 29. I am subject to correction from those on the Opposition Front Bench who were helpful to me last time, but I have not heard it discussed before. I am sorry that the Minister did not say something about it. It has been one of the finest moments in my parliamentary career to see that, on the foot of an amendment that I tabled in Committee, the Government have actually agreed to remove four words from the Bill, although the fact that the Minister said nothing about it deflated me somewhat. However, the fact that he added about 30 extra words which are worse takes away some of the pleasure that I had.
  I do not know what the Minister is trying to get at by this amendment, unless he is trying to get at the DUP. Perhaps he can explain it to us. I have never seen this kind of amendment before. The Minister provides for a party and its representatives to be excluded from government if there is
  "any likely failure of its members"
  to observe their pledge of office. The Assembly will have to look into the future to see what a representative might do if he were in office. No doubt, with crystal ball in hand, it will attempt to predict what a representative might do in government. That goes far too far. In particular, it does not relate to any involvement in terrorism, which is dealt with in paragraph (a). The amendment deals with unrelated, unspecified matters and it is important that we know what they are.
  Moreover, as the clause is drafted, what the Assembly might perceive to be the position of one member of a political party automatically disqualifies all members of that political party for a 12-month period. The Minister needs to explain how all the representatives of a political party can be excluded because one member may be deemed in future to be likely not to observe the pledge of office.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: When the Minister replies, can he tell us how it will be discovered who might become a Minister? I could well understand the clause and amendment if they dealt with a representative who had become a Minister, but how is it to be discovered who might become a Minister? There is only one way to discover that and it is to say that everybody in the party might become a Minister.
  That is a strange amendment, therefore, which at one fell swoop, according to the interpretation given, could put a whole party out of the Assembly. I know that the Government would like to put my party out. During the campaign they said that we would not get there anyway, but then 20 of us turned up, so it is no wonder that they want to get rid of us. It is the strangest of strange amendments to say, without consultation with anyone, that someone could be excluded
  "because of any likely failure"
  What constitutes a likely failure? It is strange that, when the IRA fails to live up to its pledge to give up violence, and shoots, kills and maims—
  Rev. Martin Smyth: If the provision were applied in this House, would any Executive stand for long, bearing
  588
  in mind all the reports and the fact that a special Committee has had to be set up to investigate the conduct of Members who have not behaved according to the traditions of this place?
  7 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is very true. What could offer some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and myself is that we are never likely to become Ministers, so we would not be included in the guillotine.
  The Minister must tell us what he is after here. Whom does he intend to catch in the net, and what is the real purpose of the amendment?
  Mr. David Winnick: I should have thought that clause 23 and the amendment are relevant to a matter that has been raised several times—the problem of those who engage in violence. The Unionists, who do not favour the agreement, and occasionally the Opposition Front-Bench team, have argued that there is no basic guarantee that Ministers will be thrown out for engaging in violence. Surely, as has been pointed out, clause 23(1)(a) is clear. The clause states:
  "a Minister no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly—
  (a) because he is not committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Government amendment No. 29 would replace paragraph (b) of clause 23, and refers to
  "any other terms of the pledge of office".
  Surely that means any terms other than the pledge to non-violence?
  Mr. Winnick: Strange as it may seem, I have read the amendment, so I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I should have thought that the amendment strengthens the position in many respects and makes the clause less vague. At the moment it refers only to "any other reason".
  Every one of the pledges in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the pledge of office that has to be given by a Minister, on page 10 of the Belfast agreement, is essential if a Minister is to carry out his terms of office with integrity. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked what would happen if that pledge had to be observed in this Parliament. I hope that any Minister in any Government would act according to the requirements in the agreement for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I include in that the previous Government and any future Conservative Governments, let alone a Labour Government.
  The pledges include:
  "to discharge in good faith all the duties of office … commitment to non-violence … to serve all the people … equally, and to act in accordance with the general obligations on government to promote equality … to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government … to support, and to act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive … and the Assembly … to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct."
  If the Assembly concludes that a Minister is not likely to comply with those pledges, obviously that must be a matter of concern. I accept that the word "likely" may give rise to difficulties, and I will listen carefully to my hon. Friend the Minister's reply. I accept that it is not as

  589
  easy to decide what is likely as to decide what has occurred, but the amendment is a safeguard, and I see no reason why it should not be included.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: We are not dealing with particular individuals as I understand it. The clause reads:
  "If the Assembly resolves that a political party does not enjoy the confidence of the Assembly"
  and the amendment would follow on:
  "because of any likely failure of its members who are or might become Ministers to observe any other terms of the pledge of office".
  We are talking about the exclusion of a party for that reason, not of an individual or a Minister.
  Mr. Winnick: I accept that. Perhaps I did not make it as clear as I should have done. The fact remains, however, that Ministers are part of a political party, and will presumably be appointed because of that fact and because they identified themselves as such when they were elected to the Assembly. That is the position.
  If members of a political party who have been elected to the Assembly give the impression—be it Sinn Fein or any other group—that they are not likely to carry out the pledge of office, the amendment offers a necessary safeguard. However, I will be interested to hear the Minister's interpretation of the word "likely". Given what Opposition Members have said about Sinn Fein, I should have thought that they would reach the conclusion that I have reached, which is that the provision offers a safeguard if members of Sinn Fein, or of any other party, become Ministers and are likely not to observe the 10 points in the pledge of office.
  Mr. Öpik: I have two points to make about amendment No. 29. First, as the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) pointed out, the phrase "likely failure" is difficult. It creates a vagueness that someone will have to interpret, which concerns me.
  The major problem is that raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) which is in the wording
  "who are or might become Ministers".
  Although he said that it was exceedingly unlikely that he would be appointed a Minister in this House, theoretically it is possible. He might become a Minister in this Chamber, and I am sure that there are hon. Members who would welcome that. The word "might" is open to the simple interpretation that any member of the Assembly might become a Minister, and to that extent it genuinely excludes everyone. I understand the intent, but I strongly urge the Minister to think again about the amendment and perhaps table a tidied-up version in another place. As it stands, I would not touch it with a 40-ft bargepole.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) makes an interesting suggestion. I thought that it was a 4-ft bargepole before.
  I think that everyone accepts that we had a long and good debate on exclusion in Committee, and I certainly do not intend to reiterate the Government's arguments
  590
  about that part of the Bill, but simply to say that the basic principles on which clause 23 is based are: first, that it is drafted to reflect the terms of the agreement; secondly, as in the agreement, the decision to exclude from ministerial office is for the Assembly to take, on a cross-community basis; and, thirdly, that clause 23 subsections (6) and (7) reflect the promise made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Balmoral speech during the referendum campaign, by saying that the Secretary of State must take into account the four factors listed in subsection (7).
  On the Government amendments, we were concerned because many parties and others made representations to us about the general nature of exclusion on the basis of the words "for any other reason".
  I suspect that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) agrees about the first bit. The purpose of the second part, with which he disagrees, is to put into legislation a much tighter reason for exclusion beyond non-violence and democracy, which are already in. It relates entirely to the pledge of office. They are not words made up out of the blue; they are there as a direct consequence of reading the pledge of office across from the agreement.
  We believe that the pledge of office covers all the relevant ministerial responsibilities. It includes the
  "commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means",
  but it also other includes pledges
  "to discharge in good faith all the duties of office;
  to serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally … to participate with colleagues in the preparation of a programme for government;
  to operate within the framework of that programme when agreed within the Executive Committee and endorsed by the Assembly;
  to support, and to act in accordance with, all the decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly;
  to comply with the Ministerial Code of Conduct."
  Those pledges were agreed by negotiation. They were put into the agreement in written form and went to every household in Northern Ireland, and were in turn supported by the majority of people in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: They are also already in the Bill where it deals with the individual. The Minister is talking about requiring all the members of a party to fulfil the pledge of office. If any of them are deemed not to be fulfilling it, all can be excluded and disqualified for 12 months.
  Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, when we debated party exclusion and individual exclusion in Committee, most hon. Members agreed that the Bill should include provisions for party exclusion. It makes no sense to exclude one person as a Minister—and I mean exclude as opposed to remove—unless similar restrictions apply to political parties. Without that, all that would happen is that one individual would be replaced by another from the same party, because, under the d'Hondt procedure, there is automatic entitlement to positions on the Executive.
  Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, say, Sinn Fein was found to be involved with violence, apart from our views, the first to cry out for any Sinn Fein Ministers to be excluded would be the very people who

  591
  are concerned about this amendment. It is a safeguard. The only doubt in my mind concerns the word "likely". Perhaps my hon. Friend will explain that.
  Mr. Murphy: Let me deal with those two points. It is right to deal with issues other than non-violence, because they are equally part of the agreement. The authors of the agreement—the political parties—thought that people who entered the Assembly, if they became Ministers, had a duty placed on them to ensure that the agreement and the assembly worked. That is achieved by signing the pledge of office. The exclusion of parties as well as individual Ministers has been introduced because it would be nonsense if only an individual were affected because that person could keep on being replaced by party colleagues when the reason for exclusion concerned not an individual but that person's party in some way going against the spirit of the agreement and the pledge of office.
  On the word "likely", how do we exclude people from office if they belong to a political party that says publicly, through a manifesto or some other method, that it rejects the whole purpose of the agreement and the pledge of office and what it stands for? It can be determined by examining the manifesto and what people say publicly about the agreement. We are not taking about membership of the Assembly, because Members cannot be excluded. If the electorate vote for those people for the Assembly, that is the right of the people in that constituency. We are talking about the holding of office. The agreement specifically says that people cannot hold office unless they sign the pledge. If a political party says that it does not agree with the pledge, it is likely that it will break the pledge because it has said so. That is the reason for the provision.
  Amendment No. 1 would allow 30 Members of the Assembly to exclude. That goes completely against the agreement, because it does not encompass cross-community support. Whatever the rights and wrongs of whether 30 Members should be able to do it, the amendment cannot be accepted because it contravenes what the agreement says about exclusion or removal being based on cross-community agreement.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister is wrong to say that the 30-Member mechanism is contrary to the agreement. It is the essence of the agreement, which uses 30 Members to provide a trigger mechanism on several other issues. The amendment uses the agreement's terminology. Its terminology relating to cross-community support comes in our next amendment.
  Mr. Murphy: There is a difference between the simple triggering of a mechanism and amendment No. 1, which gives a different interpretation of the matter. We must ensure that the legislation, as far as possible, mirrors the agreement. Everyone knows that it must be based on cross-community support. That is set out twice in paragraph 25 of strand 1. The amendment does not even replace it with straightforward majority support; it gives a minority the right to exclude another party from ministerial office, and is not compatible with the agreement.
  Amendment No. 2 is different, in that the agreement is silent on the length of exclusion. We want to try to implement the agreement, but inevitably a political
  592
  agreement leaves some practical gaps. We must consider what we think the spirit of the agreement is. The Bill should make some provision for the length of the period of exclusion. The provision should be as flexible as possible and allow the Assembly to vary the period of exclusion on the same basis as the original decision, by resolution with cross-community support. Where there is such support, the Assembly can determine as short or as long a period of exclusion as it sees fit. The decision is up to the Assembly.
  We recognised that there might be different views on the period of exclusion to be served, so we sought to provide a basic period which was long enough to reflect the seriousness of the loss of confidence that triggered it but which offered the prospect of a return to ministerial office if the original cause of exclusion was removed. We think that that is in line with the spirit of the agreement. The period would last 12 months from the original vote, unless—this is important—the Assembly resolves to reduce it, or to extend it by successive periods of 12 months. That would be a matter for the Assembly, based on cross-community support.
  Amendment No.2 would make the period of exclusion open-ended. It would require a positive vote before a party regained eligibility for ministerial office. I do not think that that is in line with the agreement, because the d'Hondt procedure automatically qualifies parties for entitlement, which is different from any system of which we have experience. That is why we cannot accept the amendment. We believe that nowhere in the agreement is there a requirement for a positive vote of confidence in favour of a particular party taking up ministerial office. That goes against proportionality, but especially against the d'Hondt procedure.
  Mr. Donaldson: Has not the Minister just spent some time explaining to the House that there ought to be an amendment to the Bill to enable a whole party to be excluded from holding office if it is thought likely for any reason that it will not hold up to the pledge of office? He is arguing that the d'Hondt rule is sovereign and that there should be nothing to exclude individuals from holding office if their party is entitled to office under the d'Hondt system, yet a few moments ago he argued that, even if a party was likely to be in breach of the pledge of office, there might be a mechanism to exclude it from office. Is there not an inconsistency there?
  Mr. Murphy: There is no inconsistency. We have made it clear—the Bill is consistent—that there is provision to exclude or remove from office both individuals and parties, for the reasons that I have explained, if the pledge of office is broken in some way or another. That is true especially of the pledge regarding non-violence, which is specifically mentioned in another part of the clause. Of course, that in itself means that the d'Hondt procedure is interfered with, because the pledge has been broken. Of course I understand that, but here we are talking about the return of such a party.
  If the party has during the previous 12 months changed its policy and is committed to peaceful and non-violent means, there comes a time when that party ought to be able to return to the democratic fold. I see nothing wrong with that, but there is provision in the agreement for that 12 months to be extended or reduced if necessary, according to the feeling of the Assembly.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Why then does the Minister change the rule completely in regard to this?

  593
  There is no mention of its being likely that a person will go back to violence. The word "likely" is not used in those terms, but it is used in regard to the pledge of office. Amendment No. 29 goes further than that. It says "members who are". Well, Members who are doing this can be seen to be doing it, but might become Ministers. Surely, if they are going to become Ministers, you are only pushing yourself out into the future and saying, "If they become Ministers, they are going to do the same thing." How can you prove that?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I do not need to prove anything.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am asking the Minister a simple question. Why is it that the amendment has gone beyond persons in office to those who might be in office and is trying them and hanging them for something that they have not even done?
  Mr. Murphy: If a party is saying, and all the world knows that it is saying, to the people of Northern Ireland—
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Give us an example.
  Mr. Murphy: It is not up to me to give any sort of example. If a political party goes to the people and says, "We will not accept the conditions of the pledge of office," it is the height of nonsense for that party to be in the Executive—not the Assembly. The Executive is entirely based on an agreement that says that Ministers must sign up to the pledge of office. It does not make any sense. The people will know that a party has said that it will not accept the pledge. If a political party has said so in its manifesto, it is likely that that party will not take office. That is much tighter than what the Bill originally said, which was "for any other reason." It is important that "any other reason" is taken away and in its place are inserted the words in the amendment.
  We argued vigorously about "exclusion" as opposed to "removal" in Committee, but if we know beforehand what the policy of the party is likely to be because that is stated in the manifesto, on the radio, on the television or whatever, of course it does not make any sense that the party should take up office that depends on recognition and acceptance of the pledge of office. For those reasons, I commend the Government amendments to the House and ask it to reject amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
  The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 21.

  Division No. 355]

  [7.24 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Battle, John

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beard, Nigel

  Allen, Graham

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Benton, Joe

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Berry, Roger

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Best, Harold

  Austin, John

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Barron, Kevin

  Blizzard, Bob

  594

  Boateng, Paul

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Borrow, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Burden, Richard

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Hurst, Alan

  Byers, Stephen

  Hutton, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Illsley, Eric

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ingram, Adam

  Cann, Jamie

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Casale, Roger

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Jamieson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Clapham, Michael

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Clelland, David

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cohen, Harry

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Coleman, Iain

  Khabra, Piara S

  Colman, Tony

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Connarty, Michael

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Lepper, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Leslie, Christopher

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Linton, Martin

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Livingstone, Ken

  Cousins, Jim

  McAllion, John

  Cox, Tom

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Cranston, Ross

  McCabe, Steve

  Crausby, David

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  McDonnell, John

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  McGrady, Eddie

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Denham, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Dismore, Andrew

  McNulty, Tony

  Dobbin, Jim

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  McWalter, Tony

  Doran, Frank

  McWilliam, John

  Dowd, Jim

  Mallaber, Judy

  Drew, David

  Mandelson, Peter

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Efford, Clive

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Etherington, Bill

  Meale, Alan

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Michael, Alun

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Fisher, Mark

  Mitchell, Austin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Moffatt, Laura

  Flynn, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Foulkes, George

  Morley, Elliot

  Fyfe, Maria

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Gapes, Mike

  Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

  Gardiner, Barry

  Mudie, George

  Gerrard, Neil

  Mullin, Chris

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Olner, Bill

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Pearson, Ian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hain, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Pike, Peter L

  Heppell, John

  Plaskitt, James

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hill, Keith

  Pond, Chris

  595

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Pound, Stephen

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Timms, Stephen

  Rooker, Jeff

  Todd, Mark

  Rowlands, Ted

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Salter, Martin

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Vaz, Keith

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  White, Brian

  Sawford, Phil

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wills, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wise, Audrey

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Soley, Clive

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. Clive Betts and Mr. David Hanson.

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  NOES

  Baker, Norman

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Beggs, Roy

  Rendel, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Burnett, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Cotter, Brian

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Thompson, William

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Wilshire, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Keetch, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Mr. William Ross and Mr. Peter Robinson.

  Öpik, Lembit

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 28, in page 11, line 31, leave out from 'office;' to end of line 32.
  No. 29, in page 11, leave out line 39 and insert—
  '(b) because of any likely failure of its members who are or might become Ministers to observe any other terms of the pledge of office,'.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 28

  DISQUALIFICATION
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 14, line 36, after 'that', insert—
  '(a)".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 31.
  Mr. Murphy: The amendments refer to the disqualification for Assembly membership of clergymen of the Church of Ireland and of the Roman Catholic Church and would bring the Northern Ireland Bill into line with the Scotland Bill.
  596
  We do not believe that the disqualification is necessary in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is anomalous as the disqualification does not apply to dissenting Ministers, who play a significant role in Northern Ireland politics, both in this House and, as I am sure they will, in the Assembly. I cannot say whether many clergy will take up the opportunities offered in the amendments, but we believe that it is in the best interests of the electorate to give the broadest possible choice of candidates by removing all inessential grounds for disqualification. Ultimately, it is for the electorate to decide who represents them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 14, line 37, at end insert
  '; or
  (b) he is ordained or is a minister of any religious denomination.'. —[Mr. Dowd.]

Clause 31

  PRESIDING OFFICER
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 16, leave out line 6 and insert—
  '(c) the Assembly elects from among its members a person to hold office as Presiding Officer or deputy in his place.'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 and 34.
  Mr. Murphy: The amendments deal with replacing the presiding officer. Under clause 31 as it stands, it would theoretically be possible for the Assembly to dismiss the Presiding Officer or a deputy without appointing a successor. Although it is highly unlikely in practice that there would be cross-community support for such a move without there being support for an agreed successor, we have to provide for all contingencies. We cannot afford a vacancy in the Presiding Officer post: a vacuum would make the Assembly's business impossible and it would be unable to hold the necessary election for a replacement.
  These are useful, tidying amendments and I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 16, line 7, after 'office', insert
  '(otherwise than under subsection (2)(c))'.
  No. 34, in page 16, line 18, leave out from 'under' to 'without' in line 19 and insert 'subsections (1) to (3)'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 36

  POWER TO CALL FOR WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 18, line 29, after 'to' insert
  'a person who is or has been'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 36 and 37.
  Mr. Murphy: The amendments tidy the provisions for calling witnesses and documents. Subsection (4) makes it

  597
  clear that the Assembly does not have the power to summon Ministers of the Crown or persons in Crown employment about the discharge of their functions before the appointed day. It is a sensible provision that mirrors the Westminster convention that Ministers are not given sight of material shown to their predecessors.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 36, in page 18, line 30, after 'person' insert
  'who is or has been'.
  No. 37, in page 18, line 38, at end insert—
  '() a person discharging functions of any body whose functions relate to excepted matters, in connection with the discharge by him of those functions;'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 45

  PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: TAXES
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 22, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 17 on page 23.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 39 to 42.
  No. 6, in clause 51, page 25, line 9, at end insert—
  '(3) Subject to subsection (4), no payment shall be made under section 45(1) or 46 unless a draft budget for the financial year to which the payment relates has been approved under subsection (2) and has been laid before the House of Commons at least ten sitting days before any motion is made in that House for the approval of a grant of supply out of which the payment is to be made.
  (4) Nothing in subsection (3) shall prejudice any grant of supply for the purposes of making good to the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland any issue which may be authorised out of that Fund under section 47.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 52 and 67.
  Mr. Murphy: Amendments Nos. 38 to 40 and 52 respond to representations made to the Government by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including the First Minister. They abolish the present system whereby the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland is financed from two sources. The first, which is represented by clause 45, is the so-called attributed share—the share of the total of UK taxes that comes from Northern Ireland. The second, in clause 46, is the additional payment made because the money raised from the attributed share is insufficient to meet Northern Ireland's needs.
  In Scotland, these matters are not presented in the same way as they are for Northern Ireland. We see no reason for a difference; we therefore tabled the amendments to abolish the clause. It will make no difference to the total amount provided for Northern Ireland, but it is an important presentational point.
  Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 remove the requirement for the draft budget to be laid before the Assembly by a specific date in December. The requirement was originally included to coincide with departmental and Treasury planning cycles, which change from time to time. We did not want the dates to be altered, nor did we want the Assembly to be so tied down. The amendment
  598
  merely requires the draft budget to be laid and considered before the start of the financial year. In practice, I expect the Assembly to deal with it before each Christmas to give Northern Ireland Departments time to allocate money internally for the new financial year, as we do at present.
  Amendment No. 67 is consequential on the repeal of the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 46

  PAYMENTS INTO THE FUND: SECRETARY OF STATE
  Amendments made: No. 39, in page 23, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
  No. 40, in page 23, line 20, at end insert
  'of such amounts as he may determine'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 51

  DRAFT BUDGETS
  Amendments made: No. 41, in page 25, line 3, leave out
  'on or before the first working day after 9th December in each year'
  and insert
  'before the beginning of each financial year'.
  No. 42, in page 25, line 5, leave out 'the next financial' and insert 'that'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 53

  PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO TREASURY
  Amendment made: No. 43, in page 25, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
  '.—(1) The Treasury may require the Northern Ireland Ministers and departments to provide, within such period as the Treasury may specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may specify.
  (2) If the information is not in their possession or under their control, their duty under subsection (1) is to take all reasonable steps to comply with the requirement.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 57

  RESTRICTIONS ON APPLICATION OF RIGHTS
  Amendments made: No. 44, in page 27, line 6, after '19(1)' insert '(a)'.
  No. 45, in page 27, line 9, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a'.
  No. 46, in page 27, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert—
  '(3) Section 6(2)(d)—

  (a) does not apply to a provision of an Act of the Assembly if the passing of the Act is, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, not unlawful under subsection (1) of that section; and

  (b) does not enable a court or tribunal to award in respect of the passing of an Act of the Assembly any damages which it could not award on finding the passing of the Act unlawful under that subsection.

  599
  (3A) Section 19(1)(a)—

  (a) does not apply to an act which, by virtue of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, is not unlawful under subsection (1) of that section; and

  (b) does not enable a court or tribunal to award in respect of an act any damages which it could not award on finding the act unlawful under that subsection.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 62

  DISCRIMINATION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
  Amendments made: No. 47, in page 29, line 28, at end insert—
  '() Subsection (1) applies to the making of subordinate legislation only if—

  (a) the legislation contains a provision which discriminates against a person or class of person on the ground of religious belief or political opinion; and

  (b) the provision extends only to the whole or any part of Northern Ireland.

  () Where it is alleged that subsection (1) applies to the making of subordinate legislation, subsection (2) shall not apply but the contravention may be relied upon in legal proceedings relating to validity of the subordinate legislation.'.
  No. 48, in page 29, leave out lines 31 to 33.
  No. 49, in page 29, line 36, after 'authority', insert
  '(other than a Northern Ireland department)'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 66

  PARTICIPATION IN NSMC AND BIC
  Mr. Donaldson: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 31, line 41, at end insert—
  '(3) No executive function shall be discharged under this section, by a Minister or Ministers, without the prior approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 5, in clause 68, page 32, line 20, at end insert
  'but may not be made without the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Donaldson: The terms of the agreement in strand 2 dealing with the north-south ministerial council state:
  "Northern Ireland to be represented by the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and any relevant Ministers, the Irish Government by the Taoiseach and relevant Ministers, all operating in accordance with the rules for democratic authority and accountability in force in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Oireachtas respectively."
  The amendment would make explicit in the Bill the requirement for democratic authority to be granted to Ministers as they enter into discussions and reach decisions in the north-south ministerial council with their Irish counterparts. It must be clearly understood that Ministers are operating with democratic authority, as laid down by the Assembly, and that they are accountable to the Assembly for executive decisions taken after discussions in the north-south ministerial council.
  600
  Amendment No. 5 applies to clause 68, which deals with the implementation bodies that will be agreed and established by the north-south ministerial council. Subsection (4) states:
  "Where the Secretary of State has made or proposes to make grants under subsection (3), an order under this section may make provision corresponding to paragraph 7 of Schedule 8".
  The amendment would add the words
  "but may not be made without the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5)."
  The agreement makes it clear in the provisions under strand 2 that funding for the implementation bodies is to be provided by the two Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Government—
  "on the basis that the Council and the implementation bodies constitute a necessary public function."
  Our amendment seeks to take account of the provisions of the agreement, which would require the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, to bring into effect the funding for the implementation bodies. If the Assembly is to have real control over its budget, it is important that it should have control over the funding of the implementation bodies.
  I hope, therefore, that the Government, honouring the spirit of the agreement and its terms, particularly in relation to the functions of the assembly, will accept the amendments. They cannot argue against the amendments on the basis that they are not in the agreement, because they clearly follow the explicit terms of the agreement. The amendments would create more confidence in the accountability of the north-south institutions to the Assembly.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: We are dealing with one of the twin pillars of the agreement, to which the Prime Minister directly referred when he came to Northern Ireland and when he gave commitments in the House and elsewhere. He made it clear that the Assembly would be democratic and that the north-south bodies would be accountable to the Assembly.
  I shall be frank. Throughout the referendum campaign, I made it clear that I did not see anywhere in the agreement what the Prime Minister was saying. The Bill is a faithful representation of what the agreement says, but it is not a faithful representation of how the agreement was interpreted by the Prime Minister for the people of Northern Ireland—it was, after all, based on the interpretation of the Prime Minister that the people of Northern Ireland voted in the referendum.
  This is the Prime Minister's Government, and I suppose that it must be recognised that they will want to make good the Prime Minister's pledges. On 20 May—that famous occasion—the Prime Minister came to Northern Ireland, complete with his poster hoarding, and personally signed his five pledges. One was that the power to take decisions would be
  "returned to a Northern Ireland Assembly, with accountable North/South co-operation."
  That pledge contains two elements—accountability and co-operation—but the Bill makes it very clear that the north-south bodies are not accountable to the Assembly, and that they will be performing executive functions.
  I remember that, in Committee, the Minister attempted to say that the north-south bodies were accountable because Ministers were accountable. If he is relying on

  601
  that argument as his get-out clause for what the Prime Minister said, I have to tell him that it is very weak. He knows as well as I do that Ministers are not accountable in the sense that Ministers would be accountable in this Chamber. A majority cannot get rid of a Minister or overturn a ministerial decision. In this set-up, it requires a consensus vote and, in many cases, the Minister's party could veto any move against him or against his decision. There is no real accountability. If accountability applies only to the Minister, not to his actions, that makes the position even weaker.
  I hope that the Minister will recognise that he has not resolved the issue that is central to the concerns of many Unionists in the House and in Northern Ireland, and that he has to do better. The provision cannot remain in the Bill and enjoy the support of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. McGrady: It seems that the amendment seeks to ensure that democratic accountability resides with the Assembly of Northern Ireland in respect of the involvement of members of the north-south ministerial council. I refer the proposers of the amendment to paragraph 6 of strand 2 of the agreement, which reads:
  "Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction. Each side to remain accountable to the Assembly and Oireachtas respectively".
  The degree of accountability is clear, and the Bill reflects that accountability. I refer the House to clause 15 in part III, which deals with the executive authority of the First, Second and any other Ministers.
  The Bill states that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will present to the Assembly a programme of executive action and budgetary control. Clause 15(2) states:
  "A determination"
  in respect of policy, intended executive action and a proposed budget
  "under subsection (1) shall not have effect unless it is approved by a resolution of the Assembly passed with cross-community support."
  The thread of authority flows directly from the Assembly, through cross-community approval to Ministers and the participating persons in the north-south body, which, by its very nature, is constrained by that which has already been approved by the Assembly. Although I understand the fears expressed by the proposers of the amendment, I submit that they are fully covered by the Bill.
  Mr. Öpik: Liberal Democrats raised this issue at earlier stages of our consideration of the Bill. There is great concern in certain quarters that there is no specific reassurance in the Bill that executive functions discharged by Ministers under the strand 2 arrangements require cross-community approval, as outlined in the amendment.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made it clear that his interpretation of the Bill, especially clause 15 and related clauses, is that it contains sufficient conditions to ensure that no significant decisions can be made by Ministers before those decisions have received the approval of or ratification from the Assembly. I understand his cogent argument, but it would be
  602
  extremely helpful if, for the sake of the record, which will be used to interpret the Bill, he could give a reassurance that it is his clear expectation that Ministers could not embark on important executive decisions without the clear authorisation of the Assembly.
  This debate and its consequences could cause friction in the future, and we have to navigate it carefully. One of the advantages that we have is that we shall review procedures in the not too distant future, once the Assembly has had some time to function. I seek the Minister's reassurance that he will be willing to revisit the matter if it seems that there are continuing difficulties with strand 2, and that, if it becomes clear that there are deficiencies, he will return to the House with proposals to overcome them.
  Mr. Temple-Morris: This issue was discussed in Committee. I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), and I have a great deal of sympathy with the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). This provision needs to be drawn as tightly as possible, and there are gaps between the Bill and paragraphs 9 to 13 of strand 2 of the Belfast agreement, which is what concerns Opposition Members.
  I might be reinforcing that point by saying that, if I remember rightly, during our previous debate my hon. Friend the Minister undertook to examine the wording of clause 66. I am sure that clause 68, which is allied to it, will form part of that research. In other words, the Minister has already given an undertaking, which will no doubt be repeated now and which will form part of the busy summer that he is rapidly taking upon himself.
  My substantive point is that although we need to get things right, I see no cause for alarm. Paragraph 13 of strand 2 of the agreement states:
  "It is understood that the North/South Ministerial Council and the Northern Ireland Assembly are mutually inter-dependent".
  The idea that a functionary of the Assembly can participate in these bodies without the broad consent of the Assembly before, after or during is not at issue. I am sure that the Assembly will control that which it has to control, whatever the drafting of the particular clauses. If it does not, it will not work. It is as simple as that.
  However, I agree that there must be sufficient resemblance between the Bill and the Belfast agreement. The accountability is there, as is the legislative authority that has been transferred to the Assembly. Anything that any Northern Ireland Minister does in one of these bodies has to be approved in legislation by the Assembly. In common-sense terms, that is sufficient, but we should perhaps improve the clause to allay any fears that might exist in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Paul Murphy: We debated this matter at some length earlier in the week and on Second Reading. I take account of the points that were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and by other hon. Members. I shall deal with the two amendments and then make some general comments.
  Amendment No. 5 is unnecessary because it deals with orders that will be made during the transitional shadow period to give effect to arrangements that will have been agreed by the Northern Ireland Administration. The Secretary of State's power to make orders under the

  603
  clause are needed to enable the Government to meet their responsibility to set up the implementation bodies that are envisaged in strand 2. They will be identified and agreed between representatives of the Northern Ireland transitional administration and the Irish Government operating in the north-south ministerial council. Of course, they will be set up by order in the House.
  8 pm
  Amendment No. 4 goes beyond the Belfast agreement by insisting on prior approval of every ministerial function. Paragraph 6 of strand 2 clearly states:
  "Each side to be in a position to take decisions in the Council within the defined authority of those attending, through the arrangements in place for co-ordination of executive functions within each jurisdiction."
  The amendment goes against that. However, I sympathise with much of what hon. Members have said, because, although to my mind it is clear that the north-south ministerial council must be properly accountable to the Dail and to the Assembly, there is a case for looking more carefully at the wording of the relevant clauses to ensure that accountability is clear. I think that the meaning is implicit, but there is a need to look at the matter again.
  Some days ago I said, and I repeat, that no Minister on the north-south ministerial council who is worth his salt would return to the Assembly in the knowledge that he or she would not have its backing. For example, money would have to be provided for any scheme and legislation might be required, and those are matters for the Assembly. There is a case for revisiting the clauses and I shall be grateful if the amendment is withdrawn on the understanding that we shall look at the wording in another place.
  Mr. Donaldson: In the light of what the Minister has said, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I hope that the Minister will pay careful attention to what has been said. We stand ready to assist him with the wording in whatever way we can. I hope that he will take on board our arguments on this important aspect of the Bill. The Government must understand that if there is to be confidence among many people the Government must address this matter. I welcome the speech by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) in that regard.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 73

  PROVISIONS FOR PURPOSES CONSEQUENTIAL ON ACTS ETC.
  Amendment made: No. 50, in page 34, line 32, at end insert—
  '() Provision may be made for transferring to a United Kingdom authority, with effect from the appointed day, any functions which—

  (a) immediately before that day are exercisable by an existing Northern Ireland authority; and

  (b) appear to Her Majesty to be concerned with a matter which is an excepted matter by virtue of paragraph 9A of Schedule 2.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Clause 77

  ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
  Amendments made: No. 51, in page 36, line 33, leave out '45(3)' and insert
  '(Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination)(3)'.
  No. 52, in page 36, line 36, leave out '45(4) or'.
  No. 53, in page 36, line 39, at end insert—
  '() Regulations under section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination)(4) shall be subject to negative resolution (within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954).'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 2

  EXCEPTED MATTERS
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 40, line 8, leave out from 'whole,' to end of line 14 and insert
  'stamp duty levied in Northern Ireland before the appointed day and taxes substantially of the same character as that duty'.
  This is a simple, technical amendment, and I ask the House to accept it
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 55, in page 40, line 14, at end insert—
  '9A. National insurance contributions; the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and payments into it; reductions in and deductions from national insurance contributions; national insurance rebates; contributions equivalent premiums; rights to return to the state scheme.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 5
  PLEDGE OF OFFICE
  Amendment made: No. 56, in page 44, line 7, at end insert—

  'CODE OF CONDUCT
  Ministers must at all times:
  observe the highest standards of propriety and regularity involving impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relationship to the stewardship of public funds;
  be accountable to users of services, the community and, through the Assembly, for the activities within their responsibilities, their stewardship of public funds and the extent to which key performance targets and objectives have been met;
  ensure all reasonable requests for information from the Assembly, users of services and individual citizens are complied with; and that Departments and their staff conduct their dealings with the public in an open and responsible way;
  follow the seven principles of public life set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life;
  comply with this code and with rules relating to the use of public funds;
  operate in a way conducive to promoting good community relations and equality of treatment;
  not use information gained in the course of their service for personal gain; nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote their private interests;
  ensure they comply with any rules on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality that might be offered;

  605
  declare any personal or business interests which may conflict with their responsibilities. The Assembly will retain a Register of Interests. Individuals must ensure that any direct or indirect pecuniary interests which members of the public might reasonably think could influence their judgement are listed in the Register of Interests.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 6

  NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY COMMISSION
  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 44, leave out lines 15 to 31.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 58.
  Mr. Murphy: The amendments are technical and relate to the Northern Ireland Assembly Commission. We included in paragraph 2 of schedule 6 provisions that were borrowed from the Scotland Bill, which empowers UK Ministers to make certain transfers of property to the Scottish equivalent of the commission. However, in our case property is specifically dealt with in clause 74. In particular, the buildings that will be used initially by the Assembly already belong to the devolved system.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 58, in page 45, line 5, at end insert—
  '() holding property;'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 11

  DEVOLUTION ISSUES
  Amendments made: No. 59, in page 52, line 23, at end insert 'or'.
  No. 60, in page 52, line 25, leave out from 'be,' to end of line 28 and insert
  'invalid by reason of section 19'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 13

  MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
  Amendment made: No. 61, in page 60, line 30, at end insert—
  "Social Security Administration Act 1992 (c.5)
  . In section 189 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general)—

  (a) in subsection (9), for "175 and 178" substitute "and 175"; and

  (b) in subsection (11), for "any of sections 177 to 179" substitute "section 179".

  Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.8)
  . In section 165 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (regulations and orders: general)—

  (a) in subsection (10), for "152 and 154" substitute "and 152"; and

  (b) in subsection (11), for "any of sections 153 to 155" substitute "section 155".—[Mr.Ingram.]

  Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 60, leave out lines 33 to 36.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 63 to 65.
  Mr. Murphy: The amendments are technical and are consequent on the dissolution of the Northern Ireland
  606
  Disability Council. They make appropriate changes to the part of the schedule that relates to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which established that council. They also make good some omissions in the earlier draft of the Bill relating to the titles of the Northern Ireland Disability Council and the new Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. I have pleasure in asking the House to accept them.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendments made: No. 63, in page 60, line 37, after 'Schedule 8', insert—
  '(a)".
  No. 64, in page 60, line 38, leave out
  'the Northern Ireland Equality Commission'
  and insert
  'the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland'.
  No. 65, in page 60, line 38, at end insert—
  '(b) for paragraph 33(1) substitute—
  "33.—(1) In sections 50 to 52, for "the Council" substitute, in each place, the "Equality Commission for Northern Ireland".
  (1A) Section 50(1) and (8) shall have no effect."; and
  (c) for paragraph 52 substitute—
  "52. Schedule 5 shall have no effect.".'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 14

  TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
  Amendment made: No. 66, in page 62, line 18, at end insert—
  'Social security and child support
  . Any regulations made under any enactment repealed by virtue of section (Social security, child support and pensions: consultation and co-ordination) shall have effect, with any necessary modifications as if they had been made under subsection (3) or, as the case may require, subsection (4) of that section.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

Schedule 15

  REPEALS
  Amendments made: No. 67, in page 63, line 7, column 3, leave out 'and (2)'.
  No. 68, in page 63, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
  'Section 56(2) to (4).'.
  No. 69, in page 63, line 52, at end insert—

  'S.I. 1991/2628 (N. I.23).

  Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

  Article 49(2) and (3)

  1992 c.5.

  Social Security Administration Act 1992.

  Sections 177 and 178.Schedule 8.

  1992 c.8.

  Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.

  Sections 153 and 154.In section 167(1), the definition of "Joint Authority".'.

  —[Mr. Ingram.]

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

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE (SCOTLAND)
  That the Special Grant Report (Scotland): Grant in aid of expenditure on rural public passenger transport for 1998–99 (HC 941), which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

  HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS SHIPPING SERVICES
  That the draft Undertaking by the Secretary of State for Scotland with the consent of Her Majesty's Treasury and P & O Scottish Ferries Limited and the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company for the provision of passenger ferry services to Orkney and Shetland, which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Jewish High School (Leeds)
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful for the opportunity to present the petition of the Leeds Jewish High School Trust, its supporters and 3,000 citizens of Leeds. The petition declares:
  that the establishment of a Local Authority Jewish High School for the City of Leeds would benefit not only the substantial Jewish community but all the citizens of Leeds as well.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to approve the application for a Jewish High School in Leeds.
  To lie upon the Table.

  New Prison (Ashford)
  8.8 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: I have pleasure in presenting a petition from some 1,100 of my constituents who live near the site for the proposed new women's prison at Woodthorpe road Ashford in the county of Middlesex. They are united in their opposition to the Government's plan. They and many others whom I represent understand and support the need for additional prison accommodation, but they are adamant that it should not be sited in the middle of a large residential area and must not use up one of the rare areas of open space in Ashford.
  The petition states:
  That the proposals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to build a Women's Prison at Woodthorpe Road, Ashford, Middlesex will be detrimental to the interests of local residents and is contrary to their clearly expressed views as communicated to Her Majesty's Government by their Member of Parliament.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House shall urge the Home Secretary to consider the harm that will be done to residents of the Spelthorne Constituency and cancel his plans.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Ladydale, Leek
  8.9 pm
  Charlotte Atkins: I have pleasure in presenting this petition, which has been signed by more than 680 of my constituents, who wish to preserve the beautiful tranquillity of a delightful area on the edge of Leek. Known as Ladydale, that lovely wooded area surrounds an ancient well. Residents wish to protect the area from future housing and development plans for themselves and the future generations of Leek. The petition states:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House urge the Secretary of State for the Environment Transport and Regions to call in the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan Housing Policy No. FMOD-H1 and take whatever action is required to safeguard Ladydale II and Ashenhurst Way from any future development plans.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I am sure that the House—the bit that is left here—will be delighted to learn that this important debate has come on so early in the evening that hon. Members who wish to intervene in what is a matter of great public importance will have an opportunity to do so without seeking the permission of the Minister or you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—such is the time that we have to relax to discuss this important matter.
  Somehow or other, I have managed to secure the good will of the Speaker this evening, who has selected this debate. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker for allowing me the opportunity to raise a matter that causes considerable concern to a sizeable number of the electorate, both in my constituency and, I suspect, throughout the country.
  The problem is that any number of Departments are involved in genetic engineering. They include the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Department of Health and the Department of Trade and Industry. However, I am glad that the Government have wheeled in for this debate the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a respected sparring partner of mine over the past 25 years. It is very good that he is here to answer this debate.
  This is a crucial moment for agriculture. This year, the first wave of genetically modified crops in commercial operation will be loosed upon our environment. This is a make-or-break moment for the Government and for everyone who is concerned about the food that we eat.
  The Government have a problem; they have a number of problems, but they have a particular problem here. They have allowed 1,200 experimental crops to be planted, including 163 genetically modified crops, short-circuiting regulations prescribing a four-year trial period for all new crops. In effect, the Government have been telling applicants for seed trials that they have dispensed with the regulation that the seed producer must first do his own two-year trials to produce data.
  Under those regulations, only after the seed producer has done those trials can the Government decide whether further trials are necessary. Those trials, as I understand it, are administered by the Minister's Department. I do not know whether I have understood that correctly, but I think that is the situation for genetically modified crops or any other crops. There is a four-year trial: two years of trials are done by the producer seed company, and two years are done under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  The Court of Appeal judgment on 21 July in a case brought by my constituent Guy Watson, an organic farmer from Staverton, threw up the fact that all the 1,200 experimental crops, including 163 genetically modified crops, have been unlawfully planted. The Government have flouted the seed regulations; or, if not flouted, they have ignored them. There may be good reason for that, but they have done so.
  Not only that, but under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the person who receives consent to release a genetically modified crop into the environment should be
  610
  the same person who implements the release. That is the law, as I understand it. The Act gives consent to a particular person to release a genetically modified crop into the environment and that person should be the same person who implements the release; but I understand that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—is granting permission to seed companies for trials that are being carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany.
  It seems that that is also against the law, or certainly against good practice. Consents and permissions that are granted under the Act to one person should not be passed on to another.
  The Minister might comment on what has been going on, although it is not the responsibility of his Department. As I explained at the outset of my speech, the problem with genetically modified crops is that so many Government Departments are involved. Just when we think that we have got hold of the right Government Department, some other Minister pops up.
  The Environmental Protection Act is the relevant Act, so it is not the responsibility of the Minister who is here to answer this debate, but I am sure that he can find an answer to this problem. I do not want to organise another Adjournment debate to find out the answer.
  The Court of Appeal judgment means that the Minister cannot just ride roughshod over rules and regulations. I am not suggesting that he consciously did so. Clearly, he was not aware that this was going on, and I am sure that he is delighted that the matter has been brought to his attention. However, like anyone else, MAFF has to comply with the law.
  The first question is: what are the Minister and the Government going to do to legalise the 1,200 experimental crops that are blowing in the wind, or in a gale, having been illegally planted throughout the country? Driving down the motorway, people look out and think, "That field has been beautifully prepared." Little do they know that none of those plants should be there. They are all illegal. The police should be called in. Those plants should be cleared because they are not lawful.
  Clearly, all hon. Members in the Chamber want to hear before the House rises—this is why this debate is so relevant—what the Minister is going to do about this. Those crops are illegal and the Minister has got to make them lawful or pull them up; he has to do something. Perhaps he can tell us what he is going to do on that point. The House will be interested in what he feels is possible.
  As the regulations are drafted, the characteristics of these crops that are waving around in the wind—not just the genetically modified crops, but all the crops that are being experimented on—would normally be tested in the first two years by the company that creates the seed. Normally, in those first two years, the company would have looked at the yields, how well the crops grew, their resistance to disease and other things. Those things would be tested first by the seed companies and, after them, by the Government.
  As a result of short-circuiting the process, MAFF has absolutely no data because there are no company trials. In the past, the Department used the data to reject companies' applications on the grounds that the initial two years had shown that the crop was not worth testing any further, so unproductive or useless seeds could be weeded

  611
  out. Of every 100 varieties that the seed companies entered into the trials, only 80 per cent. ever made it into the national seed listings. The rules and regulations that were passed by the House were of real advantage as they represented a sluice gate. They gave companies the opportunity to see how a seed reacted and to examine the data on it before submitting it to the Government for a further two-year testing. Now, however, the lack of prior testing means that any seed manufacturer can insist that his crop is submitted to the national seed trials.
  Prior to the rules and regulations being passed over, seed manufacturers had to do the work themselves and produce the data before asking the Government to look at their crop; if the Government did not think much of it, they could throw it out. Since the rules and regulations have been bypassed, companies can and do demand that their crops go forward to the national seed trials. Genetically modified crops receive no special evaluation. Without the data obtained from initial trials, the Government have been unable to do any weeding out at all; they have to trial every variety of seed, genetically modified or not, because there are no rejection criteria or prior data.
  This year, for the first time in Britain, genetically modified seeds have been presented to the Department for trial. This is the first of two years of trials. After the experimental period ends next year—the second year of trial—genetically modified crops could be widespread. If they get on to the national seed register, such crops could be waving around in fields all over the country and the seeds could be available for purchase.
  We could end up with a country of genetically engineered crops. As we drive down the motorway, instead of seeing unlawful crops as we do now, we will see genetically modified crops instead. Therefore, it would be helpful if the Minister would explain who is supervising the genetically modified crop trials. Is it the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the British Society of Plant Breeders? It is a bit like an Agatha Christie novel. There are so many organisations—some of them quangos, some of them private, some of them independent and some of them governmental—and one has to work to find out who is supervising what, including genetically modified crop trials.
  The next equation relates to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which controls the release of any substance into the atmosphere. Genetically modified crops are evolutionary anomalies. They are not the products of natural or artificial selection, but are genetic hybrids. They are manufactured organisms jumbled together out of fish, animals, bacteria and other plant species. For that reason, if a seed company wishes to plant a genetically modified crop, it has to have the permission of ACRE—the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. ACRE is administered by the biotechnology unit in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, so here we jump into another Department's responsibility.
  As far as one can tell, no applications to ACRE for permission to release a genetically modified substance into the environment has ever been refused. So I am not sure what ACRE does—because it just rubber-stamps everything. Bearing in mind the fact that there are now 163 trials of genetically modified crops, including about 20 varieties of each of those crops with an average of
  612
  eight trials of each variety, does the Minister feel that perhaps the rubber-stamping process should be halted so that we can look into the effect of genetically modified crops being released into the environment? Perhaps the trial period should not be left at two years.
  The matter appears especially important now that the experimental period has been truncated to two years. If the Minister intends to make lawful all the crops that are waving around all over the country, how does he propose to do it? Will he say that the two years of MAFF experiments must be followed by another two years of trials by the seed manufacturers? Will he go for four years, or will he be content with two years and pass rules and regulations to that effect? There may be a strong case for two years for all experimental crops other than genetically modified crops. If he intends to change the regulations—and he has to do something—will he distinguish between ordinary seed and genetically modified seed?
  As things stand, seeds—whether they are genetically modified or ordinary seeds—will be on the national seed list next year. If the Minister takes no action, genetically modified crops could be readily available. Crops on the national seed list have been approved by the Government, so anyone can go out and buy them. Genetically modified crops would then be widespread throughout the country, altering the genetic make-up of traditional and organic crops. The situation is akin to that of the grey squirrels and the red squirrels, and we all know what happened to the latter.
  I now turn to the issue in my constituency of Totnes. The Court of Appeal judgment concerns a crop planted a stone's throw from the Watsons at Riverford farm—one of the largest organic farms in the United Kingdom with 800 acres devoted to organic food. It has a splendid farm shop which sells the most delicious produce, attracting people from miles around, including me. It sells not only fruit and vegetables, but wonderful meat and sausages, ham and bacon. I think that the sausages won the Guardian award for the best sausage in Britain last year or the year before. The shop is certainly worth a visit.
  How could ACRE officials have selected a trial site for genetically modified maize a few hundred yards from an organic farm? Clearly, those ACRE officials need their heads examined. Furthermore, they have trespassed on the good will of a well respected local farmer, Jack Connabeer, who perfectly legitimately has been letting out his land for seed trials. I am sure that he would be horrified if he learned that ACRE was using some of his land so close to his good neighbour and the organic farm to plant experimental, genetically modified maize.
  The problem is that Mr. Connabeer is unlikely to have known about it because, before planting the crop, ACRE did not follow the normal procedures for notification—another twist in the story. It behaved as if it was organising a cover-up. ACRE announced the trial through a very small advertisement in the local paper, whereas the full procedure that should have been followed would have been to notify all local farmers of the plans and to ask for objections—but it did not do that. ACRE decided that there was very little risk involved in the planting of maize, and the proper procedures were not followed.
  Would the Minister be good enough to undertake that such short-circuitry does not happen again? The problem that involved the Court of Appeal and led to tonight's

  613
  debate was caused by the fact that the ACRE officials were so shortsighted and narrow minded that they allowed genetically modified crops to be planted on that site. Had they not done so, I doubt whether the debate would be taking place, and the country would be the poorer for that. In fact, we should thank officials for planting genetically modified crops so close to an organic farm because that has brought the matter to public attention.
  There is enough time for the Minister to deal very fully with whether he will ensure that, in future, ACRE advertises in newspapers and notifies local farmers of its plans so that objections can be discussed. If there had been proper advertisement, the farmers in the area would have said, "Look here; this is not the thing to do. Go and take your genetically modified maize somewhere else." As the procedures were not followed, an unfortunate situation has arisen.
  Not only is the Minister disregarding his own rules and regulations, but the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which is part not of his Ministry but of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, is short-circuiting accepted requirements. It probably would have got away with it but for the fact that it stupidly chose the wrong spot; and local environmentalists, of whom, I am glad to say, my constituency is full, alerted the Watsons on their organic farm.
  Having taken the story thus far, I should like to bring in the Soil Association. It has said that, at 200 m away, had the whole of the trial site been genetically modified, it would have expected one in 1,000 kernels in Mr. Watson's crops to be contaminated with genetically modified crops. On this occasion, only a small proportion of the trial site was genetically modified, so the contamination may be diluted to about one kernel in 40,000. In a year or two, organic farmers face the prospect that all the crops next door to them will be genetically modified—with a commensurate increase in contamination. This year, because the Watsons were alerted and have a very large farm, they planted their maize crop as far away as possible from the experimental maize. Their crop is about 1.5 km to 2 km away from the GM maize even though the two farms' fields are only about 100 m apart at the nearest point.
  The Government must outlaw any planting of genetically modified crops near organic farms. That must be in the Minister's mind, given this afternoon's announcement of a considerable increase in grants for organic farming and the fact that the Government must be aware that it is no good helping organic farmers whose crops are surrounded by genetically modified crops. I am sure that the Minister will explain that there must be some no-go areas where GM crops are prohibited due to the dangers of cross-pollination.
  We must be aware that pollination is not the only way of achieving what is known as horizontal gene transfer, on which the Minister is probably an expert. The biotechnology industry uses bacteria and viruses—what it calls vectors—as a means of introducing DNA from one sort of a plant or animal to another. Vectors are the transport system, but they are rather hit and miss because they remain present in the crop. There has been very little research on the matter, but what there has been shows that such bacteria enter the soil.
  614
  We know that, in some cases, the industry even uses antibiotic-resistant varieties, such as the one grown in Devon last year. The concern is that it takes only an earthworm to ingest the bacteria and a song thrush to pick up the worm and move it two miles away for dangerous organisms to be moved around the country very quickly. When DNA modifications contain herbicide-resistant, antibiotic-resistant or sterility genes, there could be a knock-on effect on the environment about which we do not know. Those concerned with the environment obviously feel very strongly about that.
  I see the GM issue as of a different scale from previous problems. We are talking about living organisms. Even DDT will fade away eventually, as do other chemicals sprayed on plants. But GM organisms work in the opposite direction; they are likely to increase and multiply. English Nature, the Government watchdog, is calling for a five-year moratorium, because an evaluation of the possible effects on the environment has yet to be completed.
  What are the risks? Many genetically modified crops have an antibiotic-resistant gene built into them. That is the worry, because, as we all know, susceptibility to antibiotics is already weakening in the population as a result of people eating livestock that have been fed with too many antibiotics. Now, there is the possibility that antibiotic resistance will be added to by plant-based foods. That must be of long-term concern to the House and the country.
  We very rarely operate the precautionary principle in this country. We often say that we do not have evidence for holding back, but problems often emerge only after some time, following widespread use of a technology or an agricultural practice. We are witnessing a fundamental shift in agricultural practice. One could say that the use of pesticides after the second world war constituted a second agricultural revolution. We are seeing the dawn of a third agricultural revolution, which is on a completely different scale.
  Genetic engineering is altering the building blocks of life. That does not mean that we should necessarily fear it. It could produce high yields. Frost-resistant strawberries could be grown throughout the year in Britain, wheat that is resistant to draughts could be grown in the Sahara or anywhere affected by global warming, starvation could be prevented all over the globe. Genetic engineering could represent a wonder drug. One could argue that breeding plants that are resistant to pests will mean that no pesticides will be necessary in future, but by breeding plants with in-built pesticides, we may cause a build-up and over-use of natural pesticides, which may have a knock-on effect on wildlife and the environment generally.
  We are on the threshold of a major development in the agricultural world. The biotechnology industry might be able to produce crops to feed the planet and be of major benefit to farmers, but do we really need them? I ask that question because I gather that 10 per cent. of available farm land in Europe is already set-aside land. We as taxpayers are paying farmers not to grow food; we are paying them to do nothing. As the boundaries of Europe stretch, even more land will be made available.
  It seems curious that we are experimenting with super-crops when we already have too much food. Perhaps the future of genetic engineering will benefit

  615
  other countries in the world that are not as fortunate as ours. We should not be for ever increasing subsidies to enable farmers to grow more and more food which we cannot eat.
  The Court of Appeal judgment effectively warned the nation and the Minister to be cautious and to test such potentially damaging crops for longer. They may be damaging, or they may herald a new revolution—but we do not know which. What can be good can equally be bad. We must all show a little caution when re-working the very building blocks of nature.
  8.38 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, and on the fact that it is taking place on a day on which we have more time than we would normally have expected. I want to make a few limited points, partly in relation to my early-day motion 1583, of which I am sure the Minister is aware.
  There are important issues at stake here which require ministerial clarification, and would benefit from a more substantial parliamentary debate. The Court of Appeal ruling has rendered the status of the 1,200 field trials of genetically modified crops somewhat ambiguous. The trials are illegal, but there was no ruling obliging people to dig the crops up. Moreover, there was no clarification of the legal responsibility for the knock-on consequences on other crops grown on adjacent land, in terms of mutations and cross-pollination.
  What worries me most is the fact that our current approach to genetically modified crops does not acknowledge the widest context in which we as a society should be assessing them. The nature of the trials has not properly assessed the wider consequences in terms of environmental impact and effects on human health.
  We are talking about a paradigm shift in the nature of our agricultural practices. Throughout history, farmers have propagated crops and saved seed. Usually they have shared seeds, and in doing so they have generally added to the strength of the biodiversity to which we have access. The consequences of their actions have been understood and usually spread over long periods.
  We are now entering a time in which it is possible to engineer change on a much more substantial scale and in a much shorter time frame. If we choose to do so, we must ensure that we are fully aware of the wider consequences. In both agriculture and medicine, one of the great strengths of the way in which we have approached change is that we have been ruled by the precautionary principle—that is, until we know the fullest and widest consequences, it is best not to allow out of the bottle something that we may have serious difficulty in putting back inside it.
  However, that principle does not seem to be applied to our approach to field trials of genetically modified crops. The hon. Member for Totnes is right to warn the House that as yet we do not know enough about the consequences of the transgenic mutations or the impact that strains of genetically modified crops which are resistant to herbicides, antibiotics and pesticides, and have strains of bacteria and viruses built in, will have on other crops in nearby parts of the farmed countryside.
  616
  We should recognise that there is an element of folly, which the House and the Government ought to resist with all their might, in the belief that we have miracle crops that will provide the answers to all our immediate fears—crops that are resistant to drought, blight and cold.
  It is possible for genetic engineering to produce such seeds and crops, but it is naive and irresponsible for us to believe that such change does not carry its own consequences. For instance, we already know that drought-resistant wheat tends to be more water-thirsty than ordinary wheat. That has its own results in the demands that it makes on the land, and in terms of sustainable agriculture.
  We also know that nature abhors a vacuum. By and large, we have had a period of seven, 10, or even 15 years in which a new seed variety may be blight-free, but we know from the whole history of agricultural change that at the end of that period the new plant varieties will produce their own toxins, and new blight varieties will follow on to attack them. That is in the nature of the way in which the planet works.
  We have benefited from the fact that we have had a period of grace in which to adjust to such developments, and one of my fears is that we are now in serious danger of running so far ahead of ourselves in the mistaken belief in our own omnipotence, that we will not be prepared for the consequences of the new blights and toxins—or nature's next response—on the scale on which we have sought to pursue change.
  As the hon. Member for Totnes pointed out, we are not sufficiently aware of the consequences of the way in which the genetically modified crops are likely to affect other traditional crops. I have to confess to a serious worry about the specific dimension of the problem to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention—the proximity of genetically modified crops to organic crops.
  That effect may be further complicated by changes already being pushed through in America, where people are trying to redefine the term "organic" to include genetically modified crops. That is the sort of contradiction in terms that makes a mockery of language. We are almost at the Alice in Wonderland stage, in which we say that words mean what we choose them to mean.
  It cannot be acceptable for the growing movement of consumers who are rightly concerned about food health, food standards and environmental impacts, and who are beginning to exert pressure so as to be able to exercise an informed choice in the shops, to be denied the right to exercise that choice because we have colluded in a process that makes a mockery of the very word "organic".
  It is incumbent on the Minister to try to bring a sense of clarity and sanity to the debate. I am encouraged in that hope because we are fortunate in having a Minister whose personal qualities of clarity, sanity and honesty make a great contribution to the post that he holds. I hope that he has wider support in the Cabinet, to make a significant impact on the process of bringing that sanity into the public debate.
  We must ask the Minister to do two important things. First, he should make a statement to clarify the status of the illegal field trials. If the crops have to be removed so that we can have as a starting point a position of legality, and proceed through stages of legality, in which public protection is the paramount concern, so be it.

  617
  Secondly, there is a compelling argument growing outside the House that calls for a moratorium on field trials until there has been the widest possible debate on how we can begin to evaluate the impact that genetically modified crops could have. That is not necessarily to resist change or to oppose a broadening of the base of biodiversity, but to insist that we do not undertake such developments in a naive way, ignoring the knock-on consequences that must surely follow. We must accept responsibility for the effects not only on adjacent fields but across the whole of our society, possibly for generations to come. That is the lead that I hope the Minister will give tonight.
  8.49 pm
  Dr. Ian Gibson: I am pleased to participate in this debate, as I have been trying for some months to have the matter discussed in the House. I was privileged to be a member of a parliamentary delegation that met parliamentary delegations from Germany and the United States—genetically modified crops were one of the three subjects that we had to penetrate. Tonight, we have a great opportunity to raise the matter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate.
  Genetically modified foods have been entering British supermarkets over the past year, and the outcome has been mixed. The public have accepted some without hesitation—vegetarian cheeses and the paste made from genetically modified tomatoes, for example—but others, such as the flour made from genetically modified soya beans, have caused controversy. We must ask why that is. After all, products such as insulin, interferon and growth hormones—which are all made in bacteria or in genetically modified animal cells and from which many people have medically benefited—have been accepted by the consumer without question. If it is okay to use GM products for medicine, why are there questions about producing food using that technology?
  We have, of course, been modifying crop plants for centuries by traditional processes of plant breeding. As the hon. Member for Totnes said, what is new is the development of a technology whereby a gene can be moved from one species to another. Soya was genetically modified by the introduction of a gene from a soil bacterium to make the plant resistant to a particular herbicide, so that the herbicide, which has been in use for some years, can be sprayed on the crop after the plant is above ground, when a single application is sufficient. That replaces the previous practice of spraying not only before emergence, but afterwards with a second, more selective herbicide. The company, Monsanto, claims that a smaller amount of a safer herbicide is used and that the yield is higher—no one has refuted it.
  Herbicide-resistant soya has real advantages for a farmer; the new crop accounted for 2 per cent. of the yield in 1996, 15 per cent. in 1997 and, it is predicted, about 40 per cent. in 1998. I believe that the new crop is here to stay; modified soya is now entering the United Kingdom. A number of other crops are in field trials in the United States—as was made clear in our discussions with Congressmen and scientists—including disease-resistant rice, which, it is argued, will be important for the developing world.
  618
  The question that we, and the consumer, must ask is whether the new soya crop is safe. Before a crop can be used in Britain, it needs Government approval. Ministers take the advice of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. That expert committee, which includes a consumer representative and an ethical adviser—we could argue that that is insufficient for the process of assessment—advised the Minister that the new product was as safe as conventional soya, although we could argue about that for some time.
  The public have been equally or even more concerned about the effect of GM crops on the environment. They ask whether the crops will lead to an increase in the use of herbicides, whether the modified genes will escape into the environment to fill our fields with resistant rape or whether the genes will spread to other species. Those matters are regulated by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which includes a wide variety of skills and views, including green ones. It works on a case-by-case basis, but is now looking at the net effect of several releases—it is evolving an attitude to the new technology.
  Even if the new crop is as safe as unmodified soya and we can control any adverse effects on the environment, people still ask whether they really want to eat it. There are several reasons why there has been so much consumer concern about the absence of choice. Scientists bear some responsibility for it; certainly, the expert approval processes are no longer trusted as they once were. Washing powder is recommended no longer by the man in the white coat, but by a consumer.
  The public are largely unaware of the development of the careful scientific methods of assessing risk, such as the use of hazard analysis, which can come much closer to an objective evaluation of risk. Risk is an extremely difficult concept for people to understand, as we saw in the case of beef on the bone. It is hard to know how great a risk has to be before one is concerned about it politically. Risks such as a billion to one and a million to one are often equated with the chance of winning the lottery, and everyone thinks that they will win the lottery. Scientists do not agree with the public's concept of risk analysis. BSE has affected the way in which we think of risk.
  Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman mentions risk. My particular concern—on which I hope he can throw some light—is antibiotics. Doctors offer people antibiotics, tranquillisers and sleeping pills; millions of antibiotics are used every day. Like some meat, some GM crops have built-in antibiotics. What are the dangers to society's health of developing GM crops that could create resistance to antibiotics? Will the antibiotics that we are given by doctors be less effective?
  Dr. Gibson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, about which I have strong views. I do not believe that the antibiotic gene will necessarily be chosen, because, as he says, that process can pose risks. Other genes can be used as a marker for the particular gene that one wants to be expressed in the plant or organism. I accept his criticism—we have learnt that the antibiotic gene is not the answer and that it should not have been used.
  As I was saying, scientists and the public have different assessments of risk. To some extent, the public do not understand scientists; they feel that scientists are

  619
  somewhat arrogant. Scientists have a responsibility to explain what they are doing, as the Minister and I agreed during another interchange in the House.
  As we have heard in this debate, there is hostility to high-intensity agriculture. A major public concern is that the international agri-food business has been consolidated into about six companies. Decisions about the future of our food are being taken in the United States or in Switzerland. Consumers feel that they have lost control, which they blame on technology. GM food seems to have become a lightning rod for many modern concerns, but my point is—I think that it is accepted—that the problem is not the science, but the way in which it has been organised, and its relationship with society.
  We must explain precisely what is going on. There must be no secrecy in terms of the scientists. It is to be hoped that we will shortly have a major conference in this country to discuss the issue in a broad-based way, and many people can come and express their views. There have been such conferences, but they have tended to be polarised and have not moved the process forward. We must open the regulatory process, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister will agree. Nothing must be hidden—there is no reason to hide anything.
  The other issue is the question of choice between the traditional product and the new product. That choice has to be put before people, as has happened in supermarkets in this country. People have, to some extent, voted for something that they have seen labelled. Choice is so important, and I think that we can offer genetically manipulated products and the other, more traditional product. People will then taste and feel it, and determine by price and other factors which they think is better. I have also mentioned the safety factors and the process that we go through to make sure that the choice is safe and honest.
  Labelling is so important. People must know what a label means and that it speaks the truth. We must monitor the matter to make sure that there are no unexpected problems. I do not want to be a scientific pointy head, but it is possible to engineer a plant where the process of pollination is engineered out. I am not saying that science is wonderful and can cure everything, but if there are problems—as the hon. Member for Totnes has illustrated—scientists have to take them on seriously and find a way to allay the fears of hon. Members and consumers. We have a long way to go before we are absolutely sure.
  In the Swiss referendum, it was interesting that when the scientists took off their white coats, came out of the laboratories and explained what was going on, they won the ballot. In the next few months, this major issue will be fully and effectively addressed, and I think that this Government will be at the front of the debate.
  9 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate, and I apologise for not having a word with him beforehand. This is an important issue, and some of us have been trying to get a debate on it for weeks. It is very helpful to have such a debate tonight. As I had originally intended to keep my remarks to an intervention or two, I shall be brief.
  I am sorry that I missed the very start of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I thought that the points he made were invaluable in laying out the case. My hon. Friends
  620
  the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) also made good contributions.
  Quite simply, I receive more letters in my postbag on this topic than on any other bar hunting. My constituency may be unusual, but that fact shows that people out there in the real world are concerned and are voicing their opinions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, people want a choice, and they feel annoyed and threatened when that choice is taken away. We start from a position of widespread ignorance and considerable concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South said, that has not been helped by the decision of Monsanto—in collusion, it appears, with the US Department of Agriculture—to redefine organic crops to include GM crops. That seems to be short-sighted and unfair.
  Part of the worry is about the lack of choice, and that comes through in two ways. First, those of us who do not have a scientific background find it difficult to explain why segregation could not have taken place at the outset, and why difficulties now seem to arise all the time. More particularly, people are concerned that there cannot be labelling. People want to know what they are eating—a basic requirement of food safety.
  Iceland has taken the decision not to sell GM food in its supermarkets. It is to be congratulated, but I understand that it may be able to do that only until 2000, after which time all of the soya crop is likely to be modified. In simple terms that is scandalous.
  The precautionary principle should be applied. If there are difficulties with the experimentation, the polluter should pay. There are many examples of GM companies breaching their consents. That was stated in an article in the New Scientist, and I managed to pick it up through the Co-operative Wholesale Society's magazine Co-op Horizons. Offenders include Monsanto, Nickerson Biochem, AgrEvo, Plant Genetic Systems, the Scottish Crop Research Institute and the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. They have all either provided too small a buffer zone, planted in the wrong place or surrounded their plot with unsuitable crops that could be modified by the influence of the GM crop.
  I share hon. Members' confidence in the Government's, and especially the Minister's, ability to deal with the issue. We are up against the forces of global capitalism and big business. Most people are alarmed by our inability to enforce controls not only on this island but at European Union level. Whenever it is mentioned that there may be a need to rein in the companies, there is a threat of our being in breach of World Trade Organisation rules or other rules that may be invoked to threaten Governments.
  Mr. Steen: To have two interventions in an Adjournment debate that one started is a great luxury. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Austrian Government, who are soon to take up the EU presidency, intend to put genetically engineered crops high on their list of matters for discussion? The Minister has a wonderful opportunity to take a lead before Austria takes up the presidency and to explain what Britain is doing on a matter that concerns many people.
  Mr. Drew: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. I had heard that, but it would be good to see exactly what it means and how the British Government will respond.

  621
  When the companies concerned are criticised, their response seems sometimes to be to deny the right of others to put their arguments. I am aware of the scientific approach taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North, but I am seriously worried by the companies' willingness and apparent ability to spend millions of pounds on a public relations campaign that even parties in general elections can only dream about. They have serious resources, and that should be understood.
  We are dealing with a force that needs to be exposed. I am not totally against genetically modifying crops, because there may be arguments for it in the third world or in our future, but the precautionary principle should be applied and people should be given a choice and know that the matter has been properly discussed and scrutinised—then we will see the true value of the process—because otherwise people will regard it as an enormous threat to their very existence.
  9.8 pm
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), not on his luck in the draw, because we all know how Thursday Adjournment debates are chosen—that shows the importance that Madam Speaker attaches to the issue—but on his selection of subject.
  I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for their speeches. My great wish would have been to have a couple of hours' warning that we would have the joy of an extended Adjournment debate. I could then have been in a better position to respond to the important points made on both sides. That was not to be, and I shall respond to the subject of the debate as reflected in the title, which refers to the recent Court of Appeal decision, on which I can speak in detail. I cannot respond in such detail to the other points made, but they deserve comment from the Government.
  If ever there were a case for a nanny state to monitor change that can affect all of society, genetic modification of the food chain is it. We must assess whether we have the right controls and the right regulatory framework. I have to say to my hon. Friends, without criticising them in any way, that some people will use the term "precautionary principle" when it suits them, but will on other occasions yell that the nanny state should get out of the way to let them do their own thing. Theirs is a simplistic view, and we must be more adult than that in our politics.
  The hon. Member for Totnes was absolutely right to say that many organisations and more than one Department are involved with genetically modified food. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is a key player. The Departments of Health and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are also involved. The Department of Trade and Industry sponsors the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, which has an important role. Other Government offices use science to formulate policy, which ensures that decisions have a good audit trail.
  During my time at MAFF, we have been required to comment on or make decisions about aspects of genetic modification. If cases are taken in isolation, one can feel
  622
  robust about the line one takes, but the difficulty lies in seeing where the bits fit into the big picture. The dozen or so advisory committees that service MAFF and the Departments of Health and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were set up for a specific purpose, but are required to deal with genetic modification. They will deal with it within the rules, whether considering pesticides or other matters. Pesticides for genetically modified crops are obviously a matter for consideration, and it is necessary to see the big picture.
  I can honestly say that all the Ministers and officials in MAFF who deal with the genetic modification issue, from the beginning of the growing of crops to the end of the food chain, have discussed how to make better decisions on genetic modification.
  The issue has been raised with me on my visits to farms and, more particularly, research institutions in the public and private sectors. Indeed, I have asked about the regulatory process and how the Government can check what is in food, including, for example, whether there is a genetically modified ingredient in a made-up supermarket food. I have asked how we can check that soya may be only 5 per cent. of the product and whether what is on the label is true.
  Science is moving fast in laboratories that can police any regulatory system that is put firmly in place. On the other hand, as laboratories will freely admit, and rightly so because this is leading-edge science, there is a whole host of other crops coming along that can be genetically modified in perhaps two or three years, but which would take up to 50 years to produce through ordinary breeding techniques.
  I accept the argument that genetic modification is not simply speeding up a natural process. It cannot be when genes are mixed from different species. Clearly, there is a difference. Nevertheless, the process is accepted in medicine. As hon. Members have said, some of the new wonder drugs have been accepted, and I think rightly so. There is some comfort in the regulatory process for medicine which, I admit, is not in place for food and agriculture.
  Hon. Members spoke of the need for science to be open. That is crucial and fundamental. There cannot be any secrecy. It is in scientists' own interests to go on a mission to explain. That is important. It cannot necessarily be done by the Government or individual companies. It requires a team effort, operating on many fronts. There must be an ethos of openness and transparency. The excuse of competitive edge must not be used. Sometimes, commercial confidentiality can be used as a smokescreen for competitive edge to keep things quiet, but, in this area, we must be careful before we go down that road.
  I opened the vegetarian food fair in the midlands last autumn. The stallholders were, by and large, small firms—some were family businesses and some had turnovers of a few tens of millions of pounds. The issue of source of supply of ingredients was raised with me. Some firms had sources of GM-free soya and maize for their products. I said that it was early days for me at the Ministry, but that I kept being told by the big players that they could not get separation. Obviously, I was concerned that if small firms could do that, big firms should be able to. As a result, early in January we held a meeting in MAFF with a couple of dozen people from the big players in the retail food industry and the small firms dealing with

  623
  health food shops and the vegetarian food sector. It was as useful for me and my officials to listen to the discussion between the players as it was for them to participate.
  As a result of that meeting, my officials and scientists went away to think about what the Government could do either unilaterally or with our partners in Europe to make acceptable progress on the issue. A couple of months ago, MAFF published a list of 47 suppliers of GM-free soya and maize. We put it on the Internet so that people in the food business in this country and in Europe could find out where in America and Canada there was a niche supplier. It was not always easy. In fact, the last time that I checked, there was a list of 58 suppliers. People were queueing up to get on the MAFF GM-free list because they could see niche markets opening up.
  I remain convinced that market pressures could be used to force the large American suppliers to segregate. The Americans understand market forces, if they understand nothing else. Also, they are beginning slowly to understand that the consumer ethos in Europe is different from that in the United States. People in Europe want to know more about their food and want effective labelling, showing the ingredients and the methods of production.
  There is not that clamour for information in the United States—if the Food and Drug Administration says that it is okay, it is. Europe is slightly different, and European consumers are putting pressures on individual Governments, which are causing different aspects to come into play. I cannot comment on what has been said about the view of the Austrians. They took the presidency on 1 July and have had it for only one month. I do not know whether the issue is on their agenda.
  Before I deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Totnes, I hope that I have shown hon. Members—in this respect, I would call them all hon. Friends—that we are seized of the importance of the issue, and that we will not rush to a judgment on it. No individual Government Department can run with the issue, as it crosses all Government boundaries. In our internal discussions, we are trying to find a framework within government in which to discuss the issue more widely.
  The ethical dimension is crucial and, as has been said, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has always had an ethics adviser—a new person has recently been appointed following a retirement. As we make progress on our proposals for the Food Standards Agency, we will consider the overall make-up of the advisory committee network. We will start a new committee on animal feedstuffs later this year—five years since it was recommended and accepted as necessary, but not established, by the previous Government. I am not criticising, but merely setting the record straight and pointing out that the idea has been around for a long time.
  Aspects of animal feedstuffs slip between existing advisory committees, and we need to plug that gap. One such issue could be the use of genetically modified crops as animal feedstock.
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health and I have operated jointly on issues such as labelling since we set up the joint food standards and safety group last June between MAFF and the Department of Health, with 300-plus civil servants, many of whom are graduates and science-based, dealing with food regulation—contaminants, surveillance, labelling and so on. One of
  624
  our first decisions was to change the instructions of the British negotiators in Brussels regarding the labelling of foods containing GM ingredients. It has taken a while to get a decision in Europe, and it is not acceptable to everyone, but, from this September, new rules will apply to labelling, particularly that of soya and maize. We have avoided having a label that says, "This product may contain genetically modified ingredients". That is the cop-out for everyone, and we could envisage it being abused throughout the food industry. If there is no genetically modified ingredient in the final product, but genetic modification was used in the manufacturing process or refining, the label cannot state that the product contains genetically modified ingredients. We have to take a view on that to get honesty and transparency in the labelling. The process of manufacture is a separate issue. In time, we will have to address manufacturing techniques and how foods are produced, so that people have more information. That means making the science open and creating the opportunity for people to have a choice.
  No one will ever claim that items are perfectly safe. I do not want to get into an esoteric argument about what "safe" means, but it was put to me earlier today—I hope that I have remembered it because I did not write it down—in a British Standards Institute document that safe means something that is not an unacceptable risk. It is safe to cross a road; there is a risk, but it is not unacceptable. We have to be on guard all the while in considering the use of science.
  My introductory remarks were born out of my experience of discussions in the past few 15 months as a Minister and are not part of a set brief, although I speak for the Government. They give some idea of how the Government are considering how we can examine the wider issue and not be trapped into looking at each issue in isolation and then wondering what went wrong when we see the big picture. We need to see the big picture as the bits of the jigsaw are put in place, whether it is health, food, pesticides, animal feed or techniques. It is a much bigger operation than a simple new technique or product.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes, who made a coherent, detailed speech on an important issue born out of something that affected one of his constituents and led to a major court case and a decision in which, in one respect, my Ministry was found wanting. I was wondering how he could have cut his speech if we had started at 10 pm and had only 30 minutes. I worked out that I would have had three minutes to reply to him.
  The central issues that the hon. Member raised touch on some of those to which I have referred. The recent Court of Appeal judgment addressed the three issues that he mentioned. The questions are whether the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions adequately took account of the risk of cross-pollination of Mr. Watson's organic sweet corn; whether a consent issued by the DETR to Sharpes under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 could lawfully cover a national list trial conducted for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany; and whether the national list trial was invalid because MAFF had not complied with regulation 11(3) of the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 as amended—the national list regulations—by requiring the applicant to provide the results of two replicated trials with the application. The court was asked to order the destruction of the trial crops.

  625
  I was concerned when the hon. Member started his speech, because he mentioned many figures on GM trial crops that did not ring a bell with me. Trial crops and experimental crops are separate. Tonight, I am dealing only with trial crops. I do not say that experimental crops are all over the place, but there are a considerable number. Some may be only the size of the Dispatch Box to start with. In considering the appeal, the court drew a distinction between the health and safety implications of releasing genetically modified organisms, which are dealt with by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and the national list trials, which are about seed marketing. The court noted that that particular case involved both regimes, while, ordinarily, the national list trials do not.
  Research field trials of genetically modified crops, such as the one in Devon, must have prior approval from the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, under section 6 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the associated regulations. Before approval is granted, the company proposing the research has to provide full information about the genetically modified organism and carry out an assessment of the possible risks to human health and the environment and how those risks will be avoided. The application is scrutinised by the independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, to which reference has been made, which advises on whether consent should be granted or whether additional precautions should be taken to minimise the risk.
  Two issues were raised in the Court of Appeal on the GMO legislation. The first concerned the holder of the consent, who has responsibility for the safety of the GMO throughout the period of the consent. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a series of people might be involved in the research work authorised by the consent—for example, staff at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany carrying out a national list trial—but that, at all times, the consent holder was responsible for ensuring the safety of the GMO. The second point concerned the way in which the risk of cross-pollination with other maize crops was assessed, and, again, the Court of Appeal judged that the procedure was followed satisfactorily.
  In the case of the national list trials of maize in Devon, there are six plots of genetically modified maize, among the total of 1,163, more than 2 km from Mr. Watson's sweetcorn. That is the issue which the hon. Gentleman raised at MAFF Question Time a month ago. I was not certain which farm it was, but I had already read one of the briefs. The matter is important to us because the issue went to court. I do not know how the 2 km gap came about. It was assessed on 200 m and deemed to be okay by ACRE. In the event, the gap is 2 km. Perhaps the 2 km gap came about because, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, someone found out about it and moved the crop. I should be interested to know whether that was the case. I should welcome more information on that. Although there is a theoretical possibility that some pollen might travel that far and cross-pollinate with the sweetcorn, I am informed that, in practice, the risk is likely to be zero. That is the view of the risk at that distance.
  There are no specific requirements under the current legislation controlling the release of GMOs to consider organic farming when field-testing GM crops. That may
  626
  come as a surprise to the House, but that is a fact. However, where needed, release consents have specific measures attached that are designed to limit cross-pollination of neighbouring crops, whether or not they are organic. As the hon. Gentleman kindly reminded the House, the Government are very much in favour of organic farming. I can honestly say that it was a top priority of my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who, until Monday, was the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Moving our budget around for both research and conversion has not been easy. Over the past 12 months, we have made a modest contribution, but it is in the right direction. We favour organic production and want to do what we can to assist conversion.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that my Ministry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will be working with the farming community and representatives of organic farming to ensure that the expansion of organic farming is not compromised by the introduction of genetically modified crops. I might have rambled in my introduction and deviated from my brief, but I want to make it clear that that is the most important sentence that I shall say this evening. I genuinely mean that—those are not words to be put in Hansard and forgotten about; I shall follow through.
  I do not want to end on a completely different argument, but it could be said, in connection with the rules on organic production, that Mr. Watson's argument is essentially with the Soil Association rather than with the Government. Because it gives them a niche and a competitive edge, private sector bodies can always demand tighter rules than those laid down in either UK or European law. It comes down to a question of commercial judgment or, in some cases, to an ideological stance, whereby people say that, whatever the science, they are against genetically modified crops and food. Let me make it clear that that is not the Government's position. It is a legitimate position for people to adopt, but it makes it far more difficult for people such as myself to discuss how to take matters forward. It is a respectable position and I do not criticise it, but consequences flow from it.
  There are no fully worked-up EC standards for organic crops, as the hon. Gentleman will know from the research he did before coming to see me recently with a delegation. I hope that he and his colleagues found the meeting helpful; I certainly did, and so did my officials. Pending the introduction of EC standards for organic production, the regulatory authority—the UK Register for Organic Foods Standards—has explicitly prohibited the use of GMOs and their derivatives in organic production. Until recently, the ban did not extend to GMO products containing no genetic material, but that exception has now been removed—in other words, the rules have got even tighter. That action reflects a practical position that has been adopted, but I ask the hon. Gentleman and those following our debate to acknowledge that it presents considerable difficulties in terms of possible future discussions.
  All that does not gainsay what I have said about our desire to ensure that the introduction of GMOs on a trial basis, an experimental basis, or even a full-crop basis, in no way damages organic farming. Given the extremely tight public expenditure restrictions to which we are subject as part of our contract with the electorate, it would be stupid for the Government to push more money into

  627
  converting to organic farming while allowing the farmers who take that brave step to be damaged by other actions within the process that I have described.
  In considering the national list regime, the Court of Appeal said that MAFF had acted unlawfully by not requiring the applicant to submit the results of two replicated trials with his application. However, it rejected the application to order the destruction of the trial on those grounds, and said explicitly that the Minister could not properly destroy or require destruction of the trial. The court was critical of my Department for not enforcing regulation 11(3), and, in commenting on the wider implications, concluded that the position
  "needed to be resolved speedily and across the board."
  On behalf of the Government, let me say straight away that I accept the court's criticism, but I shall take the opportunity to explain to the House why my Ministry took the line that it did. Regulation 11(3) states that
  "no application shall be entertained for the entry in a National List of a variety … unless in each case the applicant submits to Ministers with the application the results of … replicated trials".
  I should make it clear that neither that provision nor any of other tests and trials required for national list purposes has any relevance in assessing the environmental or safety aspects of genetic modification. It takes a while to get one's head round the fact that the information from trials is not used for that purpose. Those trials have no role whatever in assessing the environmental or safety aspects of genetic modification. Those very important issues are dealt with under separate legislation—the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the regulations made under it.
  No variety is accepted into national list tests and trials unless the appropriate release consent has been issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and tests and trials are carried out according to any release conditions that may have been imposed under the consent.
  The requirement for replicated trials information was first introduced in 1979, to act as a brake on the number of varieties entering the trials system. The aim was to encourage breeders to do their own pre-entry trials to screen out for themselves those varieties unlikely to be successful in full national list trials, rather than relying on the national list system, which was heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, to do it for them.
  The aim was to alleviate the pressure on the statutory system, which was becoming overloaded with varieties that were being tested unnecessarily at the taxpayer's expense. I repeat that replicated trials data were never used in making decisions about whether to add varieties to the national list. That was—and is—done on the basis of data from official tests and trials, which is a separate issue.
  Following a review in 1992–93, a streamlined system of what were known as value for cultivation and use—VCU—trials was introduced, which reduced the burden on the trials system and led to the staged reintroduction of fees for official trials in 1994 and 1995. During that review, the British Society of Plant Breeders was advised informally by senior officials that the national list regulations would be amended at the first available opportunity to remove the wholly procedural requirements of regulation 11(3).
  By April 1995, when the full weight of the reintroduced VCU charges was felt, the practice of submitting VCU data had diminished significantly. The requirement to
  628
  submit replicated trials data had no value once the pressure on the system was relieved. Because of the charges, plant breeders were not queueing up, the taxpayer was not being ripped off and there was no need for the regulation.
  It was decided—from a common-sense point of view, having spent some time considering the matter, I agree—that a requirement to provide information that served no useful purpose and which was not used placed an unnecessary and unjustifiable burden on applicants; therefore, the information was not sought.
  Who made the change? Where and when? Where is the paperwork? The answer is that we are still trying to find it. We cannot find any paperwork from 1992–93, when the decision was made, showing who authorised the change at the time. Nevertheless, that was clearly carried out. It follows from what I have said that parliamentary time was never found to change the regulation.
  The national list system, which was created shortly after we joined the European Community in 1972, is based on EC directives on the marketing of plant varieties. They are essentially concerned with the agronomic value of varieties and the end-use quality of the crop—for example, milling in the case of wheat, and malting in the case of barley. There are about 1,000 agricultural varieties on the national list, and none of them is genetically modified. We have some 900 varieties at varying stages of tests and trials for addition to the national list, only 20 of which are genetically modified.
  I intend to set in hand immediate action to amend the regulations to remove the requirements of regulation 11(3). I make it clear that we are operating regulation 11(3) as from the court's judgment. The requirement for replicated trials is being operated because that is the law and the court has said that we must follow it. However, having examined it, we still see no useful purpose in regulation 11(3) and will seek to amend it. That involves a statutory process which will involve consultation. There will be no fast tracking; for the foreseeable future and until the regulation is amended, we will operate it.
  Mr. Steen rose—
  Mr. Rooker: To pre-empt the hon. Gentleman's third intervention, I shall say something about what should be done to resolve the position in respect of varieties already on the national list or currently in trials. The issues raised are complex, and we are examining them very carefully. I told my officials on Monday that I wanted to come to the House tonight to explain the issues, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and the wider industry deserved an answer as quickly as possible.
  I am not in a position to inform the House about how we shall deal with the matter, but I can say that it is under active and urgent consideration by those who are colloquially called m'learned friends. It is a very complex legal matter, and there are many varieties on the national list that are being grown as crops. They are perfectly safe and—I emphasise this—have gone through the regulatory process in respect of environmental and food safety. They conform fully to the Environmental Protection Act 1990. By definition, some will not conform to regulation 11(3). That is an important point, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Totnes for having raised it and to my hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate.
  Mr. Steen: I thought that I would catch the Minister before he sat down. This has been a fascinating debate

  629
  and he is making a fascinating speech. The whole House has been riveted by his command of the subject. We are grateful to him for being here and for what he has said, but he has skirted around one issue—the genetically modified crops that are in their first year of trials. They will be on the seed-testing list next year unless something is done to put them through further trials. In view of the Minister's fascinating preamble to his prepared speech, will he say something, not only to vegetarians but to those who are concerned about food safety in general, about whether he is planning to extend the trials so that genetically modified crops do not go on the seed list only two years after the trials?
  Mr. Rooker: That is the very question which I cannot answer, because it relates to crops undergoing trials and have perhaps not undergone two replicated years, or are already on the list. I said that there are no GM crops on the list, but there are 20 undergoing trials. I do not know all the details of the 20 or whether any had replicated years, but, clearly, people were being told that that was not necessary. It is a complex issue.
  I do not want to be accused of short-circuiting the House—no one will ever accuse me of doing that; The Government do not want to do that. We have to take legal
  630
  advice on the matter. The Court of Appeal decision in respect of regulation 11(3) has gone against the Government for the reasons that I have explained.
  I do not know whether the industry is fully seized of the implications of the judgment. I have not been on the receiving end of massive representations from people growing crops that have been through the system, complaining that the court has said that the system did not conform to the law. Those are non-genetically modified organism crops. We must find a way to regularise the system. We are debating a substantial industry and not a few trials. Crops are being grown and harvested, and seeds are being sold. We are looking urgently at the matter.
  As the House begins the summer recess tomorrow, I shall not be able to report back to hon. Members, but I assure them that the matter is being dealt with daily and that that will continue during the recess. Datelines are looming by which we must know how to deal with this complex issue. We are taking much advice on the matter and do not seek in any way to circumvent the court's decision. The court found that we had been acting wrongly, and we accept that. The matter is more serious than I suspect most hon. Members realise. We shall move as quickly as we can to rectify the situation.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Resettlement Grants
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been awarded resettlement grants each year since 1972 to relocate to avoid the troubles in Northern Ireland; what was the average resettlement grant; what criteria govern eligibility for such a grant; and if she will make a statement. [52770]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose Chief Executive has advised me that the information requested is as follows (for the purposes of the question Resettlement Grant has been interpreted as reference to Emergency Grant):

  Emergency grant

  Year

  Number of people

  Fixed amount of grant £

  1995–961

  59

  175

  1996–97

  200

  180

  1997–98

  180

  184

  April-June 1998

  35

  189

  1 The information from 1972 would be available only at disproportionate cost

  Criteria

  Emergency Grant is payable to public and private sector tenants who are awarded A1 status (Intimidation) under the Housing Executive's Housing Selection Scheme as a result of civil disturbance, bomb damage, sectarian intimidation and subsequently permanently rehoused in the public or private sector.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to meet members of the families of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright or their representatives; what requests she has received on this matter; and what was her response. [53598]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet with members of the families of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. She met my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cummock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), Constituency MP for the Fisher family, on Tuesday 10 March 1998. She also met my hon. Friend the Member for Cinlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on Thursday 22 January 1998. The purpose of these meetings was not to discuss the detail of the cases but rather to explain the Northern Ireland life sentence review process and how it applied to the Guardsmen's cases.

  Mr. Peter McBride
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasions(a) she and (b) her officials
  386
  have met members of the family of the late Mr. Peter McBride or their representatives; and on what occasions (i) the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright and (ii) the death of Mr. Peter McBride were discussed. [53597]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the McBride family on Wednesday 8 July 1998. The details of the life sentence review of these cases were not discussed.

  Benefit Information
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what guidance she plans to issue to the Benefits Agency on its forthcoming obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to produce generic benefits information and information on individual benefits in a range of formats which blind and partially sighted people can access. [54069]

  Mr. McFall
  The Northern Ireland Disability Council and the Department of Health and Social Services will shortly be consulting on proposals for a revised Code of Practice and supporting regulations to take account of the next phase of implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Code of Practice will give practical guidance to service providers on how to prevent discrimination against disabled people in accessing the goods, facilities or services they provide.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the difficulties which blind and partially sighted people experience in obtaining access to information on benefits. [54068]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Thompson. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Chris Thompson to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 29 July 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what assessment has been made of the difficulties which blind and partially sighted people experience in obtaining access to information on benefits.
  The Social Security Agency has not yet carried out any formal assessment of the needs of blind and partially sighted people. However, as you are aware the Benefits Agency are looking into the needs of these customers as part of the research for "Project Access". The findings of this project will be considered by the Social Security Agency.
  However, I am giving further consideration to the issue in Northern Ireland and I will write to you again shortly.

  Ulster Hospital
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect the recent events at Drumcree had on the availability of theatres at the Ulster Hospital for emergency casualties; and if she will make a statement. [54071]

  Mr. McFall
  The Ulster Hospital has six theatres, all of which could be utilised in an emergency situation. On Saturday, 11 July and Monday, 13 July two emergency theatres were utilised, while on Sunday, 12 July and Tuesday, 14 July one theatre was used.
  387

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Driving Offences
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) of

  Number of proceedings and findings of guilt for certain motoring offences in England and Wales and the Gloucestershire Police District 1992–96

  Gloucestershire Police

  England and Wales

  Proceedings

  Findings of guilt

  Proceedings

  Findings of guilt

  1993

  Dangerous driving

  134

  84

  11,373

  6,185

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  680

  577

  105,158

  91,198

  Speed limit offences

  2,011

  1,912

  110,571

  100,157

  Failing to comply with traffic signals

  145

  113

  35,306

  30,061

  Other offences of neglect of traffic directions1

  452

  379

  12,788

  9,062

  Neglect of pedestrian rights2

  63

  53

  18,500

  8,466

  1994

  Dangerous driving

  151

  94

  11,097

  6,194

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  975

  834

  104,690

  89,700

  Speed limit offences

  2,082

  2,005

  114,338

  105,063

  Failing to comply with traffic signals

  610

  563

  29,152

  24,266

  Other offences of neglect of traffic directions1

  236

  179

  12,306

  8,770

  Neglect of pedestrian rights2

  91

  84

  9,209

  7,439

  1995

  Dangerous driving

  128

  88

  10,906

  6,408

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  1,197

  1,069

  105,407

  92,505

  Speed limit offences

  2,730

  2,627

  128,409

  118,974

  Failing to comply with traffic signals

  1,433

  1,346

  29,695

  24,480

  Other offences of neglect of traffic directions1

  82

  53

  10,706

  7,596

  Neglect of pedestrian rights2

  93

  83

  8,643

  6,898

  1996

  Dangerous driving

  119

  63

  10,017

  5,750

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  1,068

  979

  107,931

  95,705

  Speed limit offences

  3,734

  3,586

  139,565

  130,039

  Failing to comply with traffic signals

  2,265

  2,141

  30,220

  25,307

  Other offences of neglect of traffic directions1

  67

  42

  9,320

  6,672

  Neglect of pedestrian rights2

  44

  37

  8,132

  6,487

  1 Includes failure to comply with the directions of a police constable as well as failure to comply with traffic signs

  2 Includes driving in a playstreet and other contraventions of street playground orders as well as offences connected with 'Zebra' crossings. 'Pelican' crossings and traffic lights at pedestrian crossings.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) of 20 July 1998,Official Report, column 380, on asylum seekers, if he will list the more efficient working practices referred to in the answer; and if the plans for computerisation of casework are those plans in respect of which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), undertook to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere in his answer of 7 May, Official Report, column 452. [52222]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: We have in hand organisational changes in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, which will result in a new Integrated Casework Directorate. This will handle the casework currently dealt with in five separate Directorates. We will get rid of the present hierarchical system of decision-making, in which wasteful duplication often causes delay.
  388
  14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 103–04, on driving offences, if he will provide similar figures in respect of motorists in Gloucestershire for the most recent five years for which figures are available. [52286]

  Mr. Michael
  Figures for the years 1993–96 are as follows. The data for 1992 have been archived and are not readily available. Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  We will devolve decision-making to the appropriate level, in teams which will deal with a case from start to finish. The teams will be fully supported by up-to-date information and we will have in place quality assurance mechanisms to audit decisions. We are well on the way to establishing this new Directorate. A pilot of the working methods will start in August.

  The computerisation plans referred to in my answer to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon of 20 July are the same plans about which I undertook to write to the hon. Member for Hertsmere in my answer of 7 May. We still await proposals from Siemens Business Services for completing the next stage of the computerisation; the company has indicated that these will be available by 28 August.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide central Government funding to local authorities for the(a) social services, (b) health and (c) education costs incurred by asylum seekers. [53725]
  389
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under the proposals set out in the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend on 27 July, from April 1999 the Home Office will have a budget for the cost of providing food, shelter and daily living expenses for asylum seekers. Detailed arrangements for the management of this budget have not yet been made. No changes are proposed in the funding of health care, education or other facilities used by asylum seekers.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory authority determines the United Kingdom's ability to return asylum seekers who have travelled to the United Kingdom through safe third countries directly to their country of origin. [53724]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Secretary of State may decide to consider the asylum application of any person who claims asylum in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that they may have previously travelled through one or more safe third countries, and, if he refuses the claim, he may seek to return the person to their country of origin under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 (and in particular paragraphs 8–10 of schedule 2 to that Act). Once the person has been notified of the Secretary of State's decision, they may not, under Schedule 3 to the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act and Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act, be returned whilst any appeal they may have made against the decision to grant or vary leave to enter or remain is pending.

  In practice, the Dublin Convention affects our ability to return people to third countries.

  Applications received for asylum, excluding dependants, on arrival at Heathrow airport by Nationality from 1 May 1997 to 31 May 1998

  May 1997

  June 1997

  July 1997

  August 1997

  September 1997

  October 1997

  November 1997

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  5

  5

  10

  15

  *

  5

  10

  Cyprus

  10

  15

  15

  10

  10

  25

  35

  Poland

  20

  20

  20

  20

  20

  25

  30

  Romania

  —

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Turkey

  15

  10

  15

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Former USSR

  40

  45

  45

  45

  30

  50

  35

  Former Yugoslavia

  15

  15

  20

  30

  30

  40

  60

  Americas

  Colombia

  160

  40

  10

  5

  5

  5

  5

  Ecuador

  45

  120

  225

  20

  *

  5

  *

  Africa

  Algeria

  5

  10

  10

  5

  10

  10

  10

  Angola

  5

  10

  —

  5

  5

  *

  5

  Ethiopia

  5

  5

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  Gambia

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Ghana

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  —

  Ivory Coast

  —

  5

  *

  *

  *

  *

  5

  Kenya

  5

  5

  25

  10

  25

  35

  30

  Liberia

  5

  —

  *

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Nigeria

  10

  10

  10

  10

  20

  15

  20

  Sierra Leone

  5

  5

  5

  10

  10

  10

  5

  Somalia

  30

  25

  20

  25

  45

  40

  30

  Sudan

  5

  5

  15

  5

  15

  5

  5

  Tanzania

  —

  *

  5

  5

  5

  *

  *

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  *

  —

  Uganda

  5

  5

  *

  5

  5

  10

  10

  Zaire

  10

  10

  10

  15

  10

  15

  10

  390
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 27 July 1998,Official Report, columns 35–53, what external legal advice he has sought on the applicability of the provisions of the Dublin Convention as they relate to those of the Geneva Convention concerning asylum seekers. [53723]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has received external legal advice on various matters which have arisen during the course of legal challenges to decisions to transfer asylum seekers to other member states under the Dublin Convention. The Dublin Convention is primarily concerned with the issue of which European Union (EU) member state is to consider an asylum application made within the EU; it does not deal with the merits of that claim, which are the concern of the 1951 Geneva Convention.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passengers arriving at Heathrow Airport in each month since 1 May 1997 have sought asylum upon arrival; what was their country of origin; and how many of them remain in the United Kingdom. [53826]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information relating to persons who applied for asylum on arrival at Heathrow airport between 1 May 1997 and 31 May 1998, by nationality and month, is given in the table.

  The available information is that, as at 30 June 1998, some 740 of those asylum seekers had been granted leave to enter as recognised refugees or on other grounds and a further 800 had been removed or departed voluntarily.

  In addition, a number of the applicants will be awaiting a decision on their claim or the outcome of an appeal.
  391

  Applications received for asylum, excluding dependants, on arrival at Heathrow airport by Nationality from 1 May 1997 to 31 May 1998

  May 1997

  June 1997

  July 1997

  August 1997

  September 1997

  October 1997

  November 1997

  Middle East

  Iran

  25

  15

  15

  25

  30

  25

  30

  Iraq

  40

  35

  70

  65

  60

  45

  50

  Lebanon

  5

  5

  5

  5

  20

  10

  5

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  35

  45

  55

  70

  80

  75

  80

  China

  30

  25

  25

  20

  15

  30

  40

  India

  20

  15

  10

  15

  10

  5

  15

  Pakistan

  15

  20

  50

  45

  50

  55

  25

  Sri Lanka

  50

  35

  40

  40

  40

  45

  40

  Others1

  40

  55

  50

  70

  85

  100

  55

  Total

  670

  620

  775

  620

  650

  710

  670

  December 1997

  January 1998

  February 1998

  March 1998

  April 1998

  May 1998

  Total

  Europe

  Bulgaria

  15

  10

  5

  5

  10

  10

  100

  Cyprus

  35

  10

  5

  *

  —

  *

  175

  Poland

  75

  70

  75

  80

  115

  70

  640

  Romania

  —

  —

  5

  5

  *

  *

  25

  Turkey

  20

  20

  20

  15

  5

  15

  170

  Former USSR

  70

  35

  30

  55

  75

  60

  615

  Former Yugoslavia

  135

  55

  30

  30

  65

  25

  540

  Americas

  Colombia

  15

  25

  25

  10

  *

  10

  315

  Ecuador

  10

  5

  *

  *

  5

  5

  440

  Africa

  Algeria

  20

  *

  *

  5

  10

  5

  100

  Angola

  5

  5

  5

  5

  *

  *

  50

  Ethiopia

  5

  5

  *

  10

  *

  *

  40

  Gambia

  —

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Ghana

  5

  5

  5

  5

  *

  5

  55

  Ivory Coast

  —

  *

  —

  *

  —

  —

  15

  Kenya

  15

  35

  20

  25

  15

  20

  270

  Liberia

  *

  —

  *

  *

  —

  —

  15

  Nigeria

  15

  30

  15

  25

  20

  30

  230

  Sierra Leone

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  75

  Somalia

  35

  45

  35

  35

  25

  15

  405

  Sudan

  5

  10

  5

  5

  5

  10

  90

  Tanzania

  *

  5

  *

  5

  *

  *

  30

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  *

  Uganda

  *

  *

  5

  5

  5

  5

  50

  Zaire

  10

  15

  10

  20

  15

  10

  160

  Middle East

  Iran

  40

  35

  35

  25

  25

  25

  345

  Iraq

  75

  60

  45

  65

  40

  35

  680

  Lebanon

  10

  5

  5

  5

  5

  5

  95

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  110

  50

  55

  95

  75

  70

  890

  China

  50

  45

  30

  40

  25

  45

  415

  India

  20

  15

  10

  15

  10

  10

  170

  Pakistan

  30

  35

  35

  40

  45

  35

  475

  Sri Lanka

  70

  40

  45

  50

  65

  90

  655

  Others1

  100

  65

  85

  95

  105

  75

  980

  Total

  995

  740

  640

  775

  775

  680

  9,320

  1Includes all other nationalities not identified in the table.

  392 393

  Firearms Compensation
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much compensation has been paid as a result of the ban on the ownership of handguns to date; [52830]

  (2) what the staff and overhead costs have been to date of operating the compensation scheme for owners of handguns; and what estimate he has made of the total costs.

  Mr. Michael
  The estimated total cost of operating the compensation scheme over two years is £3.0 million. The staff costs to date are £1.2 million out of total Firearms Compensation Section capital and running costs expenditure of £2.08 million. £53.8 million has been paid in compensation so far.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he proposes to expedite the payment of Category C claims under the Firearms Compensation Scheme. [52361]

  Mr. Michael
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The Firearms Compensation Section (FCS) is taking all possible steps to clear the remaining Option C payments under the large calibre handgun surrender scheme and the ex gratia surrender scheme for small-calibre pistols as quickly as possible, having regard to the need to scrutinise claims closely to ensure that payments are made in accordance with the requirements of the compensation scheme and to guard against fraud. A number of measures are being taken to increase the processing rate, while maintaining these safeguards.

  Two examining teams have been allocated specifically to dealing with the numerically few but very complex claims from firearms dealers, which present particular problems relating to the evidence of value of the surrendered goods, and consideration is being given to alternative forms of evidence where a dealer is unable to provide the precise evidence of value required by the terms of the scheme. The FCS is working closely with dealers and their representatives to resolve the outstanding issues as quickly as possible.

  Arrangements have been made with the Forensic Science Service to identify unfamiliar items included in compensation claims, so that a quick decision can be made on their eligibility for compensation, and we are looking at the scope for flexibility within the scheme to make offers of payment other than through the time-consuming process of independent valuation in suitable cases. We are also streamlining administration where possible to reduce unnecessary work, for example by returning the evidence of value to claimants on request, rather than automatically, and by simplifying the database of values used by FCS as a payment guide by reducing the range and values of guns and equipment recorded.

  The staff resources devoted to the operation of the compensation scheme have increased to 56, including 11 Agency staff. Given the expertise required to operate this complex part of the scheme, staff numbers have reached the maximum practical level, and recruitment efforts are aimed at sustaining that level. Staff are working regular weekend overtime in order to complete the task as quickly as possible.
  394
  Because of the complexity of dealers' claims and the wide variety of guns and equipment surrendered under Option C, much of it ineligible, progress with the payment of claims has been initially slow since work started full time on these claims at the end of May. The processing rate is expected to increase as the measures outlined above take effect and, although it no longer appears possible to clear all the claims by the end of the year, payment offers should be made on the great majority of claims by that time. We will work continuously to reduce this timescale if at all possible.

  The Agency staff who have been registering the claims received under the statutory compensation scheme for small-calibre pistols surrendered in February 1998 have completed their work and will begin the processing of Option A and B claims under this scheme at the beginning of August. This work will continue in parallel with the work on the remaining Option C claims under the large calibre and ex gratia schemes.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for Option C compensation for firearms remain outstanding in the Avon and Somerset Police Authority area. [53430]

  Mr. Michael
  There are currently 578 claims from the Avon and Somerset Police Force area where payment has not yet been made under Option C of the compensation scheme. The great majority of these have already received a payment under Options A or B. In 22 of these cases, an offer of payment has been made and is awaiting acceptance by the claimant.

  British Nationality (Applications)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average time taken to process applications to his Department on(a) Form ELR, (b) Form FLR (m), (c) Form FLR (s), (d) Form FLR (o), (e) Form SET (m), (f) Form SET (f), (g) Form SET (o), (h) Form AN and (i) travel document applications. [52779]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average time taken to process postal applications received by staff in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's caseworking groups for further, indefinite and exceptional leave to remain (excluding refugees) is:

  ELR: 147 days

  FLR(M): 240 days

  FLR(S): 111 days

  FLR(O): 116 days

  SET(M): 119 days

  SET(F): 177 days

  SET(0): 150 days.

  In the second quarter of 1998, these types of case amounted to 46 per cent. of all decisions.

  In the same period, a further 30 per cent. of decisions were dealt with by the Public Inquiry Office, which resolves over 90 per cent. of inquiries and applications on the same day, and a further 24 per cent. of decisions on postal applications were dealt with under the fast track procedures introduced last year for applications identified as straightforward. In the first six months of 1998, these procedures enabled cases to be processed within three days of receipt.
  395
  Settlement applications are also made by refugees, using the form SET(0). The average time taken to deal with these applications is two weeks.

  The average time taken to process an application for a travel document is between 12 and 14 weeks.

  The average time taken to process an application for naturalisation using the form AN is 19.8 months.

  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applicants refused British nationality have been detained prior to removal since 1 January. [53329]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  No one would be detained on the sole ground that they had been refused British nationality. It is possible that someone detained as an illegal entrant or deportee might also have been refused British nationality, but we have no records to determine this.

  Freemasons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to implement the measures outlined in the Government's response to the Third Report of the Home Affairs Committee Session 1996–97, on Freemasonry in the Police and Judiciary; if he will set his proposed timetable for any remaining steps; and if he will make a statement. [52917]

  Mr. Michael
  I wrote to the United Grand Lodge of the Freemasons on 27 March, requesting the Freemasons Society to disclose names of its members working within those professions and occupations listed in the Government's response to the Third Report. The United Grand Lodge replied on 24 April without providing this information. On 11 May, I wrote to the United Grand Lodge informing the Freemasons that the Government would press on with the process of implementing their policy of declaration and registration. The categories in relation to which the Government are currently considering implementation of its policy are: police; all members of the Judiciary, including the lay magistracy; Crown Prosecution Service legally qualified staff; Probation; Prison Service; Coroners; and members of police authorities.

  Since May, officials have been discussing the mechanics of how to implement this policy, including a timetable for establishing a voluntary register and its format. The first step in the implementation process is the collation of names of serving office-holders and employees. This has already begun. As far as new office-holders and employees are concerned, including those transferring to new posts, relevant Departments are considering how to revise their recruitment procedures in order to meet the terms of the Government's policy. This process will continue in parallel with the implementation of arrangements for serving office-holders and employees.

  Voluntary Workers
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to provide greater assistance to voluntary organisations and charities when they wish to screen the police records of their personnel; and if he will make a statement; [52774]
  396
  (2) what targets his Department has set for the percentage of voluntary workers working in contact with vulnerable groups, who will have had their records screened by the police; and if he will make a statement. [52775]

  Mr. Michael
  We have decided to implement Part V of the Police Act 1997 which provides for the establishment of a Criminal Records Agency. Once established, the Agency will be responsible for the issue of the three forms of certificates described in the Act. Priority will be given to the issue of Enhanced Criminal Record Certificates which will be available for those applying for positions which involve regular caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons under eighteen. The Agency will also issue Criminal Record Certificates, for posts or purposes which are exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, including duties involving regular contact with persons under eighteen; and Criminal Conviction Certificates, for general employment purposes. Consideration is being given to the arrangements for charging and the phasing in of certificates.

  At present, only a limited number of voluntary organisations have access to criminal record checks. The establishment of the Criminal Records Agency will enable all voluntary organisations to consider which of their posts and personnel require police record checks and the type of certificate to be sought. It will be for organisations to decide this on the individual circumstances involved, assisted by a Code of Practice to be developed in consultation with interested parties. Any application to the Agency for disclosure of information will then require the consent of the person on whom the check is sought.

  Alcopops
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the new code of practice relating to the marketing of alcopops; and what measures are in place to continue to monitor the behaviour of industry in its marketing of alcopops. [53694]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Ministerial Group's statement last July welcomed the Portman Group's revised code on packaging and marketing alcohol products. The statement also set out recommended action by all interests. The Group plans to review progress this autumn, and will consider then both the impact of the new code and the question of further monitoring.

  Prostitution
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent surveys have been undertaken by his Department to obtain information on the number of young people involved in prostitution. [53698]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on the numbers of persons cautioned and convicted of offences involving prostitution is collected on a continuous basis for our Cautions and Court Proceedings databases. No separate survey has been carried out by my Department.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what services his Department provides to(a) police and (b) local authorities to encourage young people to abandon prostitution; and if he will make a statement; [53701]
  397
  (2) how many young (a) females and (b) males are recorded as having been involved in prostitution in England and Wales in each of the last three years; and what measures his Department has taken to counter child prostitution. [53696]

  Mr. Michael
  The Information requested is given in the table.

  Persons aged 10 to 17 cautioned and convicted for prostitution related offences1 by sex—England and Wales, 1994–1996

  Cautions

  Convictions

  Year

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  1994

  8

  303

  0

  142

  1995

  3

  263

  4

  101

  1996

  6

  291

  3

  177

  1 Includes offences of soliciting by a man or a woman and kerb crawling

  The Government recognise that children involved in prostitution are primarily victims of abuse and that those who exploit and use them should be treated as child abusers. We are determined to ensure that there are effective inter-agency arrangements to help children who have become involved in prostitution to leave it and to ensure that abusers are punished.

  Against this background, we are taking a number of specific measures. First, the Department of Health and the Home Office are preparing new comprehensive guidance for the police and local authorities on the treatment of children in prostitution in collaboration with the police and social services. This guidance will build on the ground-breaking guidelines produced and piloted by the Association of Chief Police Officers, in consultation

  Number of persons cautioned or convicted in all courts of living on immoral earnings of prostitution by sex, 1994–96 England and Wales

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Offence

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Males

  Females

  Convictions

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitution1

  60

  10

  43

  8

  38

  4

  Living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution2

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Cautions

  Living on earnings of prostitution or exercising control over prostitution1

  3

  9

  1

  4

  1

  4

  Living wholly or in part on the earnings of male prostitution2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1 Sexual Offences Act 1956 Secs. 30 and 31

  2 Sexual Offences Act 1967 Sec. 5(1)

  Source:

  Home Office Court Proceedings Database

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial support his Department currently provides to organisations encouraging young people to leave prostitution. [53699]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office does not directly fund organisations which encourage young people to leave prostitution. This is essentially a local function. Central Government do provide grants to local probation committees through the probation service, some of which may be used on work which encourages young people to leave prostitution. Details of how the money is spent are not held centrally.
  398
  with others, on the treatment of children involved in prostitution. It will also take full account of the new juvenile justice arrangements in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] and the responses to the Department of Health consultation paper Working Together To Safeguard Children: New Government Proposals for Inter-Agency Co-operation!

  We will be consulting interested organisations on draft guidance later in the year.

  Second, I announced on 15 June 1998, Official Report, column 10, that there will be a review of all sexual offences with the aim of ensuring that the framework of the sexual offences and penalties is coherent and effective. The review will cover the offences and penalties for those who use and abuse children who become involved in prostitution.

  Third, we have introduced measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill which may help in dealing with the problem of children who have become involved in prostitution. For instance, the Bill places a duty on local authorities and the police, in partnership with other agencies, to carry out an audit of crime and disorder in their area. This should help to determine the extent of the involvement of children in prostitution in a local area, on the basis of which the partners will be able to devise a strategy for dealing with the problem.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women have been convicted of living on the immoral earnings of prostitution in each of the last three years. [53697]

  Mr. Michael
  Information taken from the Home Office Court Proceedings database, including number of cautions, is given in the table.

  The Department of Health awards both core and project grants to a number of organisations each year through the General Section 64 Scheme (S64). Barnardos is receiving funding over three years to contribute to the cost of a National Development Officer who will evaluate present and proposed services for children who are involved in or at risk of sexual exploitation, including commercial sexual exploitation, and to support various projects.

  Police (School Contact)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what initiatives he proposes to promote contact between the local police forces and schools. [53577]
  399
  Mr. Michael
  Liaison between local police forces and schools provides an important first contact with the police for young people and the opportunity to create positive relationships. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary's thematic inspection of police community relations, whose report was published last October, found clear evidence that the use of schools liaison officers had a positive effect on police/community relations and recommended that the value of such officers to foster links and enhance the image of the police should be recognised by forces. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary will be conducting a follow up inspection of 15 forces in the autumn to assess progress.

  Joint guidance issued by the Department for Education and Employment and the Home Office last December on schools security covers police assistance to schools in helping them to develop security strategies and in responding to incidents on school premises. It should also help promote partnerships between local police forces and schools.

  A range of measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] will encourage joint working between the police and education services, including schools. For example, use of the new power for the police to remove truants will involve the drawing up of strategies by the local education authority and schools in conjunction with the police to address identified local truancy problems while schools will have an important role in the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and in the development of Youth Action Groups.

  Police (Norfolk)
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what percentage of police officers in Norfolk took voluntary early retirement in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the national average. [53576]

  Mr. Michael
  Statistics are not held in the specific form requested, but the number of voluntary resignations from Norfolk Constabulary in 1997–98 was 12, which was 14 per cent. of the total who ceased to serve in the force of that year. This compares with a total of 924 voluntary resignations from forces in England and Wales, also 14 per cent. of the total who ceased to serve in that year, and 712 or 14 per cent. from provincial forces in England and Wales (excluding the Metropolitan Police). Voluntary resignations do not include early retirement with an ill-health pension, which is for management to determine.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many working hours were lost by the Norfolk Police due to sick leave in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the national average. [53575]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on police sick leave is collected on the basis of days lost rather than hours. In 1997–98, 15,053 police days were lost through sickness in Norfolk Constabulary (4.6 per cent. of the total working days), compared with a national average in England and Wales of 37,084 police days (5.6 per cent.) and a provincial average (excluding the Metropolitan Police) of 28,573 police days (5.3 per cent.).
  400

  Constitutional Change
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost to date of his Department's role in educating and informing the public on constitutional changes introduced by the Government. [53557]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The White Paper "Rights Brought Home—The Human Rights Bill", which preceded the Human Rights Bill, cost £1,800.

  We have made a grant of £15,000 to the Institute for Citizenship to support their "Get the Vote Out! Europe 1999" campaign.

  On-line Lotteries
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will report the outcome of consultation on the draft Bill to restrict the operation of on-line lotteries; and if he will make a statement. [54148]

  Mr. Michael
  We published the draft Lotteries (Frequent Draws) Bill on 7 January for comments. We received responses on behalf of 127 organisations and individuals.

  Among those we consulted, 46 respondents supported legislation. These included other gambling sectors, churches, regulators and organisations concerned with problem gambling. 74 respondents opposed legislation, predominantly charitable organisations which had hoped for an additional source of finance for their sector. The remaining seven respondents were neutral or expressed no overall view.

  Most of those in favour of legislation supported or accepted the draft Bill's proposal for a limit of one draw a day in all premises. Most of those against it suggested that we should await research on the effect of rapid on-line lottery draws or a general review of gambling legislation.

  We have concluded that on-line lotteries do need to be brought under proper statutory controls. We intend to legislate when the legislative programme allows.

  As previously proposed, the legislation will be used to limit on-line lottery draws to one a day in any particular premises, with the detailed provisions being amended in the light of points made in consultation.

  We also consulted on possible increases to stake and proceeds limits. As previously indicated, it will not be appropriate to proceed with that matter until legislation restricting the frequency of on-line lotteries is in place. In the light of the consultation, we will further consider whether such increases are desirable in due course.

  I am making available an analysis of the responses to the consultation and paper setting out the Government's views on the main points raised. I have placed copies of these documents in the Library, together with the responses.

  Sexual Offences
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates that the review group
  401
  looking into abuse of trust in the context of sexual relationships with people aged under 18 years will report. [53916]

  Mr. Michael
  The Working Group will look both at preventing unsuitable people from working with children and at abuse of trust. It is due to report by the end of the year at the latest, and I have asked the Group to give priority to looking at issues concerning abuse of trust.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects his review of discriminatory provisions of existing sexual offences laws to be complete; with whom the review group is consulting; and when it commenced its deliberations. [53917]

  Mr. Michael
  We are considering how best this review can be undertaken. Its membership and terms of reference will be published in due course.

  Age of Consent
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department with which sponsors of the Age of Consent amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords], he held discussions prior to 28 July. [53932]

  Mr. Michael
  Over a period of time, I have had discussions with Stonewall and with a wide variety of individuals and organisations with an interest in the age of consent. My right hon. Friend and I also had a number of conversations with several of the sponsors of the age of consent amendment.

  Passport Office
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next proposes to review future options on the Passport Office in Newport, Gwent. [53280]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are no plans to review options on the Passport Office at Newport. The Passport Agency undertook a review of the role and location of its offices in 1995 and concluded that its six regional passport offices (sited in Belfast, Glasgow, Liverpool, London, Newport and Peterborough) were able to meet anticipated levels of demand in the most effective way and there was no case for altering the number or location of offices. This remains the Agency's position and we are not considering any changes.

  Sussex Police
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what progress was made by the Sussex Constabulary in the recruitment of more police officers from ethnic minorities in the last year for which figures are available; [53439]

  (2) what progress was made by the Sussex Constabulary in the recruitment of more women constables in the last year for which figures are available. [53438]

  Mr. Michael
  In 1997, Sussex Police recruited 39 female officers and 2 officers from ethnic minorities (the information is given in the table). The Chief Constable tells me that the Sussex Police Force is aware of the under-representation in the force of female and 402
  ethnic minority officers, and is exploring means of removing any barriers to recruitment. Vacancies will be published in local and national ethnic newspapers.

  Number of female and ethnic minority recruits to Sussex Police in 1997 and 1998 (to date)

  Start of 1997

  End of 1997

  1998 (to date)

  Force establishment

  3,109

  3,056

  3,060

  Female officers

  464

  484

  504

  Female recruits

  —

  39

  144

  Ethnic minority officers

  21

  23

  23

  Ethnic minority recruits

  —

  2

  2

  1 28 female candidates still being processed

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date his Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53350]

  Mr. Straw
  The Welsh Language Board asked the Home Office to prepare a draft scheme in September 1996. A number of consultations have taken place with the Welsh Language Board on working drafts of the scheme since then.

  The Welsh Language Board has seen and commented on the most recent working drafts and a final version of the scheme is currently in development for submission to the Welsh Language Board for approval.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, dated 28 May, concerning Mr. S. Wolf of Shepperton, reference 10766/98. [53786]

  Mr. Michael
  I replied to the hon. Member on 26 July.

  Surrey Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will meet Spelthorne Borough Council to discuss Surrey County Council's proposed changes to their provision of fire services in the borough. [53790]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have written to the hon. Member to explain that I would be prepared to consider further written representations from Spelthorne Borough Council. Because of the technical nature of the issues involved, it is normally more appropriate for representations against changes to the provision of fire cover to be made in writing. However, I have asked to be informed if there are particular reasons why points which the Borough Council might wish to make could be made to me direct only at a meeting.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proposed strike action by the staff of Surrey Fire and Rescue Service; and if he will hold talks with Surrey County Council and the Fire Brigades Union. [53791]
  403
  Mr. George Howarth
  Responsibility for resolving this local dispute rests primarily with the County Council, as the fire authority, and its employees, and I have no plans to hold talks with either the County Council or the Fire Brigades Union. To ensure the continuing safety of the public, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, however, agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that, at the request of the County Council, military personnel should be deployed, when needed, to provide emergency fire cover.

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received from the Youth Justice Task Force. [54869]

  Mr. Straw
  The Youth Justice Task Force delivered its final report, which incorporates all the advice it has given, this month. That advice has helped frame the youth justice measures now reflected in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords] and provides a steer for the early work of the new Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. Copies of the Task Force's final report have been placed in the Library and will be made available on the internet. The Task Force has now been wound up.

  Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the consultation paper on future legislation against terrorism will be published. [54876]

  Mr. Straw
  Work on the preparation of the consultation paper is well advanced and we now envisage that it will be published in the autumn.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the performance of Her Majesty's Prison Service in 1997–98. [54878]

  Mr. Straw
  I am pleased to report that I have today laid before Parliament the Prison Service's Annual Report and Accounts. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Ms Kingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to conduct a quinquennial review of the Prison Service Agency. [54883]

  Mr. Straw
  The Prison Service was established as a Next Steps Executive Agency on 1 April 1993. Since then there have been a number of changes to the relationship between the Service and the main Home Office. Most importantly, as promised in the Labour Party manifesto, since the general election the Government have acted to take proper Ministerial responsibility for the Service. Against this background and taking the opportunity of the quinquennial review of Next Steps Agencies which is now due, I am today announcing an evaluation of the performance of the Agency, reconsideration of Prior Options relating to Agency Status and, if appropriate, a review of the existing framework document.
  404
  The terms of reference for the review are as follows:
  to conduct an evaluation of the performance of the Agency since its inception;
  in the light of this evaluation to consider whether, among the available options, Agency Status remains the most cost effective way of achieving Home Office aims within the context of proper Ministerial responsibility; and
  if the review concludes that the Prison Service should continue to function as an Executive Agency, to consider what changes, if any, are required to the framework document and financial memorandum in light of the findings of the review and the changes we have made to the arrangements for Ministerial responsibility for the Service; if, however, the review concludes otherwise, to recommend the transitional arrangements necessary to facilitate transformation of the Service from Executive Agency to another organisational entity.

  The review will be conducted by officials from the main Home Office working with officials in the Prison Service. It will draw on and take account of other relevant work, for example the Prison Service Review which was published earlier in the year and the Prison-Probation Review.

  I welcome the views of all interested parties and, in particular, the review team will seek the views of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Probation, the Parole Board and the Prison Ombudsman. My noble Friend the Lord Williams of Mostyn is today writing to the Chairman of the Boards of Visitors National Advisory Council, the Home Office Trade Union Side, the Prison Service Trade Union Side, the Prison Officers Association, the Prison Governors' Association, the Secretary of the Prison Service Joint Industrial Council, the Association of Chief Probation Officers, the National Association of Probation Officers, the Central Probation Council and the Directors of the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, inviting their views. We shall also be seeking the views of the Criminal Justice Consultative Council and organisations associated with it.

  It is hoped to publish the outcome of the review around the end of the year.

  Horserace Betting Levy
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the third report on the impact of the National Lottery on the horserace betting levy. [54882]

  Mr. George Howarth
  An update on the impact of the National Lottery on the horserace betting levy has been published today and will be placed in the Library. This fulfils an undertaking made during the passage of the National Lottery Bill.

  The paper, which has been prepared by the Economics Unit of the Home Office, examines continuing trends in off-course betting expenditure, on which the Levy closely depends.

  The statistical analysis indicates that, in 1997, off-course betting expenditure was about 12.8 per cent. below the level it would have reached in the absence of the National Lottery. Horserace betting accounts for about 69 per cent. of off-course betting expenditure, and therefore the levy yield is likely to have been similarly affected. This can be only an approximate figure, and the effect of the Lottery may vary over time.
  405

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the Government's fast track prosecution of juveniles. [51720]

  The Attorney-General
  Since the Government announced their commitment to tackle delays in the youth justice system, there has been a significant increase in the number of court areas operating or planning to introduce fast-tracking schemes. From a figure shortly after the election of 12 youth court areas operating fast track schemes, there are now over 150 youth court areas either operating or planning to introduce schemes. The effect of these schemes cannot be fully evaluated yet but it is clear that real efforts are being made at a local level to respond. An example of a successful scheme is North Hampshire where the average time between charge and sentence has been reduced from 133 days to 89. The Government are confident that, taken together with the measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill, they will lead to a significant reduction in delays in the youth justice system.

  Court Waiting Times
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received concerning the length of time between the arrest and conviction of offenders; and if he will make a statement. [51721]

  The Attorney-General
  I have not received any representations on this subject. The Lord Chancellor's Department and the Court Service collect statistics on the time taken by cases dealt with in the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court respectively. The latest figures show a decrease in the time taken from charge or summons to completion for defendants in indictable—including triable either way—cases in magistrates' courts, and a slight increase in disposal times in the Crown Court for cases committed for trial.

  The Crime and Disorder Bill includes measures to reduce delay throughout the whole process.

  Prosecution Policy
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Attorney-General under what circumstances community interest is taken into account by officers of the Crown Prosecution Service in determining whether to proceed with a prosecution. [51722]

  The Attorney-General
  The twin criteria set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors require, first, that there should be sufficient evidence to afford a realistic prospect of conviction; and, secondly, that prosecution should be in the public interest. The prevalence of an offence in a particular area is a factor which should be taken into account and may require a prosecution where otherwise that might not be the case. The Crown Prosecution Service expects to work in conjunction with the statutory partnerships provided for by the Crime and Disorder Bill to implement local strategies for reducing crime and disorder.
  406

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Attorney-General when he proposes to allow barristers employed by the Crown Prosecution Service to represent it in all courts. [51724]

  The Attorney-General
  All CPS lawyers, whether barristers or solicitors, are able to appear as advocates in the magistrates' courts. Bar Council and Law Society rules govern the exercise of rights of audience in the higher courts by employed barristers and solicitors respectively. Employed solicitors were granted limited rights of audience in the higher courts in February 1997. Employed barristers have not yet been granted the same limited rights. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has recently published a consultation paper on the future of rights of audience which contains proposals for modernising the system and removing the current restrictions which discriminate between barristers and solicitors, and between employed lawyers and those in private practice. I support these proposals and welcome the publication of the consultation paper.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Attorney-General what representations he has received on his proposals for the reorganisation of the Crown Prosecution Service. [51719]

  The Attorney-General
  My Statement to the House on publication of the Glidewell Report invited comments from interested parties. The numerous responses so far received reflect the same warm welcome which the Report initially received. I have been particularly pleased to note wide acceptance for the "whole system approach" to criminal justice issues which this Government have adopted as well as for the proposed restructuring of the CPS into 42 Areas.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the task forces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers, (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53285]

  The Attorney-General
  On 12 June 1997 I established the Review of the Crown Prosecution Service under the chairmanship of the right hon. Sir Iain Glidewell, a retired Lord Justice of Appeal. He was assisted by Sir Geoffrey Dear (a retired HM Inspector of Constabulary) and Mr. Robert McFarland, a retired Chief Executive of a multi-national company. Their Report was published on 1 June 1998.

  The terms of reference for the Review were set out in my written answer to the House on 12 June 1997, Official Report, column 533. Sir Iain Glidewell was remunerated according to the daily sitting rate established for retired members of the Court of Appeal who discharge judicial duties and that was £556.00 per day. Sir Geoffrey Dear and Mr. Robert McFarland were each remunerated at the rate of £440.00 per day each. Subject to some outstanding items, the overall cost of the review was £652,466.00.
  407

  Crown Counsel
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Attorney-General if the working party which he established to review the system of appointing counsel to act for the Government in civil cases has reported to him. [54617]

  The Attorney-General
  In February I established a working party to review the system of appointment counsel to act for the Crown in civil cases and to monitor the use of barristers appointed to act. The working party was chaired by the then Solicitor General (Lord Falconer QC) and included representatives from the Bar Council (Laura Cox QC and Lincoln Crawford), the two First Treasury Counsel (Philip Sales and Jonathan Crow) and officials from the Government Legal Service.

  The working party has now reported to me and I have accepted their recommendations. I am grateful to the members of the working party for their thorough consideration of the appointment process. A copy of the working party's report has been placed in the Library of each House of Parliament.

  Rape Prosecutions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Attorney-General what further steps he plans to take to assist the Crown Prosecution Service to bring successful prosecutions in rape cases, with particular reference to the gathering of evidence. [53588]

  The Attorney-General
  The gathering of evidence in all criminal investigations is a matter for the police. The Crown Prosecution Service reviews and conducts cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors, once the police investigation is complete. The Home Office is conducting research on the attrition rate in rape cases, the results of which will be published. The Crown Prosecution Service will carefully consider the results of that research to identify whether changes need to be made to Crown Prosecution Service guidance or practice.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Attorney-General on what date his Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53352]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service launched its Welsh Language policy on 11 April 1994 and was commended for this by the Welsh Language Board. On 14 October 1997, an informal discussion took place between members of the Crown Prosecution Service and the Welsh Language Board on the preparation of a formal Crown Prosecution Service Welsh Language Policy in accordance with the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993. On 30 October 1997, the Welsh Language Board wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions to invite the Crown Prosecution Service to prepare a Welsh Language Scheme and submit it to the Board for approval by 31 July 1998. The Director confirmed that the Crown Prosecution Service was happy to comply and the draft Welsh Language Scheme was submitted to the Welsh Language Board for approval on 17 July 1998. When the Board's comments have been 408
  received, the Crown Prosecution Service will advertise the details of the draft Scheme for comment from interested parties.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Attorney-General 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. [52894]

  The Attorney-General
  For the financial year 1997–1998 the figures for IT hardware spending for my Departments were:

  Expenditure (£)

  1a

  b

  c

  2d

  Crown Prosecution Service

  523,476

  —

  —

  23,265

  Serious Fraud Office

  44,000

  —

  —

  53,000

  Treasury Solicitor

  181,577

  —

  —

  31,930

  Government Property Lawyers Agency

  19,498

  —

  —

  715

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  52,172

  —

  —

  16,089

  Total expenditure

  945,722.00

  1 Includes printers

  2 Includes other hardware

TREASURY

  Home Births
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children in(a) 1990 and (b) 1998 were born at home; and if he will make a statement. [52923]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Martyn Jones, dated 30 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of children born at home in 1990 and 1998.
  The numbers of children born at home in England and Wales in 1990 and 1997, the latest year for which figures are available, are shown in the table below.

  Numbers of children born at home, England and Wales

  Year

  Number

  1990

  7,317

  1997

  14,351

  Debt (Foreign Governments)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure greater transparency and public access to information on debts owed by other Governments to the United Kingdom Government. [53233]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD publishes details on its recoverable claims on other countries in its Annual Report and Trading Accounts.
  409
  The Government are pressing the IMF and World Bank to consider the case for publishing in a timely and systematic way all key surveillance and programme documents, including publication of Press Information Notices for all Article IV consultations, publications of all letters of intent and policy framework papers, and publication of Country Assistance Strategies (CASs).

  Weekly Wages
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Greater London and (c) each constituency in Greater London the average weekly wage for (1) manual, (2) non manual and (3) all workers. [53558]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Andrew Love, dated 30 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question on average weekly wages.
  The latest available information, from the New Earnings Survey 1997, is contained in the attached tables. These tables are voluminous and copies of them are being placed in the Library of the House rather than reproduced in Hansard.

  Euro
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much his Department will spend in 1998 on informing the public about the introduction of the euro; [53832]

  (2) what resources his Department will allocate towards public education in respect of the introduction of the euro; [53702]

  (3) what resources his Department will allocate in 1999 to educating and informing the public about the introduction of the euro. [53833]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's communication campaign on the euro is not a general public education campaign but is specifically targeted at ensuring UK businesses, especially small and medium sized firms, are aware of the implications of the introduction of the single currency from 1 January 1999 and have the information they need to address the issues arising from this.

  To meet this objective, the Treasury Euro Preparations Unit has received Summer Supplementary Estimate provision of £7.5 million to help raise business awareness during 1998–99. No expenditure has been authorised beyond this.

  Banking (Micronesia)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to seek to improve the standard of banking regulation in Micronesia. [53968]

  Ms Hewitt
  Banking regulation in the Federated States of Micronesia is the responsibility of the Micronesian authorities. The UK, however, supports moves to strengthen national financial systems, and is working in various international groupings to encourage improved standards of banking regulation and supervision.
  410

  Financial Services
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress of his plans for reform of financial services regulation. [54816]

  Mr. Byers
  The Government have today published a draft of the Financial Services and Markets Bill for consultation, together with a consultation paper and explanatory material.

  The draft Bill will give effect to the proposals to reform the financial services regulatory structure, announced in broad terms by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement to Parliament of 20 May 1997, Official Report, columns 537–46. It is intended that the draft Bill will make the Financial Services Authority the single, statutory regulator for the United Kingdom's financial services industry. It equips it with all the statutory functions and powers needed to operate a single regime for authorisation and regulation of financial services business. It allows it to operate with great flexibility whilst ensuring that any burdens or restrictions imposed by regulation are proportionate to the benefits.

  The Bill will provide the framework for single ombudsman and compensation schemes and a single appeals tribunal. It will introduce important new powers to deal with market abuse. It will also provide for a major element of external accountability for the regulation of Lloyd's.

  The first stage of the legislative process was completed when the Bank of England Act 1998 came into force on 1 June, transferring the prudential supervision of banks to the FSA. Publication of the draft Bill is the next, important stage in the process. Full public consultation will be beneficial to ensure that the new system is efficient and effective. Comments are sought on any aspects of the Government's plans to implement the modernisation of financial services regulation by 30 October 1998. The Government also welcome the likelihood that the Treasury Select Committee will wish to be involved in the consultation.

  Copies of the draft Bill and the other documents have been placed in the Vote Office and the Library of the House and can be found on the HM Treasury website (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

  Since 1 June, the Financial Services Authority has made considerable progress in bringing together operations under the Banking Act 1987 and the Financial Services Act 1986. The Government have now decided, with the agreement of the Authority, that it should take further steps towards the full integration of financial services regulation that will be completed when the legislation is enacted. Accordingly, it will take responsibility for supporting the Building Societies Commission, the Friendly Societies Commission and, in relation to credit unions, the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies in the exercise of their functions, and for acting on behalf of the Treasury in the conduct of insurance supervision under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

  To this end the Government propose to make an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 to contract out the relevant insurance supervision functions to the Authority. The Authority will enter into contracts with the Treasury and with the Building Societies

  411
  Commission, the Friendly Societies Commission and the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies setting out its responsibilities in these areas. These arrangements will be in place to enable the Authority to take on these additional responsibilities in January 1999.

  Tax Law Rewrite Project
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further developments there have been on the Tax Law Rewrite project. [54877]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Tax Law Rewrite project aims to bring clarity to our direct tax legislation, making the law more accessible to taxpayers and their advisers. The Inland Revenue have today published the project's second Exposure Draft, containing draft clauses relating to savings and investment income of individuals and a detailed commentary. Numerous innovative techniques have been adopted; in particular, the rewritten legislation incorporates easier to understand language, a more logical structure and shorter sentences. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  This Exposure Draft is the first of six planned for 1998–99. We are committed to proceeding with them all on the basis of the full and open consultation that has been the hallmark of this project from the beginning. I urge everybody with an interest in tax law to take this further opportunity to comment.

  Teenage Mothers
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children have been born to mothers under the age of 20 years in each year since 1990. [52919]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Martyn Jones, dated 30 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of children who have been born to mothers under the age of 20 years in each year since 1990.
  The numbers of live births to mothers aged under 20 in England and Wales for the years 1990 to 1996 are published in Table 3.1 of the annual reference volume 1996 Birth Statistics FM1 No. 25. This publication is available in the House of Commons Library.
  In England and Wales during 1997, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 46,316 live births to mothers aged under 20.

  International Debt Relief
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the international debt relief total is owed to the United Kingdom(a) Government and (b) financial institutions. [52246]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: (a) World Bank figures state that the total debt owed by the twenty countries identified by the IMF as eligible for debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative is about $100 billion, of which the UK government is owed about $1.3 billion.

  (b) The Government do not keep records of the debts held by private sector financial institutions.
  412

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [52962]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: 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.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by her Department since 1 May 1997. [52961]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Details of compliance cost assessments published by the Chancellor's departments are contained in the 6 monthly command paper of compliance costs assessments.

  Between 1 May 1997 and 30 June 1998 twelve compliance costs assessments covering the period have been published:

  The Building Societies Act 1997 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1997;

  The Financial Services Act 1986 (Extension of Scope of Act) Order 1997;

  The Gaming Duty Regulations 1997.

  The Industrial and Provident Societies (Credit Unions) (Amendment of Fees) Regulations 1998

  The Friendly Societies (General Charge and Fees) Regulations 1998.

  The Building Societies (General Charge and Fees) Regulations 1998.

  The Industrial and Provident Societies (Amendment of Fees) Regulations 1998.

  The Bank of England Act 1998.

  Arising out of the Finance (No. 2) Bill 1998:

  The Modernisation of the Transfer Pricing Legislation

  The Controlled Foreign Companies Legislation and Self Assessments

  A Modern System for Corporation Tax Payments

  The Capital Gains Tax Reform.

  Statistical Areas
  Mr. Denis Murphy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which Government departments were charged with drawing up the criteria in respect of the review of NUTS 2 statistical areas; and what criteria were used in each area; [51838]

  (2) what consultations were undertaken with Her Majesty's Government, by Eurostat in respect of the review of NUTS 2 statistical areas, with specific reference to Northumberland and Durham. [51839]

  Ms Hewitt
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Denis Murphy, dated 30 July 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on the new NUTS-2 statistical areas for the UK.

  413
  Following a public consultation exercise in Summer 1996, the Government Statistical Service Committee on Regional Statistics drafted proposals for a new NUTS structure for the UK which were submitted to Eurostat in July 1997. The document "Proposals for the UK Nomenclature of Territorial Units (NUTS) (May 1997)" describes the departments involved and the criteria taken into account, including those principles applied by Eurostat. Copies of this document are available in the House of Commons library.
  Throughout the subsequent negotiations, Eurostat stressed that in their view the UK proposals contained too many NUTS-2 areas and that changes from the old structure were unjustified. Within the North East, the old structure contained two NUTS-2 areas— (i) Cleveland and Durham, and (ii) Northumberland and Tyne & Wear. The proposals suggested the creation of three NUTS-2 areas within the North East—(i) Cleveland and Darlington, (ii) Durham and Northumberland, and (iii) Tyne & Wear. The sizes of the existing two areas, in population terms, were already smaller than the EU average, and creating three areas would reduce the UK average further. Also, in Eurostat's view this proposal was not consistent with their criteria.
  We continued to press the case for the UK proposals in respect of the North East throughout the negotiations. However, after a lengthy impasse, Eurostat made it clear that this proposal was not going to be accepted. In order to reach agreement for the UK as a whole, we had to accept their position. In the absence of an agreement, Eurostat, with whom the final decision on the classification rests, would have continued to use the existing NUTS-2 structure for the UK with virtually no change in any region.
  The NUTS structure finally agreed with Eurostat was published in a News Release on 29 June, and copies are also available in the House of Commons Library.

  Inflation
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what date he plans to reduce inflation to its target level. [53433]

  Ms Hewitt
  Under the monetary policy framework introduced in May 1997, the Government's role is to set the inflation target. The Bank of England is responsible for taking operational decisions to meet the inflation target.

  The inflation target is 2½ per cent. at all times. However, monetary policy affects inflation with a lag and the actions taken by the MPC will not yet have had their full effect on inflation.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of written parliamentary questions tabled for answer by his Department on a named day under S.O. No. 22(4) have been answered substantively on the named day since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [53453]

  Ms Hewitt
  30.1 per cent. (473 out of 1,569).

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53070]
  414
  Ms Hewitt
  The numbers of(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years employed by (i) HM Treasury and (ii) the Chancellor's other departments and agencies on 1 January 1998, or as near as possible where figures at that date are not readily available, are as follows:

  Department or Agency

  Men

  Women

  HM Treasury

  3

  9

  Debts Management Office

  0

  0

  Office for National Statistics

  16

  24

  National Savings

  23

  40

  Royal Mint

  48

  0

  HM Customs and Excise

  250

  146

  Inland Revenue

  39

  36

  Valuation Office Agency

  8

  6

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53047]

  Ms Hewitt
  The numbers of(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years employed by (1) HM Treasury and (2) the Chancellor's other departments and agencies who have contracts of employment permitting them to retire after their 60th birthday are as follows:

  Department or Agency

  Men

  Women

  HM Treasury1

  5

  27

  Debts Management Office

  0

  0

  Office for National Statistics1

  39

  95

  National Savings

  13

  33

  Royal Mint1

  783

  172

  HM Customs and Excise

  8,934

  9,257

  Inland Revenue

  0

  0

  Valuation Office Agency

  0

  0

  1 These figures include staff who are already over 60

  Euro Preparations Unit
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a breakdown of the £1 million initial information programmes budget for the Euro Preparations Unit. [53736]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Euro Preparations Unit was established last December, with an initial programmes budget of £1.1 million which was allocated to:printing and publishing of information, including business preparations factsheets, to help UK business prepare for the introduction of the single currency on 1 January 1999;
  development of a communications campaign strategy;
  running Ministerial EMU awareness seminars and regional conferences;
  conducting surveys to assess the level of preparedness amongst UK small and medium sized firms.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he has taken to ensure the impartiality of publications which are(a) published and (b) distributed in the United Kingdom with the aid of public funds, as part of the information campaign on the single currency; [53731]

  (2) if he will list the publications produced by the Euro Preparations Unit since December 1997. [53742]
  415
  Ms Hewitt
  The information is as follows:

  "EMU: Report from the Business Advisory Group"—January 1998

  "EMU: The euro and your business"—March 1998

  "EMU: Steps for 1999"—May 1998

  "business preparations for the euro"—June 1998

  "getting ready for the euro"—first report July 1998

  "Local Government Preparations for the euro"—July 1998.

  All these publications, except "EMU: Steps for 1999" and "Local Government Preparations for the euro", focus on helping UK businesses understand the strategic and practical implications of the launch of the single currency on 1 January 1999.

  All the publications are factual and impartial in that they neither promote nor denigrate the euro. The Government have been assisted by the Business Advisory Group and the Information Steering Committee in preparing these booklets.

  "EMU: Steps for 1999" is aimed at organisations in both the private and public sectors. The booklet sets out the steps that the Government are taking to prepare for the introduction of the single currency. Our most recent publication, "Local Government Preparations for the euro", aims to help local government prepare for the launch of the euro.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to announce the final regulations regarding the launch of ISAs. [53711]

  Ms Hewitt
  Regulations will be laid before the House as soon as possible after the Finance Bill receives the Royal Assent.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate how many ISA providers will be in place by April 1999; [53768]

  (2) how many approaches he has had from financial companies wishing to register as ISA providers; [53767]

  (3) what minimum target his Department has set for approved ISA providers to be reached before the new system goes live on 6 April 1999. [53769]

  Ms Hewitt
  ISAs will not be available until 6 April 1999 but those who wish to become ISA managers will be able to seek approval from an earlier date to be specified in the regulations. Based on the existing number of PEP and TESSA providers, it is expected that around 500–600 bodies will become ISA managers. No minimum target number of approved managers has been set and the Revenue aims to complete the approval process, for all those who apply promptly and meet the qualifying conditions, in good time for April 1999.

  "Talking about the Euro"
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the nature of the European Commission document "Talking about the Euro". [53739]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor has received no such representations.
  416

  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 750, how many of the 45 surveys referred to were published prior to the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review; and how many of the surveys published after the publication of the Comprehensive Spending Review were more pessimistic than the assumptions used by the Treasury in the EFSR. [53914]

  Ms Hewitt
  The most recent edition of the Treasury's regular comparison of independent forecasts was published in July. It is available in the House of Commons Library and more widely via the Treasury's Internet site.

  Twenty-seven out of the forty-five surveys were new in July and so followed the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report which set out the key information on the new spending plans, subsequently confirmed in the Comprehensive Spending Review. The average forecast for growth in 1999 in these new forecasts is almost exactly in line with the Treasury assumption adopted in the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report. Around half of them show higher growth, and around half are lower.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent changes he has made to his estimate of future unemployment levels in UK manufacturing. [53766]

  Mr. Byers
  In line with the convention adopted by previous Governments, the Government do not publish any forecast of unemployment.

  Interest Rates
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under what circumstances he would consider taking control over interest rates from the Bank of England. [53435]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Bank of England Act 1998 has given the Bank of England operational responsibility to set interest rates to meet the Government's inflation target. The Treasury's reserve powers are set out in Chapter 11, part II, section 19 of that Act.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out for each year from 1998–99 to 2001–02 the increase in Personal Social Services in(a) cash terms, (b) real terms and (c) as a percentage adjusted for the amount provided in Special Transitional Grant in 1998–99 and subsequently increased in line with the Government's inflation assumptions. [52609]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  After allowance has been made for the transfer of responsibility for asylum seekers from the Department of Health to the Home Office, the increases in total

  417
  resources from 1998–99 to 2001–02 for personal social services in England are as set out in the table.

  Planned provision (million)

  Cash increase (percentage)

  1998–99

  8,387

  —

  6.2

  1999–2000

  8,915

  3.6

  5.5

  2000–01

  9,408

  3.0

  5.3

  2001–02

  9,906

  2.7

  The figures are for total provision. Thus, figures for 1998–99 include the special transitional grant, and all other revenue grants in that year, except support for asylum seekers.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Social Landlords
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to change the low cost home ownership incentive schemes offered by registered social landlords and to enable more registered social landlords to offer flexible tenure schemes. [54622]

  Ms Armstrong
  We plan to simplify the range of low cost home ownership schemes available through Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) in England by offering a new scheme based on the Homebuy scheme that has run successfully in Wales since 1994.

  Qualifying tenants will receive interest-free equity loans to meet 25% of the cost of buying a home of their own. Funding for the scheme will be provided by the Housing Corporation, and RSLs will be able to bid for funds from their Approved Development Programme (ADP).

  Homebuy will replace two existing schemes, the Tenants Incentive Scheme and Do-It-Yourself Shared Ownership. It will open to RSL tenants, those nominated from the local authority waiting list who would otherwise receive permanent social housing and local authority tenants, subject to appropriate eligibility rules.

  In common with the two schemes it replaced Homebuy will be available only in areas where the scheme can help relieve a shortage of social housing by assisting tenants or those on the waiting list into home ownership.

  Homebuy will not normally be offered in areas where there is no shortage of social housing. Support through the ADP for the development and sale of dwellings by RSLs on shared ownership terms will continue.

  I believe that Homebuy will prove to be an attractive scheme for tenants, and I have asked the Housing Corporation to consult interested parties on detailed proposals for the new scheme. I will be laying a Statutory Instrument before the House in due course to add Homebuy to the permitted purposes of RSLs.
  418
  We also plan to give RSLs greater scope to offer flexible tenure schemes to help households who have bought on shared ownership terms and who face repossession because of a change in their financial circumstances. Working within rules set by the Housing Corporation RSLs will be allowed to use recycled Social Housing Grant to buy back from shared owners some or all of the equity of their property.

  Flexible tenure schemes are already offered by a small number of RSLs and enabling more to do so will be an important step in avoiding homelessness and maintaining stable communities. I have also asked the Housing Corporation to consult on detailed proposals for this new measure.

  English Partnerships
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a report on the progress of English Partnerships. [54623]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today laid before Parliament English Partnerships' Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98, which sets out their achievements last year. The Report provides details of the Agency's £315 million development programme and illustrates the varied range of their projects across the English regions. It explains that 545 projects were approved in 1997–98 and a total of over 2000 have been completed in the Agency's first four years. The Agency's key outputs for 1997–98 were as follows:

  Outputs for 1997–98

  Jobs created/safeguarded

  29,000

  Land regenerated (Ha)

  1,350

  Private finance attracted (£m)

  767

  Housing units facilitated

  7,540

  Commercial/industrial floorspace developed (sq.m)

  860,000

  City Challenge
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when his Department's research on the final evaluation of City Challenge will be published. [54624]

  Mr. Caborn
  The first output from the final evaluation of City Challenge, "What Works; Learning the Lessons", is published today. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Library. This report is based on a preliminary review of the monitoring data and interviews with representatives of City Challenge Partnerships. The full evaluation report is due in October 1998.

  Business Aviation
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has undertaken into business aviation in the South East; and if he will make a statement. [54627]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department of Transport and the Department of Trade and Industry published a report on Business Aviation in 1995. My Department has also recently let a consultancy contract for a study of business aviation in the South East, to update that earlier report. The consultants are undertaking a two-part study which
  419
  should provide consistent background information, amongst other things, on the size of the current market, likely future demand, and availability of facilities and capacity, against which local and Central Government, airport operators, business aviation operators and other interested parties can base future decisions about the provision of Business Aviation.

  The first part of the study, which involved an audit of demand and capacity, has not been completed and copies of the interim report have been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Opencast Coal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about progress with the review of planning policy on opencast coal and the appeal cases which are currently before him for decision. [54686]

  Mr. Caborn
  Planning policy for coal extraction, including opencast coal mining, is set out in Minerals Planning Guidance Note 3 (MPG3). Following the completion of the Energy Fuels Review, my Department will be preparing a revised draft of MPG3 for England which will be issued this autumn for a period of full consultation with all interested parties. This revised draft will take into account our pre-election commitments on opencast coal, the responses to our consultation in 1997 on Labour's 10-point plan for opencast coal, and, when available, the final conclusions of the Energy Fuels Review on the future of coal as a fuel for UK power generation.

  Meanwhile, my Department has issued the Secretary of State's decisions on 4 opencast appeal cases which have been delayed whilst the Energy Fuels Review has been in progress. It would not have been reasonable to delay these any longer. In deciding future cases after the publication of the revised draft of MPG3 for England, its emerging policies, as well as those in the current MPG3, will in appropriate cases be relevant considerations both for mineral planning authorities and for the Secretary of State, and as such will need to be taken into account.

  Greater London Authority
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions where the Greater London Authority will be located; and if he will make a statement. [54811]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have now drawn up a list of eight possible locations for London's new Mayor and Assembly. This has been selected from information on over 50 buildings, new developments and sites sent to Knight Frank, our agents.

  They are:

  Camelford House, SE11 (refurbishment of a Thamesside building)

  Canary Wharf, E14 (site WF-9—overlooking the Thames and the City)

  Dean Ryle Street Building, SW1 (refurbishment—formerly part of Westminster Hospital)

  London Bridge City, SE1 (a site between Tower Bridge and London Bridge on the Thames)

  420

  Regent's Place, Euston Road, NW1 (new development close to Regents Park)

  St. George's Court, New Oxford Street, WC1 (refurbishment of a former Ministry of Defence building)

  Vauxhall Cross, SE11 (the Effra site by Vauxhall Bridge)

  Victoria House, Bloomsbury Square, WC1 (refurbishment).

  The next step will be to provide the owners, managers and developers of these buildings and sites with details of the GLA's likely requirements and to invite them to submit details on how they can fulfil these, how quickly and at what cost. Some of the eight options are also being considered for other uses and may fall out. Some will need planning and other approvals and these will need to be considered by the appropriate authorities. If other possible locations come forward in the next few weeks, these too will be considered.

  I anticipate that there will be strong competition to provide the high quality building which the Mayor and Assembly deserve. I hope to announce the final decision around the end of the year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date he plans the elections for the Greater London Authority to take place. [53586]

  Mr. Raynsford
  As stated in paragraph 1.28 of the White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897), elections for the Mayor and the Assembly could be held in the autumn of 1999 or in Spring 2000. We hope to announce our preferred date in the autumn.

  Flooding (Midlands)
  Mr. Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to(a) Warwick District Council, (b) Wychavon District Council and (c) Northamptonshire Police Authority under the Bellwin scheme in respect of costs incurred following the severe flooding on the weekend of 9 to 12 April. [54815]

  Ms Armstrong
  1 am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified in these cases. Schemes will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to each authority to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs which are above a threshold and which have been incurred by the authority in dealing with the flooding.

  Sefton
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his decision on the Local Government Commission's recommendations on the future of local government in the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton; and if he will make a statement. [54873]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am today announcing that we have decided to accept the Local Government Commission's recommendation for no change in the structure of local government in Sefton. I believe this will be the most satisfactory way forward for the whole of Sefton in terms of effective and convenient local government. We have also decided to accept the Commission's recommendations for minor changes to electoral arrangements in the borough.
  421

  World War II Bombs, Chippenham
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will provide financial assistance to North Wiltshire District Council under the Bellwin scheme in respect of costs incurred following the discovery of two World War II bombs in Chippenham on 12 and 13 February. [54874]

  Ms Armstrong
  I am satisfied that financial assistance under the Bellwin scheme is justified given the exceptional circumstances in this case. A scheme will, therefore, be established under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Grant will be paid to cover 85 per cent. of eligible costs which are above a threshold and which have been incurred by North Wiltshire District Council in dealing with this incident.

  Environmental Information
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has reached conclusions on his review of policy on environmental information for consumers, and on the Financial Management and Policy Review of the United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board; and if he will make a statement. [54155].

  Mr. Meacher
  These reviews have been taking place against a background of helpful developments at EU level. EU institutions have recently been considering the future direction of the EU ecolabelling scheme, while interest has been growing in a more integrated approach to policy on consumer products and the environment. The UK Presidency tabled these issues for discussion at the Council of Ministers in June. There was a very constructive debate, which gave some clear guidance about future revision of the ecolabelling regulation and confirmed a close interest among member states in work being developed by the Commission on an integrated policy for products and the environment.

  Against this background, the Government propose to look afresh at ways of stimulating a more sustainable market in consumer products, including more effective ways of informing consumers about the benefits. This will involve consideration of a range of approaches depending on the specific characteristics of products and the way they are consumed. I shall be issuing a strategy paper later this summer which will set out our analysis of the issues, our view on the part that can best be played by different instruments, and some specific propositions for future action on which we will be seeking views.

  To help take matters forward, I intend setting up a new advisory panel to assist my Department across the range of product-related issues. The panel will be asked to advise on the development of strategic product policies, priorities and mechanisms for national approaches to labelling, and practical action to raise the standard of information available in the market. Membership of the panel will be drawn from a range of stakeholder interests, and make use of experience already available within the UK Ecolabelling Board (UKEB).

  On the "prior options review" of UKEB itself, copies of the report are being placed in the Library of the House. The text is also available on request from my Department and will be placed on its Internet site.
  422
  UKEB was set up under the European Communities Act 1972 with the sole purpose of administering the EU ecolabelling scheme. Unfortunately, that scheme has had only limited impact in the market; the level of take-up is still low and is not expected to increase dramatically in the foreseeable future. The review found that UKEB has done a good job in these difficult circumstances. I endorse this view and pay tribute to the dedicated work done by the Board members and staff of UKEB to advance the EU ecolabelling scheme. However, in the circumstances of low market take-up of the label, and bearing in mind that UKEB' s duties could not be widened without new legislation, the Government would not feel justified in retaining an executive Non-Departmental Public Body solely to administer this function.

  The Government will therefore be formally winding up UKEB later this year, at which point the role of "UK Competent Body" under the EU ecolabelling regulation will be taken on by my Department while wider policies are being developed. The new advisory panel will be asked to assist the Department in this work by offering advice on strategic ecolabelling issues. The EU scheme is a valuable voluntary instrument, with potential for influencing consumer choice across the single market, but experience has shown that it will need to operate within a wider framework of measures if it is to make a significant contribution. In aiming to develop a more comprehensive approach to consumer products and the environment, the Government hope to unlock more of the potential which schemes such as this offer.

  Water and Sewerage Services
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what analysis his Department has undertaken of the incidence effects of changing the basis of charging for domestic water and sewerage services. [54136]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department will today publish research carried out by the consultancy firm Maxwell Stamp to examine the incidence effects of changing the basis for charging for domestic water and sewerage services in England and Wales. The alternatives to the current rateable value based bills examined as part of this research are council tax based charges, flat rate charges and a number of measured tariffs.

  This research was taken into account when writing the "Water Charging in England and Wales—A New Approach" Consultation Paper, and will also inform our decisions in light of responses to that Consultation Paper.

  Packaging Waste Regulations
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will be consulting on options for amending the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997; and if he will make a statement. [54156]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am today placing in the Library a copy of the Government's consultation document on amendments to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997.

  The consultation document puts forward a number of options and proposals for modifying the Regulations and many of those reflect the recommendations made at the end

  423
  of June by the Advisory Committee on Packaging (ACP), chaired by Sir Peter Parker. The ACP undertook a review of the Regulations in the first part of this year and have, in particular, advised that, at this early stage, adjustments to the Regulations should be kept to the minimum in order to minimise uncertainty, and encourage investment in the collection and reprocessing infrastructure for packaging recycling and recovery. The Government also need to be assured that the requirements of the Regulations will be sufficient to enable the UK to meet the targets in the EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste in 2001. The options and proposals in the paper are therefore designed to ensure the smooth working of the Regulations in order to meet our objectives.

  The document invites views on the options presented for changes to the Regulations. Decisions on any changes to the system will be made on the basis of the views received in response, and will of course be subject to Parliamentary approval later in the year.

  Hon. Members may wish to note that this document is relevant to a number of the issues that were raised by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in its Sixth Report, Substantial Waste Management. The Government are preparing a full response to the Committee's recommendations, including those relating to the management of packaging waste, and hope to publish it shortly.

  Housing (Unsafe Structures)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement concerning the case of R v. Bristol City Council ex parte Everett (The Times 21 May 1998) with reference to the implications for the health and safety of tenants whose properties may be structurally unsafe. [50738]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 16 July 1998]: The circumstances of this case do appear to be somewhat special. I understand that it is likely that there will be an appeal and no further comment would be appropriate at this stage.

  House-Builders Federation
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the meetings held between Ministers in his Department and the House-Builders Federation in the last six months and the dates of those meetings. [52266]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I met representatives of the House-Builders Federation on 23 February and addressed a luncheon at their annual general meeting on 7 April.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding the proximity of wind turbines to bridleways and other public rights of way and their impact on equine welfare. [52097]

  Mr. Raynsford
  One, from the British Horse Society.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will assess the advantages and disadvantages of amending 424
  PPG 22 to introduce a minimum required distance between wind farms and bridleways and other public rights of way. [52098]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning Policy Guidance notes are not intended to be prescriptive. We have no evidence that the existing guidance is not robust enough in this area. Planning Policy Guidance note 7, 'The Countryside—Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development', already alerts local planning authorities to take into account the impact of proposed developments on public rights of way when deciding planning applications. Experience indicates that properly designed and maintained wind turbines are a safe technology.

  London Underground
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what contingency plans he has to finance London Underground in the event that his public/private partnership plans are not in place by 2000–01. [52175]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  London Transport is developing plans to award one, two or three infrastructure contracts to finance, maintain and modernise the Underground's infrastructure by April 2000. If it appears that this timetable will not be achieved, the Government will consider with LT what interim funding arrangements may be necessary.

  Coach Services (London)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of services interchanging at London coach terminals for passengers in transit to locations outside London. [52750]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Coach services interchange at several locations in London including Victoria Coach Station, Bulleid Way, Heathrow Airport, King's Cross, and Russell Square. The Government do not compile information about these services. However, I understand that, according to recent sample surveys, around 30 per cent. of passengers departing from Victoria Coach Station were estimated to have transferred from other coach services in and around the station.

  Hospital Transport Services
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he held with the Secretary of State for Health over hospital transport services prior to the publication of the Integrated Transport White Paper. [52317]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers and officials in both Departments have been working closely on issues relating to hospital transport services prior to the publication of the Integrated Transport White Paper, and will continue to do so.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he made of the advantages of including hospital transport services within the scope of the Integrated Transport White Paper. [52318]
  425
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Hospital transport services are included in the Integrated White Paper as part of a wider initiative to encourage employers to adopt green transport plans in an effort to change travel habits of employees. Hospitals have a vital role to play in sending the right messages to their communities by acting responsibly on health issues. We are, therefore, strongly encouraging health facilities to produce green transport plans.

  A3, Hindhead
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about pollution, traffic congestion and consequent environmental damage arising from traffic on the A3 at Hindhead. [52319]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have receive a considerable number of representations in response to the Roads Review consultation about pollution, traffic congestion and environmental damage arising from traffic on the A3 at Hindhead. In addition, over the last twelve months the Highways Agency has received a number of representations relating to traffic congestion in this location.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what was the cost of removing(a) pesticides, (b) nitrates and (c) phosphates from water supplies to make them potable, in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98; [52546]

  (2) what was the cost of removing from water supplies phosphate derived from (a) point sources and (b) diffuse sources to make them potable, in (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96, (iii) 1996–97 and (iv) 1997–98. [52547]

  Mr. Meacher
  The costs in England and Wales of removing pesticides and nitrates from drinking water for 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 are listed. This information is derived from companies' July returns and published annually by Ofwat on CD-ROM, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Information for 1997–98 is not yet available. There is not normally a requirement to remove phosphates from drinking water supplies from(a) point sources and (b) diffuse sources; indeed in some cases phosphates are added to reduce plumbo-solvency.

  Expenditure on nitrate and pesticide removal at water treatment works (in millions of pounds, at 1997–98 prices)

  Year

  Nitrates

  Pesticides

  1994–95

  20

  134

  1995–96

  9

  155

  1996–97

  5

  117

  Source:

  Table 37 July Returns

  Ospar Commission
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ospar meeting in Sintra, Portugal. [52713]
  426
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of the ministerial conference of the Ospar Commission in Portugal. [52752]

  Mr. Meacher
  The first Ministerial meeting of the Ospar Commission for the protection of the marine environment of the North East Atlantic successfully reached agreement on a wide range of issues, thereby laying the foundation for an agreed international programme of work to implement the Ospar Convention.

  We agreed a decision to end the potential opt-out for France and the United Kingdom on the dumping of radioactive waste. We adopted a new annexe to the Convention to authorise the Commission to adopt programmes and measures to control human activities that can have an adverse impact on the marine environment, with safeguards to ensure that there is no duplication or contradiction of work in other international forums, especially in respect of the management of fisheries. We adopted a binding decision to ban the dumping of all steel installations. This decision also bans the dumping of concrete installations and leaving both steel and concrete installations in place, but provides for possible derogations for sea-disposal of concrete installations and leaving in place the footings of steel installations over 10,000 tonnes. Consideration of the possibility of such derogations is subject to agreed assessment and international consultation procedures.

  Looking ahead, we adopted long-term strategies to guide the work of the Commission on:
  hazardous substances (where the ultimate aim will be concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for man-made synthetic substances, and the goal for 2020 will be to make every endeavour to move towards the target of cessation of discharges, emissions and losses by the date);
  radioactive substances (where the ultimate aim will be concentrations in the marine environment near background values for naturally occurring substances and close to zero for artificial radioactive substances; in achieving this objective, we shall take into account legitimate uses of the sea, technical feasibility and radiological impacts to man and biota; the goal for 2020 will be the reduction of discharges, emissions and losses to levels where the additional concentrations in the marine environment above historic levels, resulting from such discharges, emissions and losses, are close to zero);
  eutrophication (where the aim is to eliminate eutrophication where it occurs in the North East Atlantic and to prevent further occurrences); and
  the protection of ecosystems and biological diversity (where the first aim will be the entry into force of the new Annexe, and the identification of human activities that need to be addressed under it, and the preparation of programmes and measures to do so, along with promoting the establishment of a network of marine protected areas).

  We also agreed, now that the decision on the disposal of disused offshore installations has been adopted, to develop a similar strategy, for adoption at next year's meeting of the Commission, on setting environmental goals for the offshore oil and gas industry and establishing improved management mechanisms to achieve them.
  427
  Finally, we approved the work on the production of a Quality Status Report on the North East Atlantic by 2000 to provide a sound, scientific basis for identifying and prioritising future tasks and for revising the strategies at the next Ministerial meeting of the Commission in 2003.

  A copy of the Sintra Statement, summing up the conclusions of the Ministers, is being put in the Library.

  The agreements which we reached at Sintra are good for the environment, good for jobs and good for the UK's reputation abroad, as underlining, in the World Year of the Oceans, our commitment to protecting our common heritage in the oceans.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) of 16 June 1997,Official Report, column 39, on council tax for mobile homes, if he will make a statement on progress with his discussions on possible changes to the existing structure of valuation bands. [53085]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The consultation paper 'Improving local financial accountability' invited views on whether there is a case to change the council tax. The deadline for responses was 1 June. Our proposals will be set out in a White Paper shortly.

  Noise Insulation
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the decibel noise levels at which noise protection funding has been made available since 1968. [52896]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 were made retrospective to roads opened to traffic on or after the 17 October 1969. The qualifying noise level as described in my previous answer has remained unchanged since it was originally introduced.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions at what decibel level Government funding is available for noise insulation. [52895]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Government funding is available only in cases where the noise level is expected to exceed a specified noise level and to have risen by at least 1 decibel above the prevailing noise level as the result of the creation or alteration of a trunk road. The level of road traffic noise specified in the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 (as amended in 1988) is 68 decibels measured as an average level exceeded for 10 per cent. of the time between the hours of 6 am and midnight.

  A13 Underpass
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the plans for the A13 underpass development at Prince Regent Lane. [52834]
  428
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the decision in 1996 to adopt a slightly more southerly alignment for the A13 Prince Regent Lane Improvement, a full environmental assessment is being carried out and we hope to hold a full public consultation on the new alignment in the Autumn.

  Trains (Capacity)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the number of trains operated by Virgin Rail classed as short trains. [52768]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Virgin Trains is required by the franchise agreements for West Coast Trains and CrossCountry Trains to use all reasonable endeavours to provide sufficient capacity on each train that it operates. For certain services, notably peak service to and from London Euston and Birmingham New Street, there is a more detailed capacity requirement in the Passenger Service Requirement (PSR). The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising checks twice a year that Virgin plans to deliver sufficient capacity. It also monitors what actually happens on a four weekly basis. Failure to achieve 97.5 per cent. of the planned capacity in a four week period is a breach of the Franchise for the West Coast; the equivalent figure for the CrossCountry is 94 per cent. There was no breach of these limits in 1997–98. In addition, Virgin West Coast must pay a penalty for every train that is short of the planned number of seats. It paid a total of £167,907 to the Franchising Director in 1997–98.

  Rail Operators (Targets)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take steps to ensure that the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising uses his powers to the full extent to ensure that rail operators meet the targets set. [52769]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Objectives, Instructions and Guidance which we issued to the Franchising Director in November last year require him to manage franchises in a way which ensures the prompt and effective delivery of the terms of the franchise agreements and he uses his powers to that end. As our White Paper on the Future of Transport makes clear, we intend to set up a Strategic Rail Authority with stronger powers of enforcement and to seek more demanding performance standards for franchise operators.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many decisions after receipt of planning inspector's reports have been delayed for longer than(a) three, (b) six and (c) nine months in the last three years. [52399]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Department holds information on the number of appeal and call-in cases outstanding at the end of each quarter which have been with the Department, following receipt of an inspector's report, for 8 weeks or more in the case

  429
  of appeals, and 13 weeks or more in the case of call-ins. The latest available figures relate to the quarter ending

  Outstanding for 13 weeks or more

  Outstanding for 26 weeks or more

  Outstanding for 39 weeks or more

  1 October 1994–30 September 1995

  26

  10

  32

  1 October 1995–30 September 1996

  11

  12

  16

  1 October 1996–30 September 1997

  40

  25

  21

  Total

  77

  47

  69

  Each case is recorded in this table only once (ie cases outstanding for 39 weeks or more are not also recorded as being outstanding for 13 and 26 weeks). Some cases outstanding for less than 26 weeks and decided between quarterly returns will not be included in these figures.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incinerators in the United Kingdom have emitted levels of dioxins above the statutory level set by his Department in each of the past 10 years. [52827]

  Mr. Meacher
  There has been a statutory emission limit for dioxins only since January 1998 when a direction was issued by my Department to the Environment Agency in relation to hazardous waste incinerators so as to implement the EU Hazardous Waste Incineration Directive. However, the Environment Agency and its predecessor body (HM Inspectorate of Pollution) have set their own dioxin limits in authorisations for certain incinerators in England and Wales for several years. Information from the Environment Agency is that the statutory emission limit has not been exceeded at any incinerator to which it applies, and that their own/HMIP' s limits have been exceeded at two incinerators.

  Ecolabelling
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) of 15 June 1998,Official Report, columns 39–40, if he will make a statement on the

  Date

  Title

  May 1997

  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1997

  May 1997

  The Merchant Shipping (Mandatory Ships' Routeing) Regulations 1997

  June 1997

  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 1997 (implementing a Council Directive on the approximation of the laws of member states relating to roadworthiness tests for motor vehicles and their trailers (exhaust emissions))

  June 1997

  The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 1997 (implementing a Council Directive on measures to be taken against air pollution by motor vehicles)

  June 1997

  The Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Fees) Regulations 1997

  July 1997

  The Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1997

  July 1997

  The International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs (Amendment) Regulations 1997

  September 1997

  The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 1997

  September 1997

  Proposal for a Council Directive on statistical returns in respect of carriage of goods and passengers by sea

  September 1997

  The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Cargoes) (Amendment) Regulations 1997

  October 1997

  The Airports (Groundhandling) Regulations 1997

  December 1997

  The Scheme for Construction Contracts (England and Wales) Regulations 1997

  December 1997

  Proposal for a Council Recommendation on a parking card for people with disabilities

  February 1998

  The Surface Waters (Dangerous Substances) (Classification) Regulations 1998

  February 1998

  The Civil Aviation (Canadian Navigation Service) (Second Amendment) Regulations 1998

  430
  30 September 1997. In the three years up until this date, the returns provide the following information:

  conclusions of the discussion on the European Community's ecolabelling system at the Council of Ministers meeting of 16 and 17 June. [53828]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom Presidency initiated an orientation debate at the Council of Ministers on 17 June, which was successful in enabling member states to exchange views on the Commission' s Proposal for a Council Regulation to revise the Community's existing eco-label award scheme. The debate focused on two aspects of the Proposal which had been of particular concern to member states. These were the proposal for future administration of the scheme of a new "European Ecolabelling Organisation", financed by member states; and the proposal to withdraw national eco-labels within five years in the case of product areas covered by the European eco-label. The Council had a useful discussion of these points, and related policy issues, in the light of which the Commission indicated that it would be revising its Proposal.

  I also refer the hon. Gentleman to a reply by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) on 24 June 1998, Official Report, column 542, on the overall outcome of this Council of Ministers.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the compliance cost assessments published by his Department since 1 May 1997. [52936]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Between 1 May 1997 and 31 May 1998, twenty nine compliance cost assessments have been published by my Department. These are:
  431

  Date

  Title

  February 1998

  The Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1998

  March 1998

  The Control of Lead at Work Regulations

  March 1998

  The Environmental Protection (Prescribed Processes and Substances) (Amendment) (Hazardous Waste Incineration) Regulations 1998

  March 1998

  The Mines (Notice of Abandonment) Regulations 1998

  March 1998

  Merchant Shipping (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  March 1998

  The Fishing Vessels (Life Saving Appliances) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  March 1998

  The Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) (Amendment) Rules 1998

  March 1998

  The Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) (Fishing Vessels) (Amendment) Regulations 1998

  April 1998

  The Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Small Ships) Regulations 1998

  April 1998

  The Merchant Shipping (Fire Protection: Large Ships) Regulations 1998

  April 1998

  The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-ordination Convention) Regulations 1998

  May 1998

  The Merchant Shipping (Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime) (Amendment) Order 1998

  May 1998

  The Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) (Amendment) Order 1998 (shared CCA with the above)

  May 1998

  The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 1998

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the regeneration spending review indicating revised priorities for the single regeneration budget. [53684]

  Mr. Caborn
  The CSR announcement on 14 July 1998,Official Report, columns 187–94, included a re-shaped Single Regeneration Budget. This is one of two strands of the New Deal for Regeneration, the other being the New Deal for Communities.

  The re-shaped SRB!will receive over £2.3 billion over 3 years, of which £800 million is new money. In order to make a real and sustainable difference in the most deprived areas, 80 per cent. of new resources will be targeted on the areas of greatest need. This will provide for over 50 major new schemes of about £20 million to be running by the end of this parliament.

  The balance of resources (20 per cent.) will be used to tackle pockets of need elsewhere, including in rural areas, where SRB resources will combine with the former Rural Challenge resources of the Rural Development Commission to form an integrated rural regeneration element of the SRB.

  The re-shaped SRB will include an emphasis on strengthening local partnerships and on value for money:
  a new emphasis on partnership capacity building so that the local community is equipped to fully participate in the regeneration of its area
  partnerships will have to demonstrate that local communities are directly involved and supportive of schemes
  the release of funding will depend on adequate management systems including project appraisal.

  East Midlands Airport
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Department has to regulate noise nuisance from East Midlands Airport if the airport obtains permission to extend its activities. [53343]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. It is our policy that noise nuisance from airports should, wherever possible, be discussed and resolved locally. The planning system allows measures for alleviation of noise associated with new development to be agreed where appropriate. We
  432
  announced in the White Paper "A New Deal for Transport" our intention to consult on detailed proposals for legislation on aircraft noise.

  Passenger Train Services
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the Government will propose to the Director of Opraf to increase the number of passenger train services that run according to schedule. [53564]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Last November, we issued new Objectives, Instructions and Guidance to the Franchising Director which require him to secure a progressive improvement in the quality of passenger railway services and to maintain a comprehensive and rigorous programme of performance monitoring. As announced in our White Paper "A New Deal for Transport", we will amend the Railways Act 1993 so that financial penalties for poor performance can be imposed much faster and past infringements penalised. Train operators will also be judged on their current performance before any new contracts are agreed.

  Cycling (London)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of security restrictions on cycle parking in Central London on the level of cycle use. [53687]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The City of Westminster have made representations to the Metropolitan Police about the need for properly constituted cycle parking facilities to be improved in the Whitehall area, while paying proper regard to considerations of public safety. A number of new locations have been suggested, and the Police currently have the matter under review. I welcome the prospect of such improvements, as being consistent with Government policy to encourage the use of cycles as a healthy, sustainable and environmentally friendly mode of transport.

  A12 Relief Road
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the projected completion date, and what was the original
  433
  estimated date, for completion of the A12 relief road between Leytonstone and Redbridge roundabout and what factors underlie the differences. [53704]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Amess, dated 30 July 1998:
  The Minister for Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the A12 Hackney to M11 Link Road scheme.
  The section of the scheme between the Green Man Roundabout at Leytonstone and the Redbridge Roundabout began in September 1993. The original four year contract had been extended due to complications in the diversion of public utilities equipment and, more recently, difficulties with the provision of specialist mechanical and electrical equipment.
  We now expect completion of this section of the scheme around the turn of the year but this is not expected to affect the overall scheme completion date.

  Eastern Regional Development Agency
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of resources the Eastern Region RDA will receive; when it will be paid; and what conditions will be applied to its use. [53583]

  Mr. Caborn
  Resources for individual RDAs will be announced later this year and expenditure programmes will be transferred to them in April 1999. The conditions applied to the use of the resources will be set out in the Financial Memoranda and other guidance issued to RDAs when they are established following enactment of the Regional Development Agencies Bill, which is currently before Parliament.

  Speed Limits
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the Government's policy towards the introduction of 20 mile per hour speed limits outside schools. [52137]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have recently consulted on proposals to provide freedom for local traffic authorities to make 20 mph limits without the need to obtain central government consent. The responses to the consultation are currently being considered. Under the proposed new system it will be for the authorities to decide where to place 20 mph speed limits; but we would recommend that schools should be set in the context of their surrounding areas and local experience of traffic problems rather than being treated in isolation.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the task forces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997 and in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers and (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53145]
  434
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are six Task Forces and three Advisory Groups with independent members which have been set up by my Department since 1 May 1997. I have today placed in the Library of the House the information requested for each of these bodies.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53053]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Staff in DETR (Central) with contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday.

  Men: 404

  Women: 763.

  Staff in the Department's agencies with contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday.

  Men: 2,840

  Women: 3,298.

  Driving Test Centres
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost of the building lease for the(a) Crosby, (b) Norris Green, (c) Southport, (d) Garston and (e) St. Helens driving centres in the last year for which figures are available. [53814]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The licence payment under the memorandum of Terms of Occupation held with the Employment Services Agency for Crosby was £13,416 p.a. Under similar arrangements with the Department for Social Services, the licence payment for the driving test centre at Southport was £3,420 in 1997–98. Lease costs for the test centres at Norris Green and St. Helens were £3,600 and £3,480 respectively. Garston is a freehold property.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the long-term future of(a) Southport,(b) Norris Green, (c) Garston and (d) St. Helens driving test centres; how many years are left before the leases expire for each driving test centre; and what penalty clauses are associated with the leases. [53815]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the terms of the Driving Standard Agency's agreement with the Department of Social Security the lease on the driving test centre at Southport will expire on 31 March 2001. The Agency's test centres at Norris Green and St. Helens are purpose built premises with ground leases that will expire on 15 March 2081 and 15 November 2080 respectively. The test centre at Garston is freehold.

  If any of these centres were to close, then the Agency would seek to assign or sell its interest in the property. If an alternative occupant or purchaser could not be found, the penalty would be having to pay the continuing cost of the property.
  435
  The Agency keeps its test centre estate under regular review to ensure that centres can provide tests of a satisfactory standard whilst maintaining acceptable local levels of service in a cost effective manner.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors led to the closure of Crosby Driving Test Centre. [53812]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Crosby driving test centre had to close because the major occupier of the building—the Employment Service Agency—required the Driving Standards Agency to vacate the premises.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the advantage of establishing regional driving test centres to replace existing test centres. [53811]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency has made no assessment of replacing the current network of local driving test centres with centres serving each region.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the income generated by the(a) Crosby, (b) Norris Green, (c) Southport, (d) Garston and (e) St. Helens driving test centres relative to the expenditure associated with the each test centre. [53810]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The table compares the income from car driving test fees with the property and staff costs at each of the test centres in the financial year 1997–98:

  £

  Test centre

  Income from car test fees

  Property and staff costs

  Crosby

  123,910

  109,249

  Norris Green

  174,707

  121,069

  Southport

  104,486

  45,872

  Garston

  139,883

  111,053

  St. Helens

  110,375

  69.491

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions following the introduction of a licensing scheme for private hire vehicles in London, if he will review the legislative provisions which prohibit any signage on private hire vehicles. [54526]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 will repeal the London Cab Act 1973. The question of signage on private hire vehicles in London will be dealt with in regulations under section 30 of the 1998 Act. We shall consult before making regulations.

  Millennium Compliance (Train Operators)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what responsibility OPRAF have to ensure that systems used by train operating companies are millennium compliant. [54529]
  436
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  OPRAF has no specific responsibility for this. Millennium compliance is the responsibility of the train operating companies. OPRAF has a clear interest in the delivery of train operators' obligations and would be concerned with any failure to deliver, whatever the cause.

  Mark 1 Rolling Stock
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions his Department has had with OPRAF regarding the phasing out of Mark 1 rolling stock. [54520]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department has had regular discussions with the Office for Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF), which have touched on many different railway matters including the use of Mark 1 rolling stock.

  Airlines (Gatwick-Channel Islands)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the airlines operating between Gatwick and the Channel Islands in each of the last five years. [54528]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The following list of airlines operating between Gatwick and the Channel Islands has been compiled using information supplied by the Civil Aviation Authority:

  Calendar Year

  Airlines

  1997

  Air Atlantique Atlantic Cargo—Jersey

  Air UK—Jersey

  Airworld Aviation Ltd.—Jersey

  Aurigny Air Services—Jersey

  BAC Express Airlines Ltd.—Jersey

  Caledonian Airways—Jersey

  Channel Express (Air Svs)—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  City Flyer Express—Jersey/Guernsey

  Jersey European Airways (UK)—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  SATA—Jersey

  Titan Airways—Jersey

  1996

  Airworld Aviation Ltd.—Jersey

  Aurigny Air Services—Jersey/Guernsey

  Channel Express (Air Svs)—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  City Flyer Express—Jersey/Guernsey

  Jersey European Airways—Jersey/Guernsey

  Jersey European Airways (UK)—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  Leisure International—Jersey

  Monarch Airlines—Jersey

  Sabre Airways Ltd.—Jersey/Guernsey

  Titan Airways—Jersey/Guernsey

  1995

  Air Atlantique Atlantic Cargo—Jersey

  Air UK—Jersey

  Aurigny Air Services—Jersey

  BAC Express Airlines Ltd.—Jersey

  Channel Express (Air Svs)—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  City Flyer Express—Jersey/Guernsey

  European Air Charter—Jersey

  Excalibur Airways—Jersey

  GB Airways Ltd.—Jersey

  Jersey European Airways—Jersey/Guernsey

  Palmair Flightline—Guernsey

  437

  Calendar Year

  Airlines

  1994

  Air 2000—Jersey

  Air UK—Jersey/Guernsey

  Ambassador Airways Ltd.—Jersey

  Aurigny Air Services—Jersey/Guernsey

  BAC Express Airlines Ltd.—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  Britannia Airways—Jersey

  British Midland—Jersey

  British World Airlines Ltd.—Jersey

  Channel Express (Air Svs)—

  Jersey/Guernsey

  City Flyer Express—Jersey/Guernsey

  European Air Charter—Jersey

  Excalibur Airways—Jersey/Guernsey

  Jersey European Airways—Jersey/Guernsey

  Leisure International—Jersey

  Monarch Airlines—Jersey

  1993

  Air Columbus—Jersey

  Air UK—Jersey/Guernsey

  Aurigny Air Services—Jersey

  Britannia Airways—Jersey

  British World Airlines Ltd.—Jersey

  Channel Express (Air Svs)—Guernsey

  City Flyer Express—Jersey/Guernsey

  Excalibur Airways—Jersey

  Jersey European Airways—Jersey/Guernsey

  Monarch Airlines—Jersey

  Nouvelair Tunisie—Jersey

  Sterling European Airlines—Jersey

  Notes:

  1. The list includes all services both Scheduled and Charter and Passenger and Cargo

  2. Air Taxi operations have been excluded

  3. The list is based on the Last/Next airport, this means that the Channel Islands airport may not be the ultimate destination of the aircraft

  Airlines (Slots)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the number of slots held by airlines at(a) Gatwick, (b) Heathrow and (c) Stansted in each of the last 10 years. [54527]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Information on the slots allocated is collected and held by Airport Co-ordination Ltd., but it is not readily available for the last 10 years.

  Airports (South-East England)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the ownership of the south-east of England airports will be considered as part of his Department's work on the aviation White Paper. [54523]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The question of the three main London airports being under the same ownership was raised by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in its report this week on Regional Air Services. The Government will be addressing this point as part of their response to Parliament in the normal way.

  The Knowledge Examination
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what factors underlie the increase in the time taken by applicants for 438
  the knowledge examination to progress from (a) initial talk to first appearance and (b) first appearance to becoming licensed. [54524]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The increase in time over the years between initial talk and first appearance has been due to different factors at different times. These include the introduction of a requirement to learn all the designated runs before a first appearance, rather than only a proportion, in order to reduce the overall time taken to complete the Knowledge; the limited number of knowledge examiners at various times; the introduction of a written test which must be passed before the first appearance, in order to reduce the demand on Knowledge examiners' time; and the increasing complexity of the information candidates need to learn, arising from changes in London traffic management systems.

  The increase in time between first appearance and becoming licensed is partly due to the increasing complexity of what needs to be learned, but also to the significant increase in the number of candidates studying for the Knowledge. The Public Carriage Office have recently recruited extra examiners.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how long the average waiting time was for the first appearance for the knowledge examination in(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990, (d) 1995 and (e) 1997. [54525]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The answer of 3 March 1998,Official Report, column 549, gave comparisons of the period of time between initial talk and first appearance for the years 1987, 1992 and 1997. The Public Carriage Office do not keep separate records of the period between the first appearance being requested and being granted.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to reply to the letter from Mr. Moore of 15 April on the Vehicle Inspectorate. [53915]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Vehicle Inspectorate has no record of a letter from Mr. Moore dated 15 April. If the letter concerns operational matters for which the Inspectorate is responsible and the hon. Member would like to send a copy to the Chief Executive, Mr. Newey would be happy to reply.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letters of 11 May and 1 July from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton regarding a constituent. [53896]

  Ms Armstrong
  The former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), replied on 28 May. I responded to another letter dated 11 May from the hon. Member on 8 June.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the Government's proposals for the route of the cross-channel rail link line from the coast to London. [53591]
  439
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The route of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link between Cheriton in Kent and St. Pancras in the London Borough of Camden is set out in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996.

  MFV Gaul
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 24 June 1998,Official Report, column 532, who was given access to the National Maritime Institute report (Project 207001) on the 'Gaul' following its completion; and to whom it was distributed. [52362]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Departmental records show that thirty copies of the Report were printed. We do not have a complete distribution list but we believe copies were provided to the interested parties, who were the builders, Brooke Marine Ltd., and the owners, British United Trawlers, and Hellyer Brothers, a subsidiary company of British United Trawlers, and to Messrs. Graham & Rosen, solicitors acting on behalf of the next of kin. Copies were also sent to the solicitors representing Brooke Marine Ltd. and British United Trawlers. The Department of Trade and Industry retained an unspecified number of copies.

  Teesside Development Corporation
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost of(a) providing and (b) erecting obelisks in memory of Teesside Development Corporation at sites in Teesside. [53394]

  Mr. Caborn
  £151,000.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on the structural problem identified in the Tees Barrage and ancillary works by external consultations appointed by the Teesside Development Corporation; [53444]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the current contractual obligations of the main contractors for the Tees Barrage. [53393]

  Mr. Caborn
  These matters are now the responsibility of the Commission for the New Towns. I will write to my hon. Friend when I have made further inquiries.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that the audit of the accounts of Teesside Development Corporation for the year ended 31 March includes a full financial and technical audit of the TDC's activities over its lifespan and is made public. [53360]

  Mr. Caborn
  The audited financial statements for the year ended 31 March 1998 were published earlier this month.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will list the members of(a) the newly formed Teesside Environmental Trust and (b) its board and their former links with the Teesside Development Corporation; [53446]
  440
  (2) if he will investigate the contractual agreements made between the Teesside Environmental Trust, the Teesside Development Corporation and Messrs H. J. Banks Ltd in the last three months of the Teesside Development Corporation's life. [53445]

  Mr. Caborn
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the cost of the press and television advertising campaign that the Teesside Development Corporation undertook in the last six months of its life. [53395]

  Mr. Caborn
  These costs were contained within the approved marketing budget of the Corporation.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will investigate the links between former employees of Teesside Development Corporation, the Hartlepool Marina and the projected tall ships centre; [53397]

  (2) if he will investigate the links between Mandale Properties Ltd. and former employees of Teesside Development Corporation. [53396]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend has no reason to do so.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the arrangements whereby the Teesside Development Corporation arranged loans from a merchant bank via intermediaries for the purposes of funding development at Middlesbrough Docks and at the Teesside Park Retail Centre; and if he will list the size of the loans. [53359]

  Mr. Caborn
  Such financial arrangements were a matter for the Board of the Corporation.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will investigate the arrangements for(a) the market testing and (b) the disposal of remaining land within the Teesside Development Corporation's ownership at the Teesdale site and at Hartlepool Marina. [53440]

  Mr. Caborn
  These arrangements were a matter for the Board of the Development Corporation and are now the responsibility of its successor, the Commission for the New Towns.

  Aircraft (Disease Transmission)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 466, what research underlay his conclusions that no evidence exists to suggest a link between cabin air quality, flow rates and the spread of disease. [53898]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The research which indicates that there is no evidence of a link between cabin air quality, flow rates and the spread of disease is as follows:

  1. Report No. DOT-P-15–89–5. December 1989. Airliner cabin environment: Contaminant measurements, health risks, and mitigation options (Section 8).

  441

  2. "Methods and Results of the Measurements of Aerogenic Micro-biological Contamination in Airplane Cabin Air"—Opinion of the Institute for Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Medical University of Lubeck, Germany. December 1995. (unpublished).

  3. "Report on VOC Measurements during the Flights Frankfurt-Dallas-Frankfurt on 19/21 June 1995 and Frankfurt-New York-Frankfurt on 17/19 July 1995— Fraunhofer-Institut fur Umweltchemie und Okotoxikologie, Schmallenberg, Germany. December 1995. (unpublished).

  4. "Toxicological Evaluation of Cabin Air Concentrations". Prof. Dr. Med. Th. Eikmann, Institut fur Hygiene und Umweltchemie Universilat Giessen, Germany. December 1995. (unpublished).

  5. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health January 1993. HETA 90–226–2281. Health hazard evaluation report. Alaska Airlines.

  The transmission of disease in an aircraft cabin cannot be eliminated. However, there is no evidence to show that technical changes in aircraft cabin environment have increased that risk, or that the risk is as great as infection from any public environment.

  Quarrying (Dartmoor)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy to prevent further quarrying on Dartmoor. [53813]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's policy on minerals extraction in National Parks is set out in Minerals Planning Guidance Note 6. The Government consider that major developments should take place in National Parks only in exceptional circumstances. Because of the serious impact that working them may have on the natural beauty of these areas, the Government consider that all minerals applications must be subject to the most rigorous examination and that all mineral developments should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.

  The Government have therefore welcomed the recent announcement by the Quarry Products Association of a review of the industry's activities within National Parks.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what he next proposes to review the options for the future of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. [53315]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the services it provides are currently being reviewed as part of a project intended to improve and to modernise the delivery of the services the Department provides for drivers, vehicle keepers and vehicle operators.

  Workplace Parking Taxation
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he took in his proposals for applying the workplace parking taxation of the position of nursing staff who are charged for parking in hospital staff car parks. [53437]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are aware that some employers already charge their staff for car parking.
  442
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce arrangements to exempt(a) nursing staff and (b) teaching staff from workplace parking taxation. [53465]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We shall issue a consultation document shortly that will discuss, among other things, possible exemptions to a levy on workplace parking.

  Persistent Inquirers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent inquirers for information. [53945]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  All my Department's Executive Agencies have signed up to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and treat all requests for information as a request made under the Code. Each Agency has its own arrangements for monitoring such requests but none has specific arrangements to identify persistent inquiries for information.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new cars; and if he will make a statement. [54159]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are pursuing a number of measures which will help to reduce the level of carbon dioxide emissions from new cars and the entire car fleet. In the last Budget on 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, the Chancellor announced our commitment to the continuation of the fuel duty escalator raising fuel prices by six per cent. per annum in real terms. This encourages drivers to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles as well as use fuel more efficiently.

  We also strongly support the European Commission's Strategy on CO2 from cars which aims to reduce the emissions of CO2 from new cars sold in the EU to an average of 120 grammes per kilometre, by 2005 or 2010 at the latest. This represents a cut of about a third on the current average. The Commission are continuing their negotiations with the car industry to secure a voluntary agreement which will help to achieve the Strategy. It is hoped that these negotiations will be resolved successfully fairly soon.

  We have also set up the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force which aims to create a partnership between the Government and the private sector to promote environmentally friendly vehicles which people actually want to drive and buy. The Task Force will encourage the production, marketing and sales of vehicles which are cleaner and more fuel efficient.

  Trunk Roads
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of upgrading the whole of the Core National Trunk Road Network (Cm 3950) to dual carriageway standards or better; [53705]
  443
  (2) if he will publish a map of the Core National Trunk Road Network (Cm 3950) showing sections (a) constructed to dual carriageway standards or better and (b) in current programmes designated for upgrading to such standards; [53706]

  (3) if he will list for each Shire County (a) in total and b) by constituency (i) the number of miles of road identified as part of the Core National Trunk Road Network (Cm 3950) and (ii) the percentage of such road mileage constructed or in programmes to be constructed to dual carriageway standard or better. [53703]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Further details on the core network and on plans for taking forward improvements will be announced when we publish the Roads Review Report. Inclusion in the core network does not automatically mean that the road should be of dual-carriageway standard. Our approach to upgrading will be to consider problems on the core network and to assess options against our new criteria.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) environmental and (b) other appraisal methods were used by his Department when assessing the forecasts produced by MEL on the Birmingham Northern Relief Road in 1991. [53958]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I do not have access to papers relating to the previous administration's decision to appoint MEL as concessionaire for the BNRR. Our own decision to approve the proposed scheme was made in the light of evidence put before the Public Inquiry and the Inspector's Report on that evidence.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what date his Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53353]

  Mr. Meale
  The Welsh Language Board (WLB) invited DETR to prepare a Welsh language scheme in a letter dated 13 August 1997.

  The first discussions on a scheme were held with WLB on 2 December 1997, and there have been a number of subsequent contacts.

  A draft scheme has been prepared and is currently being cleared within the department. DETR hopes to hold final discussions on the text with WLB shortly, prior to putting the scheme out to public consultation.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation he held with(a) local hon. Members and (b) local authorities before he announced his proposals to change the preferred direction for night flight approaches at Heathrow Airport. [53346]
  444
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have neither decided upon nor announced any such proposals. I informed the House on 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 1413, of that. It is expected that this subject will be included in the second consultation later this year on night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports.

DEFENCE

  Training Exercises (Denmark)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last training exercise involving the shooting of pigs in Denmark was carried out; why Denmark was chosen as the location; and if he has any plans to carry out similar exercises in the future. [45511]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The last training exercise involving the shooting of pigs in which UK Service personnel took part was in May 1998. The pigs had been anaesthetised and the exercise was designed to train medical personnel in resuscitation and surgical techniques for treating wounds inflicted by different calibre weapons. The exercise was organised by the Danish Armed Forces' Medical Services and the UK, together with NATO allies and other nations, was invited to participate. However, Ministers in this Government had not previously had this training drawn to their attention, and so UK participation was immediately suspended pending a review of my Department's training methods.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the(a) costs, (b) aims and (c) outcome of the Operation Danish Bacon NATO exercise. [45485]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The costs of Exercise Danish Bacon are borne in the main by the organisers, the Danish Armed Forces' Medical Services. The costs incurred by my Department have been the travel and subsistence of UK Service participants and the costs of the animals they used—£550 each. The Exercise is designed to train military medical personnel in resuscitation and surgical techniques for treating those wounded by different calibre weapons. However, Ministers of this Government had not previously been made aware of this activity, and ordered its immediate suspension pending a review of this practice.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what level authorisation was given for the participation of British troops in animal experiments in Jaegerspris, Denmark. [45492]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: British troops do not participate in animal experiments in Denmark. UK military surgical teams have, however, participated in training exercises organised by the Danish Armed Forces' Medical Services which involved the use of pigs that had been anaesthetised. The exercises provided training in resuscitation and surgical techniques for treating wounds inflicted by different calibre weapons. Authorisation for British participation in these exercises came from senior military medical officers.

  Ministers of this Government had not previously been made aware of this activity, and ordered its immediate suspension pending a review of this practice.
  445
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1 May 1997 when British troops have participated in animal experiments abroad; and on which of these occasions such experiments would not have been permitted in the United Kingdom. [45494]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: I am not aware of any participation by British troops in animal experiments either overseas or in the UK since 1 May 1997.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in respect of the participation of British troops in experiments which involve firing high-velocity weapons at suspended pigs. [45493]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: British troops do not participate in animal experiments which involve firing weapons at pigs. However, UK military surgical teams have participated in training exercises organised by the Danish Armed Forces' Medical Services which involved firing different calibre weapons at pigs. The purpose of the exercises was to provide training in resuscitation and surgical techniques for treating wounds inflicted by such weapons. Ministers in this Government had not previously had this training drawn to their attention and therefore directed that UK participation be immediately suspended pending a review of this practice.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British Army training exercises involving the killing of animals; at which locations such training has taken place over the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [45768]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: Some courses or training exercises run by the British Army include instruction in survival techniques which involves the slaughter of live animals. This type of training has taken place in the UK, Europe and in countries such as Kenya, Brunei and Belize over the last 10 years. Training of Army Catering Corps personnel in butchery techniques has also involved the slaughter of live animals in the UK.

  In addition, members of the UK Defence Medical Services have participated each year in exercises in Denmark organised by the Danish Armed Forces' Medical Services. These exercises have involved the use of pigs to provide training in resuscitation and surgical techniques for treating wounds inflicted by different calibre weapons. Ministers of this Government had not previously been made aware of this activity, and ordered its immediate suspension pending a review of this practice.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the shooting of live pigs by British soldiers in Denmark. [46080]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  UK military surgical teams have participated in training exercises organised by the Danish Armed Forces' Medical Services which involve Danish marksmen shooting different calibre weapons at pigs. The purpose of the exercises is to provide training in resuscitation and surgical techniques for treating wounds inflected by such weapons.

  Ministers of this Government had not previously been made aware of this activity, and ordered its immediate suspension pending a review of this practice.
  446

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on allegations of(a) harassment, (b) breach of contract and (c) sexual discrimination concerning staff in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. [52046]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD does not tolerate or condone any form of harassment, discrimination or persecution of individuals or groups in the workplace and has formal processes in place to facilitate the handling of complaints. Civil servants also have the right to appeal to the Civil Service Appeal Board on more serious matters. This applies as much to staff in the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency as to any other MOD employees.

  All allegations are subject to these processes and are dealt with on a confidential basis. It would therefore be inappropriate to identify complainants or their complaints, or to comment on them.

  Atomic Weapons Establishments
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on decommissioning operations at(a) AWE, Foulness and (b) AWE, Cardiff. [52158]

  Mr. Spellar
  Although AWE vacated the Foulness site in December 1997, trials work has continued in support of the nuclear warhead programme via a contractual arrangement between AWE and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA. In addition, a number of existing facilities are being retained until the 31 March 2002 on a care and maintenance basis for use in those trials, and against possible future requirements by AWE. A programme of Post-Operative Clear Out, limited decommissioning and demolition was carried out by AWE prior to December 1997. A Land Quality Statement has been lodged with DERA against which future decommissioning of the rest of the site will be done.

  A price has recently been agreed with AWE plc for the decommissioning of the Cardiff site.

  Colonel Andrew Gale
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what duties were performed by the Defence Attaché in Accra and accredited also to Sierra Leone in 1997–98; [52027]

  (2) what duties were performed by Colonel Andrew Gale whilst on service in West Africa. [52030]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: Lieutenant Colonel Gale was, from November 1994 until January 1998, Defence Adviser to the British High Commissioner in Accra, Ghana, with non-resident accreditation to Togo, Cote d'Ivoire and Sierra Leone. As Defence Adviser, his duties were to advise the Ambassador/High Commissioner on military matters, including on the security situation, and report information back to the MOD. Lt. Col. Gale spent most of his time working in Accra, but would have visited the other countries within his area of responsibility about twice each year.
  447
  Lt. Col. (local Colonel) Gale is currently serving in Sierra Leone, on secondment to the United Nations, as the Military Adviser to the United Nations Secretary General's Special Representative.

  Lieutenant Colonel Peter Hicks
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what duties were performed by Lieutenant Colonel Peter Hicks whilst on service in West Africa; [52031]

  (2) what duties were performed by the military intelligence liaison officer deployed to Conakry and Sierra Leone in 1998; [52028]

  (3) what duties were performed by the military liaison officer deployed to Sierra Leone and Conakry in 1997. [52029]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 23 July 1998]: Major (local Lieutenant Colonel) Peter Hicks visited Sierra Leone for a short familiarisation visit, along with others from the MOD, from 3 to 8 March 1997. On 15 February 1998, Major Hicks deployed to Conakry, Guinea, as a military liaison officer in preparation for possible service in Sierra Leone should the democratically elected government be restored. He was transported, along with the British High Commissioner, to Freetown by HMS Cornwall on 5 March, and returned to the UK on 17 March. Major Hicks's duties in Conakry and Sierra Leone were to provide military advice to the High Commissioner, to liaise with other UK military personnel in the country and to report military information to the MOD. He subsequently visited Sierra Leone from 27 April to 8 May as a follow-up to his earlier period of service.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52312]

  Mr. Spellar
  The use of asbestos materials is strictly controlled. Guidance is given in the extant Defence Estate Organisation (DEO) Technical Specification 036 "Heating, Hot and Cold Water, Steam and Gas Installations for Buildings" (October 1997), which clearly states that asbestos materials shall not be installed.

  The DEO has issued a further Technical Bulletin, Design and Maintenance Guide 16, "Asbestos Based Materials" (April 1997), which details the mandatory requirements and procedures for handling asbestos.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [52575]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department is committed to making an appropriate contribution to the New Deal programme both on the Service and Civilian networks.
  448
  Although the Services are not committed to employing specific numbers of young people through the unsubsidised job option, they are working closely with New Deal personal advisers and Further Education Colleges to identify what self-development is required to make young people more confident and self reliant, and thus influencing their choice of career towards the Armed Forces. The Services are not employing young people through the subsidised job option.

  On the Civilian side, New Deal opportunities are considered whenever recruitment campaigns are undertaken. Responsibility for recruitment is delegated to line management areas. We will be monitoring use of the scheme and expect details of the first 6 months to be available from October.

  Biological Warfare
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations his Department has conducted into whether information from the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, was passed to the biological warfare programme organised by South Africa's former apartheid regime in the last 15 years; when this investigation was started and finished; what were the results of this investigation; what action has been taken in the light of this investigation; and if he will make a statement. [53158]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are aware of allegations that classified information from the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence and Evaluation Research Agency at Porton Down was obtained by the former South African Government. These claims are being investigated. It is not our policy to comment on investigations in progress.

  Trident
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of the overall procurement of Trident D5 missiles will act as a processing margin; [52133]

  (2) how many Trident D5 missiles have been test fired to date; and what proportion of the overall numbers procured are expected to be test fired over the programme's life. [52134]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: To date, six Trident D5 missiles have been test fired as part of the work-up of the three Vanguard class submarines currently in operational service. On current plans, a further eight missiles will be test fired over the life of the Trident programme. A further four missiles will constitute a processing margin.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department will arrange inspections to demonstrate that 48 warheads per Trident submarine have now been deployed. [52135]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The Government's decision in the Strategic Defence Review to reduce the number of Trident warheads deployed on RN nuclear submarines to 48 was based on our assessment of the minimum necessary UK deterrent force. In the absence of a wider arms control

  449
  context involving reciprocal obligations from other nuclear states we do not propose to initiate outside inspection to verify this self-imposed limit.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the impact on the number of Trident D5 missiles normally carried on each of the Trident submarines in the operational cycle of the decision not to purchase more than 58 D5 missiles overall. [52132]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The Strategic Defence Review concluded that the 58 Trident missiles already purchased are sufficient for credible deterrence over the lifetime of Trident. I am withholding details of the number of missiles carried on our Trident submarines on deterrent patrol under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the minimum number of nuclear warheads deployed on each Trident submarine since HMS Vanguard entered service. [52815]

  Mr. George Robertson
  HMS Vanguard first deployed on patrol with slightly fewer than 60 warheads, prior to the Trident force also assuming a sub-strategic role. The other two Trident submarines currently in service have typically deployed on deterrent patrol with 60 warheads. I am withholding details of the numbers of warheads carried for the sub-strategic role under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information relating to Defence, Security and International relations.

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since HMS Vanguard entered service more than 65 warheads were deployed on a Trident submarine at sea. [52814]

  Mr. George Robertson
  None.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in discussions with the United States of America on the decision not to proceed with the United Kingdom's planned final Trident missile purchase. [54813]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Our decision not to proceed with the planned final Trident missile body buy will have implications for the UK/US procurement programme and the long term Trident support arrangements of both countries. We have, therefore, agreed with the United States that, to safeguard production capabilities, we will continue with the planned procurement of missile components. Some of these will be required by the UK as in-service spares; the remainder we will sell back to the United States in future years for use in their continuing production programme. This arrangement has been enshrined in a Memorandum of Understanding that the Deputy Secretary for Defence and I have signed.

  Overall our decision to maintain our Trident missile inventory at 58, rather than increasing it to 65 as previously planned, will require the write off of surplus expenditure to the value of some £40 million, over half of which results from advance commitments to the final buy by the previous Government. Our decision is expected to save in the region of £50 million.
  450

  Permanent Under-Secretary
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if an open competition was held for the appointment of his Department's Permanent Under-Secretary. [52801]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: No. There was, however, internal competition across Government Departments to select a new Permanent Under-Secretary in my Department.

  Accommodation
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many residential dwellings are owned by his Department; how many are currently vacant; and what has been the average length of time they have been vacant. [53910]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 30 June 1998, the Ministry of Defence either owned or leased, mainly from Annington Homes, 67,463 family dwellings in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, of which 13,922 are currently vacant. Information on the average length of time a property has been vacant is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Additionally, between 260 and 300 houses are managed by Commands for civilian occupancy but vacancy rates are not held centrally.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service families are accommodated in privately owned homes; and what is the average annual rent of these properties. [53911]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of Service families accommodated in privately owned rental properties in England, Scotland and Wales is 914. The approximate average annual rent for this type of property is £9,500. The figures exclude houses leased by MOD from Annington Homes.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being take by his Department to implement the National Audit Office's recommendation in paragraph 3.16 of its report identifying and selling surplus property (HC 776, session 1997–98) regarding the timetable for completing the land quality assessments of major sites; and if he will make a statement. [53378]

  Mr. Spellar
  As the Report says, the Ministry of Defence has set in train a programme of Land Quality Assessments and intends to complete assessments of all major sites within 10 years. We are reviewing the scope for reducing the timetable and shall consider any recommendation the Public Accounts Committee might make on the matter following its investigation.

  Defence Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 1998,Official Report, column 437, if he will place in the Library a list of the items discussed at each of the meetings of the Defence Council since 1 August 1997. [53374]
  451
  Mr. George Robertson
  The items discussed at the Defence Council meetings held since 1 August 1997 are as follows:

  Date

  Meeting

  24 September 1997

  Strategic Defence Review

  27 November 1997

  Mid-year Performance Report

  NATO Command Structure Review

  18 December 1997

  Strategic Defence Review

  26 January 1998

  Long Term Costings 1998

  23 February 1998

  Strategic Defence Review

  2 April 1998

  Strategic Defence Review

  1998 Departmental Plan

  20 July 1998

  End of Year Performance Report

  Future Programme of Business for Defence Council Meetings

  Performance Report
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the next edition of his Department's Performance Report. [53376]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I expect the Ministry of Defence's Departmental Performance Report for 1997–98 to be published in the Autumn.

  Chiefs of Staff
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Chiefs of Staff have met since 1 January. [53373]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since 1 January 1998, the Chiefs of Staff have met on the following dates:

  15 January 1998

  27 January 1998

  10 February 1998

  17 February 1998

  24 February 1998

  10 March 1998

  31 March 1998

  28 April 1998

  13 May 1998

  10 June 1998

  23 June 1998

  7 July 1998

  21 July 1998.

  Nuclear Stocks
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the stocks of tritium currently held by his Department. [51683]

  Mr. Spellar
  No. To reveal such information would be contrary to national defence and security interests. I am therefore withholding details under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the stock of plutonium and highly enriched uranium listed in the Strategic Defence Review included the armoury currently located in operational nuclear weapons. [51684]
  452
  Mr. Spellar
  The details of defence stocks of plutonium and highly enriched uranium published in the Strategic Defence Review included material in our nuclear weapons and nuclear submarine reactors.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the taskforces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997 and in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers and (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53147]

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

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53064]

  Mr. Spellar
  The numbers of staff aged over 60 years employed by the Ministry of Defence at 1 January 1998, excluding those employed by MOD agencies, were 2,212 men and 617 women. The numbers aged over 60 employed by MOD agencies at 1 January 1998 were 2,442 men and 467 women.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53058]

  Mr. Spellar
  Civil servants have no formal contract of employment. However, under the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme civil servants have an entitlement to retire at age 60, which is the earliest age at which they may receive their full accrued pension benefits. Notwithstanding the entitlement to retire at 60, MOD policy prescribes normal retirement ages for each grade, based on the employment needs of the Department. This gives staff in particular grades an expectation to retire at an age beyond their 60th birthday, if they choose to do so.

  The numbers of staff employed by the MOD who have an expectation to retire after their 60th birthday, excluding those employed by MOD agencies, on 1 January 1998 were 17,592 men and 12,937 women. The numbers of staff employed by the MOD agencies on 1 January 1998 who have an expectation to retire after their 60th birthday, were 21,480 men and 11,320 women.

  Royal Navy Careers CD-ROM
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will assess the advantages of introducing a similar package to the Royal Navy Careers CD-ROM for all the armed forces. [53801]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
  453

  Recruiting Shortages
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he is taking to address the shortage of recruits in the Army [53802]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  RAF (Recruitment)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he is taking to increase the number of recruits to the RAF. [53803]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Enhanced Surveillance Radar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Enhanced Surveillance Radar recently developed at the Defence Evaluation Research Agency; and what plans he has to use this technology in the armed forces. [53806]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Enhanced Surveillance Radar, ESR, has been designed by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and built by GEC Marconi Avionics. It is an airborne surveillance radar and has been developed to meet the needs of a number of military research and development programmes for high-quality, high-resolution, radar data and also for in-flight, real time demonstration of new radar techniques. Currently undergoing commissioning trials, it is envisaged that the ESR will support MoD work on the Airborne Stand Off Radar, ASTOR, programme.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53349]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Welsh Language Board wrote on 1 May 1998 inviting my Department to prepare a Welsh language scheme. My officials have held discussions with the Board on a number of occasions, and once a draft of the scheme is finalised, we will hold a period of public consultation. The scheme will be submitted to the Welsh Language Board by 31 March 1999 for approval.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those who have accompanied (i) him and (ii) his departmental Ministers on overseas visits since 1 January indicating(a) the venue of the visit, (b) the purpose of the visit, (c) the names of those involved, (d) the job of those involved, (e) the reasons why they were included in the visit and (f) the cost to public funds. [53843]
  454
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gulf Veterans
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a new Head of the Gulf Veteran's Medical Assessment Programme will be appointed. [54620]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Following an open competition we have now appointed Professor Harry Lee to be the Head of the Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP). Professor Lee has had a distinguished medical and academic career specialising in general medicine, renal medicine and infectious diseases. He is scheduled to take up his post at the MAP on 1 September.

  Defence Housing Executive
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about Defence Agency status for the Defence Housing Executive. [54872]

  Mr. Spellar
  Currently, the responsibility for managing, allocating and maintaining suitable housing for the families of Service personnel posted within Great Britain lies with the Defence Housing Executive. The Department owns or leases some 64,000 houses across the country which are controlled by the DHE staff of some 1,200 through a network of 24 Area offices, 7 Regional offices and one Headquarters office.

  A "prior options" study is being undertaken to establish whether Agency status or other options would be appropriate. I should welcome comments from interested parties. These should be sent to:

  Air Marshal Sir Peter Squire KCB DFC AFC RAF

  Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Programmes and Personnel)

  Ministry of Defence

  Room 5327

  Main Building

  Whitehall

  London

  SW1A 2HB.

  Soldiers (Scotland)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers are currently based in Scotland; and what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest level in the past five years. [53279]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  On 1 June 1998, the total number of regular Army officers and soldiers, including trainees, assigned to units based in Scotland was 3,433.

  Comparable strength figures for the last five years are available only in respect of 1 July, and are given in the table:

  Year

  Strength

  1 July 1997

  2,953

  1 July 1996

  3,453

  1 July 1995

  2,587

  1 July 1994

  3,444

  1 July 1993

  3,163

  455
  The continual movement of Army units and personnel means that the total Army presence in Scotland fluctuates throughout each year. I regret, therefore, that a more detailed breakdown of figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

  Asset Sales
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the one-off departmental asset sales, with cash values, which will offset the reduction of defence expenditure from £915 million to £685 million by 2002. [50961]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 17 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) on 23 July 1998, Official Report, column 605.

  Defence Projects
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence projects are currently being undertaken with the Government of(a) Belgium, (b) France, (c) Germany, (d) Italy, (e) Spain and (f) the United States of America; what are their durations; what are their total costs; and what percentage of work on the current defence projects being carried out with each Government takes place within the United Kingdom. [51929]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Warheads
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress to date in dismantling WE177 and Chevaline warheads. [52179]

  Mr. George Robertson
  97 per cent. of WE 177 warheads have now been dismantled and the programme will be completed by the end of August 1998. Chevaline warhead dismantlement has not started yet and will do so once the WE 177 dismantlement programme has been completed.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the(a) WE177 and (b) Chevaline warhead dismantling programme is expected to be completed. [52250]

  Mr. George Robertson
  97 per cent. of WE177 warheads have now been dismantled and the programme will be completed by the end of August 1998.

  With regard to Chevaline warheads, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on 7 May 1998, Official Report, columns 436–37.

  Agency Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of(a) the Medical Supplies Agency, (b) the Naval Training and Recruiting Agency, (c) the Defence Secondary Care Agency, (d) the
  456
  Meteorological Office and (e) the Defence Intelligence Staff; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [53380]

  Mr. Spellar
  Where these matters fall to the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write direct to the hon. Member.

  The Defence Intelligence Staff publishes three staff newsletters. "The Mole" is published monthly for its Headquarters staff in London, at a Restricted security classification, and was first produced in July 1997. "Compass" is published monthly for the staff of the Military Survey Agency, is unclassified, and was first produced in June 1996. "Lynx" is published quarterly for the staff of the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre, is unclassified, and was first published in Autumn 1996.

  Letter from John Chadwick to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 30 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the newsletters produced for the staff of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) in my capacity as Chief Executive of the NRTA.
  I have to advise you that no regular newsletter is currently produced for the staff of my Agency.

  Letter from Major General C. G. Callow to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 30 July 1998:

  AGENCY NEWSLETTERS
  1. I am replying to your letter to the Secretary of State for Defence about Agency Newsletters as this matter, in respect of my Agency, falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA).
  2. The DSCA staff magazine is an unclassified publication that is published quarterly. It was first produced in a limited format in December 1995 for those staff already working in the Defence Medical Services who were to become part of the DSCA when it launched in April 1996.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Matthew Taylor dated 30 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence regarding what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of the Meteorological Office; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. The information you require is as follows:

  Name

  Classification

  How often

  First Produced

  Mercury

  Unclassified

  11 per year

  November 1985

  Comet

  Unclassified

  Weekly

  January

  Mercury contains articles, information and letters covering a wide range of topics of interest to our staff. Comet brings together our administrative instructions plus staff items such as Job Opportunities within The Met. Office and other government departments.

  Letter from B. E. Nimick to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 30 July 1998:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Medical Supplies Agency newsletters, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency.
  Within the Agency there are two types of newsletter. The first is intended for distribution to all regular customers of the Medical Supplies Agency. This Newsletter is used to inform customers about our procedures, supply problems and general information relating to medical supply.

  457
  The second type of newsletter is a Core Brief. This is distributed to managers at the Agency Headquarters and Agency Distribution Centres, for dissemination to all staff. The Core Brief informs all Agency staff of future plans, target and progress.
  The current security classification of the Newsletter and Core Brief is unclassified.
  Our Newsletter is produced approximately every four months with the first issue being made in May 1997.
  The Core Brief is produced once every two to three months with the first issue being produced in November 1996.

  Fibre Optic Tank Camouflage
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the timescale for the introduction of fibre optic camouflage on tanks. [53807]

  Mr. Spellar
  We have no current plans to apply fibre optic camouflage to tanks.

  NETMA
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed partnership with Norway in the inter-Governmental buying agency NETMA. [53800]

  Mr. Spellar
  NETMA, the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency, represents the interests of the Governments participating in these collaborative programmes. Norway has a requirement to replace her F5 aircraft and is currently evaluating Eurofighter and F16 as possible replacements. Norway may wish to participate in the Eurofighter programme by becoming a member of the NATO Agency. It is for Norway to decide what best meets her requirements.

  Shoeburyness Ranges
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 39, what factors led him to exclude the income from the ETC and the demilitarisation facility in his calculation of the income accruing to the ranges at Shoeburyness; and if he will make a statement. [53822]

  Mr. Spellar
  The income from the ETC and the demilitarisation facility were shown separately so that a direct comparison of the income achieved by the range at Shoeburyness could be made with the income achieved by the other ranges. Similarly, the income from the operation of airfield was not included in the West Freugh income.

  The income achieved by the ETC and the demilitarisation facility is not income achieved by the Shoeburyness range, but is income achieved at the Shoeburyness site.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to make a decision on the proposed transfer of work from Shoeburyness to Eskmeals. [53824]

  Mr. Spellar
  We expect to make a decision shortly.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the total income accruing to the Shoeburyness and Eskmeals ranges in respect of all 458
  income raising activities in each of the past five years and separately identifying that part of the site income which stems from the strategic pricing initiative. [53823]

  Mr. Spellar
  The total income accruing to the Shoeburyness and Eskmeals ranges in respect of all income raising activities in each of the previous three years is as follows:

  £000

  Shoeburyness

  Eskmeals

  1995–96

  25,603

  5,365

  1996–97

  17,834

  5,180

  1997–98

  20,896

  8,759

  Information on a comparable basis prior to the inclusion of the ranges in the Trading Agency in 1995 is not available.

  The income accruing to the Shoeburyness and Eskmeals ranges in respect of the Strategic Pricing Initiative which operated for 1997–98, and is included in the above figures, was as follows:

  £000

  1997–98

  Shoeburyness

  6,244

  Eskmeals

  600

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 27 July 1998,Official Report, column 39, for what reasons in his summary of the income accruing to the various ranges, he included in note 1 the SPI total of £600,000 within the income of the Eskmeals range and in note 3 deducted the SPI total of £6,244,000 from the total income of the Shoeburyness establishment; and if he will make a statement. [53821]

  Mr. Spellar
  The reported income for the Eskmeals range of £8.759K included the Strategic Pricing Initiative, SPI, support of £600K as this was for a specific facility within the range.

  The reported income for the Shoeburyness range of £14,223K was reported net of the contribution from the SPI, as the support payment contributed to the costs of the Shoeburyness site which includes the Environmental Test Centre and the demilitarisation facility as well as the range.

  Agency Savings
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what savings he estimates will accrue from the creation of(a) the Defence Transport and Movements Agency and (b) the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency. [53805]

  Mr. Spellar
  We estimate that the creation of the Defence Transport and Movements Agency will save £5.014 million over a ten-year period. The creation of the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (Non-Explosive) will result in estimated savings of £62.1 million over the same period, with further estimated savings of £4.1 million as a result of the incorporation of storage and distribution activity for all explosive items into a division of the Naval Bases and Supply Agency.
  459

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded,(b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body,(d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53855]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence had seventeen Non Departmental Public Bodies on 1 May 1997, and the same seventeen currently remain unchanged as NDPBs. None has been disbanded, and there are no current plans for any to be disbanded in the next 12 months; none has had its functions transferred and none has been renamed while continuing to perform the same role. The Royal College of Defence Studies Advisory Board and the Royal Military College of Science Advisory Council are, however, currently having their status as NDPBs re-examined. MOD's NDPBs are as follows:

  Fleet Air Arm Museum

  Royal Naval Museum

  Royal Marines Museum

  Royal Naval Submarine Museum

  National Army Museum

  Royal Air Force Museum

  Oil and Pipelines Agency

  Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors

  Dartmoor Steering Group and Working Party

  Defence Scientific Advisory Council and Committees

  Independent Board of Visitors for the Military Corrective Training Centre

  National Employer Liaison Committee

  Nuclear Powered Warships Safety Committee

  Nuclear Weapons Safety Committee

  Review Board for Government Contracts

  Royal College of Defence Studies Advisory Board

  Royal Military College of Science Advisory Council.

  Defence Intelligence Service
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of partial privatisation of the Defence Intelligence Service on security. [53804]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The statement of requirements issued to companies bidding to provide support services to the Defence Intelligence Service under Public/Private partnership arrangements stipulated in detail the security criteria to be met. These are no less stringent than those applying to staff and contractors already working in the organisation. Compliance with these requirements will be a contractual condition and will be carefully monitored.
  460

  Plutonium Discharges (Aldermaston)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what unplanned discharges of plutonium took place from Aldermaston in December 1997; with what consequences; and if he will make a statement. [53432]

  Mr. Spellar
  There were no unplanned discharges of plutonium from AWE Aldermaston in December 1997.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the reviews her Department, and its predecessor, initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48525]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: In 1992–93 the Overseas Development Administration published the following reports: "Review of the factors influencing the uptake and impact of ODA-supported renewable natural resource research projects", "Review of agricultural research supported by ODA (Natural Resources and Environment Department) during the period 1988–1991: report of the review panel meeting held at Sevenoaks, Kent January 1992".

  I regret that information requested for 1974–75 and 1979–80 is not held centrally and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

  Fiji
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assistance her Department has provided to Fiji in terms of(a) healthcare provision, (b) education facilities and (c) information technology in the last five years; and if she will make a statement; [52053]

  (2) what projects her Department has sponsored in Fiji over the last five years; and if she will make a statement. [52054]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman with details of activities in Fiji funded over the past five years. British development assistance to the Pacific island countries is now provided from a single budget under a regional allocation rather than individual country programmes. The emphasis is upon two key sectors—education and rights and good governance—with particular emphasis upon three least-developed partner countries (Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu), with assistance also to regional organisations and institutions.

  Refugees
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of access for aid agencies to refugees along the Guinea-Sierra Leone border. [52470]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Department for International Development makes regular assessments of access for aid agencies to refugees in this area in conjunction with the Office for Coordination

  461
  of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) and nongovernmental organizations.

  There were problems of access for a period of four weeks during June and July, but from a recent OXFAM assessment and from NGOs working in the camps it is reported that there were sufficient food supplies available during this period. We understand that a humanitarian aid corridor has now been opened, with effect from 11 July.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much her Department spent on IT, itemising(a) personal computers, (b) mainframe, (c) mini-computers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52891]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The amounts spent by DFID on IT during 1997–98 were as follows:

  IT: £2,056,598

  including, inter alia:

  (a) Personal computers: £126,421

  (b) Main-frame: £0

  (c) Mini-computers: £802,879

  (d) File servers: £93,136.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development, pursuant to the answer of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of 6 June 1995,Official Report, column 37, and the answer of the President of the Board of Trade on 15 June 1998, Official Report, column 98, in relation to the Cikampek to Padalarang toll road project in Indonesia, what expenditure has been (a) allocated and (b) incurred by her Department to date; what impact assessment has been made of the delay to the project on the effectiveness of her Department's support for the project; and if she will place in the Library copies of the project appraisal, monitoring and evaluation reports to date. [52900]

  Clare Short
  I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the cost of all research undertaken by her Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by her officials; and if she will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52709]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The term research covers a wide range of activities from scientific and engineering research through to consultancies and public opinion surveys. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred
  462
  to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if she will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies her Department currently is responsible for. [53861]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) None

  (b) (i) The Crown Agents Holding and Realisation Board will be wound up within the next year.
  (ii) Subject to passage of the necessary legislation, it is intended that the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be transformed from a public corporation into a company governed by the Companies Act.

  (c) None

  (d) None

  (e) Commonwealth Scholarships Commission

  Advisory Committee on Overseas Economic and Social Research

  Know-How Fund Advisory Board

  Overseas Service Pensions Scheme Advisory Board

  India Family Pension Funds Body of Commissioners.

  Since 1 May 1997, we have established one new advisory body, namely the Development Awareness Working Group. The Department is currently responsible for eight non-departmental public bodies in total.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the task forces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by her Department since 1 May 1997, indicating in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers, (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53287]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We established earlier this year a Development Awareness Working Group, whose terms of reference are as follows:The Development Awareness Working Group will advise DFID on the development and implementation of its strategy on development awareness.

  Specifically it will consider:
  The relative priority of different target groups and organisations including schools, colleges, providers of adult education, development education groups or centres, employers and trade unions.
  Key themes and messages.
  The most effective materials and channels for communication.
  How to measure progress in improving public awareness of development issues.
  How to ensure proper coverage of different parts of the UK, as well as ethnic and religious groups.
  How to set DFID activities in the context of wider UK activity on development awareness and to ensure coherence with other Government sponsored or funded activity.

  The current membership of the Group is:

  George Foulkes, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

  Professor Tim Brighouse

  Ms Libby Grundy

  463

  Mr. Stephen McCloskey

  Mr. John Sutton

  Mr. Doug Bourn

  Mr. Ashok Ohri

  Mr. Tony Robinson

  Mr. David Mackenzie

  Mr. Scott Sinclair

  Mr. Tom Wylie

  Ms Bisi Adeleye Fayemi

  Mr. Dan Rees

  Ms Judith Hemery

  Ms Jaya Graves

  Mr. John Fisher

  Ms Jane Nelson

  Mr. Derek Walker

  Dr. Kim Howells MP

  Ms Tany Alexander

  Ms Liz Cumberbatch

  Ms Elenid Jones

  Mr. Jon Snow

  Mr. Phil Hope MP

  Mr. Paddy Coulter.

  Members are drawn from a range of backgrounds including formal and informal education, the media, churches, business, non-governmental organisations, youth groups and different ethnic groups. We do not have detailed information on the background of all members. However, none has been appointed specifically because of having a background in science, engineering or small business. Members of the group receive no remuneration other than travel and subsistence costs and do not control any budgets.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  EU Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet his counterparts in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to discuss European Union agricultural subsidies; and if he will make a statement. [51687]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Department maintains regular contacts with representatives of all the countries which are candidates for EU accession. I hope to meet my counterparts in Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic in due course.

  Flax
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what new proposals he has to increase the cultivation of flax. [51696]

  Mr. Morley
  Farmers who grow flax already benefit from generous support under the CAP. The key to encouraging its use is for the industry to develop new markets.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his latest forecast of the trends 464
  in farm incomes; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the comprehensive spending review on them. [51697]

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the level of farm incomes in 1998–99. [51709]

  Mr. Rooker
  Farm income has been a matter of concern for everyone in the industry. It has therefore been raised in numerous meetings and in correspondence.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on farm incomes over the last 12 months. [51690]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The issue of farm incomes is frequently raised. The economic circumstances of farm businesses are monitored regularly and published by the Department. Future trends are difficult to predict, but it is likely that incomes will be depressed in 1998. They are unlikely to be affected by the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress towards the establishment of the Food Standards Agency. [51698]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  We are making good progress towards the establishment of a Food Standards Agency and intend to publish a draft Bill for consultation soon. Meanwhile, my Department and the Department of Health are working closely together to deliver an open and effective food safety policy.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research funding will be provided to support the Food Standards Agency. [51704]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Agency will take over responsibility for the existing programme of research on food safety and standards currently funded by MAFF and the Department of Health. The precise sum to be transferred to the Agency is yet to be determined.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations his Department has received from farmers on the proposed Foods Standards Agency. [51714]

  Mr. Rooker
  A number of organisations representing farmers' interests commented on the Food Standards Agency White Paper. Copies of all the responses are available in the Library of the House.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from farmers' organisations regarding current exchange rates. [51699]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have regular contacts with farming organisations who keep me informed of their views on a wide range of issues, including the effect of current exchange rates on the agricultural industry.
  465

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to improve compensation payments to those farmers affected by bovine TB. [51700]

  Mr. Rooker
  The question of compensation for farmers with TB outbreaks will be considered in the light of decisions being taken by the Government on taking forward the recommendations in the Krebs report.

  Fish Stocks
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the future of fish stocks; and if he will make a statement. [51701]

  Mr. Morley
  There is widespread concern about the future of fish stocks, underlining the need for cautious management.

  Agricultural Competitiveness
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the advantages of including in his departmental objectives the requirement for a competitive agricultural industry; and if he will make a statement. [51702]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The development of a competitive, sustainable UK agriculture industry is in the interests of farmers and consumers alike. It is therefore entirely consistent with the increased emphasis we place on the needs of the consumer.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will disseminate widely the list his Department is collating in respect of the known suppliers of genetically modified foods. [51703]

  Mr. Rooker
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the list of suppliers of non-genetically modified soya and maize that is freely available on the MAFF internet web pages. Details of genetically modified foods assessed as safe to market under the terms of the EC Novel Foods Regulations are published in press releases and in the annual reports of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests are being undertaken on the interactions between genetically modified crops and the range of currently available fertilisers and herbicides, and on their consequential effects upon(a) human health and (b) biodiversity. [51707]

  Mr. Rooker
  A wide range of data to assess the impact on human health and the environment is being generated from field trials in which genetically modified and conventional crops are grown under standard agronomic conditions. For herbicide tolerant crops this includes treatment with the herbicide to which they are tolerant and other herbicides.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on genetically modified food. [51708]
  466
  Mr. Rooker
  I have in the past few months received representations about genetically modified foods from a wide range of organisations and the general public, including consumer and environmental groups.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the progress made on reform of the CAP in respect of the beef sector during the UK presidency of the EU. [51705]

  Mr. Rooker
  I am pleased to be able to tell the right hon. Member that good progress was achieved. We presided over the first substantial political discussion of the reform proposals and, by the end of the our presidency, officials had virtually completed the first technical read-through of the Commission's detailed proposals.

  Agricultural Deficit
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to reduce the trade deficit in agriculture over the next three years. [51706]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government support a range of measures to help the UK agriculture and food industries become more competitive at home and abroad.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. David Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what resources he is allocating over the next three years to provide advice to farmers wishing to convert to organic production; and if he will make a statement. [51710]

  Mr. Morley
  Free advice, including a telephone help line and on-farm advisory visits, is available from the Organic Conversion Information Service (01179 227707), funded by the Ministry. I am considering the amounts to be made available to fund this service in the light of the comprehensive spending review.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what decisions he has taken on the recommendations of the review of the organic aid scheme; and if he will make a statement. [54385]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Since we came to office, we have been determined to encourage more farmers to convert to organic production. We have made more resources available for advice to help them and I am pleased to say that many more are realising the opportunities that organic farming can offer and seeking to convert. However, conversion has costs and the additional returns cannot be realised immediately.

  More support is justified for farmers during the conversion period. Subject to the agreement of the European Commission, it is my intention to increase payment rates under the English scheme to those recommended in the review which we commissioned last year.

  If organic farming is to become a mainstream option, it is important to encourage larger farms to convert. For this reason, I intend to go beyond the recommendations of that review and lift the 300 hectare limit on the area

  467
  which can qualify for aid. I will also be going beyond the recommendations of the review by making the annual payment at the end of the first quarter, thus helping farmers' cash flow at a difficult time.

  Sustainable Fisheries
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the Government's policy on sustainable fisheries; and if he will make a statement. [51711]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's policy is to conserve fish stocks for future generations and secure a sustainable future for the sea fishing industry.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he has taken to achieve a welfare directive for farm animals across the EU. [51712]

  Mr. Morley
  I am delighted to confirm that, at the conclusion of our Presidency in June, we succeeded in obtaining agreement to a Directive which sets welfare standards for all species of farm animal across the EU.

  Farm Diversification
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to encourage farmers to diversify. [51713]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to our hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 225.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made on the introduction of measures to ensure that all British-registered fishing vessels maintain a real economic link with United Kingdom populations dependent on fisheries and related industries. [54383]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I am pleased to announce that, following on from the Prime Minister's exchange of letters with the President of the European Commission in June 1997, the Commission has now confirmed that our proposals for ensuring an economic link between UK flagged vessels and populations dependent on fisheries and related industries are compatible with Community law.

  A new licence condition will be introduced with effect from 1 January 1999 requiring all vessels to demonstrate an economic link with the UK by one of the following means:
  A. landing at least 50 per cent. by weight of the vessel's catch of quota stocks into the UK,
  or
  B. employing a crew of whom at least 50 per cent. are normally resident in a UK coastal area,
  Or
  incurring a given level of operating expenditure in the UK for goods and services provided in UK coastal areas,
  468
  Or
  D. demonstrating an economic link by other means (including combinations of the above) providing sufficient benefit to populations dependent on fisheries and related industries.

  A paper setting out the new economic link requirements has been deposited in the Library of the House. Fisheries Departments will be writing to industry shortly with further details concerning the introduction of the new arrangements.

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what initiatives he has taken to support the United Kingdom brewing industry. [52635]

  Mr. Morley
  By its nature, the UK brewing industry has a number of important interfaces with Government. MAFF works closely with the brewers, and with other Government Departments, to promote a successful and competitive industry, responsive to its particular role in society. The Ministry makes limited contributions to relevant research and development, and has recently supported an industry initiative to enhance perceptions of the opportunities afforded by a career in the licensed retail trade. More widely, the Government have begun a comprehensive review of licensing law; and completed a review of alcohol and tobacco fraud, proposing a number of ways to protect the industry from fraud and smuggling.

  Farmers (Marketing Schemes)
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each current United Kingdom and EU scheme which will provide assistance to farmers in setting up marketing schemes together with the total sum available for each scheme and the minimum and maximum figures for individual application where applicable. [52474]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: I will write to the hon. Member with the information he has requested as soon as possible. It is necessary to draw together details of schemes administered by each Agricultural Department and it will take a little time to ensure that the reply is comprehensive.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has made to the European Commission in support of a Community-wide ban on the export of live horses for slaughter. [51380]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government do not consider it a realistic objective to persuade the European Commission to propose an EU-wide ban on the export of live horses for slaughter. We support the active enforcement, in all member states, of EU rules on the welfare of livestock in transit and at slaughter, and have argued for the same rules to be strictly applied when animals are exported from the EU to third countries. We will draw to the attention of the EU Commission specific complaints relating to the EU export of horses for slaughter.
  469

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to provide selective assistance for the maintenance and improvement of hedgerows. [52810]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: Payments are available for the restoration of hedges and their subsequent maintenance under the Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) and Countryside Stewardship Schemes in England. In certain ESAs, there are payments for positive maintenance of hedges.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he plans to bring forward reforms to the quarantine regime; and if he will make a statement. [53681]

  Mr. Rooker
  Ministers await the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine which we expect to be published very shortly, most probably during the Parliamentary summer recess. A full public consultation will then be held.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what date his Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53356]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Welsh Language Board invited the Ministry on 15 December 1997 to prepare a Welsh language scheme. Consultations between MAFF officials and the Welsh Language Board predate this letter and officials met the Welsh Language Board on 5 June 1998. A draft scheme has been produced. The deadline for approval of the scheme is 31 December 1998.

  Growth Promoters
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to impose a unilateral ban on the use of growth promoters licensed by the European Union under Directive 70/524. [53713]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have noted that the Agriculture Select Committee favours a ban on antibiotic growth promoters. The Committee's report has been drawn to the attention of the Veterinary Products Committee, who will advise the Government. Further advice is also expected from the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. The Government will act in the light of the advice of their scientific committees.

  Meat Imports
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom bacon consumption is of imported meat; and from which countries such imports originate. [53714]
  470
  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997, the United Kingdom was 51 per cent. self-sufficient in bacon; the main countries of origin of imported products were Denmark and the Netherlands.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of United Kingdom un-cured pork consumption is of imported meat; and from which countries those imports originate. [53716]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1997, the United Kingdom was 106 per cent. self-sufficient in pork and was therefore a net exporter. Quantities of pork were imported from Denmark, the Netherlands, Ireland and France.

  Timber
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to eliminate dumping of foreign timber upon the United Kingdom market. [50817]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is the responsibility of the European Commission to investigate complaints by the EU industries concerned about allegedly dumped imports into the EU. I am not aware of a complaint to the European Commission about the dumping of foreign timber.

  Vitamin B6
  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government have yet reached a decision on their proposed controls on vitamin B6.[54810]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  The Government have now completed their consideration of the responses to the consultation exercise on the proposed controls on dietary supplements containing vitamin B6. Copies of the responses received have been deposited in the Library. We have also deposited copies of the responses received to the consultation by the Medicines Control Agency on its parallel proposals on controls on licensed medicines containing vitamin B6.

  The Government have taken full account of the Agriculture Select Committee's report on vitamin B6 and have made their response today. (The decision on when and how this is published is a matter for the Committee).

  The Government's assessment of the science remains that of the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) and our advice to the public will continue to reflect this. However, we accept that there is a case for delaying any action on vitamin B6 until the new Expert Group on Vitamins and Minerals has completed its consideration of the wider issue of the principles on which controls for ensuring the safety of vitamin and mineral supplements sold under food law can be based. This should take between eighteen months and two years. In view of this we have concluded that a decision on legislation on the level of vitamin B6 in dietary supplements should be deferred until after the Expert Group has produced its report.
  471

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she intends to reply to the letters to her dated 2 April, 15 May and 16 June from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, with regard to Mrs. H. Nasrin, 58 Clitheroe Road. [51463]

  Mr. Denham
  The delay in responding to my right hon. Friend's letters was very much regretted. Unfortunately, the Department did not receive a copy of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's reply to the letter regarding Mrs. Nasrin until 16 July 1998.

  Mrs. Nasrin's case is a complex one. However, I hope to let my right hon. Friend have a full reply as soon as our investigations are complete.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne, dated 16 May, concerning Mr. R. A. Weedon of Ashford, Middlesex, reference 3/3642/14. [53796]

  Mr. Denham
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 28 July.

  Pensioners (Fuel Bills)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her oral statement of 17 July 1998,Official Report, columns 703–05, if she will estimate the respective contributions of (a) price reductions, (b) VAT reductions, (c) winter fuel payments and (d) other changes to the average lowering of pension fuel bills for single and for married pensioners (i) on income support and (ii) not on income support. [52034]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is set out in the table. Accurate consumption data are not available by type of pensioner.

  Average fuel bill and estimated possible savings

  £

  Fuel bill (combined electricity and gas)

  614.50

  Price and competition reductions

  62.50

  VAT reductions

  17.00

  Winter Fuel Payments (Income Support (IS))

  50.00

  Winter Fuel Payments (non-IS)

  20.00

  Total savings—Income Support

  129.50

  Total savings—non-Income Support

  99.50

  Notes:

  1. Bills are based on average standard credit and VAT rates in force on 1 April of the financial year

  2. Bills are calculated on standard consumption of 3,300 kWh for electricity and 18,000 kWh for gas

  3. Price reductions include the new tariffs introduced by electricity companies in April 1998 as part of the new two year price restraints and new British Gas tariffs announced in January 1998

  4. Price reductions include an estimate of a typical saving that would accrue to customers switching supplier for the 1998–99 financial year. Estimates of savings from switching supplier will vary case by case depending on when and to which supplier someone switches to

  5. All figures are rounded to the nearest 50p
  472

  National Insurance
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those of working age have never paid national insurance contributions. [52523]

  Mr. Denham
  The working age population is some 35,036,000. Departmental estimates show that 34,433,000 people, aged between 16 and state pension age in 1995/96, paid National Insurance contributions at some time between 1975/76 and 1995/96. However, an unknown number of these people are no longer included in the working population, because they have left the country.

  For years before 1975/76 it is not possible to distinguish between contributions which were paid and those which were credited.

  Sources:

  Lifetime Labour Market Database

  Population Estimates Unit.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will evaluate the cost to her Department arising from violence within families; and if she will make a statement. [52442]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Wednesday 29 July 1998,Official Report, column 258.

  Common Minimum Pension Age
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate she has made of the net public expenditure cost for introducing a common minimum pension age of 60 years. [52912]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to him on 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 111.

  Welfare Provision
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what role he intends for approved welfare providers in his plans for welfare reform; and if he will make a statement on their relationship to pension providers. [53251]

  Mr. Denham
  The Welfare Reform Green Paper, "New ambitions for our country: A New Contract for Welfare", proposed that the public and private sectors should work in partnership to make welfare provision. Such private-public partnerships are one of a range of possibilities currently being considered.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53062]
  473
  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is in the table.

  Number of men and women employed by the department aged over 60 years on 1 January 1998

  Business Unit

  Male

  Female

  Benefits Agency

  515

  605

  Contributions Agency

  74

  63

  Child Support Agency

  40

  28

  War Pensions Agency

  17

  18

  ITSA

  10

  3

  ISBs

  14

  8

  DSS HQ

  8

  10

  Total

  678

  735

  Departmental Total

  1,413

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53043]

  Mr. Denham
  There are no staff currently employed within the Department who have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. However, the Permanent Secretary has discretion to retain staff beyond their 60th birthday, if they remain fully efficient and there is a need for their services.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the task forces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers, (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53284]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Pension Provision Group

  (a) To provide an independent analysis of the current state of pension provision in the United Kingdom and of likely future trends.

  (b) Membership is drawn from pensions experts from outside the Government who come from a wide range of backgrounds and interests.

  (c) None

  (d) None

  (e) None

  Pensions Education Working Group

  (a) To advise on the development of a longer term pensions awareness strategy; to establish and evaluate the telephone helpline experiment; work to develop free-standing initiatives and partnerships to implement their recommendations; to consider how to give consumers basic and comparable information in plain English on pension schemes and products.

  (b) Representatives from the pensions industry, employer and employee organisations, consumer organisations, regulatory authorities and officials from various Government departments.

  (c) None

  (d) None

  (e) None

  474
  Pension Sharing Consultation Panel

  (a) To enable representatives from the key interest groups to work together with the Government to review proposals for the detailed operation of the policy.

  (b) Representatives of the pensions industry, family lawyers, groups representing divorcing couples and officials from various Government Departments.

  (c) None

  (d) None

  (e) None

  Disability Benefits Forum

  (a) To consider possible options for changes in the gateways to benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and carers, and how to ensure that help is directed to those who need it.

  (b) Representatives from "umbrella" groups representing all areas of the disability lobby and groups representing significant numbers of disabled people. In addition, there are experts from the fields of local government and social policy as well as medical professionals with a range of expertise in the areas of long term illness and disability.

  (c) None

  (d) None

  (e) None.

  Benefits
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what factors underlay his decision to withdraw the offer of extra subsidy to local authorities to detect housing benefit fraud; [53277]

  (2) if he will require retrospective introduction of weekly benefit savings for the 1997-98 financial year; [53274]

  (3) what reasons subsidy to local authorities will be lost if housing benefit (a) ceases and (b) is reduced before a designated fraud officer becomes involved; [53272]

  (4) what incentive he will provide for local authorities to detect housing benefit fraud; [53273]

  (5) when he will reply to the Local Government Association representations on the Draft Weekly Benefit Savings Subsidy Guide. [53267]

  Mr. Denham
  This Government are committed to taking tough action against all benefit fraud including Housing Benefit. Significant incentives for local authorities to detect Housing Benefit fraud are already in place. A financial incentive scheme has been in operation since 1993 which rewards local authorities for good performance in detecting benefit fraud. Payments of additional subsidy to local authorities to reward them for their anti-fraud work has risen year on year (£5.9m in 1993–94 to £65.6m in 1997–98).

  Recent National Audit Office and Audit Commission reports questioned the interpretation of the Subsidy Order by some local authorities when claiming additional subsidy for anti-fraud work. We have therefore made the criteria explicit in the 1998 Subsidy Order. To qualify for this additional subsidy authorities must show that benefit was reduced or stopped following investigation by a designated fraud officer. In each case they must show that benefit has been overpaid as a result of fraud or, in a case where benefit has not been put into payment, an attempt was made to claim fraudulently and this was prevented by their action.
  475
  The Department is still awaiting comments from the Local Government Association on the draft instructions on claiming weekly benefit savings. When received they will be considered and a reply issued as soon as possible. We have, however, already had the opportunity to consider some of the initial comments made by the Local Government Association and, as a result of this, the strengthened criteria for claiming fraud weekly benefit savings will not now be retrospective.

  Benefit Fraud
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons housing benefit claims are to be classed as fraudulent based on the balance of probabilities. [53275]

  Mr. Denham
  This test has been the agreed basis for awarding additional subsidy payments since the anti-fraud incentive scheme was introduced in 1993. The criminal test would be unduly onerous for local authorities.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will permit local authority housing benefit officers to assess the possibility of malicious allegations before referring housing benefit fraud allegations to fraud teams. [53268]

  Mr. Denham
  Local authority housing officers are already free to do so.

  Weekly Benefit Savings
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if weekly benefit savings will be made available to local authorities whose tenants abandon properties. [53269]

  Mr. Denham
  It would not be appropriate to give local authorities additional subsidy for normal housing benefit administration activities.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will allow local authorities to secure abandoned properties to prevent vandalism before a fraud team investigates and for the weekly benefit saving to be protected until the investigation is concluded. [53270]

  Mr. Denham
  In these circumstances additional subsidy related to weekly benefit savings could be paid if, as a result of a fraud investigation, fraud was discovered and a suspended Housing Benefit claim was stopped.

  Non Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53858]
  476
  Mr. Denham
  Of the 15 non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) sponsored by the Department of Social Security on 1 May 1997(a) none have been disbanded; (b) six will be disbanded during the second half of 1999; (c) none have had their functions transferred; (d) none have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role; and (e) 15 have been unchanged. Details of all other NDPBs in existence on 1 May 1997 sponsored by this Department are listed in "Public Bodies 1997".

  No new NDPBs have been established since 1 May 1997 and this Department is currently responsible for 15 NDPBs.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new NDPBs established since 1 May will be essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a breakdown of the estimated expenditure of the £178 million budget for the New Deal for Disabled People which is not accounted for by funding of(a) innovative schemes and (b) personal advisers. [53891]

  Mr. Denham
  The New Deal for Disabled People is being funded with £195 million from the Windfall Tax, which will be used over the lifetime of the current Parliament. £5 million will fund a number of Innovative Schemes which will test new ways of helping disabled people into work, and the result of the first tranche of bids was announced on 16 July. A further £17 million (£5 million in 1998–99, and a further £12 million in 1999–2000) will be used to pilot a new Personal Adviser service for disabled people, initially in 12 areas, offering advice and support on an individual basis to disabled people who want to move towards work. Some funds will be made available for research and evaluation of the New Deal, and for publicity and information. Decisions about how the rest of the money will be spent will be made in the light of information provided by the Innovative Schemes and the Personal Adviser pilots.

  Income Support
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners in Scotland do not claim the income support to which they are entitled; and how many of those do not receive benefit payments to which they are entitled of between(a) £1 and £10, (b) £10 to £20, (c) £20 to £30, (d) £30 to £40, (e) £40 to £50 and (f) £50 and over. [53707]

  Mr. Denham
  There are estimated to be around 100,000 pensioners in Scotland who do not claim the Income Support to which they are entitled. Information
  477
  on the range of the amounts unclaimed by numbers of pensioners not claiming is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Number of pensioners entitled to but not claiming income support in Scotland in 1995–96 by amount unclaimed

  Amount unclaimed

  Number of pensioners

  £0–£9.99

  50,000

  £10–£19.99

  30,000

  £20 or more

  20,000

  Total

  100,000

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. The estimates are based on the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey and are almost certainly subject to some degree of error. The highlighted estimates are based on particularly small sample sizes and should be treated with some caution

  2. It has not been possible to provide the figures with the breakdowns requested because the sample sizes are too small

  3. A pensioner, for Income Support purposes, is a single person aged 60 or over, or a couple (married or unmarried) where at least one of them is aged 60 or over

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many lone parents in Scotland had their benefit reduced as a result of the removal of the lone parent premium and lone parent rate of child benefit. [53738]

  Mr. Denham
  Recipients of the lone parent rates of family premium and child benefit at the date of removal will continue to receive the higher rates and will therefore suffer no reduction in benefit. There will be no cash losers. The estimate of the number of lone parents in Scotland at the end of 1998–99 who will have a lower level of benefit as a result of the changes is in the table.

  Benefit

  Caseloads end 1998–99

  Income support

  26,000

  Housing benefit

  5,000

  Council tax benefit

  4,000

  Child benefit

  9,000

  Note:

  1. Caseloads have been rounded to the nearest 1,000. Caseloads for the individual benefits cannot be added together because some cases will be affected by the changes to more than one benefit

  2. Caseloads show the situation at the end of 1998–99. They do not include cases who have moved onto benefit after the changes but who have flowed off benefit before the end of 1998–99

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the extension of the winter fuel payment scheme beyond next winter will include separate(a) £10, (b) £20 and (c) £50 payments per pensioner household depending on the rules of entitlement; and what will be the administration cost per payment. [53710]

  Mr. Denham
  Forming part of the £2.5 billion pensions package announced on 17 July 1998 Official Report, Column 704, a further £0.5 billion has been allocated to extend the Winter Fuel payments scheme beyond next winter. From the winter of 1999–2000 all eligible pensioner households will receive £20.
  478
  The precise details of the extended scheme have yet to be determined, but it is expected to be similar to the existing provision which provides £20 to every eligible pensioner household not receiving Income Support. Under the existing provision, those who live alone, those who are the only eligible pensioner in a household, or are without accommodation receive a payment of £20. Otherwise, each eligible person receives a payment of £10, including each person in a couple where they are both entitled to a payment.

  From April 1999, pensioners receiving Income Support will receive increased amounts of weekly benefit—three times the increase they would have got under the usual Income Support uprating rules. In addition, some pensioners with incomes at, or just slightly above, the current levels of Income Support will become entitled to Income Support.

  We will also be introducing for the first time, a new delivery system to begin to help the estimated one million pensioners currently missing out on extra benefit they are entitled to.

  Until the precise details of the Winter Fuel payment provision beyond next winter are determined and decisions are taken on the most appropriate and cost-effective delivery mechanisms it is not possible to establish the administration costs of each payment made.

  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to be able to announce the qualifying week for next winter's fuel payments; and when these payments will be made. [54886]

  Mr. Denham
  Amending regulations are presently being printed and should be laid before Parliament shortly.

  We consider it important that pensioners should receive their Winter Fuel Payment in time to help towards the heaviest fuel bill when it arrives. Priority will also be given to the poorest.

  Any pensioner receiving one of the qualifying benefits during the week beginning 9 November 1998 will be entitled to a payment. Using this qualifying week should enable payments of £50 to be made to the estimated 1.5 million eligible pensioners receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance by the end of November and payments of £20 or £10 to the remaining 8.3 million eligible pensioners during January 1999.

  The list of qualifying benefits has been extended to include all of the Industrial Injuries Benefits. This change aims to ensure everyone over state pension age receiving a Social Security benefit is entitled to a payment.

  As announced by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Horman), Winter Fuel Payments will continue beyond next winter, with each eligible pensioner household getting £20.

  Pensioners on Income Support will also benefit from an above inflation increase, from April 1999, which will ensure they have a minimum income of a least £75.50 per week for a single person. Couples and older pensioners will receive more.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what date his Department received
  479
  notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53351]

  Welsh Language Schemes

  Date notice received

  Public consultation period

  Date submitted to board

  Scheme approved

  Benefits Agency

  20 December 1995

  10 June 1996 to 9 August 1996

  30 August 1996

  20 September 1996

  Child Support Agency

  14 November 1995

  11 December 1995 to 9 February 1996

  22 February 1996

  7 March 1996

  Contributions Agency

  18 April 1996

  January to March 1997

  30 October 1997

  12 November 1997

  DSS HQ

  17 September 1997

  August to September 1998

  Due for submission October 1998

  —

  War Pensions

  No notice issued

  —

  —

  —

  ITSA

  No notice issued

  —

  —

  —

  Pensioners (Incomes)
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many (a) single pensioners, (b) pensioner couples, (c) adults and (d) lone parents in (i) Scotland and (ii) the UK as a whole have an income less than half of average income. [54387]

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

  Including the self-employed, the numbers of people living in households with incomes below half the Great Britain average are:

  Thousand

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  Single pensioners

  960

  80

  1,280

  110

  Pensioner couples

  1,160

  (100)

  1,320

  (110)

  Adults

  6,770

  610

  9,240

  750

  Lone parents

  1,280

  (190)

  2,490

  250

  Source:

  Households Below Average Income (HBAI)

  Excluding the self-employed, the numbers of people living in households with incomes below half the Great Britain average, are:

  Thousand

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Single pensioners

  880

  (80)

  1,050

  (80)

  Pensioner couples

  1,020

  (100)

  1,170

  (100)

  Adults

  5,390

  510

  7,600

  630

  Lone parents

  1,050

  (160)

  2,310

  240

  Notes:

  1. The data come from the Department's Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series, based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and covering Great Britain.

  2. Figures are for 1995–96, the latest year for which data are available.

  3. Figures in brackets relate to fewer than 100 families in the sample. Numbers are given to the nearest 10,000 but because they come from a sample survey they are not accurate to this degree. All results are subject to sampling error.
  480
  Mr. Denham
  The Department of Social Security and its executive Agencies are individually responsible for preparation of a Welsh Language Scheme when requested by the Welsh Language Board.

  The present position is summarised in the table.

  4. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised income. The definition of income used follows that in the published HBAI series for FRS based results. The figures are given both before and after housing costs in line with usual HBAI practice. The figures may be sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale used.

  5. The income measures for the self-employed are inherently uncertain. For this reason, results are presented both including and excluding the self-employed.

  6. For all figures, half the Great Britain national average income has been used as a benchmark. Separate averages were used for the including and excluding self-employed measures.

  7. A single pensioner is defined as a single adult of state pension age or over and a pensioner couple is defined as a couple, where the man is of state pension age or over.

  8. The tables show the numbers of people in each cell. This means that, for example, 1,160,000 people living in pensioner couples, or 580,000 pensioner couples, in Great Britain have incomes less than half the national average before housing costs.

  Source:

  Households Below Average Income (HBAI).

  Persistent Inquirers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent inquirers for information. [539561]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Welfare Reform, on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 358.

  Overseas Pensions
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the current exchange rate on overseas pensions. [54401]

  Mr. Denham
  Pensions and Overseas Benefits Directorate (POD) currently pays in excess of 800,000 customers in around 200 countries worldwide.

  Various methods of payment are used to pay pensions abroad. Customers in 30 countries are paid by Credit Transfer in sterling. This is converted to local currency and paid directly to customers' bank accounts. Pensioners are offered a favourable rate of exchange due to the bulk buying of currency. They are not charged for this service.

  481
  Pensioners who do not receive their benefit by this method are paid in sterling and they are responsible for converting their payments to local currency.

  The exchange rate is variable and subject to fluctuation. There are no provisions in legislation to allow adjustments to be made when variations occur between sterling and foreign currencies. POD monitors the exchange rates to ensure that customers continually receive a preferential rate when paid by Credit Transfer.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements he is making for introducing the new linking rule for incapacity benefits and abolishing the 16 hour restriction on unpaid voluntary work. [54884]

  Mr. Denham
  The Government have a fourfold strategy for helping disabled people who want to work. We are providing the active help and encouragement people with disabilities need to move into work under the New Deal for Disabled People; removing obstacles to work from the benefits system; making sure that work pays; and promoting radical change in the workplace to ensure equality and opportunity.

  We intend that the regulations introducing the new 52 week linking rule, and removing the 16 hour restriction on unpaid voluntary work, will be made in late August or early September, and will come into force from 5 October 1998 as announced in the Budget and our Green Paper "New ambitions for our country: A New Contract For Welfare" (Cm 3805). These regulations will help to remove some of the risks disabled people face from a return to work and reclaiming benefit.

  The new linking rule will provide a period of 52 weeks following a return to work in which periods of entitlement to benefit on the grounds of incapacity can be linked. The rule will apply to people who leave benefit voluntarily having been incapable of work for at least 28 weeks.

  The linking rule will protect a person's access to a number of the longer-term benefit rates that are payable to people who are incapable of work—for example: the short-term (higher) and long-term rates of incapacity benefit; Severe Disablement Allowance; access to the Disability Premium payable in Income Support/Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit; and Income Support mortgage interest payments. The rules will also give protection to Income Support and Jobseeker' s Allowance claimants who have a partner who leaves an incapacity benefit (or NI credits awarded on grounds of incapacity) to return to work and whose benefit ceases as a consequence. In addition transitional protection in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit will also be protected for those who reclaim in the 52 week period.

  Minister

  Date

  Place visited

  Purpose

  Accompanied by

  Frank Field

  February 1998

  Athens

  Pensions seminar

  Private Secretary

  Keith Bradley

  February 1998

  Vienna

  Minister for Labour, Health and Social Affairs

  Private Secretary and one official

  Joan Ruddock

  March 1998

  New York

  Commission of the Status of Women

  Private Secretary

  Keith Bradley

  March 1998

  USA

  Welfare to work projects

  Private Secretary and one official

  482
  This offers reassurance that if disabled people make the move from benefits into work and reclaim benefit they will not have to requalify for higher rates of benefits payable on grounds of incapacity, as they do now.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost to his Department of raising the earnings disregard for people on long-term incapacity benefit to(a) £20 and (b) £25. [53817]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no current earnings disregard for people receiving Incapacity Benefit. Recipients cannot normally do any work unless it qualifies under special rules permitting a certain amount of therapeutic or voluntary work. The Government announced in the Green Paper "New Ambitions For Our Country: A New Contract For Welfare" proposals to pilot changes to benefits to remove barriers faced by disabled people who want to work. The proposals included allowing people receiving Incapacity Benefit to do a small amount of paid work, subject to a weekly limit of £15, although the precise level has still to be finalised. The expenditure consequences of such a change will depend on the effect it has on the numbers of people leaving or staying on benefit. Information on which to base an estimate is not currently available, but will be provided by the pilots.

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52706]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The term research covers a wide range of activities from scientific and engineering research through to consultancies and public opinion surveys. The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those who have accompanied (i) him or his predecessor and (ii) his departmental Ministers on overseas visits since 1 January indicating(a) the venue of the visit, (b) the purpose of the visit, (c) the names of those involved, (d) the job of those involved, (e) the reasons why they were included in the visit and (f) the cost to public funds. [53844]

  Mr. Denham
  All overseas visits by Ministers are conducted in accordance with the principles set out in the Ministerial Code. Information in the form requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, I can confirm that since 1 January 1998 Ministers in this Department have been accompanied on the following overseas visits:
  483

  Minister

  Date

  Place visited

  Purpose

  Accompanied by

  Frank Field

  April 1998

  Paris

  Post Office

  Private Secretary

  Keith Bradley

  April 1998

  Paris

  Social Partners

  Private Secretary and two officials

  Frank Field

  June 1998

  Stockholm

  Centre for Business and Policy Studies

  Private Secretary

  Frank Field

  June 1998

  Paris

  OECD

  Private Secretary

  The total costs incurred by the Department for this period are £26,000.

SCOTLAND

  Sheep Annual Premium Scheme
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the likely impact of new regulations and attendant financial penalties in respect of the sheep annual premium scheme and hill livestock compensatory allowances on(a) future percentage lambing yields and (b) future stock improvement progress; and if he will make a statement. [51442]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The legislation governing Sheep Annual Premium and Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances is longstanding. Enforcement of that legislation should not impact on general flock health or lambing percentages.

  Following recent representations by the Government, the European Commission has accepted our proposals aimed at reducing the frequency with which sheep on common grazings need to be gathered for the purpose of subsidy inspection.

  New Deal
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [52590]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Office has developed New Deal proposals to employ 50 people under the subsidised job option. We are aiming to fill these positions as soon as possible, but whether all 50 posts will be filled during 1998 depends on the number of eligible and suitable candidates identified by the Employment Service. No specific targets have been set for the numbers to be recruited under the unsubsidised option. We will of course consider eligible applicants, if they are suitable for our vacancies.

  Planning Inquiries
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to reduce the length of time taken over planning inquiries for(a) wind farms and (b) hydro-power projects; and if he will make a statement. [52445]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A new regulatory and best practice framework for planning inquiries for all types of development was introduced last year. This should reduce the overall time taken to determine proposals for wind farms and hydro-power projects which go to inquiry.484
  Scottish Office officials are currently working jointly on guidance for developers for consultation with Scottish Natural Heritage and other interested parties.

  Fish Farm Discharges
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on possible funding for the Aberdeen Marine Laboratory proposed investigation over the effects of fish farm discharges on sea lochs. [52550]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The Marine Laboratory has a programme of research associated with the impact of fish farming. It is also a potential participant in a possible new project to monitor the environmental impact of sea lice treatments. This inter-departmental project, if approved, will be subject to public tender.

  Women's Aid
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue guidance to local authorities on support for services provided by Women's Aid. [52794]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: It is for local authorities to decide whether to support such services in their area. The proposed Scottish Partnership on Domestic Violence—which will include local government representation—will be expected to recommend minimum standards of service, to be implemented as resources allow, for women experiencing domestic violence. This should help encourage consistent service delivery throughout Scotland.

  NHS Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates his Department has made of(a) the savings accruing from the cancellation of the eighth wave of GP fundholding and (b) other NHS efficiency savings since 1 May 1997. [53222]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: There were no applications for entry to the Standard Fundholding Scheme outstanding at 1 May 1997 and, therefore, no savings were planned or made in respect of the Scheme. The Government intend to bring forward legislation which, subject to Parliamentary approval, will abolish GP Fundholding from 1 April 1999.

  The estimated savings from reducing bureaucracy are set out in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  10

  1998–99

  10

  1999–2000

  20

  485

  New Electoral Systems
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department will be spending on its campaign to educate and inform electors in Scotland on the new electoral system to be used in the elections for their assembly. [53685]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Government are considering what publicity arrangements are needed to inform electors of the new voting system for the Scottish Parliament. It is not possible at this stage to provide details of these arrangements or estimated costs.

  Civil Marriages
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the results of the consultation undertaken by the Registrar General on civil marriages outwith registration offices; and if he will make a statement. [54621]

  Mr. McLeish
  I am placing a copy of the results of the consultation in the Library. Widespread support was expressed for the idea of extending the choice of couples to have civil marriages other than in local registration offices. The responses emphasised the need to retain the seemliness and dignity of the marriage ceremony. A number of useful comments were made about civil marriage venues which will aid the drafting of appropriate statutory provisions and of practical guidance to the registration service. The Government would wish to see the proposals carried forward, and hope that the Scottish Parliament will consider enactment of appropriate legislation.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the task forces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers, (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53281]

  Mr. Dewar
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the House Library.

  Telephone Interceptions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors underlie the number of telephone interceptions sanctioned by him and his predecessors since 1985. [53431]

  Mr. McLeish
  I refer my hon. Friend to the latest report of the Interception Commissioner (Cm 4001) in which he states:"The great majority of warrants issued by both Secretaries of State [the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland] are for the prevention or detection of serious crime.
  Serious crime is defined in Section 10(3) of the Act as an offence involving the use of violence or resulting in substantial financial gain or involving a large number of persons in pursuit of a common purpose, or alternatively as an offence for which a person who has attained the age of 21 and has no previous convictions could
  486
  reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more. All of the serious crime warrants which I have examined have bene concerned with offences which would rank as serious crime by any reckoning … All have comfortably passed the 3 years imprisonment test …
  I am satisfied that the substantial increase in interception is due to the continuing incidence of large scale crime coupled with the greater facilities now available to the various agencies. The strict criteria laid down by the Act continue to be applied".

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the pig industry; what steps he is taking to address the concerns of the industry; and if he will make a statement. [53451]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State recently met representatives of the Scottish Pig Industry to discuss the problems which the industry is facing at present. These problems essentially stem from over supply on the European market due to substantial expansion—including vigorous expansion in Scotland—when prices were strong. Contraction in the industry as a whole is inevitable and restructuring will be necessary. My noble Friend has commissioned a study into the Scottish industry which should assist the restructuring process. He has also called on the public, on retailers and caterers to back farm assured pigmeat and pigmeat products.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Buildings (Asbestos)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what sums from the money allocated to his Department following the Comprehensive Spending Review will be used to remove asbestos from school buildings. [51864]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The removal of asbestos from school buildings is already regarded as a high priority in the allocation of capital funding for schools.

  It will remain the responsibility of LEAs to determine their priorities for capital works following the Comprehensive Spending Review. The Government will continue to treat as high priority applications for funding where asbestos removal is necessary for health and safety reasons.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of playing fields or parts of playing fields, the total acreage sold and the total revenues raised in each year since 1988. [51942]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department does not collect this information.

  School Swimming Pools
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the total number of maintained schools with swimming pool facilities in use in each year since 1988; [51944]
  487
  (2) what was the total number of maintained schools with swimming pool facilities in each year since 1988. [51943]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Cycling
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to the Government's announcement of 20 July 1998,Official Report, columns 784–88, on reasons to encourage cycling, when he will order the removal of the signs around his Department which forbid the leaving of bicycles attached to railings. [51934]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are signs on the railings at the perimeter of Sanctuary Buildings which state that "Bicycles left chained to these railings will in future be removed". These signs will not be removed as we need to continue to meet Cabinet Office Security guidance.

  Apart from the security risk, bicycles chained outside Sanctuary Buildings would create a Health and Safety issue as the pavement is narrow and they would constitute a hazard.

  However, the Department does provide 65 secure cycle parking spaces for its staff in London; these are adequate for current needs.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children in England he estimates are currently taught in private schools. [52088]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Provisional figures show that 572,000 pupils were being taught in Independent schools in England in January 1998.

  GEST Funding
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what savings have resulted from the change to 60:40 GEST funding to the Standards Fund for Cumbria. [52209]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In 1997–98 Grants for Education Support and Training (GEST) supported education expenditure of £3,327,500 in Cumbria at a grant rate of mainly 60 per cent. The expenditure to be supported in Cumbria by The Standards Fund in 1998–99 is £5,659,512, at a grant rate of mainly 50 per cent. The 50 per cent. funding reflects the Government's commitment to raise standards in partnership with Local Education Authorities.

  Infant Class Sizes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what criteria he has set to judge the impact on educational standards of reducing infant class sizes to 30; and if he will publish these. [52564]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: We believe that there is already substantial evidence that smaller infant class sizes will improve standards of education in schools and that is why we have promised that by September 2001 at the latest, no 5, 6 or 7 year old will be in an infant class of more than 30 pupils.
  488
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library the responses received by his Department as a result of the consultation on draft regulations on limiting infant class sizes. [52567]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: We are currently considering the responses to our consultation on the draft class size regulations and guidance. We will place a summary of the comments we received in the Library of the House once we have completed our analysis.

  Church Schools
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will commission an independent evaluation into the(a) effectiveness and (b) equity of admissions procedures to Church schools with voluntary-aided status. [52406]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: A new framework for admissions will be established under provisions in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, underpinned by a new statutory Code of Practice. For the first time all admission authorities—including the governing bodies of voluntary-aided schools—will be required annually to consult locally before determining their admission arrangements. Objections to those arrangements may be referred to an adjudicator, and, where they relate to religious or denominational criteria, to the Secretary of State. The decision of the Secretary of State or the adjudicator will be binding. We shall be evaluating the impact of the new admission framework once it is operating.

  Class Sizes (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what was the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary schools, (b) secondary schools and (c) at Key Stage One in Stoke-on-Trent in each of the last five years; [53236]

  (2) what was the average class size (a) in primary schools and (b) at Key Stage One in Stoke-on-Trent in each of the last five years. [53237]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the tables.

  Pupil: teacher ratio and average class size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained schools January 1994–98 Staffordshire local education authority area

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Year

  PTR

  ACS

  ACS of key stage one classes

  PTR

  ACS

  1994

  25.1

  27.7

  2—

  17.5

  22.1

  1995

  24.6

  27.6

  2—

  17.4

  22.0

  1996

  24.9

  27.7

  27.2

  17.6

  22.3

  1997

  24.9

  27.5

  26.8

  17.7

  22.3

  19981

  25.2

  27.3

  26.4

  18.0

  22.4

  1 provisional

  2 not available.

  Figures for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire (excluding Stoke-on-Trent) Local Education Authority areas in January 1998 are shown in the table.
  489

  Pupil:teacher ratio and average class size of classes taught by one teacher in maintained schools January 19981 Staffordshire local education authority area

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  PTR

  ACS

  ACS of key stage one classes

  PTR

  ACS

  Stoke-on-Trent

  25.4

  27.2

  26.7

  17.8

  22.9

  Staffordshire (excluding Stoke-on-Trent)

  25.1

  27.4

  26.3

  18.1

  22.3

  1provisional

  Education Expenditure
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the review of SSA and area cost adjustment for education under review; and when he proposes to implement changes arising from the review. [53239]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are in the middle of a review of the SSA formula, including the area cost adjustment. We will not take final decisions on the SSA methodology for 1999–2000 until the autumn, after we have considered the views of local government as a whole.

  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the education standard spending assessment for those local authorities which achieved unitary status in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [53253]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The table sets out the education SSA for 1998–99 for those local authorities which achieved unitary status in(a) 1996 and (b)

  £million

  LEA

  Education SSA

  1996

  Bath and North East Somerset

  54.4

  Bristol

  119.9

  North Somerset

  58.6

  South Gloucestershire

  78.7

  Hartlepool

  37.0

  Middlesbrough

  61.5

  Redcar and Cleveland

  59.6

  Stockton on Tees

  71.7

  Kingston upon Hull

  102.7

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  102.9

  North East Lincolnshire

  64.8

  North Lincolnshire

  56.4

  York

  52.8

  1997

  Bournemouth

  49.5

  Brighton and Hove

  71.8

  Darlington

  34.1

  Derby

  84.2

  Leicester

  121.0

  Luton

  78.0

  Milton Keynes

  83.5

  Poole

  44.2

  Portsmouth

  62.5

  Rutland

  10.6

  490

  £ million

  LEA

  Education SSA

  Southampton

  64.8

  Stoke on Trent

  87.0

  Swindon

  82.8

  School Closures
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will set out the procedures to be followed by a local education authority in promoting the temporary closure of a maintained school. [52996]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Where a local education authority seeks to close a school maintained by it, it is required to published statutory proposals, having consulted those it considers to be appropriate in the light of guidance published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Statutory proposals must also be published to establish a new school, whether or not this is in the premises of a closed school. If the school proposed to be established is a voluntary school, the proposals would need to be published by the promoters of that school. Under current legislation, proposals affecting voluntary schools fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for decision.

  Teaching Vacancies
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list, for each local education authority, the number of applications received, on average, for each(a) headship and (b) teacher vacancy, during 1996–97 and 1997–98. [53567]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Special Schools
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the effect on children's educational achievement of being placed in a special school against(a) their and (b) their family's wishes. [53381]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  None: the Education Act 1996 provides that, subject to certain conditions, children with statements of special educational needs (SEN) should be educated in a mainstream school provided that is what their parents wish. Parents have a right of appeal to the independent SEN Tribunal if they are dissatisfied with a local education authority's (LEA's) decision in this respect. The Code of Practice on the Identification and Assessment of SEN encourages LEAs and others to take account of views of children themselves wherever practicable.

  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities in England have a special school catering for the age range five to 16 years for pupils with profound and multiple learning difficulties and severe learning difficulties and provision for pupils 16 to 19 years with PMLD which(a) has more than 150 pupils on roll and (b) has more than 175 pupils on roll. [53554]
  491
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information available to the Department indicates that 14 local education authorities have special schools with more than 150 pupils which cater for at least ages five to 18 and for pupils with severe learning difficulties. Nine LEAs have such schools with more than 175 pupils.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53863]

  Mr. Mudie
  Of the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in existence on 1 May 1997:

  (a) the NDPB that has been simply disbanded is the Supported Employment Consultative Group;

  (b) the Funding Agency for Schools will cease funding activities in the next 12 months, and will be disbanded late 1999;

  (c)(i) the functions of the now-disbanded National Advisory Council for the Employment of People with Disabilities have been transferred to the National Disability Council. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority have been merged to form the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The Race Relations Employment Advisory Group has been disbanded, and is intended to be shortly replaced by the Race Relations Education and Employment Forum;

  (c)(ii) No functions have been transferred to a democratically elected body;

  (d) the Education Assets Board is being renamed as the Education Transfer Council and the National Council for Educational Technology has been renamed as the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency;

  (e) unchanged NDPBs not mentioned above are the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research, the Construction Industry Training Board, the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Further Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Investors in People UK, Remploy Ltd., Student Loans Company, Teacher Training Agency, Registered Inspectors Appeals Tribunal and Special Educational Needs Tribunal.

  New non-departmental public bodies established since 1 May 1997 are the Disability Rights Task Force, New Deal Task Force and Skills Task Force.

  My Department is responsible for 20 non-departmental public bodies.
  492
  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new NDPBs established since 1 May will be essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53051]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  As at 1 January 1998, 31 men and 17 women aged 60 and over were employed by the Department. In the case of the Employment Service, figures are not readily available from Personnel Systems for 1 January, but can be provided from data collected at 10 March 1998. At this point, some 72 men and 186 women aged 60 years and over were employed by the Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53052]

  Mr. Mudie
  Where a clear business need for any member of the Department or its Agencies to continue beyond age 60 exists, and providing that individual meets the necessary criteria for fitness and effectiveness, that member of staff may be enabled to continue beyond their 60th birthday. Only members of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) have contracts of employment which provide specifically for them to retire at 60 years of age, but 60 is also the normal minimum retirement age for all members of the Department and its Agencies. The terms and conditions of all members of the Department and its Agencies thus provide for staff to retire after their 60th birthday—in the case of the Senior Civil Service, only with the agreement of their Permanent Head of Department.

  Total numbers of Senior Civil Service members in the Department are (a) 79 men and (b) 22 women. In the Employment Service, there are (a) 25 men and (b) 7 women members of the SCS. [There are also (a) 10 men and (b) 1 woman SCS members in Government Offices.]

  Total numbers of staff in the Department (including the Senior Civil Service and Government Offices) are (a) 1,945 men and (b) 2,125 women; and in the Employment Service, (a) 9,541 men and (b) 23,987 women.

  Access Funds
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what resources will be available for access funds for students in further and higher education institutions in England in 1998–99; and when he proposes to issue new guidance on the use of the funds. [54812]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government are committed to widening participation and improving access to higher education. We are determined that students should have the support they need to take up or stay on courses of
  493
  higher education. We are making available £56 million through the Access Funds for students in further and higher education in England for the academic year 1998–99. This includes £3 million (£2m in 1998–99 financial year) which we are providing to help remit the fees of part-time under-graduate students who lose their jobs after their course has started.

  The total sum is being allocated between the two Funding Councils for England as shown. The allocations take account of adjustments between the higher education access fund and the further education access fund to help part-time higher education students who are studying at further education institutions.

  £ million

  Higher Education Funding Council for England:

  45.76

  of which: Undergraduate fund

  39.44

  Postgraduate fund

  5.50

  Further education fund

  0.82

  Further education Funding Council:

  10.24

  Total

  56.00

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he proposes to consult further on provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [54814]

  Ms Hodge
  The National Disability Council and the Government have today launched a joint consultation exercise on the duties under Part III of the Act to be implemented in October 1999. The duties will require service providers to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to make use of their goods, facilities and services. The Council is consulting on its draft proposals for a Code of Practice and the Government on proposals for supporting regulations and draft regulatory impact assessment (an estimate of the costs and benefits of the new provisions).

  The Government are also consulting on a draft regulatory impact assessment and a draft Code of Practice concerned with the duties on trade organisations under Part II of the Act to make reasonable adjustments for their disabled members and applicants for membership. These duties will also be implemented in October 1999.

  Both consultations will end on 13 November 1998.

  Some of the documents in the consultation packages bear the name of my predecessor. We have decided not to reprint these documents as this would cut into the time available for consultation and entail an additional call on public funds.

  Copies of both consultation packages will be placed in the Libraries.

  Educational Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will introduce legislation to allow the pilot schemes for educational maintenance allowances to proceed; [53611]
  494
  (2) if families of children involved in the pilot schemes for educational maintenance allowances will lose their entitlement to child benefit; [53612]

  (3) what will be the cost to public funds of the pilot schemes for the educational maintenance allowance; [53613]

  (4) which areas he proposes to use as pilot areas for the educational maintenance allowance; [53614]

  (5) when he proposes to start the pilot schemes for the educational maintenance allowance; [53615]

  (6) what will be the rate of the educational maintenance allowance. [53616]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 28 July 1998,Official Report, column 141. The pilots are planned to start in September 1999.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of the number of advanced skills teachers to be appointed in the current year who will be paid at the top rate of £40,000. [53895]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  It is for governing bodies to determine the five point range on the Advanced Skills Teacher pay spine on which to place any ASTs employed in their schools. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not made any estimate of the cost of the number to be appointed in the current year who will be paid at the highest point on the pay spine.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action he is taking to ensure the recruitment of more teachers with particular reference to Greater London. [53594]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The recruitment of sufficient numbers of well-trained teachers is a key challenge facing this Government and the education service. It is the contribution of high-quality, committed and motivated teachers that will help us drive up standards of achievement in schools.

  The proposals we set out last week for a major Green Paper on the future of the teaching profession and the additional funding announced under the Comprehensive Spending Review, 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–94, will boost the status of the profession and encourage recruitment. Our reply to the report of the Select Committee for Education inquiry, published in January, set out the measures we are taking to encourage more good candidates to enter teaching. We are continuing to consider options further to increase teacher recruitment and to address the particular need for an adequate supply of teachers in London. The Teacher Training Agency continues also to raise the profile of teaching and is working with key partners in the region to address the particular needs of London.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date his Department
  495
  received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53355]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Welsh Language Board formally invited this Department to produce a Welsh Language Scheme on 4 December 1996. The Department offered a draft Scheme to the Board for comment in August 1997. Since then, officials and the Board have held a number of consultations on the contents of the Scheme. 1 hope the Board will shortly confirm that it has no further suggestions to amend the draft. This Department can then consult the public; that is necessary before formal submission to the Board.

  Primary Schools (Norfolk)
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the additional costs incurred by Norfolk County Council in supporting an above average number of small primary schools(a) in total and (b) per pupil in the primary sector. [53718]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  No. It is not possible to carry out such a calculation on a satisfactory basis since it would involve making unsupported assumptions about the classification of schools as "small" and the funding distribution which might be adopted by the LEA in different circumstances. There is also no reliable way of estimating the offsetting additional costs which might be incurred on transport if the pattern of schools was different.

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many current school inspectors were former head teachers; [53384]

  (2) what are the criteria for the appointment of school inspectors in respect of previous educational experience. [53434]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  This is a matter for HM Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked him to write to the hon. Member and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the taskforces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997 and in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers and (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53148]

  Mr. Mudie
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.
  496

  Life Science Graduates
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of life science graduates gain employment related to their field of study [53223]

  Mr. Mudie
  Life science courses are included in the `biological sciences' category in the statistics collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency but cannot be identified separately. The latest available information is for students who qualified in 1997 and relates to first destinations as reported by 31 December 1997. The table gives a complete list of occupants entered and other destinations of first degree graduates in biological sciences.

  First degree graduates in biological sciences from HE institutions in the UK in 1997 for whom destination is known, number of graduates and percentage total

  Destination/Occupation

  Number

  Percentage

  Entered employment:

  Managers and administrators

  919

  7

  Professional occupations

  1,485

  12

  Associate professional and technical occupations

  1,300

  10

  Clerical and secretarial occupations

  1,363

  11

  Craft and related occupations

  50

  0

  Personal and protective service occupations

  698

  6

  Sales occupations

  661

  5

  Plant and machine operatives

  71

  1

  Other occupations

  202

  2

  Unknown

  94

  1

  Entered study or training

  3,665

  29

  Seeking employment or training

  1,128

  9

  Not available for employment

  676

  5

  Overseas student returning overseas

  340

  3

  Total for whom destination known

  12,652

  100

  School Leaving Age
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding the lowering of the school leaving age to 14; and if he will make a statement. [53436]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State receives a wide range of representations on educational issues. While some of these touch upon the difficulties of engaging all pupils in the 14–16 age band in learning, very few commentators advocate an end to compulsory education at 14.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Unpaid Fines
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many attachments of earning orders were issued by each magistrates' court in the Greater London area to collect unpaid fines in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [52050]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor's Department does not collect information on the number of attachment of
  497
  earnings orders issued by magistrates courts and these figures could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Courts (Modernisation)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he is taking to modernise the court environment. [51723]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Court Service has an on-going programme of maintenance and repair, and minor improvements for their court buildings. Magistrates' Courts Committees have similar programmes for the courts they occupy. Guidance has been issued by both the Court Service and Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters for magistrates courts on the type of facilities it is expected should be provided in new or refurbished court buildings including facilities for disabled people and separate waiting rooms for witnesses. The Court Service is also taking forward a project to provide a testbed for new technology in the courts. The aim is to pilot different types of technology, in a live

  (a) The number of female judges and judges of ethnic minority origin as at 1 July 1998

  Total

  Women

  Black

  Asian

  Ethnic minority other

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Lords of Appeal in Ordinary

  12

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Lord Justices of Appeal

  35

  1

  2.9

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Heads of Divisions (excluding the Lord Chancellor)

  4

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  High Court Judges

  97

  7

  7.2

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Circuit Judges

  556

  34

  6.1

  0

  —

  3

  0.5

  2

  0.4

  Recorders

  836

  65

  7.8

  6

  0.7

  3

  0.4

  4

  0.5

  Assistant Recorders

  396

  71

  17.9

  4

  1

  5

  1.3

  4

  1

  District Judges

  358

  46

  12.8

  0

  —

  1

  0.3

  3

  0.8

  Deputy District Judges

  754

  90

  11.9

  2

  0.3

  7

  0.9

  3

  0.4

  Stipendiary Magistrates

  88

  13

  14.8

  0

  —

  2

  2.3

  0

  —

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates

  114

  22

  19.3

  2

  1.8

  0

  —

  2

  1.8

  (b) and (c) The number of Queen's Counsel, and other members of the Bar who are women and/or of ethnic minority origin1

  Total

  Women

  Black

  Asian

  Ethnic minority other

  Unknown ethnicity

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Queen's Counsel (as at 9 April 1998)

  1,034

  73

  7

  7

  0.7

  7

  0.7

  3

  0.3

  —

  Other barristers (as at 18 July 1997

  9,257

  2,539

  27

  209

  2

  272

  3

  182

  2

  2,029

  1 Figures supplied by the Bar Council

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c)(ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53866]

  Mr. Hoon
  None of the Lord Chancellor's Department's non-departmental public bodies has been disbanded since 1 May 1997. The Supreme Court Rule Committee and the County Court Rule Committee will
  498
  courtroom environment. Evaluation of these pilots will inform decisions about the courtroom infrastructure needed to enable technology to be used.

  Judiciary
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the proportions of(a) judges, (b) Queen's counsel, (c) other members of the Bar and (d) pupil barristers who are (1) women, (2) black, (3) Asian and (4) of other ethnic minority origin. [53587]

  Mr. Hoon
  The tables show the figures for women and those believed to be of the different ethnic origins requested for judges, Queen's Counsel and other members of the Bar. The figures for the ethnic origin of judges are believed to be correct, but as the ethnic origin of candidates for judicial office was not sought before October 1991, the data may be incomplete. There are no detailed figures available about pupil barristers. The Bar Council has estimated that 46 per cent. of pupils and "squatters" are women and 13 per cent. of pupils and "squatters" are of ethnic minority origin.

  probably be disbanded in the next 12 months. Their functions will have been transferred to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee.

  The Civil Procedure Rule Committee and the Civil Justice Council, which were both provided for by the previous Administration's Civil Procedure Act 1997, were set up after 1 May 1997.

  Non-departmental public bodies are listed in the Cabinet Office publication 'Public Bodies'. Other than the General Commissioners of Income Tax, the tribunals listed under this Department in the edition published for 1997 are no longer classified as non-departmental public bodies. They are still in existence, but as part of the Court Service Agency.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and

  499
  (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53049]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the Lord's Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service, Public Trust Office, Public Record Office, Land Registry and the Northern Ireland Court Service, the information is set out in the table.

  Men

  Women

  Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters

  164

  260

  Court Service Agency

  2,713

  5,577

  Public Trust Office

  194

  235

  Public Record Office

  7

  0

  Land Registry

  See below

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  197

  358

  Note:

  1. As at 27 July 1998, the Land Registry employs 8,895 people: (a) 3,148 men and (b) 5,747 women. The terms of employment for staff in the Land Registry (with the exception of those in the Senior Civil Service (SCS) are governed by the "Land Registry Conditions of Service Code"

  2. The conditions of service for all staff in the Land Registry include a normal retirement age of 60, with provision for an annual review of projected operational and staffing needs to determine whether individuals may remain in service to a maximum age of 65. However, staff in administrative grades at EO equivalent and above, on reaching the age of 62 with 30 years service, are required to downgrade one grade. If any member of staff in this category wishes to remain in service beyond the 63rd birthday, they are required to downgrade to an AO equivalent grade. There are currently 3,534 staff in administrative grades at EO equivalent and above, (excluding the SCS) of whom 38 are aged 60 and over (25 men and 13 women)

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53072]

  Mr. Hoon
  For the Lord Chancellor's Department, including the Court Service, Public Trust Office, Public Record Office, Land Registry and the Northern Ireland Court Service, the information is set out in the table.

  Men

  Women

  Lord Chancellor's Department Headquarters

  11

  7

  Court Service Agency

  186

  400

  Public Trust Office

  14

  5

  Public Record Office

  7

  nil

  Land Registry

  156

  110

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  25

  6

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Heritage Grants
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the endowments which have been granted by the Government when giving land to charitable trusts for heritage purposes in the last 15 years. [49279]
  500
  Mr. Banks
  This information is not held centrally and a comprehensive answer could be given only at disproportionate cost. We are aware of the following:Chatham Historic Dockyard Trust: £11.3 million provided in 1984.
  Waltham Abbey Royal Gunpowder Mills Trust: £5.5 million provided in 1996.
  Portsmouth Naval Base Property Trust: £6 million provided in 1998. The property was not gifted, but leased for 99 years.
  National Trust: £14.3 million provided in 1989 for Ham House and Osterley Park.
  National Trust: £2.3 million provided in 1993 for Orford Ness.

  Support has also been given in the form of specific grants for use in the formative years of the Trust, often to meet accumulated repair and maintenance commitments. Recent examples include:
  Tadworth Court: £2.85 million provided to the Children's Trust Tadworth for freehold purchase and dilapidations.
  Eltham Palace: £2.5 million provided to English Heritage (an exempt charity) in 1996 and a further £1 million in 1997, which had some endowment element.
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich: £17 million to be provided to the Greenwich Foundation over the next three years to cover dilapidations plus £1.5 million a year for seven years towards ongoing maintenance.
  Somerset House: A contribution of £3.1 million in 1996 towards the costs of landlord's works related to the installation of the Gilbert Collection in the South Wing and £4 million over the next four years towards start-up costs of the new Trust, Somerset House Ltd.

  Central Council of Physical Recreation
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the size of the CCPR's legal costs arising out of the recent fraud trial; and how these costs will be funded. [52913]

  Mr. Banks
  Details of the expenditure and income of the Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) are published in the CCPR's Annual Report and Accounts.

  In the year ended 31 March 1996, the CCPR incurred exceptional legal and professional costs of £240,522 in connection with investigations prior to and following the termination of certain employment contracts in 1995. The CCPR claimed the majority of these costs as an additional contribution from the English Sports Council (ESC) under the Heads of Agreement of 17 May 1972.

  £228,923 in respect of these claims was paid by the ESC to the CCPR as additional income. The ESC has subsequently stated it currently regards £164,474 of this contribution as an advance of future funding. A working party of representatives of the CCPR, ESC and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, chaired by the latter, is currently reviewing the investigation. Following this review, the ESC will determine the extent, if any, to which it may require repayment of the £164,474.

  In the year ended 31 March 1997, the CCPR incurred further exceptional legal and professional costs of £113,895 in connection with these investigations. Most of this, at this stage, has not been funded by the ESC.

  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what new controls have been introduced by the Central Council for Physical Recreation to prevent a repeat of major fraud incidents. [52914]
  501
  Mr. Banks
  The Central Council of Physical Recreation (CCPR) set up an Organisational and Services Review Group and have agreed seventeen recommendations for changing the corporate structure and working practices of the CCPR. A second stage of the Review has now started to oversee the detailed implementation of the recommendations and manage the transitional arrangements.

  Alongside this, the CCPR, English Sports Council and Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have been working together and with advisers to review and provide recommendations for detailed improvements to the CCPR's internal control systems and enhance corporate governance and accountability.

  As my hon. Friend may be aware, even sound systems of internal control may not be proof against collusive fraud.

  Rugby League Challenge Cup
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in what circumstances the existing sponsorship of the Rugby League Challenge Cup will continue. [52719]

  Mr. Banks
  The future individual sponsorship arrangements are matters for the sports concerned although they will have to comply with the legal requirements of the European Union Tobacco Advertising Directive. The current arrangements with Gallaher Limited for the Challenge Cup extends until May 2001.

  Tobacco Sponsorship
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what financial assistance his Department will offer to sports currently funded by tobacco sponsorship that are now looking for alternative moneys. [52510]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: Through negotiation, we have ensured that the European Union Tobacco Advertising Directive reflects a fair balance, providing reasonable time for sports to adapt while ending the totally inappropriate link between smoking and sport. This timescale, coupled with the support of the Task Force, demonstrates our commitment to delivering alternative moneys for these sports events.

  Television Channels
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many UK licensed television channels there are. [52138]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The independent Television Commission's Annual Report for the year ending 31 December 1997 states that, in addition to the 16 Channel 3 regional licences, the Channel 4 licence, the Channel 5 licence and the public service teletext licence, there were also 173 Satellite Television Service licences and 90 Licensable Programme Services.
  502

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the President of the Council how much her Department spent on IT, itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) minicomputers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52886]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Privy Council Office spent £61,714.80 on IT equipment during 1997–98. Of this sum, £57,296.04 was spent on personal computers. None of the other items specified was purchased.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. [52892]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  Capital expenditure on IT within my Department, its Agencies and the Central Office of Information in 1997–98 was £5.6 million. IT expenditure is not broken down within my Department into the precise categories asked for in the question but has been analysed to provide the following estimates of itemised expenditure:

  £

  Cabinet Office

  Agencies

  (a) Personal computers

  525,000

  1,030,000

  (b) Mainframe

  0

  0

  (c) Mini-computers

  15,000

  0

  (d) File servers

  250,000

  435,000

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52707]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The term research covers a wide range of activities from scientific and engineering research through to consultancies and public opinion surveys. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reasons the responses and comments received from other Government departments to the White Paper on the Freedom of Information Bill "Your Right to Know" have not been made public; if he will place these responses and comments in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [53368]
  503
  Dr. John Cunningham
  The White Paper "Your Right to Know" invited public consultation and comment on collectively agreed government proposals. The responses to the consultation, as well as substantial background material relating to the proposals, have been published with copies placed in the Library of the House. Discussion within government since publication has concerned the detailed translation of the proposals into draft legislation. Internal policy discussion of this sort is protected from disclosure under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  European Legislation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the role of business test panels in the European Community's legislative process; who will select delegates; how many will serve; how many panels will be formed; which organisations will be eligible to supply candidates; and what is the length of duration of their panel service. [53774]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The test panel of European businesses is a pilot initiative of the European Commission to improve consultation on new EU legislative proposals with business, and particularly with small and medium-sized enterprises. It is an addition to the Commission's usual consultation procedures.

  I am delighted that this new initiative was launched and given the backing of EU Ministers during the UK's Presidency of the EU. We are strong supporters of improved consultation in the EU legislative process and see this pilot as an important step towards achieving better European regulation. The UK intends to participate fully in the pilot phase, giving UK businesses a direct voice in the Brussels policy-making process. We are particularly keen to ensure that the needs of small firms are taken into account.

  The UK's participation in the pilot will be co-ordinated by the Better Regulation Unit in the Cabinet Office. Business panels will be selected according to the proposals under review. New panels will be constituted for each proposal. Officials are currently in discussion with business organisations and other Government Departments to identify a representative panel to comment on the first area, an amendment to the Directives dealing with annual accounts—(78/660/EC) and (83/349/EC). We expect to issue short questionnaires to about 300 UK firms in the Autumn.

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53862]
  504
  Dr. John Cunningham
  The Non-departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) for both the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister are listed under my Department in the booklet "Public Bodies" published by the Stationery Office. For the purposes of this question I am answering on behalf of my Department and the Prime Minister.

  (a) Since 1 May 1997 we have abolished two NDPBs: The Citizen's Charter Panel of Advisers; and the De-regulation Task Force.

  (b) There are no proposals to disband any bodies within the next 12 months.

  (c) No bodies have had their function transferred to another NDPB or a democratically elected body.

  (d) No bodies have been removed.

  (e) Details of all other NDPBs in existence on 1 May 1997 sponsored by this department are listed in "Public Bodies".

  We have established two NDPBs: The Better Regulation Task Force and, on behalf of the Prime Minister, the Security Vetting Appeals Panel. My Department is currently responsible for ten NDPBs.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new NDPBs established since 1 May will be essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.

  People's Panel
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, pursuant to his answer of 24 July 1998,Official Report, column 745, if he will publish (a) the budgeted figures for spending on the second wave of research and (b) the budgeted spending figures for 1998–99 for spending on the people's panel. [53897]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The figures are as follows.

  (a) The budgeted figure for spending by the Cabinet Office on the second wave of research using the People's Panel is £60,000. Budgeted figures of other departments and public bodies are not yet known.

  (b) The budgeted figure for spending by the Cabinet Office on the People's Panel in 1998–99 is about £500,000.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those who have accompanied (i) him and (ii) his departmental Ministers on overseas visits since 1 January indicating(a) the venue of the visit, (b) the purpose of the visit, (c) the names of those involved, (d) the job of those involved, (e) the reasons why they were included in the visit and (f) the cost to public funds. [53835]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I regret that it has not been possible to provide an answer before the Summer Recess. I shall therefore be writing to the hon. Member and will place a copy of the letter in the libraries of the House.
  505

  Rebuttal Officers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many rebuttal officers or civil servants with similar roles are currently employed in the Civil Service. [53593]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 424.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53071]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  The figures for my Department at 1 January 1998, including our Agencies, and The Central Office of Information (COI) which is a separate Department reporting to me, are as follows:

  Men

  Women

  Cabinet Office

  17

  12

  Agencies

  97

  7

  COI

  0

  0

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53048]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  At 30 June 1998, the figures for my Department, including our Agencies, and The Central Office of Information (COI) which is a separate Department reporting to me, are as follows:

  Men

  Women

  Cabinet Office

  187

  252

  Agencies

  568

  122

  COI

  23

  34

HEALTH

  Expenditure Services
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each county the expenditure on ambulance services in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 (i) as a percentage of total health spending and (ii) in cash terms. [52207]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of health authorities' expenditure in 1997–98 on ambulance services will be placed in the Library when ready later in the year, along with details of planned expenditure in 1998–99.

  Group B Streptococcus
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out to determine the percentage of women who could be possible carriers of Group B streptococcus. [52041]
  506
  Ms Jowell
  This is a subject that has received attention in a number of countries. A list of relevant research of which we are aware will be placed in the Library. The Department is not currently supporting any research into Group B streptococcus.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52304]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department, in respect of buildings in its ownership, does not issue any specific guidance to contractors on the use of materials containing asbestos. However, the Department's conditions of contract require that contractors comply with all relevant statutory legislation. This will include the Asbestos Prohibition Regulations 1992 and the Asbestos Licences Regulations 1993.

  Myodil
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a public inquiry into the use of Myodil in myelography and into the associated risks of adhesive arachnoiditis; and if he will make a statement. [52299]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to hold an inquiry. My noble Friend the then Minister of State for Health, Baroness Jay, recently held a meeting with the Myodil Action Group. Officials are currently considering the points raised at that meeting.

  Consultants
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) of 21 July 1998,Official Report, column 528, regarding numbers of consultants, if he will list (a) the number of consultants for each specialty working within the Shropshire Health Authority, (b) the ratio of consultants in each specialty to patients within the Shropshire Health Authority and (c) the average national ratio of consultants in each specialty to patients. [52427]

  Mr. Milburn
  The number of consultants (whole time equivalents (WTEs)) in the Shropshire Health Authority area is listed in the table. Information on numbers of patients is not collected centrally.

  Specialty

  Consultant WTE

  Accident and Emergency

  2

  Anaesthetics

  22.7

  Cardiovascular Disease

  3.5

  Chemical pathology

  1

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  2

  Dermatology

  1

  Diagnostic Radiology

  12.5

  Endocrinology

  3

  Gastroenterology

  3

  General Surgery

  7.8

  Geriatrics

  4.5

  Haematology

  3

  Learning Disabilities

  1

  Medical microbiology

  0.5

  Morbid anatomy

  7

  Neurology

  3.7

  507

  Specialty

  Consultant WTE

  Obstetrics and Gynaecology

  4.4

  Occupational Medicine

  1

  Ophthalmology

  4

  Orthopaedic Surgery

  14.6

  Otolaryngology

  2.5

  Paediatrics

  8.9

  Psychiatry

  8

  Psychiatry of old age

  3

  Radiotherapy

  1

  Renal disease

  1.8

  Respiratory Medicine

  2

  Rheumatology

  2

  Urology

  1.7

  Venereology

  0.6

  Total

  134

  Source:

  DH Statistical Bulletin—figures current as at September 1996

  Medicines (Children)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Licensing Medicines for Children report of May 1996, produced by the joint working party of the British Paediatric Association and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, on the development of medicines for children; and if he will make a statement. [43822]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The report of the British Paediatric Association and the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries joint working party on the development of medicines for children made five recommendations. Of these five, three were felt by the working party to require action by the Department, and more particularly the Medicines Control Agency (MCA).

  The three recommendations and action taken on them are:

  Medicines are licensed for specific age ranges.

  It is the MCA practice to license products for use in the recommended specific age ranges when appropriate data are presented. Use of the age ranges has been confirmed in the revised European guideline on the investigation of medicinal products in children.

  The Committee on Proprietary Medicinal Products reviews its guidelines in the light of these concerns.

  This has been done. The revised guideline came into operation in September 1997.

  That surveillance at various levels is introduced on the use of unlicensed medicines and the prescribing of medicines "off label".

  The MCA has well-established systems for monitoring the safety of marketed medicines in normal clinical practice. This covers all patient groups using medicines, including children, and "off label" usage. Nevertheless, a more targeted approach to surveillance of medicines used by children may be warranted, and the MCA reviewed the matter in conjunction with the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. As a first step the MCA has agreed to fund, jointly with the Trent Health Region, the first year of a study which will assess the advantages of a regional monitoring centre for drug safety in children. It is hoped that this will be up and running in September 1998.
  508

  Pharmaceutical Graduates
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of pharmaceutical graduates in the period to 2001. [52871]

  Mr. Milburn
  The pharmacy workforce is forecast to grow at a steady rate, with the exception of 2000 when there will be few newly qualified pharmacists because of the recent extension of the course from 3 to 4 years. National Health Service employers are adopting a range of strategies to recruit and retain pharmacists and make better use of pharmacy support staff.

  Breast Cancer Radiologists
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to secure the provision of additional breast cancer radiologists. [52870]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Specialty Workforce Advisory Group (SWAG) advises the National Health Service Executive and the Welsh Office on the number of higher specialist trainees needed to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained doctors in each specialty. It carries out annual reviews of each specialty's estimated need for consultants.

  For 1998–99, SWAG recommended further increases in the number of higher specialist trainees, in diagnostic radiology. It has recommended that these increases be treated as a priority.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what extra provision of funds will be made available to the National Health Service following the comprehensive spending review to deal with the date change problem. [53157]

  Mr. Milburn
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional resources for the National Health Service in England, totalling £17.7 billion over the years 1990–2000 to 2001–02, on 14 July 1998,Official Report, column 194. This additional funding will allow the NHS not only to meet all pressures including the date change problem, but also to deliver a better, more modern NHS.

  Restrictive Patents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that restrictive patents on beneficial medicinal techniques do not prevent the use of those techniques on patients in the United Kingdom. [52897]

  Mr. Milburn
  Not all inventions concerning medicinal techniques are patentable in the United Kingdom. Both the United Kingdom Patents Act (1977) and the European Patent Convention (1978), which govern the grant of patent rights having effect in the United Kingdom, expressly exclude from patentability methods of treatment by therapy, surgery and diagnosis which are practised on the human body.

  Existing UK Patent Law already includes safeguards specifically to prevent the abuse of patent rights for any invention, including those associated with medicine, such as providing for compulsory licensing of rights in the event that the supply of a patented product is not being met on reasonable terms.
  509

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many reported cases there have been of the new antibiotic resistant tuberculosis; and if he will make a statement. [52922]

  Ms Jowell
  Data on tuberculosis (TB) that is resistant to antibiotics are split into two categories: TB resistant to one or more of the antibiotics normally used to treat TB (drug resistant TB); and TB resistant to isoniazid and rifampicin, the two most effective drugs for treating TB (multi-drug resistant TB). United Kingdom information for the years 1994 to 1997 is given in the table.

  UK laboratory isolates

  Year

  TB resistant to one or more anti-TB drugs1

  Multi-drug resistant TB

  1994

  206

  43

  1995

  212

  49

  1996

  241

  60

  19972

  2220

  249

  1 Includes multi-drug resistant cases

  2 Provisional

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service on behalf of the UK Mycobacterial Resistance Network—MYCOBNET

  Drug resistance is not new. TB infections consist of a mixture of organisms, some of which are naturally resistant to some antibiotics. These can multiply if the treatment for the TB is inadequate. This has been known since antibiotic treatment for TB first became available in the 1950s.

  Multidrug resistant (MDR) TB in the UK remains at low levels and we intend to keep it this way. One of the aims of national TB policy is to prevent the emergence of drug resistance. Guidance from the Interdepartmental Working Group on Tuberculosis (IDWG) called "Recommendations for the Prevention and Control of Tuberculosis at Local Level" was issued by the Department of Health and Welsh Office in 1996. This guidance contained recommendations for ensuring that patients with TB complete their treatment and about infection control to prevent the spread of TB as well as advice on drug-resistant TB. Copies are available in the Library. An Expert Working Group has been set up under the IDWG to make more detailed recommendations for the prevention of transmission of TB in immuno-compromised (eg HIV) patients and of drug resistant (including MDR) TB to supplement the published guidance. Its report is expected to be issued shortly. Advice on the management of patients with HIV and MDR-TB has been issued by the British Thoracic Society.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists currently treat NHS patients; and if he will make a statement. [53105]

  Mr. Milburn
  16,148 principals, 608 assistants and 544 vocational trainees were practising as general dental services dentists in England and Wales on 31 March 1998. These figures exclude salaried, hospital and community dentists.
  510

  Smoking
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research the Government have commissioned recently into health risks of smoking in public places. [52921]

  Ms Jowell
  In March this year the Department published a report by the scientific committee on tobacco and health. The committee scientifically reviewed and appraised a range of important issues relating to tobacco and health, including the health effects of exposure of non-smokers to environmental tobacco smoke. The Department has not recently commissioned any separate research into the associated health risks of smoking in public places.

  Copies of the report are available in the Library and are also available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the evidence originating(a) domestically and (b) overseas which has been considered and rejected in the course of preparing his forthcoming White Paper on Tobacco. [53387]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have received a wide range of material, from numerous sources, in connection with the forthcoming White Paper on tobacco control. There are no plans to publish that material.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent on IT, itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) minicomputers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52885]

  Mr. Milburn
  The total Departmental spend, including agencies, on new items for the financial year 1997–1998, including replacement equipment for an upgrade of our internal office information system, was:

  personal computers: £3,286,845

  main-frame: Nil

  mini-computers: Nil

  file servers: £1,037,210.

  Maintenance costs for these items and the outsourced mainframe services totalled £897,553 in 1997–98.

  NHS Doctors
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors joined the NHS and how many doctors left the NHS by year, for the last four years. [53771]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information about doctors joining and leaving the National Health Service is not collected centrally.

  Head Injuries
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to ensure a consistently high standard for the diagnosis of head injuries at hospital accident and emergency departments; and if he will make a statement. [53569]
  511
  Mr. Boateng
  All accident and emergency departments should have written guidelines on the management of patients who attend with head injuries.

  In Executive Letter (93)115, the Department drew the attention of the National Health Service to published guidance on the management of head injuries. Copies of this Executive Letter are available in the Library.

  Radiotherapy
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce waiting lists for radiotherapy in NHS hospitals in the London Region. [52808]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: An extra £104.6 million has already been allocated to health authorities in the two Thames regions in 1998–99 to tackle National Health Service waiting lists. It is for health authorities, in partnership with NHS trusts and local primary care teams, to make decisions on how these extra resources should be invested to reduce waiting lists.

  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals his Department has to increase the availability of trained radiotherapists in the NHS. [53389]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and the Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on 29 July 1998.

  Negligence Claims
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce negligence claims on the NHS. [52865]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: On 29 April my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State wrote to a number of organisations representing professional, legal, NHS and patient interests seeking their views on what can be done to reduce the threat of litigation. Officials are in the process of studying replies in order to identify suggestions which might be taken forward in the future.

  Waiting Lists
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of patients joining National Health Service waiting lists in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [53018]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: No.

  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients joined National Heath Service waiting lists in(a) 1996 and (b) 1997. [53017]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The latest figures on admissions to waiting lists suggest that in 1996–97 around 4.1 million patients joined National Health Service waiting lists.

  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of patients in England and Wales suspended from NHS surgical waiting lists at 30 June. [53734]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on the number of suspensions from surgical waiting lists in England at 30 June 1998 will be available in due course.
  512

  GP Recruitment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the proportion of the proposed increased GP recruitment which will be recruited from outside the United Kingdom. [53019]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 28 July 1998, Official Report, column 177.

  Psychiatric Wards
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a national computerised record of vacant beds in psychiatric wards. [53830]

  Mr. Boateng
  No. What is important is that available resources are used to fund direct patient care. There would be no guarantee that a national computerised record would be sufficient and sufficiently up-to-date to allow for access to vacant beds particularly in an emergency. Admissions are best handled at local level using appropriate contacts and knowledge coupled with effective liaison by professional and managerial staff.

  Ashford Hospital
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the monthly waiting list statistics for Ashford (Middlesex) hospital from May 1997 to June 1998. [53217]

  Mr. Boateng
  Information is not available centrally in the form requested. For 1997–98 waiting list figures for trusts and health authorities were collected quarterly. The inpatient waiting list figures for Ashford Hospital National Health Service Trust were as follows:

  Date

  Number

  30 June 1997

  3,670

  30 September 1997

  3,776

  31 December 1997

  3,947

  31 March 1998

  4,125

  Monthly waiting list figures for April to July 1998 will be available at the end of August.

  Written Answers
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the average length of time taken by his Department in the current session to give substantive answers to written questions tabled for answer on a named day. [53728]

  Mr. Milburn
  During the period 15 May 1997 to 31 March 1998, 91 per cent. of questions tabled for answer on a named day were given substantive answers on that day. Of the small minority not answered on the named day, 90 per cent. were answered within one week and 98 per cent. within four weeks.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be

  513
  disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c)(ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since I May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53856]

  Mr. Milburn
  Of the non-Departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in existence on 1 May 1997 one, the Advisory Committee on Design Quality in the National Health Service, has been abolished. None are currently planned for abolition within the next 12 months but the Central Council for Education and Training for Social Work (an executive NDPB) will be abolished by 31 March 2001, subject to Parliamentary approval. No NDPBs have had their functions transferred to another non-departmental public body or to a democratically elected body and none have been renamed; the rest remain unchanged.

  The Royal Commission on the Long-Term Care of the Elderly has been established since 1 May, but it must be wound up by 17 December 1998. The Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, which was a Departmental committee, has been reclassified as an advisory NDPB. We are responsible for 7 executive and 38 advisory NDPBs.

  We are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new NDPBs established since 1 May will be essential in helping the Government to deliver their manifesto commitments.

  The NDPBs for which the Department of Health is responsible are listed in Public Bodies, copies of which have been laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53065]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is in contained in the table.

  Staff over age 60 on 1 January 1998

  Male

  Female

  Department of Health (excluding agencies)

  15

  8

  Agencies

  Medicines Control Agency

  2

  11

  Medical Devices Agency

  0

  0

  NHS Estates Agency

  1

  1

  NHS Pensions Agency

  6

  10

  Total

  24

  30

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53041]
  514
  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  Staff with contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday

  Male

  Female

  Department of Health (excluding agencies)

  259

  445

  Agencies

  Medicines Control Agency

  0

  0

  Medical Devices Agency

  1

  0

  NHS Estates Agency

  90

  59

  NHS Pensions Agency

  0

  0

  Total

  350

  504

  Strokes
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to make a response to the specific recommendations regarding strokes in the CSAG report published in June. [53733]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government have already welcomed the Clinical Services Advisory Group report which has been circulated widely to health professionals. It is envisaged that clinicians will take on board recommendations from the report and that they will be reflected in standards of patient care.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be making any additional response to the specific recommendations regarding strokes.

  Hospital Deaths
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths occurred in hospitals during the period between June and October, in each of the last 10 years. [53749]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information for the years 1991 to 1996 (the latest year available) is in the table. Comparable data are also available for 1989 and 1990 but are not immediately accessible. We will write to the hon. Member shortly with data for those years.

  Year

  Number of deaths

  1 June-31 October 1991

  84,246

  1 June-31 October 1992

  84,825

  1 June-31 October 1993

  86,007

  1 June-31 October 1994

  81,608

  1 June-31 October 1995

  81,703

  1 June-31 October 19961

  75,005

  11996–97 is derived from ungrossed HES data, and may not be directly comparable with earlier years

  Note:

  1992–93 to 1995–96 data are grossed for coverage

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)

  Asthma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on(a) preventing and (b) alleviating asthma in

  515
  children; what national initiatives are targeted at children with asthma; and how much each of these initiatives costs. [53358]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government are working closely with the health professions, the National Asthma Campaign and all those with an interest in asthma to improve knowledge of the causes of asthma and to make life as normal as possible for children and adults who suffer from it.

  Management of asthma, in children as in adults, mainly takes place in primary care. 93 per cent. of general practitioners run organised programmes of care for asthma under the Chronic Disease Management Programme. The Department of Health is currently considering funding for a project, co-ordinated by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, to develop new evidence-based clinical guidelines for asthma in children and adults.

  The Medical Research Council spends about £2 million a year on research into prevention and treatment of asthma and related areas. The Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the MRC are jointly funding a major research initiative on the relationship between air pollution and respiratory disease, which may inform prevention strategies. The National Asthma Campaign is managing, on behalf of the National Health Service Executive, the NHS National research and development Programme on Asthma Management. Many of the research projects commissioned will be pertinent to asthma in children.

  Asthma is featured in the joint Department for Education and Employment and Department of Health guidance on "Supporting pupils with medical needs in school", issued in October 1996. Asthma prevention will be encompassed in the healthy schools initiative launched by the two Departments in May, for which £2 million is committed for 1998–99. In the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", healthy schools are identified as a key setting, and asthma also heads the list of possible local target areas.

  The National Asthma Campaign also works closely with schools. The Department of Health gave the Campaign a Section 64 project grant, totalling nearly £60,000 over the three years 1994–97, to create a childhood asthma education officer post.

  Doctors' Training
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the potential of information technology to provide the means for the ongoing training of qualified doctors; [53224]

  (2) what proposals he has for the ongoing training of medical practitioners under the lifelong learning programme. [53225]

  Mr. Milburn
  We recognise that the availability of appropriately trained staff is one of the key determinants of the quality of patient care. The importance of lifelong learning as one of the key activities underpinning Clinical Governance is recognised in the recently published consultation document "A First Class Service—Quality in the NHS".
  516
  In this document we have set out a new approach to lifelong learning including the identification of professional and local service needs and priorities in personal development plans to be developed by individual health professionals in discussion with colleagues locally. Organisations will also be encouraged to complement these individual development plans with organisational plans.

  Our aim is for all National Health Service employers to have training and development plans in place for the majority of health professional staff by April 2000. We have given a commitment to work with professional and educational bodies to explore a range of practical issues including the role of monitoring, peer review and appraisal, the role of new technology and distance learning, how the expertise of professional and statutory bodies can best support local CPD, and the educational infrastructure required to identify and meet CPD.

  Later this summer we will issue an NHS human resource strategy which will include ways of developing the ability of staff to contribute to the improvement of services, and further guidance will be issued this Winter on the development of a locally based approach to lifelong learning.

  The NHS Executive, as part of its information management and technology strategy, has had an active programme to develop clinical awareness of the benefits of the effective use of information through IT. The supporting infrastructure has developed considerably over the last three years. There are a number of projects within medical schools and in post-graduate education programmes to support professional development. Examples of good practice case studies are made available through intranets and over the internet.

  Nerve Gas Attacks (Japan)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the clinical data on the long-term health effects on the victims of the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway and Matsumato in 1994 and 1995; and if he will make a statement. [54538]

  Ms Jowell
  Officials at the Department of Health have studied published material on the two nerve agent attacks by terrorist groups, to which my hon. Friend refers. Some of these papers relate to delayed effects of nerve agents.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will assess the(a) benefits and (b) disadvantages of requiring a single prescription charge for patients whose illness or condition requires them to be prescribed two or more medicines or treatments; and if he will make a statement; [52414]

  (2) if he will estimate the costs of requiring patients to pay a single prescription charge when their medical condition requires two or more medicines or treatments; and if he will estimate the costs in terms of (a) revenue forgone and (b) administrative costs incurred. [52415]

  Mr. Milburn
  A single prescription charge for each occasion where a number of medicines are supplied to a patient would mean a loss of revenue to the National Health Service, or an increase in the level of the charge
  517
  to avoid this. Prepayment certificates are available to help patients who pay charges and need a number of medicines.

  The revenue forgone from patients paying the current prescription charge to cover all items on the prescription form, rather than paying for each item, is estimated as being in the order of £55 million. This estimate takes no account of any revenue lost because of any switch from purchase of prepayment certificates that might result, or the cost of any additional drugs which may be prescribed if such a scheme was introduced. The administrative costs of such a change are likely to be minimal.

  Vaccination Programmes
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation", if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on(a) the introduction of a universal adolescent hepatitis B vaccination programme and (b) the introduction of a universal meningitis vaccination programme. [53885]

  Ms Jowell
  Policy on the use of vaccines to protect against hepatitis B and meningitis is based on the recommendations of independent experts, including the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).

  The United Kingdom has one of the lowest prevalence rates of hepatitis B carriage in the world. Our policy is to target hepatitis B immunisation at groups at increased risk of infection because of their lifestyle, occupation or other factors such as close contact with a case or carrier of hepatitis B. The JCVI has recently considered our immunisation strategy. It has not recommended the introduction of universal immunisation for the present, but it wished to see the selective programme reinforced. We are considering ways of achieving this.

  The introduction of haemophilus influenzae b vaccine in 1992 has led to the virtual elimination of this disease, which used to be the most common cause of bacterial meningitis in the under 5s. Most cases of bacterial meningitis are now caused by meningococcal disease. There is no vaccine available against the most common strain of meningococcal disease, Group B, whilst Group C vaccine does not protect those at most risk from the disease (that is, very young children), offers only about 80 per cent. protection and does not offer long term protection and, as such, is not suitable for routine use. Current policy is, therefore, to use Group C vaccine only whenever local circumstances indicate, such as in outbreaks of an unusually high incidence of Group C infection.

  We are funding work to evaluate new meningococcal and pneumococcal vaccines in United Kingdom children. These studies are being conducted by the Public Health Laboratory Service in collaboration with the National Institute for Biological Standards and Controls, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the Institute for Child Health. The studies have shown very encouraging results already for meningococcal Group C vaccines and early indicators for Group B are encouraging. There are reasonable prospects that these vaccines will eventually be able to induce long term immunity although more research is needed before their suitability for widespread use can be considered.
  518

  Carers
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the number of people in the United Kingdom who are currently caring for parents and children or parents and grandchildren; and if he will provide this information by gender, age and employment status of carer. [54160]

  Mr. Boateng
  Such information as is readily available is included in the Office for National Statistics' Supplement A to the 1995 General Household Survey, entitled 'Informal Carers'. Copies of this information are available in the Library.

  Xenotransplantation
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Government will publish the responses to the consultation exercise held last year on Animal Tissue into Humans: report of the Advisory Group on the Ethics of Xenotransplantation. [53726]

  Mr. Dobson
  We are making the responses available and announcing our action on the regulation of xenotransplantation today. 51 responses were received. Two respondents asked that their responses be kept confidential. All other responses are being made publicly available through the Department of Health, Scottish Office, Welsh Office, Northern Ireland Office and the Library.

  Welsh Language Scheme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what date his Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board in relation to the need to prepare a Welsh language scheme; on what date his Department and the Board held consultations on such a scheme; when a scheme was formally submitted to the Board; and if it has been approved. [53357]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department received notification from the Welsh Language Board on 5 December 1996. Consultations took place within the Department and with the Welsh Language Board until early May 1997. On 7 May 1997 the Permanent Secretary's office wrote to the Welsh Language Board confirming the Department's position which was that it had suitably flexible arrangements in place to fulfil its responsibilities to Welsh speaking people and saw no need for a formal Welsh Language Scheme.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Spelthorne dated 2 June, concerning Mrs. W. Pockett of Sunbury-on-Thames, reference POH(4)5430/17. [53798]

  Mr. Boateng
  I replied on 24 April. A copy of the letter was sent to the hon. Member on 29 July.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend legislation to allow the elderly in long-term care to use any capital they have which is
  519
  wholly disregarded by the means tests to make up the difference in cost between the care which their authority is prepared to arrange and the care they choose. [53957]

  Mr. Boateng
  The terms of reference of the Royal Commission on long-term care of elderly people ask them to look at how the cost of long term care should be apportioned between public funds and individuals.

  NHS Pensions Agency
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will approve and publish the annual report and accounts of the NHS Pensions Agency. [54630]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have approved the Report and Accounts which has been laid before both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the requirements of Section 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921.
  520
  Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Nannies (Registration)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will bring forward proposals to require the registration of nannies. [53150]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are consulting on the regulation of early education and day care, including the scope of services which should be regulated. The aim is to produce a system of regulation which supports the development of a national childcare strategy but also meets the needs of children and families for safe and high quality day care. We will announce our proposals once the responses to the consultation, which ends on 31 July, have been considered.
  521

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Reviews
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the reviews his Department initiated in the years(a) 1974–75, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1992–93. [48513]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: According to the Official Report, the FCO initiated one review in financial year 1992–93. The subject of this review was how best to conduct relations between Whitehall and the Caribbean Dependent Territories, Official Report, column 311. For financial years 1974-75 and 1979–80 the Official Report is not held in a form that can be searched electronically. The cost of obtaining the information requested for those periods would therefore be disproportionate.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance his Department issues to those constructing buildings for which it is responsible on the use of materials containing asbestos. [52315]

  Mr. Fatchett
  For any construction projects in the UK we employ professional project managers who in turn would appoint planning supervisors under the CDM regulations. Their duty is to ensure that all guidance and legislation related to asbestos is brought to the attention of those working on the project and ensure compliance with all Health and Safety requirements.

  For overseas building projects the FCO use contracts which specify performance standards which at a minimum must comply with British or EC building regulations (or local regulations where in those cases higher standards may apply).

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the meeting of the Council of Ministers in May, what further developments were reported in respect of the release from prison of four Turkish parliamentarians. [52781]

  Ms Quin
  I will write to my hon. Friend shortly. We have repeatedly made it clear to the Turkish authorities that the conviction of elected politicians for the non-violent expression of their opinions can only damage Turkey's international standing.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [52877]

  Mr. Fatchett
  In 1997–98 this Department spent £21.1 million capital on IT equipment, including the first phase of a programme to supply industry-standard common software and hardware to all Posts overseas. Of this, £5.3 million was for purchase of personal computers; the balance was spent on set-up costs—including minor 522
  building works at Posts—software, cabling, peripheral equipment, and communications equipment. None was for purchase of main-frame, mini-computers or file servers.

  Immigration
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications have been made at the British High Commission Visa Section in Dhaka for entry clearance by over-aged children who had previously been refused on the grounds of not being related as claimed but whose relationship has now been established by DNA testing since June 1989. [52715]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Figures for applications made by over-aged children under the 1989 concession at Dhaka are not readily available, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. No fresh applications have been made in recent years under the concession at any overseas Post.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with India and Pakistan since the nuclear tests conducted by both countries. [52730]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) on 14 July 1998, Official Report, column 175. I subsequently met with Jaswant Singh on 28 July in the margins of the ASEAN post-ministerial conference in Manila.

  National Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of the diplomatic missions and international organisations that have outstanding balances of over £10,000 as at 31 March in respect of national non-domestic rates. [54153]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Most missions meet their obligations. However, at 31 March 1998 the following owed over £10,000.00 for National Non-domestic Rates:

  £

  Country

  Amount outstanding1

  Afghanistan

  32,920.71

  Algeria

  38,344.90

  Angola

  27,019.13

  Cameroon

  28,760.56

  China

  250,049.83

  Cote d'Ivoire

  30,403.94

  Cuba

  72,330.14

  Czech Republic

  77,069.41

  Egypt

  54,735.90

  Imo

  28,208.89

  Iran

  101,439.09

  Jordan

  39,135.25

  Libya

  23,547.10

  Morocco

  20,932.01

  Mozambique

  30,559.79

  Nigeria

  332,218.53

  Pakistan

  25,098.33

  Philippines

  15,904.97

  523

  £

  Country

  Amount outstanding1

  Saudi Arabia

  510,377.34

  Senegal

  10,610.23

  Sierra Leone

  73,585.31

  Slovak Republic

  43,389.27

  Spain

  74,666.12

  Thailand

  77,226.28

  Uganda

  15,335.25

  Yemen Republic

  34,759.24

  Yugoslavia

  50,021.78

  Zambia

  21,683.65

  Zimbabwe

  193,842.88

  1 up to 31 March 1998

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent to which the end-use control, relating to goods which may be used in connection with the development of weapons of mass destruction, applies to the supply of goods to destinations subject to binding UN arms embargoes. [54871]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Council Regulation (EC) No. 3381/94 and the Dual-Use and Related Goods (Export Control) Regulations 1996 prohibit the export from the UK to any destination of dual-use or other goods which the exporter has been informed by a competent authority are or may be intended, wholly or in part, or which the exporter knows are intended, wholly or in part, to be used in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons, and also where the exporter has grounds for suspecting that the goods might so be used. These provisions are known as the end-use control.

  Under UK law, all binding UN embargoes are implemented by prohibiting the export of goods and technology on the Military List which forms part III of Schedule Ito the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended.

  In addition, the Orders in Council implementing in UK law the binding UN embargoes against Liberia, Somalia, Libya, Angola and Rwanda also prohibit the supply of persons in the UK or by UK nationals or companies overseas of goods which are or may be intended to be used in connection with the development, production, handling, operation, maintenance, storage, detection, identification or dissemination of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons or the development, production, maintenance or storage of missiles capable of delivering such weapons.

  This statement supplements the information given in another place on the scope of arms embargoes observed by the UK by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Baroness Chalker of Wallasey, on 20 March 1997, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 75–77; and by the Parliamentary
  524
  Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, on 28 January 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 36–39. An updated version of the list of the Government's commitments regarding the application of strategic export controls, covering this point and other recent changes, has been laid in the Library.

  Nuclear Disarmament
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's policy towards the Irish Government's recent initiative on global nuclear disarmament known as The New Agenda Coalition; and if he will make a statement. [51680]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The "New Agenda" statement calls for a clear commitment from the Nuclear Weapon States to the speedy, final and total elimination of nuclear weapons. We have made clear our commitment to the global elimination of nuclear weapons. We have taken some important steps towards this goal in the Strategic Defence Review and elsewhere.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the South African Conference on Disarmament's proposal to establish an ad-hoc committee on nuclear disarmament; and if he will make a statement. [51681]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are actively considering how best to follow up internationally the initiatives on nuclear disarmament set out in the Strategic Defence Review.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to report to the participatory nation states of the Conference on Disarmament on the conclusions of the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [51682]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The United Kingdom's Permanent Representative has today made a statement to the Conference on Disarmament's Plenary Session, the first such session since the announcement of the Strategic Defence Review.

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53054]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Letters of appointment for staff in the FCO state that 60 is the official retirement age.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53059]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  On 1 January 1998 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office employed 34 men and 16 women aged over 60.

  The Wilton Park agency employed no staff over 60 years.
  525

  European Commission Documents
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the European Commission document "What exactly is Europe? A Classroom Guide to the European Union", published in November 1997. [53732]

  Ms Quin
  We have no record of any official representations on the European Commission document referred to by the hon. Member.

  Legg Report
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what funds have been allocated to implement the recommendations in the Legg report. [53870]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review will allow us to devote resources to implementing management and other changes within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. This will include changes resulting from the recommendations of the Legg report, which are in line with our intentions to modernise the FCO.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Legg report, if he will list the new instructions that will be given to those compiling and approving press lines. [53874]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The News Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is responsible, in co-ordination with the specialist department concerned, for drawing up press lines, has taken full note of the lessons highlighted by the Legg report.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to paragraph 3.20 of the Legg report, what action he proposes to take in respect of the oral statement made by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), on 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 841. [53884]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  None.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to paragraph 9.55 of the Legg report, what action he proposes to take in respect of his oral statement of 12 May 1998,Official Report, column 160, that the papers seen by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), in mid-April gave rise to no grounds for apprehension or concern on the part of the Minister of State. [53880]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Paragraph 9.55 of the Legg report states that the documents that went to the Minister of State were "misleading" and "substantially incomplete".
  526
  Paragraph 10.48 of the report states that the information that the Minister of State was given in mid-April
  "indicated that this was being dealt with by officials. It told him that the FCO was not aware of a shipment of arms. He saw no need to take action."

  I support his judgment at that time, based on the information that was available to him, and stand by my remarks to the House on 12 May.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many times his Ministers met Sir Thomas Legg whilst he was conducting his inquiry; and what was discussed on each occasion; [53789]

  (2) how many times he met Sir Thomas Legg whilst he was conducting his inquiry; and what was discussed on each occasion. [53788]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I met Sir Thomas Legg and Sir Robin Ibbs shortly after their appointment, on 26 May, to discuss the terms of reference of their investigation. They subsequently held one interview each with me and my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to ask us questions about our involvement in the events they were investigating. These interviews took place on 1 July, 18 June and 29 June respectively.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all those(a) who saw and (b) who were given a copy of the Legg report prior to its publication. [53793]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No officials or Ministers were given a copy of the Legg report before it was presented to me on Friday 24 July, although those mentioned to any significant extent in the report were sent draft extracts referring to them, to allow them to comment.

  After the report had been presented to me, and prior to my statement in the House on 27 July 1998, Official Report, columns 19–34, it was given a very limited distribution, on a confidential basis, to Ministers and senior officials, and I also allowed the two Opposition Foreign Affairs spokesmen and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee to read it in the Foreign Office.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if copies of the Legg report were issued to journalists under an embargo prior to its official publication. [53794]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  No.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he first received the Legg report. [53787]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The secretary to the Legg investigation presented the report to my office at 16.20 on Friday 24 July, and I saw it later that day.

  International Criminal Court
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the United Kingdom's
  527
  financial contribution will be to the running costs of the International Criminal Court. [53888]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No budget for the Court has yet been set so it is not possible to say what financial contribution will fall to the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will appoint(a) the prosecutor and (b) the judges of the International Criminal Court. [53889]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Both the Prosecutor and the Judges of the International Criminal Court will be elected by the members of the Assembly of States Parties to the Statute.

  War Crime Tribunals
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the costs to date for the(a) Rwanda and (b) Yugoslavia tribunals. [53887]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The costs to date of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which are funded by assessments upon member states of the United Nations are as follows:

  International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

  Year

  $ million

  1995

  2.2

  1996

  24.5

  1997 (budgeted expenditure)

  36.0

  International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

  Year

  $ million

  1 May 1994–31 December 1995

  35.8

  1996

  30.4

  1997

  36.4

  The costs to date of the International Criminal Tribunals which are funded by donations from member states and other contributors to the Tribunals' Trust Funds are as follows:

  International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

  Year

  $ million

  1995

  0.2

  1996

  0.8

  1997 (estimate)

  1.0

  International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

  Year

  $ million

  1 May 1994–31 December 1995

  0.09

  1996

  1.7

  1997

  4.0

  All figures are actual unless otherwise stated. The Tribunals also receive donations in-kind and the services of gratis (seconded) personnel.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms Her 528
  Majesty's Government uses to police the sale of arms by UK-based companies under circumstances where those arms do not touch United Kingdom soil. [53808]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives the Government power to control only exports from and imports to the UK. As such, it does not allow the Government to impose controls on the involvement of persons in the UK or UK persons abroad in trafficking in goods between overseas countries or in brokering such deals. However, the Government do have the power to control trafficking and brokering under the United Nations Act 1946 where this is necessary to implement a binding UN decision, such as a binding UN arms embargo. The DTI White Paper on Strategic Export Controls (Cm 3989) contains a proposal to introduce a power so that the Government can also control the involvement of persons in the UK or UK persons abroad in trafficking and brokering in controlled goods to countries which are the subject of other types of embargo, such as those resulting from decisions of the EU, OSCE or the Government; in certain types of equipment, the export of which has been banned from the UK because of evidence that goods of the same type have been used in torture; and in missiles capable of a range of at least 300 km. The White Paper's proposals relating to weapons of mass destruction also cover trafficking and brokering.

  The investigation and prosecution of any alleged breaches of UK legislation implementing UN embargoes or sanctions is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

  Foreign Enlistment Act 1870
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is his policy to enforce the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. [53799]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 remains on the Statute books. However, no successful prosecutions have ever been brought under this legislation.

  Diplomatic Posts
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the combined capital value of the United Kingdom's diplomatic posts. [53290]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A financial summary of the Department's assets, in the UK and overseas, can be found on page 90 (Appendix C) of this year's Departmental Report, which can be found in the House of Commons Library.

  UN Conventions
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Guinea-Bissau regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53654]

  (2) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Saint Kitts and Nevis regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53628]
  529
  (3) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Kenya regarding that Government's non-ratificiaton of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53641]

  (4) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Tuvalu regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53400]

  (5) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of San Marino regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53409]

  (6) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Djibouti regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53424]

  (7) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Andorra regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53662]

  (8) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Georgia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53652]

  (9) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Cook Islands regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53426]

  (10) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Monaco regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53416]

  (11) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Lebanon, (b) Lesotho, (c) Liberia, (d) Madagascar, (e) Malaysia, (f) the Maldives, (g) Mali, (h) the Marshall Islands, (i) Mauritania and (j) the Federated States of Micronesia regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53878]

  (12) what official representations the o British Government have made to the Government of Somalia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53405]

  (13) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding that
  530
  Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53425]

  (14) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Malaysia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53637]

  (15) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the United Arab Emirates regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53399]

  (16) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Samoa regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53627]

  (17) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53417]

  (18) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) India, (b) Indonesia, (c) Iran, (d) the Islamic Republic of Iraq, (e) Ireland, (f) Jamaica, (g) Japan, (h) Kazakhstan, (i) Kiribati and (j) the Lao People's Democratic Republic regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53877]

  (19) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Eritrea regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53651]

  (20) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Bhutan regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53658]

  (21) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Comoros regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53645]

  (22) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Nive regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53632]

  (23) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Marshall Islands regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53419]
  531
  (24) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Dar-es-Salaam regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53660]

  (25) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Mongolia, (b) Mozambique, (c) Myanmar, (d) Nauru, (e) Nicaragua, (f) Niger, (g) Nigeria, (h) Nive, (i) Oman and (j) Pakistan regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53879]

  (26) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53647]

  (27) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Equatorial Guinea regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53650]

  (28) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Qatar regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53410]

  (29) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of San Marino regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53626]

  (30) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Oman regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53412]

  (31) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Liechtenstein regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53639]

  (32) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the United States of America regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53398]

  (33) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Palau regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53630]
  532
  (34) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Palau regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53411]

  (35) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Dar-es-Salaam, (b) Burkina Faso, (c) Central African Republic, (d) Camores, (e) Congo, (f) Cook Islands, (g) the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, (h) Djbouti, (i) Dominica and (j) the Dominican Republic regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53875]

  (36) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Nauru regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53633]

  (37) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Brunei regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53659]

  (38) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Kiribati regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53640]

  (39) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Niger regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53414]

  (40) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Bahrain regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53428]

  (41) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Thailand regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53622]

  (42) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Holy See regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53423]

  (43) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Andorra, (b) Angola, (c) Bahamas, (d) Bangladesh, (e) Barbados, (f) Belgium, (g) Bhutan, (h) Bolivia, (i) Botswana, and (j) Brunei regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention

  533
  against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment of Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53869]

  (44) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Equatorial Guinea, (b) Eritrea, (c) Fiji, (d) Gabon, (e) Gambia, (f) Ghana, (g) Grenada, (h) Guinea-Bissau, (i) Haiti and (j) the Holy See regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53876]

  (45) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Indonesia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53644]

  (46) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Benin regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53657]

  (47) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Oman regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53631]

  (48) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Myanmar regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53634]

  (49) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53402]

  (50) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Nauru regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53415]

  (51) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Sudan regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53404]

  (52) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of South Africa regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53623]

  (53) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Kazakhstan regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53421]
  534
  (54) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Niue regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53413]

  (55) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Swaziland regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53403]

  (56) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Grenada regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53653]

  (57) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Sao Tome and Principe regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53408]

  (58) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Ireland regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53643]

  (59) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Singapore regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53624]

  (60) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Kiribati regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53420]

  (61) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Afghanistan regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53442]

  (62) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Palau, (b) Papua New Guinea, (c) Qatar, (d) Rwanda, (e) St Kitts and Nevis, (f) St Lucia, (g) St Vincent and the Grenadines, (h) Samoa, (i) San Marino and (j) Sao Tome and Principe regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53881]

  (63) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Angola regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53661]
  535
  (64) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Djibouti regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53648]

  (65) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Brunei regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53427]

  (66) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Trinidad and Tobago, (b) Turkmenistan, (c) Tuvalu, (d) the United Arab Emirates, (e) the United Republic of Tanzania, (f) Vanuatu, (g) Vietnam, (h) Zambia, (i) and Zimbabwe regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53883]

  (67) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Turkey regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53621]

  (68) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53422]

  (69) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Vanuatu regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53619]

  (70) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Dar-es-Salaam regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53441]

  (71) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53635]

  (72) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Kazakhstan regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53642]

  (73) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Paraguay regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53629]
  536
  (74) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Honduras regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53655]

  (75) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Saudi Arabia regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53407]

  (76) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Cook Islands regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53646]

  (77) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Marshall Islands regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53636]

  (77) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Mauritania regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53418]

  (78) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Dominica regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53649]

  (79) what official representations the British Government have made to the Governments of (a) Sierra Leone, (b) Singapore, (c) the Solomon Islands, (d) South Africa, (e) Sudan, (f) Surinam, (g) Swaziland, (h) the Syrian Arab Republic, (i) Thailand and (j) Tonga regarding those Governments' non-ratification of the UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and on what dates in respect of each Government; [53882]

  (80) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Belize regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53656]

  (81) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Sao Tome and Principe regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53625]

  (83) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of the Solomon Islands regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53406]
  537
  (84) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Lithuania regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates; [53638]

  (85) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Tonga regarding that Government's non-ratification of the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and on what dates; [53401]

  (86) what official representations the British Government have made to the Government of Tuvalu regarding that Government's non-ratification of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and on what dates. [53620]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We take every appropriate opportunity to encourage States to sign and ratify the six core human rights texts of the United Nations including through bilateral contacts and in multilateral forums.

  I regret that we would not be able to provide a more detailed response to the right hon. Member's questions without incurring disproportionate costs. I will however write to the right hon. Member inviting him to put any specific questions of concern.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Israeli policy of house demolition in Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. [53455]

  Mr. Fatchett
  House demolitions are a serious abuse of human rights wherever they occur. We and the EU carefully monitor Israeli demolitions of Palestinian homes and report these in a quarterly EU "Jerusalem Watch".

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Palestinian houses in the occupied Palestinian territories have been demolished since the Oslo Accords of 1993. [53456]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Estimates vary between 671 (discounting demolitions of temporary dwellings; figures from a local NGO) and 2,004 (including temporary dwellings; figures from the Palestinian Ministry of Local Government). These figures include demolitions in East Jerusalem.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of Israel on the demolition of Palestinian homes in the West Bank and Jerusalem. [53457]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have made it clear to the Israeli Government on many occasions that we condemn any attempt to change the demographic balance of Jerusalem in advance of final status talks.

  Security Surveillance Warrants
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal advice he receives before signing warrants authorising security surveillance; and from whom. [53825]
  538
  Mr. Robin Cook
  The procedures involved in submitting warrants for approval were set out in paragraph 5 of the Interception of Communications Act Commissioner's report for 1996. This makes it clear that the Secretary of State considers applications, after scrutiny by senior officials, together with supporting documentation and the comments of advisers. This process incorporates in every case, advice from legal advisers of the appropriate agency.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many warrants authorising security surveillance he has signed since 1 May 1997. [53827]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  It has been the practice of successive Interception of Communications Act Commissioners not to publish the numbers of interception warrants issued by the Foreign Secretary, as they have taken the view that it would be against the public interest to do so. Similarly the Intelligence Services Act Commissioner has stated that he does not consider it in the public interest to disclose the numbers of warrants issued under Section 5 of the Interception of Communications Act 1994. The Government endorse the Commissioners' views.

  Embassy Buildings
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will make it his policy not to dispose of(a) the whole and (b) part of the Paris (i) Embassy and (ii) Residence buildings; [53344]

  (2) if he will make it his policy not to dispose of (a) the whole and (b) part of the Tokyo (i) Embassy and (ii) Residence buildings; [53347]

  (3) if he will make it his policy not to dispose of (a) the whole and (b) part of the Bangkok (i) Embassy and (ii) Residence buildings; [53345]

  (4) if he will make it his policy not to dispose of (a) the whole and (b) part of the Vienna (i) Embassy and (ii) Residence buildings. [53348]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our policy is to ensure that all elements of the FCO estate provide value for money. For those which do not, disposal is one option; we shall also be considering how to make better, and more intensive, use of those properties we retain.

  Diplomatic Exchanges (Publication)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the summaries of the telegrams provided to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. [53795]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I have no plans to publish the summaries. I believe that publication of diplomatic exchanges will do cumulative damage to the frankness of the reports our High Commissioners and Ambassadors send, and the willingness of other governments to talk to them on a confidential basis.

  Desk Officers
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the desk officers in his Department, indicating the countries for which they are responsible. [53792]
  539
  Mr. Fatchett
  For security reasons, it is not possible to provide the information requested. General information on members of the Diplomatic Service at Posts overseas and in London is contained in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service List, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Sierra Leone
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) costs and (b) nature of assistance currently being given by the Government to Sierra Leone. [53872]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I have been asked to reply.

  Assistance currently being provided to Sierra Leone by the United Kingdom Government comprises:
  Contribution to the UN Trust Fund for Peace Enforcement in Sierra Leone: £2,000,000 from the FCO
  Emergency Demobilisation Project providing humanitarian assistance to ex-combatants: £2,000,000 from Department for International Development
  Contribution to the work of the Commonwealth Police Development Team: £800,000 from DFID
  Humanitarian and Rehabilitation projects implemented through NGOs: c.£3,000,000 from DFID
  Three senior advisers to Government of Sierra Leone: £250,000 from DFID
  Support to the establishment of an independent radio station: £120,000 from DFID
  Civil Service Support Project: Campaign for Good Governance: £101,000 from DFID
  Contribution to Government of Sierra Leone's two year National Programme for Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration: £6,500,000 from DFID.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on classifying the use of land mines as a war crime. [49673]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 July 1998]: I have been asked to reply.

  Until such time as the use of Anti-Personnel mines become subject to a comprehensive prohibition under international law, it cannot be classified as a war crime. This is not a matter of policy but what is currently possible under international law.

  The abhorrence with which the Government view the use of Anti-Personnel land mines should be in no doubt to anyone. This is reflected by the Government's introduction of domestic legislation to fulfill our obligations under the Ottawa Convention. We shall continue to encourage as many countries as possible to sign and ratify the Ottawa Convention.

  Regulation Reform
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the section "Reforming Regulation" in his Department's document "UK Presidency of the EU Half Way Mark", if he will place in the Library the progress report; and if he will make a statement on the proposals agreed at Cardiff. [53781]
  540
  Dr. John Cunningham
  I have been asked to reply as Cabinet Minister with responsibility for better EU regulation.

  The European Commission's report "Legislate less to act better: the facts" (COM(98)345) was presented to the European Council at Cardiff on 15 June 1998.

  The report and an accompanying Explanatory Memorandum (9319/98) were submitted to Parliament by the Cabinet Office on Friday, 26 June 1998.

  I am delighted that better regulation featured prominently in the Cardiff European Council's conclusions. This shows the degree to which the UK has successfully taken the debate forward during its Presidency. Specifically, the European Council:
  highlighted the importance of better regulation and subsidiarity, calling on the EU institutions and the Member States to work together to observe these principles;
  asked the Commission to co-ordinate the sharing of best regulatory practice between Member States;
  invited the Commission to press ahead with its Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market (SLIM) initiative to simplify and improve Single Market rules;
  welcomed the Commission's establishment of a pilot test panel of businesses to improve consultation on new regulatory proposals;
  encouraged the Commission to develop its business impact assessment system (fiche d'impact); and
  invited the Commission to draw up a timetable for action, in the light of the recommendations in the report of the Business Environment Simplification Task Force (BEST)—also presented to the Cardiff European Council—to assess the extent to which current EU and Member States' policies encourage entrepreneurship.

WALES

  Education Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many advisers are currently employed by each local education authority in Wales. [53196]

  Mr. Hain
  Information on the numbers of advisers currently employed by local education authorities in Wales is not held centrally.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total cost for each local education authority of employing advisers in the last year for which figures are available. [53193]

  Mr. Hain
  The cost of employing advisers for each local education authority is not collected separately. The information collected from local education authorities on costs attributed to inspection and advice is given in the following table.

  Local authority net current expenditure on inspection and advisory services—1996–97

  £000

  Blaenau Gwent

  38

  Bridgend

  80

  Caerphilly

  37

  Cardiff

  939

  Carmarthenshire

  159

  Ceredigion

  76

  541

  Local authority net current expenditure on inspection and advisory services—1996–97

  £000

  Conwy

  98

  Denbighshire

  240

  Flintshire

  134

  Gwynedd

  267

  Isle of Anglesey

  174

  Merthyr Tydfill

  94

  Monmouthshire

  52

  Neath Port Talbot

  261

  Newport

  194

  Pembrokeshire

  173

  Powys

  n/a

  Rhondda Cynon Taff

  272

  Swansea

  180

  Torfaen

  207

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  166

  Wrexham

  356

  Source:

  Local authority revenue outturn returns

  Departmental Research
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the cost of all research undertaken by his Department since May 1997, excluding the cost of green papers and other public consultation documents drafted by his officials; and if he will list in each case the organisations which undertook that research. [52710]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The term research covers a wide range of activities from scientific and engineering research through to consultancies and public opinion surveys. The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to make changes to the membership of the Welsh Development Agency prior to the establishment of the National Assembly. [53370]

  Mr. Hain
  Advertisements for the Board of the new Welsh Development Agency (WDA) have been placed and the process of selection is ongoing in line with the guidance from the Commissioner of Public Appointments. The appointments will take effect from the date of the merger of the WDA with the Development Board for Rural Wales (DBRW) and the Land Authority for Wales (LAW) this autumn.

  Persistent Inquirers
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which of his Department's agencies have procedures to identify persistent inquirers for information. [53946]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments is the only solely owned executive agency of the Welsh Office. It has no procedures to identify persistent inquiries for information.

  Welsh Assembly
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he is making to appoint the Standing Orders Commission for the National Assembly; and if he will make a statement. [54930]
  542
  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Commissioners will be appointed under the provisions of the Government of Wales Bill. I hope to be able to announce the names of the Commissioners shortly.

  The Commissioners' role is to prepare the draft of the first standing orders of the Assembly, which will then be made, with or without modification, by the Secretary of State.

  The recruitment of the Commissioners has been by open competition, in accordance with the current principles of public appointments. The Bill provides that there will be between 5 and 9 Commissioners. We expect that members will work 4 days a month and be paid £167.32 a day. The chairman will be paid £227.54 a day.

  The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Commissioners on the content and form of the standing orders. The core of the guidance I intend to give will be based on the report of the National Assembly Advisory Group, which I expect to be published during August. The Advisory Group includes members nominated by all the main political parties, as well as members representative of a wide range of interests. It has already made considerable progress, through its discussions and public consultations, in building political consensus about the way the Assembly should operate—a task which the White Paper "A Voice for Wales" envisaged would fall to the Commissioners. This will enable the Commissioners to be rather more expert and technical than was originally envisaged. I shall want a balance of talents among the Commissioners, but it will not contain members nominated by the political parties.

  There will be a continuing need to seek political consensus about issues other than the standing orders which will affect the way the Assembly will operate. These could include matters such as the opening ceremony and information support for Members. For this task I intend to establish an Assembly Preparations Group. This Group will include some members nominated by the political parties, as well as some former members of the National Assembly Advisory Group. I am consulting the leaders of the main political parties in Wales about the membership of this group, and about other matters relevant to the Assembly, in order to ensure that we continue to develop the arrangements for the Assembly in an inclusive spirit, seeking consensus where we can.

  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he proposes to submit to Her Majesty in Council on the use to be made of the order-making power in clause 12(1)(b) of the Government of Wales Bill. [54931]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Clause 12(1)(b) enables Her Majesty in Council to designated public offices the holding of which would disqualify individuals from membership of the National Assembly for Wales. A draft of an Order in Council made under clause 12(1)(b) requires approval by each House of Parliament before it can be made. I shall shortly be publishing a consultation document inviting views about the advice I should submit to Her Majesty on the content of an Order in Council under clause 12; the paper will make detailed proposals about disqualification of members and staff of a range of executive non-departmental and health bodies, the holders of certain offices, and those who hold politically restricted posts in
  543
  local government. I will place a copy of the consultation paper in the Library. Responses to the consultation paper will be requested by 2 October 1998.

  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the appointments procedure for senior posts in the National Assembly; if he will list the membership of the appointing panels, indicating external assessors and grades of civil servants; and if he will make a statement. [53607]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The Government of Wales Bill provides that staff of the National Assembly for Wales will be members of the Home Civil Service. The appointments procedures for senior posts in the National Assembly will, therefore, generally mirror those for the rest of the unified Civil Service. The precise way in which they will apply is being considered.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c) (ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [53860]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Agricultural Advisory Panel for Wales; Staff Commission for Wales; and the Welsh Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education;

  (b) The Residuary Body for Wales; Tai Cymru—whose functions will be transferred to the Welsh Office; the Land Authority for Wales and the Development Board for Rural Wales will be merged with the Welsh Development Agency;

  (c) i. None; ii. None;

  (d) The Welsh Optical Committee was renamed the Welsh Optometric Committee on 14 May 1997; the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales was renamed the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales on 1 October 1997; the Welsh Committee for Post Graduate Pharmaceutical Education was renamed the Welsh Committee for Professional Development of Pharmacy on 1 April 1998;

  (e) A list of the remaining follows.

  There have been no new non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) established since 1 May 1997. I am currently responsible for 24 Executive NDPBs, 22 advisory NDPBs and 8 Tribunals.

  List of those NDPBs remaining Executive NDPBs

  Agricultural Wages Committee (there are six committees)

  Arts Council of Wales

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation

  Countryside Council for Wales

  Further Education Funding Council for Wales

  Higher Education Funding Council for Wales

  National Library of Wales

  544

  National Museums and Galleries of Wales

  Royal Commission for Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales

  Sports Council for Wales

  Welsh Development Agency

  Welsh Language Board

  Welsh National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting

  Tourist Board

  Advisory NDPBs

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee for Wales (there are six committees)

  Ancient Monuments Board for Wales

  Environment Agency Advisory Committee for Wales

  Hill Farming Advisory Sub-Committee for Wales

  Historic Building Council for Wales

  Library and Information Services Council (Wales)

  Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales

  Place Names Advisory Committee

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Drug and Alcohol Misuse

  Welsh Dental Committee

  Welsh Industrial Development Advisory Board

  Welsh Medical Committee

  Welsh Nursing and Midwifery Committee

  Welsh Pharmaceutical Committee

  Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee

  Tribunals

  Agricultural Land Tribunal (Wales)

  Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales

  Registered Inspectors Appeals Tribunal (Wales)

  Rent Assessment Panel for Wales

  Valuation Tribunals (Wales) (there are four tribunals).

  Employees Over 60
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women employed by (1) his Department and (2) his Department's agencies have contracts of employment which permit them to retire after their 60th birthday. [53045]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  My Department employs a total of 46 men and 23 women who can choose to stay on after age 60.

  Cadw, an executive agency of the Welsh Office, employs a total of 66 men and 22 women who can choose to stay on after age 60.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) men and (b) women aged over 60 years were employed by (i) his Department and (ii) his Department's agencies on 1 January. [53068]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The numbers of men and women aged over 60 years employed by my Department and Agency CADW at 1 January 1998 are given as follows:

  Welsh Office

  CADW

  Men

  20

  6

  Women

  8

  6

  Total

  28

  12

  545

  Paediatric Cardiac Surgery Units
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the letter of 30 June 1998, from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), if he will list the other paediatric cardiac surgery units with which the University Hospital of Wales unit will be linked pending the replacement of the current paediatric cardiac surgeon and cardiologist. [53610]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The development of links with a well established and successful paediatric cardiac unit in England is a matter for the University Hospital of Wales. I understand they will make known the proposed future arrangements once discussions have reached an appropriate stage.

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in relation to the switching of corporation funds from developing Hamadayad Park, Cardiff to the Gwent Wetland Reserve, Newport. [53584]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  None.

  Schools (Loan Schemes)
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if paragraph 69 of Fair Funding: Improving Delegation to Schools gives local education authorities the power to compel schools with surpluses to participate in loan schemes. [53893]

  Mr. Hain
  No. The terms of any loans scheme operated for schools will depend on the financial controls in the schemes that LEAs are required to prepare under section 48 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. These schemes are subject to the Secretary of State's approval.

  Local Government Boundary Commission
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions since 1968 the Secretary of State for Wales has used his powers to delay the implementation of the proposals of the Local Government Boundaries Commission. [53892]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I do not have any powers to delay the implementation of the proposals of the Local Government Boundary Commission.

  Section 58(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 enables the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, to give effect to the Commission's proposals following the review of an area, either as submitted or in a modified form.

  Section 64(3) the 1972 Act (as substituted by section 68 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994) requires the secretary of State to give effect to the Commission's proposals for electoral arrangements following reviews carried out after the 1995 local elections for principal authorities, either as submitted or in a modified form.
  546

  Brewing Industry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions brewers have won planning appeals in Wales since April 1996; and if he will indicate which planning authority lost each appeal and when. [53894]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Brewers have won six planning appeals in Wales since April 1996.

  The Vale of Glamorgan Council lost an appeal by Bass Taverns Ltd. (trading as Harvesters Restaurants) on 15 January 1997 for the display of an internally lit double-sided freestanding pole sign and the Schooner Inn, Penarth.

  The former Rhymney Valley District Council (now Caerphilly County Borough Council) lost an appeal by Bass Taverns Ltd. for a petrol filling station and A3 use (food and drink) at Hengoed, Mid Glamorgan on 12 February 1997. The same Council lost an appeal by Messrs. Whitbread Pub Partnerships against its refusal to grant listed building consent for the demolition of a public house at Pontlottyn on 4 March 1997.

  The City and County of Swansea Council lost appeals on 16 April 1997 against an enforcement notice and refusal of planning permission by Bass Taverns Ltd. who were allowed to continue using premises at Bryn-y-Mor Road, Swansea as a wine bar/restaurant with ancillary kitchen, staff and office facilities. The same Council lost an appeal on 19 March 1998 by Hobgoblinns Ltd. for a change of use of premises to public house at Oxford Street, Swansea.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the task forces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers, (iii) small business people or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53283]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  The information requested is as follows:

  Departmental Task Forces and Advisory Groups

  National Assembly Advisory Group

  (a) Remit
  To assist the Secretary of State in the preparation of guidance to the Standing Orders Commission.
  To respond to requests for advice from the Secretary of State on other matters relating to the establishment of the National Assembly (i.e. matters which do not directly affect its standing orders).
  (b) Membership

  John Elfed Jones: Chairman

  Nick Bourne: Conservative

  Ioan Bowen Rees: Former Chief Executive, Gwynedd County Council

  Majorie Dykins: Voluntary Sector

  Ken Hopkins: NIACE

  Mari James: Academic

  Helen Mary Jones: Equal Opportunities Commission

  547

  Howard Marshall: UNISON

  Eluned Morgan: Member, European Parliament

  Joyce Redfearn: Chief Executive, Monmouthshire County Councill

  Viscount St. Davids: House of Lords

  Ray Singh: Commissioner for Racial Equality

  Ian Spatling: Confederation of British Industry

  Kirsty Williams: Liberal Democrat

  (c) Representation

  Scientists: 1 (retired)

  Engineers: 1 (retired)

  Small business people/representatives: 1

  (d) Remuneration

  Posts on the Advisory Group are unpaid. Members receive travel and subsistence expenses at the normal Welsh Office rates.

  (e) Budget

  The budget for the financial year 1998–99 is £200,000 which covers the Advisory Group and the statutory Standing Orders Commissioners.

  Wales New Deal Advisory Task Force

  (a) Remit
  To give advice to the Secretary of State for Wales on how the New Deal can be developed and implemented to meet the needs and circumstances of Wales.
  To promote the New Deal, particularly to the business, voluntary and environment sectors and to stimulate action and commitment to the New Deal in all relevant sectors.
  To receive regular reports on progress in implementing the New Deal and to advise the Secretary of State on emerging issues and means of resolution.
  To support the work of the UK Task Force by advising on issues of programme policy and design which are relevant to Wales.
  (b) Membership

  Graham Hawker (Chairman): Group Chief Executive, Hyder PLC

  Graham Benfield: Director, Wales Council for Voluntary Action

  Leighton Carnell: Corporate Director, Barclays Bank PLC

  Spencer Davies: Managing Director, Spencer Davies Engineering Ltd.

  Haydn Edwards: Principal, Coleg Menai

  Margaret Evans: Director, Prince's Trust Volunteers

  Jane Hutt: Director, Chwarae Teg

  David Jenkins: General Secretary, Wales TUC

  Roger Jones OBE: Managing Director, Penn Pharmaceuticals

  Paul Loveluck: Chief Executive, Countryside Council for Wales

  John Newton-Jones: Chief Executive, Farmworld

  Anne Poole: Director, NIACE Cymru

  Adam Price: Executive Manager, Menter a Busnes

  Sue Price: Executive Director, Groundwork Merthyr and Rhondda Cynon Taf

  Gill Richards: Partner, Atebion

  Cherry Short: Commission for Racial Equality

  Huw Vaughan Thomas: Chief Executive, Denbighshire County Council

  Kevin Watson: Church Minister representing CYTUN (Churches Together in Wales)

  Alison Lea Wilson: Partner, Anglesey Sea Zoo

  Wendy Yates: Director of Personnel, City and County of Swansea

  548
  (c) Representation

  Scientists: 2

  Engineers: 1

  Small business people/representatives: 5 (including the engineer)

  (d) Remuneration

  Members are not remunerated.

  (e) The Advisory Task Force does not have a budget.

  All Wales Agri-environment Scheme Working Group

  (a) Remit
  To advise the Secretary of State on the technical details of a new Agri-environment scheme available to farmers throughout Wales.
  (b) Membership

  Mr. M. Thomas: National Farmers' Union

  Mr. R. Nowell-Phillips: Farmers Union of Wales

  Mr. J. Salmon: Countryside Landowners Association

  Mr. N. Thomas: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  11 other members represented the Welsh Office, local authorities and non-departmental public bodies. They have not been classed as independent members.

  (c) Representation

  Scientists: 1

  Engineers: 0

  Small business people/representatives: 3

  (d) Remuneration

  Members receive no remuneration.

  (e) Budget

  The group has no budget.

  Overseas Visits
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those who have accompanied (i) him and (ii) his departmental Ministers on overseas visits since 1 January indicating(a) the venue of the visit, (b) the purpose of the visit, (c) the names of those involved, (d) the job of those involved, (e) the reasons why they were included in the visit and (f) the cost to public funds. [53847]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the house.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Carpet Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the export prospects in the United Kingdom carpet manufacturing industry. [48491]

  Mr. Battle
  No representations have been received about export prospects for the United Kingdom carpet manufacturing industry. DTI officials are in close contact with the British Carpet Manufacturers Association and individual companies about the development of initiatives to improve the competitiveness of the UK carpet industry.
  549

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she will take to ensure that all missing highly enriched uranium on the Dounreay site is identified and retrieved or made safe; and if she will make a statement. [48930]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 6 July 1998]: The UKAEA's document 'The Dounreay Shaft Inventory' identified an amount of 170kg of uranium as "material unaccounted for" (MUF). As explained on 27 July 1998, Official Report, columns 46–47, it is wrong to suggest that this figure must correspond to an amount of material that is physically missing. We have asked the DTI's Safeguards Office to study the nuclear material accountancy issues raised by the UKAEA document. We shall make public the conclusions of that study.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date she was first notified of the application to dispose of radioactive material from the Brent Spar at Dounreay. [50877]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: I do not receive applications for disposal of radioactive material. This is a matter for the independent regulator, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list all applications or agreements made since May 1997 for(a) disposal and (b) storage of radioactive material at Dounreay; and if she will indicate (i) the source and (ii) the amount of waste in each case. [50876]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: I do not receive applications for disposal and storage of radioactive material. These are matters, initially, for the independent regulators, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health & Safety Executive.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the facilities which are available at Dounreay for the storage of treated radioactive material from the Brent Spar; and if additional storage pits will be required for the treated material. [50879]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: This is an operational matter for UKAEA. I have therefore written to the Chairman of the UKAEA requesting him to prepare this information, and his reply will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to satisfy herself that Dounreay is a suitable site for the disposal and storage of radioactive materials from the Brent Spar. [50878]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 20 July 1998]: Storage and disposal of radioactive material at Dounreay is subject to independent regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA).
  550

  Eritrea (Exports)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences for the export of(a) paramilitary, (b) security and (c) police equipment to Eritrea have been (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) revoked, (1) between February 1995 and May 1997 inclusive and (2) since May 1997; and what was the export licence category in each case. [50583]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the following results were obtained. Between 1 February 1995 and 1 May 1997, three Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) were issued covering the export to consignees or endusers in Eritrea of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. Between 2 May 1997 and 19 June 1998, six Standard Individual Export Licences were issued covering such exports. No Open Individual Export Licences were issued in either period covering such exports; and no SIELs or OIELs covering such exports were revoked and no applications for SIELs or OIELs covering such exports were refused.

  The entry in the relevant legislation under which the export of goods is controlled is known as their rating. Individual licences may cover a range of goods with various ratings. Where this is so, the licence is included in the Table in the total for all of the relevant ratings.

  Standard Individual Export Licences issued between 1 February 1995 and 1 May 1997 covering the export to Eritrea of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  ML3

  ML10

  ML22

  Number issued between 1 February 1995 and 1 May 1997 covering goods with this rating

  1

  2

  0

  Number issued between 2 May 1997 and 19 June 1998 covering goods with this rating

  0

  4

  2

  This information does not cover any Media OIELs that may have been issued during this period. Media OIELs authorise the export to all destinations of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists, when working in areas of conflict.

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  In addition, goods on the Military List may have been exported to Eritrea under certain Open General Export Licences; copies of all Open General Export Licences valid at any time during the period are in the Library of the House.

  It is not possible to break down these data in the manner requested as the equipment covered by many entries in the Military List could be used by military, paramilitary or police end-users.
  551

  Motor Dealers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what action she has undertaken since 1 May 1997 to improve consumer protection in respect of the sale of used cars; [51204]

  (2) what plans she has to extend the powers of trading standards officers to enable them to carry out forecourt inspections of motor dealers. [51205]

  Dr. Howells
  In response to the Director General of Fair Trading's report on selling second-hand cars, I shall shortly issue guidance to clarify the powers which we believe Trading Standards officers already have under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 to enable them to carry out garage forecourt inspections of motor vehicles offered for sale.

  In addition, the Department is commissioning research on the current law on the use of mileage information disclaimers and how it is being interpreted, prior to consideration of further action. It has also indicated its support for consideration to be given by the Director General of Fair Trading of the extent to which indiscriminate use of mileage information disclaimers could be cited as an unfair business practice in the context of licensing action under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

  The Advertising Standards Authority has been contacted to establish whether it could act under its own powers against advertisements offering mileage correction/ alteration services. The Department is also in consultation with the Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions regarding those recommendations in the Director General's report which come within its responsibilities.

  The Office of Fair Trading recently published a booklet on how to get the best deal when buying a used car. This includes information for consumers about what to do if things go wrong. The Department has also recently published a more general consumer information leaflet on unsatisfactory goods and consumer rights which covers issues such as sale-of-goods rights, manufacturers' guarantees and extended warranties.

  Designer Goods
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will initiate an investigation of selective distribution in the designer goods sector. [51216]

  Dr. Howells
  As announced to Parliament during the passage of the Competition Bill, the Department will consult on the approach to dealing with vertical agreements, which include selective distribution, in preparation for the commencement of the new legislation.

  Any specific complaints about a supplier refusing to supply a retailer because of that retailer's pricing practices, should be directed to the Director General of Fair Trading, who will investigate.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to prevent foreign manufacturers from setting the prices that British consumers have to pay for designer goods. [51664]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The prices paid by consumers for designer goods are set by the manufacturer, distributor, or retailer. The judgment in
  552
  Silhouette concerns the extent to which, under the terms of a European Community Directive approximating the laws of Member States relating to trade marks, the holder of a registered trade mark may prevent the import into the Community of goods bearing that trade mark where the goods have already been marketed with the consent of the holder of the mark in the Community. The judgment in Silhouette confirms that the holder of a mark has no powers to prevent the import into, for example, the United Kingdom, of goods bearing the trade mark where those goods come from another Member State in the Community. The European Commission has commissioned a study into whether this principle should be extended to cover goods that have been put on the market anywhere in the world and, once the results of the study are available, the Government will consider with other Community Member States what action should be taken, including the possibility of a change in the law. In the meantime, manufacturers remain subject to European and domestic laws governing competition and the supply of goods.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she made to the European Court and to the European Commission on behalf of British consumers prior to the ECJ ruling in the Silhouette case. [51666]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The previous government submitted written observations to the European Court of Justice in February 1997. These observations confirmed that, as a matter of law, the 1989 European Community Directive on trade marks gave brand owners no power to prevent the import of trade-marked goods once they had been put on the market with their consent anywhere in the Community, but did give them power to prevent the import of goods put on the market with their consent elsewhere in the world.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is going to take in response to the ruling of the European Court of Justice in the Silhouette case on the pricing and distribution of designer goods; and if she will make a statement. [51663]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The Government will consider with other Member States of the European Community, in the light of this ruling and of a study being mounted by the European Commission, what changes in the law are desirable in the interests of British consumers and manufacturers.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the options available to British retailers and consumers in response to the rules of the ECJ in the Silhouette case. [51665]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The ruling of the European Court of Justice on the Silhouette case confirms the view of the Government's own legal advisers on the interpretation of the European Community Directive on trade marks which was implemented by the Trade Marks Act 1994, both of which were adopted and enacted by the previous government. The Government will consider with other Member States of the European Community in the light of this ruling, and of a study being mounted by the European Commission, what changes in the law are desirable having regard to the interests of British consumers and manufacturers.
  553
  In the meantime, British retailers should abide by the law as it stands at present.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she was informed that the European Court of Justice was to make the ruling which it has made in the Silhouette case. [51662]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The ruling of the European Court of Justice on the Silhouette case was delivered on 16 July 1998. The Government were aware from 24 June 1998 that the judgment would be delivered on that date.

  Export Credit Guarantees
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the top 10 companies in receipt of export credit guarantees for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 indicating the amount of cover given to each company for each year. [51414]

  Mrs. Roche
  ECGD have identified the following firms as the top ten main contractors under export credit guarantees which it issued in these years:

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1 British Aerospace

  1 British Aerospace

  2 G. E. C.

  2 M. W. Kellogg

  3 Water Projects International

  3 Rolls-Royce

  4 Babcock

  4 Aero International

  5 BICC

  5 Foster Wheeler

  6 APV (UK) Ltd.

  6 Joy Mining Machinery

  7 Amec

  7 Alvis

  8 Rolls-Royce

  8 Nokia Telecoms

  9 Rediffusion Simulation

  9 Babcock

  10 Weir Group

  10 Amec

  For reasons of commercial confidentiality ECGD is unable to provide details of the amount of cover given to each company.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list for each NFFO round the types of generation which were awarded contracts and the number of plants(a) awarded contracts and (b) currently generating in each band. [51769]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The following schedule lists the numbers of contracted projects, and of these the number of operating projects, by technology band for NFFOs 1–4, as at 31 March 1998.

  THERMIE Project Title

  NFFO order

  Level of support

  Multi-fuel biomass fired power station with poultry litter as the main fuel

  NFFO-1

  3.7 MECU

  Ovenden Moor 9.2 MW windfarm

  NFFO-1

  1.98 MECU

  2.7 MW windfarm at Blyth Harbour

  NFFO-2

  1.26 MECU

  5.8 MW Royd Moor windfarm using 450 kw turbines

  NFFO-2

  1.15 MECU

  Northampton Biomass Power Station (phase 1)

  NFFO-2

  1.18 MECU

  Demonstration of the production, drying and combustion of arable coppice for electricity generation in areas of agricultural decline

  NFFO-3

  1.78 MECU

  ARBRE—Arable Biomass Renewable Energy

  NFFO-3

  14.45 MECU

  Upland windfarm at Mynydde Gorddy, Wales

  NFFO-3

  1.8 MECU

  Trysglwyn 4 MW windfarm on the island of Anglesey

  NFFO-3

  1.25 MECU

  Blyth offshore windfarm

  NFFO-4

  0.96 MECU

  554

  NFFO technology band

  Number of contracted projects

  Number of operating projects

  NFFO 1

  Sewage Gas

  7

  6

  Landfill Gas

  25

  19

  Municipal and General Industrial Waste

  4

  4

  Other

  4

  4

  Hydro

  26

  21

  Wind

  9

  7

  Total

  75

  61

  NFFO 2

  Landfill Gas

  28

  26

  Municipal and General Industrial Waste

  10

  2

  Other

  4

  1

  Hydro

  12

  10

  Wind less than 1.6 mw

  19

  19

  Wind more than 1.6 mw

  49

  25

  Total

  122

  83

  NFFO 3

  Landfill Gas

  42

  34

  Municipal and Industrial Waste

  20

  4

  Hydro

  15

  5

  Wind more than 1.6 MW

  31

  6

  Wind less than 1.6 MW

  24

  5

  Energy Crops—Gasification

  3

  —

  Energy Crops—Residual (Other)

  6

  —

  Total

  141

  54

  NFFO 4

  Landfill Gas

  70

  4

  Municipal and Industrial Waste (Fluidised Bed Combustion)

  6

  —

  Municipal and Industrial Waste (Combined Heat and Power)

  10

  —

  Hydro

  31

  1

  Wind more than 0.768 mw

  48

  —

  Wind less than 0.768 mw

  17

  —

  Anaerobic Digestion of Agricultural Wastes

  6

  —

  Energy Crops

  7

  —

  Total

  195

  5

  All NFFO

  533

  203

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which projects which have secured NFFO contracts are currently receiving EU THERMIE support; and in each case for what amounts. [51770]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 July 1998]: The following THERMIE projects are also contracted to generate electricity under the NFFO:
  555

  Milk Marketing
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to receive the Monopolies and Mergers Commssion's report on milk marketing. [52453]

  Dr. Howells
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission is due to deliver its report, on the supply of raw milk in Great Britain, to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by 26 October 1998.

  Optical Fibre Communications
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to introduce and improve accessibility within the United Kingdom to modern broad band optical fibre communications; and if she will make a statement. [52326]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government set out their strategy in this area in the policy statements 'Our Information Age' and 'Broadband Britain' which were published in April. The latter dealt specifically with the issue of lifting the broadcast restrictions from BT and other Public Telecommunications Operators. On this issue and in our Information Age strategy, more generally, we are committed to encouraging investment in both advanced communications infrastructure and new services, and ensuring widespread access to services at affordable prices. To ensure that we keep pace with these issues, we have also launched a Green Paper reviewing the regulatory framework for telecommunications and broadcasting in response to digital convergence. I also expect, later this year, to launch a consultation on the use of significant additional radio spectrum for the delivery of broadband services, which will help address those areas of the country currently with limited competitive provision. Uptake and use are just as important as provision of broadband. We promote this through our Information Society Initiative programme for Business, which now has sixty regional and local Support Centres. I have also relaunched the IT for All programme with £2.75 million of additional money, and there are now 2,700 access sites across the country.

  Exporters
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she has taken to assist United Kingdom exporters in respect of problems faced as a result of current levels of sterling. [52634]

  Mrs. Roche
  Our overseas trade services are geared towards helping firms export, independent of the strength of sterling.

  Following the Export Forum's report last November, these services are being improved and extended. A National Exporters Database was launched on 1 July and a new Export Sales Leads Service will be introduced on 1 September. A new, simpler, system of Support for Exhibitions and Seminars abroad will apply to events opening after 1 April 1999. New programmes of activity in some of the target markets identified by the Export Forum have already been announced, including the Export Explorer for Western Europe. New programmes in the remaining target markets will be announced throughout the year.
  556

  Household Furniture
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to review the regulations covering the fire-resistance of materials used in the manufacture of household furniture. [52377]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department is currently considering representations in favour of some minor modifications to the Furniture & Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, but there are at present no plans for a major revision of these Regulations.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much her Department spent on IT, itemising(a) personal computers, (b) main-frame, (c) minicomputers and (d) file servers in the last year for which figures are available. [52881]

  Dr. Howells
  The last year for which figures are available is the 1997/98 financial year. The figures are inclusive of purchases that have been made on behalf of the Government Offices, the Insolvency Service, and the Employment Tribunal Service. However, no account is taken of purchases by other Executive Agencies, which manage their own budgets and for which no central record of purchasing is maintained.

  In 1997/98 the Department spent £8,318,000 on IT Technology. Of this, £5,037,000 was spent on PCs and £414,000 was spent on file servers. There were no purchases of mainframes or mini-computers. All figures are exclusive of VAT.

  Package Holidays
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will assess the implications for a competitive market of recent mergers among package holiday providers. [52873]

  Dr. Howells
  The Director General of Fair Trading advises on mergers which qualify for investigation under the Fair Trading Act 1973. Where a merger raises concerns in respect of a particular market, it can be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) for investigation.

  Stagecoach
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the answer of 25 June 1998,Official Report, column 563, from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), if she will make a statement on the acquisition by Stagecoach of a shareholding in Virgin Rail. [52874]

  Dr. Howells
  The proposed acquisition by Stagecoach of 49 per cent. of Virgin Rail Group qualifies for consideration under the Fair Trading Act 1973. In the first instance, therefore, it is for the Director General of Fair Trading (DGFT) to consider the proposed acquisition.

  My right hon. Friend,the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will decide in the light of the DGFT' s advice whether or not to refer the proposed acquisition to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for investigation and report.
  557

  Grey Cloth
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to oppose measures taken by the European Commission to impose duties on grey cloth imported from countries outside the European Union. [52477]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by the European Commission on greycloth imported from six third countries will remain in force for six months from 10 April. We continue to be firmly opposed to these duties, which are damaging to the UK and EU textile industries and to UK and EU consumers.

  We will do all we can to ensure that the Council of Ministers does not adopt any proposal by the Commission for a Council Regulation to impose definitive measures, which would last for five years.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many export licences have been issued in each year since 1996 for exports to Indonesia by Alvis plc, indicating in each case the ML or PL list number of the equipment covered. [52754]

  Mrs. Roche
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible and place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House.

  Foresight Programme
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current participation level of small medium-sized enterprises in the Foresight Programme. [52910]

  Mrs. Roche
  People with a small business background sit on a number of Foresight panels. SMEs are also active participants in projects giving effect to Foresight priorities, eg SMEs account for over half the companies participating in the nineteen new LINK programmes launched since 1995 in response to Foresight.

  There is a need, however, to make outputs from Foresight more accessible to SMEs. A number of initiatives have been taken for this purpose, most recently the development and publication earlier this month of Future Markets—Future Business, a guide for business intermediaries designed to enable SMEs to benefit from Foresight, which has been widely piloted among SMEs. A number of Foresight panels are also working closely with trade associations in tailoring the results of Foresight to SMEs.

  Exchange Rates
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations her Department has received from small and medium sized businesses on the current level of the pound. [52902]

  Mrs. Roche
  I appreciate the very real concern that small and medium sized manufacturers and exporters have expressed about the level of the pound. The most important thing that Government can do to help small and medium sized firms to thrive is to deliver a stable economic environment—with sustained growth, low 558
  inflation and sound public finances. This is the best path to achieving the Government's aim of a stable and competitive pound over the medium term.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what extra provision of funds will be allocated to her Department following the Comprehensive Spending Review to address the millennium computer compliance problem. [52905]

  Mr. Battle
  An extra £17 million of funding for Action 2000 was announced on 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 384. The Comprehensive Spending Review, which set the Department's overall budgets for the years 1999–2002, did not provide any additional funding earmarked specifically to address particular programmes: this is one of the many issues which the Department will need to bear in mind in allocating its overall budget for work, including any on millennium compliance, for these future years.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 24 June 1997,Official Report, columns 448–49, how many information packs on the Year 2000 problem have been circulated to small businesses to date. [53086]

  Mrs. Roche
  More than 70,000 copies of Action 2000's information pack were distributed up to the time of the launch on 15 July of its current media campaign. Since that date, demand for the updated information pack has been at the rate of 300 per day which is expected to increase following the national press advertising campaign by Action 2000 which started on 26 July. To date some 4,000 copies of the new information pack have been issued.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what research her Department has evaluated on the number of computer programmers available to combat the millennium compliance problem. [52906]

  Mrs. Roche
  Regular monitoring of the labour market for IT specialists is carried out by the Department for Education and Employment. However, it is not possible to say how many are available to work on millennium compliance at any one time because of competing demands for their services.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what role Business Links will play in respect of combating the millennium compliance problem. [52908]

  Mrs. Roche
  Business Links are working with Action 2000 to ensure that, nationally, messages are co-ordinated and that they have the appropriate tools and materials to help their local small and medium sized businesses.

  Business Links are already working with these businesses to raise awareness and improve understanding of the Year 2000 problem. They offer advice and signposting to a range of locally or regionally co-ordinated programmes. These programmes help businesses to identify where they may have problems, what actions they need to take to address them, and how to prioritise these actions.
  559

  Single Currency
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps her Department are taking to help small and medium-sized enterprises prepare for the introduction of the single currency. [53092]

  Mrs. Roche
  DTI Ministers have taken part in a range of events to help business prepare for the single currency.

  The Euro Preparations Unit (EPU) has been set up in Her Majesty's Treasury to raise awareness of the implication of EMU for UK businesses, and to help them prepare for the strategic and practical changes that will come with the introduction of the single currency on 1 January 1999. The Unit contains secondees from the DTI and from the private sector, in addition to Treasury staff. The Unit published its first full report on preparation in the UK 'Getting Ready for the Euro' earlier this month.

  DTI officials will continue to work closely with the EPU to ensure that the many business contacts that the Department has are used to best effect. For instance, twelve new regional forums, led by local business representatives with the involvement (in England) of the Government Offices for the Regions, have been set up specifically to help small and medium-sized businesses prepare for the Euro.

  Business Links
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps her Department is taking to help Business Links provide the comprehensive business information relating to trading conditions and economic circumstances required for exporting to EU countries. [52909]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Department's Business in Europe desk provides information for Business Links and companies about EU and EFTA markets, and the new Export Explorer scheme helps Business Links to introduce local firms to business opportunities in European markets.

  Rigs (Decommissioning)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate she has made of the number of rigs and other major installations currently operating in the United Kingdom Continental Shelf which are likely to be retired within the next five years; what is the cost of the decommissioning; what extra cost will be entailed by a requirement that their top sides be dismantled onshore; and if she will make a statement on the United Kingdom's policy on these matters following the OSPAR meeting. [52344]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 27 July 1998]: The likely date for decommissioning each offshore installations on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) will depend on a number of considerations. However, current estimates indicate that up to fourteen fixed steel installations located on the UKCS could reach the end of their useful lives within the next five years. The cost of decommissioning these installations is likely to be up to £1 billion.

  The future regime to be applied to the disposal of offshore installations at sea was agreed at the Oslo and Paris Commission (OSPAR) ministerial meeting on 23 July. Ministers agreed a ban on dumping installations at sea. The Government's part in this agreement demonstrates that we hold the environment at the core
  560
  of our decision making. All the small steel structures, all topsides, and the great majority of each and every large steel installation will be brought ashore.

  Derogations from the ban are possible for the leaving in place of footings of installations which weigh more than 10,000 tonnes. Decisions about the footings of such installations will be made on a case-by-case basis following the internationally agreed rules for assessment and consultation. The presumption will be for removal wherever this is safe and practicable. Heavy concrete structures may also be left in place, if after assessment and consultation, it is agreed that land disposal is neither safe nor practicable.

  For some time there has been a presumption that the topsides of all UKCS offshore installations would be removed. They will be re-used, dismantled for recycling or disposed of onshore.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the Permanent Secretary's letter of apology to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). [52716]

  Mr. Mandelson
  As the events referred to took place before my appointment, I do not intend to comment on them.

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if he will publish the letter from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to the Permanent Secretary of his Department in which the hon. Member warned him about sabotaging some of his work; [52499]

  (2) if he will publish the letter of apology written by his Department's Permanent Secretary to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths). [52501]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I have given today to the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley).

  Motor Industry
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the Transport White Paper on employment in the motor industry. [53186]

  Mr. Battle
  The Transport White Paper sets out a framework for transport policy for the future. The aim of the White Paper is not to restrict ownership of vehicles, but to create policies which give people more choice to create better alternatives bearing in mind the social and environmental impact.

  If, as a result of the White Paper, specific policies are introduced either at national or local level, we will as a matter of course consult with industry to determine the likely impact of such policies.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many jobs in Britain are accounted for by the distribution of cars. [53183]

  Mr. Battle
  The Office for National Statistics estimates that in March 1998 there were 312,300 employee jobs in Great Britain accounted for by units whose principal
  561
  activity was the sale of motor vehicles, motorcycles, and parts. More detail is available from the 1996 annual Employment Survey; of the corresponding September 1996 figure of 323,000, sales of motor vehicles alone accounted for 215,600 employee jobs. Figures for distribution of cars alone are not available.

  Metrication
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the progress of metrication in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [52842]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: I have nothing to add to the reply which the then Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs gave to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 17 June 1998, Official Report, column 241.

  Furniture Manufacturers
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review the arrangements for supporting furniture manufacturers exhibiting at overseas trade fairs; and if he will make a statement. [52841]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: I refer the hon. Member to the oral reply given to the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade on 14 May 1998, Official Report, column 496. I have no plans to review further the arrangements for supporting trade fairs and seminars abroad.

  Ice-cream
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of competition in the UK ice-cream market; and if he will make a statement; [52797]

  (2) if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has concluded its investigation into the sale of wrapped ice-cream by Birds Eye Walls Ltd.; and if she will make a statement. [52846]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: The Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of their investigation of the supply of wrapped ice cream to wholesalers by Birds Eye Walls Ltd. was published yesterday.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what cost-per-job limits are set on offers of regional selective assistance in development areas. [52924]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 28 July 1998]: Information on cost per job limits is confidential and cannot be disclosed.

  Multinationals (OECD Guidelines)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the closing date of submissions for the current review of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. [53025]
  562
  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The Government will be consulting representatives of business and trades' unions, as well as a number of non-governmental organisations that have expressed an interest in the review. We anticipate that a first discussion of the substantive issues will take place in November, and we will be inviting comments to meet this timetable.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers his Department has to act against British multinational enterprises in violation of the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. [53024]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The Guidelines are a voluntary set of principles for multinational enterprise behaviour. The National Contact Point on the Guidelines, which resides in this Department, has the role of handling enquiries and carrying out discussions on all matters related to the Guidelines. Where there is concern about the application of the Guidelines by an enterprise, the National Contact Point, following an approach from an interested party, will contact the enterprise to try to resolve the issue. This provides the opportunity for the National Contact Point to draw the attention of the enterprise to the Guidelines and make clear the importance that the Government attach to them.

  Departmental Computers
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what make of computer has been provided by his Department to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths); and how much it cost. [52861]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: My hon. Friend was provided with a Compaq computer at a cost of £1,555 exclusive of VAT.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what make of computer is normally provided by his Department to its senior civil servants; and what is the average cost of each such computer. [52860]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The senior civil servants in my Department have been issued with Dell computers at an average cost of £750 (ex VAT).

  Euro
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what resources his Department will be devoting to informing and educating businesses about the introduction of the euro in(a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000. [53912]

  Mrs. Roche
  The work of the Government in informing and educating businesses about the introduction of the euro is being led by the Euro Preparations Unit (EPU) in HM Treasury. To meet this objective, the EPU has received Summer Supplementary Estimate provision of £7.5 million to help raise awareness during 1998–99. No expenditure has been authorised beyond this.

  The Department of Trade and Industry supports the work of the EPU by promoting greater awareness of the introduction of the euro, particularly among small and medium-sized enterprises, through its many contacts with business. A small unit has been established to co-ordinate this work.
  563

  Diesel
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect on imports of diesel fuel of the introduction of regulations on ultra-low sulphur diesel. [53562]

  Mr. Battle
  Some increases in the imports of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel are expected in the short-term while UK producers are modifying plant to increase indigenous production of this fuel.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when regulations governing the introduction of ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel will come into operation. [53560]

  Mr. Battle
  All diesel fuel has to meet the specifications set out in the Motor Fuels (Composition and Content) Regulations 1994. Ultra-low sulphur diesel fuel has, in addition, to meet the requirements specified in the March 1998 Budget which are included in the current Finance Bill. There are no plans to introduce further regulations.

  Konver Programme
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Konver Programme Monitoring Committee will confirm to the Government Office for the North West what funds it can spend outside the Objective 2 areas. [53004]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 29 July 1998]: The Government Office for the North West, like all other Government Offices, is already aware of the amount of funds it may spend outside Objective areas under the current allocation of the KONVER II EU programme.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Government will carry out a review of the assisted areas of Great Britain. [54880]

  Mrs. Roche
  Following the publication of new European Commission rules on regional aid earlier this year all Member States of the EU are required to revise their Assisted Areas maps by 1 January 2000. The guidelines will mean a reduction in the areas eligible for regional industrial assistance.

  The Government intend, therefore, to carry out a review of the Assisted Areas map.

  We are committed to listening to local views and careful consideration will be given to all areas in the review. We will be assessing the relative needs of different areas across the whole of Great Britain in consultation with all those who have an interest.

  I am launching today a three month period of public consultation on the criteria and geographical units which should be used in drawing up the new map. I have placed copies of the consultation document for the review in the Library of the House and the Vote Office and copies are also available from my Department, the Government Offices in England, and the Scottish and Welsh Offices.
  564
  Local organisations and other bodies wishing to make representations should send these to the appropriate Government Office in England or to the Scottish and Welsh Offices before the end of October 1998.

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received the sixth annual reports of the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors under Part II of the Companies Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [54881]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I have received the sixth annual reports of all the recognised supervisory bodies for company auditors, and have placed copies in the Library. My Department will be discussing the contents of the reports with the bodies as necessary.

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will make available to the House the Annual Report and Accounts of the New Millennium Experience Company. [54879]

  Mr. Mandelson
  I have today placed copies of the New Millennium Experience Company Annual Report and Accounts in the Libraries of the House. Copies of the Report have also been made available to the Vote Office.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the 93 + 2 Additional Protocol Safeguards Agreement reached between the United Kingdom, Euratom and IAEA; and if he will make a statement. [51679]

  Mrs. Roche
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), on 20 July 1997,Official Report, column 402.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the nuclear facilities within his Department's responsibility which are currently(a) under international safeguards and (b) not subject to international safeguards. [51678]

  Mrs. Roche
  All civil nuclear material held in the United Kingdom is subject to Euratom safeguards and to the terms of the United Kingdom—Euratom—IAEA safeguards agreement of 6 September 1976—IAEA INFCIRC 263.

  The nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom, as defined in Article 92.1 of INFCIRC 263, are:

  British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL)

  BNFL Capenhurst

  BNFL Chapelcross

  BNFL Sellafield

  BNFL Springfields

  BNFL/Magnox Generation

  Berkeley Power Station

  Berkeley Centre

  Bradwell Power Station

  Dungeness A Power Station

  Hinkley Point A Power Station

  565

  Hunterston A Power Station

  Oldbury-on-Severn Power Station

  Sizewell A Power Station

  Trawsfynydd Power Station

  Wylfa Power Station

  British Energy

  Nuclear Electric

  Dungeness B Power Station

  Hartlepool Power Station

  Heysham 1 Power Station

  Heysham 2 Power Station

  Hinkley Point B Power Station

  Sizewell B Power Station

  Scottish Nuclear

  Hunterston B Power Station

  Torness Power Station

  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)

  UKAEA Dounreay

  UKAEA Harwell

  UKAEA Windscale

  UKAEA Winfrith

  Urenco Ltd

  Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd.

  Urenco (Capenhurst) Ltd. A3—Gas Centrifuge Enrichment Plant

  Universities

  Imperial College Reactor

  Queen Mary College Reactor

  Scottish Universities Research and Reactor Centre

  566

  Universities Research Reactor Risley

  Other

  ICI Tracerco

  Dycat International.

  There are no nuclear facilities within the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry which are not subject to international safeguards.

  Task Forces
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the taskforces and advisory groups composed of independent members which have been set up by his Department since 1 May 1997 and in each case(a) their remit, (b) their membership, (c) how many members are (i) scientists, (ii) engineers and (iii) small businesspeople or representatives of small businesses, (d) any remuneration members receive for their services and (e) their budget. [53146]

  Mr. Mandelson
  Since 1 May 1997 the Department has set up the following task forces and advisory groups which include independent members:The President of the Board of Trade's Advisory Group on Competitiveness, six competitiveness working parties addressing innovation, best practice, the information age, enhancing business performance through developing individuals, business investment, and maximising competitiveness in Europe; the Tech Stars Steering Group and the Low Pay Commission.

  I have arranged for the information requested for each of these groups to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as is practicable.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to attend a departmental strategy conference on 5th October when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

House of Lords: Working Hours and Conditions
Lord Barnett Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consideration they have given to improving the working hours and conditions of the House of Lords in line with proposals being put forward for the House of Commons by the Leader of that House.
Lord Carter: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have put forward a number of proposals to the Modernisation Committee of another place. The most recent include: Thursday sittings to be advanced by three hours to end at 7 p.m.; a constituency week to coincide with half-terms in February and October; Standing Committees to sit during the Recess; and consideration to be given to altering the normal sitting day so that it begins at 1.30 p.m. and ends at 9.30 p.m.
Not all of those proposals are relevant to your Lordships' House and they would in any case be matters for the Procedure Committee. As Chief Whip, I would be willing to put appropriate proposals to that committee but, of course, in this as in all other matters, your Lordships' House proceeds by agreement.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think that I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does he agree that many noble Lords on all sides of your Lordships' House would find morning sittings difficult because, obviously, they like to try to earn the odd shilling, which is perfectly understandable? In those circumstances, would he accept that it might be worth thinking the unthinkable and considering even paying noble Lords who attended morning sittings?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I cannot help reflecting on the fate of the last Minister who was required to think the unthinkable! The noble Lord puts forward an interesting idea about morning sittings. Your Lordships occasionally sit in the mornings, principally on Fridays and before the Recess. As we know, the other place does so regularly on Wednesdays. But there is no guarantee
1612
that sitting in the morning means rising earlier at night. As all Chief Whips know, business expands to fill the time available. Many of your Lordships find the mornings useful for other work; for instance, in this House serving on important Select Committees, such as that chaired by my noble friend, and away from the House to earn a living.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip accept that no working procedure will compensate for either the overload of Parliament or the imbalance of business between the two Houses? Will he also agree that this is the longest Session since 1979–80 and that the average daily sitting has increased by about one hour since that time?
Will the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House make it their summer task to convince their colleagues in the Cabinet that it should give more business to the House of Lords at the beginning of the Session so as to avoid it having to scrutinise important constitutional business in the middle of the night?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is wrong about the House sitting longer on average. This Session, the House has sat for an average of six hours and 57 minutes each day. That is in line with the average sitting time under the previous Administration. But as we know, this Government have delivered a heavy programme of legislation and there is still more to come. It is comparable to the 1979–80 Session because it is an 18-month Session of a government which was elected after a period in opposition in the spring of 1979, and in our case in the spring of 1997.
I am sure that the whole House will agree that the sweeping nature of the Government's majority in May last year, combined with a wide-ranging manifesto for reform on which we were elected, has meant that it is inevitable that there will be a number of major items of legislation this Session. I believe that the number of Bills for Royal Assent by the summer break is fewer in this Session than in that of 1979–80. The statistics on the average sitting time of the House indicate that, while it has been a long Session, the Government have, with the co-operation of the noble Lord, managed their programme to ensure that their important priorities are delivered without having to force your Lordships to sit late into the night on too many occasions. I should add that there has been no all-night Sitting in this House this Session—so far.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all Opposition parties in this House, and no doubt in the House of Commons, complain about an overloaded legislative programme, which translated means a programme that they do not support?
As regards the serious point made by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, would it not be a good idea to have the matter considered at the next meeting of the Procedure Committee? Perhaps the noble Lord might arrange for a memorandum to be placed before that committee, reminding the House of the most valuable report of the

1613
late Lord Rippon of Hexham, who made a number of proposals which, unhappily, were not supported by the then government?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that is an excellent idea and I will undertake to do that.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, will the Government kindly bear in mind that one Peer's better working conditions and hours may be another Peer's worse working conditions and hours? Will he give the matter a great deal of thought and advice before altering the status quo?
Lord Carter: My Lords, yes, that is a view I have heard on almost every occasion in relation to making a change in this House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that Members of this House do a wonderful job with great expertise without being paid any salary? I would not compare the expertise of Members of another place with what is to be found in your Lordships' House, but they do cost the taxpayer a large amount of money, whereas we cost the taxpayer scarcely anything. If change is not necessary, is it better not to change?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the question of the payment of a salary to Peers has been suggested a number of times. We all know that many of your Lordships work long and hard for very little financial reward. I can remember my own time in opposition. But there are considerable practical difficulties with any such proposal in what I think is fair to describe as a predominantly amateur House with a very variable membership. It is true that your Lordships can be rightly proud of the value for money that this House provides for the Government.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in an earlier reply my noble friend referred to the fact that a number of noble Lords need to earn a living outside, as he described it. Your Lordships' House reached the stage some years ago at which, in order to get business through the House, there needed to be an increasing number of full-time Peers and not part-timers. On that basis, should we not be looking at a more generous scheme of allowances than the very poor one that we have at present?
Lord Carter: My Lords, as I understand it, the question of your Lordships' allowances was considered some time ago and it was decided that it should be looked at again in, I believe, the year 2000 by the Top Salaries Review Body.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the heavy strain on Members of this House, should we not introduce a retirement age?
Lord Carter: My Lords, that has also been suggested. Perhaps the noble Lord would like me to prepare a paper on that suggestion. However, the problem is as to what age I should put in the paper.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, whatever is done about working hours and conditions, I ask the noble Lord to ensure that nothing will ever be done to inhibit the freedom of Back-Benchers in this House to initiate debates and ask questions, unlike the position in another place.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the Government Chief Whip, I love the idea of Back-Benchers asking questions and initiating debates and playing the very full part which they do in the work of the House.

President of Argentina: State Visit
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there is any intention on their part to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, or relations between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, with President Menem when he visits the United Kingdom in the autumn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the visit by President Menem will be an occasion on which to concentrate on the good and substantial relationship we enjoy with Argentina on a range of issues. Our position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands is well known and remains unchanged. We do not regard it as negotiable.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, many of us welcome the impending visit of the president because we strongly favour substantial friendship between Britain and Argentina, including practical arrangements where necessary as regards oil and fishing licences in the South Atlantic. But I welcome the noble Baroness's reply when she made clear that questions of sovereignty over the Falklands are quite a separate matter. As she said, Her Majesty's Government, in line with the policy also of the previous government, do not intend to negotiate or discuss that sovereignty with the Argentine authorities.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, when we invited President Menem, we made it clear that the visit would not be an opportunity to discuss the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands but should rather focus on the strong bilateral relationship between the two countries. We see eye-to-eye with Argentina on a wide spectrum of international issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, indicated. We worked together in the United Nations on peacekeeping operations and we have been working together to co-ordinate the international response to nuclear testing in India and Pakistan, among many other issues.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, does the noble Baroness believe that we can retain our capability with a reduced presence without undermining sovereignty issues?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we reduced the military presence in the Falklands with the construction of the airport at Mount Pleasant in 1986. But the islands are currently defended by a garrison comprising air, sea and land assets. We believe that those are maintained at the minimum size required to guarantee their security.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, in connection with bilateral relations, is the noble Baroness aware that this is the first visit by an Argentine president since 1961 and therefore some may consider it long overdue? Secondly, does she agree that since the restoration of commercial relations in 1989, our trade has increased quite spectacularly from a position of zero to something which is growing very quickly indeed in both directions.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I realise that it is the first visit since the time that the noble Viscount has indicated. Everything that he says about the importance of the commercial and trading relationship is true. Argentina is now our second largest market in Latin America ahead of Mexico and Chile. In 1997, Argentina was one of our fastest growing markets anywhere in the world. In that year, it imported 0.5 billion worth of British goods into the country. Moreover, it is a key member of Mercosur, and in our role in the EU, we have been prominent in promoting a greater interchange between the EU and Mercosur.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, obviously my noble friend the Minister is well aware that the Argentinian Government have been saying to their own people that they expect to be able to settle all their difficulties with this country about the Falklands during the forthcoming visit. Therefore, how do the Government regard this statement, when laid alongside the statement that my noble friend has just made as regards our willingness to discuss sovereignty?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there is a world of difference between President Menem restating Argentina's position on the Falklands and our entering into any sort of negotiations. President Menem has a right to restate his position on the Falklands, but we do not intend that there will be any discussion of the issues. We remain firmly committed to the islanders' right of self-determination. They continue to tell us unequivocally that they wish to remain British, and the Argentinians are well aware of our position.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I welcome the reply that the Minister gave a few moments ago. However, in response to President Menem's suggestions on shared sovereignty, could the noble Baroness elaborate a little further as to exactly how the Government will seek to
1616
reconcile the wishes of the Falkland Islanders with the promotion of a constructive relationship with Argentina as an important trading partner of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there are many things to discuss other than the sovereignty issue which, as I said, is not up for discussion. Indeed, I believe that I have been as clear on this as I can. We fully expect President Menem—no doubt for his own domestic reasons, given the Argentinian position on the matter—to state his position in relation to the Falklands. However, that does not mean to say that there will be any negotiations on that issue. Of course, there are many other issues that we shall be discussing. For example, we discussed a few moments ago the importance of trade. Moreover, the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, talked about oil and we shall discuss fisheries. There are a number of important issues in the area and a number of very important international issues, which I detailed in my supplementary answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hurd. That will make a very substantial agenda during the visit of President Menem.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, can the Minister say whether anything will be discussed about the removal of landmines which now litter the Falkland Islands, and whether Argentina will be able to contribute towards solving that particular problem?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Ottawa Convention, as now enacted, requires us to de-mine all areas under our jurisdiction, and that includes the Falkland Islands, within 10 years of the legislation entering into force, unless we can show good reason why we should not do so. Such reasons might include humanitarian, environmental, financial and technical considerations. There are problems with de-mining the Falklands. There are many mines on the island and, bearing in mind the terrain, the enormous number of mines and the problems with the peat, in which many of the mines are embedded, there will need to be technological solutions. We propose to carry out a British-led study into the feasibility and the costings of de-mining the Falklands. We are currently considering how this might best be financed and carried out.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that transport links will also be on the agenda—that is to say, access directly from the Falklands to Argentina and open travel in both directions? After all, that has been one of the more difficult issues to arise thus far.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is a difficult issue. However, it is a matter for the Falkland Island's Government. Their policy to date is that Argentine passport holders are not permitted to visit the islands. We have encouraged the islanders to consider broadening the range of contacts between themselves and Argentina. We believe that the process of reconciliation and the development of mutual understanding would be helped by more interaction between the two communities. But that would in no way compromise the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.

Iran: ECGD Cover
3.23 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should declare that, this week, I was appointed chairman of the British Iranian Chamber of Commerce.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce ECGD (Export Credits Guarantee Department) cover for Iran; and, if so, when.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, Iran is a difficult market to assess, not least because of oil price uncertainty. However, my right honourable friend the President of the Council when President of the Board of Trade, announced that ECGD has reintroduced insurance cover for capital goods and services contracts concluded on cash payment terms and short-term reinsurance capacity for private sector insurers of consumer goods exports.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, while that is welcome as a first step, it falls short of the much-needed full cover which currently France and Italy offer, and which Germany will soon be offering. Therefore, will the Minister undertake to monitor the situation? Further, is the noble Lord aware that, procedurally, our visa regime is practically unworkable? That causes considerable difficulties. Is it not now high time to exchange ambassadors in what is potentially Britain's largest single market in the Middle East?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, congratulate the noble Viscount on his appointment. I am sure that that will do a great deal for relations and the trade that we want to build up with Iran. However, in response to the noble Viscount's two questions, it is important to point out that the cover already announced will facilitate some valuable trade and that this will be broadly welcomed by exporters. As I said, the Government are keen to encourage trade relations but there are a number of steps that we will have to take before full cover is reintroduced. That is largely to balance the interests of taxpayers and the trading opportunities. I believe that that is the right first step on the road, but it is to be hoped that there will be more to come. As regards visas, I agree that there is work to be done to smooth the procedures which are not yet what we would like them to be.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that a precondition of more active relations with Iran should be the cancellation of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and repayment to this country of the costs which British taxpayers have incurred in protecting him?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, it is quite clear that the Government have a number of issues which
1618
need to be resolved with the Iranians. Indeed, they will be part of the wide-ranging negotiations which will also affect our trading conditions and be undertaken by colleagues in other departments.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government of Iran are still sponsoring murder outside its borders, while persecuting religious and other minorities inside its borders?
Lord Simon of Highbury: No, my Lords. I am afraid that I am not in a position to comment on what the Government of Iran are undertaking. Indeed, that is a matter for the Government of Iran to answer.

Lockerbie Air Disaster: Trial Prospects
3.27 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider making arrangements for an international venue to try the two persons accused of the Lockerbie disaster under Scottish law in a neutral country.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, although I remain committed to a trial in Scotland, I can confirm that I have considered alternative ways of securing my objective of bringing the accused to justice. We are currently involved in discussions of a highly complex nature and full consideration must be given to all the legal and technical aspects of such an initiative before a final decision can be made. It would be quite inappropriate for me to say any more at this time. I can assure the House that any steps that I take will be in accordance with my independent responsibility to discharge my duty as prosecutor.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I should like to give a very warm welcome to the tone of the noble and learned Lord's Answer; indeed, it is the first sign of flexibility on the issue after nearly 10 years since the disaster occurred over Lockerbie. Will the noble and learned Lord at least recognise that there are many people who believe that if the authorities remain obdurate on this question there might never be a trial and we would never discover the truth of what happened at Lockerbie?
Will the noble and learned Lord accept that there is international unease at this stalemate and that the bereaved families themselves are pressing for the solution that I have put forward in this Question? Will he also recognise that citizens of some 13 nations were killed in this disaster, but that if the bomb had gone off either 10 minutes or 10 minutes later it would not have been in Scottish jurisdiction? If ever there was a major international crime, this was one.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I fully recognise all the points made by the noble Lord as I was involved in

1619
the Lockerbie incident from the outset. I was junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, when he was Lord Advocate, at the public inquiry.
I am fully aware of the concerns of the families but the primary consideration for me must be to ensure a proper trial in accordance with Scots law in Scotland. If that cannot be achieved, other considerations will be taken into account. However, the overriding consideration must be to ensure that whatever arrangements are made do not interfere with the ability of the prosecution to conduct the case without any prejudice, nor to interfere with the interests of the defence, and that both of those interests are safeguarded. If those conditions cannot be met, I shall not prosecute anywhere other than in Scotland.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, many of us in this House will be reassured by the noble and learned Lord's repeated and proper preference for a trial in Scotland of those accused of the Lockerbie murders. We strongly support his reassertion of his primacy in this matter as the independent public prosecutor in Scotland with a lonely responsibility and not a collective one. We offer that support particularly in the light of the clumsy, constitutionally improper and badly leaked efforts of the Foreign Office to usurp the noble and learned Lord.
If he takes an irreversible step to hold the trial outside Scotland—we understand why he might wish to contemplate that, given the decade of agony and uncertainty that the relatives of the victims of Flight Pan Am 103 have endured—I hope he will understand that, in spite of our understanding of why he is possibly looking to a way forward, we must reserve the right to scrutinise whether any agreement he reaches brings the prospect of a trial closer or whether it merely offers the opportunity for endless further wrangling from Tripoli.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I welcome the comments of the noble and learned Lord about the lonely office of Lord Advocate. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I share his concerns about the press speculation as to what has been going on. I have been assured by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that it is not responsible for such leaks. In relation to the scrutiny of the agreement, if any agreement is reached the terms of that agreement and any necessary orders will, of course, be made available to your Lordships for consideration. I repeat that my sole consideration is to ensure that the prosecution of the accused is in accordance with Scots law and will take place preferably in Scotland. It will not take place outwith Scotland unless my two criteria are satisfied. I referred to those criteria when answering the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, I refer to the proceedings before the International Court of Justice raised by Libya against the United Kingdom and the United States. I seek the noble and learned Lord's assurance that, in reaching his decision on whether the trial may take place overseas, he will have regard to the existence of that litigation because there may be an argument that it would be highly undesirable for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to agree that
1620
the trial should be held in the Hague, or anywhere else, if at the same time Libya continues the action it has raised against this country and America.
Lord Hardie: My Lords, the proceedings before the International Court of Justice are effectively civil proceedings relating to the interpretation of the Security Council resolutions and the applicability of the Montreal Convention. I am fully aware that these proceedings are continuing. At the present time I am involved in drafting and revising pleadings for the next stage. If a criminal trial were to take place either in Scotland or outwith Scotland, there may well be a case for making an application to the court to assist these proceedings, but that is further down the line.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I assure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that I fully respect the integrity and independence of his office and welcome everything he has said this afternoon. Will he confirm that the Security Council resolution on this subject refers to a trial either in Scotland or the United States? Accordingly, in arriving at his future conclusions, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that he is in touch with his opposite numbers in Washington?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, as I have indicated, there have been detailed, complex negotiations which have involved myself with people of equivalent standing in other countries and officials. Clearly I am aware of the existence of the Security Council resolutions. The existence of those resolutions will be taken into account in any agreement, should agreement be reached.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate accept that calls which have been made in the past to Lord Advocates that evidence in this case should be revealed in advance of a trial are totally inappropriate and could be prejudicial to the accused?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. It is not the practice of the Lord Advocate ever to disclose evidence other than in the course of a trial. I do not accept that it would be appropriate to disclose the evidence while there is the prospect of a trial.

Scotland Bill
3.36 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sewel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 260:
After Clause 53, insert the following new clause—

COMMUNITY OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARLIAMENT
(" . A Community obligation of the United Kingdom is also an obligation on the Scottish Executive if, and to the extent that, the obligation could be implemented (or enabled to be implemented) or complied with by the exercise by the Parliament of any of its functions.").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 260 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 261. In Clause 53 the parliament of Scotland must comply with any Community obligations in the same way as this Parliament at Westminster has to do. Clause 54 mentions the Secretary of State, although we already know that when the Scottish parliament is established his or her position is somewhat doubtful. In complying with international or Community obligations governments from time to time have had to introduce retrospective legislation. The object of this amendment is to ensure that no person in the broadest sense of the meaning of "person" is guilty of an offence where the law is changed by retrospective legislation. I hope that the principle I have put forward will be seriously considered by the Government. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Amendment No. 260A is grouped with the one we are discussing. It refers to the powers of the Secretary of State to prevent or require action with regard to Scottish parliamentary legislation. The purpose of Amendment No. 260A is to clarify Clause 54(1), which refers to international obligations by adding the words "Community law" to international obligations.
The need for this amendment stems from the definition of "international obligations". Clause 112(10) defines it as,
"obligations … other than … under Community law".
If the clause remains unamended, the Secretary of State will not have the explicit power to require action on legislation which does not comply with Community law. Although Clause 53 refers to Community law, it does not seem expressly to empower any action by the Secretary of State to remedy errant legislation. This amendment makes the issue abundantly clear.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I understand the thinking behind the amendments in this group, but we are satisfied that we have already provided a robust legislative framework to ensure that EU obligations are properly fulfilled by the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has suggested in Amendment No. 260 that a clear statement should appear on the face of the Bill to the effect that community obligations extend to the Scottish executive. The general transfer of functions in Clause 49 already achieves that.
Any obligation upon Ministers of the Crown to observe and implement Community law within devolved competence is transferred to Scottish ministers by Clause 49. Scottish ministers will therefore be liable to implement community obligations within devolved competence and be responsible for any failure to do so under EU law. Scottish ministers will also be liable for
1622
the same penalties as UK Ministers if they fail to observe or implement Community obligations. All that is confirmed by Clause 53(1), which provides that,
"Despite the transfer to the Scottish Ministers by virtue of section 49 of functions in relation to observing and implementing obligations under Community law, any function of a Minister of the Crown in relation to any matter shall continue to be exercisable by him as regards Scotland for the purposes specified in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972".
Ministers of the Crown do not lose their powers to implement Community law in relation to devolved matters but continue to be able to exercise any function as regards Scotland for the purposes of implementing Community law. In other words, Ministers of the Crown have concurrent powers with Scottish ministers. Furthermore, Clause 53(2) requires a member of the Scottish executive to act only in accordance with Community law. Clause 28(2)(d) also makes it clear that legislation of the parliament must be compatible with Community law.
Any breach of Community law by a member of the Scottish executive, whether constituted by some action or failure to act or by some subordinate legislation made by that member, is one of the devolution issues which are subject to the special procedures in Schedule 6. While I understand the noble Earl's intention, I think his amendment is unnecessary and I hope that in the light of my explanation he will feel able to withdraw it.
The effect of Amendment No. 260A would be to extend the power of UK Ministers to prevent or require action in relation to the UK's international obligations, to cover Community obligations. It would be inappropriate and unnecessary to include a reference to Community obligations in Clause 54. Clause 54 refers to international obligations because that is the only way in which the UK Government can ensure observance of international obligations by the Scottish executive. It is not possible, for example, to make this a vires issue which can be adjudicated by the courts because the courts generally do not take cognisance of any international obligations unless they are incorporated into domestic law.
However, that does not apply in the case of Community law because that is part of our domestic law and our courts can, and must, have regard to it and enforce it. As I have pointed out already, the Bill requires the Scottish executive to comply with Community law and its failure to do so can be adjudicated by the courts.
These provisions make it unnecessary to extend the power of intervention to include Community obligations—‹there is no scope for the Scottish executive to derogate from the same essential requirements to comply with Community law that bind the UK Government. With that explanation, I invite the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
I can fully appreciate the noble Earl's reasons for introducing Amendment No. 261. However, in our view it is unnecessary. An order made under this provision may require action to be taken by a member of the Scottish executive to implement international obligations in so far as the member of the Scottish executive has power to take the required action

1623
retrospectively, the Secretary of State can require him to do that. If the member of the Scottish executive did not have power to take retrospective action there would be no point in the Secretary of State's order having retrospective effect. In the light of what I have said I ask the noble Earl to withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having explained the position. I was particularly concerned about someone being considered guilty of an offence retrospectively. I did not want to see that happen. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 54 [Power to prevent or require action]:
[Amendment No. 260A not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 260B:
Page 23, line 45, after ("international") insert ("treaty").
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 260C and 260D, 261A, 262A and 263A. These amendments fall into two groups. First, Amendments Nos. 260B, 262A and 263A seek to introduce the word "treaty" between the words "international" and "obligations" where they appear in Clause 54 and elsewhere in the Bill.
The purpose of the amendments is to make it clear that when the Bill refers to international obligations, it refers to legal obligations which are binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law. The concern is that unless the term is more carefully defined it might be construed to cover all sorts of understandings, and indeed moral obligations, which emerge from discussions involving Foreign Office Ministers, members of the Diplomatic Service or Foreign Office officials in the course of their duties.
Similar concerns arise out of the introduction of the terms "interests of defence" and "interests of national security" which now form part of the provision as a consequence of government amendments moved earlier. Clearly, the full ramifications of these amendments will require consideration during the Recess by those of us participating in these debates.
The practical consequence of the concern is this. If these terms remain as general as they are it will be possible for the Government, without any reference to Parliament whatsoever, to expand upon the extent to which the Secretary of State in terms of his powers under Clause 54 can interfere with the Scottish executive's exercise of the functions that lie within its competence. This matter was raised in our debates on Tuesday by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, undertook to reflect and write on it over the Recess. That takes the discussion—
Lord Steel of Aikwood: With great respect, I did nothing of the kind.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was in error in thinking that the
1624
noble Lord, Lord Steel, intended to do anything over the Recess—except of course, engage in a little fishing. I do not think he will be alone.
The purpose of the other amendments is slightly different. They provide that if the Secretary of State is of the view that the Scottish executive has acted or refused to act in a way which is incompatible with international treaty obligations or incompatible with national security or defence interests, he should have two options. One option is to go to the court and seek a declarator that the Scottish executive has acted in such a way. The alternative would be for him to have an order-making power in his own right to take the action which is necessary—an expansion of the power which he already has in terms of subsection (4).
My concern is that his order-making powers in subsections (1) and (2) which enable him to direct the Scottish executive to take action or refrain from taking action will be perceived to be the powers of a colonial governor. If they were ever used and if they exist and the use of them could be threatened, it would serve to provoke friction between the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Government, where there is a concern that the Scottish executive's actions could be or are perceived to be incompatible with the three terms to be found in the Bill.
It should be a clear-cut choice for the Secretary of State. In such a case he should raise the matter with the court and seek a declarator. It may be a complicated action to bring and it may be a complicated matter for the court to decide. But as I understand orders under Clause 54 to be subject to judicial review, these are the kind of difficult legal issues which the court may require to deal with in any event. He should have these two routes, either to go to the court or to act on his own hand. The idea of him directing the Scottish executive on what to do is not compatible with common sense or the hope that the executive and the Government will work profitably and fruitfully together in the future. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendment No. 263A is also being spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 264 to 266 inclusive.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: We await with interest the Government's response to these amendments which raise some rather erudite questions of both domestic and international law. Am I right in feeling believing in connection with the phrase "international obligations" in the Bill, that it is designed to cover a wider range of possibilities than simply treaty obligations? Do we not have general obligations under customary international law? It is the international equivalent, I suppose, of common law, or binding Security Council resolutions or decisions of international tribunals, such as the International Court of Justice. On that at the moment I am content with what I guess may be the Government's position.

1625
On the other matter, I await the answer with interest. The mind boggles at the idea of the Secretary of State, in the new post-Scottish parliament situation, sitting in Dover House acting as a colonial governor. It seems to defy common sense to me.
Lord Hylton: On the grounds that everything possible should be done in advance to try to prevent conflict between different levels of government within the United Kingdom which may be governments of different political complexions, I am inclined to support the thrust of this group of amendments.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Arising out of what has been said, it has been stressed that yet again there are legal minefields ahead. It might be helpful if the Government reflected over the Recess on whether anything could or should be done to assist the courts when, for example, they are faced with questions as to what international obligations are. As the noble Baroness pointed out, it is not usual for domestic courts to become involved in questions of international law and what constitutes an international obligation.
I am not clear how it is envisaged that it will be handled if there were a judicial review such as is contemplated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. It is obviously possible, or given the idea of reasonable grounds it looks possible. For that reason, therefore, it might be for consideration whether anything requires to be done as to the way in which such international obligations could be proved and how the courts could look at international obligations. I should also be interested to know whether it is envisaged that some kind of certificate system would be used in order to signify what the interests of defence and national security were thought to be by the Secretary of State.
Lord Hardie: As has been observed, Clause 54 enables the Secretary of State, by order, to require the Scottish executive to take or desist from action in respect of international obligations or to revoke subordinate legislation that he has reasonable grounds to believe to be incompatible with international obligations.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment would restrict those powers so that they were only available for treaty obligations. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was correct and, for the reasons outlined by him, the Government do not believe that it would be right to restrict the powers to such limited obligations.
The effect of the amendment would be to leave the United Kingdom Government unable to enforce those international obligations which arise under customary international law. These are just as important and just as binding on the United Kingdom as our treaty obligations. Indeed, even where matters are generally governed by multilateral treaties, in fields such as diplomatic immunity, the law of the sea or human rights, not all states are parties to the treaties in question. Vis-à-vis non-parties, our obligations are governed by customary law. Devolved areas in which such
1626
obligations might be found include: fisheries and marine pollution; immunities of foreign states; immunities of diplomats and consuls from states not party to the Vienna Conventions.
I hope that in the light of this explanation, the noble and learned Lord will agree that it would not be appropriate to restrict the Secretary of State's powers of intervention in the way proposed by him. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
As for the concept of the United Kingdom acting as a colonial power in relation to Scotland I would not accept that that is a fair interpretation to put upon the right of the Secretary of State to intervene in such matters.
The Committee will be aware that foreign relations are a reserved matter and will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. In any scheme of devolution, that must be so. To give effect to our international obligations, it is essential that this power is available to the Secretary of State.
Having said that, again I wish to express my hope and optimism that the situation will not arise. I am sure that the Scottish parliament will endeavour to ensure that its legislation is not incompatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations.
Amendments Nos. 260C and 260D would replace the order-making power of the Secretary of State in regard to compliance with international obligations with a power for the courts to rule on such matters. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale has already observed, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, alluded to it, it is not normal for domestic courts to take cognisance of international obligations. It is for that reason that the Bill proceeds in the way that it does. Before the Secretary of State can intervene, he must have reasonable grounds for that belief—that is, that the obligation has not been complied with—and obviously those grounds may be challenged by way of judicial review.
The Government feel that the powers given to the Secretary of State in this regard are entirely appropriate. To deal with the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roger of Earlsferry, in relation to the approach to be taken by the courts, I hope that my explanation of what international obligations encompass will be of some assistance to the courts should any challenge ever arise.
In determining the question of whether the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds, one would expect the court to apply the same standards and tests as it does in reviewing the decision of any other authority which is obliged to have reasonable grounds before taking action. As I said, the question of the role of the courts and its relationship to Parliament is a matter which is being considered and hopefully will be clarified in that regard as well as others before we reach the next stage of the Bill.
In relation to Amendment No. 261A, the Secretary of State can by order require the Scottish Ministers to take action to implement an international obligation. Where an obligation relates to reserved matters the UK Government will of course implement it in any case

1627
across the United Kingdom. I suggest that the powers already envisaged for the Secretary of State in this regard are already sufficiently wide and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 263 seeks to delete the order-making power of the Secretary of State to revoke subordinate legislation of the Scottish parliament under Clause 54(4)(b). That power, which has already been modified by government Amendments Nos. 264 and 266, as the noble and learned Lord observed, is necessary to provide safeguards where Scottish legislation could have adverse effects on the law as it applies to reserved matters. As I have already said, these powers are meant to be longstops and their use would require to be justified and would be liable to scrutiny by judicial review.
I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
4 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I did not entirely follow the argument of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. In Schedule 6, Part I, paragraph 1 says "devolution issue" includes, at (d),
"a purported or proposed exercise of a function … by a member of the Scottish Executive [whether it] is, or would be, incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law".
It is envisaged therefore that the Scottish courts would be considering incompatibility of Scottish legislation with the human rights convention and with Community law made in Europe. Therefore, although the Scottish parliament is not charged with Community law, nevertheless the courts are required to consider incompatibility in that context.
However, in addressing Amendments Nos. 260C and 260D, the noble and learned Lord said that the Secretary of State is to have this fairly draconian power of acting upon his own belief—that is what subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 54 actually say—checked only by judicial review. The reason given for that was that the Scottish courts do not have anything to do with the construing of international law. Yet, if there is judicial review of the exercise of that power by the Secretary of State, what is to be considered save the competence of the Scottish legislature to take either a proposed action or to legislate the competence, having regard to its compatibility with those very international obligations which the noble and learned Lord said would not be within the competence of the Scottish courts?
Therefore, on judicial review, using that machinery, the Scottish courts will consider compatibility with international obligations. Under Schedule 6 as a devolution issue, the Scottish courts will construe the competence of Scottish legislation having regard to the convention rights or Community law. But the right of the Secretary of State to act on his own belief is still maintained in that context. I see no logic in that and suggest that the noble and learned Lord ought to consider further the logic that may lie behind his explanation.
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that, of course,
1628
Community law is in a different category from international law. Clause 54 considers the question of international obligations. The question for the court would not be whether the actions of the Scottish parliament were or were not compatible—that would be asking the court to substitute its decision for the decision of the Secretary of State—but whether the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed action was or was not compatible. Applying the Wednesbury test and that line of authority, the court would only interfere if it concluded that the Secretary of State had acted in a way which no reasonable Secretary of State could have acted, or had acted in a capricious manner. The noble Lord will be well aware of the line of authority to which I refer.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Of course, but in considering whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is an incompatibility, what else can the court do but look at the international obligations and set against them the proposed action or the proposed legislation with which the Scottish parliament is concerned, and come to a conclusion as to whether that compatibility exists? It seems to me that on judicial review the Scottish courts will be bound to consider that issue one way or the other.
Lord Hardie: That would be a fact that the court would take into account—looking into the international obligations and the proposed action of the Scottish parliament—but it would also take into account any other factors that the Secretary of State may have taken into account in reaching his or her decision. That would be the test; not whether or not the action was incompatible, but whether, on the information before the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds to believe that it was incompatible.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, put the point rather more clearly than I put it when I made my intervention earlier. I was asking how it was that the court, which could not normally consider matters of international obligation, when it came to judicial review would be furnished with the power, the knowledge of this international law and the right to consider this international law in the context of judicial review.
The point which I understand the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to be making is if, in the context of judicial review, the court is going to be seized necessarily with comparing the action with the rights and obligations under international law, why is it thought to be wrong for the courts simply to test the subordinate legislation in question against those self-same obligations under international law which it will have to consider any way in judicial review?
Lord Hardie: The question as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that it is incompatible is quite different from a purely legal issue of comparing an international obligation with the text of the Scottish provision.
As I indicated, it may well be a factor for the court to look at the two provisions, but the real issue is to look at what was before the Secretary of State before he or she reached the conclusion that he or she had reasonable grounds to believe that the action was or would be incompatible.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will reflect on what has been raised today. If I may respectfully say so, what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger, have said seems to have considerable force. Whether the Court is considering whether the action of the Scottish executive is incompatible with international obligations or whether it is considering that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for believing that the action of the Scottish executive was incompatible with international obligations, the Court has to address its mind to the issue of what is meant by the term "international obligations" and what in the context of the case before it is the international obligation in question which gives rise to the incompatibility. If one uses the term "national security", what is the aspect of national security which gives rise either to the existence of the incompatibility or the existence of reasonable grounds for believing that there is such an incompatibility?
I remain concerned about the Secretary of State directing a member of the Scottish executive to do anything. As the noble and learned Lord was responding to the debate, a point struck me which I had not thought of earlier. If having been ordered to do something or to stop doing something by the Secretary of State, what happens if the member of the Scottish executive just continues as before and, for whatever reason, says, "I am not taking instructions in this manner"? I wonder whether it might not be better to give the Secretary of State the power contained in one of my amendments.
It is clear from what noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have been saying, both on Tuesday and this afternoon, that this clause will be the subject of reflection over the Recess. Letters are to be sent and I am sure replies will also be sent. When we return to this in October it might be possible to see a way through the practical problems which this grouping of amendments has raised. On that basis, I seek leave to withdraw Amendment No. 260B.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 260C to 261A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 262:
Page 24, line 10, leave out ("would") and insert ("to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 262A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 24, line 11, after ("obligations") insert ("or the interests of defence or national security").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 263A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 24, line 12, leave out from ("which") to ("which") in line 15 and insert ("make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 265 to 267:
Page 24, line 16, leave out ("would") and insert ("to").
Page 24, line 17, leave out ("an enactment") and insert ("the law").
Page 24, line 19, leave out ("revoking the legislation") and insert ("making the order").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Steel of Aikwood Lord Steel of Aikwood moved Amendment No. 268:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

DELEGATIONS TO EUROPE
(".—(1) When matters in relation to which the Parliament has competence are being discussed between the United Kingdom and any of the institutions of the European Union, the appropriate Scottish Ministers shall be entitled to accompany United Kingdom Government Ministers and to participate in such discussions on behalf of the Parliament.
(2) Where the matters to be discussed under subsection (1) are non-reserved matters that only affect Scotland and do not affect other parts of the United Kingdom, Scottish Ministers shall be the sole representatives of the United Kingdom.
(3) In appropriate cases, on non-reserved matters affecting both Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom, a Scottish Minister, with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, may lead the United Kingdom delegation.").
The noble Lord said: Let me first say to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, that I well understand his slip of the tongue earlier between "Steel" and "Sewel". He is not the first person to make it. He may be interested to know that a couple of weeks ago I had a telephone message after midnight from a young lady inviting me to telephone her. I did so with curiosity as she was not known to me, only to discover it was a call for the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. In the hope of getting a very good answer to this amendment I shall say nothing more.
We have debated this matter before and we should not go over the whole ground again. The reason we have tabled this amendment is to achieve a little more clarity than we have had in either House so far as to what is to happen when Ministers from the Scottish executive—or Scottish government, as I prefer to call it—are involved in discussions on European Union matters.
What we set out in our amendment is very straightforward. It is what we think the practice should be. First of all, when matters in relation to which the Scottish parliament has competence are being discussed between the UK and any of the institutions of the European Union, the appropriate Scottish Ministers should be entitled to accompany the United Kingdom

1631
Government Ministers and to participate in such discussions on behalf of the Scottish parliament. I cannot believe that that is particularly controversial.
We go on to suggest that where the matters to be discussed are non-reserved matters which only affect Scotland and not other parts of the United Kingdom, the appropriate representatives to attend such meetings are the Scottish Ministers. We had in earlier debates mention of precedents from the parliaments of Catalonia and Bavaria.
We go on to say that in appropriate cases on non-reserved matters which affect both Scotland and other parts of the UK, a Scottish Minister, with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown, may lead the UK delegation. Again, that is obvious common sense.
If I may refer to a previous debate on this matter, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and his colleagues take the view that when it comes to European discussions Scotland does better out of having a Parliamentary Under-Secretary tagging along with the UK Minister. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view. But it is not one that I or many other people share, including the President of the Scottish National Farmers' Union.
My noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie, who is, as everyone knows, a kindly and benign man, chided me for being a little rough on the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on a previous occasion on this matter simply because the president of the Scottish NFU happens to have been adopted as the Liberal Democrat candidate for his old constituency. I make a serious point here. I hope he will not make too much of this. We should be pleased that there are people at the top of their professions and occupations in Scotland who are willing to come forward as candidates for the Scottish parliament, regardless of party. I certainly welcome that. They should not be attacked in this House or elsewhere because they happen, in order to get membership of the Scottish parliament, naturally to be affiliated to the party of their choice.
To stick with the issue under discussion, our amendment clarifies what ought to be good practice in future where delegations consisting both of UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers attend meetings of the European Union. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Strange: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 269, which is similar to Amendment No. 268, although mine applies more specifically to representation at the Council of Ministers. With the enormous importance of both agriculture and fisheries to the Scottish economy, and as so many vital decisions affecting both those industries are decided at the Council of Ministers of the European Community, it is absolutely vital that Scotland and the new Scottish parliament should have a direct voice and say in anything being discussed. Therefore there should be Scottish Ministers included in any United Kingdom delegation which discusses these matters. If the matters discussed would primarily affect Scotland, the delegation should be led by Scottish Ministers. The
1632
effect of this amendment would mean that, without in any way diminishing the close union between Scotland and England, we in Scotland would still have a direct say in the European matters which closely affect us.
Last Tuesday, on Amendment No. 249A, I understood the Minister to say that the United Kingdom Ministers at the European Parliament would be responsible to the United Kingdom Parliament and would report to the United Kingdom Parliament only, not to the Scottish parliament. This hardly seems fair to the Scottish parliament, or indeed to the people of Scotland.
The Scottish Nationalists have always made a point of direct representation in the European Parliament at ministerial level. If we have this already written into the Bill it would destroy much of the force of their argument.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to raise one point that I feel the Government should bear in mind. It concerns the extremely valuable whisky industry in Scotland. It is through European directives that Scottish whisky cannot be sold less than 40 per cent. by volume—if it is below that level it is almost impossible to analyse its origin—and it must also be kept for at least three years. Such provisions have helped that valuable industry tremendously. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on these amendments.
Lord Hylton: The analogy of Northern Ireland may be relevant here. The Committee will be aware that the ban on the export of beef from Northern Ireland has recently been lifted, which is a great step forward. That came about because the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the United Kingdom were both members of the same party and of the same government. In Scotland, when agriculture is devolved, that may no longer be the case. They may be of different political complexions. We need to have on the face of the Bill something very similar to one or other or both of the amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We have already debated this matter very fully and it was discussed during proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill. I am a little concerned about the noble Lord's amendment. I understand what he is trying to do and I believe that his objective is wholly laudable and desirable.
Subsection (1) of the amendment provides that the appropriate Scottish Ministers should be entitled to accompany the United Kingdom delegation. That is fine. I should like to see that entitlement there and the entitlement to participate. Subsection (2) is slightly more confusing. It is suggested that, on items that are non-reserved matters, it would be possible for Scottish Ministers to be the sole representatives. They might be non-reserved matters, but the relationship with the European Union is a reserved matter. It appears to me that a decision could be taken that was out of kilter with that which the United Kingdom Government wanted. I am not sure what would happen if that occurred. Likewise, under subsection (3), if a Scottish Minister

1633
was leading, which would in many ways be desirable, what would happen if the decision taken was contrary to that which the United Kingdom Government wanted?
During proceedings on the Government of Wales Bill the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, replied that the Minister could always resign. I did not think that that was convincing. I do not see why a Minister should resign for doing something wrong in the eyes of the United Kingdom Government when he is answerable to the Scottish parliament. That is a rather confused line of thought. If the Minister could clarify his views on subsection (2) and (3) and say that he is satisfied and will accept the amendment, no one will be happier than me. But I do not quite understand how it would be possible.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is the third time during the Committee stage that we have returned to this general subject. The exchange that we had on Tuesday has greatly helped me to understand exactly how the Government see negotiations on important European matters. I suspect that the Government will reject the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and indeed the amendment of my noble friend Lady Strange, because they are incompatible with the overriding principle that negotiations with the European Union are reserved matters.
There is only one way—we should not beat about the bush—ofor Scotland to have a direct say in the meetings of the Council of Ministers; and that is to be a separate member state of the European Union. There is no way round that problem. That applies especially on reserved matters, but more particularly on almost all matters. There is just no way round that. Member states are the ones who sit at Council of Ministers' meetings and member states cast the votes. The Minister from the United Kingdom casts 10 votes. The only way for a Scottish representative to be there as of right is if he is there from an independent Scotland casting the princely sum of probably three votes. That itself is something which everyone in Scotland ought to bear in mind when it comes to thinking that Scotland might possibly be better off around the Council of Ministers' table if it was independent.
I have to say to the Committee—all my noble friends who have been in similar positions at Council of Ministers' meetings will know this—that the score sheet we draw up has two leagues in it: the league of the voters with 10 votes and the league of the voters with three votes. The people who carry the clout are the people in the league with 10 votes. That is where Scotland is at the moment, as a member of the United Kingdom; and that is where I at least firmly want Scotland to stay.
I believe that a great deal of what we see in the amendments carries the danger of crossing over the boundary between a devolved situation and an independent situation.
Lord Kirkhill: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I wish only to put to him this hypothetical question. Would he be confident in expressing the view
1634
which he has just expressed to a Danish representative, a Norwegian representative, a Swedish representative and so on?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble Lord is asking about the number of votes, I certainly would. I can remember the fisheries Minister of the Republic of Ireland occasionally asking me how we were going to vote on fisheries matters, in which we had something of a common interest with regard to the west coast of Scotland and Ireland, because it really did not matter much how he was going to vote if we were not going to vote in the same way.
Lord Kirkhill: Norway has gained much of what it wanted by its voting and by its discussions within the groups.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: What Norway has gained has been because it is outside the European Union and not inside it. The noble Lord is in danger of putting forward an argument which one or two of his noble friends who are not present and one or two of my noble friends are always advancing. I urge the noble Lord to sit back for a moment or else the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will come into the Chamber and haunt him.
Lord Kirkhill: I quite understand the position of Norway. As the noble Lord will know, I am, and have been for 12 years, a member of the Council of Europe. I am perfectly aware of that reality. I cited Norway not because it is outwith the European Union but because it has determined negotiators standing for it. If I had wanted to, I could have said the same for Denmark and I could have said the same for countries that are within the European Union.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I know from having been there that the Council of Ministers is always mindful about the position of the smaller states. All I am saying is that when it comes to a vote, as it does occasionally and as it will increasingly do as decisions are taken by majority voting, the point I have made is true. Ten votes are a lot more than three. If one is looking for a majority, one is looking for the people who are casting the 10 votes to get that majority. Those with three votes may be helpful, but unless one has those with 10 votes one does not get the majority. My essential point is this. We have to be clear that if people want Scotland to have a direct say they want an independent Scotland. There is no half-way house.
With regard to subsection (2) of the amendment, on matters which are solely Scottish and solely devolved, then, as I have explained to your Lordships before, I can see that the United Kingdom delegation could easily be led by a Scottish Minister. In the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, which I have quoted to your Lordships on a number of occasions, he gave two examples: one was of Bavaria leading for Germany on a cultural matter and the other was of Catalonia leading for Spain on language matters. As I have said before,

1635
although these matters may be very important, they do not fall into the same category of importance as matters affecting the common fisheries policy, the common agricultural policy or economic and trade policy. It is those matters which concern me.
On the third suggestion, I do not think that it is possible for a Scottish Minister to lead a UK delegation when matters which affect parts of the United Kingdom, other than Scotland, are involved. That is for a number of reasons. It is partly, as I said at the beginning, because that Minister is not a UK Minister. It is also partly because he is not answerable to anybody in the rest of the UK. We established quite late on Tuesday—this has helped me greatly and I continue to read it in Hansard because it continues to help me—that the overarching point is that negotiations with the European Union are reserved matters. Even if the negotiations relate to devolved matters, they are still reserved. Although the Scottish parliament and the Scottish government—I am like the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in believing that that is what we should call it because, frankly, that is what it will be called—may be involved at quite a high level in discussions with the UK on the policies to be pursued, the ultimate responsibility will rest with the UK Ministers who will have to decide what is to happen in the midst of the negotiations.
As I have explained to the Committee previously, these matters often have to be decided as compromises, late at night. Frankly, at that stage, the UK Government Minister will have to make difficult decisions on behalf of the United Kingdom. If my reading of the White Paper is correct, the Scottish Minister will jolly well have to go along with that because he is part and parcel of the collective responsibility, although, ironically, he is not part and parcel of the same government. The Minister made that absolutely clear. I shall quote what he said so that over the long Recess he and his officials can make absolutely sure that this is what was meant and that this is what the position will be. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said:
"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"—
I notice that Hansard reported that as "tax" rather than as "TACs"—
"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".—[Official Report, 28/7/98; col. 1434.]
Later at col. 1438, the noble Lord said:
"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".
If that remains the stated position, I at least am almost content with the long debates that we have had. I rather regret that Ministers from the Welsh Office were not
1636
able to say the same things. As my noble friend Lord Sanderson said on an earlier occasion, it will mean that organisations which want to lobby on European Union matters will not go to Edinburgh to lobby; they will come to London. Particularly with regard to the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, the NFU and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation will be coming here to lobby their Members of Parliament at the other end of this building. They will come here to lobby Ministers in this Parliament because they will be conducting the negotiations. If the Minister can confirm that I am almost—or even fully—right in my interpretation of the position, I at least will think that I have gained quite a lot from this Committee stage.
Lord Sewel: Before I come to deal with the amendments, perhaps I may point out that during our discussion on Clause 35 on Tuesday night I referred to the Treaty of Amsterdam as having inserted the provision which allows Ministers from regional or devolved governments to represent their member states in EU Councils. As I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may have been aware, I should have attributed that provision to the Maastricht Treaty. I apologise for any misunderstanding caused. Clearly, confusing Maastricht and Amsterdam is a bit of double Dutch!
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Sewel: Well, it is 25 minutes to five o'clock!
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, quoted back at me what I said on Tuesday night. Ninety per cent. of his interpretation of those remarks is absolutely right. I repeat that the essential point is that negotiations with the European Union, including negotiations at the Council of Ministers, are reserved because foreign affairs are reserved and EU negotiations are a foreign affairs matter. I believe that that puts it as clearly and as simply as I can.
There is an important difference between that clear statement and, to pick up the words of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, what we want to see in terms of "good practice". I believe that those were the noble Lord's words. That is a different matter. I think that we can get there. Indeed, we are trying to indicate how we can adopt the good practice which will ensure that a Scottish voice is built into the development of UK policy at Council meetings and that, where appropriate, that Scottish voice is able to speak and to represent the agreed UK line.
I have said on a number of occasions that the Government fully intend that Scottish Ministers should play as full a role as possible in developing UK positions on EU matters and, where appropriate, in presenting them to the Council. However, we believe that that is best left to administrative arrangements between Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish

1637
executive. That flows from the very position that I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, was outlining when he quoted what I said on Tuesday. That is why the administrative arrangements are best dealt with through a concordat. That gives a flexibility of approach. I believe that it is the best and most sensible way of dealing with what is by its nature a relatively unpredictable business and one which is basically not open to be defined through statute. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that within the framework within which we have to operate, which flows from the fact that the UK is the member state, we are absolutely intent on ensuring that there will be a Scottish voice and a Scottish presence in the development of the UK line and, where appropriate, a Scottish presence and a Scottish voice in the presentation of the UK line. That deals with subsection (1).
Subsection (2) seeks to provide that where matters affect only Scotland, Scottish Ministers should be the sole representatives of the United Kingdom. That is a difficult idea in any case because very few international or European matters could be said to affect only Scotland. Even if not directly, then at least indirectly, there are likely to be UK implications. That is a very difficult line to draw.
Subsection (3) seeks to provide that in appropriate cases on non-reserved matters affecting Scotland the Scottish Minister may lead the UK delegation. This is where I part company from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and his interpretation. It is the Government's intention that that could happen with the agreement of the UK Minister. It is because the Scottish Minister would be a minister of the Crown—that is, "minister" with a lower case "m" and "Crown" with a capital "C" rather than "minister" with a capital "M"!—that it would be perfectly possible for the Scottish Minister with the agreement of the UK Minister to speak on any matter. The same sort of argument applies virtually directly to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Strange. On that basis and with that explanation, I hope that the amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: The Committee has had a very useful short debate that has clarified the Government's intentions. There is nothing in my amendment that detracts from the fact that the UK has responsibility in relation to the European Union. Perhaps I may give a specific example that eases the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. If a UK Minister said to a Scottish Minister that a particular matter affected mainly Scotland, that he had other things to do and that the Scottish Minister should take over the delegation because the line had been agreed upon, and something went wrong, the UK Minister would still be accountable to the Westminster
1638
Parliament for what he had done. I see no difficulty in this matter at all—even if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, were himself that Scottish Minister.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The consequences of that would be that the UK Minister would not let it happen again.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I accept that that may be so. The Committee has reached an astonishingly amicable agreement as to what should happen. In that spirit I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 269 not moved.]
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 270:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

REVIEW OF JUDICIARY
(" . The First Minister shall conduct on an annual basis a review of—

(a) the workload of the Court of Session, the High Court of Justiciary, the Sheriff Court and the District Court, and

(b) whether the resources made available to those courts are adequate to meet the interests of justice.").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 270 is very much a probing amendment. It is important to ensure that there is a sufficiency of judges for the workload with which they must deal in the criminal and civil courts. Undoubtedly that workload will increase with the passing of the Scotland Bill and the Human Rights Bill. Furthermore, the powers under the Scotland Bill to deal with devolution issues give the judges a new constitutional position. I understand that the Crown Office has set up a unit to consider the impact of the Human Rights Bill with a view to ensuring that the extent to which legislation increases the workload is monitored. There is a need for a sufficiency of full-time judges. I look forward to hearing the response of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I should like to intervene briefly to say that, while I understand why my noble friend has tabled this amendment, I believe it would be inappropriate to place such a statutory duty on the first minister alone. In the first instance it is the job of the courts to keep under review its own workload and the availability of resources. I have absolutely no doubt that the Lord President of the Court of Session of the day would, if he felt it necessary to seek additional resources, draw that to the attention of the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Government.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: I concur with what has just been said by the noble and learned Lord. Both he and the Lord Advocate are aware that from time to time it is the duty of the Lord President—I have performed this duty—to draw attention to resource issues not just for the Court of Session but for courts generally. That

1639
is probably the best way around it. For my part, I would not welcome the introduction of a clause along the lines proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Hardie: I agree with both noble and learned Lords. At present Section 1 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 imposes a duty
"to secure the efficient organisation and administration of the Sheriff Courts".
That carries the clear implication that Scottish Ministers must seek to provide the necessary resources to achieve that desirable aim. But there are no statutory equivalent responsibilities with regard to the Supreme Courts where the historic role of the Lord President of the Court of Session comes into play. The holder of that high office, whom I am pleased to see in the Committee today, has the task of organising the business of the courts. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 271:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESS
(" . The Scottish Ministers shall carry out consultation with such organisations representative of business and such other organisations as they consider appropriate, having regard to the impact of the exercise by the Parliament of its functions on the interests of business.").
The noble Earl said: I make no secret of the fact that I have lifted this proposed clause from the Government of Wales Bill. The new Scottish parliament must have new businesses very much in mind, particularly small businesses. Recently small businesses have thrived in Scotland and made an enormous contribution to the welfare of this country. I do not believe that I need say any more. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend introduces an interesting new clause. I recall that we spent a few happy minutes, perhaps longer, discussing a similar clause in the context of the Government of Wales Bill. In that Bill there are a number of clauses in which consultation is spelt out. Business was virtually missed out. Some noble Lords believed that that was wrong, that the position of business should be enhanced and consultation with business should be spelt out in more or less the same way as with various pressure groups. I am not surprised that my noble friend is alert to what is in one Bill and not the other and has tabled this amendment. I look forward to the response of the Minister.
Viscount Thurso: Since the proposed new clause has been lifted straight out of the Government of Wales Bill, why is there a need to "carry out consultation"? Surely, the verb "to consult" suffices.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: As the noble Earl has explained, Amendment No. 271 would impose a
1640
requirement on Scottish Ministers to consult business representatives and other appropriate organisations about the impact of the parliament's activities on business. As the noble Earl has explained and as the Government have spotted, the amendment is based on a provision in the Government of Wales Bill. That provision requires the assembly to carry out this kind of consultation.
The noble Earl is very well aware that the Government of Wales Bill requires the assembly to consult in a number of areas, for example in promoting voluntary organisations and sustainable development, but we have not imposed similar requirements on the parliament or the Scottish executive in this Bill. Quite simply, it would not be appropriate to make similar provision for the Scottish parliament which will be a legislative rather than an executive body. The nature of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly is very different. As I and my noble friends have explained at other points in Committee, what may be appropriate for one is not necessarily appropriate for the other.
In this case, as in many others, direct comparisons cannot be made between the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill. There are two very important differences in the two entities which the Bills create. The Scotland Bill creates a parliament which must be allowed to decide for itself the duties that it should impose on the Scottish executive, whereas the Government of Wales Bill sets up the Welsh assembly which in many respects is more akin to an executive body. There is no Welsh parliament which in future can impose duties on the Welsh assembly. The imposition of duties on the Welsh assembly can best be done through the Government of Wales Bill but the imposition of duties on the Scottish executive should be left to the Scottish parliament.
Scottish Ministers may very well want to take account of the implications for business of the activities of the parliament, and their legislative proposals and the parliament may want to take evidence from these groups. It might even decide that it would be appropriate to have something akin to the assessment of compliance costs for business which forms part of the regulatory appraisal that must accompany all relevant regulatory proposals presented to this Parliament. However, as we have made clear, we believe that this is a matter for the Scottish executive and parliament to decide for themselves. In the light of my explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to the Minister for her very helpful explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Property and liabilities of the Scottish Ministers]:
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas moved Amendment No. 271ZA:
Page 24, line 22, after ("Property") insert (", including property outside Scotland held for the purposes of facilitating discussion with Ministers of the Crown in relation to matters relevant to the competencies of the Parliament and Parliament,").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this particular amendment is to ensure that the Scottish executive can hold property outside Scotland so as to facilitate discussions between Ministers of the Crown and Ministers of the Scottish executive in relation to matters relevant to the competencies of both parliaments. It is important that the Scottish executive has a base outwith Scotland in which it can hold or host meetings or carry out necessary work which is of significance to the people of Scotland. This means that the first minister and Scottish Ministers should have ready access to the use of facilities close to or within Whitehall and near to the United Kingdom Parliament. Dover House is ideally situated. Can the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in reply enlighten the Committee about rumours that the Prime Minister has strong views on this subject? Can the Minister say what the Prime Minister's policy is on this subject? Is Dover House to be used for the Scottish executive or will it be occupied by others who perhaps are less involved with the government of Scotland? What is the position with regard to the lease organised by a previous Lord Advocate in relation to Dover House? When does the lease expire and is there not a strong case for ensuring that that lease continues?
There also has to be sufficient accommodation for the Advocate General who has to be adviser to the United Kingdom Government. What accommodation is to be afforded to the Advocate General? Is Dover House to be prevented from being handed over to the Scottish executive rather like the Tantalus grapes, only to have this rich prize snatched away for the benefit of other groups? If it is the Government's purpose to transfer Dover House to the Scottish executive, how best could this be achieved? Is there provision in the Bill to secure that particular objective? Could that be done without a vast bill being inflicted on the Scottish taxpayer? If not, how best could their purpose be achieved?
The benefits of Dover House are there for all to see. There are rooms for at least five or more ministers and the head of the Scottish civil service. There is room for special advisers. There are rooms for private secretaries, parliamentary clerks and even a press corps. There is room for civil servants, many more rooms on the third and fourth floors, and even a number of beds for those civil servants who are sufficiently diligent to work late or throughout the night.
Lord Sewel: Is not the noble Lord in danger of writing the further particulars?
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I do not think so. I would be most grateful to hear from the Minister what proposals he could put forward in this connection if decisions have not already been made.
I would add that there is the most modern form of video conferencing in existence in Dover House. Should not this magnificent house, which has been the home of Lord Melbourne and his wayward wife Lady Caroline Lamb, also be provided as being of some relevance to the Scottish executive? There is an important principle embodied in this amendment; namely, that the Scottish
1642
executive should have a suitable place. There should be legislation in one form or another to ensure that this becomes a reality.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord raises a very interesting point and I greatly look forward to the answer. In answering, could the noble and learned Lord tell us not just what is going to happen to St. Andrew's House but, if it is no longer a Scottish Office of any form, where the Secretary of State will have his base? Where, for example, will the Moderator of the Church of Scotland visit the Scottish members of this Parliament? Could he also tell us what is going to happen to his offices, which are quite copious and convenient in Carlton Gardens? Will the Lord Advocate of the day be entirely absent from those offices and will it simply be the Advocate General who will be there on his own, with his staff? Will the Lord Advocate have no base in London?
These are all very interesting points, probably not so much to the public at large but certainly to Members of the other place and to this House, and it will be of great interest to the members of the Scottish parliament. I would be most grateful if we could be told what is going to happen about that, as well as what is implied in the Bill.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Is the Minister aware that the kingdom of Scotland held property in the Scotland Yard and Whitehall Court area for very many years?
Lord Swinfen: Does the wording of the amendment mean property can be held outside Scotland only to facilitate discussion with Ministers of the Crown? What about holding property outside Scotland where it is necessary to have an office to encourage business to go to Scotland, maybe in a part of the world that is not even part of the United Kingdom? Would this particular amendment limit the area in which the Scottish parliament could own property?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend has raised an interesting point which goes beyond the bricks and mortar of Dover House or Carlton Gardens. Indeed, those of your Lordships who have been to Dover House know that it is a very grand building. There is always competition among Scottish junior ministers as to who will get Lady Caroline Lamb's bedroom, I suspect in the hope that her ghost may turn up, preferably while they are there. I have to say that I never saw her ghost; I am not sure that my noble friend ever did either. There were some frightening things that came through Dover House, but not Lady Caroline Lamb's ghost.
As I understand it, and putting it in its most general form, the Scottish Office has two buildings: one at Dover House and the other at Carlton Gardens, though that is more rightly described as the Lord Advocate's premises. What do the Government envisage will be the future of Carlton Gardens. Will the Advocate General take up residence there or will he perhaps move to Dover House? Clearly there will not be the need for so

1643
much accommodation for the Scottish ministerial team, because as I understand it it will be reduced to one; namely, the Secretary of State himself.
My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie has already indicated that he thought the most difficult decision a future Secretary of State for Scotland and an Advocate General would have to make would be where to have lunch together on each day on which the House was sitting. I suspect that it would be much easier if they both inhabited Dover House. The serious point, however, is this. Dover House is at the centre of Whitehall. The Scottish Office is therefore one of the serious offices of state which inhabit an office in Whitehall. Those of your Lordships who have been in offices which are not in Whitehall will know that it leads to some disadvantage. It may be that it should not do so, but it does. There is therefore an advantage in the Scottish Office being in Whitehall. The Secretary of State for Scotland will need a Whitehall base in London. I very much hope that he will remain in Dover House with its key position.
I also hope that he will be able to share Dover House with those people from the Scottish government who will need to be in London in order to do business, either with the Secretary of State or, as we have discussed earlier, with Ministers who will be negotiating matters on the European Union or whatever it may be. It is essential that those officials and Ministers should have proper accommodation here in London from which to work when they conduct these negotiations. It would be a downgrading of the Scottish position if the Scottish Secretary of State and the Scottish government from the Scottish parliament were to be moved out of Dover House, which I think is exactly the right place. It would certainly cause some resentment among many people who have worked there, who know it and who realise its symbolic importance to Scotland, if it were to be taken over as a kind of adjunct to No. 10 Downing Street in which to throw parties. I fully accept that it must be one of the grandest buildings in Whitehall, perhaps in central London, in which to throw a party. The Scots are the best at throwing parties. Dover House should remain the residence of the Secretary of State and the pied-à-terre of the Scottish government and its officials when they visit London.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: There may be room for some of those dispossessed Ministers at the Caledonian Club where we fly the Scottish saltire and have an excellent lunch.
Lord Hardie: It has been an interesting debate, with speculation about what might happen to property in the future. However, the Government cannot accept the amendment for two reasons. First, it is unnecessary. The second reason is related to the first. The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. The amendment would restrict the powers which already exist for the Scottish executive to hold property outwith Scotland. Nothing in the Bill prevents Scottish Ministers from holding property outwith Scotland in connection with
1644
the exercise of their functions; and that is much wider than the purpose which the noble Lord put in his amendment.
Clause 56 of the Bill allows that,
"Subordinate legislation may provide for the transfer to Scottish Ministers any property to which this section applies; or (b) for the Scottish Ministers to have such rights or interests in relation to any property".
Subsection (2) explains that,
"This section applies to property belonging to a Minister of the Crown which appears to the person making the legislation—
(a) to be held or used wholly or partly for or in connection with the exercise of devolved functions, or"—
if it does not fall within paragraph(b)—
"when last held or used for or in connection with the exercise of any function, to have been within that paragraph".
At the date of transfer the property which is held by the Scottish Office will fall within paragraph (b). It will be then for the person making the legislation to make appropriate transfer orders.
The speculation about Dover House is precisely that. After devolution there will undoubtedly be a continuing need for the Scottish executive to have a physical base in London. I do not think that anyone disputes that. It is difficult to predict the intensity of the use, or the precise amount of accommodation, which will be required. We anticipate that after devolution it would be necessary for officials—as well as, on occasions perhaps, members of the executive—to be in London almost as much as at present to maintain close contact with Whitehall departments. Indeed, there may even be an argument that they would be here more often than officials who travel to and from Scotland, to ensure that there is appropriate contact between the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Government.
It is not possible at this stage to indicate what the precise arrangements will be either in relation to Dover House or Carlton Gardens. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that although it is likely that officials from the Scottish executive will be in London, and perhaps Scottish Ministers occasionally for the purpose of meetings, it is unlikely that the Lord Advocate would be in London for any significant period. Certainly I would not envisage the Lord Advocate or his department requiring separate accommodation in London.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Out of interest; if, say, the Prime Minister wanted to hire Dover House for a party and it belonged to the Scottish executive, would the rent the Prime Minister paid have to be returned to the Treasury?
Lord Hardie: The noble Baroness poses an interesting question. It is of course hypothetical. I would think that it would depend on the terms in which the property was held.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble and learned Lord explained to my noble friend why the amendment may be too narrowly drawn, given that

1645
the Scottish government may want offices outside Scotland to advance economic development, inward investment, and so on, but he has not answered the questions about Dover House. I know that it is speculation, but we have a right to know what the Government intend.
If the Government have not thought about the matter can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State will fight to prevent people getting their hands on Dover House before the Scottish government are set up and can take part in any such discussions? Having been involved in government, I believe that it would be considerably to Scotland's disadvantage if officials who might wish to be in London were moved out of Whitehall into less salubrious property. It would simply look as though Scotland were downgraded.
I am amazed to hear that the noble and learned Lord thinks that there will be more officials in London from Scotland after devolution. I thought the whole point of devolution was that there might be fewer officials in London; but one learns something new every day. Given the volatile nature of the Scottish political scene, and just in case Mrs. Helen Liddell is not able to turn the tide of nationalism, is it not sensible that the Secretary of State keeps a grip on Dover House so that if the worst comes to the worst it can be the embassy of Scotland in its nearest and dearest neighbour England?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: The noble and learned Lord responded as regards the property of Dover House. Might we have some assurance on the contents of Dover House? In the room which I believe is presently occupied by the Minister of State—it is quite the grandest room in all of Whitehall—are hung two of the finest Allan Ramsay paintings in the land. In the presence of one of their number, I have to say to the noble and learned Lord, if he does not know, that the trustees of the National Gallery of Scotland are trying to get their thieving hands on those portraits!
Can we have a further assurance from him that every effort will be made to ensure that those paintings are retained and hung in that room where they look absolutely splendid?
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Reference was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, to the Advocate General for Scotland who has been described as a rather shadowy "third man". However, that suggests that he or she will be an entirely new person exercising what I suspect will be a difficult and sensitive role, which must be seen as being of complete independence, too.
I hope that the Government will bear in mind the need for the Advocate General to be suitably housed. The Government may have in mind that the present premises in Carlton Gardens would go to the Advocate General; or perhaps not. However, the Advocate General should be separately housed, so that he or she can be seen to be acting entirely independently in an important legal
1646
role such as the Lord Advocate at present occupies. Lord Advocates for many years have had separate accommodation.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for enlightening the Committee that the Scottish executive will be able to have a base.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wonder whether I may ask my noble friend to ask the Lord Advocate to answer some of the points just made.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My noble friend anticipates some of the remarks I shall make. First, I thank the Lord Advocate for confirming that a base can be owned outwith Scotland; and, secondly, that there would and should be such a base in Whitehall. I shall be grateful if he will tell the Committee exactly what present considerations are before the Government with regard to the future of Dover House. There must be considerations. This must be a key issue. I believe that while the Bill is going through Parliament it is an appropriate opportunity for the Lord Advocate to say what those considerations are.
It is an attractive base and has been used by many. Indeed, in days gone by I was asked to move out of my office in order to accommodate Sir Robin Butler when he was moved out of Downing Street during the refurbishment of his rooms. Field Marshal Montgomery of Alamein also had the use of those rooms at one time. It would be helpful to know exactly what the proposals are. We would be grateful for confirmation that a fight is being put up in the best interests of Scotland.
Lord Hardie: I shall deal first with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry. As regards accommodation for the Advocate General, no discussions have taken place on that or on the future of Dover House. The Committee will appreciate that we are some way from the date at which the transfer will take place. However, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that the Government will take note of his comments in reaching a decision on an appropriate base for the Advocate General for Scotland.
As regards Dover House, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked whether my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland would fight his corner. I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will look to the interests of Scotland in this issue, as he has done throughout his office. The future of Dover House will be the subject of discussions within government at the appropriate time. When it is possible to make an announcement or to give further information to your Lordships I am sure that that will be done either by me or by one of my noble friends.

1647
In relation to the paintings, I am sure that the interests of the trustees and of the Government will ultimately be resolved, perhaps in a court.
The Earl of Onslow: To whom will the freehold belong? Will the Scots pay a rent to the English for the use of their property?
Lord Hardie: The transfer of the property is covered by the Bill. The property will transfer to the Scottish executive or it will remain with the British Government, as the case may be. If there is a transfer to the Scottish executive it will belong to the Scottish executive.
The Earl of Perth: Dover House belongs to the Crown Estate. It is a long time since I was a Crown Estate Commissioner, but if I am right will the Government ensure that the Crown Estate is fully informed of the debate?
Lord Hardie: I can assure the noble Earl that the interest of the Crown Estate will be respected and the Crown Estate Commissioners will be fully advised of the situation. If there is a Crown Estate interest it will be respected and any lease or other arrangements from the Commissioners would transfer either to the Scottish executive or remain with the United Kingdom Government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Am I right in thinking that not only will the property be transferred but so, too, will the liabilities which go with it?
Lord Hardie: Yes.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I am extremely grateful to the Lord Advocate for giving us more information. I hope that when decisions are made further information will be supplied, as we are acutely interested in the subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Transfers to the Scottish Ministers]:
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 271A and 271B:
Page 24, line 36, leave out ("to which this section applies") and insert ("belonging to a Minister of the Crown or government department").
Page 24, line 39, leave out ("to which this section applies") and insert ("belonging to a Minister of the Crown or government department").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 271C:
Page 24, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Any subordinate legislation under subsection (1) above which transfers heritable property shall be registrable in the Register of Sasines or the Land Register for Scotland.").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 271C and 271K are technical amendments dealing with the importance of keeping the property records of
1648
Scotland up to date in the event that powers to be given in Clauses 55 and 58 to transfer property in the first place to the Scottish Ministers and in the second place to the Lord Advocate are used.
It is accepted on all sides that such registers should be as accurate as possible. The Government would set a good example by accepting the proposal that if any orders are made they should be recorded either in the Register of Sasines or the Land Register for Scotland, whichever is appropriate. I beg to move.
Lord Hardie: These amendments are unnecessary. The Bill, when it receives Royal Assent, together with the subordinate legislation transferring the property, will constitute a sufficient link in the title which the Scottish Ministers or the Lord Advocate can use to register title to particular items of heritable property if they so wish. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, they could record a notice of title using the Act and the subordinate legislation as links. That would not always be necessary, but would accord with the usual practice.
It would be most unusual to provide for the registration in Scotland of subordinate legislation transferring property. It is unlikely that such subordinate legislation would list each particular item of heritable property transferred and it would certainly not contain a full conveyancing description. The burden on the Keeper of the Registers would therefore be enormous and he would have an almost impossible task in identifying the titles against which to show the subordinate legislation. The simplest way in respect of particular items of property would be to register a notice of title.
There would of course be nothing to prevent the title to any particular heritable property so transferred from being formally recorded at a later stage if Scottish Ministers or the Lord Advocate were minded to. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: Should not the transfer be registrable under the Land Registration Act?
Lord Hardie: It may well be, but the same issue would arise because subordinate legislation might not identify the particular property.
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: It is a matter for the Government, but they might care to consider whether, since there would be a transfer, it would require registration under the Land Registration Act.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The amendments were moved in the hope that they might be helpful. I am surprised that subordinate legislation is being contemplated which does not identify the property that has been transferred by it.
I shall look carefully at what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said and I shall research the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rodger. It may be necessary to raise the issue again on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 271D to 271G:
Page 24, line 42, leave out subsection (2).
Page 25, line 6, after ("Crown") insert ("or government department").
Page 25, line 6, leave out from ("subject") to end of line 12.
Page 25, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Subordinate legislation under this section may only be made in connection with any transfer or sharing of functions of a Minister of the Crown by virtue of section 49, 59 or 84 or in any other circumstances in which the person making the legislation considers it appropriate to do so for the purposes of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 56, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Transfers to the Lord Advocate]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 271H and 271J:
Page 25, line 28, leave out ("to which this section applies,") and insert ("belonging to a Minister of the Crown or government department,").
Page 25, line 31, leave out ("to which this section applies") and insert ("belonging to a Minister of the Crown or government department").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 271K not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 271L to 271P:
Page 25, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
Page 25, line 43, after ("Crown") insert ("or government department").
Page 25, line 43, leave out from ("subject") to end of line 3 on page 26.
Page 26, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) Subordinate legislation under this section may only be made in connection with the Lord Advocate becoming a member of the Scottish Executive or having any retained functions or in any other circumstances in which the person making the legislation considers it appropriate to do so for the purposes of this Act.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 59 [Power to transfer functions]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 271Q:
Page 26, leave out line 8.
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 271T raise certain issues relating to the powers which are proposed in Clause 59 to the effect that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, provide for functions which are currently exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in, or as regards, Scotland to be exercised in different ways: first, by Scottish Ministers in place of or instead of a Minister of the Crown; secondly by Scottish Ministers concurrently with a Minister of the Crown; and thirdly by the Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of or after consultation with Scottish Ministers.
That is a power which could be used to transfer to the Scottish executive, either to act on its own or to act concurrently with Ministers of the Crown, executive competence over a wide range of functions additional to the executive competence which will flow from other provisions of the Bill.
As Members of the Committee will be aware, there has been deposited in the Printed Paper Office a draft of the first Order in Council under Clause 59 which extends to almost 90 pages and indicates a huge variety of functions under a large number of Acts, covering a great range of reserved matters as those are to be found in Schedule 5.
The purpose of the amendments are two-fold: first, to prevent that expansion of executive competence in a manner which would exclude altogether a Minister of the Crown. I have no objection to Scottish ministers being given such competence which they could exercise concurrently with Ministers of the Crown. As I understand it, in such a situation one or other could act and no doubt the working arrangements, whether they be by way of concordat or otherwise which will evolve in the years ahead, will ensure which one does act. But I am concerned about the Minister of the Crown being excluded from having any executive competence in those fields which all relate to reserved matters.
Amendment No. 271T seeks to ensure that it is not one-way traffic; in other words at present all that can happen is that the executive powers of British Government Ministers can go to Scottish Ministers in one of the three ways set out in Clause 59(1). If that power is exercised, it can mean only that the executive competence of Ministers of the Scottish executive increases every time another Order in Council is made.
The purpose of Amendment No. 271T is to enable there to be a reverse process in circumstances that if Her Majesty in Council decided that a particular executive power should go back to the Minister of the Crown alone, or be altered in the second and third ways set out in subsection (1), that also would be competent. I should indicate that I have no objection to government Amendment No. 271TA. I beg to move.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: Members of the Committee on these Benches do not agree with this series of amendments. We regard Clause 59 as providing a very welcome, flexible process by which, over the years, some executive functions may transfer. I simply do not understand the objection to that by the Conservative Party. It is quite clear in subsection (1)(a) that if functions are to be transferred to Scottish Ministers instead of a Minister of the Crown, Ministers of the Crown must agree to that, otherwise it would not happen. Therefore, I am afraid that this is the Conservative Party reverting to type and the great conversion on which I praised the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on occasion has temporarily disappeared.
Lord Renton: I find the last comments of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, surprising as well as being unacceptable. Surely the overriding factor which we must bear in mind in considering these amendments is that although there is to be devolution, and on a fairly large scale, the unity of the United Kingdom must be preserved.
If merely by an Order in Council Scottish Ministers are to have responsibilities transferred to them by a Minister of the Crown, that departs from the definite character of devolution at which we should aim. Flexibility in many matters of government is worthwhile. However, we must bear in mind the need for preserving the unity of the

1651
United Kingdom and giving the United Kingdom Government and Parliament the power to do what is necessary for the country as a whole. I believe that the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend is necessary.
Lord Sewel: Amendments Nos. 271Q and 271T are about the executive devolution of functions to Scottish Ministers; that is the process by which executive functions which relate to reserved matters are to be exercisable, in particular as regards Scotland by Scottish Ministers.
Amendment No. 271Q would prevent any such functions being transferred to Scottish Ministers so as to be wholly the responsibility of those Scottish Ministers. That transfer would take place only by order and on the initiative of a Minister of the Crown. On the basis of this amendment, that option would not be available to the Minister of the Crown. By preventing functions being transferred to Scottish Ministers in that way, the amendment goes against the very principle of devolution and introduces a degree of inflexibility into the system that I do not want.
The transfer order to set in train that process would be an Order in Council which would be affirmative in both Westminster and the Scottish parliament so there is plenty of opportunity for both parliaments to come to a view as to whether the content of the order is appropriate in any particular.
Amendment No. 271T appears to be intended to allow for the statutory functions exercisable by Scottish Ministers to be transferred to UK Ministers or to be exercisable by UK Ministers of the Crown either concurrently with Scottish Ministers or with the agreement of or after consultation with Scottish Ministers. I assure the noble and learned Lord that that matter is covered fully by Clause 98. An order under that clause can provide functions exercisable by a member of the Scottish executive to be transferred to a UK Minister or to be made concurrently exercisable by a Scottish Minister and a UK Minister. Again, it is the order route and I believe that that maintains the right framework and provides the right vehicle.
Therefore, I trust that having been given that explanation the noble and learned Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment No. 271TA which stands in my name. Clause 59 provides that a function to be transferred or made concurrent under a Clause 59 order is exercisable only,
"with the agreement of, or after consultation with, another Minister of the Crown or other person".
Then, unless the order provides otherwise,
"the function shall be exercisable…free from any such requirement".
Amendment No. 271TA removes the reference to the "other person", so that, for example, a requirement to consult the local authority transfers automatically with the function. Further reflection on the wording of Clause 59 has led us to conclude that it is right that where a UK Minister is required to obtain the agreement of, or consult with, a third party—the "other person"—the Scottish Ministers should also be subject to the same requirement
1652
when they come to exercise that function after devolution. I am grateful to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, indicate that he has no objection to my amendment. On that basis, I hope that it will be acceptable to the Committee.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I am only going by what I read in the Bill, but I am worried about the proposal to leave out the words "or other person", as set out in Amendment No. 271TA. I must say that I felt the original words would cover—and here I am on shaky ground—the independence of the Law Officers, because they are not quite Ministers of the Crown in this respect. I thought that the words "or other person" were designed to cover them within the provisions.
Lord Sewel: No, that is not the case. The "other person" in this subsection would relate to a situation where it was necessary for a Minister to consult a local authority or some other body before exercising his functions.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Can the Minister confirm whether I am correct in thinking that we are now discussing the transfer of reserved or devolved matters between the Westminster Parliament and the Scottish parliament?
Lord Sewel: No, that is not the case. We are not discussing the transfer of reserved or devolved matters; we are talking about the transfer of executive function, not legislative competence.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation.
Lord Renton: I understand the argument advanced by the Minister, but surely the power in Clause 59(1)(a) should be limited to such change as is made necessary by the power given under Clause 29 which says:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council make any modifications of that Schedule"—
that is, the schedule which defines the reserve powers and exceptions. The Minister's argument was that the functions must be transferred because the legislative powers have been transferred. If that is not so—
Lord Sewel: No, that is not so.
Lord Renton: Well, if it is not so, when he reads the Hansard report of the debate I think the Minister will find that he has limited it in that way.
Lord Sewel: It is perhaps necessary to pull back a little and recognise the difference between legislative devolution—that is, the devolution of legislative competence—and some executive acts in respect of which, where the legislative competence is reserved, the executive authority will nevertheless devolve to Ministers.

1653
As the noble and learned Lord mentioned, we published a draft order in February and a further draft was made available on 10th July. They indicated the different categories into which various executive functions would be allocated; for example, those relating to reserved matters. Some were to be transferred to the Scottish Ministers, some would be made concurrently exercisable by the Scottish Ministers and a UK Minister, and some would be exercisable by UK Ministers only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Scottish Ministers.
The current version of the draft order lists over 400 functions which will be treated in one of those three ways. The majority of them will be transferred to Scottish Ministers so that only the Scottish Ministers will exercise that function in or as regards Scotland after devolution. Functions to be executively devolved include functions relating to betting, gaming and lotteries, firearms licensing, extradition, funding Gaelic broadcasting, appointments to tribunals, powers and duties in respect of electricity supply, roads and airports, the running of public sector pension schemes and the approving of places where abortions may be carried out. Those are all areas where the legislative competence remains reserved, but they are executive functions which conveniently, on the basis of common sense, are best carried out by the Scottish executive.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I was disappointed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Steel, accuse me of reverting to type. Indeed, from day one of the proceedings on the Bill I have made quite clear where my priorities lie; namely, to make the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive as successful as possible. In the first of my amendments I was not seeking to prevent the transfer of some executive authority or executive competence to Scottish Ministers in relation to reserved matters, if that was sensible. I fully accept that there are many instances where it is highly sensible that they should have that executive competence. I was seeking to avoid a situation where the sole person who would have executive competence would be a Scottish Minister in a situation where the only body which would have legislative competence would be this Parliament. I anticipate that what is competent under Clause 59(1)(a) could, in certain circumstances, give rise to tension between London and Edinburgh.
I draw the Committee's attention to one example which happened to catch my eye in the draft order. There are certain powers under the Abortion Act 1967 where the executive competence is to be devolved. I hope that I am right in that assumption. Indeed, this is a matter where the Scottish Ministers alone would have that power; yet the legislative competence lies entirely here, as noble Lords decided in a vote earlier this week. Therefore, it is possible that a problem could arise, which could be avoided, if we were limited to Clause 59(1)(a). That is why I raised the matter. I hope that I did so in a constructive manner.
On Amendment No. 271T, I fully accept that, when one looks at Clause 98, it could be construed as covering sending the powers back. Indeed, I should have
1654
appreciated that earlier. I fully accept that this amendment is unnecessary. However, I have raised the matter, and I now beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 271Q.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 271R to 271T not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 271TA:
Page 26, line 15, leave out ("or other person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Transfers of property and liabilities in connection with functions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Sewel: I must point out to the Committee that, on this Bill, I have not reached my best until about 10.30 at night. Indeed, this is just the opening canter. Clause 60 is no longer required in consequence of Amendment No. 271G, which the Committee agreed to earlier.
Clause 60 negatived.
Clause 61 [Scottish Consolidated Fund]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 271U:
Page 27, line 4, at beginning insert ("Recognising the needs of Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole,")
The noble Lord said: We now come to Part III of the Bill which concerns financial provisions. Amendments in this group stand in my name, one in the name of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith and I believe two in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. These amendments deal with the question of the money which is to go to the Scots parliament, how much it is to be and how it is to be calculated.
I should explain why I think my amendments are superior to that of my noble friend and to those of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood. We have to be clear about exactly how the system works, and how I understand it may work in the future. I shall probably have to help the Government as they do not appear to be able to find their way in their own Bill at the moment.
Noble Lords: Cheap!
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may be cheap, but it is true. One of the interesting aspects of all discussion on the money which goes to the Scottish Office currently—and which will, of course, go to the Scottish parliament—is a total confusion about exactly what the Barnett formula does and is. The Barnett formula is not the mechanism for determining spending levels in Scotland. It determines only the annual changes that take place to the totals. The block itself is determined quite separately.
The Barnett formula was devised—but not named—by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, when he was the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 1978. It replaced a formula called the Goschen formula which was named after the forebear of my noble friend

1655
Lord Goschen, and which I believe had lasted for some considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, did not name his formula. Interestingly enough, it was named by Mr. David Heald, who is now the professor of accountancy at Aberdeen University. It is amazing how Aberdeen University has cropped up throughout the Committee stage of this Bill, sometimes to the Government's advantage, but sometimes, I suspect, to their disadvantage. In 1980 Mr. Heald wrote when he was then at the University of Strathclyde's centre for the study of public policy,
"All formulae need a name. In the apparent absence of an official one I now name this the Barnett formula. Perhaps some day this will make Joel Barnett as famous as Lord Goschen".
It certainly has made the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, as famous as Lord Goschen; they talk about little else but the Barnett formula in the pubs of Scotland.
As regards the Scottish Office expenditure—and therefore the expenditure which will go to the new parliament—the block itself constitutes about 96 per cent. of the Scottish Office spend. I know that my noble friend the Duke of Montrose is interested in agriculture, fisheries and food. However, those matters are outwith the block. Perhaps we should establish whether that will continue to be the case. In the deep recesses of the Treasury a decision is made every year as regards what the percentage uplift should be for each department's spending. That is decided on inflation factors. We shall discuss later exactly how that is or ought to be measured. Thereafter there are negotiations between the Treasury and the English, or English and Welsh spending departments. They agree either increases or decreases. If they agree an increase, a proportion of that increase is added to the Scottish block. If they agree a decrease—that does not happen terribly often, but it happens occasionally—a proportionate cut is made.
Until 1992 the formula was related to population—as I believe one of the amendments in this group states—and it was 10/90ths for English and Welsh expenditure together and 10/85ths for England only. However, in 1992, after the censuses, the formula was changed. Now if there is an increase in an English department, the Scottish Office will receive 10.66 per cent. of that increase. If that occurs in an English and Welsh department such as the Home Office—I think that is the only case where this applies—the figure is 10.06 per cent.
The principle which the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, had in mind was that, over time, spending per head in Scotland ought to reduce to the English level. However, the simple fact is that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, was wrong in that regard. Convergence has not occurred largely because of advantageous changes which have been made to the block thanks
1656
to the negotiating power of successive Secretaries of State. To be honest, these are negotiating changes which I—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is there not perhaps another reason; namely, the emerging SNP? It has nothing to do with negotiations.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I imagine that quite often Secretaries of State say to their Treasury colleagues, "If you do not give me some more money, the SNP will obtain more votes". However, that has not been terribly successful in stopping the march of the SNP in the past few months. The Government have now decided that rather than give more money, they will send a Treasury Minister. I am not entirely sure whether she will fare much better. But in fairness to my right honourable friends—some of whom are now my noble friends—they negotiated favourable positions thanks to the clout they had in Whitehall. That clout will be removed. There are therefore two ways in which this money is made up. It is because there are two ways that I think the formula advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, misses the point entirely because his amendment implies—if I read it correctly—that the Barnett formula affects the whole of the block. However, that is not the case: it is not nearly as mechanistic as that.
In 1980 there was an interesting exchange. It was interesting partly because of what was said, but also partly because of the two individuals who took part. There was an exchange between Donald Dewar—now the Secretary of State for Scotland, but then the chairman of the Scottish Select Committee—and the then Secretary of State, my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, then Mr. George Younger. In answer to Donald Dewar, George Younger said,
"There are two different sorts of expenditure which come under my control. Those sorts of expenditure which have comparable forms of expenditure in England like education, health etc., are common to north and south of the Border, and other sorts of expenditure which are not strictly comparable. They are dealt with differently. What you have just asked refers to the main block of expenditure which concerns the comparable programmes. The way those are adjusted year by year is that they are argued on a general basis within government as comparable programmes as a whole".
That is why Scottish Office Ministers invariably accompany UK colleagues at discussions between the Treasury and the spending ministries. The Scottish block expenditure is calculated according to the formula that I have just explained. Mr. George Younger concludes,
"This is, I should stress, purely for the alteration of the programmes and not for the base line from which they start".
I must warn the Committee against making calculations and inserting mechanistic formulae which do not take into account the fact that the Barnett formula refers only to increases and decreases and not to the block.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is always greatly flattered to be quoted in Scottish debates. He gave

1657
evidence to the Treasury Select Committee of the other place just recently. He said,
"I am flattered that the Barnett formula has lasted 20 years. I hope it will last much longer. At the time I must confess I did not think it would last a year or even 20 minutes. I was not sure".
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, that I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, will be flattered if his name is put into legislation and therefore acquires the eternity that that brings with it. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, also said,
"Can I also make clear, as you also referred to the question of devolution, that the Barnett formula either then or now—although I know somebody said it at the time—has nothing whatsoever to do with devolution. I think that has to be borne in mind".
In the White Paper the Government stated that the arrangements I have explained based on the block and formula,
"have produced fair settlements for Scotland in annual public expenditure rounds and have allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to determine spending decisions in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities. They have largely removed the need for annual negotiations between the Scottish Office and the Treasury. The Government have therefore concluded that the financial framework for the Scottish parliament should be based on these existing arrangements with, in future, the Scottish parliament determining Scottish spending priorities".
That is fine as far as it goes, but the reality is that from time to time over the past 18 years—I have little doubt this will occur from time to time in the future—the Treasury had a go at the block. It will not have a go at the Barnett bit of the block as that does not worry the Treasury too much because it has already negotiated that matter with a Whitehall department, but it will have a go at the block, sometimes aided and abetted. When that happens, the Secretary of State has to work very hard to resist it, as I know one or two of my noble friends have had to do in their time.
My Amendments Nos. 271U and 275A get away from the idea of the block and any mechanistic proposal and simply say that the amount of money should be allowed,
"Recognising the needs of Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole".
That would be a fairer and better long-term position for Scotland with regard to the money that comes to it. I am sure that it can be argued on a variety of counts that there are good reasons why Scotland ought to receive more per capita than other parts of the UK, just as it can be argued that there are good reasons in relation to Northern Ireland and Wales, and, if I may say so, that certain areas of England should have higher expenditure per capita than other parts of the United Kingdom. I should like to write my amendments onto the face of the Bill to make clear the basis on which any future discussion would be held on the block itself.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith has tabled a much more mechanistic amendment which probably introduces the "Dixon-Smith formula" into the block. I do not particularly like it. It is too mechanistic, and I believe that my amendment is better. My noble friend tries to measure the same sort of matters, such as GDP per capita in Scotland and how it relates to the rest of
1658
the UK. But there is more to the issue than merely GDP per capita in Scotland. There are questions of needs, sparsity and other factors which are present in Scotland and which require, and deserve, higher government expenditure.
With his Amendments Nos. 272 and 274, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, wants to enshrine the Barnett formula. I do not know where that leaves the block itself. If it leaves it anywhere, it certainly leaves it open to considerable attack by the Treasury.
Perhaps I may say a word about the previous amendment just to give the flavour of my—
Lord Steel of Aikwood: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his exposition. It has been remarkably lucid. But surely his Amendment No. 271U, simply saying,
"Recognising the needs of Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole",
without any mechanistic formula whatsoever, is far more likely to be open to raids by the Treasury. I do not think the noble Lord was present on the occasion when the Secretary of State, Malcolm Rifkind, was going through the same tortuous explanation to the Commons. My noble friend Lord Russell-Johnston asked him about the application of the "OCHTHINE" formula and whether that did not apply. Malcolm Rifkind looked rather puzzled and asked what it was. He was told that it was the well-known Scottish Office dictum: "Och, tae hell, it's near enough"!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think we will have that formula, nor indeed a new Russell-Johnston formula.
It is difficult to devise a provision that ties in the relationship between Scotland and the United Kingdom when we move to devolution. I am basing my effort on a broad-brush, broad-principled approach, because it is extremely difficult to tie the matter down. It is certainly very difficult to do so on the basis of the Barnett formula, for the reasons I have given. Perhaps some of us would merely prefer to write into the Bill, "and nothing will ever change". But in reality that cannot be done.
Let us assume for a moment that the new Scottish parliament is as good as some of its advocates suggest, the economy of Scotland hugely improves, and some of the reasons for Scotland acquiring more money begin to disappear—as in many ways they have over the past 20 years; they have been reduced. The previous government were very successful in many regards in changing the Scottish economy, introducing new industry and so on. But if we are to have these changes, there must be some underlying principle by which future Secretaries of State and Treasury officials will judge the matter.
The amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay, seems a good deal more interested in territory, wildlife and scenery than it does in people. I believe that a formula

1659
should be devised more on the basis of the needs of the people of Scotland relative to the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 272 and related amendments. I, too, am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for his exposition. It was lengthy but full of good work, and I am the wiser for it. What we are trying to do is elicit from the Government how they intend to lay down a system. The amendment is a probe to find out how in future we are to have a system that will work. It appears to us that one approach is certainly the so-called Barnett formula.
One of the reasons that we like to think that the Barnett formula might be used has already been given by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is that successive Secretaries of State in the Tory government successfully competed with the Treasury for more money under that formula. It is a system whereby at least the supply of money is laid down according to some formula and there cannot be the kind of competition that one always gets in the Treasury—and the competition that there might be from a hostile government. The other point is that, as I understand it, there is competition between Members of the same Cabinet on some occasions. They might well use their enmity to force their own point to the detriment of Scotland.
We are saying simply that we need a formula. If there is a formula, then at least the new Scottish government can begin to tackle the problems that have given rise to the need for more money per head as compared with England. The obvious one is the amount of area that is involved, the distance that has to be covered. Another factor to be contended with is the bad health of the people of Scotland. There is also the decline in heavy industry from which Scotland has suffered since the end of the war, although it is now catching up in the field of electronics and so on. Those are all special problems that Scotland has. If the Scottish parliament works within a formula that has been enough under previous governments, then it can do better and can do more with that money. But to leave matters as stated in subsection (2) that,
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments into the Fund out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine"—
is possibly a little too wide. A formula needs to be provided so that we know that for a recognisable period of time there will be adequate income for the new parliament to overcome the ills that have lowered the income per head and the need for more money per head.
Amendment No. 279 is a simple amendment to determine what is going on, to assess the amount of money coming in from Scotland's industry, to assess the increase, and so on. That is a factor that we shall be examining. In time, if the Scottish parliament is any good at all, then it will depend on the money that it raises on its own. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said, agriculture is presently in a different category. But in Scotland it is a far more important factor proportionately than it is in England. I shall be
1660
interested to hear the Government's response. I am sure that we shall receive an admirable explanation as to how the system will work.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for, in a sense, introducing my Amendment No. 273. During the course of his remarks, although he rejected it, he actually began to make the case for it. I do not need to remind the Committee that we are discussing the Scottish block—not increases to that block, but the block itself. I have tabled an amendment which attempts to protect the Government from the slings and arrows of outrageous politicians—or perhaps it should be outraged politicians. Without something on the face of the Bill, it is my view that the Government's position will become increasingly difficult as we go forward into the future.
I have a formula of sorts which relates expenditure in Scotland to population. It picks up the factor that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish mentioned of sparsity. It has an escalator clause in it in relation to prosperity. The escalator may go up and down too rapidly or it may be that the sparsity proportionality is not absolutely appropriate. However, I took the trouble to work it out in relation to existing expenditure, with a view to not causing too great a shock. Expenditure in Scotland is just below 20 per cent. greater than the average United Kingdom expenditure. I shall not trouble to compare it with the English per capita average.
If I take the wording of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, literally and apply it to the Scottish block, as it is intended to be applied, it is my belief that it would lead to a dramatic reduction in the size of the Scottish block. I am sure that that is not quite what the noble Lord intends. I assume that he is applying the proportionality of the increase to the total public expenditure budget and bringing it back as a proportion to create a figure for Scotland. On my arithmetic, I think Scotland would lose if that were done. It may be that I have misinterpreted the way it is intended to be used.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: All we are saying is that we continue the block negotiations as at present. So how that can block the expenditure or reduce the amount of money coming into Scotland, I fail to follow.
6 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The problem with the block is that it is not a definable sum. The block itself reveals the weakness to my mind of the amendment proposed by my noble friend on the Front Bench. The block consists of a sum of money calculated annually after a negotiation between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Treasury in which it seems that, unusually, over the years the Secretary of State for Scotland has beaten the Treasury and been successful.
However, they will both argue that that calculation is made recognising the needs of Scotland in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole. It has always seemed to me that that is the present situation and I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, winds up he will tell me that that is the case. I shall be surprised if he does

1661
not. If the government of the day, in arriving at that kind of calculation, do not take account of the needs of Scotland in relation to the needs of the United Kingdom as a whole, then frankly, I do not know what they would be doing. They would certainly not be doing their proper job.
I seek to provide protection for the Government for the future. Let me illustrate the problem. The exam questions will become more difficult as time passes. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will need no reminder of the differences between secondary education in England and Scotland. We had a debate on the subject a little while ago in relation to payment of fees at Scottish universities. We know that Scottish secondary education is based on a five-year module and that English secondary education is based on a six-year module. The fact is that the five-year module costs just over £900 more per pupil, but in order to make the point we will take £1,000. That is £1,000 more per pupil than the English six-year module. If I were a tight-fisted canny Scot, I would begin to wonder why this supposedly superior system, which costs £1,000 more, actually produces a product which then requires four years of university education to achieve the same degree for which an English pupil, having had less spent on him in an inferior system, only requires three years.
Of course, I am not a canny hard-nosed Scot so I do not have to ask the question. But if I were standing as a member of the Scottish parliament I would see enormous opportunities here for re-jigging the budget. It seems to me that there are elements of excess expenditure. The point I make is this. These questions will arise and be examined in detail. They will be examined more and more from an English perspective. As the questions are asked, pressures will increasingly be put on the Government. The result will be that the Scottish block will come under critical examination and there will be pressure for it to be reduced.
The Government will then have a choice. They can reduce it and become the enemy of Scotland or maintain it and become the enemy of England. That is not a situation in which the Government of the United Kingdom should ever permit themselves to be put. That is why I have devised a formula. It may be inadequate, it may even be that it needs considerable improvement. But I suggest in all seriousness that the Government will put themselves in jeopardy for the future if they do not put something like this on the face of the Bill.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am puzzled as to why we are talking about amendments on what financial assistance or entitlement will be received by Scotland when the Scottish parliament becomes fact. It does not exist yet, but as I understand the situation, people already know what they will get before the parliament has been brought into existence. In my opinion, that is a peculiar way of legislating. One only has to look at Hansard for Tuesday 14th July to see repeated in your Lordships' House the Statement on the Comprehensive Spending Review. Col. 133 states:
"At every stage, we are linking investment to reform and it is on this basis that the Education Secretary tomorrow will announce the biggest single investment in education in the history of our country.
1662
In this and other services there will be separate announcements based on the Barnett formula for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland".
There is nothing about England; we do not know what England will get. No figures are put on it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I have one question on what he has been saying. Does he appreciate that the increases in the Barnett formula are based on spending in England? That is why it is not mentioned.
Lord Dean of Beswick: The reference is not only to the Barnett formula; we are talking about financial issues in general. The key figures are given at paragraph 22.4 on page 93 of the Comprehensive Spending Review:
"The new plans will provide an additional £4.1 billion over the next three years to invest in Scottish public services".
It has not been negotiated, it is a handout which is already known. I wonder why we are going through all the business of trying to introduce separate amendments. For the life of me, I cannot see any Chancellor of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom altering major decisions which are taken on the basis that amendments of some kind may arise. I just wonder what the situation is.
Over a period, as is probably known by those who are interested in the Bill, I obtained a league table. I have not brought it with me because I am hoping to speak more at length when we reach Report stage. By then we will know in detail what is emerging from the Statements to which I have just referred. At present, we do not know. At that time I may be able to find out what will be paid to the different services in the English regions.
I believe that the announcements made today or those to be made tomorrow in relation to the English regions will have come into being and they will be de facto. The chairmen of those regional councils will want to know how big a share of the cake they will receive once they know what Scotland is receiving. They would be doing less than their job if they did not ask for a better comparison than we see in the figures before us.
In relation to every item of spending, if we take it on a per capita basis, Scotland does infinitely better than England. Wales does better on a lower scale, but the biggest difference pro rata is Northern Ireland, and there are specific reasons for that. Let me give some examples. I received some figures today. I tried to obtain them from the Treasury some time ago but was sidelined each time I asked for them. In fact, the cost of obtaining them was disproportionate to what they uncover. However, I asked some researchers to look into the situation.
We all know that there has been a lot of antagonism, especially between Scotland and the northern counties of England just across the Border. I wanted to know how much money was being provided to buy jobs—I say "buy" jobs—for north of the Border. Finally, I obtained these figures—they are the Government's figures—from the Library. We are not talking about peanuts. They show that, in development areas,

1663
the average government subvention to Scotland was £8,103 per job; in England, it was £4,326—just slightly more than half. Wales was similar to Scotland.
When I hear Members of your Lordships' House on the other side asking for a bigger share of the cake, as somebody from the English regions looking at these figures I say, "Not on your life. I think you are doing very well as it is". If we look at the figures produced in your Lordships' House some time ago—for instance, per capita spending on tourism—in England it is £20 a head and in Scotland £5,000.
Those figures are beyond belief. I do not know what formula produced them, but it is amazing to me that it has been allowed to happen. And they are not my figures. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to some figures in his speech. But the known fact is that, under the present system, the total spending per capita in Scotland above the total spending per capita in England is £871 per head, which is a lot of money. According to the headlines in one of the Scottish newspapers, the new deal that was announced a few weeks ago in the spending review gives the Scottish people £800 per head out of that. That makes the difference even more, unless the Government are going to pump a substantial amount of money into the English regions. I do not want to take any of the money back from Scotland, but I do not want Scotland to have a £1,600 advantage over England in the payments it receives from the Treasury.
I do not know whether any other Members of your Lordships' House received a booklet today called "Brigadoon". Do I take it the noble Earl wants me to give way?
Earl Russell: Yes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: Well the noble Earl might ask!
Earl Russell: Would the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, be equally indignant if the Government were spending more per head in Mosside than they were in Trafford?
Lord Dean of Beswick: The noble Earl draws a strange conclusion. What happened in Mosside has nothing to do with the people in Mosside; it is to do with ethnic people who have come over here and settled there in an attempt to make a home. We are dealing with people who have been established in England without variation and without specific problems.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the spending in Scotland is part of the Treaty of Union in which Scotland was asked to trade its sovereignty for economic advantage.
Lord Dean of Beswick: If the noble Earl could say that Scotland had traded in its sovereignty when 60 per cent. of the United Kingdom Cabinet comes from north of the Border, there would be some relevance in it. Three out of the four Ministers at the Treasury who
1664
decide these issues—I believe it changed in the latest round—happen to be Scottish MPs. So it is not a bad deal they are getting.
I believe—and I am making the point—that if all this money is going to be made available to Scotland (I have just quoted the figures from the Chancellor's report and there are substantial increases) we must keep an eye on the situation. The facts will emerge. Once the regional assemblies come into being, the people on those assemblies representing Yorkshire, Lancashire and other areas will want to know what is in it for them; how far will they be able to go in developing areas?
It is well known that one of the most deprived areas in terms of unemployment south of the Border is the North-East. Its average input from the Government per job is just £3,000 and in Scotland it is £8,000. Let us try to tell the people in the North-East that they are getting a good deal and that the Barnett formula is working. They will tell us to go and get stuffed, to put it crudely. That is what will happen. They are starting to wake up to the situation.
The Government are aware of the position. I do not intend to do anything about the amendments, but I shall watch the situation when we come back for Report stage. If amendments need to be tabled, there may be some anti-Scottish elements in them from looking at the figures because Scotland is doing a hell of a sight better than any of the regions in England on any of the figures produced.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord opposite has shown the glory of old Labour. The faces of his colleagues on the Front Bench were wonderful to behold as he spoke pure, unadulterated common sense. What he said is so obviously true; that is, that this unbalanced, block formula will do nothing other than cause anguish between England and Scotland. And anguish between England and Scotland is something that I, as a Unionist, English by geography and British by nature, find deeply offensive and terribly worrying. That was perfectly well illustrated by the intervention of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who simply did not understand the Act of Union one tiny bit, even though his forebear signed it.
In this Bill we have either gone too far or we have not gone far enough. If we are to allow the Scots to have their own money, they should raise it themselves. Or they should not have it at all. What we cannot do is have a "Damascus tailor" argument over the block grant and the irritation, the hassle, the disaster and the increase in hatred—that is exactly the word I intended to use—between the English and the Scots, which to me would be the most tragic thing that could possibly happen. The noble Lord has just said from the Benches opposite exactly what I feel. He may be shaking his head, but I promise your Lordships that he did. He did it wonderfully, and I thank him.
Lord Dean of Beswick: I am sorry that the noble Earl takes the view that I want to engender antagonism between the Scots and the English. The point I am trying to make is that I do not want any money from Scotland if it has been apportioned to them, even on the increases

1665
that have been stated. I am making the case that unless the same things are done for the English regions there will be hell to pay. I hope that the Government are listening. I do not want any aggro over it. The entitlement for those areas should be there, and it should be a fair one. That will remove the animosity. Nothing else will.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sure that we all agree that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, has made a splendid speech. He has expressed the views and fears of a great many people both north and south of the Border. We should all be grateful to him. I agree with him that this is the part of the Bill that will play most immediately into the hands of the people who want to tear Scotland out of the United Kingdom unless something can be done about it.
It also shows what the Prime Minister meant when he compared the Scottish parliament to a parish council in England. On finance, this parliament will not have anything like the power of even a local government council over its own finances. Local government councils, apart from the money they can raise through their own taxation, can buy and invest on the market; they own and control their own funds. Not so this parliament. Its funds will be raised in the way that the Bill says—of course with the extra tax—but the funds will be held in the Scottish Consolidated Fund, not in its charge but in the charge of the Paymaster General.
If the parliament receives interest, that interest has to go back into the UK Consolidated Fund. If the Scottish parliament wants to borrow, it can only borrow for a short-term need to keep the books in balance. Again, any interest that it has to pay has to be at the Treasury rate, not the market rate.
Apart from the tax which the parliament can raise through increased income tax, everything will depend on the size of the Treasury grant that we are discussing. The calculation which is underlying the Bill, with only the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet to defend the calculated fund, will matter enormously to the people of Scotland. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dean, illustrates that.
There are two ways that it can be calculated. You can do it by a formula, openly stated either on the face of the Bill or published, which is seen to be fair. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, should not be underrated in this respect. It is a carefully thought-out formula and there is much to be said for it. It may be that the Government will wish to consider something like this over the summer.
Alternatively, one could have internal arrangements, used for their own convenience by the Treasury and the Cabinet, which of course is what the Barnett formula is. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish has explained that the Barnett formula does not set the rate of the block but is about increases in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland related to the spending in England. That is probably becoming a very old-fashioned way of proceeding. Most local government councils gave up that way of budgeting a long time ago, as I am sure the
1666
noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will agree from his experience. They go in for zero budgeting whereby they decide what they need to do and what it will cost, and start there. There is something of that in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. It is an old-fashioned way.
Are the Government prepared to put anything more definite on the face of the Bill? That is the question that we are discussing. Before long other ideas will emerge about this. There is some thinking going on already. There is an interesting pamphlet, published by a group in Scotland called the Tuesday Club, which relates to one method. You can take what the Scottish Office spends at the moment in the way that it calculates it and then calculate what is needed for the reserved powers. You could collect all the money into the Scottish Consolidated Fund, which is raised by taxes in Scotland, and you would then pay over what is required for reserved and other functions.
I asked the Library to analyse that booklet and it was explained to me that there are certain aspects of it which are somewhat vague. You could question how it calculates what the spending needs are. It is a very interesting approach. Other groups are thinking in the same way. In time the Government will have to think of better ways of deciding how the Scottish parliament can receive its money and spend it so that it is more stable.
My noble friend on the Front Bench has suggested that the Bill should have on its face the fact that the Scottish block is related to needs. It is a small change, but at least it indicates that what the noble Lord, Lord Dean, was complaining about would not be the case. There would be no mystery about percentages as applied through the Barnett formula.
There is a rumour that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, wishes to change his name to Lord Barnett of the Formula in order to perpetuate this marvellous part of history, where his name is attached to what we in Scotland depend upon. I do not know whether he will do that. I do not think that the Barnett formula should be on the face of the Bill. It is out of date. Although it is gradually having a diminishing effect on the difference between spending in Scotland and the average over the UK, it is not the right way to do it now.
My noble friend has a good point. I hope that the Government will think about this over the Recess and perhaps at least put in the Bill more information on how the whole thing will be worked out. Otherwise the separatists will have a great time with this part of the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The indignation that was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, arises out of the way in which the funds that were devoted to Scotland and Wales were spent in the past. To a very large extent the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales were prepared to, in effect, bribe overseas companies to come to their areas, and to attract inward investment in this way.
One hopes that the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly will spend the money that is made available to them on removing the disadvantages of those respective

1667
countries. If the money is spent on improving communications, education and technology and encouraging indigenous industry in Scotland and Wales, then those countries will have their economies improved to the extent that they will no longer be, as they are now, suffering a low wage level.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Does the noble Lord accept that his argument may well be applicable to Wales, which is his own country, where the GDP per head is well below the United Kingdom average, but that it is a much more difficult argument to sustain for Scotland, where the GDP per head is now, thanks to 20 years of successful development, virtually at the United Kingdom average?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention because it enables me to make a point. The Barnett formula has brought Scotland up to a degree which no other mechanism could perhaps have done.
In Chapter 7 of the White Paper Scotland's Parliament, under the heading "Financial Arrangements", I see that the objectives of the financial arrangements of the Scottish Parliament are said to be that Scotland will continue to benefit from its appropriate share of United Kingdom public expenditure and that the Scottish parliament's assigned budget is to be determined by a method which is "objective, transparent and widely accepted". When one turns to the Bill itself, all one sees is:
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments … of such amounts as he may determine".
That does not seem to express a method which is "objective, transparent and widely accepted".
When one looks further at the White Paper one sees the Government's view that arrangements based on the block and the formula have produced fair settlements for Scotland in annual public expenditure rounds and have allowed the Secretary of State for Scotland to determine his spending decisions in accordance with Scottish needs and priorities. The White Paper goes on to say:
"The Government have therefore concluded that the financial framework for the Scottish Parliament should be based on these existing arrangements with, in future, the Scottish Parliament determining Scottish spending priorities".
More than that, an appendix is devoted to explaining the Barnett formula in terms.
That being the case, I do not see how the Government can now resist the amendments proposed from these Benches which seek to have as a starting point the Barnett formula and its revision over a period of some 10 years, after one sees how the formula is put into effect and when one has had an opportunity to see whether the Barnett formula is working in accordance with what the White Paper said. So the very least the Minister can do in response to the arguments put forward today is to give an assurance that, from the beginning, the Barnett formula will be applied. I am looking to hear that from the Minister when he replies at the end of the debate.
1668
Perhaps I may move on to Amendment No. 287, which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Thurso but has not been addressed by anyone so far. It is a probing amendment. The Bill gives the parliament the right to vary income tax upwards or downwards by 3p in the pound. When tax in Scotland is varied upwards, the Bill provides that the surplus revenue generated is to be paid into the Scottish Consolidated Fund and thereby increasing the amount of money available to be spent. Clause 74, to which Amendment No. 287 refers, provides that where tax is varied downwards the shortfalls in receipts are to be deducted from the Scottish Consolidated Fund and paid back to the Treasury.
The argument in relation to how tax-varying powers are treated is relatively simple. The Government take the view that there is a Scottish block which in the estimation of the United Kingdom Parliament is sufficient for the financial needs of Scotland. However, they have recognised that the Scottish parliament may take a slightly different view as to the needs of the Scottish people. Indeed, when one looks at the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, one has to ask the question: who estimates the needs to which he refers? Is it the Scottish parliament or is it the United Kingdom Parliament? If hidden within that amendment is the suggestion that it is entirely the United Kingdom Parliament's determination which counts, the Scottish parliament will be entirely at the mercy of what happens at Westminster.
All those who support tax varying are in agreement with the Government that the Scottish parliament should have this tax-varying power. The Bill provides that the parliament can vary the tax downwards by up to 3 per cent. If that happens, it is the Government's view in Clause 74 that Scotland does not need the total fund voted to it and, consequently, any moneys lost to the central Exchequer from such a downward variance should be reimbursed to the Exchequer out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund. The result of Clause 74 must be that no future government of Scotland would ever vary the basic rate of tax downwards because the money would simply go back to the United Kingdom Parliament. It would be returned to the Treasury.
What one is looking for in the amendment is a means by which the funds granted under the block grant could be retained in Scotland and used for other purposes. That is the purpose of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Thurso.
The Duke of Montrose: I thank my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for the masterful way in which he laid out the framework under which we are now operating. I wish to make one or two observations about Clause 66. I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, when we were considering Clause 33, and to the Minister's reply to the debate. The first question that came to mind is: to which Secretary of State does the provision refer? In the first instance, one thinks that it must be the Secretary of State for Scotland. However, given the total lack of definition or content as to what constitutes the office of the

1669
Secretary of State for Scotland, one has to ask whether in the long term there will be such a position; and if not, who will take the action.
At present, the Secretary of State for Scotland receives a block grant from the Treasury. Presumably, that process will continue. In Amendment No. 274 the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, asked that the payments to be made under subsection (2) should consist of a block grant to the Consolidated Fund. Presumably, we are talking about two block grants. Let us hope that they will always coincide, but I do not think that that will always be the case.
I see from Annex B to the White Paper that expenditure on domestic agriculture, fisheries and food is to be taken into the new Scottish block. When one looks to see whether there is any indication of that in the Comprehensive Spending Review to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred, one sees that the expenditure limits of the Scottish Office are approximately £1 billion per annum less than in the previously published government expenditure forecast. I wish I could offer this to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, as a comfort. However, not being a statistician, I can only say that it must be a statistical quirk, because the Government tell us that this is an increase.
The figures given for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food refer only to domestic agricultural expenditure for England. I know from inquiries that the expenditure limits for the Department of Agriculture in Scotland have been set until the year 2002, but in the Comprehensive Spending Review they appear to have been dropped into a black hole. The question to which I should like an answer is whether this means that, even after devolution, the money supplied to the Secretary of State for domestic agriculture in Scotland will be under a separate heading and that any reallocation of funds carried out by the Scottish parliament will have to be within the department's own allocation?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, has brought us to a point at which it might be appropriate for me to speak to Amendment No. 275, which relates to the environment. Despite the encouraging way in which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, gave it the thumbs-down, I invite other Members of the Committee to consider it.
The amendment has been tabled to ensure that payments made to the Scottish parliament are adequate to meet the environmental needs of Scotland. This is the second amendment that has been suggested to me and to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, by the RSPB in Scotland. The amendment would supplement the Scottish block calculations, which are largely based on population—by that, I mean that they are based on the human population. It has to be recognised that Scotland is inhabited by more than just humans, and that land is taken up as habitat for many species, of which humans are but one, albeit a significant, component.
Scotland is distinctive within the United Kingdom in terms of environment, among other things. It is well known that Scotland is home to 8 per cent. of the UK's
1670
human population. Scotland comprises 33 per cent. of the UK landmass. The Scottish coastline is lengthy, and accounts for 54 per cent. of the UK coastline. In terms of sites of special scientific interest, Scotland has 29 per cent. of those notified, but examination of the area involved shows that this is larger than usual, and that Scottish SSSIs represent 79 per cent. of the UK's SSSI hectarage.
When it comes to considering special protection areas as designated under the Birds Directive 79/409, 52 per cent. of the still-incomplete list are to be found in Scotland. Under the Habitats Directive 92/43, 40 per cent. of the UK's special areas of conservation are in Scotland.
My penultimate percentage concerns wetland sites under the Ramsar convention. Here, Scotland enjoys 34 per cent. Perhaps I may link my final percentage with the purport of all this environmental data and the amendment itself. Scotland clearly has greater liability for its interesting and diverse environment and landscape. The Scottish parliament is, rightly, required to comply with international obligations. Clearly, the formal environment—perhaps I mean "Environment" with a capital "E"—is greater than its population would imply. The funding of the Scottish parliament must reflect that responsibility.
I conclude with a final statistic, which is that of the UK's protected birds, 67 per cent. live in Scotland. Those birds are a good indicator of how agri-environmental policies are working. They have the means of going elsewhere in the event of policy failure. That, of course, is a possible event if the Scottish parliament is not adequately funded to take up its task of environmental stewardship.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I have listened with great interest to this afternoon's debate. Although I have nothing original to say, I cannot help feeling that we are discussing the heart of the matter. Most of us are committed—I believe that all Members of this Committee are committed—to Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom. Unless we resolve sensibly and acceptably the financial arrangements for the continued Union, we will be in immense difficulties.
The public expenditure review—I have a copy with me—promises that the Barnett formula will continue for another three years. That is not stated in the Bill, but it appears in the Government's spending plans for the next three years. The Barnett formula was formulated when Scotland was suffering severely from economic depression and neglect. For the past 15 years, I have been one of the vice-presidents of the Scottish Council (Development & Industry). As a result of its activities as well as those of the Government, we have been able to improve substantially the standard of living of the people of Scotland—
The Earl of Onslow: Under a Tory Government!
6.45 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: It was a combination of interests. It started even before the coming to power

1671
of the Tory Government 18 years ago. I hope that a Scottish parliament will contribute to Scotland's further prosperity, but that will certainly diminish the differentiation in standards on which the Barnett formula was established.
There is reason to believe that some of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, will have some impact on political thinking, particularly south of the Border. I note that one of the candidates for the position of Mayor of London has said that if he is elected mayor of London, he will want the same level of GDP per head expenditure in London as is received by the people of Scotland. That is part of his manifesto programme. So, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, has some friends in London.
The heart of the matter will be how much Scotland will have to spend. During the "yes/no" campaign, what the Scottish parliament was going to deliver was hyped up and exaggerated. It was not totally realistic. The public expenditure review states that Scotland will have sufficient money—bless his heart, Sam Galbraith, an excellent man who is in an appropriate position as Minister for Health, has said that Scotland will have the best health service in Europe. Others have promised that it will have the best transport service, with an integrated transport system. It is said that services in all other areas of public expenditure will be better delivered than ever before.
As we all know as reasonable and sensible politicians, getting the best health service in Europe is not simply a matter of having a good Minister in charge. It is a matter of cash, expenditure and the good running of the business. The Scottish people have been led to believe that there will be a tremendous economic and social transformation in Scotland. I hope that that will be delivered, but a good deal will depend on what we are discussing this afternoon in terms of the amount of money that will be made available to Scotland as part of the United Kingdom.
This is a most serious point. Any failure to deliver by the Scottish parliament will be blamed on the Westminster Government—and that is the beginning of the separatist argument. So, I hope that the Minister is fully cognisant of the importance of this issue—I am sure that he is—because it is the heart of the matter.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: I rise to ask two brief questions. In his amendment, my noble friend refers to recognising the needs of Scotland. I should like to ask the Minister whether there will be a comprehensive needs assessment, as I understand happened in the past under the previous Labour Government. If there is not to be a comprehensive needs assessment, is it the Minister's view that the present system of funding equates with the needs of Scotland and other parts of Britain?
Lord Renton: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, rightly said that he wished all of this to be considered
1672
as part of the United Kingdom. If he looks at Amendment No. 275A he may agree that it fulfils his wishes.
Lord Sewel: I should like to deal with many of the points that have been raised in this wide-ranging debate on an extremely important issue that affects the devolution project. I start with a comment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He was gracious enough to draw the attention of the Committee to the work of my former colleague Professor David Heald (as he is now). I let the Committee into a little secret. About 10 to 15 years ago Mr. David Heald (as he was then) and I published various articles on public expenditure in Scotland. He came up with the bright idea of describing this as the Barnett formula. Some years later, when I was responsible for social sciences at the University of Aberdeen, the department of accountancy was looking for someone to head the public expenditure branch. David Heald was a formidable candidate for that post and was successful in obtaining his chair. Since that time it has been recognised on all sides that he has made a significant contribution to the whole debate about public expenditure; in particular the implications for public expenditure raised by devolution. He is always constructive and helpful. He is a professor, unlike my other valued colleague Dr. Michael Dyer, whose comments and insight are not always as helpful to Her Majesty's Government. He is a lecturer at the University of Aberdeen.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, explained well the nature of the Barnett formula and what it did; and, perhaps more importantly, what it did not do. I believe that the undergrowth has been cleared. It is important to remember that it is about incremental change and only that. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, I am a great advocate of incremental change. It is something that is manageable. I am very suspicious of people who say that they carry out zero-based budgeting every year. For complex organisations I believe that that is more rhetoric than reality, but never mind.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that one of the purposes of the Barnett formula was to bring about convergence of public expenditure levels on a per head basis as between Scotland and predominantly England. The extent to which convergence takes place is a function of basically two factors: inflation and the real increase in public expenditure from year to year. If inflation and real public expenditure increases are low, convergence takes a long time. If inflation is let rip because one is dealing with incremental change, convergence takes place that much more quickly.
Further, the Barnett formula element is population-driven and, as such, it is re-calibrated from year to year. That is always a problem for those who have to think of the number on the spur of the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, came up with 10.66 per cent. I believe that the mid-year estimates have driven it down to 10.45 per cent. this year. It is a dynamic formula which is responsive to population change. In the field of public expenditure one of the annoying factors is that as soon as one thinks

1673
one understands it, one or other aspect is changed. The concept of the block is now out of date and has been replaced by the idea of departmental expenditure limits as opposed to annually managed expenditure. That difference may help the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Domestic agriculture, fisheries and food expenditure will in future form part of the DEL. CAP expenditure in Scotland will count as part of annually managed expenditure, but it will not be within the block. CAP expenditure was never part of the block and it will not be part of the DEL.
A specific point was raised on why Scottish spending was £16 million lower than previous totals. That is a statistical quirk and arises from a definitional problem. Because one moves from the block concept to the concept of departmental expenditure limits more than £16 million of non-domestic rates expenditure goes out. That adjustment arises for that reason. Domestic agriculture will also be included within the DEL.
A number of points have been raised about need and attempts to produce various formulae. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, spoke to this. How does one measure need? That is an extremely difficult challenge. We know enough about the drivers of public expenditure to understand that in Scotland factors like sparsity, population loss, multiple deprivation and morbidity are all factors that produce higher levels of spending need than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Another complicating factor in Scotland is that in education there is a much higher percentage of the school population in the public sector than in the private sector. Those factors are identifiable by virtue of various heavy correlative number-crunching exercises.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I entirely accept the point that has just been made about numbers, but that would not affect the cost per head. I made reference to the cost per head which is not affected by numbers.
7 p.m.
Lord Sewel: In Scottish education one can arrive at a cost per head figure which is driven up. If one is providing primary education in the Highlands and Islands, because of the sparsity factor inevitably one has a large number of very small schools which are comparatively very expensive to provide. Those kinds of factors help to explain the higher expenditure needs in Scotland than elsewhere.
The amendments before the Committee focus in different ways on the funding arrangements for the Scottish parliament. Amendments Nos. 272, 274 and 279 aim to give, at least for an interim period, some statutory force to the funding arrangements that currently exist for Scotland which will be largely carried forward following devolution. They also make provision for a review of those arrangements aimed at moving the funding of the parliament closer to a system of assigned revenues.
I listened carefully to the proposed arrangements advanced by noble Lords. I fully appreciate the sentiments behind this set of amendments. I therefore
1674
intend to respond primarily on the basis of principle rather than on the practical effect of the amendments. Before doing so, I am bound to point out that Amendment No. 274 would, as it is phrased at the moment, in effect freeze future grants to the parliament at the 2000–2001 level for all time. I appreciate that that is most likely to be a drafting slip but that is what it would actually do as it stands. That cannot have been the noble Lord's intention. Let us turn to the wider picture, however.
I believe that these amendments are misdirected in principle. I therefore hope that I will be able to persuade the noble Lords who have proposed the amendments to withdraw them. As has been pointed out on many occasions, the funding arrangements proposed by the Government in the White Paper, essentially the continuation of the Barnett formula, have a long history. They go back 20 years. There has been a cross-party acceptance from government to government that they have worked well. The Barnett formula is well understood among the broad cognoscenti in the public expenditure world and has delivered fair settlements for Scotland for the last two decades. That is important. I do not believe that there is anybody—or very few—who would challenge the idea that successive governments in distributing the total have delivered Scotland a fair settlement. No Secretary of State for Scotland in my memory has ever claimed that the formula has worked to adverse effect in Scotland, because it has worked; it is fair; it has reflected the country's relative need for public resources. We may have some dispute and some disagreements among us on absolute need but, in terms of the relative need, the relative share, the formula dishes out the given total fairly and equitably.
As a Government we are firmly committed to this arrangement and we made this clear in the White Paper. The formula will provide stability and predictability at a time of major change and transition and will establish a firm basis for the longer-term funding of the parliament. It is absolutely vital that, as we change the political institutions of the United Kingdom, there is an underpinning of financial stability to see us through that period of political change. That is exactly what we intend. That is what the comprehensive spending review which my noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick asked us to examine does, by giving us that three-year period of actual figures which is a product of the application of the Barnett formula.
Of course nothing lasts for ever and I have to recognise that. "Never" is a word that a politician should never use. We made it clear in the White Paper that if circumstances changed some reassessment of relative need could be agreed between the Scottish parliament and the UK Government. I think that is a sensible and pragmatic position to adopt: seeking to start with an arrangement which is familiar and works well but not ruling out for the future the possibility of change. Clearly any change would have to be made on the basis of an extremely thorough assessment at some time in the future of the relative expenditure needs of Scotland vis-à-vis other parts of the United Kingdom.

1675
I do not believe that there is benefit in enshrining the Barnett formula in statute. We have a clear commitment from the Government that Barnett will be used certainly in the period of transition: that we see it as a sound basis of allocation. If circumstances change, however, there is the opportunity to revisit the area but on the basis of agreement between the two parliaments and, I would strongly suggest and support, on the basis of a thorough and proper means assessment at some time in the future. I am almost getting into the area of speculation, however. What we are faced with at the moment is a clear statement by the Government of how they intend to handle the present and the near future.
Turning to Amendments Nos. 273, 271U and 275A, these are concerned with relating the size of grant which Scotland gets from the UK Government to the country's needs. Amendment No. 273 would in effect replace the current funding arrangements with a new statutory formula. This would use population density and relative GDP per head as measures of Scotland's relative need.
Once again I understand the sentiments behind the amendments but I think they are wrong. What we have at present is a system whereby relative need across the spectrum of government spending in Scotland is built into the public expenditure baselines. The historic baseline is part of the building block of the settlement. It is an arrangement which properly captures relative need and that is why we are proposing to continue with it.
Amendment No. 273 has two particular difficulties. First, I am by no means clear that it is possible to attach a specific and accurate level of uplift purely to the effects of lower population density. I think the noble Lord will recognise that himself. Secondly, relative GDP per head is, at very best, only a partial indicator of relative need and could in practice create distortions. Most of the need indicators lag behind GDP. Health expenditure is a good example. The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, made the point that Scotland's GDP has increased to almost parity with the rest of the United Kingdom but it is clear that our health record remains very much worse. The level of morbidity in Scotland is much worse than in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hope that it will change. There can be an increase in GDP over a relatively short period of time. It takes so much longer to bring about changes in the cultural aspects of health—the diet of west central Scotland being but one of them.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Hidden in this Barnett formula concept that the noble Lord is describing is a big problem and he has just illustrated it. The health budget is high partly because of our diet. We eat more chips than anyone does anywhere else; we take less exercise; we eat less fruit and vegetables and we have more heart attacks. As long as the funding formula has, in its base, the payment of all of that in the health service, we will not stop eating more chips.
This is all very comforting but, at the end of the day, it is not the best thing for Scotland. I hope therefore that this transitional arrangement will not last too long.
Lord Sewel: I do not think that we will bring about major changes in the diet of my fellow citizens of
1676
Scotland by changing the Barnett formula. It has great value and power but I do not think that even the Barnett formula can bring about those changes.
Amendment No. 275 tries a different type of approach to the same problem. The kind of indicators which are proposed there are somewhat quixotic in public expenditure terms, if I may say so. I am not absolutely convinced that the number of SSSIs or the hectarage of the country covered by SSSIs is a public expenditure driver of any great moment; nor is the number of rare and endangered bird species. I am exceedingly pleased that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, revealed that the provenance of this amendment was the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I shall try not to let the amendment colour the way I treat other representations I receive from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. However, in this instance the tying of those factors in the noble Earl's amendment to public expenditure need is at best quixotic.
I turn to Amendment No. 287.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may invite the Minister to reserve his fire on that amendment. I am conscious of the fact that I did not properly put my noble friend's argument. I am sure the noble Lord did not understand it; I am not sure I did. Perhaps I may return to the amendment in its place on the Marshalled List.
Lord Sewel: I was about to say that if I thought we could get away with it, I would welcome it. But I leave the matter at that.
We have come to the stage where we recognise that we seek a fair, acceptable, efficient and effective system for funding the work of the Scottish parliament. We are building on the Barnett formula. We are continuing the Barnett formula because it has stood the test of time. It is seen as being fair and delivering the goods. It will be uprated annually as a result of population changes; so there will be a recalibration. We are committed to publishing the rules which will determine Scotland's annual assigned budget. In the White Paper we have left open the door for future changes but on the basis of agreement between the Scottish executive and the UK Government.
I hope that all those points together will give the Committee reassurance that we can go forward with that important degree of financial stability underpinning the political changes that we are introducing.
The Earl of Onslow: The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, uttered perhaps the most important sentence in the debate: that unless we get right the financial side, the whole thing goes pear shaped and we destroy the Union. I may have paraphrased it somewhat, but that was the underlying point. The Government have not addressed the problem. When the block grant is perceived to be too little or too much, with income tax variable by an increase or decrease of 3 per cent., how do the Government get round the complaint that will inevitably arise from Edinburgh that Westminster is dealing with Scotland unfairly? That point goes totally to the core of the matter.

1677
If we are to have this wretched devolution, which we obviously are, it would have been miles better to have given the Scottish parliament greater tax raising powers so that it was responsible to its own citizens for the taxes it raised from them and the expenditure it made on their behalf. What we have is a United Nations aid agency dolloping out stuff about which there will be undoubtedly complaints and whinges from both sides, be it the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, myself or the Scots. It is a formula for disaster. Unfortunately the Minister in no way addressed the intellectual incoherence of the basic formula.
Lord Lyell: Following the fiery speech from behind me, perhaps I may ask the Minister this question. He always likes to say that I am a simple accountant; and I still am. I admired his coverage of all the points.
The noble Lord mentioned a figure of £15 million as a statistical quirk. Am I right in thinking that that was the result of a continual uprating of the Barnett formula? Is it a statistical quirk that will arise every two to three years? It is after all, 1 per cent. of the total budget for the Scottish Office. If the figure can be restricted to that, it is pretty accurate. But what was the statistical quirk? The noble Lord was honest in admitting it. Can he clarify that now or later?
Lord Sewel: It is the product of changing the concept of the block grant to the departmental expenditure limit. I said that it is infuriating when the concepts keep changing. Non-domestic rates were included in the block but excluded from the near-comparator of the departmental expenditure limit. That accounts for something in excess of £16 million. That is why we have the point identified by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
I must clarify a figure. It is not £16 million; it is £1 billion.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I was puzzled about that. I think that £1 billion is more than a statistical quirk. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose made a smart flanking attack on the Minister worthy of his noble ancestor. I found the answers interesting, especially as regards the departmental expenditure limits, which I suppose we should treat as chips off the old block, so to speak. We shall have to look at this statistical quirk and how £1 million less can be trumpeted in the Scottish press as an increase in public expenditure.
However, that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing how the Scottish parliament will be funded in future and whether we need to write that into legislation. I detected that some people do not think it worth while to continue the debate; they tend to be those who have not taken much part in the long Committee stage of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, this is the heart of the matter. My fellow citizens have been persuaded that the Scottish parliament will bring with it huge improvements. I do not go so far as to say a land flowing with milk and honey; and many of the improvements can come about
1678
only by increased public spending. If that is not coming, people will be disappointed. That disappointment will turn them, I regret to say, to the Scottish National Party.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I am sure he will agree that our fellow citizens are not daft. But they believe that it is possible to spend even the same amount of public expenditure rather more wisely by having it spent closer to the people than at present. It is not simply a question of throwing money at the problem but of being more responsive to needs and having government that is closer to the people. That will apply in English regions as well as the Scottish parliament.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I look forward to the expressions of delight when those parts of the Scottish Office which will receive less money in order that others receive more realise that. I hope that industries such as the tourist industry will be happy when it sees some of its money being spent, for example, on health, which is one of the areas which needs increased money on the basis of what I hear in Scotland, although we do quite well.
The Minister and I are in a fair degree of agreement. That always worries me. When the two Front Benches agree, it is not a good thing. However, I am certain that there is no way to devise a mechanistic formula to deal with the issue. I differ from my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith. Government spending, wherever it is in the country, has inevitably to be based on discussions of needs and priorities. The two are linked. I do not believe that we can find a simple formula.
The interventions and speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and my noble friends Lord Onslow and Lord Dixon-Smith illustrate a problem that we have to face. When I was at the Department of Social Security, I had to visit the north-east of England on a fair number of occasions because the Department of Social Security has major enterprises in the north-east of England. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie was the Minister designated with responsibility for the north-east of England. A great deal of successful effort had to be put into bringing new industries to the area in order to replace those which had closed. None of us should dismiss the points made by the noble Lord. Lord Dean of Beswick, about the areas of England which I mentioned in my original speech and which need additional help. They are more like the valleys of Wales and Clydeside and have many of the same problems. Nor should we dismiss problems such as those so understated by my noble friend Lord Onslow in his usual manner. We must guard against that, but I do not believe that we can do so by a formula.
I return to my problem with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who is no longer in the Chamber. It ties in the Barnett formula. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that nobody competes for the Barnett formula; it is automatic. The competition takes place between spending ministries in Whitehall and the Treasury. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it is nothing to do with increased or decreased need in Scotland. It is the one

1679
thing which is mechanistic. It simply moves with what has been decided by the big negotiations between the English spending ministries and Scotland.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: All that weare saying is that is a start. People know about it; it is practised and it would give a certain confidence were it adopted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: For reasons I gave earlier, I would not like to predicate the whole of the Scottish budget simply on the Barnett formula. The bulk of the money that Ministers in the Scottish parliament will have to spend will not come from the Barnett formula but from the block; or the "departmental expenditure limits", as I must learn to call them.
I can see an argument for saying that the increases ought to continue to be governed by the Barnett formula. I can also see an argument for linking that with some expression in the Bill about relative needs. But I accept that most of the amendments, including mine, do not solve the problem which exists. I regret to say that the Minister is probably right in saying that it has to be a matter of faith. The negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish government will be conducted on a basis which is realistic and will ensure that the government in Scotland have sufficient resources for the needs of the people in Scotland. That is what my amendment attempted to achieve.
I do not wish to be portrayed as someone who wanted to disband the Barnett formula. I might not get back to Scotland for the Recess, which would be profoundly bad news. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 271V:
Page 27, line 4, after second ("time") insert ("and at least once in every financial year").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. The Bill provides that payments will be made from time to time. I wish to insert the words "and at least once in every financial year" in order to ensure that the Scottish parliament receives money in a proper flow. I should be happy for a brief explanation of what the Government envisage "from time to time" to mean, which will probably satisfy me.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: I, too, shall try to be brief. The amendment appears to impose a particular timetable on the payment of the grant by the Secretary of State. On the face of it, the amendment seems reasonable, but it is entirely unnecessary. The detailed arrangements as to the timing of payments into the fund by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament will be a matter for agreement between the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers. Surely that is the way we should leave it. There is no need for a prescription on the face of the Bill. While I appreciate the noble Lord's point, which seems reasonable, it
1680
should be left to the Sectetary of State and Scottish Ministers and I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amenment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her assurances. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 272 to 275A not moved.]
Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee Stage begins again not before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1998
7.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th July be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Specified Organisations) Order 1998 which was laid before the House on 28th July be approved.
Under the Good Friday agreement, the Government gave a commitment to put in place legislation that would allow the accelerated release of prisoners convicted of scheduled or similar offences. The Good Friday agreement was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. Our duty now is to implement the agreement faithfully and in full and the Government intend to do that. The legislation that gave effect to that commitment—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act—received Royal Assent on Tuesday.
This order specifies organisations under Section 3(8) of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Under Section 3 of the Act, a prisoner is not eligible for early release if he or she supports an organisation which is specified. In addition, a prisoner who has been released may have his licence suspended and be recalled to prison if they support a specified organisation, whether or not it was specified when he or she was released.
However, these are not the only conditions a prisoner must satisfy. In addition to the requirements regarding the nature and length of the sentence, the commissioners—who will make decisions under the Act—must consider whether the prisoner would, if released, be likely to become a supporter of a specified organisation or become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland. A life sentence prisoner would not be released if he or she would be a danger to the public.
In deciding whether to specify an organisation, the Secretary of State is required to make a judgment on two matters. The first is whether the organisation is concerned with terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland or in promoting or encouraging it. The second matter follows directly from the words of the agreement. The agreement states that,
"prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire will not benefit from the arrangements".
In deciding whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire, the Secretary of State is directed by the terms of the Bill to take account of whether an organisation: is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives; has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence; is directing or promoting acts of violence by other organisations; and is co-operating fully with the Decommissioning Commission. These are factors to be taken into account, not separate tests to be satisfied, and they follow directly from the Prime Minister's speech at Balmoral on 14th May.
The Secretary of State can take into account any other relevant information in deciding whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease-fire, but, in making her overall judgment, she must take account of each of these.
The Secretary of State has decided to specify: the Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA); the "Real" Irish Republican Army; the Irish National Liberation Army (INLA); and the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF).
If the order before your Lordships' House is approved, the effect will be that the commissioners may not grant a declaration of eligibility for early release to any prisoner who they consider supports any of these organisations. The Secretary of State has reached these decisions on the basis of security assessments and following consideration of advice from the RUC.
I shall say a little about each of the organisations the Secretary of State has decided to specify. The Continuity IRA has been involved in acts of terrorism since 1994 and there are no indications that either CIRA or its political wing, Republican Sinn Fein, has any intention of abandoning violence as a means of pursuing its political objectives.
The "Real" IRA has carried out a number of attacks so far this year which have included car bombings and mortar attacks and there are no indications that the "Real" IRA intends to call a cease-fire.
The Irish National Liberation Army is a more established organisation having been in existence since 1975. At no time since then has it declared a cease-fire. It has been responsible for many appalling attacks and there are no indications that INLA is yet ready to declare a cease-fire. Its political wing, the IRSP, has spoken of the possibility of a cease-fire, but there are no indications yet that there is a serious prospect of this being delivered.
The Loyalist Volunteer Force, or LVF, has been responsible for many murders. In May this year the LVF declared a cease-fire. This is a welcome step. It has also named a contact person with the decommissioning body and meetings have taken place. But a cease-fire must be demonstrated in acts as well as words. I hope that will be the case, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not fully convinced that the LVF cease-fire is complete and unequivocal.
Those have not been easy judgments to make. But they are judgments made on the balance of the information—a balance recognised by the right honourable Member for Bracknell in another place when he explained why the previous Government did not exclude Sinn Fein from talks when punishment beatings and murder were continuing. Any specific failure by an organisation has to be weighed alongside all the other available information.
There are some organisations that have yet to establish a complete and unequivocal cease-fire but which would appear to be moving in the right direction, like the LVF. Those organisations must now embrace the democratic process that has been endorsed by the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. If those organisations do establish and maintain complete and unequivocal cease-fires then the Secretary of State will reassess their position.
Other organisations such as PIRA, the UDA and the UVF which have established such a cease-fire, must continue to demonstrate that they are maintaining it in order to avoid being specified in the future. And this test will, as the Prime Minister said, become more rigorous over time.
In her speech in another place, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland drew attention to the fact that punishment attacks had continued during the period of the cease-fires and following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. She made clear that such attacks were not acceptable and that they must stop. If punishment attacks continue, the legislation requires that the Secretary of State take such attacks into account in deciding whether organisations are maintaining complete and unequivocal cease-fires. The Secretary of State will keep under review the list of specified organisations and will not hesitate to add or remove the name of an organisation if that is required.
The early release of prisoners is, for many, the aspect of the Good Friday Agreement which is most difficult to accept. But the agreement is a package and all parts of the agreement must be implemented. The Government will meet their commitments and hold the other parties to the agreement to theirs. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th July be approved.—(Lord Dubs.)
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, we always knew that this order would be the most difficult to accept. As the Minister is aware, we approached the Bill with

1683
sadness and pain, unable to get out of our minds the atrocities suffered by so many innocent people over the past 25 years.
There is little doubt that the Secretary of State has an awesome responsibility in deciding which organisations are to be specified as "terrorist" organisations for the purpose of the Bill, now an Act. The difficulty for the House is that the Secretary of State's decisions about individual organisations will be based on security advice and briefings. It would not be appropriate for her to share that with Parliament, let alone the outside world.
Nevertheless, I am sure the House will understand why we on these Benches have great concern about why some additional organisations do not appear on the scheduled list of four terrorist organisations. Our concern is that they have been left off for the wrong reasons—not because they have been given a clean bill of health in relation to violence but because the Secretary of State is apprehensive that if such organisations were specified as "terrorist organisations" it would prevent the release of a significant number of prisoners who are known to be supporters of those organisations, and so would lead to the disruption of the progress that has been made since the Good Friday Agreement.
Part of the problem lies in the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act itself which requires the Secretary of State only to take into account certain criteria when addressing the issues as to whether or not an organisation has established or is maintaining a complete and unequivocal cease- fire.
The terms of the Act are such that it is possible for the Secretary of State to refrain from specifying the Provisional IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Defence Association, despite the fact that it is widely believed in Northern Ireland that all three organisations are still involved in violence associated with terrorism. Those three organisations do have a so-called cease-fire, as the Minister said, but only in so far as there are no high profile attacks. But the killing of one person for sectarian reasons is just as unacceptable.
The so-called cease-fire implies a complete cease-fire but, in fact, it is not. Punishment beatings and intimidation continue unabated, making life on many estates frightening and impossible for ordinary decent people.
We know that the Secretary of State has denounced acts of violence as unacceptable and obscene. The Chief Constable said in a BBC interview on 27th July, when referring to those three organisations which are not mentioned in the schedule:
"If they think because their definition of a cessation of violence is a cessation of military operations they must be disabused of any notion that any other acts of criminality are any more acceptable".
We read with horror of the brutal murder of Andrew Kearney, taken from his flat as he nursed his young baby. He was then knee-capped in a lift and literally left to bleed to death. Then we read of the beating of a peace worker in Belfast—Vincent McKenna. He is a peace worker. It is difficult to believe that such appalling atrocities are continuing.
1684
It is the people of Northern Ireland who have put their faith in the Good Friday Agreement. They voted for peace in the referendum, being weary of strife and violence. They deserve our care and compassion. We must not forget that the early release decision was criticised by Families Against Intimidation and Terror. I believe that they will find it impossible to accept the inclusion of the three organisations—PIRA, and UVF and the UDA. If the Act is to work, the Secretary of State must have the confidence of all the people of Northern Ireland. As my right honourable friend Mr. Andrew Mackay, the Member for Bracknell, said in another place, it is wrong that those three are not on the list and it would be wrong for their members to be released.
I take this opportunity to praise the First Minister designate on his efforts and courage in tackling so successfully much severe opposition to building the peace process. I doubt that this order will be seen as a reward and I wonder whether the Minister will comment on that.
My right honourable friend and his colleagues in another place voted against the order. In your Lordships' House, the convention is that we do not. We must therefore content ourselves by expressing our grave concern over the contents of the order.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I should say initially that from these Benches, we intend to support the order for two reasons. First, it is important at this stage of progress in Northern Ireland to support the judgment of the Secretary of State unless there is an overwhelming reason not to do so. The edifice that we are trying to build in Northern Ireland still rests on very shallow foundations. I fear that any over-heated rhetoric either in this House, which we certainly have not had this evening, in another place or elsewhere in Northern Ireland can still too easily turn into a hurricane which will blow down the house of peace.
The second reason that we should support the judgment of the Secretary of State as regards the order is that the order itself does attempt to draw the line which has to be drawn between those who have turned to a new way of doing things and those who still stand steeped in a bloody past. We should take the opportunity in this House to appeal to those organisations which have still made no real effort to turn to the future. I do not think that it is enough tonight to say that they clearly stand on one side of the line. It is essential that they, too, recognise the responsibility that lies on them to help secure a better future for Northern Ireland.
It is absolutely possible for Members of this House and for any citizen to disagree in good faith where the line should be drawn. Indeed, the noble Baroness did so this evening. I accept that. However, one of the things that we ought to do is to look in more detail at PIRA because here, in the order, we have four organisations in the list of proscription, but we do not have the provisional IRA—this is the dog that did not bark. What of PIRA? First, we have the terrible murder to which the noble Baroness referred of Mr. Andrew Kearney;

1685
and, secondly, we undoubtedly have continued attempts by the Provisional IRA to assert a certain kind of rough supremacy in localities of Northern Ireland by the continuing use of terror in the form of punishment beatings.
However, for the moment I find myself still agreeing with the Secretary of State, although narrowly, that we should afford the benefit of the doubt to Sinn Fein/IRA. There is a slender element of doubt as regards the appalling murder of Mr. Andrew Kearney. I believe that the Chief Constable himself expressed his judgment in very qualified terms. Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis that I think the Chief Constable has in recent weeks earned in every way and at every point the unqualified approbation of all of us who look to a better future in Northern Ireland. Perhaps this would be an occasion to express the greatest confidence that, as long as she is careful to follow the judgments offered by the Chief Constable and by the other security information in balancing the facts as she has to, the Secretary of State will, at the present juncture, be well advised.
Nevertheless, there is a scintilla of doubt about whether Mr. Kearney was murdered by the Provisional IRA. It is well possible that what we are dealing with is an out-of-control cell of some sort. I wonder whether any of us thought, especially those with far more experience of Northern Ireland than I have myself, that this particular army would give up in a totally synchronised and comprehensive way. Yet, of course, give up they now must. Every scrap of authority—or I suppose Mr. Adams would prefer to say "influence"—that Sinn Fein has over the IRA must now be used to stop the killing and the beating for good.
However, more than that, I should stress to the Minister—and I shall be interested to hear his response at the end of the debate—that, before this summer is out, militant republicanism must make its own contribution to confidence-building. For example, those concerned must appoint a representative to General de Chastelain's decommissioning commission which they have yet to do. They must start the process of decommissioning and be seen to do so. Moreover, they must stop these disgusting knee-cappings. If Sinn Fein/IRA do not show the vision and leadership to do these things, I fear that they will be casting a very long and gloomy shadow over the resumption of the new Assembly in September. They will divide the forces of sensible Unionism, perhaps fatally, and prejudice the future reconciliation and working together in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, my attitude in supporting this order is that it represents—indeed, it must represent—a kind of probation for the Provisional IRA to which the leaders of Sinn Fein/IRA, if they are well advised and if they do believe, as we must hope they do, in a different future for Northern Ireland, must now respond.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, it is with considerable regret that I find myself unable to support the Government in bringing forward the order this
1686
evening. I feel regret because I have a most vivid recollection of the difficulty as regards the decisions that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to take in many fields. Moreover, if I may say so, I also have much admiration and affection for the present incumbent. At the time of the agreement and the conclusion of the talks—sometimes called the Good Friday Agreement—I presumed to write to congratulate her and also the Prime Minister. I am glad that I did so. The Secretary of State is right to interpret the new Act as requiring her to make a decision "in the round", as she put it in a speech last night in another place.
However, I am sad to have to say that, in my judgment, the Secretary of State has got this decision wrong, to an extent that I felt did not permit me simply to take myself away and let it ride. In my opinion, the Secretary of State should have added the Provisional IRA, the UDA and the UVF to the list of organisations which are specified in the schedule to the order. I shall outline the reason why. The practice of administering so-called punishment beatings for political purposes—and this was touched upon in the speeches of my noble friend Lady Seccombe and the noble Lord, Lord Holme—has continued almost unabated since the most recent ceasefires. Each of those three organisations is responsible for some of them. I believe that to be common ground; indeed, it is not an issue as to whether this has been going on, nor is it an issue as to whether or not they are responsible. The issue is whether, notwithstanding that, they should somehow escape specification.
In my view, the significance of that fact lies in this: it disentitles each of those organisations from claiming, first, that it is committed to the use of democratic and peaceful means only to achieve its objectives; and, secondly, that it has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence. They are ruled out from making such claims by definition. Yet such claims represent 50 per cent. of the four Balmoral stipulations with which we are now so familiar and by which it was sought to reassure those of us who were revolted by the idea of accelerating the release of people guilty of hideous crimes. I realise that that sense of revulsion is to be found on all sides.
However, those four stipulations were offered in the Balmoral speech by the Prime Minister and have been held to ever since by Ministers as a reassurance that this benefit was not going to be lightly accorded to people who were guilty of such ghastly offences. So, those organisations fail on 50 per cent. of those grounds and they are the first 50 per cent. in that list of Balmoral stipulations. When we look at the remainder, we see that the first two are surely and undoubtedly the most important. If an organisation is itself employing violence, it matters not whether it is or is not also directing or promoting acts of violence by others. That is the third stipulation.
Finally, that leaves the single question of full co-operation with the decommissioning commission—which is, of course, important but is also, in each instance, a question open to argument. I regret to say that it is not realistic in my view—nor, therefore, credible—to claim that, in these circumstances, any of the three organisations to which I have referred is

1687
maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Yet that is the test, of course, for whether their prisoners are to be eligible for accelerated release.
In conclusion I add three observations. These organisations have sought to claim that punishment beatings should be seen not as military operations, which they have forsworn, but as something called civil administration. I feel that has to be rejected with contempt. I believe that to be common ground on all sides in this House on this issue. We cannot conceivably permit any justification for dreadful things which recently have led to a murder, but are bad enough, in all conscience, when someone receives what is called a "six-pack"; that is, three shots in each knee, or in the leg.
Mr. Flanagan, the chief constable, has already been cited tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, as having drawn attention to this language which is used by the PIRA in particular, and of course rejected it. That is the first observation with which I wish to conclude. The second is that these organisations have shown that when it suits them they can bring violence to a synchronised halt, to use the expression articulated a moment or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Holme. Before and on the occasion of President Clinton's visit, nothing like this happened, nor before elections. Therefore they have shown that they can stop this. I cannot accept any claim of inability to exercise control.
My third point is that it would not have been necessary to specify these three organisations, or any of them, for a long period. It would have been enough to have specified them and made it clear that if they did once again bring punishment beatings to a halt, but did so in circumstances and in a context in which they could credibly claim that they were demonstrating that a true ceasefire was their intention, an amending order could have been introduced rapidly and their prisoners could have become eligible for the benefits of this extraordinarily difficult Act. Of course if those organisations had been added to the order, they would have been given a credible, powerful and real incentive to bring violence to an end because their prisoners would not have been released, and their prisoners might have been expected to have something pretty powerful to say in that regard.
As I say, I regret that I cannot speak in favour of the Government today and have to speak, in conscience, against them. I do not think that I can be accused of having been unhelpful or forgetful of the difficulties that I experienced for five years. This is the first occasion—I hope it will be the last—when I shall feel obliged to record my dissent from the judgment of the present Secretary of State.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I find myself in broad agreement with what has been said from the Benches opposite on the part of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, speaking as he does from a great deal of practical, sober
1688
experience of the realities of the situation with regard to terrorism, as opposed to many of the fancy theories which are put around nowadays.
I find it distinctly odd that the order specifies some sub-contractors, but not the main contractors, although all of them have breached the ceasefire conditions in one form or another. IRA/Sinn Fein spokesmen, alone of all the main contractors, have been issuing veiled threats and warnings in regard to the consequences of their inclusion in what one might term the "dishonour roll". The behaviour of IRA/Sinn Fein has been just as vile as that of other such bodies, not just as regards beatings, knee cappings and all forms of intimidation, but, as has already been mentioned by three speakers opposite—and by the Minister—as regards the recent assassination of Mr. Andrew Kearney. Mr. Kearney was an IRA operator who fell foul of the commander of the third battalion of the IRA based in the Ardoyne who himself ordered the execution of Kearney. Yet this farcical list omits the IRA/Sinn Fein, which the Prime Minister had described earlier as one and the same organisation.
In many ways this order is more repulsive than a general amnesty. There is no point in the Government denying that this is a selective amnesty, applying not to organisations which have ceased terrorist activities, for there has been no real cessation of violence, designed to put the public in fear. That is a phrase borrowed from some of the earlier legislation. This selective amnesty applies to practising bodies, no different in form from those listed in this order—that must be accepted by all of us, and I believe that it has been accepted up to a point—for the simple purpose of bribing them (that is, the organisations not on the "dishonour list") into participating in a structure the like of which has never been devised in any part of the world to my knowledge. That is why on an earlier occasion in your Lordships' House I described it as somewhat exotic. But this evening's order has made it malignant as well as exotic because the bribe is intended to go far beyond entering into participation in the agreement. It will be renewed with bonus every time terrorists threaten to withdraw from the scheme of things.
It is therefore dishonest to imply that if terrorist activities can no longer be ignored, those offending bodies will be added to the four listed in the order. I understand that the Secretary of State has the power to do that. But we have to be realistic—all of us in your Lordships' House have a reputation for being realistic—when we say that nothing of the kind will happen. Weasel words will be used by various people about the quality of proof; about waiting for charges to be laid; then awaiting convictions; and then awaiting numerous appeals without end. We have all of this charade because the already flimsy apparatus might be endangered and we cannot possibly contemplate any such thing happening. It is small wonder that certain elements in government and in government service are admitting that they were forced to go too fast too soon.
The much lauded Good Friday Agreement has brought no comfort or respite to decent citizens residing in many housing estates which are under the heel of paramilitary bodies. We simply fool ourselves and we

1689
are false to those who are enduring that kind of torture if we ignore that and pretend it is not happening. To their shame, the draftsmen of the agreement—and all those who, with money and improper pressure, not excluding a degree of blackmail—obtained a temporary approval of what was packaged as a master plan for peace. That was how it was sold. That was how it was accepted by a great many people until about three weeks ago and then the tide started to turn. All such salesmen now look the other way and deliberately ignore the brutal treatment of innocent citizens.
I can understand why all this shameful legislation is being rushed. There is a realisation that if the trap is not closed on democratic principles, the accelerating swing in public opinion will, I am afraid, become more and more evident. What the authorities simply do not realise is that, when convicted killers are seen to return to their old haunts—and habits—the tide of public revulsion will sweep away all the sandcastles and make-believe devices.
However, we can take some heart from the evidence that the greater number of Ulster citizens, whatever their faith, and even those who have no faith at all, are devoting their attentions to the further refinement of solid, sensible structures of governance—for there was, and is, an alternative. I have sound reason for believing that the landscape will look very different indeed when your Lordships return from the Recess.
8 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have three questions to ask the Minister. The first is factual. Is the Real IRA another name for the 32 Counties movement? If so, should it not be on the list? And why is Direct Action against Drugs—a known IRA front which has carried out many murders—not been included? Or is it covered by the blanket which protects the PIRA?
My second question concerns the IRA itself, the present parent body and only begetter of all the nasty children it has spawned in the shape of the Continuity IRA, the Real IRA and so on. When is a ceasefire not a ceasefire? Only a few days ago, all the evidence, soberly assessed by the RUC and supported, according to the Irish Times, by republican elements themselves, pointed to the PIRA as the murderers of Andrew Kearney. I shall not discuss that murder because other noble Lords have already given the details. There was also a peace worker, Vincent McKenna, who was badly beaten by assailants whom he recognised as PIRA men. In April, the PIRA kneecapped an old man of 79 and left him to die. He was the wrong man, but no one heard them apologise. How much more must the IRA do before the Secretary of State abandons her assessment that PIRA and the UDA and the UVF are "maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire"?
Does a ceasefire mean only what the IRA, which purports to be a military formation with discipline instead of a collection of thugs, would call a military ceasefire? I thought the Prime Minister was equally unequivocal when he ruled out punishment beatings and
1690
killings and any kind of violence. Certainly, ordinary people thought that that was in the agreement. But, of course, we must not cherry pick. The Secretary of State has, I fear, in this issue—for excellent reasons, I recognise—double standards.
The LVF, like the IRA and equally nasty, has declared a ceasefire and has named a contact with the decommissioning body. But it has, as was pointed out in another place, been responsible for many murders. The Secretary of State says of the LVF ceasefire that "a ceasefire must be demonstrated in acts as well as words", and she "has yet to be convinced that the LVF ceasefire is complete and unequivocal"; and therefore she has specified the LVF. I have no quarrel with that. But why is not sauce for the LVF goose sauce for the IRA gander?
Of course, as the Secretary of State explains, the political party with which PIRA is associated—a delicate way to describe that two-headed hydra, Sinn Fein/IRA—has had discussions with the decommissioning body. Was Sinn Fein explaining how its other half would never decommission even an ounce of Semtex?
Why does the Secretary of State, who actually said on 10th June that the four factors on which her judgments for specification would be based included punishment beatings and the instigation of paramilitary activity, seem to think that, like the European Union in Kosovo, if she says often enough that punishment beatings have to stop, they will go away? They will not—unless and until the IRA has reason to think that every punishment beating delays the remotest possibility of releasing its prisoners.
We have been told that the Secretary of State does not barter prisoners against decommissioning. But surely, negotiating over prisoners in the interests of victims and the population at large, which actually believed that the Belfast Agreement meant the end of violence, is a different matter. Why is she not listening to FAIT (Families Against Intimidation and Terror)? I echo its question: "Are the Government really accepting a definition of a paramilitary ceasefire which allows paramilitary groups to beat, shoot and intimidate people?" The interesting thing is that PIRA did not do that at all during the elections—in the matter of being able to give orders and have them obeyed, the IRA is not deficient. So it is not possible to say that those beatings and killings are unauthorised. They are a calculated campaign on the part of IRA members to remind "their" constituency that nothing has changed, that they are still in charge.
I know that there is nothing we can do to change the Secretary of State's initial choice of those organisations to be specified. However, I beg the noble Lord the Minister to urge her to consider whether her Nelsonic approach to the activity of the IRA, in the interest of preserving the Belfast Agreement, does not risk losing the peace, because ordinary people will feel that their rights and deeds are being utterly ignored. That may be, alas, exactly what the IRA wants.
Finally, I have one other, rather painful point to make. Before making it, I wish to say that I, like my noble friend, respect the Secretary of State very much. But

1691
I wish to register my incredulous outrage on learning from the debate in another place yesterday that the Secretary of State has seen the McBride family, but not the families of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, and that she chose to do that, "because they were extremely upset at the possible releases and wished to express their views to me". She then went on to say that that did not bias her one way or the other. She "thought it would do no harm to hear of the pain they felt they would continue to suffer". She evidently thought that that was quite fairly balanced by the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence, who has no standing whatever in the decision to be taken on the guardsmen's case, had talked to the Scots Guards Association. Is that equal? What about Mrs. Fisher and Mrs. Wright? Have they no feelings? Most important of all, does the Secretary of State really think that she can now say, as she did, that she is "reading the facts and making her own judgment, not talking to one side or the other in any way"?
8.7 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, I speak in considerable sadness and sorrow. News of this order broke in Northern Ireland on Tuesday at about midday. It was met with incredulity. No one could understand how the order could have been thought up. There was shock on Tuesday. Yesterday, there was much discussion about it and more than concern—depression regarding the effect that it will have in so many directions.
The Secretary of State said that she has judged that the terrorist organisations not specified in the order are committed to maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. How can she so declare when she admits that the RUC Chief Constable has said that members of both republican and loyalist organisations have recently been involved in violent criminal acts. She was also aware that the RUC assumed that the recent murder of Andrew Kearney was committed by the IRA. The man in the street knows it. I doubt whether one law-abiding citizen in Northern Ireland will accept the Secretary of State's judgment. Everyone knows that the IRA murdered him. How can she ignore that?
In another place last night, the Secretary of State repeated that her judgment was "in the round". I wonder what that phrase means or how it is relevant to this matter. This was a very specific judgment. After this, I am afraid that I do not expect any law-abiding citizen in Northern Ireland to have respect for our Government.
I feel it necessary to list some of the damage that is almost inevitable. This order will make it even more difficult to get the assembly off the ground, unless, as I hope, the Secretary of State changes her mind and makes a revision of the order very shortly. Everyone now knows that the Secretary of State will say, unless she changes her mind quickly, that to be consistent with this provision members of Sinn Fein are entitled to become Ministers in the Assembly. Unionists cannot possibly be expected to sit in the Assembly with unreconstructed terrorists.
This order will make it even more difficult for the first minister designate to deal with his critics because they have been proved right. They have been saying all
1692
along that this would happen. I am afraid that some of us were perhaps innocent and believed that it could not happen in this way.
Sinn Fein/IRA will hail the order with delight. They know that it will put the pro-Union parties in turmoil and that has always been one of their objectives. Now our Government are helping them. Sinn Fein/IRA, in the view of everyone, has so far made no effort to show its commitment to peace. Surely the Secretary of State, by designating all the terrorist parties in her order on the 28th, should have sent out a strong message to Sinn Fein and the others that they must do much more to persuade her and other people that they must commit themselves to peace and stop all punishment beatings.
I wonder whether it is possible to realise how much, at home in Northern Ireland, there is a complete state of revulsion against these so-called punishment beatings. They must stop before anyone will believe that these groups are committed to peace. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, they can stop when they want to and they have proved it. They can do it again if they want to.
I believe that this order is almost a disaster in its present form. It has sent entirely the wrong signal and no one can understand why on earth it should have been made. I fear for the summer. I hope that the Minister will take back to the Secretary of State a plea quickly to find good reason to amend the order.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, got it right, I think. One of the first things she said was that the Secretary of State has an awesome responsibility under the legislation. It is an awesome responsibility and probably the most difficult one that any Minister in any government has had to exercise for many years.
What we are considering tonight is the way she has felt she has to exercise her judgment as regards a number of specific organisations. I appreciate that some noble Lords feel that she has not exercised her judgment in the way they would wish. Some noble Lords wish that she had included one or perhaps even three organisations in the list covered by the order.
I have to say that the Secretary of State has to make judgments on the basis of information based on advice from the chief constable and security information. She has to make those judgments based on information which by its very nature cannot be made readily and publicly available. She has, therefore, to make decisions which may on the face of it seem hard to understand. But she has the information. Previous Secretaries of State, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, will have been in the same position. They had to make judgments based on information which they alone possess. I remind the House that under the last government, the Labour opposition fully respected the judgments made by the government at the time about those issues. We respected the judgments made and we accepted on trust that if the Secretary of State felt that he was making the right judgment about releases of prisoners and similar matters, as an opposition we had

1693
to go along with it as an act of faith because he was in a better position to know. I only ask whether a similar way of looking at it could apply today. All I ask is that we should be judged as a government with the same confidence in the difficult decisions as we gave the previous government.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I of all people fully recognise that there must be a great deal of intelligence that cannot be revealed. But we are talking about what everyone sees happening. It does not require any intelligence to inform people that citizens are being murdered. That is the point I was making. I entirely accept that there may be a great deal of other knowledge which it would be quite improper for us to expect to know. But it is what the public sees.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I understand that. The murders that have taken place are to be utterly condemned, whoever committed them. I understand that there is and has been for a long time an utter disgust in people in Northern Ireland and all parts of the United Kingdom at some of the dreadful murders and other acts of violence—punishment shootings and beatings—that have taken place.
However, the Secretary of State will still have more information. It is not sufficient to say that there has been a murder because it must also be a murder in relation to political purposes. That is not in the legislation, but I think it is the way one may describe it colloquially. Indeed, there was the expression of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, when he talked about punishment beatings for political purposes. Again, the Secretary of State has to depend upon advice that she is given, not just as to the facts of the punishment beating or punishment shooting but as to who did it and perhaps even the motive behind it. I suggest those are difficult decisions to make.
Perhaps I may try to deal with the specific points but not necessarily in the order in which they were made during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, said that the legislation was being rushed through. We are not rushing it through for the sake of public opinion, as he believes, but simply because as part of the Good Friday Agreement certain undertakings were made as to getting the legislation through quickly. The date has gone, it was supposed to be done by June. We did our best to do it as quickly as we could and it was to meet our obligations under the agreement, not because we are trying to do something as regards public opinion.
I turn to the opening speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe. I now refer to satisfying some of the factors, the tests, which I believe she commented on. She suggested that some of the organisations might remain off the list even if they failed to satisfy some of the factors indicated. The test is the test in the agreement. That is: whether an organisation has established and is maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. The factors are relevant to that assessment but do not determine the assessment. It is taking all of them together that is the basis of the decision the Secretary of State makes.
1694
Perhaps I may deal with the IRA, the UDA and the UVF, to which reference was made. Those organisations are not named in the order. In each case, my right honourable friend considered whether the organisation should be specified on the basis of the test in the legislation. She considered the information available in relation to the four factors which she was required to take into account. In each case noble Lords have said that there are failings. For example, although there have been discussions with the Decommissioning Commission, there has been much less progress than is desirable. As everyone has acknowledged, the punishment attacks have regrettably continued. But viewing the matter in the round, as the Secretary of State is required to do by the Act, she has concluded that all three of the organisations are maintaining complete and unequivocal ceasefires. It is on the basis of that judgment that she has decided that those organisations should not be specified in the order.
I turn to the appalling murder of Andrew Kearney. The RUC has said that it is pursuing a line of inquiry which assumes that the recent brutal murder of Andrew Kearney was committed by the Provisional IRA. As is widely acknowledged, that murder was an utterly barbaric act which has no place in civilised society. I join all noble Lords in utterly condemning it.
The Secretary of State has had to take into account the information she has available about the murder in deciding whether to specify the Provisional IRA. However, as I indicated, on the basis of all the information available to her—"all the information"—she decided not to specify PIRA. That is a decision which must be made in the round. The Secretary of State is required to take account of such punishment attacks in keeping under review the list of organisations that are specified. As noble Lords will know and as I indicated, her criteria and her judgments will become more rigorous as time goes on. It is an ongoing process, not a one-off decision.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, perhaps the Minister can help me. If one person or more than one person who is a member of PIRA is charged with the murder of Andrew Kearney, will that mean that PIRA will be placed on the schedule?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, it is not appropriate for me to answer that question. The Secretary of State is required to take all the factors into account. The noble Baroness indicated one specific factor; there may be others. It would not be proper for her to say that if one thing happened, that will determine whether or not an organisation appears on the list. The Secretary of State has a wider responsibility, under the legislation. It is a difficult responsibility but it would not work in precisely the way indicated by the question of the noble Baroness. That is not the way the Secretary of State would make such a decision. Of course that factor would be taken into account, but other factors also would have to be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked whether PIRA and Sinn Fein should engage in confidence-building before the summer is out. I see the force of the noble

1695
Lord's point. I hope I was clear in my speech that we look at PIRA and the other organisations which have not been specified to make progress, to build confidence, on decommissioning, on the ending of punishment attacks and in other ways. We look to Sinn Fein and the other parties to meet all their obligations under the agreement. They must do that. That is part of the agreement and part of the commitment entered into by Sinn Fein—and all the other parties that signed the agreement—and we expect them to stick to that. We look forward to progress on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made another point in relation to the murder of Mr. Kearney. He was correct to draw attention to the fact that that murder may not have been sanctioned by the leadership of the IRA. However, such organisations cannot divest themselves of responsibility for acts carried out in their name. That would not be an excuse—if one can use the word "excuse"—for such a brutal act. There is a responsibility of the kind I have described. Organisations cannot divest themselves of responsibility for acts carried out in their name.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I am trying to reconcile what he said and the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, a moment ago. If the test is a complete and unequivocal cease-fire, and it is proved that there was not a complete and unequivocal cease-fire because members of the Provisional IRA were convicted of murder (if that proved to be the case), in taking factors in the round, as the Minister said, the Secretary of State would not be able to say that this was a breakaway faction—I hope I am following the Minister's logic—but would be absolutely and unequivocally a breach of the cease-fire and therefore it would be difficult to sustain the exclusion of PIRA from the list.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, as I said in answer to the earlier question, the Secretary of State would take that fact and all other facts and information into account in making a decision. It is not appropriate for me to say that the Secretary of State would make her decision in a specific way based upon, for example, the instance given by the noble Lord. I cannot suggest that that is the way the Secretary of State will decide. She will decide it on the basis of all the information available to her and of course she will take specific instances into account. I do not want to leave noble Lords with the impression that a specific event or incident in itself could determine the Secretary of State's decision. It would not be proper to leave the House with that impression.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, paid tribute to the chief constable, which I totally endorse. The chief constable has done an amazing job in Northern Ireland. He is widely respected for his conduct in a very exacting post. The noble Lord asked whether the Secretary of State will follow the judgment of the chief constable. The Secretary of State will consult the chief constable, but the decisions under the Act are for the Secretary of State alone to make.
1696
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, talked of specified sub-contractors but not the main contractors in terms of the organisations. The Secretary of State has considered which organisations to specify and, in doing so, had to consider whether organisations are separate organisations or part of the larger whole. She has done so and made her judgment on the order on that basis.
The noble Lord asked also about a selective amnesty. This is not an amnesty. The legislation sets out tests which must be applied by the commission before a declaration is made. We do not see that as an amnesty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked about the 32 County Sovereignty Committee. That is a political manifestation of the Real IRA. They are both covered by the order. The noble Baroness asked also about Direct Action Against Drugs and why it is not on the list. The Government have said that they consider Direct Action Against Drugs to be part of the IRA.
The noble Baroness asked also why the Secretary of State had been to see the McBride family. The Secretary of State saw the McBride family following the announcement of a further review of the cases of the two guardsmen, Fisher and Wright. She has made it quite clear that meeting them will not in any way affect her judgment as to how she will proceed. It was only after she decided that she would embark on a further review immediately that she felt it appropriate to see the family. But that will not make a difference to the way in which she arrives at her decision.
I understand the difficulties felt by many Members of the House about both the wider legislation and this order specifically. Of course it is difficult. But I repeat: the Secretary of State has had to make difficult judgments based on information which is not in the public domain. The order is required to ensure that prisoners who support organisations that are not established or are not maintaining a complete or unequivocal cease-fire are not released under the sentences Act. It is an important part of the operation of that Act and one of the many safeguards.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord and am grateful to him for giving way. I sensed a certain reproach. He was being as reproachful as his generous nature permits him to be when looking in my direction and kindly dealing with some, though not all, of the points that I made.
Perhaps I can ask him this. We all accept that there are matters of intelligence which must not be divulged. But there is one matter which is wholly in the public domain and many noble Lords adverted to it tonight; that is, that there are instances in the past where the Provisional IRA demonstrated their ability to turn off punishment beatings when it suited them. Do the Government accept that that is the case? If so, what conclusion do the Government draw from the fact that

1697
it has not chosen to exert that power in the present circumstances? Do the Government accept that punishment beatings are continuing virtually unabated?
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the noble Lord poses a difficult question. In so far as my words were words of reproach, they were couched in the gentlest possible terms.
As regards the substance of the question, there have been times when punishment beatings have declined and times when they have happened more frequently. But it is not easy to draw from those facts the conclusion that somehow on one occasion the IRA stopped them happening and on another it turned a blind eye or sanctioned them. I cannot go along with the noble Lord in drawing that conclusion. These are more difficult judgments than are susceptible simply to the statistics of these very regrettable incidents.
We have probably exhausted all the arguments. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. This is a very, very important piece of legislation; it is intrinsic to the agreement. The Government are optimistic that this agreement will lead to peace in Northern Ireland. We are taking an important step along that path tonight. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Bill
8.30 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 61.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 275B:
Page 27, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) No payment shall be made under subsection (2) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that appropriate rules have been made under section 66(1) for each of the purposes described in that provision.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 275C.
These amendments refer to Clause 61, which deals with the Scottish Consolidated Fund. We have moved away from the discussion of how it will be arrived at—the actual total—and are moving into what should be done with it. As the Bill says, the Secretary of State will make payments into the fund out of money provided by Parliament. Amendment No. 275B makes clear that no payment should be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that all the proprieties in Clause 66(1) are in place.
These proprieties are that proper accounts should be kept, that the Auditor General for Scotland should ensure that the funds are being properly spent on proper purposes, and all the like things that go with proper financial control. We will come to that in greater detail later. By the nature of things we have come to it before the main portion of this matter, which comes in Clause 66.
I am suggesting that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that all these proprieties are in place. Why the Secretary of State? Because he is the man who is handing out the money. He is the man or woman who is part of the Government which will raise the money, so he has some responsibility for its spending. By that I mean not how it is spent but that it is spent properly; that proper accounts are kept and that it is looked after properly.
Amendment No. 275C states that no payment should be made by the Secretary of State unless he has a report on the expenditure proposals. This is necessary not so that he can control them or double guess them, but so that he can lay a report before Parliament prior to Parliament voting the supply. At present, I think that the detailed supply estimates that go to the Scottish Office cover some 10 Votes and 73 line items.
We have to accept that the other place will have to continue to vote supply. They will, I assume, be able to ask questions about that vote. We cannot ask the other place to just vote £14 billion and ask no questions about how it is being spent or whether it is being properly spent. We cannot expect the House of Commons and its Public Accounts Committee simply to rubber stamp the sums that are being sent to Scotland. There has to be an accountability for the money. I suggest that it must remain with those who raise the money. They must therefore have some detail.
As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State is just about a postman. He picks up £14 billion from the Treasury and passes it on to the Scottish executive. Amendment No. 275B would hold the Secretary of State to account if there were no proper accounting or auditing rules. I am not interested in whether or not it has made a decision to spend more on health or less on education, or whatever decisions they take about money. I am concerned about the accounting procedures and the auditing rules. The House of Commons needs this information in order to judge; it can only get it from the Secretary of State; and he can only get it from the Scottish parliament.
These two amendments are suggested ways by which we might link the Scottish parliament and executive into the House of Commons and into the monitoring that the House of Commons does, through the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee, of the amount of money spent. Although I will try other methods, the only person available to make sure that the proper accounting and auditing procedures are in place to satisfy the House of Commons before it dishes out £14 billion, is the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord Sewel: Amendment No. 275B is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State is satisfied that appropriate arrangements are in place for accounts and audit matters before he makes any payments to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
I agree—particularly as a former member of the Accounts Commission for Scotland—that it is important for the parliament to legislate to put in place its rules for accounts and audit as early as possible, but it must be for the parliament to decide for itself what the proper

1699
arrangements should be, subject to the requirements in Clause 66. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to decide whether these arrangements are proper.
As well as that, it is also important that there is a smooth transfer of audit responsibility from the current arrangements for the Scottish Office to the new arrangements provided by the parliament. That will be all the more essential as there is to be a transfer of functions during the course of a financial year.
The transitional provisions that the Government will bring forward under the Bill will deal with this important point and set out rules for the transitional period until the parliament has put in place its own legislation under Clause 66, which it is required to do. We expect this to be in place for the financial year beginning 1st April 2000, but if it is not the transitional arrangements will continue. With this reassurance, I hope the noble Lords will withdraw this amendment.
Turning to Amendment No. 275C, this suggests that the other place should receive a report of the spending proposals of the executive before it votes the supply for the grant the Secretary of State will make to the Scottish Consolidated Fund.
The amendment is very specific. It states:
"The Scottish Executive has submitted to the Secretary of State a report containing particulars of the expenditure proposals to which the payment relates".
So it is asking for the fine details of the Scottish executive budget. That would amount to the UK Parliament being asked to approve the Scottish parliament's spending proposals. That is at oddsfundamentally—with the whole essence of devolution. The allocation of resources, within the overall budget, is quite clearly a matter for the parliament. Indeed, it is also a matter for the parliament whether or not to vary the amount of that budget, upwards or downwards, using its own tax raising power.
The UK Parliament will continue to have a strong locus in that it will grant, by the normal means of approving Estimates, the sums to be paid by the Secretary of State into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. There are also provisions in relation to the accounting and auditing arrangements of such sums paid to the Scottish Consolidated Fund. Under Clause 62, rules will have to be made by or under an Act of the Scottish parliament in relation to payments out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund; and under Clause 66 in relation to accounting and auditing arrangements. It is right and proper that these matters should be for the Scottish parliament itself. Indeed, I believe that to accept the noble Lord's amendments would provide a recipe for ongoing friction between the two parliaments as well as cutting across one of the key features of devolution—that the Scottish parliament makes its own decisions in relation to devolved matters.
The noble Lord assumed that the other place could ask questions when it came to voting supply for the Scottish parliament. The theoretical position is clear. The answer is yes. However, the proceedings are purely formal in a way and I think that the convention will
1700
quickly develop that it would not be appropriate for the other place to question the details of the budget of the Scottish parliament. If we were to get into the position of detailed questioning in relation to the granting of supply, we would get very much into second guessing, which would be a recipe for friction and conflict between the two parliaments.
I hope I have said enough on the first amendment to indicate that there is a safeguard in the transitional arrangements which will be required to ensure proper auditing and scrutiny of accounts and that those transitional arrangements will remain in force until proper arrangements are put in place by the Scottish parliament. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: A point comes to my mind which the Minister may like to straighten out now. Does the Bill allow the United Kingdom Parliament to withhold supply from the Scottish parliament?
Lord Sewel: At the extreme edge of theoretical possibility, the answer must be yes. But I cannot imagine a situation where that would even begin to come into the realm of practical politics.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: That means that the devolution scheme is based on good will.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I understand the points that the Minister has made to me. It is something of a dilemma but it is a quite difficult dilemma to resolve. The other place will be raising the money and voting the supply, but someone else will be spending it. In the other place Back-Bench Members can, by using various methods, raise questions when they vote supply. Normally, the debates are of a fairly general nature. Members, in the usual way that the other place works, take part in a raffle to see who should be allowed to speak. They can speak about any matter, as long as it falls within the broad aspects of whatever government spending is being voted.
I am in some difficulty when it comes to accepting the Minister's point that these matters will not be raised in the other place. I think that they may be raised. My problem is that I am not entirely sure how the Treasury—it would probably be the Treasury—would answer unless it had some information. I equally see the problem that one could be led into the accusation of double guessing the parliament. I am not in the business of doing that. I am just concerned about the tie-up between the parliament which raises the money and the other parliament which spends it.
I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government will make transitional rules about accounting and auditing and that those rules will continue in existence until the parliament substitutes them with its own rules. We shall come later to how the parliament will do that and who must agree the rules that it makes. That brings me back to the problem, which is a real one, of the difference between those who raise the

1701
money and those who spend the money. However, I am pleased to hear about the transitional arrangements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 275C not moved.]
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 275D:
Page 27, line 11, leave out subsections (5) to (7).
The noble Lord said: This is very much a probing amendment. I am suggesting in my amendment that subsections (5) to (7) of Clause 61 are left out, but I do so more as a means of asking what they mean. Subsection (5) states:
"The Treasury may, after consulting with Scottish Ministers, by order designate receipts of any description specified in the order which are payable into the Fund".
Where will the receipts come from? Are these receipts other than the block grant? I am going to have some trouble not calling it the block grant despite the fact that I am supposed to say departmental expenditure limits. I think that I shall go on calling it the block grant for the remainder of the proceedings on the Bill. Presumably, this will involve receipts other than the block grant which will go into the Scottish consolidated fund. I wonder what is envisaged there.
Will it be the proceeds of privatisation, if I may whisper that to the Government? Will it be the proceeds of the privatisation of the air traffic control service, which I gather the Government are going to privatise? There is a Scottish part to that service. Will the consolidated fund get a share of the privatisation proceeds of the air traffic control service? What about the Tote? Some of the Tote shops are in Scotland. A percentage from the privatisation proceeds of the Tote might have to be paid. I really wonder what is envisaged. What might be paid in other than the extra 3p? If that is it, then that is the answer. But, from the way the provision is drafted, it does not sound like the extra 3p. I should like to know what is envisaged there.
In subsection (5) we have Scottish Ministers paying into the fund and in subsection (6) Scottish Ministers may be paying to the Secretary of State—back to the UK Government—the money from certain designated receipts. What do the Government envisage there? What money would the Scottish consolidated fund and the Scottish executive be collecting that they would then need to remit to the Parliament at Westminster? I am a little puzzled. I am sure that there are perfectly good explanations and I look forward to hearing them. I beg to move.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: This amendment would have the effect of overturning the provisions in Clause 61 which deal with certain receipts payable to the Scottish consolidated fund. Under these provisions receipts designated by the Treasury are to be paid to
1702
the Secretary of State and on to the UK Consolidated Fund. These provisions provide for the continuation of the current position.
At the moment certain receipts are surrendered annually by the Scottish Office to the UK Consolidated Fund. I am advised that the receipts affected consist primarily of court fines and interest payments; mainly from NHS trusts. One of the key principles of the devolution settlement is that the financial framework should be based on existing block arrangements. As these receipts do not add to the Scottish Office's budget at the moment, they should not add to the parliament's in future. The provisions in question merely provide a statutory framework for surrender.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked about the Tote and the air traffic control service. The answer is no. Neither of those comes under devolved headings. I hope that my explanation was sufficient. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rowallan: May I ask a very stupid question? I thought that court fines went to the local authority. Are we talking about the High Court as opposed to the sheriff courts?
Lord Hardie: Perhaps I may assist. District court fines would go to the Consolidated Fund although a proportion is retained by the local authority for administrative purposes under an arrangement with the Treasury. Sheriff court fines and High Court fines all go to the Consolidated Fund.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, for explaining to me the provisions of subsections (6) and (7) on court funds and interest from NHS trusts. I am not entirely sure what that means, but I accept it in good faith. I understand that they are not part of the Scottish Office budget at the moment; they are transferred to the UK Consolidated Fund. I can follow that. I am not sure, however, whether the noble Baroness gave me any examples about subsection (5) on designated receipts which, if I read the provisions correctly, would go into the fund and stay there. Perhaps I am not reading it correctly. Perhaps those receipts go into the fund and then, under subsection (6), are paid out. Is that what is meant? I believe that it may well be, and if that is what is meant by the provisions, I am satisfied. If it is not what is meant, perhaps somebody will write to me.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: The answer is yes. That is what is meant. However, if by any chance I am not correct, I shall immediately write to the noble Lord to correct what I have said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am most impressed by the confidence of the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Payments out of the Fund]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 275E:
Page 27, leave out lines 32 and 33.
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 275E and 275F are probing amendments. I understand from Clause 62(2)(a) that the purposes are,
"meeting expenditure of the Scottish Administration".
However, I should like an explanation of paragraph (b) on lines 32 and 33.
Amendment No. 275F is perhaps a little more than a probing amendment because it enshrines the concept of a balanced budget. It states that the Scottish parliament will not be able to pay out any more in any year than it receives. I could wax fairly eloquently about the need to ensure that the Scottish parliament balances its budget. I suspect that I shall be told that I need not worry because elsewhere in the Bill are provisions which mean that the Scottish parliament could not go out of balance by more than the £500 million which it is allowed to borrow. I should be grateful for a quick explanation of what sort of mechanism will be put in place by the UK Parliament, which, after all, will have to pick up the tab, to make sure that the Scottish parliament will not go out of balance and go very much into the red.
My obvious fear is that, having seen what has happened in some parts of Scotland, I am not entirely convinced that we can be utterly confident that those elected will be responsible with the money that they receive from this Parliament. I believe that this Parliament should have at least some oversight. I must not use the word "oversight" because it suggests the nanny state and the Government Benches, I am happy to say, no longer believe in the nanny state. I do not want to be able to double-guess the Scottish parliament, but I believe that we should include in the Bill some provisions to ensure that we do not have to oversee the parliament. The Bill needs provisions to prevent the budget going badly into deficit and which will ensure that that parliament will not expect this other place to pick up the bill. That is why I have tabled Amendment No. 275F. I beg to move Amendment No. 275E.
Lord Sewel: Amendment No. 275E has the effect of deleting Clause 62(2)(b) which allows sums to be paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund to meet expenditure payable out of that fund under any enactment, including the Bill. If we were to accept the amendment, we would find ourselves in the strange position such that expenditure in relation to a whole myriad of activities, which would rightly fall due to the Scottish Consolidated Fund, would not be competent since they would not be caught by the other provisions of Clause 62 relating to expenditure of the Scottish administration and sums charged on the fund. Clearly, that would not be acceptable. It would, for example, rule out expenditure of such bodies as the Scottish parliamentary corporate body, the expenditure of which is payable out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund by virtue of Clause 27.
1704
It would also mean that the salaries and allowances of members of the parliament could not be paid unless the parliament made them a statutory charge on the Scottish Consolidated Fund or provided for them to be paid by the Scottish Ministers. None of those functions can properly be described as expenditure of the Scottish administration and would therefore not he included under the provisions of Clause 62(2)(a).
Moreover, the parliament would be unable to vote money directly to the Auditor General for Scotland and his office but could only arrange for him to be paid by the administration or for his expenses to be a charge on the fund. That, of course, would undermine his independence. On reflection, it can be seen that we would be heading quickly for a rather chaotic situation if we went down that route.
Turning to Amendment No. 275F, the effect of this amendment would be to require the Scottish parliament to ensure that sums it proposes should be paid out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund in any financial year do not exceed the sums expected to be paid into that fund for the same financial year.
First, the Scottish parliament could not effectively budget to live outwith its means since, as the noble Lord observed, the Scottish executive will have no borrowing powers on its own account other than the short-term borrowing provided for in Clause 63; nor can the parliament grant the executive further borrowing powers—subsection (4) ensures that. Thus, it would simply not have the cash to finance a budget it could not afford. Moveover—this is a bit of a sting in the tail—even the short-term borrowing is repayable under such terms as the Treasury may determine; and this includes the timescale for repayment.
The noble Lord hinted about the possibility of the Scottish parliament acting almost deliberately irresponsibly and setting itself on a collision course with the UK Parliament over its budget. I genuinely believe that that possibility is remote. We have no reason to believe the parliament will act in anything but a mature and responsible manner. With devolution comes responsibility and freedom to determine its own affairs. If the parliament were determined to act in such a way as to break the devolution settlement, this amendment would not prevent it from doing so.
There are a number of ways for the devolution settlement to be broken if that is the wish of an immature and irresponsible parliament which is set on a collision course. It would be impracticable to legislate for all of those opportunities. Again, I do not believe that we have any grounds for believing that the parliament will act irresponsibly in such matters. In the unlikely event that the Scottish parliament did propose to budget outwith its means, that would become apparent since its expenditure proposals would be in the public domain. It would be clear that that was the course of action upon which the parliament was intent. That would undoubtedly create a political crisis. However, in those circumstances, the UK Parliament could legislate for a remedy.
The other more practical objection to the noble Lord's amendment is that if its provisions were to be applied the Scottish parliament would be unable to carry

1705
forward unspent balances. That would, in turn, mean that it would be unable to enjoy the sort of end-year flexibility arrangements which government departments normally have. In some ways, those arrangements are to be encouraged to ensure the more effective and efficient use of resources. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord feels assured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: On Amendment No. 275F, I understand the noble Lord's point about the importance of the parliament and the government being able to carry forward unspent balances rather than having what I have always considered to be the rather silly practice of spending money as if there was no tomorrow just because it is March.
If I were a member of another political party which shall remain nameless but which is not represented in your Lordships' House, I might be attracted by the idea of spending more money than I received in order to underline the point that I was not getting enough. I am impressed by the confidence of the noble Lord that that will not happen. Given the opinion polls, I do not share his confidence. But his suggestion that if that happened the United Kingdom Parliament could take very quick steps to legislate to put an end to it fills me with a degree of confidence. Therefore, when the Committee comes to Amendment No. 275F I shall seek leave to withdraw it.
I turn to Amendment No. 275E. I now understand what Amendment No. 275B means. Obviously, I did not think about it for long enough. The attraction of seeing how many people would stand for this parliament if there was no power to pay them almost tempts me to call a Division. However, as I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, even if he were not a Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and perhaps my noble friends Lord Selkirk of Douglas and Lord Sempill, to name but four or five, would join me in the Lobby, I shall resist the temptation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 275F not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Borrowing by the Scottish Ministers, etc.]:
9 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 275G:
Page 27, line 36, at beginning insert ("Subject to the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,").
The noble Lord said: This is a short matter. I regret that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is not present because he would have applauded the Minister on the drafting of this Bill. I have suggested the wording,
"Subject to the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Scottish Ministers may borrow from the Secretary of State any sums required".
In Amendment No. 275H I suggest that "Treasury" should replace "Secretary of State". Interestingly enough, in the Government of Wales Bill when a
1706
proposal was made to delete references to the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the former Solicitor-General—he has now gone on to be the great enforcer—vigorously defended these words and the drafting practice. It was said that every time one saw the word "loans" it had to be with the permission of the Treasury. It was said to be a long-held drafting tradition and it was absolutely essential. He put up a very serious defence. The noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, believed that the words were quite unnecessary, but his noble and learned friend was not prepared to agree with him. The Government refused to budge. I simply ask that if this is good enough for the Welsh why is it not good enough for the Scots, or is this a change in drafting procedure since the introduction of the Government of Wales Bill?
Lord Hardie: I have been asked to reply to this amendment in view of the fact that my noble and learned friend the former Solicitor-General dealt with the equivalent Welsh provision. Amendment No. 275G would require the Scottish Ministers to seek the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to sums borrowed by the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 275H and 275J would mean that the lender under the short-term borrowing power would be the Treasury rather than the Secretary of State. Under this clause all borrowing is subject to the provisions of Clause 64. This explicitly states that the Treasury may issue to the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund the sums required by him for making loans to the Scottish Ministers under Clause 63. I am advised by our draftsman that this is the usual formulation for National Loans Fund lending provisions of this kind and acknowledges in an appropriate way the Treasury's role in controlling access to that fund.
Clause 63(3) was referred to by my noble friend Lord Sewel in his previous answer. That provides that borrowing is to be repaid to the Secretary of State on terms determined by the Treasury. This includes such matters as timescale, methods of repayment and the rate of interest. I am satisfied that these provisions provide the Treasury with robust powers in relation to such short-term borrowing under Clause 63. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment for the reasons that I have given. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that comparisons between this and the Government of Wales Bill are necessarily apt.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: They may not be apt but clearly the same dead hand of the Treasury is in both of them. I had thought for one moment that Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State had escaped, but as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has pointed out, the Treasury is still there. I am not sure whether I am relieved by that. In any event the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will be disappointed to learn that the phrase "the Treasury" still figures in legislation wherever loans appear, even if as in this case it figures in another clause. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 275H and 275J not moved.]
Clause 63 agreed to.
Clause 64 [Lending by the Secretary of State]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 275K:
Page 28, line 14, leave out ("increased").
The noble Lord said: Clause 64 allows the Secretary of State to borrow for the parliament up to £500 million. Under subsection (3) we see that,
"The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the"—
I am happy to see—
"Treasury substitute for the amount (or substituted amount)"—
I am never sure what the words in brackets mean but I am not asking about that—
"specified in subsection (2) such increased amount as may be specified in the order".
I have suggested the deletion of the word "increased" so that it simply reads,
"such amount as may be specified in the order".
I do that because it is possible that the Secretary of State may decide to cap this amount at a lesser figure than £500 million, especially once the parliament is up and running. I appreciate that this is something the parliament will need to get off the ground before the whole system comes into play. I believe it would be wiser to leave out the word "increased" to allow for decrease or increase. My amendment would allow both possibilities. I do not say that there must not be an increase, but that the Secretary of State has to be able to decrease it as well as to increase it.
The Earl of Balfour: I was very interested in the equivalent Welsh Bill, when I put down an amendment in similar terms and was told that this limit was for emergency purposes and that it would not ever be likely to be decreased. I am therefore intrigued as to the answer we may now receive.
Lord Hardie: This is the one occasion on which I would certainly adopt the position on the Welsh Bill. The ceiling is indeed for emergencies; the £500 million specified is intended to be an upper limit. We would expect the borrowing to be well within that limit for the majority of the time. Clause 64(3) enables that amount to be increased, but only with the agreement of the House of Commons, should it be necessary to meet special unforeseen circumstances.
To put this in context, £500 million represents a small proportion of the parliament's likely budget. I am advised that it represents approximately two weeks' money and is fairly modest in comparison with other similar arrangements. For example, the equivalent figure for the Scottish water authorities is £3 billion.
With that explanation, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Unless my arithmetic is very askew this evening, I find £500 million
1708
to be a significant portion of £14 billion. I certainly would not reject an offer of £500 million. It is a considerable sum of money with respect to the parliament.
I will not argue about that, however. I still think it might be better if the position were open so that "decrease" could go as well as "increase"; but I am content with the explanation. I understand why the money may be needed. In the eventuality of something very serious happening in Scotland, a lot of money might be needed in order to deal with an emergency, and this would be one way to do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 [Borrowing by public bodies]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 275L:
Page 28, line 24, leave out from ("sterling") to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: My amendment is grouped with an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and it will be interesting to hear what he has to say. My amendment is simply a probe. The subsection says,
"A body established under any enactment shall not, in pursuance of a power conferred by virtue of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, borrow money in a currency other than sterling except with the consent of the Scottish Ministers given with the approval of the Treasury".
I suppose I will be told that there is a double armlock on this; but I wonder in what circumstances the Government envisage, even with the consent of Scottish Ministers and the approval of the Treasury, that the parliament might be borrowing in a currency other than sterling.
I find it hard to believe that the parliament will be borrowing from abroad. I find it even harder to believe that the parliament will be indulging in a bit of currency speculation. I would not have thought it was the best idea for the Scottish parliament to start borrowing from overseas banks, given the experiences of the Western Isles with BCCI. I wonder why the Government feel it necessary therefore to include this proviso which seems to allow the parliament, in very tightly constrained circumstances, to borrow any money other than sterling?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Is it anticipated that it might borrow in euros?
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: May I ask a question which puzzles me about the language of the clause, and indeed some other clauses? It says that a member of the Scottish executive "may borrow money". Is it not only the Scottish Ministers as a collective, the Scottish executive as a whole, that can authorise lending or borrowing money? It rather reads as if an individual Minister could go off and do something rather odd—subject of course, as always, to the consent of the Treasury.
Lord Sewel: Amendment No. 275L would prohibit non-sterling borrowing by public bodies completely.

1709
That is too inflexible. While we do not expect any great demand for this facility, it is nevertheless necessary to allow such borrowing should it be required.
But, given that non-sterling borrowing can have macro-economic consequences, it is only right and proper for any bodies that wish to take advantage of such borrowing first to obtain the consent of Scottish Ministers, who in turn must seek the approval of the Treasury. As noble Lords will know, macro-economic concerns are reserved matters.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has spotted it! It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in advance of any decision by the United Kingdom to join the single European currency, some public body might want to borrow from a European Union institution, and any such borrowing may be available only in euros. That would be possible with the approval as the Bill is presently framed. That is the gem that is hidden away there. I hope that the noble Lord can accept it.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy raised the point about euros. I thought the Minister's reply was good and gave flexibility for what a properly run council might wish to do. However, assuming that the euro, or the currency being borrowed, was not at a fixed exchange rate against sterling, if the council did well and perhaps made a profit on exchange, would the payments in euros, deutschmarks or perhaps dollars affect the limit? I presume that there are overall limits. Would there be a question against the limits, which are expressed in sterling?
Lord Sewel: Maybe. It is worth clarifying. I shall write to the noble Lord.
This borrowing is extremely limited. I imagine that with the euro the issue would arise only in the run-up to entry into the euro, when one would have effectively a fixed exchange rate. It is subject to the double armlock indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, of approval by Scottish Ministers and the Treasury.
It may be helpful if I speak to government Amendment No. 275M. This inserts a new subsection in Clause 65 making it clear that the reference to "enactment" includes the Bill and subordinate legislation made under it. It is a purely technical amendment to ensure consistency in references to "enactments" throughout the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. My noble friend Lady Carnegy may have provided him with a better answer than he had originally. But I am still not convinced. If we ever decide to join the euro, there will have to be an Act of Parliament. One of the clauses will state something like, "In every other previous enactment where it says `sterling' read 'euros'". The provision will not be nearly
1710
as simple as that because the lawyers will have got at it to make it more complicated. Therefore I do not think it necessary to have this little omission.
Lord Sewel: For clarification, I am envisaging the period immediately prior to joining, where there most likely will be a great deal of trading in and borrowing of euros in this country. On that basis, I agree that there would be a period where there would not be an Act of Parliament stating, "For euros read sterling", but effectively one would have a fixed exchange rate between the two.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suspect that if we were to decide to join the euro within some specified timetable, we would need an Act of Parliament almost immediately to change everything. It would be more than just this legislation which would be influenced in that way.
However, I am not prepared to argue about that. I am grateful to the Minister. I strongly suspect that the approval of the Treasury will never be given to the Scottish parliament to undertake a little currency speculation. If it does, I might obtain the answer as to which receipts must be paid into the Consolidated Fund and promptly paid back to the Treasury.
I am content with Amendment No. 275M. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 275M:
Page 28, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment comprised in or made under this Act.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 276:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

STATEMENT OF PROPOSED EXPENDITURE ETC
(" .—(1) The Scottish Executive shall after the first financial year of the Parliament make an annual written statement showing—

(a) the total amount of the expenditure which it proposes to incur for that year; and

(b) on what it proposes to incur that expenditure,and shall present it to the Parliament for approval.

(2) After the Parliament has approved the proposed expenditure for that year, a statement under this section shall be published by the Parliament as soon after being made as is reasonably practicable.").
The noble Earl said: The idea behind the new clause is to make quite certain that the Scottish parliament, after its first year in office, produces a budget of its expenditure similar to that produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. In my experience of legislation in respect of local government there has always been a surprising difference between my friends in local government in England and those in Scotland. Those in England always ask for more accurate forecasting of what the local authority wishes to spend than appears to be required by Scottish local authorities.
It is important that local authorities should be able to give an accurate forecast of their proposals. The budget can then be discussed and alterations may then be required. I see nothing in the Bill covering the point I am raising. I beg to move.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My question relates to emergencies. I vividly remember the night of the appalling tragedy at Lockerbie and travelling North with Mr. Donald Dewer. Apart from the terrible scale of the tragedy, there was the immediate problem that the local authority did not have the funds to deal with such an emergency. I believe that application was made to the contingency reserve and funds were provided independent of the local authority.
Will the Minister give a reassurance that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent the Scottish executive applying to the contingency reserve if there is an emergency, which I sincerely hope never again happens in that form?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Amendment No. 276 would place an obligation on the Scottish executive to make a statement of its proposed expenditure to the Scottish parliament. There is a similar provision in the Welsh Bill and the noble Earl may well have had that in mind when he tabled this amendment. However, there are two important differences between the Scottish parliament and the national assembly for Wales in this respect. The national assembly does not have a separate executive, nor can it enact primary legislation. In this particular case, those are crucial differences. It is the Scottish parliament that will hold the executive to account and it will legislate for that.
Clauses 62 and 66 provide that the Scottish parliament has to make legislation covering the circumstances that payments may be made out of the Scottish Consolidated Fund as well as the arrangements for financial control, audit and accounting. I have no doubt that the parliament's procedures will meet all the essential points made by the noble Earl. But we should not attempt to tie it down to such detailed arrangements.
I assure the Committee that the Government are satisfied that the Bill strikes the right balance through providing a framework for the parliament to make robust financial arrangements while leaving it the scope to decide its own affairs. Only in that way do we believe that the parliament can really take ownership of its procedures and, it is hoped, ensure their success.
I can give the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, the reassurance that he seeks. There is nothing in the Bill to stop what he has spoken about. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will join with him in hoping that such a terrible event never happens again, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the procedure that he described. I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: Once again, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, for her explanation. I am satisfied that my wishes are covered in the Bill. Perhaps I did not pick up all the points, even when I read the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Financial control, accounts and audit]:
The Earl of Balfour moved The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 277:
Page 28, line 26, at beginning insert ("Subject to directions given from time to time by the Treasury,").
The noble Earl said: Once again, I have always felt that the Treasury must have the last say. That is why my amendment provides:
"Subject to directions given from time to time by the Treasury".
Also in this group is Amendment No. 278 which stands in my name. I believe that the presentation of the accounts produced by the Scottish parliament must be such that the Treasury is satisfied in the way in which those accounts are kept.
I know from my limited experience in business that sometimes there has been an awful row between the auditor of the accounts and the company secretary that the two accounts are not being kept to the satisfaction of either of them. Such a tragedy can sometimes happen and create a great many difficulties. That is the basic reason behind my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have two amendments grouped with the amendments to which my noble friend has just spoken. My noble friend and I are looking at the same issue and perhaps approaching it in a slightly different way. I suggest the removal of Clause 66(3) which simply states:
"Standing orders shall provide for the consideration by the Parliament of accounts and reports laid before it in pursuance of subsection (1)(f)".
I am including rather firmer proposals which are much more detailed and outline some specifications for the accounts. Like my noble friend, I agree that the Treasury should have the right to give any directions from time to time.
I suspect that we shall have to return to this matter on Report because I am not entirely convinced that my amendments achieve what I want them to achieve. That is one of the problems of being in opposition. However, sometimes the Government have clauses which do not achieve what they want them to achieve. The Minister has, in fact, deleted a couple of clauses from his own Bill. Therefore, I am not too ashamed that my amendment does not do exactly what I should like it to do.
There was considerable debate about this problem in the other place which was led by my honourable friend Mr. David Davis who is the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I wondered about putting anything down at all on this matter, because it is very much a House of Commons matter. But, in fact, when it was left in the other place, Mr. David Davis expressed the hope that Members of this Chamber would explore the issue. That is what we are doing.
In the other place there is a very well-honed system consisting of the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General. Indeed, the Public Accounts Committee is, arguably, quite the most fearsome of all the committees in the other place. It is always chaired by a Member from the main Opposition

1713
party. That is why my honourable friend, David Davis, is currently the chairman and why the Member so assigned in the last Parliament was a Labour Back-Bencher, and a very powerful one at that with considerable Treasury experience behind him.
Therefore, the other place has a system whereby it can call into account all the expenditure of departments, and so on. It ensures that, if the Comptroller and Auditor General reports adversely, the Treasury Committee will hold hearings. Indeed, I believe that has been happening during the past few days as regards my former department on the subject of benefit fraud, which, if I recall, was not supposed to exist when we said it did. However, I am glad to see that everyone now accepts that it does exists and that we must try to get rid of it. Nevertheless, I should point out to the Government that that is easier said than done.
However, this is an extension of the earlier debate that we had in which I suggested that the Secretary of State ought to be satisfied that proper controls were in place in order to check and audit the expenditure in exactly the same way, or in a similar way, to the way in which the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee do in the other place. Therefore, my amendment would firm up what subsection (3) talks about in two lines. It would be much more specific than just saying that, "standing orders shall provide".
Clause 66 specifies a limited framework of accountability, if one reads through the first section and the various subsections that follow. It sets out in a limited way the accountability and scrutiny which the Scottish parliament must adopt, but the parliament will remain largely free to devise its own procedure. I will probably be told by the Government that I should leave this to the good sense of the parliament. Indeed, that is the response I get when I suggest that something should go into the legislation. However, when I suggest that perhaps something should come out, as I did with the Liberal Democrat Benches on the last day of Committee, I am told that it must be left in. It is all very complicated and I make no apology for weaving a bit, because the Government are also weaving around on this issue as regards what should and should not be specified.
I accept that it will be up to the parliament to devise its own procedures. However, my amendment would give the Treasury the power to make directions in such matters if it thinks it needs to do so. I suspect that what will actually happen, even without my amendment, is that the Scottish parliament will discuss these matters informally with the Treasury and that the procedures established will be perfectly satisfactory. But, if they are not perfectly satisfactory, I believe that the Treasury should have some power to insist. My reason is the same one as I used earlier; namely, that the £14 billion will come from money raised by the Treasury at the instruction of Parliament—in other words, it will come from British taxpayers—but, as we have already heard, the procedures down the corridor for overseeing expenditure by government departments will not cover
1714
that money. It seems to me to be right and proper that the Treasury should be satisfied that proper monitoring and control is in place in Scotland.
The second half of my amendment, Amendment No. 278B, relates to the Auditor General for Scotland. However, I believe that I ought to have tabled an amendment to remove subsections (4) and (5) from Clause 66 because the second part of my amendment would replace those subsections. I hope that the Minister will accept an apology from me in that respect. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that he and his officials saw clearly what I was trying to do.
Amendment No. 278B would set up the appointment of the Auditor General, who would be an independent person and appointed by Her Majesty. It also specifies the way that he or she should be removed. However, there is one significant difference; namely, that the removal contains no specification as to the majority, whereas the Government have a qualified majority of two thirds in the Bill. Subsection (5) provides that,
"the number of members voting in favour is not less than two-thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament".
We do not have such qualified majorities here. Indeed, we have never felt that they were needed. The other place operates on a simple majority, as does this Chamber. I wonder why the new parliament requires a qualified majority.
I may be told that we should not necessarily ape Westminster, but if we are being consistent as regards the usual explanation that we should trust the parliament, we ought to be able to trust it with a straightforward ordinary majority. Before the Government Ministers tell me how important qualified majorities are, I remind them of the scathing dismissals I received from the Government Front Bench when I suggested that referendums ought to have qualified majorities. It seems to me that if the Government think that a totally unqualified majority in a referendum is good enough, I suggest that the Auditor General could be dismissed on an ordinary straightforward majority without qualification.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I support my noble friend in respect of the auditors. I know that some quite big companies can change their auditors almost by a simple majority. I do not say that we quite want that, but is it wise to have this larger majority—two-thirds—to change an auditor? I should have thought not.
Lord Sewel: I offer a rough and ready rule of thumb on this business of what is "in" and what is "out". Basically, we would make far quicker progress if we accepted that what is in should remain in, and what is out should remain out. I would move an amendment to that effect to cover the whole of the Bill, if need be.
Amendments Nos. 277 and 278 would require the Scottish parliament, in setting out its detailed rules for the effective control and scrutiny of spending of the Scottish executive, to do so in accordance with directions made by the Treasury from time to time. The difficulty is, of course, that, essentially, that strikes at

1715
the essence of devolution and cuts across the guiding principles behind Clause 66; namely, that the detailed procedures which the Scottish parliament makes to control and scrutinise the spending of the Scottish executive should be a matter for the Scottish parliament itself. Only in this way can the parliament take full ownership of its own procedures and so be committed to ensuring their success.
Furthermore, if the parliament is to hold the executive to account, it follows that it, not some external source, should decide on the details of the accounting. I am satisfied that the provisions in the Scotland Bill strike the right balance between prescription in relation to the matters the parliament must make provision for, while leaving it the maximum degree of freedom.
Of course we shall ensure that the parliament and the executive are given the best possible advice in these matters. That is why we set up the consultative steering group and the financial issues advisory group. Therefore they will not approach this matter "cold"; there will be much experienced professional advice not just available to them, but—not to beat about the bush—virtually rammed down their throats. On that matter they will be in a position to make the proper decisions on the basis of those recommendations. However, it is still an important point of principle that they should make the decisions for themselves. In that way they are committed to them; they accept ownership of them; and they will want to ensure that they are a success. On that basis I hope that the noble Lord feels it possible not to press his amendment.
As regards Amendment No. 278A, I am slightly puzzled as the amendment seeks to delete Clause 66(3) which makes provision for consideration of accounts and reports by the parliament. Clearly we shall return to the point slightly later in our proceedings. I look forward to the explanation.
Amendment No. 278B, covers a number of issues which I shall now turn to. The first concerns the form of the accounts, and suggests that these should be directed by the Treasury. That undermines the principle of devolution. It is important to realise the nature of the parliament we are establishing. It will be a legislative body with law-making powers, and—crucially in this context—it will have a clearly defined and separate executive. In these circumstances, it is the right, indeed the duty, of the parliament to hold the executive to account. It follows that it, not some external source, should decide on the details of the accounting.
As I have said, we shall ensure that the parliament and executive are given the best possible advice in these matters. However, it will be up to the parliament to decide for itself on the basis of the advice it has on the final shape of the arrangements.
The second point relates to the accountability of other bodies. In this respect it is important to realise that the Bill leaves underlying legislation regarding the accounting and auditing of other bodies such as health service bodies, non-departmental public bodies and local authorities substantially in place. It may modify the auditing by transferring it to the Auditor General for Scotland, and provide for reports to be made to the
1716
Parliament. But the essentials are the same. The parliament may, of course, modify those provisions, but it need not do so. Government Amendment No. 278AA clarifies that it may do so even where the body deals with both reserved and devolved matters but is funded from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. That is there to cover that eventuality.
The third also proposes the designation of accounting officers, and the fourth arrangements for the appointment of the independent auditor by Her Majesty along with certain safeguards in relation to that person's removal from post. I must admit to being confused by the noble Lord's suggestion. As he will no doubt know, similar amendments were proposed by the right honourable Member of Haltemprice and Howden, Mr. Davis, in the other place. In response to the concerns the honourable Member expressed, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland tabled amendments which make provision for these matters. These fulfil the commitment given to the right honourable Member for Haltemprice and Howden that we would consider ways to strengthen the independence of the head of the audit service and for the appointment of accounting officers. The new sections can be found at Clause 66(1)(e), which refers to the appointment of accounting officers, and at Clause 66(4) and (5) covering the matter of the appointment and removal of the Auditor General for Scotland by Her Majesty.
At the risk of inviting the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to return to the referendum debate and bring in various members of his family, I do not think that the issue of qualified majorities in relation to a referendum and the need for a qualified majority to ensure a degree of protection and independence to an officer such as the Auditor General are comparable. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before my noble friend decides what to do with his amendment, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanations. We shall study his amendments when we see them as a unified part of the Bill. They go a little way, but not very far, towards satisfying some of the problems that were raised.
It is the raising of moneys that is the problem. It is not an independent parliament which raises its own money. The problem is that it will be the other place that will still be raising the money. The question mark is over the ability of the raiser of the money to check that the auditing and accounting procedures etc. are properly in place. So perhaps I should not have included the Treasury—perhaps it should have been the House of Commons, the Public Accounts Committee or even the Comptroller and Auditor-General, to make sure that there is, as it were, a trace between the £14 billion raised through supply and its actual spending.
I can understand the difficulty of creating that trace when we want to ensure that the parliament looks after itself responsibly. Equally, I do not think we can ignore the fact that the other place has to raise the money. That is the problem to which I return. Will the Minister say what role he envisages the Public Accounts Committee in the other place will have as regards the £14 billion

1717
or the Comptroller and Auditor General? Will they rely entirely on scrutiny in the Scottish parliament? If so, we must find a way for them to be satisfied that they can rely entirely on the procedures in the Scottish parliament. If the Minister can give me some assurances on that, I would be more than content. However, I can understand that it is a complicated area and he may prefer to write to me before we get to Report.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I am grateful for the spirit in which the noble Lord offered those comments. I shall take advantage of his invitation to write to him on those matters and ascertain what progress can be made.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend Lord Balfour decides what to do with his amendment, I do not believe I heard the Minister say what I understood to be the case. The auditor general in Scotland is not the auditor of the Scots parliament. He is not its auditor; he is an independent person appointed by Her Majesty to do the job independently. That is why the two-thirds majority recommendation is set. Is that right?
Lord Sewel: I am afraid that Her Majesty, knowledgeable as she is, would not act independently to appoint the auditor general. She would act on the basis of advice received in Scotland. The protection is there and there are examples from the local authority background. I believe it was the old sanitary officer who could only be sacked subject to a complicated arrangement. It is simply to protect that particular official, to give him a degree of protection, to secure his independence. The parliament would have to cross a significant barrier in order to dismiss him. It could not be done on the basis of a slight political whim.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Does the parliament then have to approve the name of the auditor general? I have not seen that anywhere. The noble Lord said that it has to be on the advice of someone in Scotland. How does a person become appointed? The independence is quite important. I do not wish to hold up matters, but it seems to me that there must be a reason for the two-thirds majority.
Lord Sewel: The parliament appoints him. It is difficult to see who else would appoint him; it would be inappropriate for the executive to do so. It is the parliament that appoints him and, having once appointed him or her, it is necessary to give him a degree of protection.
The Earl of Balfour: I am glad I initiated the discussion because it has cleared my mind a great deal. I should be most grateful if the Minister could send me a copy of the letter on this point as well. Otherwise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 277A:
Page 28, line 33, leave out ("independent").
The noble Lord said: There is a somewhat daunting list of amendments in this group: Amendments Nos. 277A, 277B, 278AA, 278AB, 278AC, 278C to 278J and 294ZZA. They are mainly technical. The substantive point about the amendments concerns cross-border public authorities which receive part of their income directly from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. In practice they are likely to be two bodies: the Forestry Commission and the proposed food standards agency. In these cases the current provisions in the Bill could very well mean dual accounting and dual auditing. Obviously, it would be sensible for such bodies to provide only one account with, if necessary, an apportionment to Scotland as well as the other parts of the United Kingdom and for that account to be audited only once; for example, by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. It could well be that such an arrangement would suit the needs of both this Parliament and the Scottish parliament.
The effects of Amendments Nos. 278C to 278F are to make it possible for such an arrangement to be made, probably under an order under Clause 84 of the Bill. The other amendments in the group clarify the provisions regarding the Auditor-General for Scotland and the competence of the Scottish parliament to provide for the accountability of persons receiving sums derived from the Scottish Consolidated Fund, even where those sums are used for functions in relation to reserved matters. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation of these clauses. I am brought to my feet more by a mention of the Food Standards Agency and the Forestry Commission. In some way I managed to omit an amendment to allow us to discuss the Forestry Commission and I shall not use the Minister's mention of it to introduce a debate on it. To some extent I failed to see the wood for the trees when tabling the amendments. However, I am interested in that subject and the Minister must be slightly surprised that there was not an amendment in relation to the Forestry Commission. That will be rectified on Report.
I rise to say to the Minister that this is quite a change and it is difficult to read one's way through it. Normally, if everything had gone to plan we would be having our last day today and over the Recess would be in possession of a reprint of the Bill for Report. For a number of reasons of which everybody is aware, we are not finishing today and will have a day in the overspill. Is it possible for the Minister to send me a letter containing the new clause as it will appear in the reprint which we would receive in October after the last day? I would find that handy in the Recess—not that I intend

1719
to work much in August, so the noble Lord need not hurry, but perhaps by September I may wish to turn my attention to the matter again.
Lord Sewel: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, is eminently reasonable in his request, as always, and we will endeavour to meet it.
Lord Hope of Craighead: As the Minister said, this is a formidable list of amendments. It is the two simplest which caught my eye—Amendments Nos. 277A and 277B. Perhaps he could give a word or two more in explanation.
Amendment No. 277A takes out the word "independent" from Clause 66(1)(c). The Auditor-General of course is an independent person. The clause gives him power to allow other persons to exercise the functions. I am not sure why the word "independent" is being taken out. Perhaps an explanation could be given.
The other point relates to Amendment No. 277B, which deletes from Clause 66(2)(d) the words,
"or by the Scottish Ministers".
I can see that on one view those words are unnecessary because Clause 66 deals with movement of money in and out of the Consolidated Fund. I assume that if money is being given to other persons from the fund, one of the channels by which that will happen is through the hands of Scottish Ministers. It may be that that is the reason why these words are being deleted.
If that is being done, I am not sure why the wider phrase "their resources" is used in subsection (1)(c) where the function extends to looking at the use by Scottish Ministers and the Lord Advocate not simply of moneys obtained from the Consolidated Fund but also of resources.
It is late in the night to expect an answer to those questions. Perhaps the Minister will look a little more carefully at the relationship between subsection (2)(c) and (d). My essential point is that as I understood the clause as a whole it was concerned only with the consolidated fund. The use of the words "their resources" raises a slight concern that the functions of the auditor may extend more widely than the movement of monies in and out of the consolidated fund.
Lord Sewel: I can clarify at least part of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord. Amendments Nos. 277A and 277B are consequential to Amendments Nos. 278AC and 278AA respectively. I doubt that that adds any clarification whatever.
Amendment No. 277A ostensibly has the effect of no longer requiring that persons appointed by the Auditor-General for Scotland to undertake audits of value-for-money studies need be independent. That is not the case. The independence of such people is provided for in government Amendment No. 278AC. This amendment is consequential to it. I hope that deals with that.
Amendment No. 277B is consequential on government Amendment No. 278AA. Amendment No. 278AA makes it clear that the parliament can legislate to ensure that persons receiving money
1720
indirectly from the Scottish Consolidated Fund for example, through a grant from the Scottish Ministers—are accountable to the parliament for the functions for which those sums are received. These functions could relate to reserved matters—for example, in the case of a Scottish public authority—with a mix of devolved and reserved functions such as the local authorities. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that the parliament can legislate on the accounting and auditing arrangements when non-departmental, public or similar bodies undertake reserved functions using monies from the Scottish Consolidated Fund. I hope that goes at least part of the way.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I am most grateful for that explanation.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 277B:
Page 29, line 12, leave out ("or by the Scottish Ministers").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 278 and 278A not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 278AA:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("(3A) Scottish legislation may make further provision for the purpose of ensuring that persons who receive sums derived from the Fund are accountable including, in particular, provision for any person to whom subsection (1)(a) does not apply to be accountable for his expenditure and receipts in respect of functions for which he receives sums derived from the Fund.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 278AB:
Page 29, line 18, leave out ("independent person") and insert ("individual").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 278AC:
Page 29, line 25, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(5A) The Auditor General for Scotland shall not, in the exercise of any of his functions, be subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Executive or of the Parliament.
(5B) Subsection (5A) does not apply in relation to any function conferred on him of preparing accounts.
(6) Persons (other than the Auditor General for Scotland) charged with the exercise of any function mentioned in subsection (2) or other like function conferred by Scottish legislation shall not, in the exercise of that or any ancillary function, be subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Executive or of the Parliament.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 278B not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendments Nos. 278C to 27811:
Page 29, line 28, leave out from beginning to ("requires") in line 29 and insert ("Scottish legislation may not require any cross-border public authority to prepare accounts if any other legislation").
Page 29, line 30, leave out from ("of") to second ("and") in line 31 and insert ("its expenditure and receipts").
Page 29, line 33, at end insert (", the Comptroller and Auditor General or a person appointed by either of them; and in this subsection "other legislation" means any enactment (including one made under this Act) other than Scottish legislation.").
Page 29, line 40, leave out ("the") and insert—
("(a) any").
Page 29, line 41, leave out ("the") and insert—
("(b) any").
Page 29, line 42, at end insert ("which are required to be examined, certified and reported on by the Auditor General for Scotland or any person appointed by him,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 66, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Lyell: Amendment No. 278J is in the happy list of groupings, but seems to be informal. The noble Viscount, on the advice of the Minister, stopped at Amendment No. 278H. Have I been asleep and missed out? What happened to Amendment No. 278J?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): The noble Lord will realise as he studies the briefing that we stop at Amendment No. 278H to put the clause. Then we follow it with Amendment No. 278J, which also applies to Clauses 67 and 68.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 278J:
Divide Clause 66 into two clauses, the first (Auditor General for Scotland) to consist of subsections (4) to (5B) and the second (Financial control, accounts and audit) to consist of subsections (1) to (3A) and (6) to (10).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clauses 67 and 68 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 279 not moved.]
Clause 69 [Power to fix basic rate for Scottish taxpayers]:
10 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 279A:
Page 30, leave out lines 36 to 38.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 281BA. We have made some good progress in the past hour or so. I suspect that we shall now slow up because we now come to the part of the Bill dealing with the tax varying powers. I firmly believe that this requires a great deal of examination and questioning.
I am bolstered in that view by a letter which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon received from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland. The letter is written by Charlotte Barber, the institute's assistant director on taxation. I shall not quote the whole of the letter but I wish to give the Committee the flavour of some of it. It underlines the need for some serious thought to be given to the way the next few clauses, including the one we are discussing, are drafted and the
1722
approach the Government have taken with regard to the tax varying powers. I am not arguing whether or not there should be tax varying powers. That was decided in the referendum. I am looking at how the Government are delivering the tax varying powers.
The letter from the institute states:
"However, we remain concerned about the quality of the proposed legislation in the following respects. We are strong supporters of the tax law rewrite project and question why this approachable technique has not been used here. The financial provisions in the Scotland Bill do not make easy reading".
If I asked how many of your Lordships were content with that, I think the answer would be all content and no one not content. That would be pretty much the view of all noble Lords.
The letter goes on to state:
"Although we welcome the Inland Revenue consultation document about the Scottish variable rate, it runs to some 44 paragraphs of explanation—about seven clauses in the Bill—and is not even intended to be comprehensive. It seems quite wrong that such an amount of explanation is required and suggests that the underlying legislation lacks clarity".
Those noble Lords who have tried to wade their way through the 44 paragraphs, unless they happen to be members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, probably became as lost as I did. I understood a few of the paragraphs but I failed miserably to understand a few others.
The letter continues:
"The commentary provided by the Revenue seems to be contrary in parts to the underlying legislation. For example, in the commentary there are instances where the Inland Revenue has decided to forgo its power of collection as a commercial decision because collection would cost more than the money involved. This is sensible and is not to the detriment of the taxpayer. However, the Inland Revenue does not have the prerogative to deny a taxpayer relief to which he is entitled nor, for administrative convenience, to reduce another person's income. We question the approach taken to charitable covenants, particularly the impact this approach may have on Scottish-based charities such as the Church of Scotland and the SSPCA, to name but two".
I shall come to that on another amendment.
The letter continues:
"We are of the opinion that the principles of constitutional change should be clearly implemented. Underlying the Scottish variable rate is the principle that the electorate of Scotland has accepted a degree of fiscal responsibility. The fiscal discretion may only be marginal but the objective of the SVR is to ensure that the Scottish parliament is accountable to its electorate for the spending decisions which it makes. We recommend that there should be further consideration of these fiscal clauses to ensure that the defects apparent are corrected. Of equal concern, the cost of maintaining the register of Scottish taxable persons and the costs of collection of tax would appear to be substantial and disproportionate to the compliance costs of other forms of taxation. The tax may increase in the future or the legislation could be used as a prototype for other regional assemblies. Either way, the legislation should be clear and comprehensible".
The letter then goes on to something with which some Members of the Committee may have a great deal of empathy. It states:
"The state has a fundamental duty to the taxpayer who must self-assess to specify clearly any tax liability. There appears to be no reason why the financial provisions need to be rushed at this stage given that it will be a number of years before the tax is to be levied. Surely now is the time to consider carefully and fully how the Scottish variable rate can best be implemented. In our experience

1723
with Finance Bills, there is very rarely sufficient parliamentary time to revisit unsatisfactory tax laws at a later stage; nor is a series of Revenue explanatory papers a solution, as discussed in Pepper v. Hart".
I have read that out to underline the fact that the professional bodies are not very happy with these clauses. If they are not very happy, I am sure that that leaves those of us who are laymen in these matters even less happy.
I recall when I spoke from the Government Benches on behalf of the Treasury taking part in a hugely interesting debate one Friday about writing simple legislation. We had an example of sections of a Finance Bill written simply. The difference between what we write now and what the group suggested that we could write in the future was the difference between chalk and cheese. I see the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, assenting. I am not sure whether he was present for that debate, but the example given was remarkable. I fully endorse the idea that we could write these seven clauses more simply.
I come now to my amendment, having discussed the background to the next few clauses. I am sorry to have gone on a bit, but these are important matters. The Government's problem is this: it all seemed so simple at the start. Paragraph 7.13 of the White Paper stated:
"The Scottish Parliament will have the power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by a maximum of 3p. This is consistent with the recommendations of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Since each 1p change would currently vary revenue by around £150m, the Scottish Parliament would be able to levy or to reduce income tax for basic rate taxpayers in Scotland by up to around £450m. It is of course possible that future changes to the UK income tax structure might reduce the value of the product of the Scottish Parliament's tax-varying power".
I bet that they sometimes wish that they had never written the next sentence:
"In these circumstances, the Parliament's ability to raise or forgo up to £450m through the tax system will be preserved".
That is the rub.
When the Secretary of State discussed these matters in the other place, he explained the same thing in slightly different words. He said that the Government were trusting the people of Scotland to make choices on their own behalf and that they must therefore face the real financial choices. He said that the 3p in the pound variation was devised to do that. He went on to say that if the parliament's power to raise the £450 million, which would be index-linked to preserve its real power, were eroded at some hypothetical future date by changes in the UK tax structure, an alternative base with the same sort of impact in terms of distribution would be provided by the Treasury. That explains why we have Clause 72, which is hugely complex.
Reading the debate in the other place, it is quite clear that the Government had no clear idea how any difference would be made up. If some day in the future the basic band were to be reduced in range and size, naturally the take from a penny rate in Scotland would reduce. We all follow that. Let us assume for a moment that the parliament increased it—"decreased" is far too fanciful and complicated—by 3p, which is the maximum, and it did not bring in the £450 million.
1724
The question that is asked again and again is how that gap would be bridged. No answer, good or bad, has been given. Clause 72 more or less says that it should all be left to the good sense of the Treasury. It is fairly heavily hedged about with expressions such as "if the Treasury thinks", "if the Treasury sees fit", and so on. I do not believe that that is satisfactory.
I notice that in his Second Reading speech the Minister changed the £450 million of Holy Writ—the White Paper and the constitutional convention—to £400 million. I am puzzled as to what calculation has been made that results in the loss of £50 million from the ceiling. We must be clear as to exactly how much money we are talking about. As it stands the Bill refers later to the amount raised in relation to the year 1997–98. If that is less than £450 million it is at variance with the recommendations of the constitutional convention and the White Paper.
If I committed an offence of that severity and went against both the White Paper and the constitutional convention I would be given a serious dressing down by whichever government Minister replied. The problem is that the Government tried to link 3p and £450 million. They should have specified 3p or up to 3p. If those who examined the legislation asked the Government what would happen if the Chancellor reduced the basic rate band, or something else occurred to reduce the take, Ministers would say, in their usual elegant and well-argued manner, "hard luck".
The alternative is to take the £450 million and say that that is the figure that can be raised or lowered on the basis of the basic rate. The Scottish parliament would then have power to pass a resolution changing the basic rate, perhaps by 3p or 3½p. I doubt that it would be more than 4p in any conceivable circumstances. That is exactly what my two amendments seek to do. They would remove the necessity for some of the subsequent clauses. I offer them in good faith. I may be accused at some future date of making the Scottish variable rate 3½p or 4p. I am prepared to put on my devolutionary hat and stand shoulder to shoulder with the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, to defend that position. I believe that that is much simpler.
However, £450 million will be taken away from Scottish taxpayers by one means or another. I believe that it is much more sensible to take it away by the one means available in the Bill; namely, the Scottish variable rate. If the Government accept my amendment, Clause 72 could be deleted. That would delight everyone, including I suspect the draftsman who is perhaps less than confident about exactly what the provision would deliver. My amendment may be defective, although I have had it drafted by people who take a good deal of interest in finance Bills and who draft amendments to such Bills. Even if it is defective I believe that the principle is more open and allows the Government to re-write this part of the Bill to make it much simpler. It will also deliver to the Scottish parliament what that body and the Scottish people believe they will get; namely, an increase or decrease of up to £450 million, to be achieved through varying the basic rate of income tax.
I hope that the Minister accepts this amendment in the way intended. I believe that it is a method of simplifying a horribly complicated way of collecting no more than £450 million. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Lyell: I am delighted that the county of Angus is here and that my noble neighbour the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is leaping to his feet. I too have received extensive briefing from the chartered accountants of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has very considerably shortened any remarks which I may wish to make now or at a later stage.
The Minister may remember, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, remembers, that I asked exactly these questions a year ago when we discussed the White Paper—£450 million and 3p. If the combination of these sums did not come out, where would the sum come from? The Minister had extensive cunning and it was the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who fielded the high up and under; whether or not he made direct touch, I am not sure.
Happily I have the Inland Revenue paper to which my noble friend referred. It has completely stunned me, though one could not quite perform major surgery on me. I draw the attention of my noble friend to paragraph 12 of this Inland Revenue press release. It refers to something I have not yet heard of, and this is just a preliminary paper. It does not refer to any of the major clauses that I may wish to come to later. There is reference to a splendid thing called a RAT, a rate applicable trust. In paragraph 21 there are UUTs, which I thought had something to do with Ulster Unionists but which is an unauthorised unit trust. This is very helpful and very helpful possibly to chartered accountants and others; but I think one could count them on the fingers and toes of one or two of your Lordships here in the Committee tonight. I do not believe, however, that the Inland Revenue press release is of extensive help to the general population of taxpayers, let alone those who were referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate when he answered some of my questions at Second Reading and those Scottish taxpayers whom we shall be discussing later.
I have followed every word that my noble friend has said. It is very complicated and we are only just getting our little toes wet on this aspect. It is no fault of the Minister and the Front Bench team that we are coming to it this late in the proceedings. I shall try to follow my esteemed colleagues and be brief, but it is a very important subject. If we do stray beyond the witching hour, so be it.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I would say to my noble neighbour that "leaping" to my feet is perhaps a slight exaggeration, but I would like to raise a point which has been rather passed over, in that Amendment No. 287 was grouped with Amendment No. 272. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, dismissed the question of lowering the rate of tax. He did bring it up, however,
1726
and I think I would be justified in asking the Minister a question and putting the point that my noble friend Lord Thurso wished to put.
He is conscious of the fact that the gross rate of return of tax does not depend so much on the rate of tax but on the prosperity of the economy. We have constantly seen Chancellors of the Exchequer with no money coming in; suddenly there is some prosperity and they have a surplus, which appears to have happened in the case of the present Chancellor. It might well not be fanciful at all therefore to lower the rate of tax in order to encourage investment in Scotland, and it might well be successful. At the present moment, however, it appears that the Government would simply nick the amount off, on some form of calculation, and that would be that. That appears a little unjust. The calculation can be made by the Inland Revenue. If that revenue comes in, it should not be taken off; or it should be repaid at a later date. It is a practical point. I should very much like to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Sempill: I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I echo his sentiments that the legislation is confusing for those of us with no accounting or finance background.
When the Minister responds to the amendment, perhaps he will answer this question. There was lengthy debate on the issue in another place which continued for nearly two days. The one question that kept arising was the extent to which the issue was restricted only to income tax. The Scottish Office Minister of State for Home Affairs, Devolution and Transport, Mr. Henry McLeish, denied that the Scottish parliament could raise taxes other than income tax. I thought that that was a fairly straightforward answer. I find it staggering that the issue continues to arise. People mention that additional revenues could be raised indirectly through other or new local taxes. Can the Minister clarify whether the response given by Mr. Henry McLeish is correct: that the 3p can be raised only through income tax?
Lord Sewel: First, I reply to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in what was a general preamble to the specific amendment. He drew our attention to the views expressed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, and in particular its concern about reliefs. The institute's suggestion at that stage was based on a misunderstanding. Since the ICAS letter, Ministers have written to and met with ICAS to clarify the matter.
Let me stress that there is no question whatever that the Inland Revenue will deny reliefs that are legally due to Scottish taxpayers. Nor will it by executive decision ignore the effects of the Bill. That point was made to ICAS and has been accepted by it.
I accept completely that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was giving voice to an earlier concern of ICAS that has now been addressed; and I believe that it has been addressed to the satisfaction of the institute.
I deal also with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill. The powers of the Scottish parliament to vary tax are limited to income tax, to the 3p variation;

1727
and we shall stick to the 3p variation. I believe that a degree of misunderstanding may arise from the ability of the Scottish parliament to change and reform the basis of local taxation. Local taxation is not as set in stone now as it used to be. We have moved from rates to the poll tax—I should say, the community charge—to the council tax within almost the twinkling of an eye. That area of local government, local taxation, is within the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament. But in terms of the taxes raised at the hand of the Scottish parliament, that variation is limited to the 3p power, upwards or downwards.
I turn to the interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, about reducing tax. If the Scottish parliament decides to reduce the tax rate, it will forgo the income which the tax will raise. Therefore, that should feed through to the resources which it can commit to its programmes. It would be attractive if the parliament could reduce the tax and retain the same income. I would hurry to this House and move an amendment that we should limit it to 3p in the pound but that we should go all the way, declare a dividend and still enjoy the same level of services. However, we must recognise that that is not feasible.
If the parliament wishes to reduce the tax rate it will have to forgo that income. That point was made early in our debates on the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, pushed us to make that clear and we were happy to do so.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: The point that I was making was that it might well produce the projected loss, but if that turned into a profit for the Inland Revenue that would be totally unjust. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, looks puzzled. It is possible that it would stimulate the economy so much that the total income would rise by more than the fall in the rate of income. That happens a great deal, as I explained previously, but obviously the noble Lord was not listening. There are facts to prove that. Therefore, it is right that we should produce a method of repaying the money which has been lost to the Scottish Treasury when it put up the total revenue to the Inland Revenue.
Lord Lyell: Perhaps I may be of some assistance to my noble neighbour. I remember figures which were capable of proof in discussion in your Lordships' House, in the Red Book and so forth. The Conservative Government reduced the high rates of income tax which existed in 1979. Although I did not go through every single pound, I understand that the revenue rose.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is failing to look at the other side of the argument. The lowering of the tax rate was accompanied by a removal of many of the allowances, which I shall deal with in one of my amendments. That meant that the taxes were not crazily high in theory, but in practice persons with a taxable income and a marginal rate of 83 per cent. did not pay them, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, who is not here tonight, told me. When the top tax rate was lowered to 50 per cent., the allowances and concessions given by the Inland Revenue were withdrawn.
1728
The noble Lord is on the ball there, but I do not believe that the Scottish parliament, thanks to the Bill before us tonight, will have the power to do that. It may be able to lower the rates, but it will not have the power to remove some of the allowances and concessions, thereby increasing the tax. The Inland Revenue as part of the United Kingdom may do so, but I do not believe that the Scottish parliament will do it. I believe that that is the essence of my noble neighbour's argument.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Sewel: I understood it slightly differently because I thought that I could see where the noble Lord was getting to. If the whole of the Scottish parliament's income, the revenue available to it, a fixed amount of resource, was raised through a tax which it controlled, then a situation such as the noble Lord indicates could arise when, as a result of increasing prosperity, increased population and more people being employed, the same amount could be raised at a lower poundage, effectively.
But that is not the case and is not the way in which the parliament is being funded. It is being funded predominantly by grant and the 3p is an extra top-up on that. Therefore, it loses or gains income only in relation to the 3p adjustment. It is not responsible of taxing on its own basis for the majority of its income, which comes by way of grant.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I believe that the whole point of the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, is that when the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, lowered taxes, the tax take went up enormously. If the Scottish parliament increases the tax take by lowering tax in Scotland, it will not get the benefit. I believe that is what he is saying. He should have said it for himself and I apologise for saying what he was about to say.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I accept that that is the intention at the moment but I am saying that it is not either just or sensible.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: Can the Minister enlighten us on the point made by the Prime Minister? It is my understanding that, when the Prime Minister when to Scotland, he was arguing for a very low Scottish variable rate. Will the Minister confirm that those provisions conform with the Prime Minister's wishes?
My noble friend raised the point that lower taxation can lead to a bigger take for the Treasury. But, of course, if people have more money to spend, they spend it through indirect taxation, so the take can be bigger. Perhaps the Minister will also answer the point made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy that, if we understood the Minister correctly, he was saying, that if there is a lower Scottish variable rate, it will not necessarily mean that the take will be bigger.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may reply to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I agree with what the Prime Minister said. The explanation is that there is a world of difference between a power and a policy. We are giving the parliament the power. We

1729
have said also that for the lifetime of this Parliament, my party will not use that power. That is the policy. Let us make absolutely clear the difference between the power and the policy. This Parliament has the power to bring in tax rates at whatever level it wishes. That may be the power but, clearly, an excessive rate is not the policy of any party at present.
I deal next with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. That is important because it relates back to the substance of the amendments; that is, the difference between the two figures—£450 million and £420 million. I shall read out the reference to that in the White Paper, which states:
"The Scottish Parliament will have the power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by a maximum of 3p".
That is the first, primary statement. It then goes on in explanation and exposition to say:
"Since each 1p change would currently vary revenue by around £150m, the Scottish Parliament would be able to levy or to reduce income tax for basic rate taxpayers in Scotland by up to around £450 million".
It is fair to say that the best estimate that we had at the time from the Inland Revenue was, indeed, that 1p produced £150 million and that 3p produced £450 million. That was the best estimate that the Inland Revenue could give. However, because the tax take is dependent on so many things—for example, general prosperity, the number of people in work, the size of the population and the number of people paying tax—the latest estimate, which is now 11 months old, is that 3p raises £420 million.
I believe that a more recent estimate is due in the very near future, but it is not possible to predict. I understand perfectly what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is advocating, but the practicalities are simply not there. That is why I have to move away from the apparent attractiveness of the guaranteed additional revenue figure; it effectively puts the cart before the horse.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation of the £420 million, although I must say that I am a little puzzled. As regards income to the Treasury from taxation, I thought that that included income taxation, that it was actually quite buoyant and was better than had been forecast. That is one of the advantages that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had from the golden legacy bequeathed to him by the previous government. In that case, I would have expected the income tax from Scottish taxpayers to be equally buoyant. If the Minister had told me that it was being revalued "up the way" I would not have been in the least surprised. But to revalue it "down the way", when I think the total income tax taken in the UK is being revalued "up the way", seems to me to be puzzling.
I wonder if there is more to it than that; for example, was the original calculation perhaps wrong because it was 1p on all the rates of tax or only on basic rate taxpayers, without taking into account the basic rate that higher rate taxpayers would pay? There is a little
1730
uncertainty in my mind about it. It is possible that the Minister will be unable to clear up the matter this evening. I should be grateful if he could, but, if not, perhaps I may suggest that he looks into the matter and sends me another erudite letter.
Lord Lyell: Before the Minister replies, perhaps he will be kind enough to read on from that paragraph in the White Paper. I have the document with me. Of course, the Minister did a brilliant job; but he stopped. If he looks at the last sentence of paragraph 7.13, he will see that it reads:
"In these circumstances, the Parliament's ability to raise or forgo up to £450m through the tax system will be preserved. This sum will be index linked to maintain its real value".
That does not quite equate with the first words that the Minister used. Therefore, with the advice of his noble and learned friend—indeed, we also have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with us—can he advise me whether that "sum" is the flexible sum of £420, or whatever might be coming out as a result of the process? The noble Lord said we would obtain a slightly more accurate projection as to what 1p on the standard rate, as laid out in further amendments, will be. However, which sum will be index linked? It is mentioned in the White Paper. Has anything changed?
Lord Sewel: The "sum" to be index linked is only there if in fact there is a fundamental and radical change in the tax structure, which means that the basic rate calculation can no longer be made because we would no longer have a basic rate. If the tax structure were to change to that degree, we would then have to go back historically to work from—
Lord Lyell: That is not what it says—
Lord Sewel: That is exactly what it says. I am sorry. It says:
"It is of course possible that future changes to the UK income tax structure might reduce the value of the product of the Scottish Parliament's tax varying power. In these circumstances, the Parliament's ability to raise or forgo up to £450m through the tax system will be preserved. This sum will be index linked to maintain its real value".
That index linking is dependent upon a fundamental and radical change in the tax structure, so we would then have to go back to see what was the value in 1996–97 of the 1p and the 3p amounts. The measure is couched in terms of 3p, which would raise around £450 million. In 1996–97 the accurate calculation was a figure of £420 million. If there is a radical change in the tax structure at some time in the future, the base reference would be the £420 million.
Lord Lyell: I shall return to this matter.
Lord Sewel: Let us proceed. I understand that the amendment seeks a guaranteed additional revenue figure rather than a penny rate, but it is unworkable because one cannot calculate at the beginning of the tax year what the guaranteed additional revenue figure will be because during the course of the tax year factors come into play such as the number of people in work, the

1731
population of Scotland either rising or falling, and general prosperity, and that affects the tax take. Therefore one does not know at what level one has to set the tax to get the income that is specified in terms of the guaranteed additional revenue figure. There is the danger under that system that one could breach the 3p barrier because there is a reduction in the tax take that forces one through the 3p ceiling because of, for example, a reduction in the population of Scotland, a general slow down in the economy or something like that. Having fought the referendum on the clear understanding that 3p would be the ceiling, it would be difficult to say to the people of Scotland, "We said 3p but we were referring to a guaranteed additional revenue figure and because of that we have gone through the 3p ceiling". I think that would be a breach of faith with the people of Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If the parliament cannot raise the £420 million from the 3p rate, as I understand it the Treasury will find some clever way of meeting the shortfall out of income tax. The parliament may not breach the 3p on the basic rate of income tax, but it will surely have to meet the discrepancy from somewhere else within the income tax system.
This is a difficult issue and perhaps it is too late at night to discuss it, but if the parliament is not to break the 3p ceiling, the only logical conclusion is that if that does not deliver the £420 million, one does not get it. I appreciate that the referendum was fought on the 3p ceiling. I suspect that that 3p ceiling will probably never need to be altered unless something dramatic happens to the basic rate, and then it may have to go up, or it may conceivably come down if the basic rate were widened and not narrowed. I am not with the Minister completely on this matter. I think he is defending the 3p and the £420 million at the same time. I do not think that is possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening but he did say it would not be possible to know what the 3p would bring in. How on earth is the parliament to budget if it does not know what the 3p will bring in? When local government sets a budget, it knows exactly what its council tax will bring in, as the Minister well knows. It allows for unpaid debts and so on, but it knows. The Scottish parliament will not know. How is it to do the precise budgeting which is to be audited and looked after so carefully? This is the money that will be raised at the margin, and it will not know, because of all the circumstances described, what that will be. It seems that the Government have got themselves into a position—and I understand why—which is not sustainable. It will not work. They ought to contemplate my noble friend's proposal.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Sewel: We have contemplated and given great thought to the proposal from the Front Bench opposite, and we believe that it is unworkable. That is why we are not proceeding with it. I am not defending both the 3p and the £420 million; I am defending the 3p. The
1732
£420 million—or £450 million, to return to the White Paper—was an attempt based on estimates to give an indication of what 3p actually meant. People to whom I spoke and who were relatively well-informed before we were able to include the £450 million figure had no idea what 3p in the pound meant in terms of a variation to Scottish income tax. The £420 million, which is now the best estimate, only comes into play in terms of the legislation when and if there is a major change in the tax structure. That is the base reference point. Following a change in the tax structure, that is the amount, index-linked, that the post-structural change position has to raise.
Lord Lyell: The index-linked sum is 3p, not this variable figure. The Minister started with £450 million. I understand that; but we should temporarily put that aside. I quite understand 3p on the standard rate. But the Minister has talked about major "earthquake" changes in the standard rate. I think that he is slightly over-egging the position. I understand, and I am with the Minister in this, that it is difficult to know what 3p in the pound on the standard rate for Scottish taxpayers, under the terms of Clause 71, will raise. It might be £420 million; it might be less than that.
If it is less, then that is the point that my noble friend on the Front Bench is driving at. I accept what the Minister says about the 3p being index-linked. In his previous remarks the Minister said: let us put aside the multiple of what will be raised because the tax structure and income tax for Scottish taxpayers may vary from year to year. But the Minister is moving onto dangerous ground if he says that a sum of money, 3p, multiplied by whatever will raise a sum of money and that should be index-linked. Is there not a method by which, at the outset of the tax year, the Scottish parliament can say: we shall have the Scottish variable rate; it will be 3p in the pound; it will be at the start of the year. It could easily refer to the previous year, so that one would know the exact amount that had been raised by levying the 3p rate. I appreciate that the multiple of 3p and the standard rate band paid by all taxpayers in Scotland will make it very difficult, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Carnegy, for the Scottish parliament to know exactly what it will receive. If we stick with the idea of 3p being index-linked, then at least my noble friends and myself, and the specialists—the chartered accountants and others who will have to put this provision into practice—would be a lot happier.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My name was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and it is only for that reason that I intervene, possibly to comfort the Minister. I have never understood that the 3p would be index-linked. The whole purpose of index-linking is to tell one what the product is of the amount of tax raised by that sum. One has to use some kind of index-linking method in order to work out what will happen in future years. If someone's income is related to the index, his income goes up, he pays the same rate of tax, but the amount of tax received by the revenue goes up in

1733
accordance with the index. That is what the reference to index-linking in the White Paper was about, as I understood it.
Lord Sewel: Perhaps I may make clear that the 3p is not index-linked; it remains 3p from the day the Bill is enacted, for evermore. It remains 3p. The amount that it raises will vary historically, not on an index-linked basis, because it can vary in a different way from a straight index-linked basis. It is dependent upon population as well as inflation. So that is not index-linking. The product changes over time in a way which is relatively unpredictable.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the point at some stage about what happens if the estimate is wrong. In such circumstances the Scottish parliament will receive payments from the Inland Revenue based on estimates which become finer and finer during the course of the year. Remember, this is very much at the margin of its budgeting. If the parliament gets itself into the position where it has budgeted on the assumption of what the tax take should be and the tax take is not quite there, it can then start making in-year reductions to meet the amount of money that it has available. It has end-year flexibility and balances and short-term borrowing powers that are available with the exercise of the Treasury. I imagine the Treasury would say, "All right, it's not your fault, you can have the short-term borrowings to tide you over, but you must make the adjustment in the following year straightaway". That is the way out of that problem.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have had an interesting debate. It underlines some of the complexities. Perhaps I may start with the small sideshow introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, on what would happen if the parliament reduced the taxation. I found the suggestion odd, coming from that quarter, that we might have a reduction in taxation. I suspect, if my memory is right, his party opposed every reduction in the standard rate of tax we made during the last Parliament or the one before. If I remember rightly, the pledge at the last election was to increase the rate of taxation. It is hard to envisage the Liberal Democrats being part of a tax-cutting establishment in Scotland.
The real problem is that if the Scottish taxpayer pays less into the Treasury, but the same amount is still paid out by the Treasury, it would impose a burden of £420 million on the taxpayers of the rest of the United Kingdom. I strongly suspect that some of the arguments we heard earlier today will be coming forth in greater numbers and at greater volume.
I turn to the main issue—the amendment. I am pleased to hear that the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland is satisfied about the position of a Scottish taxpayer and the way in which the SBR will impact. When we come to later amendments, I will check some of the points. I do not suppose they are satisfied about the complexity. The point about trying to make it simpler as a piece of text still exists and that is valid.
1734
I thought that I could be portrayed or could portray myself overnight, with the spin that goes with these things, as the person who came to save the Scottish parliament from the complexities of the clauses on tax varying and ensure that the parliament understood what its income would be. I have been rebuffed. I am not quite convinced by the argument used to rebuff me because I cannot believe that what I suggest is unworkable. Whether it is my system or the 1p, 2p or 3p, the Scottish parliament will have to make an estimate about Budget time of what it would like—if it would like to increase taxes and if it would like more income. It will be told by the Revenue what, on current tax laws, the likely income would be from basic rate. It might not be told if the Chancellor, in the Budget, was secretly about to change the basic rate out of all recognition; but it would be told, year on year, what the Treasury estimated. It would see from the previous year what it would have gained from 1p, 2p or 3p.
Therefore, it would not be unworkable; it would not be impossible to calculate the additional figure any more under my system than under the system the Government intend to introduce. These things vary and I accept that if we are only talking about a 1p rate, then the variation will be a higher percentage figure as a variation than it will be for the whole tax take for the United Kingdom. But it is not impossible.
I can see that if the basic rate was narrowed the Treasury might have to find another way. It is that other way that we will explore later, because the Minister did not answer the points about the other way the tax might be raised.
Keen as one always is on one's own amendments, I am still slightly puzzled as to why I am being rebuffed. The only reason is that the Government feel that, having said in the referendum that it was 3p in the pound, they are tied to that. The problem is that if one goes to Clause 72 then in certain circumstances that might all change. The Treasury might bring forward an order which is a different way of raising this equivalent amount of money. I do not know how that squares with the question on which we were all asked to vote in September.
In a way I see that the Minister is trying to prevent people accusing him of moving away from the 3p; I understand that. But, equally, I suspect that the complexities that he is getting us into in the clauses in this Bill, and the complexities that could occur in the future if something changed in the way the basic rate is operating, are such that we could all, if we stood together, explain comfortably to the Scottish public why it may be the case, at some time in the future, that the basic rate would have to be up by 3.5p or 4p. But a change in the basic rate to make it more than that would have to be of enormous proportions, and would mean that a change would have to be incorporated in this legislation by a finance Act in order to cope with that new situation.
I suspect that I have stumbled across the proper answer the Minister should be making: take out all this stuff and if there is a big change in the future then the Finance Act will deal with it. That would be the proper

1735
place to deal with it and not secondary legislation, which is what is envisaged in Clause 72. But I will be coming to that.
I will read with some care and interest and discuss with the clever people who understand more about this than I happily admit I do, as to exactly where we go from here. I am grateful to the Minister, and especially grateful—as I am sure are all my noble friends—at the way he took interventions on this difficult subject and tried to have a good debate with us. I believe we have made some progress in regard to teasing out some of the important points, but there is a bit more to go in this difficult section. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: Before I move the Motion that the House do now resume, I thank and congratulate Members of the Committee on the progress that has
1736
been made today. With some trepidation I have been looking round the Chamber speaking as a mere Sassenach in what I appreciate is a purely private engagement between the different chapters of the "Scotia Nostra"—and suggest that it shows what can be done if we really try. We must all hope that the same enthusiasm to make progress is shown on the ninth day of Committee in October, to which we are all looking forward.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Chief Whip. It shows how much progress we can make when we get a full day.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—[Lord Carter.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at one minute before eleven o'clock.

  Agricultural Chemical Residues
  Agricultural Chemical Residues
  North Sea Drift Netting
  North Sea Drift Netting
  OECD Convention on Bribery and International Business Transactions
  OECD Convention on Bribery and International Business Transactions
  Computer Software: Intellectual Property Rights
  Computer Software: Intellectual Property Rights
  Coal Subsidies in Germany and Spain
  Coal Subsidies in Germany and Spain
  Strategic Defence Review, Development and Strategic Exports
  Strategic Defence Review, Development and Strategic Exports
  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority: Surgical Policy
  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham Health Authority: Surgical Policy
  Cerebral Palsy: Conductive Education
  Cerebral Palsy: Conductive Education
  Conductive Education: Financial Support
  Conductive Education: Financial Support
  GPs: Conscientious Objection to Abortion
  GPs: Conscientious Objection to Abortion
  Abortion Services: Inequality of Access
  Abortion Services: Inequality of Access
  Food-Borne Outbreaks of Illness: Food Vehicles
  Food-Borne Outbreaks of Illness: Food Vehicles
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Risks
  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease: Risks
  Smoking Education Campaigns
  Smoking Education Campaigns
  Mental Health Act Review
  Mental Health Act Review
  Medical Devices Agency: Report and Accounts
  Medical Devices Agency: Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency: Report and Accounts
  NHS Pensions Agency: Report and Accounts
  Human Rights Bill: Appellate Committee
  Human Rights Bill: Appellate Committee
  Scotland and Wales Bills: Privy Council Judicial Committee Appeals
  Scotland and Wales Bills: Privy Council Judicial Committee Appeals
  Northern Ireland: Reviews
  Northern Ireland: Reviews
  Decommissioning Agreement: Statistics
  Decommissioning Agreement: Statistics
  Northern Ireland Referendum: Release of Prisoners
  Northern Ireland Referendum: Release of Prisoners
  Higher Education: Access Funds
  Higher Education: Access Funds
  Turkey: Conviction of Mr. Ragip Duran
  Turkey: Conviction of Mr. Ragip Duran
  Turkey: Conviction of Mr. Esber Yagmurdereli
  Turkey: Conviction of Mr. Esber Yagmurdereli
  Treaties: Explanatory Memoranda
  Treaties: Explanatory Memoranda
  Turkey: Allegations of Torture
  Turkey: Allegations of Torture
  Nuclear Disarmament: Multilateral Talks
  Nuclear Disarmament: Multilateral Talks
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Sponsorship Money
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Sponsorship Money
  Iraq: Economic Sanctions
  Iraq: Economic Sanctions
  Export of Goods: End-use Control
  Export of Goods: End-use Control
  Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding Balances
  Diplomatic Missions: Outstanding Balances
  Information Vulnerability
  Information Vulnerability
  Vulnerable Infrastructures
  Vulnerable Infrastructures
  Conventional Weapons: Export Policy
  Conventional Weapons: Export Policy
  Emergencies: MoD/DFID Collaboration
  Emergencies: MoD/DFID Collaboration
  Apache Regiments
  Apache Regiments
  Trident
  Trident
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme
  Gulf Veterans' Medical Assessment Programme
  Telecommunications Masts: Planning Controls
  Telecommunications Masts: Planning Controls
  Planning Guidance Note 17 on Sport and Recreation
  Planning Guidance Note 17 on Sport and Recreation
  Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre Executive Agency
  Queen Elizabeth Conference Centre Executive Agency
  Regional Development Agencies: Chairmen
  Regional Development Agencies: Chairmen
  DETR Rural Programmes
  DETR Rural Programmes
  Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Environment Agency and Scottish Environment Protection Agency
  Sewage Treatment and Disposal
  Sewage Treatment and Disposal
  Transport White Paper: Contribution of Minister for Women
  Transport White Paper: Contribution of Minister for Women
  Civil Aircraft: Qualified Maintenance Engineers
  Civil Aircraft: Qualified Maintenance Engineers
  Rural Poverty and Social Exclusion
  Rural Poverty and Social Exclusion
  Genetically Modified Crops: Monitoring
  Genetically Modified Crops: Monitoring
  Road Traffic Humps
  Road Traffic Humps
  Prisoners Ill-treatment: Boards of Visitors' Duty
  Prisoners Ill-treatment: Boards of Visitors' Duty
  Legislation: Human Rights Compatibility
  Legislation: Human Rights Compatibility
  Passports: Grounds for Withdrawal
  Passports: Grounds for Withdrawal
  Youth Justice Task Force
  Youth Justice Task Force
  Terrorism Legislation: Consultation
  Terrorism Legislation: Consultation
  Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Prison Service: Annual Report and Accounts
  Prison Service Agency: Quinquennial Review
  Prison Service Agency: Quinquennial Review
  On-line Lotteries: Legislative Control
  On-line Lotteries: Legislative Control
  BBFC Annual Report
  BBFC Annual Report
  EU: Payments by and to Member States
  EU: Payments by and to Member States
  The Euro
  The Euro
  EU: UK Budget Rebate
  EU: UK Budget Rebate
  Department for Culture, Media and Sports' Key Targets for Institutions
  Department for Culture, Media and Sports' Key Targets for Institutions
  Cancer Research: Lottery Awards
  Cancer Research: Lottery Awards
  Somerset House
  Somerset House
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia: Control Measures
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia: Control Measures
  Gyrodactylus Salaris
  Gyrodactylus Salaris
  Salmon Farms: Relocation
  Salmon Farms: Relocation
  Salmon and Sea Trout Catch Value
  Salmon and Sea Trout Catch Value
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia and Oysters
  Infectious Salmon Anaemia and Oysters
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network: Service Interruptions
  Parliamentary Data and Video Network: Service Interruptions