Sitting of 2 June 1998

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

    Health Services (Worcestershire)
    Mr. Peter Luff: What representations he has received from community health councils in Worcestershire about the provision of health services in the county; and if he will make a statement. [42174]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received letters from Kidderminster and district and Worcester community health councils on the subject of Worcestershire health authority's strategic review. The health authority has now agreed an extension for the consideration of responses to the consultation. I know that negotiations are progressing and given the spirit of co-operation that we are seeking to encourage in the NHS and the progress made so far, I hope that a local agreement can now be reached about the future of local health services.
    Mr. Luff: I sincerely hope that the Minister's optimism is borne out by experience. If a decision falls to the Secretary of State on this matter, will the Minister ensure that he is reminded that the proposals have the full support of the larger community health council in Worcestershire, the Worcester and district health council, Bromsgrove community health council, the Worcester Royal Infirmary trust, Wychavon district council, Malvern Hills district council, the ambulance trust and—perhaps most significantly—the community trust, which recognises that only proposals such as these can safeguard the community hospitals of Worcestershire and enable a fine hospital such as Evesham to develop its services in a cost-effective manner to serve the people of South Worcestershire into the next millennium?
    Mr. Milburn: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, and the concerns of the local community about the future of community hospitals. I hope that the decision does not come to Ministers. It would be far better if the situation could be resolved locally and amicably. Given the progress that has been made so far, I am optimistic that a local consensus will be achieved.
    Mr. David Lock: My hon. Friend will appreciate the anger of my constituents, who are the net
    154
    losers in these proposals, as they see their hospital—which received a charter mark last year—decimated by the proposals of the health authority. Does he accept that that anger was aggravated when the 12,000 local people who took to the streets were dismissed out of hand by the health authority? Will he ensure that the health authority knows that the Government think that local opinion is important in making health care decisions?
    I am grateful that my hon. Friend referred to the negotiations in which, as he knows, I have been involved. Will he ask the health authority to go the extra mile, to improve its offer and—most of all—to clarify its proposals so that the volunteers on the community health council, who all do valuable work for nothing, know precisely what is, and what is not, on offer to the people they represent?
    Mr. Milburn: I pay tribute to all those who have been engaged in the negotiations locally, including my hon. Friend and other hon. Members from both sides of the House. There are difficult decisions confronting the health authority in Worcestershire. I understand that progress is being made and that further meetings have been held this week. It is important that everyone concerned does everything in their power to reach local agreement so that patient services in Worcestershire are protected and we get the best health care for the county's people.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: There are some important decisions to be taken about the future of Worcestershire's hospitals, but, in the meantime, their waiting lists are growing. The royal infirmary's list is longer; Kidderminster's list is longer; the Alexandra's list is longer. The people of Worcestershire are learning fast about the people's waiting lists. Will the Minister offer this House a simple guarantee—that, in his panic to put right the waiting list betrayal we have seen from the Government, we will not see any other NHS performance indicator pushed in the wrong direction instead?
    Mr. Milburn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I hope that he has more success in his new role than in his last one, when he was charged with the responsibility for shoring up the Conservative party's fortunes following its election defeat on 1 May. Given his track record on that issue, I am sure that my hon. Friends will wish him a long tenure as Opposition health spokesman.
    I will not—no Labour Member will—take any lectures from the hon. Gentleman on waiting lists. Under the previous Government, waiting lists rose year after year. Under this Government, waiting lists will come down—not only for one year, but year after year.
    I tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government have made a good start. Now—for the first time since hospital records have been collected—no one is waiting more than 18 months for hospital treatment. We have also decreased—for the first time in two years—the number of people waiting 12 months. I guarantee him that, in one year, waiting lists will be lower than the record level we inherited from the previous Government.
    Mr. Michael J. Foster: The Minister will be aware that the six options under consideration in the health review conducted in Worcestershire all include

    155
    provision of a new district general hospital. Will he reassure both me and the people of Worcestershire—who, after all, have now been on a promise for 40 years—that he will do his utmost to deliver a new hospital? May I also express to him the gratitude of the people of Worcestershire for the extra £2.8 million recently announced to deal with waiting lists in the county?
    Mr. Milburn: I hope that we will not keep the people of Worcestershire waiting for too much longer, if it has been 40 years. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the role that he has played in assiduously campaigning for a new hospital in Worcester. As he knows, progress has been made on the private finance initiative.
    I urge all those concerned, including the private sector consortium, to meet the very tough deadline that the Government have imposed. It is important that that deadline is met, and I am sure that it will be. Worcester is a very important part of the new hospital building programme that the Government have announced, and has the biggest new hospital building programme that the national health service has ever seen. The programme also symbolises our commitment not only to investing in the national health service, but to modernising it.

    Cancer Deaths
    Mrs. Marion Roe: If he will make a statement on the Government's target to reduce the death rates from cancer, as set out in the Green Paper on public health. [42175]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): There are three ways of reducing deaths from cancer, the first of which is by better prevention and reduction of preventable deaths. The Green Paper sets a target of reducing the death rate from cancer among people under 65 by at least a further fifth by 2010. If achieved, the target would annually save approximately 6,000 lives in England.
    The second way is by improving early detection and by better treatment—for example, through the national service frameworks, and implementation of the Calman-Hine approach.
    Finally, we will make an impact on reducing death from cancer by implementing the Government's commitment that, by 2000, anyone with suspected cancer will be able to see a specialist within two weeks of referral for any cancer.
    Mrs. Roe: As waiting lists are a major concern to patients, will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State promised a two-week wait to see a cancer consultant, and immediate surgery? We have not heard very much about that pledge. Has it been forgotten? If it has not, what action has been taken to fulfil that pledge?
    Ms Jowell: The fact is that, in dealing with breast cancer, £10 million was allocated to implement the pledge. By April 1999, any woman who has suspected breast cancer and whose general practitioner thinks that it should be investigated urgently will be seen by a consultant within two weeks of referral. By 2000, that pledge will apply to all patients with suspected cancer. We promised that that was what we would do, and that is what we will do.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments, and her team's commitment to
    156
    ensuring that we really tackle the problem of cancer. In 1997 alone, more than 70,000 men died of cancer. Many of them died of lung cancer, but many others died of prostrate cancer. I therefore welcome the concentration on early detection, particularly among men. For whatever reasons, men neglect their health and the early signs of cancer, and try to avoid tackling the problem.
    Will my hon. Friend ensure that, once treatment is decided, those who have signs of cancer are guaranteed high-quality treatment, regardless of where they live in the United Kingdom—rather than having to play some sort of lottery, based on where they live, that determines the quality of their consultant and treatment?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. Rebuilding the certainty that a patient will be treated by cancer specialists with the competence to provide the highest-quality treatment regardless of where they live is what we mean in practice by discharging our pledge to patients to rebuild a modern national health service.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the increasing concern about the incidence of bowel cancer? How are the Government responding to the representations of the Cancer Research Campaign to give greater priority to the problem?
    Ms Jowell: We have invested a further £10 million to investigate screening for bowel cancer. The pledge that patients will be seen within two weeks of referral will be effective from April 2000. Bowel cancer is a major cause of preventable death. We believe that lives can be saved, and we are investing to save lives.

    Suicide (Young People)
    Mr. David Hanson: What steps he intends to take to reduce suicide rates among young people. [42177]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" sets out the Government's proposed mental health target to reduce the death rate from suicide by at least a further sixth by 2010 and proposals for concerted action to achieve that target, including a reduction in the suicide rates among young people.
    Mr. Hanson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that suicide is one of the biggest causes of death among men under 24? I welcome the targets that have been set in the White Paper. What practical steps do the Government intend to take to ensure that suicides are prevented, so that families such as that in my constituency who had a young boy who committed suicide can be secure in the knowledge that it will not happen again?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is right to highlight a particular problem among young men. Suicide is the second highest killer of young men between 16 and 25, after road traffic accidents. That damning statistic requires concerted action. My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health has addressed that in her Green Paper. A White Paper will follow in the autumn. In the meantime, we are taking practical action, such as considering the size of packets containing drugs and the warnings on them; piloting projects such as the Manchester campaign against

    157
    living miserably, to work out how best to communicate with that hard-to-reach target group; and, importantly, ensuring that general practitioners are equipped to intervene early when the signs of stress and depression and the early stages of schizophrenia first appear. Those alarming figures can be brought down by such practical measures and by increasing public awareness.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The Minister will know that, for a long time, the mental health authorities in Weymouth and South Dorset have been getting people back into the community by using landlords and landladies who have a supporting role for the mentally ill and those who are suicide risks. He will also know that, like their predecessors, the Government are examining how the project should be funded. It has not been properly funded for some years. People are falling through the net between health services and housing benefit. When will the Minister announce changes so that the excellent schemes that have been piloted in my area can continue?
    Mr. Boateng: Only last month I attended a seminar on adult placements. We are working with the Local Government Association and the health authorities to ensure that such schemes are given the priority they deserve, because they have proved effective and need to be backed up by resources. We are giving urgent attention to the matter.
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: Many of the young men who commit suicide are in prison. The Home Office is investigating the problem. What can the Department of Health do to help reduce the number of suicides in prison?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend raises an important question. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is leading a group on that. We have identified a particular role for health authorities in the youth justice teams. So, for the first time, NHS representatives will be sitting alongside those from social services, the Probation Service, the police and others in order that we can work together in a concerted, multi-agency way to address the problems faced by that group of young people.

    Health Trust Boards
    Mr. Stephen Day: If he will make a statement on the composition of health trust boards. [42178]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): At the general election, we promised to make health trust boards more representative of the communities that they serve. We have kept that promise. I am proud to tell the House that, of the 1,000 people whom I have appointed to boards since 1 May last year, half have been women—for the first time in the history of the NHS—and the proportion of black and Asian board members has almost doubled.
    Mr. Day: Given that the Secretary of State has appointed so many Labour councillors to trust boards, why has he threatened to sack them but not offered to resign himself, if his waiting list promises are not met?
    Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman, like every Tory and Liberal Democrat Member, as well as every Labour
    158
    Member, was invited to nominate people to serve on boards in his area. He was either too idle or too careless to respond.
    Audrey Wise: Will my right hon. Friend consider appointing to each trust board someone with special knowledge and understanding of the importance of carers to the NHS? Will he also study the 1990 Social Services Committee report on carers, which was unanimous and cross-party, except for the vote of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who rejected and opposed the report on the grounds that she recognised no such thing as a carer?
    Mr. Dobson: I share my hon. Friend's views. Of the various criteria laid down when judging who should be appointed to trust boards, involvement in caring is one of them. A substantial number of people are so involved. I should have thought that, generally speaking, most people would think that sensible.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Has the Secretary of State any plans for marking the 50th anniversary of the NHS by extending democracy on NHS boards? Is not the problem the fact that, if people were chosen to sit on boards, from the people, by the people, rather than being dependent on the Secretary of State's patronage, the demand for more funding for the health service might become so loud, and Ministers so embarrassed, that they would be forced to recognise what everybody else knows: the NHS needs more money? The Government are the only ones who have not agreed with that.
    Mr. Dobson: I am not entirely sure that either history or the future would bear out the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. My impression is that, generally speaking, the NHS does rather better from central Government funding than from local government, despite the fact that people deciding things in local government are elected. No party, as far as I know, has ever been committed to the idea of elected health authorities or trusts. The NHS is a national health service, and we must keep it that way.
    Mr. Ivan Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he recently appointed—or reappointed—a certain Vera Stringer to serve for a further two years on Bury Healthcare NHS trust board? Not only does she frequently attack Government policy in the local media: she also happens to be chairman of the North-West Conservative party. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) would have been aware of that. Does not that show that the Government are serious about objectivity in appointments and reappointments to health trust boards?
    Mr. Dobson: Yes, indeed.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question so clearly asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day)? Given that he has filled trust boards with his own choices, and that he has threatened to sack all of them if they do not implement some of his rasher promises, how much further must waiting lists rise,

    159
    and how much farther back must he put Labour's so-called pledges before he will consider it appropriate to sack himself?
    Mr. Dobson: I welcome the right hon. Lady to her new post. She is the third shadow health spokesman that I have faced in just 13 months, and she and I are matching accessories in the sense that neither of us counts as being at the fashionable end of politics.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister of State pointed out, our pledge is that, by this time next year, waiting lists will be down to the level that we inherited. We will then reduce them by another 100,000 before the next general election. In doing that, we will achieve something that the Tory party did not manage during its 18 years in office, and we will be proud of that achievement.
    Miss Widdecombe: My question was terribly simple, but the right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer it. He gave us another raft of promises that will not go down well in the corridors of hospitals that have already been carpeted with the broken pledges of the Labour party. The question is not what he will keep on promising, but how much further the pledges must be broken before he will take responsibility. Last month, there was another rise in waiting lists. How much further must they rise, and how much farther back must he put implementation of a so-called early pledge before he will take responsibility and resign? Three times the question has been asked: how much worse must it get before he will resign?
    Mr. Dobson: To set the record straight—[Interruption.] The parliamentary Tory party was so concerned about waiting lists that it did not manage to table a single question on the subject for this Question Time.
    We will get waiting lists down, and by doing so, we will keep our promise. To those who ask me to take responsibility, let me say that this time last year I said that we would help the health authorities to get through the winter and would find extra funds to enable them to do so. I asked them to concentrate on dealing with emergencies, and I accepted that, if they did so, waiting lists would rise. I take responsibility for that, and for everything that I do. I do not blame the people who work in the health service, as all my Tory predecessors seem to do.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In making appointments to hospital trust boards, has my right hon. Friend ever knowingly appointed anyone who advocates chaining women prisoners to their beds as an aid to childbirth?
    Mr. Dobson: No, but I work on the supposition that no one is perfect.

    Tobacco Products
    Mr. William Cash: If (a) the legal service to the European Council and (b) the legal advisers in his Department have provided written opinions on the EC draft directive on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products on which the Council has adopted a common position. [42179]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): Legal advice to the United Kingdom Government and the
    160
    Council must remain internal to those institutions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all advice was carefully considered by the Government in advance of the decision to support the common position. We remain content that the legal base is appropriate for this measure.
    Mr. Cash: Will the Minister put the written advice in the Library of the House, and if not, why not? Is she aware that, only a few days ago, Commissioner Padraig Flynn admitted in the European Parliament that no economic impact study had been done by the European Union in devising the directive? It follows that there is no base on which the directive could legitimately have been made.
    Ms Jowell: That was a nice try. No, I will not place the advice in the Library. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the regulatory appraisal process operates once a directive has completed its parliamentary stages. I have a wonderful sense of nostalgia at today's Health questions. We have the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) back on the Front Bench, and we have Tory Cash for questions.
    Mr. Kevin Barron: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the real concern about the European directive on tobacco advertising is not its legal status, which has been agreed, but the need to assist in saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who die prematurely throughout the European Union from the use of tobacco products?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is right about the importance of ending the 500,000 preventable deaths every year in the European Union from tobacco and smoking-related causes. The legal base is important. We are clear that it is secure and that this measure to harmonise the market in tobacco advertising is appropriately based on the relevant article, which carries with it an obligation to offer a high level of health protection.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is it not ethically unjustifiable, when the European Union is rightly trying to ban tobacco advertising to save life, that it should subsidise the production of tobacco in Greece and other Mediterranean countries?
    Ms Jowell: Yes, but the sort of amendment that we want to the common agricultural policy must be sought through negotiation and consent. We will continue to argue the case for reform.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: What progress has been made towards implementing the proposed European directive on tobacco advertising. [42180]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): On 13 May, the European Parliament voted through unamended the common position agreed by EU Health Ministers last December. We hope that it can now be adopted during the UK presidency. The time scale for implementation of the directive in UK law will be set out in the tobacco control White Paper to be published later this year. This major achievement shows that we are

    161
    serious about co-operation with our European partners and about tackling smoking, and ends an eight-year stalemate on the issue.
    Dr. Palmer: We spend so much time on trivial political points that we sometimes overlook major achievements. Will the Minister for Public Health accept my congratulations, and I think the congratulations of most hon. Members, on breaking the logjam and achieving this important step forward? Will she also accept, perhaps in contrast to the previous questioner, that we now need further advance on other fronts with our European partners to combat the scourge of tobacco, to harmonise tariffs on tobacco, and to work together to eliminate the deaths and illnesses that have plagued the continent for so long?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is further scope for European action, especially on the labelling of cigarettes, tar content and combating smuggling. He is also right to say that, if we in this country are to deal with the previous Government's legacy of increasing numbers of children taking up smoking, we have to do many things; but what is absolutely clear is that we will not reduce the rate at which children smoke unless we ban tobacco advertising.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I join in welcoming the advertising ban, but does the Minister agree that the common agricultural policy needs to be reformed speedily, given that millions of pounds have been spent on producing tobacco and given how quick the European Union was to damage our beef industry when fewer deaths had resulted?
    Ms Jowell: I agree that the common agricultural policy is in need of reform in that respect. I should like to place on record the Government's support for the worldwide initiative against tobacco started by Gro Brundtland, the new director of the World Health Organisation. It is by countries working together that we can begin to make a real impact on one of the major causes of preventable death affecting nations today.

    Health Information (Men Over 40)
    Mr. Jim Dobbin: What action his Department is taking to provide improved health information to men aged over 40 years. [42181]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): On 11 May 1998, I launched a new men's health leaflet, "Life Begins at Forty". The leaflet provides health tips and general health information designed specifically for men over 40, and is aimed particularly at men who are less well off. A million leaflets have been printed and are available through working men's clubs, GPs' surgeries, public libraries and so on.
    Mr. Dobbin: I should declare an interest, being quite near 40 myself—perhaps towards the upper limit. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in our efforts to spread information on improving and maintaining the health of men over 40, we have a responsibility to provide for those men and their families decent wages, decent housing, a decent environment and decent leisure facilities? Does she
    162
    also agree that driving up standards in public health is the responsibility not only of her Department and herself, as Minister for Public Health, but of every Government Department?
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Only by working across Government and through partnership at local level can we begin, first, to achieve improvements in the health of older men—that is, men over 40—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about women?"] Women tend to look after themselves rather better. Secondly, only by such action can we start to tackle some of the awful inequalities in health that mean that a man in social class 5—an unskilled man—is six times more likely to die of lung cancer and seven times more likely to be injured in an accident than a man in social class 1. It is those inequalities that we have to tackle, and we shall tackle them by working across Government, as one Government.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: As the Secretary of State is a man over 40, will the Minister consider having a task force to re-examine the health information that he receives? The right hon. Gentleman said that he would cut waiting lists; they have risen to record levels. He said that he would stop hospital closures; he has found that changing health care requires hospital changes. He abused health managers, only to find that they deliver the necessary changes. He said that he would abolish the internal market; he has re-badged it. Will the hon. Lady also ensure that her task force informs that gentleman over 40 that the NHS needs an average 3 per cent. real-terms increase a year to deliver quality care?
    Ms Jowell: We shall take no lectures from the right hon. Lady on that subject. However, I am absolutely delighted that she rose to her feet on a question about the Government's new public health strategy. I draw her attention to a recent publication, "New Dynamics in Public Health", which concludes, about our new public health policy:
    "A healthier nation paves the way for much more effective application of core national targets and a much greater scope for multidisciplinary work in pursuit of targets at a local level."
    That is very important in improving health for men over 40. That is an important new strategy and the evidence that we have suggests that it should succeed. The author is Tony Hockley, who was the right hon. Lady's special adviser.
    Mr. David Winnick: It is possible that I come into the category referred to in the question. What would be the position of such men, and indeed women, if, 50 years ago, the Conservative campaign to stop the national health service coming into being had succeeded? Is not the NHS one of the great blessings of our country? The last people to criticise it should be Conservative Members, whose party was against it in the first place.
    Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend is, as usual, entirely right, and we shall take no lectures from the Conservative party on this matter. A Labour Government created the national health service; we will rebuild and modernise it and, in doing so, we will save thousands of lives. The action that we have announced today will result in a substantial reduction in preventable deaths in men over 40.

    Multiple Sclerosis
    Mrs. Theresa May: If he will make a statement on the provision of services within the NHS for people with multiple sclerosis. [42182]
    The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): The national health service provides a wide range of services to which people with MS have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. Patients can discuss the options available to them with their GP and appropriate hospital specialists. They may also request an assessment of their needs by local authority social services departments.
    Mrs. May: The Minister's response skates over the reality of NHS provision of services for people with MS across the country. Is he aware of the Patients Association survey of neurological units throughout the country which showed that more than 90 per cent. did not have specialist MS clinics while one third said that their neurologists had no specific interest in MS, and 50 per cent. did not provide nurse-led clinics? How does that square with the Government's White Paper commitment to provide fair access to services across the country?
    Mr. Milburn: It squares extremely well, because the White Paper was designed to deal with the problems—which the hon. Lady adequately outlined—that we have inherited from the previous Administration. The hon. Lady's party was in government for 18 years; we have been in government for one year. We are determined to set in place new mechanisms to ensure fairer access to services for people with MS and other debilitating conditions. That is why we shall have national service frameworks to outline to patients and professionals the range and quality of services that they can expect. We shall have a national institute for clinical excellence and, for the first time in the NHS, a watchdog body—a commission for health improvement. I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes those initiatives.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I welcome what the Minister has said about aiming to achieve fair access for all users of our national health service. Will he tell the House the time scale to which he is working to try to achieve equal access to equal services for people suffering from MS?
    Mr. Milburn: The national institute for clinical excellence will come into being next year; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced a programme of national service frameworks; and, subject to legislation, the commission for health improvement will come into being during the 1999–2000 financial year.

    Glaucoma
    Mr. David Heath: How many cases of glaucoma were recorded as having been treated through the NHS in 1997. [42183]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): The information is not available in the form requested. In 1995–96, however—
    164
    the latest year for which information is available—there were 25,274 finished consultant episodes involving the in-patient treatment of patients with glaucoma.
    We are unable to say if any of those episodes were for separate patients or whether some patients accounted for more than one completed episode.
    Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that limited information. Does the Minister agree that it is far better if glaucoma is diagnosed early, and preferably pre-operatively? Taking into account, in addition to cases of glaucoma, cases of the other retinopathies—diabetes and vascular disease—is there not an overwhelming case, which makes economic sense as well as good health sense, for reintroducing the free eye test?
    Mr. Boateng: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says; he brings a special knowledge to this subject from his previous occupation. Of course early diagnosis is important, and we are ensuring that existing free NHS eye tests are taken up by those with glaucoma, their parents, their siblings and children aged over 40, because all the evidence shows that there is insufficient take-up among that group. As for extending free eye tests, that is a matter for the comprehensive spending review, but we must ensure that the existing free eye tests are taken up—at the moment, they are not.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that treatment of eye diseases, especially cataracts, is extremely good value for the national health service, and can transform the quality of people's lives. I hope that he will make that an immediate priority. While we are on the subject, may we do away with the absurd business of talking about "completed episodes" and start talking about the number of people who are treated, so that people can find out what is going on?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is a bit hard—I have just learnt to talk about completed episodes, but I shall do my best. I recognise the good sense that my hon. Friend always displays in this regard, but we must act on the recent advice of the British College of Optometrists, which has argued that visual field assessment in the examination of patients at risk from primary open-angle glaucoma is of enormous importance; the energies of the Department are, and will be, thus directed.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is the Minister aware, however, that for glaucoma, as for other illnesses, people in my constituency and throughout Leicestershire will have to wait on waiting lists that are 15 per cent. longer now than they were a year ago? That is a record. Will the Minister give those people some reassurance by telling them that waiting lists will be shortened more quickly than he says? In a year's time, waiting lists in Leicestershire will have shortened to what they were a year ago—no shorter.
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman ought to know that the public, with good cause, trust our Government with the NHS; they could never trust the Conservatives with it. The Conservatives sold the NHS down the river; we are saving it.

    Health and Social Services (Co-operation)
    Ms Tess Kingham: What action he is taking to promote close co-operation between health and social services. [42185]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): We have made a good start in breaking down the Berlin wall between the national health service and local social services. Last winter, the national health service coped better with emergencies than in any recent year, because of the close working relationship between health and social services, which we promoted, and funded by the extra £300 million that we provided. In Gloucestershire, that included more than £1 million—one fifth of which went on social services to provide, for example, improved out-of-hours service, respite care and holiday cover.
    Ms Kingham: My right hon. Friend correctly alluded to Gloucestershire, where, last winter, health and social services teams worked closely together to avoid a winter crisis and to prevent patients from having to lie on trolleys in pain, waiting for treatment. However, in my surgeries I receive many representations from carers in the county—especially carers for sick children seeking respite care—who have been frustrated by the previous Government's introduction of fragmentation and competition within the NHS. Can my right hon. Friend reassure those carers in Gloucestershire that the Government will promote co-operation between the NHS and social services throughout the year, so that they can get the vital services they need for sick family members?
    Mr. Dobson: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that guarantee. It is not that we will be promoting co-operation; we will not tolerate a lack of co-operation.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman has lauded the state of communication and co-operation between the health service and the social services. He will be aware that one of the biggest problems facing social services and the health service is bed blocking. It is impossible to discharge certain patients, because the proper sums of money are not available to social services to care for them. As the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned with proper and constructive co-operation, what will he do to ensure that social services have adequate, identifiable funds to care for those who should not be in NHS beds, and who are thus contributing to the waiting lists which he says he is so concerned to bring down?
    Mr. Dobson: The fact is that, as a result of the initiatives we took and the extra money that we found, there was greater co-operation last winter between the health service and local social services than at any other time in the past. In the right hon. Lady's own area, as a result of the money that we found, more than 450 extra residential places were provided to get people out of hospital, and more than 400 care packages, as they are called, were provided for people in their homes. That is what happens when people work together. It did not work everywhere, but it did work in the right hon. Lady's area—although she did nothing towards it and has not praised the people who delivered it.
    Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman ought to talk to people in my area. This was a matter of
    166
    considerable concern to them, and I made representations about it to the trust involved—so he is wrong to say that I took no action, and I hope that he will now apologise for saying it.
    I speak not just on behalf of my own area; I have asked the right hon. Gentleman once again a specific question that he will not answer. Can he guarantee that social services—not just last winter, next winter or the winter after that—will have as a matter of course enough identifiable funding to care for people who need not be in NHS beds but who are in them in my area at the moment?
    Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Lady should know that there was so much successful co-operation between social services and the national health service precisely because I had supplied the funds to the NHS locally; the NHS, in turn, made it a condition of local social services getting the money that they spent it on what we wanted it spent on—in contrast to the traditional Tory system, which was to give local authorities money with no guarantee that it would be spent on the services for which it was intended. That is what we put in place last year. I have freely admitted to our budging our way through the chaos that we inherited. We intend to have in place an altogether better system for the coming winter and future winters—but we will take no lessons from the Tories.

    Schools (Health Programme)
    Mrs. Helen Brinton: What action he is taking to promote the Government programme of health in schools. [42186]
    The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): The Minister for School Standards and I launched the cross-Government healthy schools initiative on 14 May 1998. We are providing £2 million in this financial year—£1 million from health and £1 million from education.
    The aim of the healthy schools initiative is to recognise the vital role played by schools in improving the health of pupils and teachers alike. A key element in achieving that objective will be fostering joint working between health and education authorities. Accordingly, I can announce today the setting up of eight health education partnerships which will each receive £150,000 from the initiative. They are in Cornwall, Doncaster, Durham, Hounslow, Manchester, Norfolk, North Staffordshire and West Sussex.
    These pilots reflect a range of existing practice. They also reflect a range of areas. The lessons learned will be used to inform the development of a national healthy school award. It is our intention that every school should become a healthy school. Deprivation exists in both rural and urban areas, and is the prime cause of inequality in the health of our children. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on!"] Opposition Members—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Questions and answers have been inordinately long today. I am very disappointed that we are only at question 11; we should be at question 17. I hope that Back Benchers and Front Benchers will put their questions speedily and that Ministers will reply

    167
    speedily. There is a great deal of frustration on the Back Benches, and it is most unfair on Back Benchers whose questions are not called.
    Ms Jowell: The programme will be a major step in tackling inequality in childhood.
    Mrs. Brinton: I look forward to schools in my constituency taking part in the initiative that my hon. Friend described. Can she give me more details about how schools are to be healthy not only for children but for caretakers, dinner ladies, ancillary staff and teachers? Do we not want whole healthy schools? Will she show us how the Government will get stuck in, unlike the Opposition?
    Ms Jowell: As I made clear, the initiative is an essential step in tackling health inequality in childhood, which so often affects children's ability to learn. However, healthy children also need to be taught by healthy teachers—and other members of the school staff. Investment in school staff is the best way of driving up children's educational achievement.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Given that the Minister said that she was to issue a pamphlet stating that life begins at 40, what message does that give to schools about health? Does she propose to use modern technology in the initiative? Is she co-operating with the information technology industry, which offers excellent facilities such as video conferencing and other means of bringing health education into schools?
    Ms Jowell: The answer is yes. Later this year we shall announce a new website to allow schools and children to access information about health.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the programme deal with pollution from industry as it affects children in schools? In my constituency, Sarp UK Ltd. caused acid clouds to escape over the Killimarsh junior school on 14 and 20 May. The school was not occupied at the time, but that could have been disastrous, as teachers and children could have been trapped in the school. We must deal with the question whether schools or the processors that create the problem should be moved.
    Ms Jowell: As part of the healthy schools initiative, we recognise that local circumstances such as those in the case cited by my hon. Friend should be taken into account. That is another illustration of my contention that we will drive up health standards only by co-operation across Government and between local education authorities and local authorities.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: Will the new health education partnerships consider the issue of healthy school diets? Does the Minister accept that additives in food are often a factor in disruptive behaviour? Will she take the matter seriously?
    Ms Jowell: Schools will certainly be encouraged to attend to healthy eating and diet.

    Regional Inequalities
    Mr. Roger Casale: What research he has commissioned into health inequalities by region. [42189]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): The Department of Health has already published the results of an analysis of regional inequalities in health. On coming to office, we established the independent inquiry into inequalities in health, which should report by this autumn, and I recently announced a £1.7 million research programme into health inequalities.
    Mr. Casale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, which serves my constituents, is currently engaged in difficult negotiations with the South Thames NHS executive to secure a bridging loan to help it make ends meet and balance the budget by 2001? Is it not time to put an end to the need for such transitional finance by changing the national capitation formula so that it more truly reflects the real health needs of Londoners?
    Mr. Dobson: We are reviewing the allocation of funds to health authorities, and I hope that, following the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, there will be more funds to allocate in the first place. We are determined not simply to research but to reduce health inequalities. That is why we have established health action zones; why we are getting people back to work; why we are introducing a national minimum wage; and why we are investing the takings from the sale of council houses in order to provide better homes for people who have nowhere decent to live. Those measures will improve the health of the worst off in this country.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a direct point of order for you. You will be aware that during Question Time it is not possible for hon. Members to respond if other hon. Members make personal statements about them. The statements by the hon. Members for Preston (Audrey Wise) and for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) were inaccurate. I do not seek to rehearse that point with you, but I seek to rehearse whether it is within the conventions of the House that hon. Members should have statements made against them when it is not possible for them to respond.
    Madam Speaker: We have many great privileges in the House and I have always said that we should exercise those privileges with great responsibility, and heed the wise words of "Erskine May" in the language that we use across the Chamber. Let us discuss policies in the House, not personalities.
    Audrey Wise: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I cannot take a further point of order. I have dealt with the matter.

Cities (Process and Criteria for Designation)
3.31 pm
Jane Griffiths: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a process and criteria for places to be designated as cities; and for connected purposes.
I thank the House for giving me this opportunity. The granting of city status to a town is a rare mark of honour, which is bestowed by the sovereign, and has not been granted often. This century, city status has been granted to Cambridge, Lancaster, Plymouth, Salford, Derby, Leicester, Portsmouth, Southampton, Swansea, Stoke-on-Trent and Sunderland. Other towns, including Wolverhampton, Croydon, Northampton and Stockport, have expressed interest.
The importance of city status derives at least partly from the fact that it is granted by the monarch. However, there are many misconceptions about what is required in order for a town to become a city. Many people believe that a city must have a cathedral. Not so. Many believe that a city must have a university. Not so; with the proliferation of universities in recent years, that is a less meaningful criterion. For example, Winchester is a city and believes that it was ideally suited for the granting of such status in view of its long history. I suggest that all towns and places have long histories. I suggest also that the concept of a city is deep-rooted both in our collective psyche and in our understanding of democracy in the truest sense of the word.
The city state originated in ancient Greece. In modern Greece, the word "polis"—for city—is officially accorded to significant municipalities. Almost every country has a clear process and criteria for identifying a city.
In China, centuries of bureaucracy and civil service practice have arrived at highly detailed and inflexible criteria, including, for example, that the non-agricultural population of the town must exceed 120,000, of whom no fewer than 80,000 must be engaged in non-agricultural industries. By contrast, in the United States the situation is different in each state, and a state may label an area a city regardless of population size. Thus, Spring City, Tennessee, with an approximate population of 2,000, and New York, with an approximate population of 8 million, are legally cities.
I was especially impressed by how matters are conducted in Peru, where detailed criteria include population growth and the existence of educational institutions and hospitals. In Japan, rather differently, a city must have a population of 50,000 or more, and its inhabitants must be engaged in commercial or industrial pursuits. Thus, Tokyo contains several cities.
Many other countries have also considered the matter publicly, and have established criteria and processes for a town to become a city—I am indebted to their embassies for the information that they have supplied.
170
All that is educational, and should give us pause for thought. The Government are committed to openness and clarity of decision making, and to inclusiveness and a sense of pride in, and belonging to, our communities, but the process by which a place may be designated a city remains shrouded in mystery.
City status confers a tremendous sense of pride on a community and is attractive to business and to investment, but it should not be conferred willy-nilly. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would determine clear criteria and a transparent process by which a town would become a city. I shall not prejudge what those criteria and that process should be, but I shall suggest what some of the criteria might be: a place to which people travel to work, to shop, to be educated and to receive medical treatment and which is rich in history and culture—in short, a place very much like Reading, which I have the honour to represent.
Reading was settled in Saxon times because it was on the confluence of two great rivers, the Thames and the Kennet. The railways and then the roads came. More people commute into Reading than out of it, despite its closeness to London, and it is surpassed only by London and by Birmingham as a place where major companies locate their headquarters. Reading has a great university and a great abbey, where Parliament sat in former times when this place was plague-ridden or otherwise unattractive. King Henry I is buried in Reading. Next to Reading abbey is Reading gaol, which was made famous in verse by one of its most famous, but least willing, inhabitants, the great genius, Oscar Wilde. Musical notation was invented and photography pioneered in Reading, and I should mention the Reading rock and Womad festivals.
To become a city, a town should attract people, investment and institutions on economic, cultural and geographical grounds. If those criteria were known to all and if a clear process were established by which any place could apply to the Government to be judged against the criteria, with a recommendation made to Her Majesty accordingly, we as a nation could approach the new millennium with a sense of pride in, and belonging to, the places in which we live.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Jane Griffiths, Ms Jenny Jones, Mr. Peter Bradley, Mr. Michael Wills and Mr. Martin Salter.

CITIES (PROCESS AND CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION)
Jane Griffiths accordingly presented a Bill to establish a process and criteria for places to be designated as cities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 July, and to be printed [Bill 194].
Opposition Day
[12TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Electoral System
Madam Speaker: Before we commence the main business, I must tell the House that I shall limit speeches to 10 minutes between 7 pm and 9 pm. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.39 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move,
That this House affirms the strength and fairness of Britain's current electoral system; recognises that it meets the criteria laid down for the Independent Commission on the Voting System better than any alternative; believes that the current terms of reference of the Commission prevent a fair and balanced assessment being made; urges the Government to change the remit of the Commission to allow it to examine equally all systems of voting; and believes that, in these circumstances, the Commission would recommend the status quo.
We have chosen to debate Britain's electoral system because we believe that it is being deliberately and systematically attacked and undermined. What makes this debate all the more urgent is the fact that this demolition is happening right now, under the guise of an independent review, which will report in the autumn. We face a process that is clearly aimed at changing the present system not on the balance of any argument that it is right to do so, but because wider political motives are motivating such change. It is a cynical attempt to play politics with people's votes dressed up as an intellectual and even-handed exercise, which it simply is not.
The so-called independent commission on voting systems, under the leadership of that well-known advocate of electoral reform, the noble Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, was established at the end of last year by the Government. Its members were selected by the Government, not in consultation with other political parties but, in most cases at least, according to each individual's known interest in and support for electoral reform. Its remit is not to examine all possible electoral systems and to evaluate them on the basis of what will be best for this country, but coldly and openly to find an alternative to the present system. Its intent is to create an electoral environment that will permanently favour one brand of politics over another.
Far from being independent, the whole exercise is pointing firmly in one direction—away from the first-past-the-post system, which has served this country so well and for so long.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that, in last year's election, 20 per cent. of the population of Wales voted Conservative, yet not one of the 40 Welsh Members of Parliament is a Conservative? Is that a system that is strong and fair?
Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman waits to hear the rest of my speech, he will discover why I believe that the present system is strong and fair. His point is often put to us, but I do not believe that our consideration of the way in which we elect this House of Commons should be governed by political expediency. It is very easy to say
172
that proportional representation would help the Conservatives in Wales and Scotland, but we are talking not about parties' votes or politicians' votes, but about people's votes. That is why we must examine closely the work of the Jenkins commission.
Mr. Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman said that people's votes are more important than politicians' votes. Is he in favour of a referendum?
Mr. Ancram: I shall also ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to my speech. If he reads our motion, he will see that we are asking for changes to be made in the remit of the Jenkins commission, which, as we understand it, will be followed by a referendum.
Despite the protestations that the outcome of this exercise will be put to the people in a referendum alongside the current system—that is reflected in the Government's amendment—the whole dynamic and momentum of the Jenkins commission is clearly designed to persuade people that, in this era of constitutional reform, it is smart to change the way in which we vote and stuffy to resist it. That is a dangerous and cynical argument. It is playing politics with the very foundations of our democratic system, and the way in which people elect their representatives and their Governments. More dangerously, it threatens to play party politics with this central constitutional issue, which, ahead of all others, should be above party politics.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way once more, and then I want to make some progress.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman has been slinging a few insults across the Dispatch Box. He will know that a number of Conservative Members of Parliament belong to organisations that are in favour of electoral reform, including direct proportional representation. Does he cast the same aspersions on them? Is he challenging their integrity on these questions?
Mr. Ancram: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying, and has not read the motion. I am arguing not that one system alone should be considered, but that the Jenkins commission should consider all potential systems, including first past the post.
I pay tribute to the courageous article by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) which was published in yesterday's edition of The Times. In that article, the hon. Gentleman advanced a cogent argument for retaining the current system. He is, I suspect, by no means alone in the Labour party in holding that view. Indeed, looking at the few Labour Front Benchers who are present for today's important debate, I suspect that he might even find tacit support for his opinions there—although we may not hear it enunciated today.
Mr. William Cash: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent article which appeared in a Sunday newspaper about 10 days ago. May I request that

173
Conservative Members never again be asked to vote, on a three-line Whip, for a list system? That has happened several times in the past few months, and is clearly contrary not only to the Opposition motion, but to my right hon. Friend's extremely good newspaper article.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. As I am sure he realises, we had argued firmly for a first-past-the-post system in the context of those elections; only when we failed to achieve that did we try to mitigate the results of what we considered a very bad alternative by arguing for an open list.
My central thesis is that it is time to open the windows on what is actually happening—to get away from the soundbites and slogans that we heard this morning, and to begin a genuine public debate on what is in the best interests of our democratic system and the rights of people within it. Our motion sets out our confidence in the current system of electing this House of Commons. We believe it to be both strong and fair, in ways that I shall outline shortly. It is because of our confidence in that system that our motion does not seek to bring down the Jenkins commission. In any event, we are realistic enough to know that, were we to try to do so, given the Government's current majority we would be unlikely to succeed.
What we are doing is challenging the Government to broaden the commission's remit to allow it to evaluate the first-past-the-post system alongside the others. We believe that, were it to do so honestly and strictly in terms of the criteria given to it by the Government, it would be bound ultimately to recommend no change. We have the confidence to issue that challenge to the Government today. We want to know whether they will have the integrity to accept it, and we shall find that out later this afternoon.
Let me make it clear that Conservative Members do not blindly oppose constitutional change. We do, however, oppose it when the case for it has not been made—when it is for short-term party advantage, or simply change for change's sake. Tried and tested arrangements should be discarded only when they have clearly failed. Moreover, any reform should have the national interest, rather than partisan interests, at heart, and should proceed on the basis of the broadest possible political consensus.
I have to say that the Jenkins commission is the antithesis of consensus. It stems from the Government's decision—agreed as part of their cosying up with the Liberal Democrats—to proceed unilaterally on electoral reform. Conservative Members were not approached about it; the commission was packed, its remit was rigged, and the British voting system is now in danger of being dragged into the party political arena.
We seek today to introduce some balance, some fairness and some independence into the exercise before it is too late. The present picture is of a commission the outcome of whose deliberations is a foregone conclusion. That outcome will be a voting system designed to produce perpetual coalitions, and tailor-made to allow the core message of the popular vote to be ignored and an enduring political hegemony to be achieved. The fact that such an hegemony is openly envisaged as left of centre makes it even less palatable to Conservative Members.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Did the right Gentleman say Gramsci?
Mr. Ancram: I have been reading something very different, as the Home Secretary will discover.
174
Before the general election, the Labour campaign news letter stated:
"So what are the realpolitik reasons for electoral reform?"
The answer was:
"We can abolish right wing Tory Governments forever."
The Minister nods, but that is hardly the language of consensus or of reaching across parties. It is the language of raw political ambition, and its echoes permeate the Jenkins commission.
If our electoral system needs to be reviewed—and I have yet to hear a rational rather than a political case for doing so—the basis of the review should be even-handed and should have no predetermined outcome. On an even playing field, the case for the present system would prevail, even using the carefully selected criteria that were given to the Jenkins commission.
Our argument is simple. It is, first, that the current system of first past the post produces clear results which, by and large, reflect the most favoured choice of the electorate. To borrow a phrase, election day is, in a very real way, judgment day. Only on the rarest occasions, such as we almost reached in February 1974, are we left with a result that depends on the machinations of politicians behind closed doors rather than on the electorate.
The opposite would be the case under any proportional system. That is great for politicians, but bad for voters. At the moment, the voters know whom to blame and how to get rid of them. Last year, we discovered the truth of that in spades. Although we may not have enjoyed that experience, we accept that that is what accountable democracy should be about. Under any so-called proportionate system, that ability of the electorate would be seriously, if not fatally, undermined.
Mr. Eric Forth: In that context, or later in his speech, will my right hon. Friend draw attention to the New Zealand experience? The people of New Zealand were conned into changing their electoral system and they have bitterly regretted it, not least because the outcome of the first election under the new system was the opposite of what they expected, and was the result of back-room deals between political parties.
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that important point. I shall address it later, because it flags up the inherent dangers of the Government's proposals in the context of the Jenkins commission.
The second part of our argument is that, under the terms of reference for the Jenkins commission as a whole, first past the post still wins. It is worth repeating those terms of reference. They are the requirement for broad proportionality; the need for stable government; an extension of voter choice; and a link between MPs and geographical constituencies. Those who gave the commission those criteria may have thought that they were first-past-the-post-proof and that the argument had been won before it had begun. They were wrong. In our submission to the Jenkins commission last month, we argued that the British voting system beat the alternatives,

175
even on the Government's own terms. That system is the only one that can maintain a genuine constituency link between elected and electors.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What about AV, the alternative vote system?
Mr. Ancram: When the hon. Gentleman can show me that AV is a proportional system, I shall listen to him. All the signs are that its products are totally disproportionate.
Any form of PR either breaks the direct one-to-one relationship, or at least dilutes it beyond recognition. Our electoral system also empowers voter choice more widely than the alternatives. It ensures that the most popular candidate in each constituency is elected, and it tends to give a working majority to the party with most votes. It offers the electorate the chance to decide.
By contrast, under PR, it is politicians rather than the people who make the real decisions as they negotiate to form governing coalitions. The only certainty under PR is that no voter will get the manifesto for which he voted. In giving a working majority to a single party, the British system also provides stable government, whereas under PR coalition government is almost inevitable. As the record in other countries shows, it can produce the very opposite of stable government. Where there is stability under PR, it is often achieved by giving undue influence to small minority parties—in some cases, from the extreme edges of the political spectrum.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: If the right hon. Gentleman is arguing that proportional representation leads to bad governance, could he explain why, over the past 30 years, Britain has had the second-lowest average growth rate out of the 15 EU member states—I am not making a party political point—when all 13 countries with a better growth record than ours have PR systems?
Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have realised that I was talking about the stability of government. We can all bandy statistics around, but the countries to which he refers have higher unemployment rates than this country. I am not suggesting that that is because of the instability of government. I am talking about the way in which we elect Governments and what we should expect from them.
Mr. John Gummer: Will my right hon. Friend go further and point out that in Germany, for example, the proportional representation system means that the smallest party has perpetual membership of the Government? If one wants an unfair system, it is that Mr. Genscher first, and his successors thereafter, as Free Democrats, will be the Foreign Minister of Germany almost in perpetuity. Is that a fair system?
Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making another point to which I was going come later. One of the slogans of those who support proportional representation is that it is a fair voting system. My right hon. Friend quite rightly asks what is fair about the way in which, in Germany, the smallest party has spent the longest period as part of the Government.
176
The final criterion is broad proportionality. Proponents of PR almost invariably argue from the standpoint of proportionality of seats. If this means—and in most PR systems it does—that voters should have the right, by and large, to be represented by representatives of the party they voted for, it opens some seriously dangerous doors. The German regional elections this year have shown how easy it is for extremists to enter Parliament, when the Deutsche Volksunion won 16 per cent. of the seats for its 13 per cent. of the votes in Saxony-Anhalt. Do we really want to go down that road here? That is one of the implications of PR.
Incidentally, that is the reason why France scrapped PR after using it for only one election. In 1986, the National Front won 6.3 per cent. of the seats—or 35 seats—for 9.8 per cent. of the vote. The National Front won only 0.2 per cent. of the seats—one seat—at the next election on the same share of the vote. That suggests that what matters in democracy is whether people get the Government they voted for. That is at the heart of our case against proportional representation.
Small parties play a pivotal role in forming a coalition, and thereby exercise a degree of power quite disproportionate to their share of the vote. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has made the point that in Germany, the Free Democrats have almost always been in government since the war, and, furthermore, have been able to decide which of the major parties should share the Government with them. This can mean that the largest party—in terms of its votes or its seats—is excluded from the Government.
What should matter is not proportionality of seats, but proportionality of power. There are widely accepted measures of disproportionality, which usually compare a party's share of the vote with the number of seats it wins. We have applied those same measures to proportionality of power. This morning, we published new figures—based on data largely gathered with a great deal of assistance from the Library—which show that the British system is more proportional in terms of the share of power than any of the conventional PR systems, as well as systems such as the alternative vote.
The Jenkins commission cannot take this evidence into account, as the Government have prevented it from considering the current British voting system. Why will the Home Secretary not allow the commission to reach a truly independent assessment of all the various systems? Why can it not base its recommendations on a fair consideration of the evidence after looking at the British system, as well as those abroad?
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the Conservative party's position? He has argued that the electorate often do not get the Government they want. Is he saying that, regardless of how small the percentage of votes a party receives—perhaps 44 per cent. or 33 per cent.—and the fact that a majority of the electorate did not support that party, the people will be given the Government of their choice simply because the arrangement of constituencies will give that party a majority of seats in this place?
Mr. Ancram: Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very strange case. I suspect that he has supported systems that

177
have enabled the Free Democratic party, with 7 per cent. of the vote in Germany, constantly to be part of the German Government.
No system will produce an exact proportion between the share of votes and time spent in government. The exercise that we have conducted—I will not give the figures to the House; I suspect that we would all have some difficult in reading them because they are rather complex—shows that the gap between proportion of votes and time spent in government is much smaller under the first-past-the-post system than it is under any of the other systems examined.
The other systems covered by our exercise included most of the other forms of proportional representation under consideration by the Jenkins commission. We covered Israel, which uses the list system; Germany, which uses the additional member system; Australia, which uses the alternative vote system; France; Ireland, which uses the single transferable vote system; and the United Kingdom. On the basis of those systems, it is clear that the proportionality-of-power battle is won by the first-past-the-post system.
Dr. Tony Wright: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's curious argument on disproportionality of power. Under our system, on two occasions in this century—once in 1951, and again in 1974—the party that won the most votes lost the general election. Regardless of the proportionality of our system, can we tolerate one in which the party that wins loses?
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has produced two examples from the past 100 years. In any of the proportional systems, such examples are the norm rather than the exception—which is precisely why we believe that the Jenkins commission should consider the first-past-the-post system with the others. I am confident that, were the commission to do so, the evidence would clearly show that the British system scores best against the commission's criteria overall, and better than most other systems on each criterion.
It is worth examining the alternative systems. The first is the additional member system, which the Government have decided to foist on Scotland and Wales. We know from our previous debates on the devolution Bills—which may come as news to most hon. Members in the Chamber today, as those debates were not very well attended by English Members—that the additional member system is wide open to abuse and manipulation because of what is known as split-ticket voting, which can produce highly disproportionate results.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said, the evidence on the additional member system is not encouraging. In New Zealand, it took more than eight weeks to form a Government after the 1996 election, which was the first in which a similar system was used. During that time, New Zealand First eventually supported the National party, although it had stood in the election on an anti-National ticket. That is hardly an example of "fair votes" or—to use the other slogan—of "making votes count".
The evidence is not confined to New Zealand.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am trying carefully to follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's
178
argument. At the beginning of his speech, he said that he was not saying that we should not have a referendum. However, he seems to be trying to get the Jenkins commission to make the choice, rather than giving the people the choice—which is what the Government want to do.
Mr. Ancram: As I said—I do not know whether the hon. Lady was listening—the Government have set about the matter by trying to achieve a momentum behind the alternative proposed by the Jenkins commission, with the intention of seeing that alternative implemented. I am asking for a fair evaluation of all the systems. I believe that, if we have that, first past the post will win.
We have already dealt with the situation in Germany. It is worth remembering that—overnight, in 1982—the Free Democrats switched allegiance from the Social Democrats to the Christian Democrats, immediately changing the complexion of the German Government. That is hardly another example of fair votes or votes counting. I am astonished that New Zealand came to be saddled with a system that had such a track record—a system that the polls show is highly unpopular there.
We shall use the list system to elect our Members of the European Parliament next year. Evidence from other countries shows that that form of proportional representation does nothing to enhance the quality of democracy. Italy has had more than 50 Governments since the war, the shortest lasting, I think, 12 days. No doubt that is why the Italians voted in a referendum in 1993 to abolish list PR for the Senate—a clear signal that prompted the parties to change the electoral system for the Chamber of Deputies as well. In each case, three quarters of the members are now elected from individual constituencies, with only a quarter elected from lists.
Then there is the single transferable vote. After the 1997 election in Ireland under that system, Bertie Ahern had to rely on the Progressive Democrats—a party with only four seats out of 166. In 1994, when I was involved in Irish affairs, the same system allowed the complexion of the Irish Government to change without any reference to the electorate, because the partners in the coalition changed their minds about each other and formed different coalitions. Professor Philip Norton, a former Minister in Ireland, has written that, of the
"many factors which inhibit reform of the virtually powerless Dail … the first and arguably the most intractable is the proportional representation multi-seat system."
The case for keeping our current electoral system is compelling. The electorate can remove the governing party if it no longer retains their confidence. We avoid coalitions and prevent minor parties from bringing down Governments. Above all, our system is fair; the most popular party always forms a Government, it cannot be kept out of office by minor parties, and the most popular candidate in a constituency is elected. We should not consider changing a system that evidently works so well.
The Government's exercise is not about democracy, but about power. If it was about a fair voting system or about making votes genuinely count, the Jenkins commission would have been asked to look at all the options; it has been prevented from doing so. It would have been asked to recommend the most appropriate system; it has been asked, for better or worse, to recommend an alternative. It would have been asked to test the current system against

179
the criteria of its terms of reference to see how it fared; it has been told deliberately that it cannot. Its terms of reference are skewed, so its answer will be skewed.
The exercise is not academic; it is political. I do not believe that Lord Jenkins would deny that he would like the electoral system that would be most likely to produce the left-of-centre political balance beloved of Asquith's Liberals.
The process is playing with political fire. A country cannot destroy the credibility of its voting system and then hope to re-create it—look at New Zealand. It cannot seek to give smaller parties more influence and then complain when small, extremist parties get elected and start wielding real political power—look at Saxony-Anhalt in Germany. It cannot destroy the basis for electing stable and coherent Governments, and then complain about constant changes of Government for no good political reason—look at Italy before the move towards our current system. It cannot undermine the basis of representative democracy and then complain when democratic institutions are devalued—look at Ireland.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The right hon. Gentleman puts great stress on the election of the most popular candidate, and has referred to New Zealand, where vote splitting resulted in 37 per cent. of electors voting for the candidate they wanted, but choosing the election manifesto they preferred. There is a contradiction in the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
Mr. Ancram: I listen with interest to the hon. Lady's argument. New Zealand ended up with a Government that nobody had voted for, because the partners in the coalition had campaigned against each other.
Voting systems are not like new hats to be tried and then discarded if we do not like them. They are the basis of people's democratic rights, the source of their sovereignty and the guarantor of democratic accountability. It is an insult to democracy to subject them to the judgment of Paris—or, in this case, the judgment of Roy—with one of the beauties excluded from the contest. Such judgment is designed to produce a predetermined result, and no amount of flannel can cover that fact.
Today's debate and tonight's vote are not about the usual political issues which are the normal fare of Supply days. They are about the very future of our political system. The implications of what we are discussing could be far greater than any of the other constitutional changes that the Government are proposing. At the very least, such implications should be examined honestly and even-handedly. The Jenkins commission, by its terms of reference, cannot do so. It is a rigged exercise, designed to produce a rigged result. We should reject not only its outcome, but the very basis on which it has been set up.
Our motion gives the Government a chance to redeem the credibility of the Jenkins commission. If they reject that chance, we Conservatives at least must start the campaign to keep the system that has served our democracy so well. This is a battle for the political integrity of our democracy. It is a battle to establish beyond doubt that the people's vote is for the people and not for the convenience of politicians. Our message today is simple: stop messing with the people's votes.
4.10 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'congratulates the Government on its constitutional reform programme; welcomes the creation of the Independent Commission on the Voting System and its remit; and supports the commitment of the Government to consult the people of the United Kingdom by a referendum on the appropriate electoral system to be used to elect this House'.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on his imminent appointment as chairman of the Conservative party, and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) on his appointment as shadow Home Secretary. I should also like to take this early opportunity to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). I enjoyed our year of facing each other across the Dispatch Box, and I wish him well in his new role on the Back Benches. It was typical of the man that, within a few hours of becoming a Back Bencher, he was asking forensic questions on a matter very dear to his heart—Northern Ireland.
The Government welcome the debate. We have embarked on a major programme of constitutional reform. We are modernising our constitution, and hoping to bring the institutions of government closer to the people whom they serve. We want to restore the trust of the people in the democratic system. The introduction, where appropriate, of new electoral systems is an important element of that agenda.
In any democracy, if the electoral system is not right, everything else is open to question—the right hon. Member for Devizes was entirely right to assert that. So the question of which electoral system to use for any election, far from being a matter of concern only to enthusiasts, is a vital one. The distinguished political scientist Dr. David Butler was entirely correct when he observed:
"Electoral Systems lie at the heart of a nation's arrangements".
My party's interest in electoral systems dates from when the very first Labour Members were elected to this House; from the first moment that there was any prospect of power for the Labour party. As a minority party in those early days, it was, I suppose, natural for senior party figures such as Keir Hardie to be in favour of a proportional system in order to gain more seats in Westminster and so move out of the Liberal party's shadow.
Our stance in the early years of the century was in marked contrast to that of the Liberal party, which was then one of the big two players. The Liberal party opposed moving from the first-past-the-post system when the issue was first considered by a Speaker's conference at the end of the great war. It is a matter of record, of which we should take account, that it was only when the Liberal party became the third party that it began to look on proportional representation with rather more favour than it had during its time in government—while my party was moving in the opposite direction.
Following a few sporadic forays into the sphere of electoral reform between the wars, it was not until the late 1980s that the issue arose again as a major area of debate in the Labour party. Under the leadership of

181
Neil Kinnock, my party took the step of establishing an internal commission on the subject, chaired by Lord Plant of Highfield. In turn, the Plant committee's recommendations triggered the late Labour leader, John Smith, to propose a referendum on the issue.
The whole House will know that I have not been exactly a shrinking violet when it comes to electoral systems. My view in favour of single-member constituencies is long stated. In the dog days of the Labour party in the early 1980s, when some people thought that my party could never again win by itself, I crossed swords with many advocates of proportional representation.
In last November's debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, I set out my views about the electoral system for Westminster. I said:
"My arguments against proportional representation for the Westminster Parliament have been based on the mathematical and political difficulty of securing an identity between votes cast, seats gained and power secured. It is possible to devise a voting system where the seats won are proportional to the votes cast—but there follows a serious conundrum. The greater the proportionality of votes to seats, the less may be the proportionality of votes to power.
"PR systems typically give disproportionate power to the smaller minority parties, while first-past-the-post and similar systems with single-member constituencies give power to the largest plurality and so help secure a system where the proportionality, not between votes and seats, but between votes and power, may be the greaten"— [Official Report, 25 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 804.]
We will wish to take other matters into account, of course. The right hon. Member for Devizes managed from time to time to contribute to the informed debate he wants, but at other times he undermined that debate by insulting the integrity of those who may take a different view from his.
I want to raise two issues that are important to an informed debate. The first matter is raised in the Jenkins commission's terms of reference, and it is the constituency link. The connection between constituents and Members of Parliament has grown in recent years. Like me, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will recall the late Sir Hubert Ashton, who represented Chelmsford—the right hon. Gentleman's home town—from 1950 to 1964. Chided on why he had not often visited his constituency—if he had done so at all—Sir Hubert dismissed the complaint famously, by saying, "Sir, I was elected to represent Chelmsford in Westminster, not Westminster in Chelmsford."
Within recent memory, many Members on both sides of the House considered that they were doing their constituents a favour if they made a regal visit to the constituency every one, two or three months. I recall a conversation I had with a close friend—now right honourable, but not a Conservative—when he and I arrived here in 1979. His outgoing predecessor had told my friend of a complaint to his general management committee that he had not been to the constituency for a year. He had taken out his diary and said, "That is entirely wrong. I was there just nine months ago." We all remember such people, and we all know that the connection was not always as strong as it is now.
That fact is also highlighted by interesting work—it is a little dated—on the mail that Members of Parliament receive. In the 1950s, the average Member received between 12 and 20 letters a week. By 1967, it was approximately 50 a week, and by 1986—the date of the
182
research—it had risen to between 100 and 150 a week. Information from the House of Commons postmaster showed that, in 1964, Members of Parliament received 10,000 letters a week in total—though, obviously, not all came from constituents. By 1987, that figure had increased to 40,000 a day. I do not have a contemporary figure, but it is very much greater.
If the public at large are asked what they think of politicians at large, they dismiss us and rate us equal with estate agents and journalists.
Mr. David Maclean: That high?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border speaks for himself. It is interesting that, while the public do not generally hold us in great esteem, they wish to use the services of individual Members of Parliament more and more. That is entirely right in a healthy democracy.
Ms Stuart: Only 30 per cent. of the people who live in my constituency also work there. Birmingham has 11 Members of Parliament, but its people have little idea of which side of the Hagley road is the end of Edgbaston and which the beginning of Ladywood. They regard us all as representatives of Birmingham, and therefore as a group. There is a lot of trade in between. Does my right hon. Friend accept that such links can exist with larger units and a multiplicity of representatives, such as 15 Birmingham MPs?
Mr. Straw: Of course I accept that in principle. It is one of the points that I will make when I come to express my disagreement with the motion. Of course there are different ways of achieving a connection between representation in this House and areas of the country. However, I personally believe—it is no secret; I made it clear the last time we debated this matter, last November—that single-member constituencies are best. I know that I am in a privileged position because I represent a one-constituency town with clear boundaries. I have also represented Islington as one three of members for a council ward, and I often wished that I was representing a smaller, single-member ward.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have considerable sympathy with what I might call my right hon. Friend's constituency link argument. However, it is widely believed in Scotland that, if we had offered the Scottish people in our recent referendum a Scottish Parliament based on the first-past-the-post system, we would not have achieved the resounding success we did on 11 September.
Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, I strongly support the system that we put forward in Scotland. I shall later point out that different political institutions require different electoral systems. I have been on the record for many years as saying that I was never happy with situations such as that in 1971 when I was elected to Islington council: 70 per cent. of the vote was for Labour, but we got 100 per cent. of the seats. That was not healthy for the electorate or for the Labour party, as events have proved.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Following the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member

183
for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), is my right hon. Friend aware that, although things may be different in Birmingham, in Manchester people know very well who their representatives are? I have split roads in my constituency, but when people from the side of the road that is not my constituency come to me for help, it is not because they think I represent them, but because they wish I did.
Mr. Straw: I know that to be true of my right hon. Friend. His extraordinary expertise in parliamentary matters is exceeded only by his modesty.
Another issue is often raised by those who want a fundamental change in the system. It was raised early this morning on the radio by advocates outside the House of a shift to a full proportional representation system. It is the issue of voter turnout. To follow on from the serious part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes, what is important is that we have an informed debate and that we do not make huge claims for one system over another, but that we recognise that we are dealing with systems that may or may not—there is no perfect system of election—produce a balance of advantage for a country or an institution.
The figures on voter turnout are interesting. I was sorry that, in the last election, there was a lower turnout than in 1992—I dare say that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was even more sorry that the turnout was only 71 per cent. However, it is interesting to compare that with Portugal, which has a system of proportional representation, where the turnout in the most recent national elections was 68 per cent.; or with Ireland, where turnout was 65 per cent.
When discussing the question of proportionality—in this case, not proportionality of power with the interesting algorithms developed by Library statisticians, but proportionality of votes cast to seats gained—it is interesting to note that, although the United States uses a first-past-the-post system for national elections, because there is a two-party system across the country, there is almost exact proportionality between votes cast and seats gained; and even in that country, turnouts are low by any standard, at 50 per cent.
Mr. Harry Barnes: There is a problem with the turnout figures in this country, because our electoral registration process is inadequate. There are many people on registers who have died or moved and who are therefore not expected to vote, but we calculate the turnout of voters in an election from the number appearing on the register. The worse the registers become, the more inadequate are the turnout figures, so an improvement in the registration process would help us considerably in understanding exactly what proportion of people vote.
Mr. Straw: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says, and I pay tribute to his work over many years in Parliament to raise interest in voting. In my judgment, increasing interest in voting is a function not simply of the electoral system, but of many more prosaic issues, such as making the system of registration easier and quicker, making polling stations more accessible, and perhaps changing the day on which we vote.
184
I remember that, when I first took numbers in Chigwell urban district council elections, voting in urban districts in many parts of the country took place on a Saturday. We need to have an open debate on that matter. All those issues are being considered by a working party chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), on which nominated representatives of the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and other parties sit.
It should be an obvious truth that no electoral system can be suitable for all political institutions, whatever their purpose or powers. We have proposed different arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Greater London assembly. In the debate on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, I set out the reasons why, in my judgment, the first-past-the-post system in huge artificial European constituencies was not a satisfactory system, and why, in the particular circumstances of the European elections, where we are electing not a Government but a representative body, a regional list system was better.
Mr. David Winnick: All voting systems have blemishes, and no one, including its defenders such as myself, denies that the first-past-the-post system has its faults; but should we not recognise that, despite all that has happened on the continent before and after the war, no fascist and only the occasional communist has ever been elected to the House of Commons? Would not almost every anti-democratic party—fascist, communist or whatever—dearly like proportional representation to be introduced in this country, for obvious reasons?
Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which needs to be weighed in the balance. I cannot and do not say that, if we moved to a system of proportional representation, it would be bound to lead to a growth of extremist parties. However, were it not for this debate, I would be chairing a European Union conference on racism being held in Manchester today under our presidency; and it is true that almost all our European partners are greatly anxious about the fact that extremist parties—particularly from the right—now have parliamentary representation in their domestic parliaments.
I have read with great care the Conservative party's submission to the Jenkins commission, and I say, without any condescension, that, on the merits of first past the post, it is well argued. Its fault lies in its dogmatism—its refusal to admit at all the possible merits of any alternative. That fault is compounded by the practice to the contrary of Conservative Administrations.
The right hon. Member for Devizes is the last person to dismiss Ireland as unworthy of the consideration that we should give the mainland of Britain, which is to his credit. He knows that, not once but twice in the Conservative party's recent history, Conservative Members have come to the House and recommended for Northern Ireland's political institutions not first past the post, but systems of proportional representation: the single transferable vote for elections to the old Northern Ireland Assembly, and a closed regional list system with our now famous d'Hondt divisors for the Northern Ireland peace forum.

185
The Conservative party rejected first past the post not only for those institutions but for its Members of Parliament, who make up the franchise for the electorate of the Conservative party leader. The system that the party has operated since 1965 is so complicated that it might well have been invented by our old friend, the famous Belgian, Victor d'Hondt, while resting from his labours on divisors. However, in essence, the system for electing the Tory leader is a form of the alternative vote.
Those who have just benefited from the patronage of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), ought to be thankful that the Conservative party uses an alternative vote system, because, had the Tory leadership been decided by first past the post, the Leader of the Opposition would be not the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks, but the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), and some Front-Bench Conservative Members might not now be in their posts.
Mr. Burden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is interesting to note that, when the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks was at Oxford university, he urged the adoption of a single transferable vote system for its Conservative association?
Mr. Straw: That information is interesting, but I do not necessarily hold against people what they did or said when they were students. To do so might be unwise not only for me, but for some of my hon. Friends.
Although I have long opposed proportional representation and favoured single-member constituencies, I have also come to recognise that questions have increasingly been raised about the legitimacy of first past the post, with endless challenges to its merits on the grounds of its alleged lack of arithmetical proportionality between votes cast and seats won.
It is for that reason that I have also long been a supporter of a referendum on the issue to give the British people a chance, which they have never had before, to express their confidence in the current system or to vote for a specific change. The 1995 Labour party conference finally made a decision on that issue. I was then a member of the national executive committee, so it fell to me to recommend such a referendum to the conference, which I did.
It is on that point that a great gulf emerges between the Government and the Opposition. The gulf is not between those who support proportional representation and those who support first past the post. There are different views among Labour Members, and, as I shall explain, in the Conservative party and the country. The gulf arises from the fact that the Conservative party writes an elegant and persuasive paper in favour of first past the post, in which it says:
"the evidence suggests that the British system fulfils the criteria"—
set out in the Jenkins commission's terms of reference—
"better than any other system".
It submits that evidence to the Jenkins commission, but it is unwilling to submit the same evidence to the British people.
Where is the courage of Conservative Members' convictions? Where is their trust in the British electorate, who, through first past the post, have served them so well,
186
giving them power for 35 of the 53 years since the war? If their arguments are as strong as they say, what exactly is it they are scared of?
Sir Nicholas Lyell: Does not the logic of the Home Secretary's argument lead to the question why the Government have not been willing to allow the Jenkins commission to give advice to the country on the whole question, including the merits of first past the post? Will he keep an open mind on that question and eventually answer it in the affirmative, and change the commission's terms of reference?
Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me, I shall deal with that point later, because it was also raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who has left the Chamber.
I ask the Conservative party in the House of Commons: why does it appear to be scared of a debate across the country about the relative merits of the first-past-the-post system and an alternative? I do not believe that Conservative Members' view is unanimously shared by members of the Conservative party. I note that Mr. Timothy Rathbone, Member of Parliament for Lewes until he lost his seat under the first-past-the-post system at the general election, is today reported as saying:
"The parliamentary motion on electoral systems chosen by the Conservative party in the House of Commons for debate today must be one of the most thoughtless and complacent of political actions by any party for a very long time."
I share that view.
Sir Teddy Taylor: The Home Secretary is making a sensible, balanced case. Does he not think that it would add to the confusion if we held a referendum and only 50 per cent. of the electorate bothered to vote?
Mr. Straw: Obviously, there would be an issue of the turnout, but it would be for proponents of each argument to ensure a good turnout. I strongly believed—and advocated before the general election, when it was not the unanimous opinion in the Labour party—that referendums should be held in Scotland, Wales and London on the major issues of constitutional change there. I have never accepted that a minimum turnout should be set for the legitimacy of a referendum vote, because I do not believe in compulsory voting. I happen to believe that, in a democracy, people have as much of a right not to vote as they do to vote.
Mr. Nigel Evans: That does not include trade union recognition.
Mr. Straw: We are talking about political institutions, not about trade unions—it would be quite off the point to do so.
The right hon. Member for Devizes seems to imply that the views that he has expressed are the unanimous views of the whole Conservative party; he knows that that is not true. I have with me the evidence that Conservative Action for Electoral Reform submitted to the Jenkins commission. It starts:
"Conservative Action for Electoral Reform welcomes the inquiry by the commission into an alternative system."

187
It says:
"In the late 1970s, the Conservatives in Parliament had 41 Members of Parliament and 60 peers who supported change."
It says that even the campaign guide of 1991—which, it correctly says, is the Conservative candidate's definitive authority from which the line is taken during a general election—stated:
"Ever since its invention in the 19th century, PR has had its advocates and opponents. In the Conservative party, the latter have always predominated, though the case for PR had been put with vigour by the group, Conservative Action for Electoral Reform, founded in 1974."
If the Conservative party now denies that there is unanimity in the party on the issue, and if it accepts that there should be a debate in the Conservative party on the subject, why the devil should there not be a debate across the country also?
Mr. Gummer: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care, and I am very much in favour of a debate across the country. However, would it not be helpful if that debate were to be informed in two ways? First, should there not be a commission whose membership, and above all whose chairmanship, was seen to be both balanced and, as far as the chairman was concerned, entirely without past baggage, so that it would present an independent approach? Secondly, would it not be helpful to ensure that the terms of reference enabled that commission to make comments about the present system, so that a subsequent referendum could properly draw its opinions from a properly presented case?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I shall now discuss the appointment and the terms of reference.
Dr. Tony Wright: Slightly more than 20 years ago, in 1976, an independent commission—organised by the Hansard Society and chaired by a distinguished Conservative peer, Lord Blake—did indeed study electoral systems. Contrary to the argument we heard earlier—that no rational person could reach a conclusion other than to support the first-past-the-post system, that independent commission, having studied the range of electoral systems, came out in favour of electoral reform. Is that not another important item for my right hon. Friend's list of Conservative opinions?
Mr. Straw: Yes. There have been many external or independent commissions, some centred on voluntary organisations—and that is all as it should be. This is the most vital issue to affect any democracy—as far as that goes, I do not demur from what the right hon. Member for Devizes said.
The Jenkins commission was established in fulfilment of a manifesto commitment. There is, first, the issue of membership. We held discussions with the Liberal Democrats and among ourselves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not with the Conservatives."] No, indeed, because, in the run-up to the general election, the Conservative party completely ruled out the possibility of any constitutional change. But there is always time for sinners to repent.
188
I am conscious of the repentance often uttered by the right hon. Member for Devizes, for instance. He was a sinner against sinning back in the 1970s, when he strongly supported constitutional change while in opposition, and spoke up in favour of a Scottish assembly. I have the quotations with me if the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten them—
Mr. Ancram: It was 1976.
Mr. Straw: Yes. So the Conservative party ruled itself out of the equation.
The experience of New Zealand was uppermost in many of our minds. In that country, there was discontent with the electoral system. That is often a feature of all systems, even in countries with apparently wonderful systems of proportional representation. It is usually easier to find complaints about the systems than advocates of them—until one moves across the border. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), with her shining expertise in matters German, knows that to be true.
Nevertheless, the New Zealand experience was instructive. There was discontent with the first-past-the-post system, and the consensus was that there should be a referendum to decide whether there should be change. The voters were offered a curious choice, between a current system whose advantages and disadvantages they knew in every particular, and a mirage of some imprecise change whose detail was by definition unknown.
We were determined to avoid that. The Liberal Democrats and Labour agreed that the only fair way to put a choice to the British people was to give them a choice between two equals: between the first-past-the-post system—it would be absurd to suggest leaving it out—and another system carefully worked out by a relatively independent body.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously saying that the commission is in any sense independent or impartial?
Mr. Straw: I used the term "relatively". I, for instance, would not be qualified to serve on the commission—this was a matter of some levity between the Liberal Democrats and me—because my views have not exactly been in favour of PR. There was not much point in putting on the commission people who were wholly opposed to the idea of PR, because its whole purpose was to draw up a practical alternative.
Mr. Heald: Where is the balance, then?
Mr. Straw: I am sorry that it is taking me so long to get my point across. The balance is between the existing system, which the hon. Gentleman and most of his hon. Friends support, and an alternative worked up in detail. So, when the British people have the chance to vote, they can see the advantages and disadvantages of both.
Mr. John MacGregor: Does it follow from what the right hon. Gentleman is saying that, when the time comes for the referendum, the Government will make the case both for what the commission recommends,

189
which we know will have a particular slant, and for the existing system; and that they will ensure equal time and resources for putting across both cases to the country?
Mr. Straw: I shall come to that in a moment. It is, of course, important to ensure that a fair debate is conducted on such a crucial issue. We have not yet made any final decisions; it will still be many months before we receive the report of the Jenkins commission. The right hon. Gentleman's point is an important one, and it distinguishes this issue from arguments about the Greater London referendum, for example—
Mr. Gummer: If a commission presents a report saying that such-and-such is the best system, inherent in that presentation will be a judgment. Thus the British people will be presented with a report by a commission that has spent many months discussing the issue, and also with the status quo. They cannot but think of the commission as the sort of body that would usually investigate all the pros and cons and then come up with a proposal. Now we are told that it is not that sort of commission at all: it is supposed to come up with some proportional system, which will then be compared with the present system.
I submit that the Home Secretary should make it quite clear that the commission's report will be different in kind, and that whatever suggestion it backs will have a different sort of authority.
Mr. Straw: No. The Conservative party has got itself in a terrible twist. The absurdity of its argument—which is that the commission will bring down tablets of stone declaring which is the best system—lies in the fact that the commission has not been invited to consider the merits of first past the post alongside all the alternatives. The Tories would have been in a pickle if the commission had been invited to do so. If an independent commission, as Lord Blake's body did 20 years ago, then handed down a recommendation stating that the additional member system or some form of STV system was incontrovertibly better than first past the post, Conservatives who support the latter would be in serious difficulties. The fact that the commission is not doing that is doing them a favour, although they seem not to recognise it.
Mr. Martin Linton: As the first-past-the-post system is guaranteed a place on the ballot paper, regardless of its merits and regardless of the findings of the Jenkins commission, can my right hon. Friend understand what the Opposition want?
Mr. Straw: I do my best.
Mr. John Hayes: Surely the frailty of the Home Secretary's argument is that it contravenes the principle, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"? To mix my metaphors, one does not have exploratory surgery while feeling perfectly well. Consequently, the British people will assume that the thing is broken, damaged or faulty from the very fact that it is being investigated.
Mr. Straw: Although my views on single-member constituencies are widely known, I also acknowledge that, over the past 30 years, the legitimacy of first past the post
190
has increasingly been challenged—that is a fact. Now it is time to ask the British people either to express their confidence in the system or to move to a different one.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I do not believe that the Home Secretary answered the question about equal funding. Will he give the House a guarantee that the campaigns for both systems will receive equal funding?
Mr. Straw: I hope that my answer to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) was satisfactory, because I well understood his point. I understand the expectation among all parties that there will be fairness in the conduct of the referendum. The Government have made no decisions yet, but we shall take the views of all parties fully into account.
Mr. Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: With great respect, I want to conclude my speech, so as to give others a chance.
The right hon. Member for Devizes seems not to have consulted the Conservative party's own evidence when he wrote his speech and the motion. In the motion, the Government are urged to change the remit of the commission. In the evidence that the Conservative party submitted just six weeks ago, it is not the Government who are urged to change the commission's remit, but the commission that is told that it should have been allowed to drop its own terms of reference. That is one of the most extraordinary propositions that I have ever read, and not one to which any Government of the Conservative Administration has ever subscribed. Indeed, it would amount to an abdication of government, were it to happen.
I shall go through the expected time scale for the referendum. The Jenkins commission hopes to report in October. After that, primary legislation will be needed to permit a referendum to be held. The plan is that the referendum should take place well before the next election. It will offer the public a clear choice between first past the post and an alternative, drawn from the recommendations of the commission.
If there were a vote for change in the referendum, further primary legislation would be required to introduce the new electoral system. Depending on the nature of the new system, extensive redrawing of electoral boundaries might also be required. These factors will determine whether any new system could be in place for the next general election.
At the last election, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to rebuild the country's faith and trust in Government and politics. Fundamental to that vision was a change not just in what the Government do, but in how they do it. Confidence in our political system has been significantly eroded in recent years. Our challenge is to restore confidence in our democracy, to bring decision-making closer to those who are affected by decisions, and to restore trust in the way in which we are governed. That is why we have embarked on a major programme of change.
We are giving the Scottish and Welsh people a greater say over the issues that affect them. We are giving Londoners their own elected mayor. We hope to secure a settlement in Northern Ireland. We are bringing rights

191
home for all. We are reforming the House of Lords, and, yes, we are giving the British people the right to decide how they elect those who represent them.
The right hon. Member for Devizes said that what mattered were not parties' votes, but people's votes. For that reason, I find it extraordinary that he opposes a referendum. Voters, not politicians, should have the final say over the electoral system that they, the voters, use to elect us, their representatives, to the House. Whether there is change or no change, the referendum will provide the popular legitimacy that is essential for our working democracy. It is the British people's right to have that say, and our responsibility to provide it.
4.52 pm
Mr. John Major: The Home Secretary has just made a speech in a very reasonable tone of voice. That makes me suspicious. When I was at the Dispatch Box and I was excessively reasonable, it usually meant that I had something to hide, or that I sided with the Opposition, but did not wish my own party to realise that so plainly. We are not clear which is the case with the Home Secretary, although the cat may have come out of the bag towards the end of his speech when, in a low-key, throwaway tone of voice, he set out a possible sequence of events for changing the nature of elections to the House before the next general election. I may return to that point in a few moments.
Since they came to power, the Government have been determined to make constitutional changes. I have no objection to that. They won a clear mandate at the election for some of those constitutional changes; where the changes are sensible, I have no objection to them, although my own preference is for incremental change, rather than root-and-branch constitutional upheaval.
It is sad that many of the changes that have taken place so far are not sensible. Of course, the Government have a clear electoral mandate for devolution in Scotland and Wales, even though it was obtained from the belief of many voters that devolution would put to rest the fear of Scottish nationalism, whereas, in practice, it has excited and improved the position of Scottish nationalism. It has fed it, rather than curbed it, and Scottish nationalism may yet be the coffin that carries away the Union that has been of such great assistance to both England and Scotland over the past couple of hundred years.
The Government clearly also have a mandate for the mayor of London, on the ground of democratic accountability. I accept that, although I find it curious that that desire for democratic accountability does not extend to letting the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) be a candidate in that election. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not present. He is probably out canvassing, having turned his pager off, for he is notoriously unprogrammable. He is clearly Labour's best candidate for the election if it comes about, and it is a great shame that he may not stand and that a party clone may stand in his stead.
The Government are also flirting with piecemeal changes to the House of Lords and, as the Home Secretary has just told the House, to the electoral system for this House. I fancy that those two points are connected, as I shall explain to the House in a few moments.
Why are the Government considering these changes? I came to the House today in an optimistic frame of mind. I thought that perhaps they were not really considering
192
change, but rather stringing along the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and the Liberal Democrats in return for their slavish support. That seems to have been working over the past few months. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, whom I am delighted to see in his place, or at least in the Chamber, is the main cheerleader for the Prime Minister and the new Labour Government, and has already given full value for the electoral change that he hopes to achieve, by consulting them from a kneeling position seven days a week.
I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Yeovil. If I were a Liberal Democrat—which, thank goodness I am not—
Mr. Bob Russell: You almost are.
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman does not know me very well. I can give him a categorical assurance that, despite the charm of his implicit invitation, I shall not be able to accept it; nor would I wish to. However, if I were a Liberal Democrat, I would be in favour of changing the electoral system. I am not arguing that first past the post is perfect or even perfectly fair. Of course there are aspects of it that are unfair, and every other electoral system has its own share of unfairness.
We should consider whether a change in the electoral system is logical and whether it would work in the national interest—not which party is elected, but whether the party in government, when elected, can make the often painful, difficult and unpopular decisions that any Government must make.
Mr. Robert Maclennan rose—
Mr. Major: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman a little later.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown rose—
Mr. Major: Will the right hon. Gentleman wait a couple of minutes? He may have more to intervene on.
Mr. Ashdown: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, if he reflects on the last year of his Administration, does he believe that he had the power to institute what he wanted to institute? Even his more generous friends would believe that his party was a coalition and that he was driven by a very small, extreme group in it to decisions that he would not have wished to take.
Mr. Major: If the right hon. Gentleman had been a little wiser and waited a few more moments, I would have dealt with the points that are exercising him.
Those who advocate one or other form of proportional representation—I understand why they do so—seem to be confused about the underlying purpose of popular elections. Is the purpose to produce a miniature mirror of the entire electorate—a Britain in vignette? If that is the case, plainly some form of proportional representation is the right way to achieve it: I concede that. Such an assembly would mirror society more accurately than first past the post, but let us make no bones about it: if we fall below a certain strength, first past the post places a firm hand on our shoulder, informs us that we have lost, and shows us the door.

193
If the purpose is to make Westminster a little Gothic framed mirror in which every face is shown, proportional representation is best for us, and we can look forward to welcoming into the House, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said a few moments ago, some tiny parties, some of which have very extreme views.
The question arises: what is that Gothic mirror for? The electorate may have the illusion of democracy because they see in the House of Commons a direct reflection of their own image. However, is that really what the electorate wants to see? Do the people want their Parliament, when elected, to provide an effective Government, and effective Opposition parties who will work together when that is appropriate?
A Government—whether Tory, Labour or Liberal—must take firm decisions. For example, my predecessor's Cabinet did not privatise only 60 per cent. of British Airways because 40 per cent. of the House of Commons wanted the corporation to remain in state hands. The present Cabinet abolished the assisted places scheme after winning the vote in this place. Some 25 per cent. of hon. Members voted against that proposal, but we lost and we accepted defeat. It would be absurd if the decision were made to represent us proportionally by leaving in place 25 per cent. of that scheme. As far as I am aware—unless we have more to learn from the Government—we shall not have three quarters of a London mayor, half a Welsh assembly or four fifths of a Scottish Parliament.
The point is that decision making is a first-past-the-post system. Those who lose the argument are outvoted and overruled. That is frustrating, and they hate it, but decisions in the interests of the country then get taken.
Mr. Mackinlay: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Major: In a moment.
The present Government—like all their predecessors—are about decision making. At some stage, the losers must be ushered out. To offer the electorate a proportional Parliament that mirrors its opinions, but is unable to take decisions that mirror those opinions, is to change the moment at which the losers are ushered out. It offers a false prospectus to the elector.
Mr. Mackinlay: I differ from Privy Councillors in that I am concerned about not strong government but arbitrary government. There are insufficient brakes on government in our constitution, and we are getting arbitrary government. Electoral reform might mean that Governments—of whatever political complexion—will reflect on that point. For instance, the poll tax was a daft idea, which everyone agreed was stupid but which they had no way of stopping. If there had been a less arbitrary Government with an overwhelming parliamentary majority, that crackpot legislation might not have reached the statute book.
Mr. Major: It is interesting to develop the question of arbitrary government. It is self-evident that the hon. Gentleman is not wearing his pager. If he were, he would no doubt hear from Alastair Campbell within a matter of seconds. If there is a buzz, we shall know exactly what it is—we shall wait and see whether the hon. Gentleman leaves the Chamber shortly.
194
I understand the frustration of the advocates of proportional representation—I do not dismiss that. However, proportional representation has practical drawbacks for the process of good government.
Under proportional representation, in theory the sitting Prime Minister could have remained in office after every general election since the second world war if he or she had obtained the support of the third party. No Prime Minister would have left office. That is hardly democratic, and it is hardly the wish of the electorate, but it illustrates vividly the disproportionate power that proportional representation gives to the third party—or perhaps the fourth or fifth party in some cases. The electorate's basic decision becomes irrelevant, and a decision is made after the House reassembles.
Mr. Ashdown: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I must raise some issues now, as I may have to leave shortly—I am not wearing my pager. The right hon. Gentleman has made four important and familiar points regarding, first, firm decision making; secondly, strong government; thirdly, the national interest; and, fourthly, control by extremists. Reflecting on the last two years of his Administration, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that he was able to provide that for the nation?
Mr. Major: At this moment, the Government—and the right hon. Gentleman as their faithful ally—are benefiting from the strength of the economy that they inherited from the previous Government and the decisions that that Government took, many of which were deeply unpopular. Those decisions were opposed mostly, but not entirely, by the right hon. Gentleman and almost entirely by the Labour party. However, their legacy is an economic climate unlike that inherited from any previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to reflect on that point.
Let us take a flight of fancy and suppose that Britain abandoned the first-past-the-post system. What would happen after future general elections? It is likely that they would be followed by a period of negotiation: the wishes of the electorate would matter less than the ability of party leaders to bargain. A coalition would be formed; by definition, coalitions are unstable and uncertain. History shows us that they are likely to fall because of internal politics rather than the electorate's wish at a general election. History tells us also that coalitions find decision making a tortuous process.
Over the past 20 years—the right hon. Member for Yeovil might reflect on this point—the previous Government took tough and unpopular decisions that are now generally accepted as having been correct. Would the unions have been tamed, the health service reformed, inflation brought down and privatisation begun if Governments had been elected by proportional representation? No; none of that would have occurred. Yet the present Government—and, I assume, the Liberal Democrats in most cases—now support those measures.
The last time we had a coalition—the Lib-Lab pact of 1977–78—it led to an erratic and ineffective Government that was in hock not to moderate and sensible opinion but to extremist Welshmen and sour Scots who had to be fought off. Any system that makes that the norm is mad, bad and dangerous to adopt, and we should not touch it.
Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to one who served in the

195
arrangement that he has described. The difference between the Lib-Lab pact and the Government over which he presided was that the arrangements between the Liberal and Labour parties were open and clear, whereas he presided over a dishonest coalition of people who could not agree about the most fundamental issues facing the nation—particularly European policy.
Mr. Major: I am afraid that the real difference was that the Lib-Lab pact left the country in a shambles, whereas we left it in the best economic circumstances for generations.
What form of proportional representation should we have? Some forms create two classes of Members of Parliament—those with constituencies and those without—and others degrade the constituency link entirely. One system requires mumbo-jumbo, multi-member seats that no one wants. None of those options is attractive. The Government promised to hold a referendum—the Home Secretary has reiterated that pledge today—but they are already making changes, step by step, without a referendum. They have not made changes to Westminster—the Government have promised to hold a referendum in that regard—but they have introduced a London assembly, a Welsh assembly, a Scottish Parliament and changes to European elections.
Under the Government, first past the post might soon become the only electoral system that is not available to the British nation. The Government are inflicting a confusing mass of electoral systems on voters. There will be a regional closed list system for the European Parliament, two versions of the additional member system for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, the supplementary vote system for the London mayor, the additional member system for the London assembly, and whatever the hand-picked enthusiasts for reform on the Jenkins commission finally come up with for Westminster. Commission members are reformist, so who will even consider the case for retaining the status quo?
Labour-style electoral reform panders to the repressive tendencies that we are coming to expect from this Government. They have, I suspect, a taste for the closed list system which allows the party—we know what a small number of people that means in the present Labour party—to foist almost anyone on the public by offering a "take it or leave it" party ticket. Decisions in the Labour party national executive committee make it evident that that is the way it is going.
Even the Liberal Democrats—[Interruption.] I was about to say something nice about them, but that was clearly a mistake. Even the Liberal Democrats, whose eyes normally light up at any mention of proportional representation, did not like that system. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) nods his head. He, at least, has been listening and understanding a little of what I have said.
Mr. A. J. Beith: We sought to amend that closed list system, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the first-past-the-post system is a closed list of one, which is open to the same criticisms? In any seat in which a party has a large majority, it leaves the choice of who will serve as constituency Member to the party.
Mr. Major: First past the post is not controlled remotely by the centre in the way in which that other
196
system would be. The right hon. Gentleman understands that very well; he is a Liberal—an old-fashioned liberal, I think.
As the distinguished commentator Ferdinand Mount put it a year or so ago:
"PR means the Party Rules."
Proportional representation means less control by the voters, not more. Under our present system, the voters have a good idea of what they are letting themselves in for when they vote Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or whatever. Under proportional representation, a party may not choose to say with whom it will go into coalition after the votes have been counted. If it does, it may rat on them, as the New Zealand First party did so memorably a year or so ago.
If the Jenkins commission advocates, for example, the additional member system, Britain will end up with two classes of MPs: party hacks without constituencies chosen from a list drawn up in party headquarters, and directly elected constituency Members who, to rub salt in the wound, will have their constituencies enlarged to make way for the seatless additional Members.
If the commission advocates the alternative vote system, Britain will end up with a system that is far less representative than even the most hostile advocates can say of the present first-past-the-post system. Winston Churchill described the alternative vote system as
"the stupidest, the least scientific and the most unreal"
of plans for electoral reform. As usual, he understated his case.
An examination of proportional representation in action is pretty fearsome. In Israel, for example, the Prime Minister is hamstrung by small religious parties whose militant MPs keep him in power. Although those MPs won only tiny votes, Israel has them because it has the purest system of proportional representation.
In Germany, which has been mentioned, the alternative member system has produced a Parliament hamstrung by coalition, compromise and indecision. The previous change of Government occurred because the small Free Democrats decided to ditch the SPD and back the CDU—it was nothing to do with the voters. A majority of German voters want tax reform and welfare reform, as do the German business system and German politicians, but the electoral system simply cannot deliver it. Reform proposals have collapsed, causing social unrest and political disquiet. Here in Britain, whether the Government were Labour or Tory, those proposals would have gone on to the statute book, because the Government would have had a majority in the House. I do not think that we want a system of government that is causing so much difficulty elsewhere.
New Zealand has also been mentioned. In many ways, it offers the best lesson for us to absorb before minds are finally closed on this important issue. In 1993, it voted to abandon the system bequeathed by Britain and introduce one similar, but not identical, to Germany's. It now wants to change back, and it is easy to understand why. After the first general election under the new system, it took eight weeks of secret negotiation even to form a

197
Government, and then only because 17 members of the New Zealand First party ratted on a pre-election promise not to go into coalition with the National party.
Mr. Burden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Major: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, because many hon. Members want to speak, and I want to make progress.
New Zealand First is nowhere in the polls, yet it still decides who governs. That is not appropriate to an electoral system that is like ours and a country with a democratic history similar to Britain's.
From Italy, too, we now have something to learn. After 40 years of instability, deal making and corruption, it reformed its electoral system. What did it reform its system to? Something that bears more than a passing resemblance to the British system.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Major: I shall not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have given way several times, and many hon. Members want to speak.
Let me touch on a final danger of proportional representation. The Government threaten to reform the House of Lords—not wholesale, but piecemeal; to abolish hereditary peerages; and to flood the upper House with the Prime Minister's appointees to make it an obedient poodle of Downing street, whenever he needs it to be so. Making the Lords a poodle first, then introducing a forced change of the electoral system without the likelihood of the Lords blocking the scheme would be a contemptible way for the Government to proceed, but it would surprise few people if that is what they plan.
I hope that the Home Secretary, who has a reputation for straight dealing, will keep that reputation and ensure that that is not the Government's intention. If he does not, we shall be warned. I am profoundly suspicious about what the Government plan and why they plan it. He knows in his heart that their plans are for party advantage and not for the maintenance of secure good government in this country, whether Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat. I hope to be proved wrong, but the Government's actions, not the Home Secretary's words, will convince me.
5.16 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Until he spoke this afternoon, I had held the view that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was a kindly fellow, but his praise for my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) as a potential mayor of London may have delivered the death blow to my hon. Friend's chances. If so, we shall have witnessed this week the collapse of Gazza, the collapse of the Spice Girls and the collapse of my hon. Friend. It has been a wonderful week indeed.
I listened with fascination when the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) moved the motion, especially when he rebuked Ministers for what he called playing politics with people's votes. That comes rich from the Conservative party, whose Representation of the People Acts 1983 and 1989 played politics with people's votes.
198
Conservative Members attack Ministers, but they are the people who when in power had the nerve to increase the deposit for parliamentary candidates while trying not to reduce the threshold for losing the deposit; who tried to reduce polling hours at general elections from the present concluding hour of 10 pm to 9 pm, thereby reducing people's chance to vote; and who sought to reduce the right of people to obtain postal votes in Northern Ireland compared with the way in which such votes were allocated in Great Britain. I worked with Enoch Powell and Jim Molyneaux to prevent the Conservatives from reducing the value of a vote in Northern Ireland compared with a vote in Great Britain.
The Conservatives are the people who introduced the overseas vote, which introduced to this country the novel concept not of no taxation, without representation, but of representation without taxation and allowing people with only a remote connection with this country to decide who should govern it. I strongly hope that, when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduces a Representation of the People Bill, he will remove the overseas vote from the statute book, because there is no possible justification for it. I can tell him, in the great friendship that I bear for him, that, if he does not propose to remove it, I shall table an amendment to do so.
The last people to whom I would pay serious attention when they denounce Governments for playing politics with people's votes are the Conservatives.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the previous Parliament, the Conservative Government redrew the local government boundaries in Scotland by administrative fiat and with no reference to the boundary commission?
Mr. Kaufman: As is generally—although not quite always—the case, my hon. Friend is right. [Laughter.] One has to measure one's words in the House. I never know who is going to quote me and in what context.
The Home Secretary was absolutely right to point out that the Labour party and the Labour Government have a manifesto mandate to examine changes to the voting system and to conduct a referendum. Labour Members were elected on that manifesto, and the Government are properly committed to carrying out that pledge. The Home Secretary also made it clear that the Government do not have a manifesto mandate to change the voting system; nor do they have any obligation or commitment to do so. They have a commitment to enabling the electoral to decide whether to retain the present voting system or to change it for one suggested by the Jenkins commission.
I am gratified that my right hon. Friend reminded the House of his scepticism about electoral systems other than the first-past-the-post system. I am also gratified that, on television recently, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear his own preference for the first-past-the-post system, as have my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the Government. As the right hon. Member for Huntingdon and others have said, it can be argued that the present voting system is imperfect. Although it is undoubtedly imperfect—I was defeated twice before I got into the House of Commons—alternative systems are far more imperfect.
Copious references have been made to the fact that the people of New Zealand are bitterly repenting their choice of a new system. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon

199
referred to the disaster of the perfect proportional representation system in Israel. David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel, wanted to get rid of that system. He was a great respecter of the British parliamentary system. He would have liked to introduce the first-past-the-post system in Israel, but the small parties in the Israeli Parliament elected under a proportional system would never allow their disproportionate power to be taken away from them by the introduction of a truly fair electoral system in the state of Israel.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to the imperfections in the present system in Britain. The PR system that they have in Israel, which could be used elsewhere, including in this country in certain circumstances, enables a tiny collection of fanatics to wield disproportionate power and thereby to jeopardise the peace of a region and, possibly, the peace of the world.
I was talking about the imperfections of the Israeli electoral system to Senator Patrick Moynihan in New York. He said, "There is a rabbi in Brooklyn who tells the Shas party what to do, and the Shas party tells the Israeli Government what to do." That is an example of the most perfect PR system with a very low threshold—of 1.2 per cent.—for representation in the Israeli Knesset.
Mr. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the terms of reference of the Jenkins commission exclude the Israeli system?
Mr. Kaufman: That may be so, but we are discussing electoral systems and proportional representation. I shall deal with other systems and shall not confine myself to the Israeli system. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that I take any opportunity to denounce the Israeli Government, because that seems appropriate.
Ms Stuart: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when an election results in a stalemate, it usually reflects a tremendous diversity of opinion and energy within a state rather than the election system? Some countries may be extremely difficult to govern, irrespective of the electoral system used, because of the nature of the interest groups that have to be brought together.
Mr. Kaufman: Our present electoral system does not remove diversity of opinion in the House, either among several different political parties or within parties. It is one of my great regrets that the Labour party is not more monolithic. I am in favour of a rigidly controlled parliamentary Labour party so that my own ideas can be implemented as much as possible. That strikes me as an appropriate concept of democracy.
I am not focusing my opposition to alternatives to the first-past-the-post system merely on the system used in Israel.
Mr. Gummer: Did the right hon. Gentleman notice that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) dismissed the most perfect PR system as beyond the competence of the Jenkins commission? If the perfect PR system is so worthy of dismissal, how can the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed commend to the House a less than perfect PR system? At what point does the perfection of the PR system become such that it is impossible to implement?
Mr. Kaufman: That is a matter for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As a simple socialist, I lack the sophistication to answer such difficult questions.
All the differing proportional representation systems result not in government by the majority or by the largest single party, but in government by small minorities. It is government not by the people who make their choice of programmes put before them at a general election, but by the manoeuvring of politicians.
We have seen what has happened in this country since 1979. The minority Labour Government were brought down on 31 March 1979 not by the Conservative Opposition, who lacked the power to do so, but by the Liberal party and the Scottish National party. Those two parties put Margaret Thatcher into power—let that never be forgotten. By devising that vote of no confidence in the Labour Government in March 1979, the Scottish National party set devolution back a quarter of a century. Minor parties are not only wrong-headed, but often self-destructive—although not self-destructive enough for my taste.
In the last few elections, what we have seen is the irresponsibility of minor parties. Some say that we on the left of centre—if I may associate myself personally with such a group—
Mr. Straw: You may.
Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
Some say that we on the left of centre would not have had to put up with the Thatcher years, or even the more benevolent Major years, if only we had had a system of proportional representation. Using the language of moderation for which I have become somewhat noted in the House, I must say that that is absolute rubbish.
Let us just see what would have happened under proportional representation in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992. In those years, the Conservative party had a huge lead over Labour in terms of votes: 7 per cent. in 1979, 14 per cent. in 1983, 11 per cent. in 1987 and 8 per cent. in 1992. Is anyone really going to tell me that in such circumstances the Queen would have sent for anyone except the leader of the Conservative party to form a Government?
Furthermore—although on each of those occasions the Conservative party received less than 50 per cent. of the vote—is any hon. Member going to tell me that the Liberals, who connived to throw out the moderate Jim Callaghan Government when the moderate Jim Callaghan Government had received more votes than the Conservatives in October 1974, would have worked to keep Jim Callaghan in office in May 1979, having kicked him out of office on 31 March 1979? Are the people who kicked out Jim Callaghan really going to say that they would have worked to help Michael Foot in 1983 and would have worked to make Neil Kinnock Prime Minister in 1987 and 1992? That is utterly absurd. We would have had a Thatcher majority Government, or a Major majority Government, in every one of those elections.
People say that, under proportional representation, there would have been a minority Government. They say, "We would have been able to moderate their approach." Would a Margaret Thatcher who could crush Jim Prior and Francis Pym have bowed the knee to David Steel? I will

201
take a little convincing of that. She would have had her way, with the added legitimacy—from her point of view—of the support of the Liberal party and the great left-wing socialist David Owen.
Mr. Bayley: My right hon. Friend will recall—because he was a Member of Parliament at the time—that in February 1974 the Queen sent for Edward Heath to ask him to form a Government because he was the leader of the party with the most Members of the House of Commons. He spent a few days trying to form a Government, but failed. The Queen then sent for Harold Wilson. Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is quite possible that that could have happened under proportional representation following the 1987 and 1992 elections?
Mr. Kaufman: As it happens, I was there myself—and not just as an elected Member of Parliament, proud though I was to be so. I was at No. 5 Lord North street, Harold Wilson's house, while he waited to find out what was going to happen. What happened, of course, was that Edward Heath tried to persuade Jeremy Thorpe to join him in the Government. There were wrangles in the Liberal party, and it took four days for that to sort itself out.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: I am replying to my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend?"] I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley). The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) could be my hon. Friend in certain circumstances if he played his cards right.
Mr. Tyler rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I am replying to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. He has the right to put questions to me because I went to help him in his constituency.
Mr. Winnick: And he won.
Mr. Kaufman: Indeed; he won with an enormous majority—under the first-past-the-post system.
I shall explain to my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. What happened between 28 February and 4 March 1974 was one thing. The Conservatives had a lead of five seats over Labour. In the case of the elections in which Labour was defeated, between 1979 and 1992, the Tory lead over Labour was never less than 8 per cent., and rose as high as 14 per cent. The scenario that my hon. Friend imagines for 1974 simply would not have been repeated.
Why the delusions of those on the left who hated—understandably; I did too—so much of what was done during those Tory years? They believe that under proportional representation the Tory years could have been avoided, but they could not and would not have been, and the Tories would have been given the imprimatur of the Liberals and the Social Democrats.
202
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon—and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. who rightly dismissed the Israeli system—referred to the system that is most supported: the additional member system, which I discussed with Lord Plant. People say that the German system ensures good left-of-centre government and that we in the Labour party should adopt the same approach, but let us look at what has happened under that great additional member system.
In the 49 years since the first election in post-war Germany, our sister party--the Social Democratic party—has held office for a total of 13 years. That is even less than the Labour party in Britain—and we should take account of the fact that, during the 1980s, the Labour party deserved to lose general elections because it was riven by extremism. Under the first-past-the-post system, Labour has been in power for a greater aggregate period than the Social Democrats in West Germany. The Christian Democratic Union has been in power for 35 years during that period, and the Free Democratic party for 27 years. It has been in power—part of the Government—for twice as long as the Social Democratic party, although on occasion its vote has fallen as low as 6.9 per cent; and that is the system that some of my hon. Friends, who in other respects appear perfectly sane, are ready to support.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: Let me finish my argument first.
Who held office as Foreign Minister for longer than any other Minister in democratic western Europe? Mr. Genscher, who, among other things, was the architect of the disaster in the former Yugoslavia. He was Foreign Minister in West Germany for 18 years, regardless of whether the Social Democratic party was in power—as it rarely was—or the CDU was in power, as it frequently was.
Mr. Linton: My right hon. Friend seeks to give the impression that proportional systems have led in Germany and perhaps elsewhere to a preponderance of centre-right government. Germany was partitioned after the war, and the largely social democratic part was in the east. To draw comparisons not only from one instance, but especially from Germany, is misleading. Why did he not point to the success under PR of the Austrian socialist party, the Swedish social democrats, PASOK in Greece and the Spanish socialist party?
Mr. Kaufman: One of the great glories of the Austrian system was Kurt Waldheim. I am sure that we all envy the Austrians having him as their leader.
Mr. Hogg rose—
Mr. Kaufman: I promised to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. After he has intervened, I shall respond further to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton).
Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman made an important statement about the Free Democrats, who, under Hans-Dietrich Genscher, secured the foreign ministry at the price of the party's support for the CDU.

203
However, the issue goes further than that, because Klaus Kinkel secured an extension of that freehold at the price of the support of the Free Democrats.
Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point. I shall now respond further to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, who quotes a special circumstance.
Even after East Germany was incorporated into Germany, it continued to elect the CDU. Any country using PR has a propensity to instability. It is a miracle that the Irish Republic, with its single transferable vote system, has managed, despite constant changes of Government, to achieve the peace settlement.
Mr. Stunell: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No. My arguments are overwhelmingly compelling, and no intervention will throw me. Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I take it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will choose them proportionately.
Like every Labour Member, I was elected on a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on electoral systems, and I accept every commitment in that manifesto. I was not elected to support a change, and in no circumstances will I do that. I support my party's manifesto, and after that I am free in a referendum to campaign for the continuation of the present system. I hope that the Government will do that. I certainly shall.
5.42 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has been a Member for a long time, and it is normal courtesy to follow his remarks with at least some animadversion. His memories of No. 5 Lord North street are riveting, but when he fantasised about possible alternative systems to be transplanted from foreign soils to this country, he was less interesting. In that area, the right hon. Gentleman speaks with no greater authority than any other hon. Member. He chose to use the debate, rather prematurely, to discuss alternative systems to first past the post, with which we are familiar. The debate was initiated by the Opposition, and focuses not on alternatives but on first past the post.
The debate was opened by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), and I add my felicitations on his translation to the chairmanship of his party. It is somewhat analagous to my role as president of my party, although, of course, my role is on a smaller scale. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have not found it impossible to speak my mind. However, a Front-Bench place for the right hon. Gentleman is not always guaranteed. I have great admiration for the right hon. Gentleman as a rhetorician, and even greater admiration for his ability to glide from one position to another on constitutional affairs, leaving no wake, so that within a decade or so he can complete a 180 degree turn on devolution for Scotland.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's bon mot that he is in favour of retaining the integrity of the political system. The debate is being held because the integrity of the system was plainly under attack. In a candid speech,
204
the Home Secretary, who has not always shown himself a whole-hearted supporter of electoral reform, showed that the electoral system has become a central issue for constitutional debate. For that reason, discussions were held before the election between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats. The discussions were not exclusive: other parties and individuals were involved.
A common programme was agreed before the election by both parties, and the electorate resoundingly supported the proposition that there should be a referendum on the electoral system. The Home Secretary rightly emphasised the nature of the choice, and explained the way in which we should proceed. The Government are simply carrying out precisely what they said they would do. It would not make sense to put to the electorate a wide range of alternatives and expect a sort of grab-bag approach to the exercise.
It is hard to follow the logic of the motion. The right hon. Member for Devizes said that the Government-appointed commission needs to investigate the merits of his preferred system, which is first past the post. Everybody over the age of 19 has a direct and recent familiarity with that system: it has been in operation for 100 years. Does the right hon. Member for Devizes seriously believe that the British people would prefer the commission to be asked to say what it thinks about a system under which they have been operating and with which they are so familiar?
It is preposterous to suggest that the people who are considering the alternatives should not favour reform. Such an approach is perfectly sensible and natural, to ensure that the best alternative to first past the post is chosen. That will ensure that the known system and the best alternative can be weighed in the balance. We are not debating some sort of quick political fix or change in the political environment of the kind that the right hon. Member for Devizes suggested the Government could somehow manufacture. We are debating the will of the British people expressed through the ballot box, and yes or no will decide whether the system is to be changed.
The right hon. Member for Devizes will have many opportunities to deploy his arguments in favour of first past the post, and will no doubt pursue the line of thought that is becoming so familiar in the Conservative party, whose members seem to think that they have the philosopher's stone that will turn the base metal of their argument into liquid gold—the philosopher's stone being repetition. I dare say that we shall hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech again, but not necessarily from him.
I must be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, who produced one rabbit out of the hat—the novelty of a new definition of proportionality. He apparently managed to persuade the Library to give him some figures to enable him to make his case, which he said was too complicated to explain to the House. Of course, we in the House would not understand it; no doubt those outside will. We look forward with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's explaining it to the country.
I have taken the precaution of reading the Conservative party document, and of endeavouring to understand it.

205
Happily, I agree with the verdict of the Electoral Reform Society—an independent organisation—that the document is
"nothing more than a fiddle with figures to make a preposterous claim."
Mr. Gummer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: I am dealing with a very important point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes, who is still the Opposition spokesman on the issue. We shall no doubt hear more from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) later.
The Conservative party has equated power with having representation in the Cabinet, with no differentiation between being a major or minor coalition partner. Power is then measured as the proportion of years during which a party has had representation in Parliament.
Exactly the same mistake was made by the right hon. Member for Gorton, who talked about the FDP in Germany as though it had been a great power wielder over the past two decades. The right hon. Gentleman may know a great deal about the workings of the electoral system in Israel—I bow to his views on that—and about the country's Government, but it is evident that he knows very little about what happens in the Federal Republic of Germany. Those who say that the FDP has been a great wheeler-dealer are plainly out of touch. Mere representation in Cabinet is no measure of power.
The argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes about the proportionality of power, if applied to Ireland, would show that the Labour party in Ireland was a more powerful party than Fine Gael. I do not believe that there is a single Irish Member of this House who would recognise that description. Coming from the right hon. Gentleman—a former Minister with responsibilities for the northern part of that island—it is a peculiarly disingenuous argument.
Mr. Ancram: If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with my argument, could he explain why Dick Spring was the Deputy Prime Minister under both Albert Reynolds and John Bruton and was the man who decided which was the Taoiseach as he switched from one side to the other?
Mr. Maclennan: Deputies are not always second in power. I have noticed the fate of the immediately outgoing shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who has been elevated to the deputy leadership of his party. Some of us have been here too long to be taken in by that kind of argument.
I did not find the submission of the Conservative party to the Jenkins commission at all compelling as a case for first past the post. In fact, it was such a weak case that I wondered why they had tried to make it. It was such a weak case that I wondered whether, from the Conservative party's own point of view, it gave the Jenkins commission a legitimacy which it may come rather to regret as its arguments are stripped out one by one in later months.
Some of the things the Conservatives have said in the document are coruscating truisms. The document states:
"The electorate can remove the Government if it no longer retains their confidence under first past the post."
206
What a remarkable aperçu. Is that not also true of Governments in other countries? Have not the Irish Government been defeated at a general election? Have not the Spanish and French Governments been defeated at a general election? May not the Federal Government of Germany be defeated at a general election? What a bizarre proposal in terms of the accountability of Government.
We are told that, in Britain,
"parties under the first-past-the-post system have to be sensitive to the public mood if they are to survive."
Is that peculiar to the position in this country? I would suggest not. It is true in all democratic countries.
The first-past-the-post system is always referred to as "the British system", for reasons that are hard to discern, as it was first devised in the United States of America after the revolution. Certainly it is true that we have lived with it for a long time.
In another of the document's insights, it boldly states that the British system
"ensures that both parties and their Members of Parliament govern in the interests of the people."
That is a product of the British system. It must be said that many people felt that there was a certain disconnection between the interests of the British people and the Government during at least the latter days of the outgoing Administration, which led to the sort of electoral nemesis which I had not experienced in my 32 years in this House. The system did not ensure the position of a Government who had been involved in all the queasy privatisation deals, the fat cats and jobs for the boys. I do not want to bring back memories of the ethos which is being prayed in aid of the present system. That would be repetitious.
The Conservatives' other allegation was that first past the post produces stable Governments, and we heard a great deal about that from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and I intervened briefly to ask whether the Government over whom he presided had truly demonstrated firmness of purpose and a great sense of direction. The country's judgment was a resounding no.
I was not surprised that the former Prime Minister chose not to answer and talked about the state of the economy, which, unusually, the country was prepared to overlook during the election, so dazzled was it by the Government's other activities, which had been calling into question the probity of many of their members.
Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman got fewer votes in 1997.
Mr. Maclennan: I certainly did, and I much preferred it when I had the majority of the votes, as I did at the 1987 election—the only time under our present system when I felt able to say that I spoke for the majority of my electors. I look forward to the possibility of that happening again.
The argument of the right hon. Member for Devizes suppresses the obvious fact—that the biggest single party in Parliament winning 43 per cent. of the vote leaves 57 per cent. voting against. I am sorry that I have to produce somewhat inane arguments to deal with inane propositions. This is all about allowing the people their

207
voice. On that I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes—the people's voice has not been heard clearly for a long time in this country. That is why we wish another electoral system to be adopted.
I should like to mention one other peculiar utterance in the Conservative party's statement to the Jenkins commission in defence of first past the post. Page 14 of the submission states:
"Systems other than our present one do not give voters choice."
That statement seems to be standing the argument entirely on its head. Nevertheless, the submission goes on to trumpet that lack of choice with the rather extraordinary sentence:
"Our present system is monotonic."
First past the post is monotonic? I looked up the word in the "Oxford English Dictionary", and found that it does not exist in that context, or in any other. It is a neologism. Presumably that creative use of the English language is supposed to dazzle us into thinking that there is more to the matter.
We have seen the Conservatives' argument for what it is. In truth, the argument is about the fact that, in the past 100 years, the first-past-the-post system has served them not at all badly. The Conservative party has been in power—especially if one accepts their definition of "proportionality of power", which is being in coalition—for 70 out of 100 years. That is the achievement of the first-past-the-post system. It has kept Conservative Members sitting on the Treasury Bench for a very long time.
Some Conservative Members have hopes that the electorate will put them back on the Treasury Bench—I would not count on it. However, I should certainly think their return more likely if the absurd system with which the United Kingdom has been lumbered is perpetuated—which I cannot think would reflect the wishes of the British people.
The Liberal Democrats have expressed our views on the matter. I invite the right hon. Member for Devizes to study and comment on those views, and to find arguments that directly address them. He has not done so today. We believe that the single transferable vote system best fulfils not only our objectives but those stated in the criteria of the Jenkins commission. It is unnecessary to repeat the objectives now, as this is not a debate about alternative systems. We will have an opportunity to debate those systems once the Jenkins commission reports.
Broad proportionality—the first criterion sought by the Government from the Jenkins commission—under the single transferable vote system would ensure that no party would be likely to secure a Commons majority without the support of nearly half the popular vote. Ideas that the British public would prefer something else, and that they would not like to look at the House and the Government and see in them a reflection of their own opinion—which the former Prime Minister characterised as looking in a Gothic mirror—seem to be far removed from public opinion on the matter.
The second criterion that the Government asked the Jenkins commission to apply was the need for stable government. Under the single transferable vote system, Governments will always reflect the opinions of the
208
majority of the electorate, rather than being captured by rival minorities. Parties will rule by consensus and avoid destabilising, extreme policies.
The extension of voter choice—the third criterion—was dismissed by the right hon. Member for Devizes as leading to "splitting the vote". What is wrong with voters having the opportunity to vote for candidates of different parties if they so choose? There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that, at the previous general election, in many constituencies, people chose to vote not for the party they most favoured—or even to which they belonged—but for another party which had a better chance of defeating the sitting Conservative Government. It was called "tactical" or "judicious" voting; it seemed to me to be sensible voting. Splitting the ticket may also be sensible voting. The British public are quite capable of intelligently making up their minds how to use whatever electoral system they give themselves—as they will do when casting their votes in a referendum.
The final criterion is maintenance of a constituency link. With the single transferable vote system, constituencies could be strengthened by being given the same boundaries as natural communities. I so agreed with the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart), who spoke about the importance of people in Birmingham looking on their Members as attempting to represent the people of Birmingham, and of familiarity. The link problem arises not only in urban constituencies. In rural constituencies, such as mine, confusion is caused when the boundary commission shifts boundaries—south, in my case—and adds an additional 300 square miles. There is no sense of the constituency being a natural community.
Mr. Martin Salter: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how—in the context of the much-beloved multi-constituency system—a constituency link could be applied to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand)? Which specific part of Hampshire forms a natural community with the Isle of Wight? Is it Basingstoke?
Mr. Maclennan: That is one for the boundary commission, which I will happily leave to it.
Given the breadth of experience and acumen of all the commissioners, I have no doubt that they will find an admirable proportional alternative to the current system. Although I hope that the alternative system will be the single transferable vote, I know that all the commissioners will be seeking to devise a system that fully meets all the set criteria.
I look forward to the day when the United Kingdom will be able to decide on the arguments for and against those rival systems. If the type of arguments that we have heard today from Opposition Front Benchers are deployed generally in the United Kingdom, there can be little doubt that, when the opportunity comes, the British people will vote for electoral reform.
6.6 pm
Mr. Stuart Bell: It is a great pleasure to speak after the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland. and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan), and in a debate in which the humour has flown thick and fast. I hope that that humour will continue not only for the rest of the debate, but into the subsequent campaign.

209
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the arguments that may be made by Conservative Front Benchers in the campaign, and said that, on the basis of those arguments, the public would change not only their view but the electoral system. I tell him, and the House, that the campaign will be fought fully by many Labour Members who support first past the post. On both sides of the House, the campaign to ensure that the system remains the same may well begin today.
In elaborating on the reasons why the system should not be changed, I shall build somewhat on the comments of the right hon. Gentleman—although I shall not advert to the philosopher's stone. He mentioned some of the comments of the Electoral Reform Society. I should like to share with the House some of the comments made by the society on the elections in New Zealand, about which we have heard much in this debate.
On the first election in New Zealand held under a proportional representation system, the Electoral Reform Society said:
"On the negative side many New Zealanders are unhappy that the system has not led to a more consensus based politics. Many politicians are still operating under a first past the post mindset.
"There is also a feeling that New Zealand First"
to which the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) referred—
"betrayed its supporters by going into coalition with National when it had campaigned against National in the election and most people believed it would form an administration with Labour."
Mr. Austin Mitchell: There is clearly criticism of the electoral reform in New Zealand. A system takes time to settle in. However, the main problem was not the system, but the fact that Winston Peters, the leader of New Zealand First, said, "If you want to get National out, vote New Zealand First," and then made an alliance with National. That was the betrayal. That is a problem of the politicians, not the system.
Mr. Bell: I had been wondering what had happened to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and where he was lying in wait for me, when he pounced from the Bench behind me. What he says is correct. However, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon gave some insights into that election. New Zealand First said that it would not form a coalition and the campaign was based on trading insults from one end of the country to the other, yet at the end of it all New Zealand First entered into the sort of coalition that would suit the Liberal Democrats.
On the basis of 13 per cent. of the popular vote, the leader of New Zealand First ended up as Deputy Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, with eight Cabinet Ministers from his party. He had fought the election on the argument that too many assets in New Zealand were going to foreign companies and immigration should be stopped, but in government he immediately dropped both those commitments, for which 13 per cent. of the electorate had voted.
Mr. Burden rose—
Mr. Bell: I should like to make a little progress, because I do not want to get bogged down on New Zealand. I shall come back to my hon. Friend, but I should like to comment further on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, who
210
mentioned Dick Spring, the leader of the Labour party in the Republic of Ireland.
I know Dick Spring, and have followed events in Ireland for some time. I am interested in the fact that the Liberal Democrats favour the single transferable vote. In 1992, Dick Spring's Labour party campaigned vigorously against Fianna Fail. When the election was over and the votes were counted, there was horse trading for some time, after which the Labour party came into government with Fianna Fail, much to the bemusement of the electorate. That Government lasted for two years, before being exchanged for a Labour coalition with Fine Gael. At the following election, the voters did not forget the behaviour of the Labour party, which paid heavily for it.
Mr. Maclennan: Is that not the point? The proportional system punishes parties that seek to overstep their support in the country. The hon. Gentleman has given one of the classic examples, but there are others. The same principle could well be demonstrated shortly in New Zealand, where New Zealand First's 13 per cent. support appears to have slumped to 1 per cent.
Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman makes the case for first past the post. The problem is endemic in the system. He said that 43 per cent. of the electorate voted for new Labour at the general election last year; in fact, the figure was 45 per cent., and we had a majority of 177. He then said that the 57 per cent. who did not vote for the Labour party were opposed to it. That is not the case.
The right hon. Gentleman is a fellow barrister, but his logic has gone somewhat astray. People have a choice at a general election, but when the votes are counted, the person who is elected becomes the Member of Parliament for the whole constituency, and the Government govern for the whole country. That happened with the Conservatives from 1979 and Labour in 1997.
The Liberals have never argued with the proposition that a Government, once in office, seek to represent all the people. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that a proportional system has horse trading built in. Manifesto commitments are diluted. The specific manifestos for which the public voted are brought together, and there is a punishment at the end. That is endemic in the system. He wants to introduce that instability to our system.
Mr. Stephen Day: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, however imperfect our present electoral system—no electoral system is perfect—when the electors cast their votes, they know that they are deciding who will govern and what that Government's policies will be, because in each constituency the candidate with the most support wins? Under proportional systems, the composition of the Government might be decided only days or weeks later. Under PR, the politicians, not the electorate, decide who will form the Government.
Mr. Bell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We fully accept that no system is perfect. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) mentioned two elections that resulted in a Government being elected with fewer votes than a rival party. New Zealand set up its electoral commission because that had happened twice in the 1970s, but 54 per cent. of the population now say

211
that they wish that they had never changed the system. However, that is a valid point that we shall argue in the country.
Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend says that the shenanigans in which Winston Peters indulged is endemic in proportional systems. He should consider the results in the constituency seats in the New Zealand elections. The National party won 34 per cent. and the Labour party won 31 per cent. New Zealand First would have held the balance of power under a first-past-the-post system. Winston Peters, not the voting system, produced the shenanigans.
Mr. Bell: It is not clear that my hon. Friend's analysis is correct. However, under a proportional system, the manifestos for which the electorate voted were diluted. The programme of government that resulted was different from that which they would otherwise have had. The people now regret that. The leader of the New Zealand Labour party has said that the situation is like the bronze medal winner in the Olympic games deciding between the winners of the silver and gold medals. The battlefield is then in Parliament, with to-ing and fro-ing, diluting manifestos and trying to make deals, in which the public are forgotten. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made the valid distinction between a people's vote and a politicians' vote.
Mr. Beith: If only 30 per cent.—or, let us say, nearly 40 per cent.—of the electorate vote for a party's manifesto, surely that part' is under an obligation to consider the combined views of a majority of the electorate, rather than ramming through its policies. If that leads to the manifestos of more than one party being considered, that reflects the fact that there was not a majority of the electorate in favour of one manifesto.
Mr. Bell: The benchmark is that, under first past the post, we elect a Government—whom we may or may not like. There have been only three hung Parliaments this century. Some Labour Members have recalled the long years of Thatcherite and Majorite government. That was the fault of the Labour party. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby wrote a book called "Four Years in the Death of the Labour Party"—a book that we read, never mind buying it. It took three leaders—Neil Kinnock, John Smith and my right hon. Friend the current Prime Minister—to bring the Labour party back in accordance with its principles to put forward to the electorate policies in its manifesto that could be followed.
We have a manifesto. Our deputy leader carries the five pledges around in his pocket. When he goes to party conference, he loses it, which is nice and theatrical, and then finds it again. Those are the manifesto pledges to which we are committed. The Opposition are perfectly right to hold us to account on those pledges. Under the first-past-the-post system, we are given a Government, the House holds them to account, and their actions are built on a manifesto.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said that there would have been a hung Parliament in New Zealand anyway. If there is a hung Parliament, one goes back to the country. For those
212
who wish to recite history, that happened in 1924, when the Liberal party brought down the first Labour Government. The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said that the Conservatives ruled for 70 years, but he has only his party to blame for 70 years of Conservative rule. The Liberal party won an election in 1906 with a huge majority, but, in 20 years, it was reduced to 40 Members. Who is in government, or who is not, is the fault not of the electoral system but of the politicians who formed the policies on which the parties run for elections.
Ms Stuart: That is precisely the point about New Zealand. It was not the electoral system that let down the people, but the politicians. Two parties that were totally opposed to each other formed a coalition Government, and their agreement was so tightly drawn that it does not allow for coalition government.
Mr. Bell: The point that I am making, on which the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross touched, is that such faults are endemic in the system.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he was in Lord North street in February 1974, when the former Labour leader, Harold Wilson, was waiting to see what would happen between the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), the Prime Minister, and Jeremy Thorpe, the leader of the Liberal party. The two spent five days horse trading because the Conservative party leader believed that he could do a deal with the Liberals because of their pro-European position and social policy. Jeremy Thorpe agreed, on condition that the Liberals were given proportional representation. The then Prime Minister said that he could not do that, so the deal fell through. Therefore, Harold Wilson was called to No. 10 Downing street.
Later, during the Lib-Lab pact of 1977, David Steel—now Lord Steel—asked for proportional representation for European elections. He has had to wait 20 years; we will give it to him next year. The Prime Minister of the day said that he could not give the Liberals PR for the European elections, but he would grant a free vote on the matter on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston said, horse trading is endemic.
I accept fully that my hon. Friends who support proportional representation do so with the utmost sincerity and honesty, but such horse trading cannot be blamed on the situation in New Zealand or the politicians; it cannot be changed. One thing is certain; if we adopt a system of proportional representation, we are inviting a minority Government, a weak Executive and, at least, a coalition Government.
The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross has put the Liberal Democrats' view for the single transferable vote. He said that it meets the constituency link argument. If I may, I shall draw again on my experience in the Republic of Ireland. In the Republic, Deputies from the Dail told me that they were spending all their time in their constituencies because their constituents had three Members of Parliament to whom to go. If their constituents did not like what one Member told them, they would go to another. If they did not like what the second told them, they could go to the third.

213
Under parliamentary convention in this country, where there is one Member of Parliament for one constituency, all that is out the window. In a multi-member constituency, there is a beauty contest between Members, because they all participate in elections again. No Member wants to let anyone down, so Members spend more time trying to deal with constituency matters and less time in the Dail dealing with national matters.
Mr. Levitt: My hon. Friend is eloquently expressing his scepticism about proportional representation, much of which I agree with. He is right to say that we have a manifesto commitment to improve the electoral system if we can. In his response to the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day), he acknowledged imperfections in the first-past-the-post system. For example, barely 12 Tory Members command the support of 50 per cent. or more of their electorate. Thirty Members who represent English constituencies have the support of less than 40 per cent. of their electorate. There is clearly a lot wrong with the first-past-the-post system. I ask my hon. Friend to consider how we can improve that system to meet many of the criticisms that he has accepted.
Mr. Bell: I surmise, therefore, that my hon. Friend advocates the alternative vote or the supplementary vote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) proposes. I can well understand that, but I must tell him that, if one writes in a second vote preference, one writes in tactical voting. One must accept that. I understand that, at the last election, the Conservatives would have lost even more seats under an alternative vote system.
Mr. Levitt: So be it.
Mr. Bell: My hon. Friend makes a party political point that I well understand—but we may be there some day. Given that the Liberals lost power in 20 years and the Conservatives won an election in 1979 with a majority of 40, which rose to 100 and then 161, who can tell where the Labour party will be in 10 or 15 years? This matter is not party political but constitutional, and of the utmost importance. The alternative vote or supplementary vote advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) writes in tactical voting, which is not necessarily healthy because it is destabilising and breaches the terms of reference that the Secretary of State for the Home Department has given the Jenkins commission.
Mr. Levitt: I take my hon. Friend's point—although, by allowing an alternative vote, one allows voters to vote with both their head and their heart. At the moment, they have to choose whether to vote with their head or their heart. The experience of the 1992 general election, in which tactical voting was urged, suggests that the present system is not ideally suited to tactical voting. One cannot transfer the results of the previous election to assess how people would have voted under a different system. One simply cannot tell from previous results how an election under the alternative vote system would turn out. I ask my hon. Friend to give the matter more consideration.
Mr. Bell: I have already considered the alternative vote and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for
214
Workington. I say again that such systems introduce volatility and instability, and encourage tactical voting. Any party that happens to be unpopular at the time will suffer the consequences.
If I may, I shall throw in a comment from the French revolution—why not, this is a wide-ranging debate. When men came to see Danton and said that the Robespierre faction had been executed, Robespierre said, "We are all factions," and Danton was the next to be executed. The Conservatives were unpopular in 1997, but Labour might be unpopular in 10 or 15 years' time, and we would do a great disservice to our people who look to Parliament for democratically accountable government if we somehow gave such accountability away. It would be quite wrong to do so.
Mr. Stunell: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman made two comments on the way in which the single transferable vote applied in the Republic of Ireland. First, he said that proportional representation broke the link with constituencies. Secondly, he said that constituency work for Members in the Irish Republic was overwhelming and preventing them from carrying out their national duties. Which of those two contradictory arguments does he want us to take seriously?
Mr. Bell: As was said earlier, those who are elected to the House are elected by their constituents to serve them in this place. We also play a national role, which turns out to be very important and significant. Over the past year, we have not had to deal with a great crisis, but when one such as the invasion of the Falklands by Argentina occurred, the House came into its own. In a multi-member constituency, one serves three or four masters, and one cannot ever get out from under them.
I do not want to detain the House much longer after having taken a number of interventions which have added to the debate and helped me to make my argument, but I have two final points. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to Lord Plant and his commission's report, which talked of the ethos of conviction, which means having a conviction that one belongs to a party that has an ideology that should not be diluted, and of the ethos of responsibility, under which it is fair to dilute ideology to gain power. I believe that the ethos of responsibility and the ethos of conviction can come together in elections to the House through first past the post.
I sincerely believe that the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons would ensure minority or coalition governments, and would deprive any future Government of a mandate to govern in the way that it might have been expected to govern if elected under the first-past-the-post system. Let me finish with one more comment from a New Zealander who followed events there closely, and who felt that proportional representation had let the genie out of the bottle so that it would never go back in. We should remember that in the House and in the campaigns to come. A change to the voting system will weaken government, weaken democracy and do a great disservice to our people, for which they will not forgive us.
6.30 pm
Mr. John MacGregor: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), partly because I entirely agree with his

215
argument, but also because his article in The Times made points of relevance to his party. He has demonstrated that there are divisions on the Government Benches, just as there have been on our Benches. The Home Secretary made great play of the point that one of my former colleagues supports electoral reform, but we all know that many Members on the Government side—I suspect rather more than on my side—have grave misgivings along the lines taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram).
On taking office, the Government found that many issues were much more complex than they thought when they were in opposition. That is why there has been a long delay, whereas they have made up their mind on public expenditure programmes, on the transport White Paper, on pensions and on many other issues. However, they have rushed headlong into a series of constitutional reforms without thinking through the consequences or worrying about the impact. Without doubt, there will be unpredictable consequences, sometimes boomeranging in unexpected directions.
The Scottish Parliament, the Welsh assembly and elections to the European Parliament have already been mentioned. Much interesting feedback will come from those, and it is a pity to rush into deciding what to do about the Westminster Parliament without taking their lessons into account. We have already had one clear lesson from the referendums. I am a member of the Neill committee on standards in public life, which is currently considering party funding. I am not giving away any secrets about how the committee is thinking, because I do not know, but public evidence relevant to the question of referendums has made it clear that practically no one in Wales felt that the Welsh assembly referendum could possibly be justified as an example for the future.
I want to press two further points arising from the Home Secretary's reply to my intervention. He made a strong point about the fact that the Jenkins commission is looking for the best alternative voting system, because, when the time comes, we shall have a choice between the existing system and whatever the Government believe the Jenkins commission is advocating. The Government may not wish to adopt all that the commission proposes, but they should ensure equivalent resources for both sides of the argument when a referendum comes. That did not happen for the Welsh or Scottish referendums, or for the referendum for a London mayor.
Equivalent resources should be available to both sides because a referendum would be of profound constitutional significance to the future of our country. It is equally important that the Government should not only promote the Jenkins commission's proposals but ensure that arguments for the existing system are put forward too.
I would go further. There has been clear evidence in the debate that many Labour Members favour the present electoral system. I hope that, when the referendum comes, the Government will do what was done in the 1975 European referendum, so that Ministers will be able to put their own case rather than being bound by the Government vote. They should have a free hand to advocate in public whichever of the two systems they think is right.
216
This is not a party political matter, but a matter of acute constitutional significance. The example of 1975 should be followed, and if the Minister cannot deal with that point tonight, I hope that it will be taken on board in consideration of how the referendum will be treated. It must follow from what the Home Secretary said today in reply to our motion.
Mr. David Drew: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he accept that his party might give resources to those of its own members who support electoral reform?
Mr. MacGregor: I was talking not about party funding for the referendum, but about Government funding being available, I hope, to both sides. What the two sides do by way of raising funds is a matter for them. It is clear that there will be cross-party arrangements, because there will not be one party arguing one case while the other argues the other.
I have long felt that a huge amount of special pleading is dressed up as so-called fairness arguments for proportional representation. Its advocates fail to take account of the experience of other countries, and of the real benefits of our system that countries with PR do not have. I am glad that the debate is dealing with both the negative aspects in other countries and the advantages that we have here.
I shall not repeat all the arguments, as they have been fairly well rehearsed, but I shall run through a few quickly to put my own gloss on them. The only serious criticism of our present system that has ever made an impact on me is that seats in the House do not always mirror precisely the proportion of votes cast in the country. That is a criticism, but it has been generally accepted in the debate that no system is perfect. There are difficulties in all systems.
Mr. Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the greatest piece of special pleading is to argue for a system that, for 18 years, gave the Government of whom he was a member the almost absolute power of the British Executive? That Government had a minority of the voters in favour of them; most people were opposed to them and voted against them. The system effectively entrenches a dictatorship of the minority.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has already dealt with that point. The other parties are divided in what they seek, and the people who support them would not form a complete coalition in support of the same policies against a Government who had gained the biggest plurality. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell).
When we consider the alternative, we begin to see the difficulties. The constituency link that our system offers is one of its greatest strengths, and people in other Parliaments envy it. It keeps Members of Parliament in touch with what is going on in the country and with what people think, as the Home Secretary, who supports the link, has said. The argument that Members are out of touch is fallacious; we are probably more in touch than anyone with all the trends and difficulties in the country, and in our constituencies.
The constituency link allows individual grievances and problems to be taken up by an identifiable Member of Parliament, which is a great benefit. Above all, it avoids the remoteness of Westminster and Whitehall debate from

217
the real feelings of the country. As a Minister in many Departments, I frequently found that my constituency experience was of great help in dealing with departmental issues. That experience was simply not available to the civil servants who were apparently there to advise me.
I also recall that, in Cabinet discussions, colleagues dealing with foreign affairs or defence made good contributions on housing policy because they had the constituency experience that enabled them to contribute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) will remember that. That is lacking in many other systems.
Ms Stuart: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I cannot because many other hon. Members wish to speak.
When I was Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food negotiating in Brussels or Luxembourg, I was often struck by the following fact. In those late night sessions, when we were not part of the negotiating process and were waiting for the President to discuss our delegation's view, I was sometimes seen dictating constituency mail because I knew that it would build up if I did not deal with it before I got back. Colleagues from other countries would look on in amazement and ask what I was doing. I explained that I was dealing with my constituents. They never had to do that; they did not what know what was going on.
I asked one Minister how many letters a month he got from constituents and how many meetings he addressed. The answer was practically none—the opposite of the single transferable vote experience mentioned by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough. He explained that he was on a regional list and that people just did not get in touch with him. He made only the occasional speech in his region. That is a consequence of PR systems. I am a strong believer in the constituency link, and oppose systems that weaken or break it.
That point leads me to the additional member system and the German system. The arguments against it have been well rehearsed. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said, there would be two classes of MPs. It will be bad enough having two classes of MPs as a result of the Scottish Parliament. Such systems would involve a further two classes, with one group allied to the party line and not attached to a constituency interest, and another with a considerable constituency work load.
Without going into all the details, that is a great weakness of that system. We shall learn, certainly from the way in which the Labour party is approaching regional lists in the elections for the European Parliament, that the power of the centre of the party will hugely increase. I hope that that becomes a big issue in the political debate.
Fiona Mactaggart: What about you?
Mr. MacGregor: The Conservatives are going through the selection process. We are giving selection to all local members of the party in each regional constituency. It is proving to have considerable difficulties, but it is not increasing the power of the centre in the way in which the Labour party will. The regional list system makes it much easier to increase the power of the centre, which I oppose.
218
That point brings me to the alternative vote system, which sometimes seems to be the fairest. There are two fundamental objections to it. The study by Democratic Audit of how the Australian system would have applied in the last UK general election has already been mentioned. The Government's majority would have increased from 179 to 213. The Labour party would have taken 68 per cent. of seats on 44.3 per cent. of the vote; the Conservatives 17.2 per cent. on 31.5 per cent. That is hardly proportional representation and hardly democratic. It destroys the argument for that system in one go.
Mr. Campbell—Savours: Anyone who has done any study of how supplementary vote or alternative vote systems work will emphasise that the whole dynamic effect is being underestimated. People begin to use their first preferences in a very different way if the system changes to AV or SV. I cannot stress too much to hon. Members that they should consider the dynamic effect before making up their minds.
Mr. MacGregor: To plunge into a new system with such consequences—a substantial step—at least in one election, would need a strong justification.
The other problem is that in many constituencies, not a majority, but a substantial proportion of those voting would get not the candidate that they wanted but the candidate three or four down their list of preferences, having voted to keep someone else out. I do not believe that that is an attractive system.
Mr. Linton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry, but I will not give way any more, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
The greatest weakness of all the alternative systems of which I have heard has already been rehearsed: they put the third or fourth parties in a position of permanent power. When it is realised that the argument that a Government have got only 43 per cent. of the vote and are therefore able to govern has changed to the argument that a party that gets 14 per cent. of the vote has the controlling influence, there will soon be disillusion among the electorate.
It is endemic in such systems, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough said and as the New Zealand experience shows. Under first past the post, there occasionally has to be some horse trading if there is a close result. It is endemic in other systems that that will happen most times. It is at that point that disillusionment with politicians will not only set in, but get worse. I do not see that that is fair or democratic in any sense. The electorate do not vote for coalitions, but that is what they would get under such systems.
Those systems are especially wrong because, under our system, the party commanding the biggest number of votes sets the agenda for a Government. Under the other systems, the whip hand will pass to the third party. Often a party with only a limited agenda would have the whip hand and hold the biggest parties to ransom. I sometimes wonder whether the Labour party before the last general election had insufficient confidence that it would be able to sustain a majority, and so was held to ransom by the Liberal Democrats and made to go for this referendum.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the fact that our party, with its large majority,

219
is giving away power to the national Governments, and considering doing it through electoral reform, is the opposite of what he said about us being frit?
Mr. MacGregor: I suspect that many in the Labour party did not expect to have such a big majority. When the consequences of PR sink in, many of them will think again.
It is not right that the most popular party, the one that wins the biggest number of votes, will be in government only if the minority parties decide to vote for it. That is also a consequence of PR systems. Minority parties would have an influence disproportionate to their share of the vote. It is easy to see that that is why the Liberal Democrats have always favoured PR. It was astonishing that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) should wax so eloquently about the Conservative party being in power for so long because we commanded the largest number of votes. He seeks what he regards as a better system, in which his party would have a controlling influence with a very small proportion of the vote. There is nothing fair about that, but it was precisely the logic of what he said.
For this debate, I examined what Lord Jenkins said about his desire for proportional representation in his delightful autobiography, "A Life at the Centre". It was clear that, at bottom, it was his disillusionment with the Labour party as it then was that led him to support such a system, coupled with the attachment that he has always had to elitist, centralist views of politics. I hope that it is clear that mine is rooted in the constituency link.
The Labour party is taking the plunge on this for no good reason. Rather, it got itself committed to it before the general election because it was afraid that it might not succeed without the support of the Liberal Democrats. It is a plunge that will get Labour into even deeper water if it goes down that route.
I have two pleas. First, the referendum must be fair, and both arguments must be fairly put and properly resourced. Secondly, and even more importantly, the Government should wait to learn the lessons of the constitutional election changes that we are already making and see how the electorate react to them, and how we regard their development, before taking the plunge on this crucial Westminster vote.
6.48 pm
Mr. Richard Burden: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), even though I disagree with much of what he said. I do agree that it is important that the referendum be fair, although, as a supporter of electoral reform, I wish I had his confidence that we will be able to raise the vast amounts of money that will swamp the other side.
We have had an interesting debate. I found the Opposition motion rather intriguing, and the speech in support of it by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) even more so. The motion implies that the criteria for the Jenkins commission are okay—indeed, the Opposition have produced a rather strange set of figures to back up their contention that first past the post is the most proportional of all systems. However, the motion
220
goes on to say that the terms of reference for the commission are overly restrictive and need to be changed. Apparently, the Opposition think that the commission charged with the responsibility of looking at alternatives to first past the post should be able to recommend first past the post.
I find that slightly illogical, and the Opposition have to answer a question that I asked the right hon. Member for Devizes, but which he did not answer. What is their view on the referendum? Do they agree with the referendum, or not? If they do agree with it, are they seriously suggesting that we should have a commission that recommends first past the post to put into a referendum against first past the post? That is an absolutely absurd position. Alternatively, are they saying, as I suspect they are, that we do not need a referendum at all? Are they saying that, because they as politicians—and perhaps politicians in general—feel that the present set-up is okay, the people really do not need to have a say in the matter?
I hope that the Opposition will make clear their view on the referendum, because, if they are saying what I think they are, it shows how out of touch they are. They proved that they were out of touch in the run-up to the last election, and they suffered at the polls as a result. Sooner or later, they need to grasp the fact that such a complacent "we know best" attitude is a profound turn-off for the British people and the electorate.
A few weeks ago, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) wrote an article on electoral reform in The Independent, saying that, in launching a debate on electoral reform, the Prime Minister had got it wrong—that he
"is fiddling the system rather than mastering the art of perpetual popularity."
Nobody could accuse the right hon. Gentleman of having mastered the art of even temporary popularity. The fact is that the Opposition motion and the thinking behind it is of a different age—an age that is being left behind by the people of this country.
All the evidence is that the people want change. They wanted a change in the colour of Government, and they achieved that at the last election; but I believe that they want a more fundamental change—a change in the political process itself. They look at this place, and are turned off by what they see.
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I am following the hon. Gentleman's logic carefully, but I do not understand how he can be so sure that the people want change in a certain direction when the people have not been consulted. Why can they not be consulted about whether they want things to remain the same?
Mr. Burden: I recommend that the hon. Lady, if she is going to participate in the debate, follows what it is about. There is no dispute that retaining the first-past-the-post system will be on the ballot paper in the referendum. That is what is so absurd about the Opposition's position. They—indeed, hon. Members on both sides of the House—will have every opportunity to argue their case in the referendum campaign. We are in favour of consulting the British people, and of people who support first past the post advancing their arguments. The hon. Lady should ask her own Front Benchers whether they share that view.

221
Do the Opposition think that there should be a referendum, and, if so, should it offer the sort of fair choice that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk wanted? If they believe that, they must accept that the process of establishing the Jenkins commission is absolutely right, and that it should look at the alternatives to first past the post and consider which might best fit the British political culture; and that it is right to let the people, not politicians, decide.
Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burden: Time is short, but I shall give way twice more, once to an Opposition Member—the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—and once to any of my hon. Friends who intervenes later.
Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman read again the Government amendment, in which we are supposed to welcome
"the creation of the Independent Commission on the Voting System and its remit",
and try to understand what the issue is? It is not an independent commission, but one that has already been told that it has to come up with an alternative to the current voting system; both sides agree on that point. Does he not understand that, if the British people are to vote, they will have on the one side a investigation that has been held and a commission that has made a recommendation, and, on the other side, merely the status quo? All we are suggesting is that the Government must make it clear that the two will be presented in an equal manner.
Mr. Burden: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about his own party's motion—that is not what it suggests. The motion suggests that the independent commission on the voting system should be able to recommend first past the post into a referendum that will be on an alternative to first past the post. That is logically impossible.
People outside this place will have more interest in the sort of political culture reflected in this debate, because this is the sort of politics the people want. All too often, the people see a bear garden, where the question of which gang one belongs to appears to be more important, and generates more heat, than the issue being discussed. The evidence suggests that people want a politics that is based on solving problems, not on exaggerating the differences between us. That is not an argument for fudge or for compromise where no compromise is possible, but an argument that the stuff of politics should be the issues and not which colour we wear.
Sir Michael Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burden: No—I said I would give way twice, once to one side of the House, which I have already done, and once to the other.
That is why the debate is so important. No one suggests that changing the electoral system will, on its own, change the political culture in this country, but it is part of the
222
package of constitutional reform on which we have already embarked—devolution to Scotland and Wales, and the beginnings of devolution to London and the English regions. We are adopting a new approach to local government which tries new ways of consulting people and shows that the rights of citizenship do not revolve around one cross on one ballot paper once every five years, but go much further. The electoral system is part of that process, because, with first past the post, the process by which Governments are elected too often resembles a military coup.
Sir Michael Spicer: As none of his hon. Friends has risen, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burden: No, but if none of my hon. Friends has asked me to give way by the end of my speech, I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman his chance.
Under our current electoral system, it is not the job of Governments to try to win majority support. The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) made it clear before the last election that a party did not need the majority of the people behind it to win, but only enough votes. Under the current system, just enough votes in just enough constituencies gives just enough seats in this place to allow a party to claim monopoly power and a democratic mandate for anything it wants to push through. We saw the consequences of that for 18 years.
When people argue about how the Thatcher years might have been changed by a different electoral system, no one suggests that, in 1979 or in 1983, a Conservative Government would not have been likely. The issue is how power is wielded in this place. Measures such as the poll tax, which patently never had majority or even substantial minority support, would not have been passed. That would have been a democratic strength.
Before I came to the House, I was involved in the water industry. At the time that the Conservative Government privatised that industry, polls showed 80 per cent. public opposition to selling it off, but that was not reflected in the House. The exercise of power in Parliament, bolstered by the present electoral system, does not reflect people's feelings or empower the individual in the political process.
Much changed in 1997, when there was a massive turnaround. The British people showed their determination, and wised up to how to get rid of the Conservative Government. There was a significant Tory defeat; 174 seats changed hands; there were many Labour gains; and the Liberal Democrats doubled their representation. All that was good news, but there was also bad news in that election—the turnout was the lowest since 1935.
The turnout was lowest of all in those seats that are regarded as safe. Many people believe that their vote does not count and will not change anything, and to some extent that is true. The statistics for the previous election show that no fewer than 14.5 million people—nearly 50 per cent. of the electorate—helped to elect nobody with their vote. That has an impact on voter attitudes, and separates the citizen from the political process.
That factor has an impact also on parties' behaviour, because in recent years they have wised up to the fact that, to win elections, they do not necessarily have to address grave national issues, or even the most difficult ones.

223
Let us examine the difficulty that politicians have in discussing the drugs problem in this country. We cannot have the discussions that social workers, parents, young people and police officers have, because, as soon as we say anything, the press are on to it. In our present electoral system, it is too risky for political parties to address matters of great national importance, so they do not.
Parties wised up to the fact that they had to target swing voters in about 100 marginal seats. They are the people to whom all political parties address their policies. The idea that parties operate on a clear mandate because they openly discuss their policies and then put them to the people is out of touch with what happens in British politics today.
Mr. Maclean: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burden: No, I stick to what I said before, and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) is ahead of the right hon. Gentleman in the queue.
It is time to call an end to that political mindset, which we have had for too long. That is why I welcome the establishment of the Jenkins commission. We can seek, and find, a fairer system in which every vote—[Interruption.] With that ingenuity, if the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) stays on these Benches and votes accordingly, I will give way to him.
Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I am sorry that I had to use this temporary ruse to bring that about.
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that issues such as drugs, which he criticises politicians in this country for not addressing, are better addressed by politicians in countries with voting systems different from ours? I shall sit on this side of the House, if I may, to listen to his answer.
Mr. Burden: I am afraid that, as he has agreed to my conditions for giving way, the right hon. Gentleman will have stay on these Benches and vote accordingly.
The electoral system is part of the glue that holds together our political culture. No one is suggesting that it is the only factor. The centralisation of power and the way in which the media operate are other factors. However, it is wrong to think that the electoral system is divorced from them.
The right hon. Gentleman should consider the problems that his party—or, I should say, his former party—is experiencing at present. It is trying to get back in touch with the British people, but I wager that it will not consider in broad terms what actions are necessary. Over the next five years, it will examine what it needs to do to win just enough votes in just enough seats to get back on these Benches and claim a monopoly on power for another five years. Within the House, parties may exercise such power well or badly, but the British people expect more from politics. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Very early in this Parliament, Madam Speaker made plain her views about
224
the way in which hon. Members dispose themselves in the Chamber. This kind of play-acting is not adding to the quality of the debate.
Mr. Burden: Polls that are being published as this debate takes place show a reservoir of support for changing the voting system. Up to 75 per cent. of people want such a change. If the Conservative party is serious about its listening exercise, perhaps it should listen to people's views on the electoral system as well as on other matters.
It is possible to have systems that fit the Jenkins commission's criteria of broad proportionality and voter choice, retain the constituency link, and provide a better form of government. Conservative Members should examine all the evidence from abroad, not only that which suits them. There has been much selective quoting of experience abroad. We should consider, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, the experience of Scandinavia, how proportional systems have worked, and how the political process has benefited, rather than suffered, as a result.
The precise system has yet to be determined. I make no bones about the fact that I should prefer a proportional system based on the single member constituency. Liberal Democrat Members have a different view. However, there is unity on one point—when citizens in this country cast their vote, every vote should count in every constituency in every part of the country, and it should count equally. That is not the case under the present system, which is why I look forward to the referendum and to a fair debate.
I am confident that after that debate, the British people will vote for change. Even more important, perhaps, than how they vote in the referendum is the process that they will have gone through. For the first time that I can remember, people across these islands will have been given the chance to say not only what party they want in government, but what they want politics to consist of. That is valuable, and we should welcome it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute rule now applies.
7.7 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden), although much of his argument was contradictory. He seems to believe that the present system prevents a Government from tackling serious issues because they may experience unpopularity or difficulty, but he criticised the last Conservative Government for implementing a series of policies in the national interest which, I agree, at the time did not individually have majority support in the country. He cannot have it both ways. However, what we all want from an electoral system is to have it both ways, and that is not possible for any of us.
When I visited the Netherlands earlier this year as part of an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation, some of our Dutch hosts said that they had heard that the UK was changing to PR. They could not understand why we might want to abandon a system that, in their view, had produced great governmental stability. They obviously

225
admired the clarity and the personal involvement of the single member constituency system, which they do not have. I do not know how representative those Dutch Members of Parliament were—they were certainly not a scientific sample even of Dutch Members—but, although many of them wanted the UK to join economic and monetary union, if only for company, none of them advised us that we would be better off with their electoral system. Perhaps that is because they have yet to find out about EMU, but they have personal experience of PR.
As I listened to the Home Secretary's very good speech, it became plain to me that a similar suspicion of PR flourishes at the highest reaches of the Government, and I wondered whether that was why they had chosen for the Euro-elections a form of PR which shows PR at its worst. The Euro-constituencies will be so large, and will have so many representatives, that it will be impossible for any of those elected to make the personal constituency-wide connections with local organizations—let alone voters—that most MEPs of all parties currently seek to do. Inevitably, closed lists will give maximum power to party machines. Despite the real effort to open selection, and the all-important list order, to all its members, the Conservative party is finding that the decisive voices still belong to only a limited number of the most active activists.
I shall not try to discuss all the shortcomings of the various systems on offer, because in one way or another they have been dealt with effectively by previous speakers on both sides of the House, but I shall dwell on two points.
First, as the Jenkins commission is to recommend an alternative to the current electoral system, it will presumably make the case for its chosen system, and explain why it prefers it to all possible alternatives. Come the referendum, therefore, voters will have the commission's authoritative arguments on the merits of its chosen system. Apparently, however, they will not have a similarly authoritative set of arguments for the merits of the present system. Unlike many of my hon. Friends, I do not think that could be reasonably asked of the Jenkins commission, which was set up to find an alternative.
No doubt the arguments for the present system will be set out in, and publicised by, those who believe that our present system meets the Government's criteria better than any of the alternatives, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said, it is essential that we know that the Government will be even-handed and straightforward in the way that they organise the test of voter opinion. I hope that, when the Minister replies, he will make it clear that that is the Government's intention.
I hope that the Minister is listening to this as well as talking to his colleague. I hope that he will assure us that every household will receive, officially paid for by the state, the full arguments on both sides of the case, so that all voters may reach a fully informed decision.
Secondly, although the point has been well made that the first-past-the-post system produces strong Governments, whom, because they do not rely on coalitions and deals, the electors can throw out whenever they are dissatisfied, in the long run its most valuable characteristic is its prior effect on the parties which want to win power. To form a Government, a party must appeal broadly across the electorate. It is not enough to maximise
226
support among a minority, and then rely on being needed as part of a coalition Government. To win and keep power in the United Kingdom, a party must seek to retain the support of the broadest swathe of voters and their opinions, and of people who do not naturally or automatically vote for it or support all its policies.
The voters impose a very heavy penalty indeed on parties that lose the confidence of the electorate generally, as Labour saw after 1979 and the Conservatives saw in 1997. Labour eventually learned that, to win back that confidence, it had to appeal beyond the bedrock of its support. If we had adopted PR in the 1980s, we should not have had new Labour; we should have had the rump of old Labour, exerting unrepresentative influence within an uneasy coalition. Although it hurts me to say so to Labour Members, I know that the former possibility would have been worse. Similarly, the Conservative party knows that its return to office depends completely on being able to reconnect with and convince the mass electorate, not only its traditional supporters.
The first-past-the-post system provides strong government and clear choices, but it also forces parties to listen to all the electors, and punishes them if they do not. It thus ensures that there are real changes, when the voters at large come to feel that previous policies and arrangements no longer suit—as they did pre-eminently in 1945, as they did in 1979, and as they obviously did in 1997.
In the long run, the first-past-the-post system is more responsive to the electors than PR. Abroad, under PR, political frustration, without effective political outlet, can accumulate as it does not here. I fear that, in some of our neighbouring countries, that may yet produce very disagreeable outcomes.
I am very happy with the prospect of a referendum, because I am certain that, when the arguments are placed properly before them, British electors will realize—if they do not already—the truth of what I have been arguing, and will vote to stay with the present system.
7.15 pm
Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to debate electoral reform, although I find Conservative Members' arguments confused, and, in some ways, inspired more by panic than by serious consideration of the issues. They appear to want to pre-empt the Jenkins commission, and certainly to discredit it, despite the fact that the Labour Government have a clear mandate to establish it, and have done just that.
Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I have examined the submission by Conservative Action for Electoral Reform and the official submission by Tory central office. They could scarcely be more different, and it raises the question of which brand of Conservatism is on show today. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that several newly promoted members of the so-called shadow ministerial team are long-standing supporters of electoral reform; they may be in a quandary about which way to vote tonight. We shall watch their voting records with interest.
In fact, there are differing views in all parties—even among the Liberal Democrats, who may not be very excited by the debate any more. Does that not show how

227
right the present Government are to leave the final choice on our political systems to the people of this country? What is there for Opposition Members to be scared of?
I am worried that the debate—not just in the Chamber, but within the Labour party and between the Labour party and other political parties—is becoming polarised. The debate is almost saying that electoral reform equates to pure proportionality. If that is the case, I certainly would not be an electoral reformer. I do not believe that electoral reform necessarily means pure PR. To coin a phrase, I do believe that there is a third way, but I shall come to that.
The first-past-the-post system is difficult to defend, but some alternatives are even worse. For me, the most important function of any electoral system is the retention of the link between an individual Member of Parliament and his or her constituent—a case eloquently made by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That link is the foundation which gives us authority to speak on behalf of our constituents—the people who send us to this place. Arguments about accountability are every bit as important as those about proportionality. I have not heard enough in the debate about accountability—and retaining the link is the essence of accountability.
The first-past-the-post system does produce huge anomalies. As has been said, 300 Members of the House do not enjoy a clear mandate—they do not enjoy 50 per cent. of the vote in their constituencies. I am one, and there are many on the Opposition Benches. I cannot believe that it is acceptable to continue with a system in which we purport to represent all our constituents on a vote of, in the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), 37 per cent; even more ludicrously, Russell Johnston won his seat in Inverness in 1964 with 24 per cent. of the vote. What kind of mandate is that? Perhaps it is good enough for a Liberal. One hopes that the Jenkins commission will remove such anomalies once and for all.
The case for proportional representation has been roundly attacked by Members on both sides today. The additional member system, which produces two classes of Members of Parliament, one with a constituency link and the other with none, is presumably favoured by the party hierarchy. God save us all from that. It would certainly damage democracy and reduce accountability.
I cannot see how the multi-member system would work in my area. We have already discussed the nonsense on the Isle of Wight, and I know that its Member shares my concerns. Berkshire is a very polarised county. Two Labour Members represent the Reading seats, a Liberal Democrat represents Newbury, and there are Conservatives Members for Wokingham, Windsor, Maidenhead and Bracknell. If Berkshire were split, which bit of it would my colleagues or I represent? Would we represent the leafy lanes of Wokingham or the council estates of Reading? It is just not workable.
Ms Stuart rose—
Mr. Salter: I accept the point that my hon. Friend is about to make—indeed, I will make it for her. Different arguments may apply to Birmingham, but, in my neck of
228
the woods, the multi-member constituency could never work; nor would the link between the constituency and the Member be retained.
Ms Stuart: I represent a constituency which has never had a Labour Member before; 23,000 of its people have never had a Member who shared their views. It appears that the constituency link is strong only if the Member belongs to a party that one supports. What about all the others?
Mr. Salter: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. The argument may be right for places such as Birmingham, but it is not for many other parts of the country.
I regret the attacks that have been made on the integrity of the Jenkins commissioners. I also regret the attacks on the integrity of my party. The commissioners were given contradictory criteria, and they faced an extremely difficult job. They were asked to find a broadly proportional system, a system that extends voter choice, a system that produces stable government, and a system that retains the constituency link. I know from my Northern Ireland experience that we can all cherry-pick—but no single system will meet all those criteria. Thank goodness, the issue will be decided by a referendum.
I favour preferential voting systems, whether they involve the supplementary vote or the alternative vote. Of course, an electoral system that is right for this Parliament will not be the same as the systems for the European Parliament or for what I hope will be an elected second Chamber. When we vote for Members of this place, we are choosing an Executive and a legislature. We want Members to represent different points of view and different parts of the country fairly, and we want to retain that all-important link. We also want to provide stable government that commands majority support; it is important, too, to reward more consensual and pluralist politics.
The alternative vote does reward pluralism, and parties that can be seen to work together—that is one of its greatest advantages. AV can require Members to have a proper mandate and to represent clear majorities of their constituents. It also rewards parties that share common ground. What is more, it can be implemented in time for the next general election, without the need for a boundary commission. It is probably the only system for which this Parliament is likely to vote—I do not believe that we are going to vote our own constituencies out of existence.
Perhaps most important of all, in view of attacks to the effect that tactical voting is enshrined by AV, I might point out that there was a huge amount of tactical voting at the general election, but it was dishonest voting. The mood of the country was to get rid of the Tories, so we had to persuade our swing voters to second-guess how their neighbours might vote—to work out whether Labour or the Liberal Democrats were most likely to defeat the incumbent Conservative. At least the AV system is honest: people can exercise their clear first preferences, but still vote tactically.
The Conservatives may have problems arguing against the alternative vote, as it was the very system that they used to elect their leader.
7.24 pm
Mr. John Gummer: One of the problems with arguing about the PR system is that, every time one presses objections to a particular system, one is told that that, of course, is not the one supported by the person to whom one is talking. The purer the PR system becomes, the more likely its supporters are to ditch it. The purest PR system of all, in Israel, has been said to be outwith the terms of reference of the Jenkins commission—that is perfectly reasonable.
We are told that the Liberals do not like AV because it is not proportional enough; they do not like the Israeli system because it is too proportional. What they want is the system most likely to produce the largest number of Liberals. They want a different kind of politics. But the Labour chairman of the electoral reform organisation wants a different sort of politics only in the sense of an electoral system that is predisposed in his party's own favour.
The Conservative party is in a strong position to discuss first past the post, given how badly that system dealt with us recently. I still, however, maintain that it is the right one.
First, people know in advance—before the election—which coalition they are going to get. That coalition, in the case of my party, contains people such as me, who are strongly in favour of membership of the European Union, and one or two others who do not happen to hold the same view. But at least people know in advance the coalition that they are voting for; with proportional representation, they do not.
Under PR, as experience of many PR systems shows, people vote for a party that closely identifies with their personal views. Such parties tend to become ever smaller. Then, behind closed doors, that party does a deal with a number of other parties in order to reach power. In doing that deal, it almost inevitably abandons the very positions for which people voted in the first place. People find that the parts of the manifesto that they most approved of are the ones which the party drops to get into power—and they do not know in advance which bits will be dropped. Parties do not say to voters, "We are against abortion but once we are elected we will drop that because we know we cannot keep it and get into power." No; parties get votes under certain pretensions and then do deals afterwards.
That is not proportional representation: it is a system in which people buy a pig in a poke, and the pigs decide which poke to enter after the election.
The second problem concerns constituency contact. Last weekend, I was in the village of Chediston. Only the Member of Parliament for Suffolk, Coastal would ever be likely to know the best way to get from the village where I live, Winston, to Chediston. I travel the route often, but if I were one of six or seven Members for a large constituency it is unlikely that I would. There are 74 miles of coastline in my constituency, so it is pretty big. I do the route because I am the only Member, and all my constituents need to be able to ask for my help, irrespective of their political views.
I try to hold my constituency surgeries in places that are not politically labelled, although that is not always possible. Some Labour Members call themselves the Labour Member for somewhere or other. They are not the Labour Member for anywhere. They are the Member for
230
a constituency. I find it difficult to reply civilly to hon. Members who put their party politics before their constituency representation. From the moment the election is over, almost all of us seek properly to represent the constituency, because there is no one else to do so. No one else can be blamed for not doing whatever needs to be done.
If we did not have just one constituency, we would adopt the do-not-care-at-all view that is so noticeable in some PR systems, or, worse still, everyone would be busy arguing against the other, often of the same party, to get the odd extra vote, and the job of the legislature that produces the Government would not be done.
Our Parliament is different from many continental Parliaments. I repeat that I am a strong supporter of the European Union. I believe it to be essential if Britain is to have real influence in the world, but it is no good pretending that everything that everybody else has is better than what we have. If I want people to be a little more humble about what we have in Britain and to learn a little from our continental neighbours, I must also recognise that we have one or two things that we should share with them. One of those is a system where government is firmly anchored in Parliament.
Apart from the present incumbent, most Prime Ministers have insisted on coming to the House twice a week to be questioned. Ministers are never questioned in the French House of Representatives or even in the Dutch Parliament, which is the closest to ours. One of the reasons for that is that no direct connection is seen between the election and the Government. The parties arrange among themselves what the Government should do.
Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gummer: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have never heard him listen to the views of anyone else for a whole 10 minutes. I have only 10 minutes and I should love him to listen to my views, just on this occasion. I am sure that I shall have to listen to his in future.
Continental Governments do not see themselves in the same way as ours—as rooted in Parliament. In this country, we have a parliamentary democracy, and changing the electoral system will have a fundamental influence on it. We should be concerned about that.
Much has been said about the frustrations of the minority. To those who are in favour of PR, may I say that the frustrations of the minority are nothing like the frustrations of the majority in a PR system when minorities always hold sway. We have spoken about the problems of Germany, but there are many other examples where small numbers of people get parties elected which can then change Government policy, even though only a tiny minority of people want that change.
We must be careful about trying to run our society by never making a change unless it is popular at the time. The Government do not say that they will renationalise the water companies—I should declare an interest, as I work for a water company, but it is one of those that was never privatized—or that they will renationalise the electricity company, yet they say that privatisation was unpopular when we carried it out. They support the privatisation now. Indeed, they could not deliver their programme had those companies not been denationalised.

231
The Labour party must recognise that part of government is to do something that is unpopular at the time so that, when it has been seen to work, it is recognised as part of the consensus. The electoral system must give the Government the strength to do that. Only the first-past-the-post system delivers that.
7.34 pm
Ms Gisela Stuart: I am beginning to wonder whether the debate is opening an age divide—the supporters of the status quo seem to be hon. Members who have been in the House for some time. I hope that I do not do an injustice to some hon. Members of longer standing, but perhaps, by being in the House for a long time, hon. Members become more focused on effective government and tend to forget that we are also meant to be here as parliamentarians. An electoral system is supposed to deliver a healthy and effective Parliament that can hold the Government to account. A healthy Parliament must also be representative of the people.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that government was our role, but as this is a parliamentary democracy, Parliament and its ability to hold the Government to account are equally important. For that, we should be representative of the people who elected us. As a body, we are not representative of the people.
Mr. Hayes: That is a narrow definition of representativeness. You are talking about mirror image representativeness, in the sense of hon. Members being men or women, black or white. That is not the same as representing all the people—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not saying anything. I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the hon. Lady.
Mr. Hayes: The hon. Lady is defining representation narrowly. Does not representation mean that, having been elected, hon. Members represent all the people, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) outlined?
Ms Stuart: Being representative is a springboard for forming the Government. One of the most glaring features of the House is that only one in five Members are women, yet we are supposed to be governing a population of which half are women. Ethnic representation is not doing well. If the first-past-the-post system has served us so well, why have some parts of our constituencies not been represented?
We have heard much about the constituency link. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) feels strongly about it. Other systems allow the constituency link. Some people feel that, if their Member of Parliament is not representative, it is not worth going to see him.
It has been suggested that, if there were three Members for a constituency, there would be a beauty contest among them, which would be dreadful. May I suggest that we start looking at electoral systems not from our point of view as politicians, but from the point of view of the people we are supposed to represent? They may want a
232
beauty contest to choose the most representative Member. Perhaps there should be more competition, instead of the present complacency.
Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Stuart: No. Speeches are limited to 10 minutes and I should like to proceed.
I urge hon. Members on both side of the House to move away from our self-interest as parliamentarians, and to start seeing things from the point of view of our electorate. Coalition is considered a dirty word. That may be so where coalition means instability, but where it means consensus seeking—and if it changes the way in which we conduct Parliament—it may be welcome.
The experience of New Zealand was unfortunate. The coalition there that followed the electoral system changes was a disaster. The two parties that formed the coalition did not make it clear before the election where there was common ground between them or where they were open to negotiation to form a coalition Government.
A change in the electoral system brings in its wake a change in political culture. That takes a little time. A debate that begins by outlining the voting pattern in the United Kingdom, the various systems and the possible outcomes is rather sterile because of the dynamics of changes in voting patterns. We must ensure that our electoral systems are representative.
My biggest objection to first past the post was illustrated at the general election. It was fought in some 100 key marginal seats, and a tiny minority of voters decided the result. Voters are very sophisticated and tactical voting is well within their capabilities, although they have had to work within a system that they do not like. I would rather have a more open and honest system, so that the electorate can identify the common ground and areas of negotiation between parties. It is a fallacy to assume that political parties produce a manifesto and do not deviate from it for the next five years. If that is the case, we are wasting our time debating issues in this place. There are debates in Parliament because we are seeking consensus about the way forward, which requires compromise and change.
Time is limited, and I wish to give as many hon. Members as possible a chance to contribute. When participating in constitutional debates, I urge my fellow parliamentarians to use as a starting point the people we are meant to represent. We must consider how we can form a strong Government that reflects the people's wishes. We must put an end to the old-fashioned, arrogant view that we, as politicians, have all the answers. It is not valid to argue that, although 80 per cent. of people opposed water privatisation, a firm Government introduced it and hence it was good. Politicians must have some humility: they must accept that they may have got it wrong. If the electoral system seeks consensus as part of its political culture, it may be possible for politicians to be more humble and to reconsider the issues rather than become entrenched in their views.
It has been argued that proportional representation would lead to the rise of extremist political parties. I simply make two points. First, that problem has been dealt with effectively in other countries by introducing thresholds. Secondly, if more than about 5 per cent. of the

233
British public support a very right-wing racist party, I want to know about it. I want that party's representatives to come to this place and try to defend and explain themselves. We could then deal with them openly and face them head on rather than attempt to address a swelling underground culture. I believe that that objection to PR is a red herring; our starting point must be the people we are meant to represent, not our interests.
7.42 pm
Sir Nicholas Lyell: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said that she favours a more open system, which would be provided by proportional representation, but the debate has exposed the fact that, although PR may appear to be the theoretically correct manner of electing individual Members—comparisons have been made with the purist Israeli system, which no one would choose, and other systems—the horse trading would begin shortly thereafter, and we would not get what we saw. That is the great danger of the PR system, particularly for the House of Commons.
I wish to develop two points. First, for the House of Commons. the first-past-the-post system gives the electorate the power to choose. The people must make up their minds about which major party to support, and, as my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) said, those major parties must show that they are broad churches that encompass the spread of political requirements of the day and are united in that cause. That is one of the great strengths of our system. If people vote for a party and their vote is successful, what they see is what they get.
I wish to broaden the argument and remind the House that the United Kingdom has a bicameral system. Many of us have considered electoral reform for more than 20 years—I think that I still subscribe to the Conservative Association for Electoral Reform, although that does not mean that I agree with the comments of my old friend, Tim Rathbone. I have personal thoughts about proportional representation in relation to the House of Lords, which I think are part of the debate.
The Government are looking correctly at the future voting system for this Chamber and at the future composition of the second Chamber, the House of Lords. Those two issues must be distinct. Our first-past-the-post system is envied across Europe and the world because it produces a clear decision. There are only one or two examples this century when that has not occurred. Basically, our system produces a clear decision as to the nature of the Government for the next five years.
Secondly, the House of Lords must be a strong constitutional anchor. I shall concentrate for a moment on the House of Lords, because I wish to put down a marker that I believe will be acknowledged by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is unacceptable for this Government—however large their majority—or any other to tinker with the House of Lords and abolish the voting rights of hereditary peers until they have thought out, canvassed, consulted on and advanced their proposals for what should happen to the second Chamber as a whole.
A feature of that second Chamber—whatever its political make-up—must be that its Members are substantially independent. That independence may come by way of appointment for life, but if we appoint too large a proportion of the second Chamber, we will give too much patronage to the Prime Minister of the day.
234
Independence may come by way of election. I think that there is a great deal to be said for looking to proportional representation to elect a part of the second Chamber. People who are so elected should serve for a lengthy period—perhaps six or nine years on a rolling system—so that they exercise substantial personal independence.
Another feature of the second Chamber should be that it represents the great interests of the land. That role is fulfilled in part at present by the Law Lords and the bishops, who represent the law and the Church, which are two great interests. One might consider other interests, such as industry or the trade unions, and such representation would provide a constitutional anchor.
I hope that the Government will consider with an open mind the fact that hereditary peers have a great deal of skill—although that is receding in some ways—and a great deal to offer. I think that we should consider allowing hereditary peers to elect a proportion of their number, as the Scottish hereditary peers used to. In that way they could continue to make a valuable contribution to the second Chamber.
I return to why I believe passionately in the importance of first past the post for this Chamber. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said, first past the post enables the voters' choice to be reflected in the Government. It means that the most popular party—it may not have 50 per cent. of the vote; it seldom does—always forms the Government. It means also that the most popular candidate in any individual constituency is always elected as the Member of Parliament.
A great fallacy that has been exposed during the debate is the idea that alternative votes have equal value in an alternative voting system. A great difficulty is that the second, third, fourth or even fifth choice under an alternative voting system is given the same strength as the first. That simply is not fair; indeed, it is purely an intellectual concept to suggest that it is. As has been effectively stated many times, proportional representation gives disproportionate power to smaller parties. Those points have been well made in relation to Israel, Italy, France and New Zealand, and I support them strongly.
I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for Suffolk, Coastal and for Fareham that a first-past-the-post system forces any party that wants to form the next Government to be a broad church, to cover the entire political spectrum and to be ready to represent and unite on points of view to provide a coherent Government for the next five years.
My final point is the strong constituency link. It may be possible to achieve it through some proportional representation methods, but it would not be as effective. Even with PR, Members would not necessarily be elected by a majority of people for whom they were the first choice, but Members of Parliament are none the less elected to represent all their constituents. I am sure that hon. Members do not take party matters into account when people come to them for help; we represent our constituency and do our best for it. Over our parliamentary careers, we shall have to stand out firmly against our party in the interests of our constituents on a number of occasions. That is what we should do.
We are looking to a reform of Parliament as a whole, involving both Chambers. The Government should consider the reform of the House of Lords much more

235
broadly, but I was deeply encouraged by the attitude of the Home Secretary, who recognised the value of the first-past-the-post system. I hope that, with or without a referendum, that is what we shall stay with.
7.51 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: As I listened to hon. Members' speeches, all of them excellent, I asked myself, "Why we are debating electoral reform now?" Is it because of the efforts of those in my party who have promoted the cause, the efforts of those in the Liberal Democrat party who have promoted the cause over the years or the campaigning efforts of outside organisations? Although they played a part, we are having the debate because of none of them. The architect of the debate and of the constitutional reform programme is the Conservative party.
While listening to the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), I felt strongly that Mrs. Thatcher was the real architect of constitutional reform. Until people realised what could be done by an Executive elected by a minority of the electorate and prepared to sweep away the conventional restraints that were supposed to have hemmed Governments in, no one could get a hearing in my party or in the country for the arguments that are producing the programmes that we are carrying out. Conservative Members must reflect on that and, whether they like it or not, regard themselves as the great architects.
Sir Peter Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright: I should like to, but, with only 10 minutes in which to speak, I cannot.
As we return to it, this issue is the for our generation. In 1908, exactly 90 years ago, a royal commission on electoral systems recommended the alternative vote. A few years later, the first Speaker's conference recommended PR. We do not have the records so we cannot be absolutely sure, but it is believed that the Conservative membership supported PR as a quid pro quo for their toleration of the wider extension of the franchise in 1918. There is a history to all this.
Rational argument gets mixed up with arguments of party advantage. What unites the two main parties is an ability to tease the Liberals. When they were in power and had a chance to do things, what did Gladstone, Asquith and Lloyd George do? They had nothing to do with PR. When the moment was there for them to move on the issue, they did nothing. The choice is for our generation: this is the moment of truth for electoral reformers, because, until now, people could favour electoral reform in a vague, amorphous, unexamined way, and were not pressed on the details of reform proposals. They were generally in favour of something different from the existing system.
We have arrived at the point of choice. A commission has been charged with establishing the details of an alternative on which we shall have to choose. That is a challenge for people in my party—and for the Liberal Democrats, although I hear from certain quarters that they are about to funk it, that they will go for purism and that,
236
if the moment of real change comes, they will move in a different direction. We shall see, but what a missed opportunity that would be.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Wright: I am afraid that I cannot.
We know that there is no perfect system. I should add, because the point has come up variously, that foreign examples tend to be misleading and generally unhelpful, but we are being asked to find a system that retains the major merits of first past the post while removing the major disadvantages. That challenge has been given to the Jenkins commission. We have to have the argument freshly; we cannot rehearse arguments that we have had year in, year out, because, finally, we must undertake detailed consideration and come to a detailed choice. Can we retain a constituency link, the merits of which have been well advertised in the debate, with more fairness and more proportionality? It is a tribute to the Government that, having been elected by a landslide, they have moved to put the issue on the table and reach a conclusion.
I confess that, to an extent, I have changed my mind over the years. I was a fundamentalist: 10 years ago, I would have signed up to any sort of electoral change, simply to break what I thought was the tyranny of a minority pretending to be a majority and using the resources of our present political system to do it. People asked, "How can a Government do this kind of thing?" The only answer was to change a system that could produce such consequences.
I had not anticipated that a Government could be elected under it who would move to put into place a series of checks and balances that would reform the political system. I had thought that such reform would come only when we had put the trigger mechanism in place, so we must now have the argument in a different way. We must be absolutely sure that we are going for reform not simply to break the system wide open, but because we believe that the reform we propose has the merits to win the argument against first past the post.
I do not want a system that is simply more proportional, as some people do. Although I realise its attractions, I do not even want a system that would dish the Tories for ever more and establish a great progressive coalition that would rule into eternity. I should regard that as an acceptable by-product of a reform process, but it should not be the reason for it. I am much more influenced by other considerations. Would reform of a kind that would solve the riddle that we have given Jenkins to consider do something to strengthen, renew and revitalise our democracy? Could it give us greater civic energy? Could it encourage people to participate more? Could it make them think that their votes count? In an age when parties are becoming ever more disciplined, and when the area of debate is being closed down, would it enable more voices to be heard and more real debate to take place? We desperately need that.
We live in an age when any expression of opinion inside a party is immediately interpreted as a putative split. That is the atrophy of democracy and debate, and it is the end of real scrutiny and accountability. It would interest me greatly if we could solve that problem through a reform of the system.
Lord Jenkins carries a huge responsibility. He has been given the task of solving this great riddle by proposing a British system devised to suit British conditions that can

237
be voted on by the British people. That is the fresh, new task. This is the moment when the electoral reform argument moves away from the anoraks and the zealots and becomes a public argument that will cut across normal party divides. Even the process of decision, referendum and argument will contribute towards the renewal of our democracy.
8.1 pm
Mr. David Curry: There is no such thing as a right or a wrong electoral system—merely a system that is appropriate to national circumstances and a product of a country's historical development. All electoral systems are, to some extent, a form of manipulation. We can obtain the political result we want by the electoral system we institute at the level of primary democracy.
A generation ago, the French diagnosed their problem as arising from a weak Executive and fractional parties. They chose to vest their democracy in a presidential and bureaucratic system rather than in a parliamentary system. That produces a weak Parliament with delegated votes, in which Ministers cannot sit, which is counter-balanced by a strong local democracy—much stronger than ours. The French system corresponds to their historical experience. When the French briefly changed it to a proportional representation system and Mr. Le Pen's party emerged as a national threat, it was amazing how rapidly they reverted to their two-tier, first-past-the-post system.
If we are in the business of healing—to use a glib word—and want all sections of the community to be represented so that no one feels excluded, we should choose the single transferable vote methodology, because then everyone can feel that they have a stake. The priority is not decisive action, but inclusiveness, which is why that system has been selected for Northern Ireland: it blurs rather than crystallises the divisions.
A country that has not experienced a long period of territorial integrity may want continuity and checks against a majority tyranny and may look to the German system, which has a strongly federal constitution and a large amount of devolved power. The German system lays emphasis on the continuity of the political process, but what we in this country would find offensive is the fact that a small party needs only 5 per cent. of the vote to get over the barrier and has a pre-emptive right over certain political positions under the constitution.
Scotland and Wales will have the additional member system. We will have an amazingly diverse flora of electoral systems in the United Kingdom: almost every system that has ever been tried will be on offer.
It is not true that proportional systems cannot generate radical change when that is necessary, although they may not be inherently good at it. I note what has been said about Italy's hybrid system. The economic change needed to qualify for the single currency has been demonstrably achievable; it will be interesting to see whether it is sustainable. Everyone must ask themselves such questions in the present scenario.
The United Kingdom has a system that has evolved over time. There has been no doubt about this country's territorial integrity for a millennium or more. We have no history of social unrest: there is no fear of social unrest or challenge to the political system. We have a long tradition of civic peace, and a great premium is placed on
238
getting things done. Even though we elect a Government with less than a majority of the vote and Members of Parliament are elected with less than 50 per cent. of the vote, that is not challenged. People accept that that is the system: sometimes they win and sometimes they lose—fair do's.
Our first-past-the-post system depends on two factors. First, all the parties are coalitions. Even though the political system in Britain crystallises the difference, what happens outside the Chamber in the informal contacts among Members represents a consensual overlay to a system that is based on differentiation. Secondly, we have a bicameral system, and the role of the other House in the political process cannot be divorced from the debate, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) said.
The essential question is whether we want a Parliament—and hence a Government—that represents positive choice, or a system of least offence. Is our system pushing towards consensus, however laboured, or are we looking for a system that crystallises divisions? Day after day, the House votes at 10 o'clock; we crystallise the divisions; the winner takes all.
We face substantial variety and change. We have mentioned Northern Ireland, the additional member system in Scotland and Wales, the list system with a single vote for the European Parliament, and the amazing variety of systems in local government with single or multi-member constituencies and with elections either of all the councillors or a third of them. It is interesting that the Labour Government, who want to ensure that no council leader can sleep happily and quietly in his bed at night with too great a majority, have not introduced proportional representation for local government, which would be the logical way to get what they seem to want. We also have referendums.
We have a significant diffusion of power away from the traditional power exercised in Parliament. There is a diffusion of power regionally or nationally, depending on how one defines the units of the United Kingdom. The House is also aware of a shift of competence towards the European institutions because of our membership of the European Union and the problems of accountability that that poses. Have circumstances changed so significantly in the light of the contradictory shifts that are already taking place that we should add a further shift by introducing a system that may enfeeble the ability of the central Executive? Until it can be shown that there has been a fundamental shift and that an articulate case has been made for changing from an evolved system—there is no point pretending that a deliberate choice has been made, as a great deal in politics has happened by accident—I shall not be persuaded that we should reform the system, particularly given the current constitutional turbulence.
The arguments are familiar. There is the difficulty of the Government-building process following an election in which there is no decisive result. People should feel that they are represented in that process. Sometimes that can take months. Indeed, in countries such as Holland, politicians may not be necessary, given that the bureaucracy copes well in the months that it sometimes takes to build a Government. That may be the happiest period in a country's history.

239
There is the danger of election by the apparatchiks rather than by the people under the list system that is being used for the European Parliament elections. There is the problem—mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—of Members of Parliament with different qualities, as it were. I am talking about a lack of equivalence of function. We already see that in relation to Scottish Members, and we would see it again in a system that depended on the election of Members of Parliament on a constituency basis in parallel with that of Members drawn from a central list, without any such constituency responsibility.
It is important to recognise that, at one minute to seven on election day, we are all equal. I simply do not accept the idea that there is an inherent unfairness in that. When I go to the first poll just before 7 am, I have zero votes and everyone else has zero votes. Whoever ends up with one vote more than anyone else will win, on an entirely fair basis.
What does the Prime Minister seek? I think he knows that, some day, the Labour old guard will say, "We did not join the Labour party for this sort of budgetary rigour. We did not join the Labour party to embrace capitalism—still less to promote it—or to see class sizes and hospital waiting lists increase, or to endorse privatisation. We joined the Labour party because of its socialist policy." I think the Prime Minister fears that there may be a time when he will need to be able to change things in order to continue that non-socialist policy.
It may be that Lord Jenkins has been charged with bringing about the final demise of socialism in this country. If so, there may be at least one argument in the commission's favour.
8.10 pm
Mr. Tony McWalter: It is difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), who, in their different ways, were very eloquent. I shall begin by shooting myself in the foot, and congratulating the Opposition on their choice of topic: it has led to a good-humoured, rational and constructive debate, which will probably provide evidence that Lord Jenkins will be able to use.
Commendably, the debate has not been particularly fundamentalist. I am tired of hearing devotees of a method of election drawing attention to the difficulties involved in all the other methods, and devotees of a different method doing the same in a different way. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon made clear, in a sense such matters arise from historical causes: decisions must sometimes be made not just on the basis of the electoral systems available to us.
In fact, every electoral system is fundamentally paradoxical and fundamentally flawed. As many hon. Members will know, economic literature includes something called the Arrow paradox—named after Kenneth Arrow. It states that, if there is a choice of A, B or C, a population often prefer A to B and B to C but, alas, C to A. In Arrow's terminology, preferences are non-transitive once there are more than two options. That tempts one to think that we would all be all right if only we got rid of the Liberals: when there is a binary system of choice, at least Arrow's paradox is removed.
240
A long time ago, I read an article in a philosophy journal. When I looked for it in the House of Commons Library, I discovered to my horror that not every philosophy journal of distinction was held there. I hope that the authorities will note the omission, and will stock them all in future. The article in question was written by a woman called Professor Anscombe at Cambridge, who had come up with the following system.
Let us suppose that there is a small-scale democracy, involving only 11 people. Let us also suppose that there is a perfect democracy, in which everyone votes on everything: in this instance, there would be 11 issues on which to vote. That sounds about as pure a democracy as could be achieved, but, in fact, the majority could be in the minority the majority of the time. So there is an Anscombe paradox even when there are no Liberals!
I suppose that we must think in terms of the best bad system that we are trying to select. Churchill said that democracy was the best bad system, but we are trying to choose a form of democracy. Many persuasive speakers have argued that our present system is admirable in many ways, and has many virtues, but—I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase in this connection—today's debate was initiated not just by the former Member of Parliament for Finchley, but by the sense of outrage felt by many people about the outcome of certain elections.
Although I know that all systems are paradoxical, I could not regard it as sensible when European elections returned no Liberal Members whatever. That strikes me as a step too far. Historically, societies sometimes end up with the awareness that a particular system is leading to severe problems that they wish to address.
I was an unsuccessful candidate in the European election of 1989, as in so many others. Being a Labour candidate in Hertfordshire was not guaranteed to secure electoral success, until the happy date of 1 May 1997. In that European election, the Green party received an extremely large vote, and everyone asked why there was no way in which that vote could be translated into at least some form of representation. The party had received 14.99 per cent. of the vote, which was also a paradox. It had argued for a threshold system of proportional representation; I suggested, rather cheekily, that a 15 per cent. threshold would still have left it about 25 votes short.
We have built up a perception that something needs to be done, but I do not think that we are terribly clear about what needs to be done. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase that we need an evolutionary change, enabling us to establish within some new system—but not too new—many of the virtues of our old system, while at least responding to some of the pressures on that system that have made so many people consider it unfair, not remotely for party political or parochial reasons.
I think that, on the whole, the present Government are trying—if I may use the "in" word—to be ethical. They are trying, knowing the difficulties, to deal with a deficiency in a way that most people will consider right. I hope that, in the end, the Jenkins commission will give us a choice between first past the post and a system that, while being very like it, will build in a little additional proportionality.
8.18 pm
Mr. David Maclean: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter). His was one of a number of erudite speeches that we have heard today. It is a while since I have heard a debate in which so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have made such knowledgeable speeches; it would be a great shame if I broke that track record.
I want to make only a few simple points, and I hope that I shall be able to so well within the 10-minute limit. I do not wish to comment on all the alternative systems or to make a passionate plea for first past the post—although I firmly support that system, for most of the reasons advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The motion, which I support, states that the commission is not as independent as the Government wish it to seem. The Home Secretary, who is a reasonable man, said that it is a "relatively independent" commission. The Government amendment states that it is an "Independent Commission".
We have said that the commission should investigate the first-past-the-post system and present the pros and cons of that and of the alternative. Any commission that calls itself and is said by the Government to be independent must at least examine the present system. The Home Secretary has said that we misunderstand the purposes, that the status quo will be offered on the ballot paper. He has said that the "relatively independent" commission, which consists of those who passionately support an alternative, will merely recommend the best alternative to the status quo. That is a reasonable argument, and in one of my rare moments in the House I shall try to be as reasonable as the Home Secretary.
If the Government's defence is that they have appointed a partial commission to present an alternative to the present voting system so that both systems—one from the commission and the status quo—can be put to the electorate, it is incumbent on them or on a body of equal status to the independent commission to advocate the pros and cons of first past the post.
When the Jenkins commission reports, it will be trailed for a few days. It will dominate the "Today" programme and the national news. The message will not be that the first-past-the-post system and the commission's alternative are equally good. The report will be presented as if the commission has found the holy grail—a system that is much better than first past the post. The news media will not view the commission as partial. It will be said that the independent commission of the great and the good has found a system that will cure all Britain's ills.
Some Labour Members have been driven to PR because of a dislike of Lady Thatcher. However, I shall not go down that route. The Jenkins commission report will have an unstoppable momentum. Perhaps the Government and the Prime Minister are determined that that should happen. I was reassured to find that that is not what the Home Secretary wants. I am inclined to take the Home Secretary at his word because, unfortunately, he is too reasonable. I might take a greater interest in Home Office affairs if the Home Secretary were not such a reasonable man. I get no pleasure from attacking him.
The Home Secretary must recognise the force of my argument. If he wants the first-past-the-post system to be given equal treatment, respect and consideration by voters
242
he will agree that the Government will have to do more than merely say, "Oh, well, the arguments are well known. The electorate have used the current system for years and we do not need to explain much about it." If the Government propose to rely for their defence on the propositions that we do not understand the objectives, that they had always intended to have first past the post in the referendum, and that the commission is merely trying to find an alternative, they must make sure that there is equal funding or no funding. They must also ensure that the arguments for the current system are fairly put. When the Jenkins commission has reported, that could mean setting up a commission drawn from people in all parties to look at the referendum.
In general, I do not support referendums and I shall support one on this issue only if the Government assure us that it will be different from their referendums so far. In those, the question and the timing were determined by the Government and they made the arguments and provided the funding. That happened in Scotland, but perhaps I cannot quibble with that because it was in Labour's manifesto. The question in the referendum must not be determined by the Government alone at a time of their choosing; they must consult other parties.
It has been said that the previous Government made some changes to the Representation of the People Act 1989 without consulting other parties. I am not aware of that happening, and I think that on most occasions we did consult other parties. In my last couple of years in the Home Office, the shadow Home Secretary, now the Home Secretary, was called in by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) for consultation on potential changes to that Act. I cannot remember whether we went ahead with changes, but we consulted. I cannot imagine my noble Friend Lord Hurd of Westwell, when he was Home Secretary, making changes to the Representation of the People Act without consulting other parties.
The Jenkins commission intends to present an alternative system and it will not consider first past the post. Before the questions for the referendum are decided, all parties in the House should be consulted so that there can be no question of the issue becoming a party political matter—which it will become if the Government determine the question, the timing and which system is to receive Government propaganda. I hope that the Under—Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), who is also a reasonable man, will communicate my views to the Home Secretary. I also hope that, in his winding-up speech, he will say that the Government will treat equally the results of the Jenkins commission and the current electoral system to ensure that people get a genuine and fair choice. There must be no unfair propaganda from any quarter.
8.27 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) seems to make the mistake that the only document put before the people in the referendum will be the Jenkins commission report. If there is a referendum, a Bill will be presented, and all matters, including the two questions asking people whether they plump for first past the post or for the system recommended by the commission will have equal airing in the House, and no doubt during the referendum campaign.

243
Many hon. Members tonight have reinforced the myth that, although the current voting system may not be perfect, it has been honed over the centuries, and is the best that human intelligence can devise. However, that is not borne out in emerging democracies. After the fall of the Berlin wall, commissions in central and eastern Europe investigated electoral systems for their new democracies. They considered first past the post, but not one of them opted for it. When South Africa was building towards its first all-race, all-people election, it did not go for our system, but for a system of PR. Those systems have brought substantial benefits to those countries.
I have here an 1837 first edition of the first book written by Charles Dickens, "The Pickwick Papers", in which he describes—among other things—the Eatanswill by-election, and the drunkenness, bribery and debauchery of a by-election in a rotten borough before the great Reform Act. Many things have changed since then—women and working-class people have the vote—but the one thing which has not changed is the electoral system. The system before the great Reform Act was the first-past-the-post system, which was designed for a particular job: to deal with an electorate of a few hundred people who were plumping for one squire or another.
It was not a system designed for a modern, literate and intelligent democracy. That is why countries which have developed their democratic institutions since the emergence of mass literacy have not adopted a historical anachronism; first past the post is not a 19th-century Dickensian voting system, but an 18th-century system, developed in the United States and Britain in pre-democratic times.
There is a wonderful illustration in the book of the debauchery at Eatanswill—I wish the Official Report could reproduce it. Perhaps it can be reproduced as a tribute to Charles Dickens, who was an official reporter of this House before Hansard won the franchise.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) argued that there is a broad correlation between the votes cast for the various parties and their years in power. That is simply not the case. I am 46 years old. During my lifetime, there have been seven years of Labour government with a clear, working majority; five years of Labour government with a small majority, which had to be bolstered by deals with other parties, or with no majority at all; and 34 years of Conservative rule. For 75 per cent. of my life, there has been a Conservative Government, but even the Conservatives would not claim that they have had the support of 75 per cent. of the electorate. At no time in my lifetime have they achieved the support of even 50 per cent. of the electorate.
It is easy to see why the Conservatives support the present system—it is one under which they do extremely well. When they support it, they are putting their party interest before the national interest. It is also easy to see why the Liberal Democrats want change; they do exceptionally badly under the first-past-the-post system. They are arguing, at least in part, out of self-interest.
The fact that, in my lifetime, the Liberal Democrats have had the support of about 20 per cent. of the electorate—rather less when I was a child, but slightly more in the 1980s—pinpoints the fallacy of the argument of the right hon. Member for Devizes. If there was a broad
244
proportionality between votes and years in power, the Liberal Democrats and its predecessors would have been in power for a quarter of my lifetime. They have been nowhere near power at any time in my lifetime.
The fact that there is the Labour party is willing to put before the people the possibility of change is very new. A party which is a beneficiary of the two-party system is nevertheless prepared to contemplate change. That is a reflection of the fact that we have a Labour Government who are prepared to contemplate change over wide parts of the constitution. It would be extraordinary if we were prepared to modernise our constitution in relation to the other place, the government of Scotland and Wales, human rights and freedom of information, but stuck rigidly to an 18th-century electoral system for this House.
It has been argued that first past the post gives strong government. After 18 years of Conservative government, based on slightly over 40 per cent. of the vote—about one third of the electorate, as not all electors vote—I have had strong government up to my neck. If we had had a proportional system, the poll tax would not have been enacted by this Chamber. There would have been a moderating and restraining influence, and the decision of this House would have been a better reflection of the will of the people.
First past the post may give strong government, but it does not give effective government; it is not good for the prosperity of the British people. As I pointed out earlier, in average growth rate over 35 years among the current member states of the EU, the United Kingdom is 14th out of 15. If proportional representation systems necessarily led to weak and ineffective government, 13 out of the 15 EU member states—all of which use proportional systems—would not have achieved a better economic performance than the UK.
In terms of gross domestic product per capita—the average income in each of those 15 states—Britain came fifth out of the 15 in 1962. We are now 11 th. We have been leapfrogged by Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, Austria and Italy; all of which have proportional representation systems.
Back in the 19th century, the great Liberal radical John Stuart Mill drew up plans for changing the electoral system; plans which have been reflected, even though hon. Members may not have acknowledged it, in many of the speeches today. He drew up proposals for proportional representation because he was afraid that universal suffrage would create what he called the "tyranny of a majority"—that the poor would keep the educated middle and upper classes out of power for ever. Under first past the post, however, we have had a tyranny of a minority, because, throughout my lifetime, we have never had a Government supported by the majority of the British people.
8.36 pm
Mr. Robert Syms: The hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) made some good points, but the key point is that our system has evolved over many decades. It is a tried and tested system, which is widely accepted. There has been electoral reform, but it has been to widen the franchise, to give votes to women and to reduce the degree of corruption which once existed and was alluded to in the novel by Dickens. The system is simple, straightforward and transparent.

245
We have heard about the various attempts at electoral reform, but none has survived the test of the first-past-the-post system. Even enthusiasts for change can often draw back when they look at the consequences. In 1918, the then coalition Government proposed to change the system. This House voted three times, by ever-bigger majorities, against change, as the consequences sunk in.
The system is effective and delivers changes in government. The electors can go out and feel that they are taking part in a process of change. People can vote on a Thursday; by 2 o'clock in the morning, there is an indication of what is happening; by 4 o'clock, the Government have a majority; by the following day, the Jaguars are sweeping into Buckingham Palace, a new Government are formed, and the furniture vans have turned up to take the former incumbent away. That is a good thing. It allows the electors to deliver decisive change. It delivers a majority Government, who must then carry out their pledges and their manifesto.
All political parties are effectively coalitions. However, under our system, a coalition is formed before a general election, and political parties form around a platform or manifesto which is offered to the public. Under proportional representation systems, that process occurs after the election, encouraging a fragmented political system, in which political parties negotiate. We have heard a great deal in this debate about New Zealand, which took eight weeks to form a Government. That Government was formed around a 68-page negotiated document, which bore no relation to what had happened before the election.
In the general election, the United Kingdom Government stood for election on a manifesto. Undoubtedly they will do their best to implement that manifesto. At the end of four or five years, people will form a judgment on how well the Government have done, and on whether they honoured what the electorate perceived to be their pledges. I think that that is a rather good system, which entails either sacking or backing people. Our electoral system has much to commend it.
Under our system, individuals can vote for an individual they trust, who happens to be a member of a political party. Our system allows a great deal of discretion in what electors can do in constituencies. Usually, although Conservatives will vote Conservative and Labour supporters will vote Labour, some personal voting is possible in constituencies. We have seen many examples of such voting. Quite often, Liberal Democrats are recipients of the results of personal voting, when hon. Members have been elected at by-elections after working specific constituencies.
Under our system, we can vote for individuals who represent a geographical area, for which they are responsible. Even when someone represents a so-called "safe" seat—which, in this day and age, is a very difficult thing to define—he or she will be called to account by the constituency party if he or she does not do the job, even if the electors are not able directly to call their representative to account.
The electorate's expectations of an hon. Member are very high. What were the most frequently asked questions of most hon. Members during the selection process? They were, "Will you live in the constituency? Will you be here? Will you be accessible and available?" A critical
246
point for local people is the ability to feel that their Member is a part of the local community. Our system promotes that connection.
Extremists have been mentioned in this debate. It is true that, when PR was introduced in France, the Front National received representation. The Front National has consistently done better in polls—even after PR was abolished—because of the platform and credibility as a respectable party that that representation gave it. In current polls in France, the Front National does as well as the UVF, with each receiving about 20 per cent. of the vote. The Front National is still a factor in the European Parliament, and it still has much representation on regional councils.
The House may well remember the recent hoo-hah over whether centre-right regional government in France should accept support from the Front National in taking over regional administrations, rather than allowing socialist administrations to be elected. The episode lifted the Front National, giving it a credibility and profile that it has enjoyed ever since.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) made a very good point about facing down someone who may have fascist or deeply offensive views. However, being elected to a Chamber such as ours gives a person a veneer of respectability and a platform that, in some instances, could be quite dangerous. The first-past-the-post system presents some quite high thresholds; the fact that communists, Trotskyites, fascists and some others have not managed to get through that threshold is a rather good thing.
The Liberal Democrats have always been very honest. They have always been in favour of a single transferable vote system in multi-member constituencies, except where there are natural geographical boundaries—which, one may not be surprised to hear, includes the Isle of Wight, Orkney and Shetland, and several other such areas. That has consistently been their policy.
In elections in southern Ireland, a majority is not necessary to form a Government. Fianna Fail, with 46 or 47 per cent. of the vote, can form a majority, although it does not often do so. Nevertheless, it is a practical possibility under that system.
The single transferable vote system has its benefits in small countries. Malta, for example, uses the STV system. However, given the size of our country, I do not think that the system would be especially beneficial here. The system also tends to lead to parish-pump politics. Moreover, given the size of constituency that would be necessary in the United Kingdom, with each comprising about half a million electors, I do not think that the system would be a practical proposition.
The STV system would also lead to a practice that is completely against the British tradition: Conservatives standing against Conservatives; Labour candidates standing against other Labour members; and Liberal Democrats standing against other Liberal Democrats. Such a system would cause substantial problems in party discipline.
I shall not deal now with list systems. I think that most hon. Members—having voted for such a system for European elections—would not think that a list system was acceptable for elections to the House, simply because of its bizarre aspects.

247
The additional vote system has been touted—today, for example—as a third way. That system was introduced in Australia because the Country party wanted it, so that that party and the Liberals could essentially have a run-off in some seats—so that only one of those parties could run against the Labour party, which is the largest party in Australia.
AV has been a great detriment to the Australian Labour party, resulting in a system in which the second, third or fourth-preference votes of the losing or weakest candidates could well cancel out the first-preference votes of a stronger candidate. The system does not differentiate by allowing for weighted voting. One candidate may receive 20,000 votes, and two other candidates may receive 10,000. If 10,000 votes go to the additional candidate, it will wipe out the candidate with 20,000 first-preference votes. The system assumes that every vote is equal, whether it is a second, third or fourth-preference vote.
An argument can be made for transferring votes, but there should be weighting—by saying that someone's second-preference votes are worth only half of their first-preference votes, and by making third-preference votes a suitable percentage of first-preference votes. However, cancelling out someone's first-preference votes by using the lower-preference votes of a losing candidate is not a feature of a sound system.
Additional vote systems also institutionalise tactical voting. In the recent Australian election, it is no accident that the Australian Labour party had eight bells knocked out of it by the AV system, which delivered a landslide. Although Labour polled 37 per cent. of the vote, it received substantially fewer seats because of the AV system. AV is less proportionate than the first-past-the-post system. Therefore, if proportionality has to be a measure of an electoral system—which I think that it has to be—the first-past-the-post system would be acceptable for the United Kingdom.
Our system has served us well. The geographical link is very important. We have delivered effective government, which allows people to hold the Government to account. Accountability is very important to our political system. Although proportional representation may have advantages for other nations, every nation has to look to its own traditions, history and way of doing things. Our system has evolved and done well in meeting the test of time. As a nation, we would be foolish to ditch it.
The one comment by the Home Secretary with which I can agree is that, unlike New Zealand—where the choice is between—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Time is up.
8.47 pm
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am very pleased to be called to speak in this debate, which has enormously increased my knowledge. We have heard philosophical, literary and historical speeches. Had an hon. Member spoken on the d'Hondt system, I would know a lot more about arithmetic than I probably do now.
What surprises me—as a quite firm opponent of proportional representation—is the wording of the Opposition motion. I think that the Opposition have
248
misunderstood the purpose of the Government's policy in establishing the Jenkins commission. The purpose was not to establish a judicial inquiry to determine what learned men consider to be the best electoral system—which would be rather like swearing in an American jury. It would be almost impossible to find someone who had not some predisposition to one system or another. Every commissioner would have to be asked, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Liberal party?" To do so would be to disqualify any independent person from sitting on such a commission.
The Jenkins commission was not supposed to be an independent commission—it was established to determine the best proportional system. I welcome that task, and I should welcome it if the commission finds the best proportional system. It is right and proper that the British people should have the choice between the best proportional system and our current system.
Arguments about proportional representation have been knocking around for a long time. I first learned about it from Edith Lakeman, whom I am sure Liberal Democrat Members know well. She was the high priestess of proportional representation. She could not be called an independent commission. She had firm views on the subject, but her book has remained the bible for many years for those venturing into the intricacies of different electoral systems.
I glanced through Edith Lakeman's book today for the first time in many years. I was reminded that first past the post is only a recent introduction in this country. We used to elect the first two past the post, because most elections, in counties and boroughs, were for double member seats.
In the Victorian age, we dabbled in proportional systems. Birmingham, which has some firm advocates of proportional representation now, had an experiment in the Limited Vote in the Victorian period. We had some exotic systems, according to the book. A voter might have two votes, but three people were elected. They had to choose carefully or they would get it wrong. We even went further than that. I was reminded for the first time in 30 years of London school board elections in the 19th century, and the cumulative vote. There were six members to be elected, and voters had six votes to cast. They could cast them all for their favoured candidate, but they had to calculate carefully how to cast the votes to maximum party advantage. We have also had the single transferable vote on the mainland of this country as well as in Northern Ireland. It was used for the university seats between 1918 and 1950.
Significantly, none of the systems lasted very long—about 30 years at most, I think. They did not prove popular where they were introduced.
I am concerned about the pessimism of Conservative Members. The debate should be taken to the British people so that they can argue about it and discuss it. I do not believe that people talk of nothing but proportional representation in the pubs of Coggeshall and Kelveden in my constituency. I suspect that they never talk about it. It might be good if the issues were debated openly. They have been swept under the carpet.
The proportional representationists have had the better of the argument in many ways because they use the phrase "electoral reform", which implies that a new system would be better than what we have. I am surprised that Conservative Members use the phrase. It would be better

249
to talk about electoral alteration or electoral change, because talking about electoral reform almost prejudges the issue before the debate has begun.
We should talk about whether to have electoral change. Let us test our system against the best that Lord Jenkins can come up with. I have little doubt that when the issues are put before the British people, they will decide that our present system provides the right balance. The constituency link is particularly important. I find it difficult to remember which constituencies Members represent, and I have to make notes about them. It would be far more difficult if I had to remember their number and refer to the hon. No. 6 from East Anglia—or was it the hon. No. 17 from the West Country? We might not have the same esteem for right hon. No. 4 because he was not No. 1. The British people, with their robust common sense, will come to the right conclusion.
I shall vote firmly against the motion and support the amendment. However, I look forward to campaigning in support of the retention of our present electoral system.
8.53 pm
Mr. John Hayes: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst). I can think of no greater delight than sharing a platform with him in the coming referendum campaign, arguing the case for the current electoral arrangements. I shall not comment further on his speech except to pay him a compliment. After a brief meeting with him, my wife said that he was far too nice to be a socialist.
That brings me to the comments of the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who, after a typically incisive, thoughtful and moderate contribution, declared that the principal argument in favour of electoral change—I take the point of the hon. Member for Braintree on that phrase—was that "something must be done". If that is the best argument for changing a time-honoured system that is well established, widely understood and highly effective, it is a poor show indeed, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley), has left the Chamber, after attributing the difference between our growth rate and that of our European neighbours to the electoral system. We may as well relate the price of peas or England's fortunes in the world cup over the decades to the electoral system as talk about its direct correlation with the growth records of comparable—or non-comparable—economies.
Why change a system that is working well? That might be a sufficient contribution to the debate, but hon. Members will be pleased—perhaps some will be disappointed—to hear that I do not intend to stop there.
The debate must be seen in the context of the wider arguments about constitutional reform. Perhaps it is enough to say that the zeal of an unreasoning radical is just as unattractive as the extremism of a bigot, and certainly more dangerous than the caution of a conservative or even the obstinacy of a reactionary. I wonder whether what is being proposed is change for the sake of change. Informed by Edmund Burke, Conservatives understand that good government relies to an extent on resisting change unless there is a proven case for its efficacy.
There is no proven case for the efficacy of fundamental electoral change. It could be resisted on that ground alone. Having said that, we have had a range of electoral reform
250
over the years. The system for nominating people, the conduct of elections, the process of elections and the nature of the election campaigns have changed repeatedly over the centuries, contrary to the assertion—in an earlier, less historically accurate, contribution—that the system had remained unchanged since the 17th century.
Proportional representation is used as shorthand for electoral reform, and the debate has therefore rightly focused on that subject. PR presents two main threats. The first is the creation of a confused, muddied system that will leave the electorate feeling disfranchised through incomprehension. Some will say that that is patronising, and that of course people will understand how to cast many votes. However, in the case of the Scottish Parliament, information is to be deliberately withheld from the electorate. Their incomprehension is understandable, because they are not to be given the full facts under a closed list system. An open list system is scarcely better for breaking down the relationship between the choice of the electorate for the person elected.
The second threat is even more important. It is the breach in the relationship between the elector and the elected. Let me be clear about the theme that runs through both these dangers. The clarity of a system for electing representatives in which a group of individuals in a given area choose another individual who represents their interests and is accountable to them is crucial for good democracy.
Moreover, the bond that is established between a Member and his or her constituency is arguably increasing significantly. That point was well made by the Home Secretary and others. People expect a relationship—directly or by proxy—with their representative. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) cited living in one's constituency as an example of that change. Lord Jenkins may well have traversed the country because he clearly saw his relationship with this place as more important than that with any constituency; that such matters were of less importance. That was certainly true of Disraeli and Gladstone, who represented many constituencies all over the country during their long parliamentary careers.
However, these days, the relationship between electors and the elected is critical. The sense of ownership of their representative that people rightly feel is for many the hub of democracy. That is people's link to the exercise of political power. In turn, Members feel a sense of pride and ownership, which we should value and cherish. That bond is sacred, and we cast it aside at our peril.
The theme that runs through both the threats that I have described is that electoral systems are not just about votes or how one chooses one's representative, but about the subsequent relationship between the representative and those who elect him or her. It is not enough to say that the debate is about the voting system; it is also about the nature of government and of democracy itself.
I could rehearse the standard arguments about minority parties, the dangers of extremism and the deals behind closed doors, but I shall not. I shall simply deal with two of the other points that have been raised in the debate. First, it is undoubtedly true that PR would lead to a more anodyne Parliament. The characters and people of independent mind, who are our best guarantors against excessive Executive powers, would find it very hard to be

251
elected if party apparatchiks had more power than electors in their constituencies. PR would remove such safeguards against the abuses of Executive power.
Secondly, there is significant evidence that PR does not deliver the goods in terms of direct proportionality. The Plant report compared electoral systems in a number of countries, including Britain, the United States of America and most European countries, and found that, using Professor Rose's criteria, which are widely acknowledged, our system was more proportional than, for example, the one in Spain, and that the United States, Britain and Japan have, for the most part, delivered proportionality in greater measure than is ever acknowledged by those who criticise our system—certainly by those in minority and fringe parties, such as the Liberal Democrats.
It is curious that human experience suggests that people do not always value things until they have lost them. One hon. Member spoke about what brand of Conservatism was on display in this debate. I make no bones about the fact that I am a romantic idealist. I lack any cynicism about the principle of representing people and their needs, articulating people's problems and taking up their causes. I put that idealism to one side to say this: in terms of practical government and on the criteria of the so-called independent commission—not our words but those in the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister—our current system measures up pretty favourably. There is no better example than the 1997 general election. Surely no one would argue that, in general proportional terms, the will of the people was not meaningfully exercised. I end where I began: if it ain't broke, why fix it?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I intend to call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to make his winding-up speech at about 9.20 pm. I have no power to insist, but I appeal to hon. Members to speak for five minutes each. If they do so, at least four Members will be called before the Front-Bench spokesmen. I know that some hon. Members have been present throughout the debate, and five-minute speeches would allow them at least to make some contribution.
9.2 pm
Mr. Alan Campbell: I shall try to be brief. I welcome the progress that the Government have already made in setting up the Jenkins commission. I am surprised that its mere establishment seems to have thrown the Conservative party into panic. I am pleased that the Government have resisted the temptation simply to accept the system that delivered them so much power, and have been prepared not only to consider reform but make such early progress in fulfilling our manifesto commitment.
By the end of the Parliament, voters will face a potentially bewildering array of choices for a London mayor, a London authority, a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly. I do not share the scepticism of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who seems to doubt the capacity of voters to understand what is expected of them. After all, the electorate show a high
252
level of sophistication every time they vote tactically to remove or to promote a particular candidate or party. They did so when they removed the right hon. Gentleman's Government. If we are to have different systems, however, there is a need to educate the public, preferably before they leave school, on how to cast their votes and on how important it is to do so.
There is no overriding reason why we should not have an array of different electoral systems. Their complexity would reflect the society in which we live and the jobs that we expect them to do. The choice of any electoral system depends on the criteria that the body to be elected is expected to meet. We have already gone through the criteria for testing any change, one of which is the link between a Member and a constituency. During the general election, 88 per cent. of electors in Tynemouth said that they wanted a strong link between the constituency and its Member, and they wanted an MP who lived in the constituency. Unfortunately, not all of them voted for me, but enough of them did. A second criterion is the need to reflect as much opinion as possible. Thirdly, we must reflect public opinion without being unduly influenced by minority parties.
I welcome the investigation of alternative systems, and I want the widest possible debate. However, I am not yet convinced that the present system does not meet the criteria as well as any. It provides a clear link between a Member and a constituency, produces a definitive result, and usually means that the most popular party is not at the mercy of minority parties. Perhaps above all, it gives voters a choice of Government or Prime Minister, rather than delegating that authority to Members of Parliament who can do deals.
I concur with some of the points made by supporters of the present system, but their arguments have been well rehearsed, and will no doubt be repeated during any campaign. The difference on the Labour side is that we support investigation of options and want to give people a real choice between the current system and an alternative. I look forward to the widest debate on that, because I am worried that candidates and Governments are elected with a minority vote, and I am interested in the effect that the supplementary vote would have in allowing the winner to claim at least 50 per cent. of the vote. Provided that such a system fulfilled the criteria that I have mentioned, I would not lose sleep over its introduction.
Turnout and participation are also important. If we want to improve turnout, we need an Opposition who are offering a positive alternative rather than simply saying no, I am not simply pointing the finger at the Conservatives, because we, too, had to learn that lesson during the 18 years of the previous Government. I hope that I was not the only person moved by the high turnout in Northern Ireland, particularly among young people who are traditionally alleged not to vote. They were given a positive alternative, and they voted for it.
I welcome the new Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen, in the hope that they will do better than the last lot at providing a positive alternative. Perhaps we should not expect too much. To paraphrase the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), they have something of the day about them, but, for many of them, that day was yesterday.

253
We need to consider how elections are conducted. Why are crucial decisions made about government in 15 hours of an often wet Thursday, rather than over a worker- friendly or family-friendly weekend? Why is it so difficult to get postal or proxy votes? Our electoral system has stood the test of time, but that does not in itself guarantee that the system is successful or fair.
The Conservatives have often been at the forefront of those who have simply opposed change: Peel not wanting to open the door in 1832, and summoning up the prospect of not being able to close it; Disraeli not wanting to make a leap in the dark. Those fears proved baseless, which is why, from time to time, we have to look at the British constitution to examine and modernise it. Now is such a time.
9.9 pm
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Every electoral system has its imperfections, and the principal imperfection of the first-past-the-post system is that it is proportional only in a fairly broad interpretation of the word. I was heartened when my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) pointed out the respects in which it is proportional. I found that argument helpful. We must be careful about doing away with its imperfections and taking on other systems with even greater imperfections.
Most proportional systems have the profound imperfection of damaging the constituency link. One such system—the alternative vote system—does not do so. I can regard that system with some equanimity because I would have won my seat on 1 May under it, but it suffers from the huge disadvantage that it is even less proportional than our existing system. It must be counted out on that ground alone.
That leaves us with the other systems offered to us. To some extent, all would damage the constituency link. That has a profoundly pernicious effect on the whole body politic. Germany has a mixed system, with constituency members and list members. The pervasive effect on the political culture that attends the list has infected the rest of the body politic. On a recent trip to Germany, it struck me as extraordinary when I was advanced upon by people who knew that I was a British politician. Without any solicitation, they gave me to believe that they were deeply anxious about economic and monetary union. Many were profoundly hostile to it. I did not solicit those opinions; they were freely offered. However, I found when speaking to German politicians that those point of views were not reflected at all. Is it not extraordinary that there should be such a profound gulf between the political class and the people they represent that the anxieties of the people are not represented at all by their politicians?
The reason is that, if someone wishes to be elected as a member on a party list system, it is no good addressing the preoccupations of the electorate, because they will not determine whether that person is elected. One has to address the preoccupations of the party machine. That has a disastrous and pervasive effect that undermines democracy. That is the principal argument against proportional representation, but there are others, not least that mentioned by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) about arithmetic.
I sat through the debates on devolution in Scotland and Wales, and asked the Minister concerned about the d'Hondt formula because I did not understand it. I said
254
that at least voters understand our existing system. They understand the relationship between a cross in the box and a Member of Parliament being elected. They will not understand the d'Hondt formula. His answer was that the people did not have to understand, so long as the returning officer understood it. Nothing could be more calculated to undermine confidence in our democracy.
One of the arguments that has been advanced by Labour Members is that this is all a great rehearsal of the democratic process and that we are doing all this to refresh our democracy: we will give the people a choice by presenting the arguments dispassionately, letting them think about the arguments and holding a referendum on that basis. The hon. Member for Braintree put that case, which is attractive and persuasive in its own way.
However, it struck to me as rather odd that, from 7 March 1996, when I was selected to fight the constituency of New Forest, West, until the present day, I have had two inquiries about my views on proportional representation, both received before the election and both from members of Charter 88. The subject of our debate is not a matter that is exercising the minds of our constituents. No one ever asked me for a referendum on proportional representation, but multiply the number of people who asked me for my views on proportional representation by a factor of 10 and the result is the number of people who demanded a referendum on our relationship with the European Union or on capital punishment. That is what is exercising the minds of our people, not proportional representation.
As for dispassionately presenting an argument to the people, I do not want to cast any aspersions on the integrity of the commissioners, but I do not believe that one can properly call a commission independent that has someone so partial as Lord Jenkins at its head.
9.15 pm
Mr. Martin Linton: The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) reminded us that the debate is actually about the first-past-the-post system, yet we have heard many speeches about New Zealand and about Germans advancing on the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), and few about the failings of the first-past-the-post system.
I find it remarkable that the Opposition can table a motion describing the first-past-the-post system as successful and fair little more than 12 months after suffering their worst defeat since the Duke of Wellington led them into the 1832 election. Perhaps their strategy is to make a virtue of misfortune.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Linton: No.
If the Conservatives still support the first-past-the-post system after the drubbing they got, perhaps it is a good system after all. I see the Conservative party as a brain-damaged boxer struggling to get back in the ring, oblivious to the cause of his misfortune.
When disaster struck the Conservatives in 1974—when they ended up with only 36 per cent. of the vote—they were so shocked that some of them actually started to think about the voting system. They set up an organisation

255
called Conservative Action on Electoral Reform, which claimed to have 41 members among Conservative Members of Parliament—some of them are still here, no doubt—but apart from Mr. Rathbone, the former Member of Parliament for Lewes, they are now queuing up to praise the system that has just clobbered them.
To have a sensible debate, we should start by admitting that there was a time when the first-past-the-post system worked quite well. People often describe the late 1940s and the 1950s as the golden era of the two-party system, when 97 per cent. of voters voted for one of the two main parties and, in 1950, 84 per cent. went out to vote.
We can see how the system has deteriorated from the fact that the 97 per cent. voting for the two main parties has declined to only 74 per cent. and the 84 per cent. who turned out in the 1950 election has become 71 per cent. Only 37 per cent. of people actually voted for their local Member of Parliament and the past four Governments have been elected by less than a third of the electorate—a figure that was worst of all for the Government elected in 1983.
Members of Parliament elected by a majority of their constituents have almost disappeared: the proportion used to be 94 per cent., but it is now only 50 per cent. and, on the Conservative Benches, only 10 per cent. The hon. Member for New Forest, West is right to say that he is one of the few who would have been elected under an alternative vote system, but only 13 per cent. of current Conservative Members of Parliament can say that the majority of their constituents voted for them. Over the past 50 years, people have become less likely to vote for their Member of Parliament, less likely to vote for the Government, less likely to vote for the two main parties, less likely to vote at all and less likely even to be registered.
In almost every other European country, voters have the satisfaction of knowing that, unless they vote for a very small party their vote will count towards the election of a Member of Parliament from the party of their choice who will be accountable to them. In the UK, most people go to the polling station knowing that their individual vote is highly unlikely even to count towards the result. Only one third of votes in this country count towards the result, and only about 90 constituencies out of 659 are marginal and therefore likely to swing the result.
The only telling argument advanced by supporters of first past the post is that PR can lead to coalition. I have some sympathy with that argument because although there is nothing wrong with coalitions, government is certainly simpler when a single party has a majority in Parliament. However, it is not true that PR always leads to coalition government. Several countries have for long periods had single-party majority Governments elected by PR. Throughout the 1970s, the Australian socialist party was elected with a majority by PR. The Portuguese socialists and social democrats have been elected with majorities, as have Fianna Fail, the CDU/CSU in Germany and the social democrats in Sweden. In Spain and Greece, under PR systems, almost every election in the past 20 years has resulted in a party winning a majority of seats, although that was not always based on a majority of votes.
I point that out not as a criticism of Greece, but to show that there is not a straight choice between coalition-prone proportional representation or coalition- proof first past
256
the post. Our system can be prone to coalition—in the county council elections of the mid-1980s, the majority of councils were hung. Equally, as I have demonstrated, proportional systems can be almost coalition-proof, as they have been in Greece and Spain.
Only if we can detach the arguments about proportional representation from the separate argument about the desirability or otherwise of coalition government do we have any chance of even beginning to debate the merits of PR for the individual voter. The central point is that PR would make their vote effective wherever they live, remove the need for tactical voting and give them control over the political system.
9.21 pm
Dr. Liam Fox: Seldom can a debate have been summed up so well as by the phrase used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) when he said that there is no such thing as a perfect electoral system. That has been the thread running through much of the debate, which was of high quality. It was one of the best debates in the House for a long time. Most speeches were of a high calibre, they were not party political and they showed the House at its best. The debate was ample justification for the Opposition's tabling the motion to raise the profile of this important subject in the House and beyond.
We accepted from the outset—from the opening speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—that there are flaws in the first-past-the-post system. We need look no further than our own Benches to see exactly what the effect of such a system can be, and we can look to Scotland and Wales to see exactly the wiping out that can occur under first past the post. We cannot be accused of defending the system because it is in our party's interests to do so. We defend it because it is in the country's interests to maintain it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) asked earlier what our system is for. That is surely the question that we must all answer if we are to take this argument forward. He asked whether the purpose of the system is to provide an exact mirror of the minutest voting trend or to provide the people with an effective Government and the Government with an effective Opposition. He said, tellingly, that decision making is a first-past-the-post activity.
In government, it is not possible to make a proportion of a decision. Decisions need to be taken by Governments with strong views on how to tackle problems. The first reason, therefore, to support the first-past-the-post system is that it works: it provides stability and strength in government.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) made a typical point when he said that we need inclusive politics; problem-solving politics; soft and cuddly politics; new third-way inclusive love-in politics. It is true that we live in a deceptively calm political time, but that has largely been the result of challenging the political consensus previously. Throughout the Thatcher years, which so many Labour Members hated, we challenged the political consensus—the perceived political wisdom at the time.
How could we have achieved the things that we take for granted under the coalition mess that PR would give us? How could we have tackled the trade union reforms

257
that the country badly needed? How could we have made the defence changes that we had to, in defiance of the Soviet bloc, during the cold war? How could we have made our economic reforms? At the time, the status quo was supported by the conventional political wisdom. Sometimes Governments must be strong to defy the conventional political wisdom, not simply to pay homage to it.
Mr. Burden: I follow the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does it flow from what he is suggesting that Governments should deny what is clearly, in many cases, the majority view of the British people—such as on the poll tax?
Dr. Fox: It is becoming apparent to many Ministers in the present Government that, occasionally, things must be done that are unpopular. That is part of good government, and it is part of the strength of our system that, at the end of the period, we return to the electorate and say, "These are the decisions we took. We shall stand up for our reasoning, we shall stand up for what we did, and you can make your choice." However, we must avoid the debilitating consensus-ridden systems that some Labour Members who spoke tonight would land us with.
The second reason for supporting the current system is that it is better than the other options, especially on accountability. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said that the first-past-the-post system gives people MPs to represent all the constituents. Several hon. Members have said that those who do not vote for the winner are not represented in our political system. I resent that insinuation, as I am sure do most Members, because we represent all our constituents the day after polling. No matter what their political persuasion and whoever they voted for, we deal with them all in the same way. The idea that all those who did not vote for us are disfranchised is insulting.
I was happy to hear the Home Secretary say that he had a strong affinity for the direct link between Members of Parliament and constituents, but he also talked of both the specific and the general relationship. We all find it strange that everyone we speak to believes that their MP is a good, hard-working MP but that all the others are thoroughly nasty creatures. It is like the finding that everyone believes that their local hospital and their doctor are very good but that the rest of the health service is falling apart.
The Home Secretary mentioned voter dissatisfaction and low turnouts. Rightly, he said that one cannot link general voter dissatisfaction, which occurs throughout the western world, with our specific electoral system, and that, in general, voter turnouts in many countries that have PR are a good deal lower than those in the United Kingdom.
However, a healthy system must have the approval of the electors and the elected. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is not in his place; he had the courtesy to say that he would be leaving. He took the example of the multi-member constituencies in Ireland, where he said there was a perpetual beauty contest. Members were so afraid of what the others were doing behind their backs that they could not take their national duties seriously. Do we want such a system in the House of Commons? Do we want to be so busy being the
258
glorified district councillors that Liberal Democrat Members are that we are unable take seriously the business of government?
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said, under our current system voters know who represents them, whom to blame and whom to get rid of—as we found out to our cost. None the less, we defend the system that allowed it to happen.
Many concerns about the commission have been expressed today. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes said at the outset, it is not independent—it is headed by one of the most partial people in Britain on this subject. It has a flawed remit and a rigged membership, and it will produce an intellectually unsound outcome. We want the commission to take first past the post and test it against the criteria set down for the alternatives: the requirement for broad proportionality, an extension of voter choice, the need for stable government, and the maintenance of a link between MPs and geographical constituencies. We believe that first past the post will come out on top. if we go ahead with the Government's plan—simply to humour another of the Prime Minister's mentors—and if there is a referendum, we would hope for a firm commitment tonight that there will be equal funding and a balance in any such referendum.
In a telling speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said that much of the PR debate is special pleading dressed up as political principle. Under PR, the party with the largest number of votes would depend on some minority party selling its principles for Cabinet seats, rather like some political streetwalker. The Home Secretary gave us some helpful historical insights into how the Liberals wanted first past the post until they became the third party, at which point the sense of humour of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) understandably deserted him. I note that he is no longer in his place. I note also in a leaflet from the Westminster Forum that
"Mr. Ashdown has chosen the Forum to make his most important speech on the constitutional reform debate since before the general election. The speech is likely to attract national attention."
It is a pity that we were not allowed to hear any of it in the House this evening.
I do not blame the Liberal Democrats for their position; it is the only way they will ever have the chance to become Ministers. Generations of going back to constituencies and preparing for government can be very tiring indeed.
We need to clear up one or two confusions and myths. The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) asked whether it was tolerable that a party with the most votes should lose an election. It has happened twice this century in the UK. Under PR, however, the party with the largest number of votes could be permanently excluded from power by the actions of parties with far fewer votes. That is surely a far worse system than the one we have now. I do not pretend that those two occasions were democratically defensible—but the alternative is much worse.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—I do not see him in his place—gave us a good remark. He said that the pro-devolution camp would not have achieved their Scottish referendum result had they offered first past the post instead of PR. I cannot

259
remember people hurling themselves in front of us during the referendum campaign demanding a PR system—but there we are.
My favourite comment of the evening came from the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley)—he has given notice of his absence—who argued that our economic performance over the past two decades has been related to our lack of electoral reform. He said that countries with PR had achieved better growth rates, apparently forgetting that the United States, which has first past the post, has outstripped every other nation economically. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) said, we might do as well to compare our performances in football tournaments.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) was the most vehement defender of what has happened in New Zealand, a country about which we have heard a great deal today. He claimed that PR there had failed because of a failure of the political parties—double dealing, dishonesty, betrayal and so on. His message was: "Don't blame the system, blame the parties." In other words, PR would work perfectly well if there were no politicians.
We have warned time and again today of the tyranny of minorities. That is a genuine threat which must not be dismissed lightly. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said in an important speech that fascists and communists have generally not been elected here. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said that she would like them to be elected so as to be able to confront them head on in debate in the House. I say it is a good thing that they have not been elected, because, as the hon. Member for Walsall, North rightly said, every extremist party, from the National Front onwards, has longed for PR to be able to make its case with the oxygen of publicity in the House of Commons.
The French got a nasty shock when they flirted with PR and saw the advance of the National Front in France. That is surely not one of the aims of our system, which has thrived in a culture of political tolerance. It is dangerous to allow fashion to risk destabilising our political system. We must remember that threat as we move forward.
The third reason I believe we must maintain first past the post is that PR tips the balance towards political parties and away from the people. As has been pointed out several times, political parties are coalitions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, with first past the post at least we know which coalition we shall get. We know from the manifestos what we are likely to receive in terms of policy.
The alternative, after PR, is that we get a huddle of politicians, go back to smoke-filled rooms and, rather than a manifesto for which the largest number of voters voted, end up following policies for which no one voted. I much prefer a system that reflects the wishes of the largest number of voters, with voters being satisfied that they are being delivered what they voted for on polling day, than some dreadful compromise that gives the politicians more power and the people less.
260
We have been told throughout the debate that, because voters vote for one party, they must be against the rest. That is as nonsensical as saying that, if we buy one type of good from a shop, we must hate everything else. On polling day voters are asked to express a preference. It is preposterous to suggest that, if one party gets 43 per cent. of the vote, the other 57 per cent. of the electorate hate that party and could not stomach anything in its manifesto.
Mr. Beith: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of coalition politics and agreements between politicians, has he forgotten how the Conservative Government were run? When they were trying to get the Maastricht treaty through the House, the part of the coalition of which he is a member, which was opposed to the treaty, would not allow it to go through, so his party's leadership had to come to my party and ask for votes to get the treaty through. That is what happens under the present system.
Dr. Fox: You will excuse me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I am not moved to tears. The Conservative Government got through all their manifesto commitments on a three-line Whip, including a confidence vote supported by the parliamentary Conservative party in the previous Parliament.
The problem with PR moving power towards the parties is that parties tend to tolerate rather than welcome too wide a range of views. I say that having spent two years in the Government Whips' Office.
In Scotland at present, with the exclusion of any Labour Members who say the dreaded S word—socialist—under a list system the mavericks will disappear and there will be automaton politics. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said, Members will exist not to look after the interests of constituents but to flatter the interests of the party machine. That is extremely dangerous. As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, how are we to have the same respect for someone who we know is No. 4 from the south-east or No. 7 from the south-west when we could be talking to No. 3, 2 or 1 from the same area?
The hon. Member for Northfield said that we must change because there is an overwhelming urge for change. I do not know whether my constituency surgeries are unusual, but I do not find people banging on the door and queuing up to beg for a change in the electoral system. Since I was elected in 1992, not one constituent has asked for that. They might come about schools and hospitals, but a change in our electoral system is not high on the list of topics that they complain about. I do not believe that that urge for change exists beyond those whose interests are served by it.
The commission is part of a political strategy being pursued by the Government. It is a dangerous strategy, because the game is played with loaded dice. First past the post is not perfect, but it works. It has given us precious political stability in Britain. It is not perfect, but it offers more accountability than the alternative. It gives power to the people, not the politicians. PR is politics for politicians by politicians, but politics should be for the people, not politicians. Ultimately, it is the people's votes that matter.
9.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on assuming his new responsibilities. I think this is his first time at the Dispatch Box in his new role, and I wish him well; he has made a good start.
This has been a very good speech—[Interruption.] That was a slip of the tongue, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I meant to say that this will be a very good speech. This has been a good debate in which—quite apart from the contributions by Front Benchers—22 Back Benchers have spoken. That is very useful. I congratulate the Opposition on raising an important matter which should be debated by the House. Most, if not all, the speeches showed a very good understanding of the issues involved, and were well and thoughtfully delivered. They were in the best traditions of the House.
The House has demonstrated an amazing knowledge of the ins and outs of politics in New Zealand—in fact, almost every hon. Member commented about the situation in that country. I am almost tempted to abandon my long-held dislike of long-haul flights and travel to New Zealand to see for myself—[Interruption]—although not for some time. Opposition Members are very rowdy tonight; I do not know where they have been.
All hon. Members are, by definition, experts in the systems to which we submit ourselves in order to get here. There is nothing wrong with that—it makes us very knowledgeable about those systems and how to get through them. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out clearly the Government's view: any electoral system must be appropriate to the functions and role of the body that it is used to elect. That point is self-evident.
The Government were criticised for seeking to introduce several different systems into this country. There will be an additional member system for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, a regional list system for the European Parliament and the prospect—I stress that word—of a different system for Westminster elections following the report of the Jenkins commission. Such criticism fails to take account of the test that I mentioned a moment ago: are the electoral systems under consideration appropriate to the roles and functions of the bodies that they will elect? That is the ultimate test.
In so far as decisions have already been made, I argue that those systems meet that test in every respect. The decisions that are still to be made must be judged against that standard. For example, the Scottish Parliament will be a different body altogether from the European Parliament. The members of those organisations perform very different functions, and it is only right that the different systems used to elect them should recognise that fact.
Yet the Opposition seem to believe that all Members should be elected in the same way, using the first-past-the-post system on almost every occasion for any election, regardless of the function of the body concerned. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Opposition Members make my point. We have explained how we believe that British Members of the European Parliament and the new devolved assemblies should be elected. We
262
shall undoubtedly have many more lively debates in future in this and another place when the relevant legislation is considered.
In respect of elections to this House, we have, as has been thoroughly debated tonight, established an independent commission to recommend the best alternative to the first-past-the-post system, if—I stress that word—there is to be any change. After that, we are prepared to let the people who elect us decide whether they want to change the system by which they do so.
Mr. Hayes: Will the Minister assure us that the Government would not take a partisan line in any such referendum, and would put the case for the status quo and for change objectively and fairly, without taking a line?
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) raised that issue, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary covered it. I shall cover the ground that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned in a moment.
Ultimately, the decision will be made by the electorate in a referendum. My right hon. Friend has said that the constituency basis of first past the post has served this country well for many years, and the Jenkins commission has been asked to take its retention into account. I shall say more about that in a moment.
Mr. Grieve: I find it difficult to follow the Government's reasoning. A number of my hon. Friends have said, and it is certainly my experience, that there appears to be no public demand for the change, so why are the Government opting for a referendum? Presumably, they have a view on the subject—what is it?
Mr. Howarth: The Government's view, which has received some support from both sides of the House, is that it is ultimately for the electorate to choose whether to change the system by which hon. Members are elected to the House. It would be wrong for hon. Members to take a view and to push through legislation to make a change without first consulting the electorate. It would not be useful at this point for me to say that one system is better than the other—otherwise, what would have been the point of our setting up an independent commission and asking it to go through the arguments?
A great deal of our legitimacy as Members of Parliament derives from the fact that we are elected for identifiable constituencies. Hon. Members have made the point that a lot of the experience that we accumulate as constituency Members makes us better Members of Parliament, and one or two former Ministers have said that decisions that they made in the Cabinet or as junior Ministers were influenced by such experience. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, the independent commission should take the importance of the constituency link into account when arriving at its conclusion. That gives some fairly heavy hints about the directions in which it might have to go to satisfy the terms of reference.
Mr. Maclean rose—
Mr. Gummer rose—
Mr. Howarth: I give way, finally, to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
Mr. Maclean: I was provoked to intervene when the Minister referred for, I think, the fourth time to the

263
"independent" Jenkins commission. Does he share the Home Secretary's view that it is not independent, but only "relatively independent"?
Mr. Howarth: Who would I be to disagree with my right hon. Friend? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the importance of the word "independent" is that the commission is clearly independent of the Government. It might not be independent in the view that it takes of the issue, but that is an important distinction, as my right hon. Friend explained. It would have been utterly pointless to ask the commission to consider what would be the most appropriate alternative to first past the post if there was known hostility to any alternative system.
The commission is not a creature of the Government. It will arrive at a view in the manner that it believes most fitting, and will make recommendations accordingly. Before Conservative Members jeer, they should at least see what the commission comes up with.
Mr. Gummer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I must make progress.
Mr. Gummer: How many people have come to the hon. Gentleman's surgery in the past year asking for electoral reform?
Mr. Howarth: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a direct answer: none. However, the people of Blackburn have an enormous influence on my right hon. Friend, and he tells me that he is regularly asked about it by his constituents. There we have it: the people of Blackburn speak, and my right hon. Friend acts. That is yet another example of the importance of the constituency link. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and I gave him an answer. I do not see what is so amusing about that.
The hon. Member for Woodspring and the right hon. Member for Huntingdon argued that Governments under any system must make unpopular decisions. That is a fair point. The Government have realised that on occasions it is necessary to make tough choices. No one would argue that they should slavishly follow the findings of every opinion poll. I am not arguing for a change to our electoral system; I am simply saying that we should not design a system on that principle alone. Electoral systems that lead to the creation of Governments must accommodate that process, but it does not necessarily follow that the system must give Governments carte blanche.
The right hon. Member for Huntingdon has apologised for not being present for the winding-up speeches because he had to attend an important charity function. I know that no discourtesy was intended. He talked about the need for strong government, consistency and stability. I do not want to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman: he is not present, and, although he may have become unpopular before the last election, he is respected in the House. It is a different matter for him to argue with any conviction that the Government of which he was Prime Minister was stable, however. They did not enjoy enormous popular support while he was Prime Minister. Former Chancellor
264
Norman Lamont once declared that, although they were in power, they did not seem to be in control. [Interruption.] The previous Government had problems under first past the post. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Right hon. and hon. Members on the Front Benches must be quiet. I am listening to the Minister. If they do not want to listen to him, they can leave.
Mr. Howarth: The former Chancellor said that the previous Government were in office but not in power. That was a fair point. The problem was created by the electoral arithmetic and by the divisions in the Conservative party over Europe. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon cannot argue that the Government of whom he was Prime Minister were a strong Government.
Let me mention particularly the speeches of the right hon. Members for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and for Penrith and The Border, who asked about the arrangements that would arise from the referendum. I cannot go a great deal beyond what was said by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary until the commission has reported to the Cabinet and it has had a proper opportunity to consider its report, but funding, and how the campaign will be conducted, are important questions.
We recognise the need for a system that will enable the electorate to make an informed decision about the best way forward, and how it should be handled. Parliament will have an opportunity to debate the report following its publication, and, subsequently, an opportunity to discuss how the referendum should be conducted.
Dr. Fox: Will the Minister confirm his belief that, in the event of a referendum, Ministers should be able to campaign on both sides?
Mr. Howarth: That decision will be made by the Cabinet at the time. It is not realistically possible to give any assurance before we know exactly what the recommendations will be, but of course that option will have to be taken into account.
This has been a useful debate. The Liberal Democrat spokesman—the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—made an elegant speech; indeed, he had some interesting comments to make, in his customary courteous manner. I can tell him, and the House, that as regards Westminster elections—understandably, that is the subject that has basically concerned hon. Members today—the arrangements will not be changed without the electorate being given a say first, by means of a referendum.
The question facing the Opposition—who tabled the motion and chose the subject—is not whether the public are willing to trust them. That decision is not in prospect for some years. In the first instance, the Opposition should wait and see what the commission has to say. The wording of their motion fails to take account of the fact that, whatever proposal the commission accepts, it will ultimately be for the electorate to decide. The real question that the Opposition must ask themselves is whether they are willing to trust the electorate.
That is the difference between the Opposition and us. Whatever views we may hold as individuals—whatever view I may hold, and whatever view my right hon. Friend

265
the Home Secretary may hold—we are clear about the fact that, ultimately, the electorate are the only group that should have the power to say aye or no to any change in the electoral system. In marked contrast, the Conservative party said in its submission to the Jenkins commission that the Government's four criteria were broad proportionality, voter choice, the need for stable government and the constituency link. It had argued, it said, that the British system met those criteria much better than the alternatives on offer; consequently, no referendum should be held on the electoral system.
That is the Conservatives' view: it is a matter for them to decide, and the electorate should have no say in it, because there should be no referendum. That is entirely wrong. It is wrong in principle for the House to have the power to change the electoral system—or, for that matter, to retain the present system—without consulting the electorate; but it would appear that that is what the Conservative party wants.
The Conservatives still show the contempt for the electorate that got them thrown out last year, and I do not think that tonight they have demonstrated their fitness to convince the electorate that anything has changed. I urge the House to put its trust in the electorate, and not to accept any motion tabled by the Opposition. They have shown that they do yet not even understand what they have done wrong.
Question put—
The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 339.

Division No. 290]

[9.58 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Faber, David

Amess, David

Fabricant, Michael

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Fallon, Michael

Arbuthnot, James

Flight, Howard

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Baldry, Tony

Fox, Dr Liam

Beggs, Roy

Fraser, Christopher

Bercow, John

Gale, Roger

Beresford, Sir Paul

Garnier, Edward

Body, Sir Richard

Gibb, Nick

Boswell, Tim

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Gray, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Green, Damian

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Greenway, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Grieve, Dominic

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Burns, Simon

Hague, Rt Hon William

Butterfill, John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Cash, William

Hammond, Philip

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Hayes, John

Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

Chope, Christopher

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Clappison, James

Horam, John

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Collins, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Cran, James

Jenkin, Bernard

Curry, Rt Hon David

Johnson Smith,

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Day, Stephen

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Duncan, Alan

Lansley, Andrew

Duncan Smith, Iain

Leigh, Edward

Evans, Nigel

Letwin, Oliver

266

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Lidington, David

Shepherd, Richard

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Loughton, Tim

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Spicer, Sir Michael

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spring, Richard

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Streeter, Gary

McLoughlin, Patrick

Swayne, Desmond

Madel, Sir David

Syms, Robert

Malins, Humfrey

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maples, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

Mates, Michael

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Townend, John

May, Mrs Theresa

Tredinnick, David

Moss, Malcolm

Trend, Michael

Nicholls, Patrick

Tyrie, Andrew

Norman, Archie

Viggers, Peter

Walter, Robert

Ottaway, Richard

Wardle, Charles

Page, Richard

Whittingdale, John

Paice, James

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Pickles, Eric

Wilkinson, John

Prior, David

Willetts, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Robathan, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Woodward, Shaun

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Yeo, Tim

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Ruffley, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

St Aubyn, Nick

Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mr. Oliver Heald.

NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Burgon, Colin

Ainger, Nick

Burnett, John

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burstow, Paul

Alexander, Douglas

Butler, Mrs Christine

Allan, Richard

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Cable, Dr Vincent

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Caborn, Richard

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Austin, John

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Ballard, Jackie

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Banks, Tony

Canavan, Dennis

Barnes, Harry

Casale, Roger

Barron, Kevin

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Bayley, Hugh

Chaytor, David

Beard, Nigel

Chidgey, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clapham, Michael

Bennett, Andrew F

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Berry, Roger

Clark, Dr Lynda

Best, Harold

(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Betts, Clive

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Blackman, Liz

Clwyd, Ann

Blears, Ms Hazel

Coaker, Vernon

Blizzard, Bob

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Coleman, Iain

Boateng, Paul

Connarty, Michael

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cotter, Brian

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cousins, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben

Crausby, David

Brake, Tom

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Brand, Dr Peter

Cummings, John

Breed, Colin

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

(Copeland)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Browne, Desmond

Cunningham, Ms Roseanna

Buck, Ms Karen

(Perth)

Burden, Richard

Dafis, Cynog

267

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davidson, Ian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hurst, Alan

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Hutton, John

Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Illsley, Eric

Dawson, Hilton

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Denham, John

Jamieson, David

Dismore, Andrew

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Dobbin, Jim

Johnson, Miss Melanie

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

(Welwyn Hatfield)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Doran, Frank

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Drew, David

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Ms Jenny

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

(Wolverh'ton SW)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Efford, Clive

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Ennis, Jeff

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Etherington, Bill

Keeble, Ms Sally

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Fatchett, Derek

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Fisher, Mark

Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Flint, Caroline

Khabra, Piara S

Flynn, Paul

Kidney, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Kilfoyle, Peter

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Kingham, Ms Tess

Foulkes, George

Kirkwood, Archy

Galbraith, Sam

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Gapes, Mike

Laxton, Bob

Gardiner, Barry

Lepper, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Leslie, Christopher

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Goggins, Paul

Linton, Martin

Golding, Mrs Llin

Livingstone, Ken

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Lock, David

Gorrie, Donald

Love, Andrew

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McAllion, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCabe, Steve

Grocott, Bruce

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Grogan, John

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Gunnell, John

McDonnell, John

Hain, Peter

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McLeish, Henry

Hancock, Mike

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Hanson, David

McNulty, Tony

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mactaggart, Fiona

Harris, Dr Evan

McWalter, Tony

Harvey, Nick

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Mallaber, Judy

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Mandelson, Peter

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hepburn, Stephen

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Heppell, John

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Martlew, Eric

Hill, Keith

Maxton, John

Hinchliffe, David

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hoey, Kate

Meale, Alan

Home Robertson, John

Merron, Gillian

Hoon, Geoffrey

Michael, Alun

Hope, Phil

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Milburn, Alan

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Miller, Andrew

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mitchell, Austin

Howells, Dr Kim

Moffatt, Laura

Hoyle, Lindsay

Moonie, Dr Lewis

268

Moore, Michael

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Soley, Clive

Morley, Elliot

Southworth, Ms Helen

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Mudie, George

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Mullin, Chris

Steinberg, Gerry

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Stevenson, George

Norris, Dan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Oaten, Mark

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Olner, Bill

Stott, Roger

O'Neill, Martin

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stringer, Graham

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pearson, Ian

Stunell, Andrew

Pendry, Tom

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pickthall, Colin

Swinney, John

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

Plaskitt, James

(Dewsbury)

Pollard, Kerry

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pond, Chris

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pound, Stephen

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Timms, Stephen

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Tipping, Paddy

Primarolo, Dawn

Todd, Mark

Prosser, Gwyn

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Purchase, Ken

Touhig, Don

Quin, Ms Joyce

Trickett, Jon

Radice, Giles

Truswell, Paul

Rammell, Bill

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rapson, Syd

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rendel,David

Tyler, Paul

Vaz, Keith

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Vis, Dr Rudi

Rogers, Allan

Wallace, James

Rooker, Jeff

Walley, Ms Joan

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ward, Ms Claire

Rowlands, Ted

Wareing, Robert N

Roy, Frank

Watts, David

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Welsh, Andrew

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

Ryan, Ms Joan

(Swansea W)

Salter, Martin

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sanders, Adrian

Willis, Phil

Savidge, Malcolm

Wills, Michael

Sawford, Phil

Winnick, David

Sedgemore, Brian

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Shaw, Jonathan

Wood, Mike

Sheerman, Barry

Woolas, Phil

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Singh, Marsha

Wyatt, Derek

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Smith, Miss Geraldine Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mr. David Clelland and Mr. John McFall.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on its constitutional reform programme; welcomes the creation of the Independent Commission on the Voting System and its remit; and supports the commitment of the Government to consult the people of the United Kingdom by a referendum on the appropriate electoral system to be used to elect this House

PETITION

  Proposed Prison, Winwick
  10.15 pm
  Helen Jones: This is the petition of the electors of Warrington, North. The petitioners are opposed to the construction of a new prison at Winwick on the site of Winwick hospital. The petition gives the reasons for their opposition.
  The petition has been supported by the majority of local people and many local councillors and is signed by nearly 4,000 people. It says:
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons oppose any plans for a penal institution to be built in Winwick.
  To lie upon the Table.

  George Atkinson
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Were you to have ventured on to the internet today, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and looked up the website for Dubai, you would have been struck by the prominence given to golf and the images of spectacular golf courses in the desert—courses that were built by my constituent, Mr. George Atkinson, who is a successful business man from Rockbourne, near Fordingbridge.
  Mr. Atkinson left Dubai in 1993, but returned in March last year to watch the desert classic golf tournament—a tournament that he initiated on a golf course that he built. He was arrested, and has languished in a Dubai gaol for the past 15 months.
  It was more than a year before charges were brought against him. I have a difference of opinion with the Foreign Office about what constitutes a charge, but I hold to the view that no charge that would be understood as such by an Anglo-Saxon mind was brought against my constituent for more than a year.
  My constituent has now been charged and was in court on Sunday afternoon, where his case was remanded until 20 June. I fear that the case will be adjourned again and dragged out, just as the bringing of charges was dragged out. However, that will not benefit my constituent by giving him more time to form his defence, because he has been detained in unacceptable conditions. He has been subjected continually to petty harassment and bullying. All sorts of arbitrary acts of petty power have been used against him to undermine his morale and his defence.
  My constituent faces complex fraud charges, which require him to have access to documents. He estimates that he will have to look through 12 filing cabinets of documents that are pertinent to building a defence. He also, of course, needs access to his lawyer. The access that he is afforded is very restricted. His solicitor must apply to see him three days in advance, and is finally granted a very short time in an open police office where the business of that office proceeds around him. It is a most unsatisfactory and unacceptable set of circumstances.
  I should like to put on record my thanks to the Foreign Office for its assistance. The consul general, Mr. Armour, has been outstanding in his assiduous efforts on behalf of my constituent to improve the conditions in which my constituent is held. I mean that most sincerely. I should also like to thank Baroness Symons for the time that she has given the case. She has read a large volume of correspondence and consented to discuss the matter with me on no less than seven occasions, three of which were lengthy meetings and two of which were attended by members of Mr. Atkinson's family and his legal representative in this country.
  Although I am very thankful for such assistance, I have some differences with the Foreign Office. I was shocked to see a letter from the Foreign Secretary to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) in which it was stated that my constituent, Mr. Atkinson, had been offered bail, but had refused it. My constituent has never properly been offered bail.

  271
  At the outset, the bail set was extortionate. My constituent offered as surety a Dubai business man of some standing, but the authorities in Dubai rejected him as unacceptable.
  Subsequently, when my constituent's solicitor tried to reopen the question of bail, he was told explicitly by the attorney general in Dubai that he would not permit it because he wanted to protect the confidentiality of the investigation. Now that charges have been brought, bail has been set at £1.6 million, which is vastly more than the sum that is the subject of the fraud. It is well beyond the means of my constituent or any of his supporters or friends.
  Bail is a key component due to my constituent's need to consult a large volume of documents. In his cell, he is allowed only very limited access to documents and his solicitor. He also wants the use of a personal computer. Were he on remand in custody in this country, he would not have unlimited access to and storage of documents, he would not have unlimited access to his solicitor and he certainly would not have the use of a PC in his cell. But, were he remanded on such a charge in this country, he would not be remanded in custody. He would be held on bail and would not face such problems.
  The Foreign Office has taken the view that it is not proper for it to approach the authorities in Dubai on the question of bail, that the decision must be for the courts in Dubai. Mr. Al Tamimi, my constituent's solicitor in Dubai, informs me, however, that approaching the courts for bail is a complete waste of time. Any such request must be made to the office of the ruler because that is where, in effect, the issue is being decided.
  It is for that reason that I sought this Adjournment debate. I want to bring it to the attention of the Foreign Office that my constituent is detained in Dubai not as a consequence of any crime that he has committed, but because of a political problem.
  The charge against my constituent is that he aided and abetted a Government official in defrauding the Government of Dubai of a sum equivalent to £1 million. There was no such official. There was a British expatriate, an employee of the construction firm Laing. The evidence of that individual is the basis on which charges were brought against my constituent, but that evidence has changed substantially between two sworn affidavits. The key change—the second affidavit is the basis of the charges—is the financial arm twisting and pressure brought to bear on that individual. It is extraordinary that he has not been charged, and his wife comes and goes freely in Dubai, where she still runs a business. I expect the discrepancy between the two affidavits shortly to become the subject of a police investigation in this country into perjury.
  Even if the allegations against my constituent had been true, he had an indemnity against any action by the Dubai Government. When he left in 1993, he offered his thriving companies—they were healthy, despite being owed £1 million by the Government of Dubai for outstanding invoices—in full and final settlement against any claim, and that offer was accepted by the Government of Dubai.
  Mr. Atkinson returned to this country. He had not given up his title to the desert classic golf tournament, and when he filed an action in the United Kingdom's High Court
  272
  naming the Government of Dubai as co-conspirators in an attempt to take that title from him, he caused deep offence to that Government. My constituent's mistake—his contributory negligence—lay in his return to Dubai as a tourist to watch the desert classic. He was arrested, and he has been in gaol ever since.
  My constituent is the victim of arbitrary power. Unless the Government address that issue, they will be of little more than marginal assistance to him. They should address this as a political question, not a legal one. They should bring their political influence to bear on the friendly Government of Dubai. The Foreign Office has done such things with similar regimes in the past, so why not do so for my constituent? I sincerely hope that our relations with Dubai remain friendly; it is with friendly states that we can exercise influence. If we cannot exercise such influence, there seems little point in having a Foreign Office at all.
  10.28 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I welcome the opportunity to record the actions of the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our embassy in Dubai in this case. I shall outline our knowledge of the case to date, and shall refer to the help we have provided for Mr. Atkinson and his family.
  To begin with, I wish to state in the strongest possible terms that the Government are fully committed to supporting and helping Mr. Atkinson and all British nationals who are detained or in prison overseas. We therefore respect the hon. Gentleman's strong commitment to his constituent. He has made his case powerfully. I am sure that his constituent's family will be pleased by that and respect the way in which he has acted on their behalf and on behalf of George Atkinson.
  I shall offer an overview of the case. Many of the facts have been mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Atkinson lived in Dubai with his family for nearly 11 years. During that time, he ran a successful local landscaping, construction and design business known as Gulf Landscape Services. In September 1993, Mr. Atkinson was accused of unlawfully paying bribes to Mr. Steven Trutch. Mr. Atkinson admitted having made payments to Mr. Trutch, who was employed by Sheikh Mohammed, in return for the award of Government contracts. He claimed that these payments were part of normal business practice in Dubai, that they were openly paid and received, and that they were paid with Sheikh Mohammed's full knowledge. According to his UK lawyer, Mr. Atkinson was told that, unless he was prepared to transfer all the business, good will and assets of Gulf Landscape Services to the Government of Dubai and Sheikh Mohammed, criminal and civil proceedings would ensue.
  In January 1994, Mr. Atkinson signed a settlement agreement between Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid and a number of businesses, agreeing to transfer all their respective businesses to the Government of Dubai and Sheikh Mohammed. In return, Mr. Atkinson was allowed to leave Dubai. He believed that that settlement was a full settlement of all claims against him.

  273
  As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Atkinson returned to Dubai on 26 February 1997 to watch the Dubai desert classic golf tournament. On the weekend of 1 and 2 March 1997, he was arrested by the Dubai police and has since then been detained in the public prosecution detention centre of the public prosecutor's building for paying commission and bribing Mr. Trutch. The embassy was told that the public prosecutor's office was giving special attention to the case because it was filed by the ruler's office.
  On 3 March last year, the British embassy in Dubai was told by the authorities about the arrest of Mr. Atkinson. Consular staff sought immediate access and visited him the same day. He maintains that his detention is unlawful and that he is being held only for political reasons—much the argument of the hon. Gentleman. At the time of his detention, Mr. Atkinson was pursuing a £4 million breach of contract and conspiracy claim against the Dubai Government and the Professional Golfers Association tour in the High Court in London.
  Since Mr. Atkinson's detention, his family and supporters and his Member of Parliament have claimed that he was being held without charge. We sought clarification from the Dubai authorities, and were told by the Attorney-General that initial charges relating to bribery and fraud had been laid against Mr. Atkinson and that, when investigations into the case were completed, he would either be finally charged and the case referred to court or be released.
  The United Arab Emirates has a well-developed, sophisticated judicial system. Initial charges are a recognised formal step in the Dubai legal process. On 5 April 1998, formal and detailed charges were laid against Mr. Atkinson, and the case was referred to court. The first court hearing took place on 19 April, the second last Sunday on 31 May. It was attended by the embassy's vice-consul. The case has now been adjourned until 21 June.
  The hon. Gentleman referred briefly to the prison conditions in which Mr. Atkinson finds himself. He is being held in police detention cells in the public prosecutor's building. He has access to a doctor and a dentist when necessary, and conditions are generally better than in Dubai's prisons. The food is reasonable, and I understand from our consular staff that Mr. Atkinson is relatively fit and well. He receives a special low-fat diet, he is allowed regular visitors and he has access to a telephone. The embassy raises with the public prosecutor any problems he has concerning prison conditions.
  The hon. Gentleman made kind comments about the help provided by the Foreign Office, and it may be useful to him, his constituent and his constituent's family if I put that help on record. We have been in the most regular and frequent correspondence with Mr. Atkinson's family and friends. They did not believe that Mr. Atkinson had been charged and were unwilling to accept statements from the Attorney-General and a press announcement issued from the UAE embassy in London confirming that initial charges had been made and that copies had been sent to Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson's wife and daughter visited No. 10 Downing street and discussed the case with the Prime Minister's private secretary.
  My noble Friend Baroness Symons, the Minister responsible for consular matters, has met the hon.
  274
  Gentleman, the Atkinson family and their UK lawyer twice, most recently on 22 April. She has taken those opportunities to explain the background to the case and to set out the action taken by the Foreign Office. In addition, the Atkinson family called on the Foreign Office consular division in London twice in the last year and spoke at length to the officials responsible for our interest in the welfare of Mr. Atkinson. We shall continue to do everything we can to ensure that Mr. Atkinson's rights are respected, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we cannot interfere in the Dubai judicial system, just as we would not allow them to interfere in ours.
  The hon. Gentleman also spoke kindly about the role of consular staff, and I shall ensure that his words are brought to the attention of the consul. The job of our consular staff in Dubai is to ensure that Mr. Atkinson has access to a lawyer; that he knows his legal position and has information about the legal and prison system; that he receives the same level of treatment as other prisoners and is not discriminated against because he is British and a non-UAE national; and that any medical problems are dealt with quickly. Any complaint of ill treatment is taken up immediately and, I can assure the hon. Gentleman, vigorously with the police authorities.
  However—this is where there may be a difference in understanding between the hon. Gentleman and ourselves—our role is essentially an humanitarian one. Consular staff visit Mr. Atkinson regularly—there have been 13 visits so far. He also receives regular visits from his friends and lawyer, and is in regular contact with the embassy by fax and telephone. The consul general is in regular contact with Mr. Atkinson's wife and has twice in the past three months met a group of Mr. Atkinson's friends. Our staff can and do pass messages and money for prison comforts from Mr. Atkinson's family and friends. The welfare of British prisoners is a high priority for the Government, but we are acutely aware that the needs of families are equally important and we do our best to help them to maintain regular contact.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the embassy in Abu Dhabi and the consulate in Dubai follow Mr. Atkinson's case very closely. The consul general and his predecessor have raised it with Sheikh Mohammed, Dr. Khalifa, head of the ruler's office, and several times with the Attorney-General. As I have said, we cannot interfere in the Dubai justice system, but we have urged the Dubai authorities to release Mr. Atkinson or bring him to trial. Now that the trial has begun, I promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to press the Dubai authorities to deal with this case quickly.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the United Kingdom has close relations with the United Arab Emirates. He is right: we have good bilateral relationships on a range of issues—our economic affairs, the broader political issues in the region, on which we have much in common, and, in particular, defence. That close relationship means that we are in a very strong position to continue to raise individual cases. I assure him that we continue to raise Mr. Atkinson's case. I hope that he is reassured that the Foreign Office has been active on Mr. Atkinson's behalf.
  Mr. Swayne indicated assent.
  Mr. Fatchett: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's nod of approval to recognise the role played by the Foreign Office. We shall maintain the support that I have described, and we shall maintain contact with the hon. Gentleman. If he wants to see me or Baroness Symons on this issue, we will be delighted to meet him. We shall maintain our interest in the case and report to him what is occurring.
  276
  I hope that I have been able to satisfy the House that we are taking this case seriously and that the Foreign Office is working to help Mr. Atkinson. We cannot directly interfere in the judicial system, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the issue is on the Foreign Office's agenda.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Wheel Clamping
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the outcome of discussions with the Home Department on the regulation of the wheel clamping industry. [43193]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government intend to include a statement on this subject in their forthcoming Transport White Paper.

  Road Maintenance
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the current backlog in road maintenance on(a) trunk roads and (b) other adopted roads. [43188]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  In December last year, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced an increase of 50% in the Highways Agency's provision of capital maintenance on trunk roads and motorways to £300m for 1998–99. It is estimated that this will overcome underfunding in recent years and hold the trunk road network in a steady state condition. There is currently no central government estimate of maintenance backlog for local authority roads. Road maintenance for the future is an issue which we are considering in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to proposals from the Water Companies Association to increase abstraction to meet demand in areas of water shortage. [43548]

  Angela Eagle
  Proposals for new or increased abstractions of water to serve the needs created by development must be discussed with the Environment Agency which regulates abstractions through its licensing system. A review of that licensing system was announced at the water Summit last May and we shall shortly be publishing a consultation paper on a range of proposals for change. Water companies have duties to maintain and develop efficient and economical water supply systems to meet the needs of their areas, and to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. They are currently preparing water resource plans to maintain a balance between demand and supply over the next 25 years.
  154

  Air Bags
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the letter of 10 November 1997 from the Minister for Transport in London to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (J/P50/10405/97), what is her Department's latest assessment of the development of air-bags for aircraft. [44064]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There have been no further developments to those outlined in my letter of 10 November 1997.

  No Man's Heath Bypass
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce a decision on the A41 No Man's Heath bypass; and if he will make a statement. [43382]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Inspector's report on the public inquiry into the proposed A41 No Man's Heath and Macefen bypass was received on 3 December 1997. My right hon. Friend will announce his decision in the light of the Inspector's recommendations as soon as possible.

  Single-person Households
  Mr. Tom King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the proportion of households formed in each region between 1991 and 1996 which were single-person households. [43858]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no suitable survey sources for the information requested. However, my Department makes annual estimates of the total number of households by applying household information derived from recent censuses and the Labour Force Survey to the annual mid-year population estimates produced by the Office for National Statistics.

  Using these figures for 1991 and 1996, the net change in the number of one person households as a percentage of the net change in total households is as set out.

  Government office region

  Net increase in the number of one person households (thousands)

  Net increase in the total number of households (thousands)

  Percentage of total net increase that is one person households

  North East

  34

  34

  102

  North West

  71

  87

  82

  Merseyside

  15

  10

  149

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  64

  84

  76

  East Midlands

  59

  95

  62

  West Midlands

  69

  90

  77

  Eastern

  85

  135

  63

  London

  112

  158

  71

  South East

  122

  194

  63

  South West

  73

  110

  66

  England

  702

  996

  71

  In some areas the net growth in one person households exceeds the net growth in total households. This can be explained by, for example, one person households being

  155
  formed when one member of a couple dies. This increases the number of one person households by one but the overall number of households remains unchanged.

  A49
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to review proposals for improvements to the A49 between Ludlow and Shrewsbury. [43383]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 2 June 1998:
  The Minister of Transport in London has asked me to reply to your recent question about plans to review proposals for improvements to the A49 between Ludlow and Shrewsbury.
  The Highways Agency regularly reviews the operation of its trunk roads and last year commissioned its agent, at that time, Shropshire County Council, to carry out a number of safety and traffic calming studies on the A49. From 1 April, we appointed a new agent, WSP Graham, who will be reviewing the outcome of those studies with a view to acting on their recommendations at the earliest opportunity. The Agency's Area Manager, whose responsibilities include this length of A49, recently met with representatives of a newly formed Safety Campaign Group to listen to their concerns. We shall be carefully considering the points which they raised as part of the review process.
  In addition, you will be aware that a review of the trunk road programme is currently being carried out, the results of which are due to be announced shortly.

  National House-building Council
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the operations of the NHBC. [43868]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the last year I have received representations concerning some 35 cases involving the NHBC Buildmark warranty scheme, some of which also involved NHBC in its capacity as an approved building control inspector. From these representations and other sources I am aware of the dissatisfaction with the way the Buildmark scheme sometimes operates. That is why, on three occasions in the past year, I have met the Chief Executive and other senior staff of the NHBC to hear progress with their Buildmark review. I am awaiting a further update from them on action to improve the operation of the scheme. As regards building control, I have welcomed the setting up by the Construction Industry Council, the Local Government Association and the Association of Corporate Approved Inspectors of a steering group to draw up recommendations on a common performance standard applicable to private sector approved inspectors and to local authority building control officers.

  Wild Boars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the wild boar population in(a) East Sussex, (b) Kent, (c) Dorset and (d) elsewhere in the United Kingdom; what is his policy in respect of these animals; and if he will make a statement. [43217]
  156
  Angela Eagle
  The Central Science Laboratory has recently completed a review of the current status and potential impact of wild boar on the English countryside. This Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food are currently considering the review and a statement will be made in the near future.

  Driving Test Centre, Chelmsford
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress being made to move the Driving Test Centre in Beeches Road, Chelmsford, to an alternative site in the town; and if he expects the move to be completed prior to 31 December. [43165]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Planning approval has recently been granted for the building of a new driving test centre at the Chelmer Business Park. We are confident that we shall be able to switch driver testing to there and cease at the current premises in Beeches Road, by the end of this year.

  Traffic Conditions (Warrington)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect on weekend traffic conditions on the A49 and on Cromwell Avenue in Warrington of building a new Junction 8 on the M62. [43385]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Helen Jones, dated 2 June 1998:
  I have been asked by the Minister for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the M62.
  The results of recent roadside traffic surveys carried out by the Highways Agency in this area are still being assessed. However, we expect them to confirm that the provision of the new junction would reduce significantly weekend traffic on the A49 and on Cromwell Avenue in Warrington.

  Vulnerable Road Users
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what he is doing to educate all road users to be aware of vulnerable road users, in order to reduce two-wheeler, horse-riding and pedestrian casualties. [42334]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Highway Code contains advice for road users and aims to help prevent accidents by ensuring that all road users follow the same rules. The Code is being revised. We are considering how to highlight the need for motorists to be aware of vulnerable road users. In July there will be a 25 per cent. increase in the number of questions on driver awareness of all vulnerable road users in the driving theory test question bank. We also provide a wide range of publicity and information material for use by Road Safety Officers, police, schools and others to promote consideration for vulnerable road users. Examples include the Horse Sense for Motorists and the Drive Safe Cycle Safe leaflets.
  157

  Two-wheeled Vehicles
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if it is his policy that steps to restrain motor car use should not apply automatically to powered two wheelers. [42335]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 365.

  Deprivation
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the updated Index of Local Deprivation will be published. [44135]

  Mr. Caborn
  I am today placing in the Library copies of a summary of the 1998 Index of Local Deprivation. The Index of Local Deprivation combines 12 up to date measures on different aspects of deprivation into a single indicator for all local authority districts in England. The Index will be used as background information for the development of regeneration policy and programmes. A further review of the Index will be commissioned later this year to take account of new data sources relevant to deprivation which will include income support statistics for areas smaller than local authority districts.

  Termites (North Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Government are proposing to take to control and eradicate the infestation of termites at Saunton, North Devon; and if he will make a statement. [44136]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government are determined to do everything possible to contain and destroy the termite infestation at two properties in Saunton, North Devon. Our priority is to stop the infestation spreading and to destroy it at source.

  I can therefore announce that the Government will fully fund a 12 year eradication and control programme, costing some £190,000, which will start immediately the consent of the affected owners has been received.

  As my noble Friend Baroness Hayman indicated in Another Place on 28 April 1998, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 150–53, when the presence of this reinfestation became known the Government asked the Building Research Establishment (BRE) to explore, as a matter of urgency, the optimum means of eradicating the termites. The programme—which has been drawn up at my request by the Building Research Establishment together with experts from agencies including the Pest Management Unit of Imperial College (London), the Natural Resources Institute and CTBA-BIOTEC, France—will be based on close monitoring within 500 metres of the affected properties followed by baiting using an insect growth regulator which will prevent the developing insects from maturing.

  The Government have accepted these proposals as the best way forward, and the consortium led by the BRE has been asked to implement the eradication strategy forthwith. The proposal, based on the existing knowledge of the extent of the infestation, is to survey and monitor an area within a 500m radius of the known infestation, but to install a more intensive monitoring grid in the
  158
  grounds of the two affected properties and within a 200m radius of them. If surveys show that the activity extends beyond this area, it will be extended. Once activity is detected within the growth regulator hexaflumuron is proposed to be installed. Bait stations would also be installed at suitable locations within affected timbers in the infested properties. Monitoring will continue for up to ten years after activity has ceased in order to ensure that the treatment has indeed been effective. This work is dependent upon the co-operation of all property and land owners within this area, and officials in my Department are seeking their permissions as a matter of urgency.

  It should be stated that it is not possible to be certain of the outcome. The BRE report stresses that total eradication of a termite population is not normally considered feasible in other countries where the termite is endemic. However, since the population appears to be very restricted in this country, on the basis of the knowledge that this is a single infestation centred on two adjacent properties, we are assured by the experts that there is a high probability of success in eradicating the termite colony.

  As it is considered essential to do all possible to curtail this infestation before it spreads further, the Government have undertaken to fund the full cost of the eradication and monitoring work.

  Leaseholders (Service Charges)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a further commencement order in respect of the Housing Act 1996, enabling disputes over the reasonableness of service charges between landlords and long leaseholders on which court proceedings began before 1 September 1997 to be transferred to leasehold valuation tribunals. [44137]

  Ms Armstrong
  Today my Department is publishing for consultation proposals which should be welcome to a number of those leaseholders who have not so far been able to take advantage of the improved arrangements for dealing with service charge disputes under the Housing Act 1996.

  Section 83 of that Act allows a residential tenant or landlord to go to the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (LVT) rather than to a civil court when seeking a decision on whether or not service charges are reasonable. It also gives the court discretion to transfer to the LVT any question relating to the reasonableness of service charges which falls within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. This provision came into effect on 1 September 1997 but it has not so far been applied to cases where court proceedings had begun before that date. Representations have been made that this exclusion is unfair.

  Under the further Commencement Order proposed today, the court's discretion would also apply to cases where proceedings had begun before 1 September 1997. This would allow the courts to consider whether the interests of justice would best be served by transferring a service charge dispute in such a case to the LVT.

  Subject to consultation, the proposed further Commencement Order should bring these new measures into effect in August 1998. Tenants involved in

  159
  proceedings which started before 1 September 1997 may wish to take legal advice about the implications of these proposals.

  Reservoirs Act
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to simplify the procedures in the Reservoirs Act 1975 for making appointments to panels of civil engineers and for enforcing the safety provisions of the Act. [44121]

  Angela Eagle
  I am today issuing a consultation paper, jointly with the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, setting out the Government's proposals to amend the Reservoirs Act 1975. These proposals involve the transfer of the Secretaries of States' responsibilities for making appointments to the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the transfer of local authorities' enforcement duties in England and Wales to the Environment Agency. I am satisfied that these measures will result in the procedures being made less burdensome both for candidates for appointment and for reservoir undertakers. The amendments would be made by an Order under section 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I have today placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Library of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Sittings of the House
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the President of the Council on how many occasions since the House adopted the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on the Sittings of the House business was concluded by 7 pm on Thursdays. [43286]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  The House has risen before 7 pm on Thursdays on three occasions since January 1995 and on a further 15 occasions the business under consideration at that time was the half-hour adjournment. My hon. Friend will be aware that the original Sittings of the House Report in 1991–92, known as the Jopling report, recommended that, on the Thursdays immediately preceding non-sitting Fridays, the House should complete its main business by 7.00 pm and rise after the adjournment at 7.30 pm. The Committee also said that 7.00 pm on the other Thursdays should be the normal time for completion of main business. On the 26 Thursdays before non-sitting Fridays since January 1995, the House rose before 8 pm on 11 occasions and before 9 pm on eight other evenings. On the 83 Thursdays preceding sitting Fridays since then, the House rose between 10 and 10.30 pm on 44 occasions, later than that on eight occasions and adjourned before 9 pm on 26 evenings.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Users National Council
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the members of the Post Office Users National Council and their terms of office. [43327]
  160
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The current members of the Post Office Users National Council, who are generally appointed for individual terms of 3 or 4 years, are:

  Member

  Appointment expiry date

  John Hackney (Chairman)

  30 September 1999

  Eric Diston

  31 December 1998

  Rodger Gooding

  31 December 1998

  Gary Hepburn

  31 December 1998

  David Morris

  31 December 1998

  Edward V idler

  31 December 1998

  Dennis Wilson

  31 December 1998

  Dr. Stephanie Stray

  31 December 1999

  Frederick Bell

  31 December 2000

  Keith Hitchings

  31 December 2000

  Andrew Robertson1

  30 September 1999

  Eifion Pritchard1

  30 September 2000

  Gerard Trainor1

  31 August 2000

  1 Sit on the National Council by virtue of their appointments as Chairmen of the Post Office Users Councils for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

  In the current round of appointments, I am seeking a more balanced representation in terms of gender and ethnic origin on all the Consumer Councils.

  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the procedures are for nomination and appointment of members to the Post Office Users National Council. [43328]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The procedures for appointments to the consumer councils for which I am responsible have been drawn up since Lord Nolan published his report and are fully compliant with the Guidance of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. An advertisement for appointments to a number of consumer councils, including the Post Office Users National Council, appears in the press annually. At the time of advertising we also seek nominations from a number of sources including the Council Chairmen, the Public Appointments Unit and all consumer representative organisations and minority groups. Applications are considered by an interview panel, which includes an independent representative, and a short list of candidates is interviewed. Thereafter Ministers select appointees from among all those successful at interview on the basis of merit. This year I expect to be able to confirm the appointments to the Post Office Users National Council by October. I am seeking to ensure that this recruitment provides for better representation of gender and ethnic minorities.

  The procedures outlined above were drawn up by a Departmental Appointments Panel which has five independent members.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42777]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Between 1 May 1997 and 31 May 1998 my Department has laid 8 amending regulations which resulted in compliance cost savings to business. These are as follows:

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Network User Stations) (Exemption) Regulations 1997;

  The Gas Act 1986 (Exemption) Order 1997;

  161

  The Insurance Companies (Accounts and Statements) (Amendment) Regulations 1997:

  The Restrictive Trade Practices (Non-Notifiable Agreements) (Sale and Purchase, Share Subscription and Franchise Agreements) Order 1997;

  The Restrictive Trade Practices (Non-Notifiable Agreements) (Turnover Threshold) Amendment Order 1997;

  The Cosmetic Products (Safety) (Amendment) Regulations 1997;

  The Wireless Telegraphy (Licence Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 1998; and
  The Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 1998.

  Regulations to reduce the burdens on business are not necessarily targeted on businesses of a particular size. The regulations listed are expected to reduce burdens on business irrespective of size.

  EU Structural Funds
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the United Kingdom population reside in areas in receipt of Objective 1 Funding. [43440]

  Mrs. Roche
  Of the United Kingdom's population, 6.0 per cent. reside in areas in receipt of Objective 1 Funding.

  Source:

  European Commission, Structural and Cohesion Fund 1994–99 Regulation and Commentary.

  Funeral Industry
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further action is being taken to improve consumer protection in the funeral industry. [43476]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Director General of Fair Trading announced on 15 May that he is to instigate an inquiry into the 'at need' funeral industry. I very much welcome this initiative. I share his concern about any allegations of malpractice and aggressive selling techniques in the funerals industry and call upon the industry to raise standards of consumer service.

  I am also urgently considering measures to ensure that consumers who purchase their funerals in advance are properly protected. My Department is in regular contact with interested parties.

  Business Link North West London
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 193, on Business Link, London North West, (1) on what basis the committed and actual partner contributions figures include in kind contributions; [43992]

  (2) if she will provide a detailed breakdown of the forecast figure of £160,000 partnership income for the financial year 1998–99. [43993]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: For the financial year 1997–98 Business Link North West London received £150,000 as a partnership contribution. Of this sum £25,000 was allocated to the salary of a North West London TEC contracts manager who had the specific duty of servicing the Business Link.
  162
  For the financial year 1998–99 the forecast contribution will flow from savings produced as a result of the merger. At this stage it is not possible to provide a detailed breakdown.

  Fireworks
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how retailers are to dispose of their stocks if the Fireworks Bill is enacted. [43669]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  The Fireworks Bill is a Private Member's Bill which, if enacted, would provide the capability to deal with issues which cannot be addressed under the presently available powers. However, the fact of the Bill reaching the statute book would not of itself result in any new controls on fireworks being introduced. A key element in the Bill is a provision which would allow for the introduction of a training regime for the organisers of firework displays.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes have been made to import controls on fireworks since November 1996; and what plans she has for further changes. [43389]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  There have been no changes to import controls on fireworks since November 1996.

  The Fireworks (Safety) Regulations 1997, which I made in September 1997, introduced a number of firework safety measures including banning bangers, flash bangers, fireworks with erratic flight, aerial shells, maroons and other large fireworks from sale to the public. The Regulations also place limits on the size of certain fireworks—such as Roman Candles—which can be sold to the public. These restrictions apply both to imported fireworks and to those manufactured in the United Kingdom.

  I am currently discussing with the firework industry the "traceability" of imported fireworks to improve the interception of dangerous ones.

  Plutonium
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will publish the figures for the United Kingdom's stock of civil plutonium as at 31 December 1997. [44282]

  Mr. Battle
  I have today placed in the Library of the House figures for the United Kingdom under the new format showing national holdings of civil plutonium as at 31 December 1997. These figures are published as part of the UK's renewed commitment to improve transparency and openness in its management of our national holding of civil plutonium. This follows the same format as that announced on 2 December 1997 for holdings as at 31 December 1996. In accordance with the requirements of the 'Guidelines for the Management of Plutonium', I have today sent a copy of the figures to the Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who will be circulating it to Member States in due course.

  EC Telecommunications Council
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Telecommunications Council on 19 May. [44281]
  163
  Mrs. Roche
  I chaired the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 19 May.

  Substantial progress was made towards agreement on two decisions: on the further development of mobile and wireless communications in Europe (universal mobile telecommunications system); and on a multi-annual programme to promote safe use of the internet. Both decisions will be finalised once the European Parliament has given its first reading.

  Following a presentation of the report from the ad hoc Working Group on electronic commerce, which examined the Commission Communication on Globalisation and the Information Society, the Council adopted conclusions on this subject. The Commission gave oral presentations of a draft Directive on a European framework for electronic signatures, and a Communication on the radio frequency requirements for Community policies in the context of the World Radiocommunications Conference 1999. The

  Film title

  Lottery award

  Budget

  Release date

  Number of screens

  Total box office to date (£)

  Glastonbury The Movie Limited

  36,061

  125,000

  Released 12.6.96

  Opened on 3; played up to 75

  £

  True Blue

  1,000,000

  3,500,000

  Released 15.11.96

  108 screens

  152,042

  Crimetime

  302,421

  3,817,755

  Released 29.11.96

  23 screens

  13,127

  A Midsummer Nights Dream

  750,000

  2,300,000

  Released 29.11.96

  6 screens

  25,859

  Frantz Fanon

  84,000

  320,000

  Released 27.6.97

  1 screen, ICA

  2,180

  The Slab Boys

  520,000

  2,500,000

  Released 29.8.97

  8 screens

  15,911

  Gallivant

  170,000

  334,366

  Released 19.9.97

  3 screens

  21,000

  Photographing Fairies

  890,000

  3,620,000

  Released 19.9.97

  60 screens

  81,609

  Shooting Fish

  980,000

  2,135,000

  Released 17.10.97

  206 screens

  4,023,915

  Wilde

  1,500,000

  6,000,000

  Released 17.10.97

  53 screens

  1,746,912

  The Tango Lesson

  690,000

  2,700,000

  Released 28.11.97

  60 screens

  207,120

  Keep the Aspidistra Flying

  1,000,000

  2,750,000

  Released 28.11.97

  9 screens

  105,163

  The Woodlanders

  1,400,000

  4,300,000

  Released 6.2.98

  18 screens

  177,442

  Downtime

  768,898

  1,956,495

  Released 13.2.98

  42 screens

  28,135

  Bent

  561,000

  2,154,183

  Released 6.3.98

  3 screens

  27,962

  My Son the Fanatic

  750,000

  2,134,800

  Released 1.5.98

  16 screens

  60,084

  Amy Foster

  2,000,000

  10,500,000

  Released 8.5.98

  39 screens

  20,371

  Love and Death on Long Island

  750,000

  2,300,874

  To be released 3.7.98

  The Land Girls

  1,500,000

  5,800,000

  To be released 28.8.98

  Love is the Devil

  364,551

  1,119,364

  To be released 9.98

  The Governess

  907,075

  2,803,000

  To be released 10.98

  The Revengers Comedies

  950,000

  4,000,000

  Release date tbc

  Among Giants

  665,000

  2,479,000

  Release date tbc

  Divorcing Jack

  800,000

  3,350,000

  To be released autumn 98

  Metroland

  865,000

  2,953,347

  Release date tbc

  A Kind of Hush

  750,000

  2,215,287

  Release date tbc

  Food of Love

  800,000

  2,100,000

  UK Distributor tbc

  Peggy Sue

  500,000

  1,130,000

  UK Distributor tbc

  Sixth Happiness

  469,727

  976,081

  UK Distributor tbc

  Nana

  160,000

  320,000

  UK Distributor tbc

  Get Real

  800,000

  1,808,000

  UK Distributor tbc

  Cable Television
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will ensure that future cable television licensing agreements require the provision of high quality local programming by franchise operators and that that provision be monitored by the ITC. [43109]

  Mr. Fisher
  The award and regulation of cable television licences is, by statute, a matter for the
  164
  Commission also provided an oral update on discussions with the US on the subject of internet domain name governance.

  The Commission and I briefed the Council on progress in tackling the Millennium Bug. In particular, I reported to the Council on the conference hosted by the UK on 8 May this year, in London.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Film Industry
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those films which have received lottery funding indicating(a) how much lottery money each received, (b) their total budgets, (c) their release dates, (d) the number of screens on which they opened and (e) their takings to date. [41802]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 13 May 1998]: The table shows the information available as provided by the Arts Council of England.

  Independent Television Commission (ITC). The terms of the Broadcasting Act 1990 require that licences awarded by the ITC under that Act contain no positive requirements for specific programming categories or quality. The ITC will however continue to monitor conditions relating to local programming in cable licences issued by the Cable Authority under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, for which the Commission is now responsible.
  165

  Libraries
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what public money is being provided to help libraries take advantage of new technology. [41985]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]The Government published their plans for the development of an IT Public Libraries Network on 16 April. £70 million of Lottery funding will be made available from the New Opportunities Fund for the development of new digital resources and the provision of ICT training of public library staff, together with £6 million to support the development of infrastructure.

  EU Culture Council
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the outcome of the Culture Council on 28 May. [44192]

  Mr. Fisher
  EU Ministers of Culture met on 28 May 1998 in Brussels. Ministers agreed a common position regarding the proposed European Parliament and Council decision establishing a Community action for "The European City of Culture" event for the years 2005 to 2019. Ministers also agreed the cities to be offered the title "European City of Culture" and "European Cultural Month" for the years 2001 to 2004.

  The European Commission presented its proposal for a new culture framework programme. Ministers held an exchange of views on the Commission's proposal.

  The Presidency provided the Council with information about an informal meeting between the Cultural Affairs Committee and representatives of the Council- of Europe which took place on 16 April and focused on the impact of new technologies upon culture.

  The Commission provided the Council with a progress report on its study on cross border fixed book prices in the European Union.

  Ministers also held an exchange of views on culture and employment.

  Ministers agreed a draft recommendation concerning the protection of minors and human dignity in audiovisual and information services.

  The Presidency gave a report on the European Audiovisual Conference, "Challenges and Opportunities of the Digital Age", which was held in Birmingham on 6–8 April. The Council adopted Council conclusions on the outcome of the Conference.

  Ministers discussed a proposal to establish a European Film Award and the Commission agreed to undertake a study. Under any other business, access to archives in the European Union, the importance of music and music sector, and Weimar's plans as City of Culture 1999 were mentioned.
  166

WALES

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when up-to-date figures will be available on the incidence of breast cancer among women by unitary authority area and by age. [43473]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit is dealing with the registration backlog at the rate of one year's data every four months.

  This means incidence data for the current calendar year (1998) should be available by February 2000. For 1999 and subsequent years, data will be available in the following September.

  Football Trust
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to assist the work of the Football Trust in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [44053]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  I have no such plans but discussions are ongoing between the Sports Council for Wales, the Football Association of Wales and the Football Trust on how they might make the best use of their joint resources to develop football in Wales.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the year end financial position of each NHS trust in Wales. [44193]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The table shows the unaudited end year financial position of NHS trusts in Wales. Twenty one of the 29 trusts improved on their projected year end position provided in their December quarter returns. The efforts made by the trusts are appreciated.

  £000

  Trust

  Unaudited year end position

  December quarter projected figures

  Bridgend and District

  25

  0

  Cardiff Community

  315

  259

  Carmarthen

  -1,557

  -1,659

  Ceredigion

  -918

  -1,100

  Clwydian Community

  179

  187

  East Glamorgan

  168

  92

  Glan Y Mor

  13

  0

  Glan Clwyd

  167

  127

  Glan Hafren

  330

  330

  Gwent Community

  66

  66

  Gwynedd Community

  63

  97

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  198

  -92

  Llandough Hospital

  -1,346

  -1,822

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  -646

  -800

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  69

  49

  Morriston

  -1,667

  -2,691

  Nevill Hall and District

  18

  -82

  North Glamorgan

  54

  -308

  North Wales Ambulance

  4

  56

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen

  -2,039

  -2,097

  Powys

  -900

  -1,278

  Rhondda

  132

  116

  SEWAT

  58

  0

  Swansea

  49

  60

  University Dental Hospital

  7

  -92

  University Hospital of Wales

  -1,462

  -4,574

  Velindre

  23

  87

  West Wales Ambulance

  0

  0

  Wrexham Maelor

  -87

  -737

  Total

  -8.684

  -15,806

  167

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to conclude his review of immigration cases where domestic violence is involved; and if he will make a statement. [43200]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The review is nearing its conclusion and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Reginald Kray
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how often Reginald Kray has been found in possession of alcohol in the last 12 months; and what is its source. [42139]

  Ms Quin
  While Mr. Kray has not been found in possession of alcohol during the last 12 months, reports prepared for his most recent Parole Board review in March of this year referred to admission by him that he continued to drink illicit alcohol.

  Sentencing
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps are being taken to ensure uniformity of sentences for similar offences in different areas; and if he will make a statement. [43610]

  Mr. Michael
  Provisions in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords] place a statutory duty on the Court of Appeal to consider producing sentencing guidelines. The Bill also establishes a new sentencing advisory panel which will offer advice to the Court of Appeal. Taken together, we are confident that these measures will help to ensure greater consistency in sentencing.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued to the Immigration Service regarding arrangements for asylum seekers to be represented at interviews held at ports. [43464]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Current and longstanding instructions to the Immigration Service about representation at interviews of passengers at ports have not altered significantly in recent times.

  All passenger interviews, including those of asylum seekers, are conducted under Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. It is not a mandatory requirement for a representative to be present at any interview. However, at the discretion of the immigration officer, representatives are usually admitted to interviews once their bona fides have been established and provided that no unreasonable delay is involved.

  On arrival in the United Kingdom, all port asylum seekers are given written information about access to legal advice including details of the Refugee Legal Centre and The Immigration Advisory Service.
  168

  Prison Site, Morecambe
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the proposed temporary prison at Middleton Sands, Morecambe will close. [43663]

  Ms Quin
  A condition of the planning clearance is that the period between the opening and closing of the prison should not exceed three years; and the prison should close prior to 31 December 2001.

  UK Visa Applications (Turkish Cypriots)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he received a request from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), to reply to a query regarding visas for Turkish Cypriots entering the United Kingdom; when he received a letter on the same subject dated 4 February from the right hon. Member for Strangford; and if he will make a statement. [44030]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have received a number of representations on this issue, including a letter from the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) received on 30 April, and will write to the hon. and right hon. Members concerned as soon as possible.

  Easter Sunday Trading
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to prevent indoor retail outlets trading on Easter Sunday. [44031]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Under the Sunday Trading Act 1994, only those shops with a relevant floor area of more than 280 square metres are prohibited from trading on Easter Sunday. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Act's provisions. Contravening the shop opening hours provisions can attract a fine of conviction of up to £50,000.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Travel Expenses
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total value in real terms of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and (b) staff rail fares paid in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and the percentage change in each year since 1989–90. [42551]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information required to answer this question is not readily available and to obtain it would involve disproportionate cost.

  Thailand
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given to the Thailand Government to prevent cross-border incursions by the Burmese military. [43470]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received no request from the Thai authorities for assistance to prevent incursions from Burma. As EU Presidency, we have condemned recent incursions and highlighted their impact on refugees along
  169
  the Thai-Burma border. Our Embassies in Rangoon and Bangkok have raised our concerns with their host governments at a high level.

  Most recently, I raised the issue of Burmese refugees in Thailand with General Chettla Thanajaro, Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army, in Bangkok on 29 May.

HEALTH

  Winter Pressures
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the extra funding provided to the NHS for coping with winter pressures was spent on projects involving joint working with social services. [42190]

  22. Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the extra funding provided to the NHS for coping with winter pressures was spent on projects involving joint working with social services. [42198]

  Mr. Boateng
  Of the £159 million allocated to health authorities in England, over one fifth (some £35 million) was transferred to social services departments for projects where the need was specifically for social care. Details of the precise spend on other projects which involved joint working with social services is not available centrally. However, we made it clear that all projects funded by the additional resources should be developed in consultation with local social services departments.

  NHS Quality Standards
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve mechanisms within the NHS for the introduction of more demanding quality standards. [42191]

  Mr. Milburn
  Our White Paper "The New NHS", published last December, set out a range of proposals for driving and supporting quality improvement in the National Health Service. We shall shortly be publishing a consultation paper which sets out some of our key proposals in more detail.

  Infertility Treatment (Workington)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on his review of the case of Mrs. X of Workington, whose name has been supplied to him. [42192]

  Ms Jowell
  I understand that this case is about a woman who has not been able to obtain in-vitro fertilisation treatment in Cumbria as she is not eligible under the North Cumbria Health Authority's criteria for infertility treatment. Like most National Health Service treatments, infertility treatment is funded through the general funding of health authorities, and decisions about the allocation of resources and about who should be eligible for treatment are the responsibility of individual authorities. We are determined to address concerns that the NHS should provide equality of access to services throughout the country and are currently considering what further advice the NHS should be given on infertility service provision.
  170

  Health Action Zones
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money he is making available to support the development of health action zones. [42193]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are making £5.3 million in 1998/99 and £30 million from 1999/2000 available to support the first wave of Health Action Zones.

  Health Authorities (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the reorganisation of health authorities and community trusts in West Yorkshire; and if he will make a statement. [42194]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have received no proposals to reorganise health authorities or community trusts in West Yorkshire.

  Health Information (Men over 40)
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to provide improved health information to men over 40 years of age. [42195]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to provide improved information on health to men over 40 years of age. [42208]

  Ms Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friends to my oral reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) today,Official Report, column 161.

  Elderly Patients
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to ensure patients aged over 75 years are not discharged without adequate social services available for their care. [42196]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Department is undertaking a number of relevant activities. Guidance on hospital discharge is under review. Social services inspectors are about to publish a report on local authorities' hospital discharge arrangements. The Department is working with health and social services authorities to develop assessment and care management, including written care plans for all patients on discharge from hospital, rehabilitation and recuperation services and joint investment plans.

  Grimsby Hospital
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to improve mechanisms within the NHS for the introduction of more demanding quality standards at Grimsby hospital. [42197]

  Mr. Milburn
  Our White Paper "The New NHS", published last December, set out a range of proposals for driving and supporting quality improvement in the National Health Service. We shall shortly be publishing a consultation paper which sets out some of our key proposals in more detail. The proposals for hospitals will apply to all hospital trusts and therefore to Grimsby hospital.
  171

  Treatments (Clinical Effectiveness)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have to enforce NHS guidance on the clinical effectiveness of treatments. [42200]

  Mr. Milburn
  In the White Paper "The New NHS" we announced the end of the internal market in the National Health Service. The new National Institute for Clinical Excellence will set the standards of care that must be equally available to all. For the first time, the Government will require managers throughout the NHS to give as much attention to the effectiveness of treatments as to efficiency and cost. We will develop and publish National Service Frameworks which will make it clear what patients can expect from the NHS, and we will use the Service Frameworks to drive up quality through our management of NHS performance.

  NHS Hospitals
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new NHS hospitals have been announced since 1 May 1997. [42201]

  Mr. Milburn
  Thirty hospital schemes have been given the go ahead since 1 May 1997. Twenty-five of these were under the Private Finance Initiative and five publicly funded.

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will encourage cancer treatment in hospitals with specialist cancer research facilities. [42202]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Calman/Hine report on cancer services recognises the importance of high quality research and recommends that this is carried out throughout the cancer care network—in cancer units, cancer centres; primary care and within the voluntary sector. This means that the necessary population is available for research; there is close liaison between the service and the research; and the results leading to improved care can be disseminated quickly.

  Prescriptions
  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure consistency between health authorities in respect of the prescription of certain drugs. [42203]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will work with the professions to produce National Service Frameworks and clinical guidelines which will be relevant to all health authorities. We will challenge and address variations in the provision of clinically and cost effective treatments not based on the health needs and wishes of local people.

  Heart Disease
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to reduce the incidence of heart disease. [42204]

  Ms Jowell
  Coronary heart disease is one of the biggest killers in this country. It accounts for some 120,000 deaths a year including premature deaths. Its incidence shows marked social class inequality. For example, men of 172
  working age in the bottom social classes are more than 50 per cent. more likely to die of coronary heart disease than men in the overall population.

  The Government are undertaking a variety of initiatives to tackle the risk factors for coronary heart disease. These include the forthcoming White Paper on tobacco control, a major campaign, called "Active for Life" to publicise the significant health benefits of moderately intense physical activity, a review, last year, of effective interventions in the prevention and treatment of obesity, and a directory of weight management services available across the National Health Service in England. We also launched a rolling programme of National Service Frameworks including the development of a framework for the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease, which will set national standards; put in place strategies to support implementation; and establish performance measures against which progress in reducing preventable death, tackling inequalities, and ensuring consistency of treatment, will be measured. The emerging findings from this work are expected in the autumn, and will be published and disseminated.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will ensure community and mental health services in Leeds receive an adequate share of the Government's extra investment in the NHS. [42205]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am pleased to say that Leeds Health Authority will receive a general allocation of £339.93 million in 1998/99, which is a total cash increase of £15.89 million over 1997/98.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the provision of long-stay beds for the mentally ill in(a) the North West Region, (b) the county of Cheshire and (c) East Cheshire NHS Trust. [42187]

  Mr. Boateng
  North West Region has resettled almost all long stay residents from the large institutions which provided treatment and care for people with mental health problems. There are still some final moves from some of the sites yet to be achieved. The whole of this was subject to a report submitted to the Independent Reference Group in 1997.

  At Winwick Hospital, the local mental health services are still in the process of moving to newly developed areas on the Winwick site and also to a purpose built mental health unit at Halton General Hospital, Runcorn. These moves have been notified to the health authority concerned and will be monitored closely by the North West Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive.

  In East Cheshire NHS Trust, patients previously at Parkside Hospital (the largest institution of its type in South Cheshire) have been reprovided for in a range of community based facilities, mostly within their home areas.

  Small Pharmacies
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to support the role of small pharmacies in delivering health care. [42206]
  173
  Mr. Milburn
  All pharmacies which provide National Health Service services receive a fair and appropriate level of remuneration for the work they carry out. We have in place special arrangements—the Essential Small Pharmacies Scheme—to guarantee a minimum NHS income for certain smaller pharmacies which might not otherwise be viable. We plan to continue both these forms of support.

  Health Inequalities
  Mr. Paul Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has commissioned into health inequalities. [42207]

  Ms Jowell
  We recently announced eight research projects at a cost of £1.7 million on inequalities in health. This round of commissioning has focused on important areas to do with children and young people as well as health service mechanisms. All the projects are geared to answering the question: what actions on the part of health and other services can be effectively taken to reduce inequalities in health? In addition the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health is reviewing existing research on this issue. Further research will be commissioned in the light of the Inquiry's report.

  National Service Frameworks
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken to introduce national service frameworks in the NHS. [42209]

  Mr. Milburn
  The annual programme of national service frameworks was launched on 16 April 1998. The initial programme of work will take forward the existing frameworks for cancer and paediatric intensive care, and will begin to develop new national service frameworks for mental health and coronary heart disease.

  Each national service framework will be developed with the assistance of an expert reference group which will bring together health professionals, service users and carers, health service managers, partner agencies, and other advocates. The reference groups for mental health and coronary heart disease will be established during the next few weeks, and will begin work in the early summer.

  Emerging findings will be published in the autumn and the frameworks in spring 1999. The National Health Service, working with partner agencies, will be expected to begin to plan for implementation from April 1999.

  Primary Care Groups
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made in respect of primary care groups. [42210]

  Mr. Milburn
  A great deal of work has been done since publication of the White Paper "The New NHS: Modem—Dependable" to establish Primary Care Groups. We are on course to have Primary Care Groups in place and operational by April 1999.

  Local discussions are now well under way to agree Primary Care Group configurations by July this year. We have also been consulting various interested bodies nationally on implementation issues. We have made £22 million available to help get Primary Care Groups off
  174
  the ground. This £22 million will be deliberately targeted to areas with higher numbers of non-fundholding general practitioners in recognition of the fact that they do not have the resources of the fundholder management allowances to draw on. It takes account of the fact that primary care management resources—including GP computing cash—has been unevenly distributed in the past. This is a first step to restoring equity across practices. It will be for local doctors and nurses to decide with their health authority how this money is best spent. This additional support will help family doctors and community nurses get their local Primary Care Group right so that patients get the maximum benefit from the new arrangements.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on Government funding for hospices. [42211]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is the duty of health authorities to arrange the provision of specialist palliative care services (including hospice care) commensurate with the assessed health needs of their populations, in the same way as for other health services. Since 1994/5, funding for this purpose has been built into health authorities' general allocations.

  Health Service Commissioner
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase confidence among parents in the role of the Health Service Commissioner with respect to the NHS complaints procedure. [42212]

  Mr. Milburn
  As an Officer of Parliament the Health Service Commissioner is independent of the Government and it is not for Ministers to intervene in the way he operates. However, we have every confidence that the Commissioner carries out his role in an entirely appropriate manner.

  Care (Young People)
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to involve young people in care in consultations on the provision of that care. [42213]

  Mr. Boateng
  Children Act Regulations prescribe that local authorities shall seek and take account of the views of a child before conducting any review of his case.

  Guidance on children's services planning highlights the importance of local authorities seeking children's views and giving due weight to them alongside those of parents and carers.

  A care leaver is one of the members of the Ministerial Task Force on children's safeguards, and the Department will be providing funding for the establishment of a new national organisation for young people in care and for care leavers.
  175

  Children's Rights
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to appoint(a) a United Kingdom children's rights commissioner and (b) an English children's rights commissioner. [24346]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to establish an office of Children's Rights Commissioner. During 1998 the Government will be preparing the Second United Kingdom Report to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in accordance with the requirements of Article 44 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989. We will take into account possible advantages of such an Office and note progress in other countries where such an Office has been established.

  Occupational Health
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical and nursing staff have worked in occupational health in the National Health Service for the last five years for which figures are available; and what were the grades of those employees. [42460]

  Mr. Milburn
  The available information is given in the tables. The introduction of a new method of classifying staff from 1995 means that nursing staff working in occupational health can no longer be separately identified.

  Hospital and community health services (HCHS) nursing staff working in occupational health in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Total

  630

  610

  590

  600

  640

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest ten

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce census

  NHS hospital medical staff occupational medicine staff by grade in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Grade

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  All staff

  70

  70

  90

  100

  90

  Consultant

  30

  30

  40

  50

  50

  Staff grade

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Associate specialist

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Senior registrar

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Registrar

  10

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Senior house officer

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  House officer

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hospital practitioner

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Clinical assistant

  20

  20

  30

  30

  20

  Other staff

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Notes:

  Previous to 1996 occupational medicine was called occupational health

  The figure for senior registrars in 1996 includes specialist registrars Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents Totals may not equal the sum of component parts due to rounding 0 = 5 or less and greater than zero

  — = zero

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.
  176
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to ensure that the guidance, Occupational Health Services for NHS staff 94(51), is being implemented in each NHS trust. [43598]

  Mr. Milburn
  Occupational Health Services for National Health Service Staff 94(51) has been superseded by the Management of Health, Safety and Welfare issues for NHS Staff 98(64). This guidance, issued on 18 May 1998 to all chief executives and human resource directors in health authorities and NHS trusts, covers all aspects of health and safety and occupational health.

  The NHS Executive is currently working on a new human resources strategy for the NHS. Taking forward occupational health provision will be a priority area for action requiring demonstrable year on year progress.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps are being taken to make occupational health services available to staff working in primary care. [43601]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive is working with representatives of interested parties to examine ways of extending occupational health provision to staff working in primary care, in the light of changes currently taking place in primary care provision.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations his Department has received in the last year on the extension of glaucoma testing as part of the NHS standard sight test; and if he will make a statement; [42368]

  (2) what estimates he has made of (a) the number and (b) the proportion of opticians who carry out the full three stage test for glaucoma in the course of NHS sight tests; what plans he has to extend the provision of all three tests to all patients receiving NHS sight tests; and if he will make a statement. [42366]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information from the College of Optometrists, which regularly reviews current practice among its members, suggests that, in testing patients over 40 and other patients predisposed to glaucoma, virtually all optometrists examine the optic disc and measure intra-ocular pressures, and over half routinely undertake a visual field assessment. These data are not broken down between private and National Health Service sight tests, but we would expect optometrists to adopt common practices for both groups of patients.

  We have not received representations on this subject.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation he has made of(a) the increased cost of ensuring that every NHS periodic sight test includes all three glaucoma detection tests and (b) the additional number of early-stage glaucoma cases that would be detected with universal three test procedures; and if he will make a statement. [42367]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are aware of research which suggests that the accuracy of referrals could be improved from 60 to 80 per cent. by the combined use of the 3 tests on patients at risk of glaucoma. There is a single fee for undertaking National Health Service sight tests which is set through negotiations between the Department and representatives of optometrists and ophthalmic medical
  177
  practitioners. Clinical developments are among the factors taken into account, but it is not possible to isolate their impact.

  Spinal Injuries
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people with spinal cord injury have not received specialist treatment at a spinal injuries unit in each of the last three years; [42653]

  (2) how many people with acute spinal cord injury are awaiting admittance to a spinal injuries unit; [42649]

  (3) how many people diagnosed with spinal cord injury died before reaching a spinal injuries unit, in each year since 1990–91. [42652]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what studies have been undertaken or commissioned by his Department on(a) the quality of life and (b) the long term cost of care of people with spinal cord injury who (i) received treatment and (ii) did not receive treatment at a spinal injuries unit; [42650]

  (2) what research his Department (a) has commissioned and (b) proposes into (i) the incidence and (ii) the prevalence of spinal cord injury. [42648]

  Mr. Milburn
  The Department's policy research programme and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research into spinal cord injuries. However, many NHS trusts support programmes of research and development, some of which are considerable. The NHS supports clinical trials in spinal injuries which are conducted within its facilities. A comprehensive database for the projects funded under these programmes is currently under development.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with spinal cord injury are currently being treated in(a) spinal injuries units and (b) non-specialist hospitals. [42651]

  Mr. Milburn
  We do not collect the information in the form requested. However, information for in-patient treatment, for the latest year available, 1995–96, is shown in the tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library, and is based on finished consultant episodes, which represent the number of episodes of care under individual consultants.

  NHS Drugs (Prices)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms exist to assess, monitor and regulate price increases in drugs used by the NHS. [43030]

  Mr. Milburn
  The prices of branded medicines sold to the National Health Service are regulated through the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS), which is a voluntary agreement between the health departments and the pharmaceutical industry. The scheme sets for each major company a profit cap (with various cost allowances), based on return of capital employed, within which the company is allowed to establish the price of new medicines it proposes to sell to the NHS. Increases 178
  in the price of medicines have to be agreed by the Department. Small companies (sales below £20 million per annum to the NHS) are not required to supply such detailed information as a matter of routine, but remain subject to the price restraint provisions of the scheme.

  Generic products are not included in the PPRS. We do not control their prices which are determined by competitive market forces.

  Slow Sodium Tablets
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase in the price of slow sodium tablets per 100 to the NHS between March and May 1998 in actual and percentage terms. [43032]

  Mr. Milburn
  The list price to the National Health Service of this product increased during this period from 55p to £6.05 per 100, an increase of 1,000 per cent. Officials wrote to HK Pharma specifically on this issue on 28 April. So far they have not replied.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will announce detailed plans for user representation on the Commission for Health Improvement; [43156]

  (2) what remit the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Commission for Health Improvement will have to encourage the spread of good practice in wheelchair services; [43157]

  (3) when he will announce detailed plans for user representation on the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. [43155]

  Mr. Milburn
  We will be consulting shortly on our detailed proposals for the Commission for Health Improvement and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the number of midwife vacancies in the NHS by health authority and NHS trust; [43150]

  (2) if he will list the number of midwives employed in the NHS by health authority and NHS trust; [43152]

  (3) if he will list the number of whole-time equivalent midwifery posts in the NHS by health authority and NHS trust.[43154]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive does not collect information on the number of vacancies or posts (counted as the sum of staff in post and vacancies) in the hospital and community health services. For the information that is available on midwife vacancies and posts in the NHS, I refer my hon. Friend to the reports of the Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Information on the number of midwives employed in English health authorities and NHS trusts is given in a table, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  179

  PFI (Loughborough)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made towards the completion of the private finance initiative project to replace Loughborough's general hospital. [43185]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive is expecting to receive a revised full business case (FBC) from Fosse Health NHS Trust for the scheme to replace Loughborough's general hospital under the private finance initiative scheme in June 1998. The FBC will then be considered for approval.

  Patients (Dietary Needs)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he will take to ensure that those patients who need assistance in feeding themselves obtain it; and if he will make a statement. [43459]

  Mr. Milburn
  It is the responsibility of clinical staff in hospitals to identify the needs of individual patients, including identifying people who need help with eating and drinking, for whatever reason, and the Department has issued guidance on meeting the dietary needs of people in hospital.

  The Department commissioned further work by the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to look at the whole issue of meeting the dietary needs of people in hospitals. We issued this work, "Eating Matters", in November 1997 and it was sent to all National Health Service trusts.

  We are strongly committed to improving the health and social care services provided to older people. In response to the recent "Dignity on the Ward" campaign by The Observer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned HAS 2000 to examine the care which acute hospitals provide for older people. HAS 2000 are expected to look at the problem nationwide, and are examining eight hospitals in greater detail. They will report directly to my right hon. Friend, who plans to publish their report. The study is being undertaken between January and June 1998.

  Total number of juniors

  North Thames Complying1 with New Deal

  Per cent.

  Total number of juniors

  South Thames Complying1 with New Deal

  Per cent.

  September 1991

  5,101

  3,086

  60

  3,372

  2,481

  74

  February 1992

  5,051

  3,078

  61

  3,358

  2,310

  69

  August 1992

  5,144

  3,757

  73

  3,562

  2,638

  74

  March 1993

  5,147

  4,294

  83

  3,481

  2,705

  78

  September 1993

  5,321

  4,667

  88

  3,606

  3,037

  84

  March 1994

  5,482

  4,115

  75

  3,639

  2,324

  64

  September 1994

  5,388

  4,132

  77

  3,821

  3,135

  82

  December 1994

  5,478

  4,760

  87

  3,652

  3,114

  85

  September 1995

  5,587

  3,813

  68

  3,858

  2,699

  70

  March 1996

  5,558

  4,091

  74

  4,039

  3,124

  77

  September 1996

  5,648

  4,378

  78

  3,976

  3,188

  80

  March 1997

  5,734

  4,816

  84

  4,280

  3,567

  83

  September 1997

  5,754

  4,906

  86

  4,190

  3,606

  86

  March 1998

  5,756

  4,856

  86

  4,360

  3,936

  90

  1 These figures represent hours' targets prevailing during the period; after December 1994 returns were altered to emphasise compliance with actual hours of work rather than contracted hours of duty

  1991–1994 (non-compliance with contracted duty hours on-call greater than 72)

  1995–98(non-compliance with actual hours of work on-call greater than 56)

  180

  Emergency Contraception
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of United States pilot projects allowing pharmacists to prescribe emergency contraception within protocols agreed with local doctors. [43456]

  Mr. Milburn
  No such assessment has yet been made. The review of prescribing, supply and administration of medicines is considering whether and in what circumstances health professionals other than doctors and dentists should be able to prescribe. We await its report later this year and will then consider our response.

  Drugs Treatment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 352, what percentage of the total number of drug users of (a) cannabis, (b) ecstasy and (c) heroin he estimates are in contact with drug treatment services. [43890]

  Ms Jowell
  Because of the covert and illegal nature of drug taking it is impossible to measure the number of people who take drugs in the general population and therefore to estimate the percentage who attend drug treatment services.

  Hospital Doctors (Working Hours)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average hours worked each week by hospital doctors in(a) the North Thames Region and (b) the South Thames Region in (i) the last year for which figures are available and (ii) each of the previous 10 years. [43688]

  Mr. Milburn
  Figures are not collected on average hours worked each week by hospital doctors. However, the New Deal on junior doctors' hours, begun in June 1991, requires each trust to monitor the hours of work of doctors in training against agreed limits over a series of target dates and to report compliance via regional task forces.

  Figures for on-call posts since 1991 for the two regions in question are in the table.
  181

  Secure Beds (London)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many local government secure beds are available in London for females under 18 years of age. [43641]

  Mr. Boateng
  All secure units are approved to accommodate boys and girls. There are currently 40 approved places within London with an additional 10 places coming on stream at Stamford House later this summer.

  NHS Staff (Assaults)
  Mr. Matins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults on staff in NHS(a) London and (b) South East hospitals have resulted in serious injury or death of members of staff in the last 10 years. [43449]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is currently no central collection or collation of data on violence in the National Health Service. There is a requirement for statutory reporting to the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985. This requirement relates to serious injury cases arising from activities on hospital premises, for example: deaths, specified fractures (for example skull or leg), loss of sight, injury requiring hospital in-patient treatment for more than 24 hours, or injury leading to absence from work for more than three days. In addition to this NHS trusts and health authorities collect information locally.

  GPs (Terms of Service)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the duty presently imposed on general practitioners by Paragraph 43 of the NHS Terms of Service will also be imposed on general practitioners who are part of a primary care group; if he will ensure that general practitioners in a primary care group are protected from litigation by patients for refusal to supply a drug solely on the grounds of cost; and if he will make a statement. [43365]

  Mr. Milburn
  General practitioners will continue to be expected to prescribe medicines to meet the clinical needs of their patients. Patients will continue to be guaranteed the medicines they need.

  Chlamydia
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a screening programme for chlamydia infection. [42199]

  Ms Jowell
  In line with expert advice we have received we have decided to set up pilot studies to evaluate the use of opportunistic screening for chlamydial infection. Portsmouth and Wirral have been identified as possible pilot sites and work is in hand to establish the detailed arrangements. These will start later this year and this experience will be evaluated to shape the course of future action.
  182

DEFENCE

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tactical and operational advice was given by Sandline officers from HMS Cornwall to Sandline staff. [42141]

  Mr. George Robertson
  There were no Sandline officers based on HMS Cornwall, and no tactical or operational advice was given by HMS Cornwall to Sandline personnel.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish all dispatches from HMS Cornwall while on station off West Africa in the last year. [42408]

  Mr. George Robertson
  A large number of communications were sent from HMS Cornwall covering a very wide range of subjects including operational, administrative and personnel matters. I am not, therefore, prepared to release this material and am withholding it under exemptions 1, 2 and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Any relevant material will, of course, however, be made available to the independent investigation by Sir Thomas Legg KCB QC.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated regarding the use and threat of depleted uranium. [43054]

  Mr. Spellar
  A detailed review of the environmental impact of depleted uranium on the Kirkcudbright and Eskmeals ranges was undertaken by an independent environmental consultant (W. S. Atkins) in 1995. This review concluded that the radiation doses and associated risks from exposure to both the public and the environment were extremely low.

  Additionally, a review being conducted within MOD of current developments and trends in munitions may have future clinical implications for the treatment of injured servicemen or women. The medical issues arising from the use of depleted uranium based ammunition against our own forces form part of the review. MOD is not conducting any experimental work on the short or long term effects of depleted uranium on humans, animals or the environment.

  Studies are also being carried out by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to establish the rate of corrosion of depleted uranium in the marine environment.

  Research and development work has been carried out on two tank munitions programmes which use depleted uranium, CHARM 1 and CHARM 3. These anti-tank rounds were developed under commercial contracts at the following locations: Royal Ordance facilities at Birtley and Featherstone, AWE Aldermaston; the former AWE Cardiff, and MOD ranges at Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright.

  I am withholding information on any other MOD research programmes involving depleted uranium under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
  183

  Helicopter Accident, Mull of Kintyre
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the new evidence he received on 19 May about the crash of Chinook helicopter ZD576 on the Mull of Kintyre; and if he will make a statement. [43177]

  Dr. Reid
  The information provided is currently being analysed and 1 will write to the hon. Member when the work is completed. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio when he expects to announce the cost of admission to the Millennium Dome. [43592]

  Mr. Mandelson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) will announce the cost of admission to the Dome in due course, taking into account the needs of the travel trade and the Company's aim to put tickets on sale to the public in the summer of 1999.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Consultants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is her estimate of the expenditure of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on external consultants in (i) 1995–96, (ii) 1996–97, (iii) 1997–98 to date and (iv) 1997–98 full year; and if she will also estimate the cost savings resulting from the employment of such consultants for each of the above years. [26605]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 5 February 1998]: The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  £000

  Expenditure

  Year

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)1

  1995–96

  10,284

  3,202

  1,221

  1996–97

  7,355

  3,291

  1,228

  1997–98

  5,979

  4,353

  1,235

  1 Information on NDPBs from the Department of Education is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  As consultants are, in many instances, engaged to contribute particular skills to an element of a much larger process, or where the necessary expertise is not available in-house, it is not possible to quantify savings resulting from the employment of such consultants, but in each instance consultants were engaged on the basis of best value for money.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish(a) the number of places on each
  184
  of her Department's non-departmental public bodies, (b) the number of places that are currently unfilled on each non-departmental public body, (c) the total number of members that have resigned since 1 May 1997, (d) the total number that have retired since 1 May 1997, (e) the total number that have not had their contracts renewed since 1 May 1997, (f) the total number that have remained in place since 1 May 1997 and (g) the total number that have been appointed since 1 May 1997. [35282]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 19 March 1998]: The information requested has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the average salary of(a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department; [42808]

  (2) what is the average attendance fee of (a) male and (b) female members of boards of non-departmental public bodies responsible to her Department. [42809]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The majority of board members of non-departmental public bodies give their time and services voluntarily and receive no payment other than normal travel and subsistence expenses. Where members do receive remuneration, this can vary between an annual salary, an honorarium or an attendance fee (which itself can be a daily rate or a half-daily rate, or calculated on a per meeting or per case basis). Individuals' remuneration therefore is not directly comparable. Full details of all payments to board members of non-departmental bodies, by gender, are given in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies 1997" are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Appointments
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when her Department's action plan for increasing the number of women holding public appointments will be published; and if she will place a copy in the Library. [42810]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Northern Ireland's action plan will be published shortly. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sites of special scientific interest there were in Northern Ireland on 1 March; and what was their total area in hectares. [42440]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  In Northern Ireland, these sites are known as areas of special scientific interest. On 1 March 1998, there were 139 of them, covering 79,529 hectares.

  Ethnic Communities
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she will take to ensure that the proposed new Equality Commission, addresses the concerns of the(a) South Asian and (b) Chinese communities in Northern Ireland. [42350]

  Mr. Worthington
  The White Paper 'Partnership for Equality' invited comments by 12 June on a proposal for the establishment of a new Equality Commission to
  185
  take over the functions now exercised by the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland, the Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the Disability Council for Northern Ireland. The existing obligations of the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland and the other equality bodies to combat discrimination and promote equality of opportunity within their respective fields would be fully maintained in the new Commission. Furthermore, the White Paper has proposed that an Equality Commission would have a significant new role in assisting the public sector to fulfil a statutory obligation to provide equality of opportunity and good relations between people of different racial groups.

  Agriculture
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost to her Department of administering grants to agriculture in the last year; and how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff were involved. [42436]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information could be provided in the form requested only at disproportionate cost. However, information about the Department's activities, including details of the running costs associated with each of its principal spending programmes for the year ending March 1998, is contained within the 1998 Northern Ireland Expenditure Plans and Priorities (Cm 3916), copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Voluntary Sports Clubs
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost in 1997–98 of mandatory rate relief for voluntary sports clubs in Northern Ireland. [42910]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The amount of the rate relief granted in 1997–98 in respect of premises occupied by clubs, societies or other organisation engaged in certain specified recreations is estimated to have been a little over £1.3 million.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many full-time equivalent vacancies the Child Support Agency had on 14 May; [42766]

  (2) how many staff are currently employed on casual contracts by the Child Support Agency; [42767]

  (3) how many employees resigned from working for the Child Support Agency in (a) 1997, (b) 1996, (c) 1995 and (d) 1994; and how many employees were appointed by the Child Support Agency in each of those years. [42765]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mrs. Faith Boardman. She will write to my hon. Friend.
  186
  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Dr. Brian Iddon, dated 1 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staffing in the Child Support Agency.
  I cannot provide precisely the information that you have requested, but have provided as much as possible from the most recent information available.
  The number of whole time equivalent vacancies that the Agency had at 1 April 1998 (the difference between staff in post and planned staff numbers) was 183.
  At the end of April 1998, the Child Support Agency employed 320 staff on casual appointments.
  Information on resignations and appointments are shown in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency—number of employees resigning and the number of new appointments

  Year

  Resignations1

  Appointments1

  1994–95

  606

  not available

  1995–96

  449

  not available

  1996–97

  500

  1,557

  1997–98

  764

  1,427

  1 Figures show available information for permanent and fixed term staff

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many absent parents have child support maintenance arrears, excluding Category A interim maintenance assessments of(a) £1 to £999, (b) £1,000 to £1,999, (c) £2,000 to £2,999, (d) £3,000 to £3,999, (e) £4,000 to £4,999, (f) £5,000 to £5,999, (g) £6,000 to £6,999, (h) £7,000 to £7,999, (i) £8,000 to £8,999, (j) £9,000 to £9,999, (k) £10,000 to £10,999, (1) £11,000 to £11,999, (m) £12,000 to £12,999, (n) £13,000 to £13,999, (o) £14,000 to £14,999, (p) £15,000 to £15,999, (q) £16,000 to £16,999, (r) £17,000 to £17,999, (s) £18,000 to £18,999, (t) £19,000 to £19,999 and (u) £20,000 or more; and what is the total amount of arrears outstanding. [43577]

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

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

  Letter from Faith Boardman to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 1 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about child support maintenance arrears.
  The numbers of child support maintenance accounts with arrears in the band-widths you have requested are shown in the attached table.
  The total amount of child support maintenance outstanding including regular maintenance and arrears but excluding Category A interim maintenance assessment arrears at 20 May 1998 was £726,407,399 relating to a total of 301,507 cases.
  Over the last year the Agency has moved away from imposing punitive Category A interim maintenance assessments and has concentrated on completing full maintenance assessments. This has led to an increase in the total full maintenance assessment debt,

  187
  but this puts the Agency in a better, more realistic position to increase the flow of maintenance to parents with care. This is demonstrated by the increase in the amount of maintenance collected and arranged during 1997–98 to approximately £547 million compared with approximately £400 million during 1996–97.
  To further increase the flow of maintenance and to help non-resident parents pay the arrears that they owe, wherever possible the Agency makes every effort to re-schedule debts; re-scheduled debts are those where the Agency has negotiated a closely monitored agreement with the non-resident parent to pay arrears by instalments. The amount of debt re-scheduled (included in the above) at 20 May 1998 was £340,207,244. This amount related to 204,098 cases and equates to 47% of the debt and 68% of the cases.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency full maintenance debt—£1 or greater at 20 May 1998

  Bands (£)

  Number of cases

  1 to 999

  155,790

  1,000 to 1,999

  42,814

  2,000 to 2,999

  23,592

  3,000 to 3,999

  15,245

  4,000 to 4,999

  10,461

  5,000 to 5,999

  7,432

  6,000 to 6,999

  5,673

  7,000 to 7,999

  4,252

  8,000 to 8,999

  3,341

  9,000 to 9,999

  2,521

  10,000 to 10,999

  1,912

  11,000 to 11,999

  1,639

  12,000 to 12,999

  1,205

  13,000 to 13,999

  888

  14,000 to 14,999

  724

  15.000 to 15,999

  531

  16,000 to 16,999

  403

  17,000 to 17,999

  305

  18,000 to 18,999

  206

  19,000 to 19,999

  158

  20,000 or more

  781

  Flood Victims (Northampton)
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what grants or loans are available to pensioners in Northampton who were victims of the recent floods; [42385]

  (2) what is the (i) average and (ii) range of time it has taken to process (a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans from date of receipt of application by the Benefits Agency to receipt of funds by the applicant; [42383]

  National Social Fund (SF) clearance targets 1997/98 and Benefits Agency's (BA's) achievement Table 1

  Clearance targets

  BA achievements in relation to the targets

  BA's average clearance time

  Community Care Grants (CCGs)

  65% cleared in 7 days

  86% cleared in 7 days

  5 working days

  95% cleared in 20 days

  99% cleared in 20 days

  Budgeting Loans (BLs)

  65% cleared in 6 days

  82% cleared in 6 days

  5 working days

  95% cleared in 20 days

  99% cleared in 20 days

  Crisis Loans (CLs)

  On the day the need arises'

  98%

  1 working day

  1 We aim to clear applications that are specifically for CLs on the day the application is received. All applications to the SF are considered for CCGs and BLs initially. At the point when the SF Officer knows that such an award is inappropriate a CL is considered. Whilst the majority of CL applications are made in person, a proportion of postal applications are received. Therefore, for the purpose of measuring performance, the target is considered to have been met if 95% of CL applications are considered on the day on which they were received

  Note:

  The information has been provided by the BA's Benefit Support SF Accounting Team, is provisional and maybe subject to change
  188
  (3) how many flood victims in Northampton have received (a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans; and what is the average value of each category of grant or loan. [42382]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of the Social Fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Sally Keeble, dated 1 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary questions about the Social Fund (SF) loans and grants available to the victims of the recent floods in Northampton.
  Over the Easter weekend, the Benefits Agency (BA)'s Northampton office was open to personal callers and for telephone enquiries. The Business Manager appeared on BBC Radio Northampton to publicise the additional opening hours and to give advice to the public. Social Services and the Police were also advised of the additional opening. All applications for immediate help on Sunday 12 and Monday 13 April were awarded. On Tuesday 14 April a flood helpline was made available to the public, giving them direct access to staff able to answer their enquiries. This telephone number was advertised in the local press and on local radio. District staff also attended public meetings, held on 14, 15 and 16 April, to offer advice and assistance.
  In common with all client groups, pensioners who were affected by the floods in Northampton were eligible to apply to the SF for Community Care Grants (CCGs) if they were receiving Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA(IB)), Budgeting Loans (BLs) if they have been in receipt of IS or JSA (IB) for 26 weeks or more and Crisis Loans (CLs) which might be payable irrespective of whether the applicant was in receipt of benefit.
  The BA measures the time taken to process applications to the SF by a series of targets which monitor the time from the date of receipt of the application to the date of the decision, not the date the applicant receives the funds. Information on the time taken to process CCGs, BLs and CLs is contained in the enclosed Table 1.
  Information relating to the range of time taken to process CCGs, BLs and CLs is not available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Information relating to the number and average value of grants and loans received by flood victims in Northampton is not available in the format requested. The BA collates statistics by BA Districts. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries or specific geographical areas.
  The BA does not routinely collate the reasons for SF applications. However, because of the nature of this emergency, the Northamptonshire District has maintained certain details of applications received from flood victims. Such information as is available is contained in Table 2 attached.
  I hope that this is helpful.
  189

  Social Fund applications from victims of the floods during April 1998 administered by the Benefits Agency's (BA's) Northamptonshire District1 Table 2

  Total number of applications

  Number of successful applications

  Average value of award (£)

  Community Care Grants

  8

  4

  573.50

  Budgeting Loans

  41

  36

  567.37

  Crisis Loans

  25

  25

  46.39

  1 BA's Northamptonshire District includes Corby, Daventry and Kettering Caller Offices, Northampton and Wellingborough. The information is provisional and may be subject to change

  Benefits Advisers
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many Benefits Agency offices or their equivalent had one or more benefits advisers on the premises(a) in 1979 and (b) currently. [43388]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  Although the Benefits Agency does not formally employ "benefits advisers", I can confirm that staff in every office of the Agency are able to provide advice about benefit entitlements and related matters, or to obtain such advice. Similarly, in 1979, every local benefits office in the Department of Health and Social Security employed staff who were able to provide or obtain such advice.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people of working age without disabilities received benefit payments and at what total cost in (i) 1980, (ii) 1990 and (iii) the latest date for which figures are available. [43949]

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

  Numbers of benefit recipients

  000

  Benefit

  19801

  19902

  For date see note3

  Maternity Allowance4

  119

  13

  12

  Widow's Benefit

  452

  312

  248

  Family Credit

  n/a

  324

  766

  Housing Benefit5,6,7

  n/a

  1,585

  2,201

  Council Tax Benefit/Community charge benefit5,6,7

  n/a

  82,360

  92,169

  Supplementary Benefit or Income Support5

  1,212

  2,347

  1,605

  Jobseeker's Allowance Income-based5

  n/a

  n/a

  1,173

  Jobseeker's Allowance Contribution-based only5

  n/a

  n/a

  176

  1 Maternity Allowance and Income Benefit is at November 1979.

  2 Maternity Allowance as at March, Widow's Benefit as at September, Family Credit, Income Support, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as at May.

  3Maternity Allowance as at May 1997, Widow's Benefit as at September 1997, Family Credit as at November 1997, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as at May 1996, Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance figures are at August 1997.

  190
  4 Maternity Allowance was abolished from April 1987. Statutory Maternity Pay was introduced from 6 April 1987.

  5 Information refers to benefit units or claimants where there is no disability premium in payment.

  6 Information does not include second adult rebate cases.

  7 Community Charge Benefit at May 1990.

  8 Council Tax Benefit at May 1996.

  9These figures do not take into account benefit overlap.

  10 A detailed breakdown of each benefit by working age could be provided for some benefits and years but this would be at a disproportionate cost.

  11 Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Source:

  1. Maternity Allowance figures for 1980 and 1990 are from a 1 per cent. sample of claimants and for May 1997 from a 5 per cent. sample.

  2. Widow's Benefit is from a 10 per cent. sample in 1980, 1990 and a 5 per cent. sample in September 1997.

  3. Family Credit for 1990 is a 1 per cent. sample and for 1997 a 5 per cent. sample.

  4. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1997.

  5. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1997.

  6.Annual Statistical Inquiry, 1980 and 1990.

  7. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry with and without Income Support.

  Information on costs

  £

  Benefit expenditure

  1980–811

  3,944

  1990–911

  12,710

  1996–971

  21,677

  1 Excludes expenditure on Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Non-contributory Invalidity Pension (in 1980–81), Severe Disablement Benefit (in 1990–91), Industrial Disablement Benefit and Housing Benefit and Income Support where a Disability Premium is paid.

  2 Excludes expenditure on Incapacity Benefit, Severe Disablement Benefit, Industrial Disablement Benefit, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit and Income Support where a Disability Premium is paid.

  Notes:

  1. The figures do not include all expenditure to people of working age and also includes some expenditure for people not of working age.

  2. The figures in the table are consistent with Table 4 of the Departmental Report 1998 (Cm 3913) which provides a general guide to benefit expenditure of people of working age, people over working age and people under working age.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people of working age received disability benefit payments and at what cost in(a) 1980, (b) 1990 and (c) the latest date for which figures are available. [43950]

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

  Numbers of benefit recipients1

  000

  Benefit

  19802

  19903

  1997–984

  Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit

  127

  116

  171

  Attendance Allowance

  82

  192

  n/a

  Mobility Allowance

  144

  388

  n/a

  Disability Living Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  1,163

  Disability Working Allowance

  n/a

  n/a

  14

  Sickness Benefit/Invalidity Benefit or Incapacity Benefit

  945

  1,106

  1,560

  191

  Numbers of benefit recipients1

  000

  Benefit

  19802

  19903

  1997–984

  Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension (NCIP) and Housewives' NCIP or Severe Disablement Allowance

  158

  247

  329

  War Disablement Pension

  163

  56

  71

  Supplementary Benefit or Income Support with Disability Premiums5

  5199

  5330

  841

  Income-Based Jobseeker's Allowance with Disability Premiums5

  n/a

  n/a

  17

  Housing Benefit with Disability Premiums5,6

  n/a

  289

  665

  Council Tax Benefit with Disability Premiums5,6

  n/a

  440

  727

  Notes:

  1 These figures do not take into account any benefit overlap

  22 Attendance Allowance as at March, Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Incapacity Benefit, NCIP, Housewives' NCIP and Severe Disablement Allowance as at May, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit as at September, and Mobility Allowance and War Disablement Pension as at December. Supplementary Benefit figures are from the Annual Statistical Inquiry 1980

  3 Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, Attendance Allowance, Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Incapacity Benefit, NCIP, Housewives' NCIP and Severe Disablement Allowance as at March, and Mobility Allowance and War Disablement Pension as at December. Income Support figures are from the Annual Statistical Inquiry 1990, and Housing Benefit figures as at May 1990

  4 Disability Living Allowance as at February 1997, Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit as at April 1997, Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, NCIP, Housewives' NCIP and Severe Disablement Allowance as at May 1997, War Disablement Pension as at February 1998, Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance figures as at August 1997 and Disability Working Allowance figure as at October 1997, Housing Benefit and Council Tax figures as at May 1996

  5 The 1980 figures show number of claimants receiving Supplementary Benefit on grounds of incapacity. The 1990 figures show number of claimants receiving Income Support (i) who also receive NI sickness, injury, disablement or widows industrial injury benefit or invalidity pension or allowance and (ii) who are sick or disabled, under pension age and incapable of work, and not in receipt of NI benefit

  6 Claims for Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance may be in respect of a single person or a couple.

  7 There is an overlap between Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit as a high percentage of claimants receive both Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Figures do not include second adult rebate cases

  8Figures rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Sources:

  1. Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit is based on a 10 per cent. sample. Attendance Allowance, Mobility Allowance, and War Disablement Pension on a 100 per cent. count. Sickness Benefit/Invalidity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance for
  192
  1980 and 1990 are taken from a 1 per cent. sample. The Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance figures for 1997, the War Disablement Pension figures for 1998 and the Disability Living Allowance figure are based on a 5 per cent. sample

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1997 (5 per cent. sample)

  3. Jobseeker's Allowance Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, August 1997 (5 per cent. sample)

  4. Disability Working Allowance Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, October 1997 (100 per cent. count of claims)

  5. Income Support Annual Statistical Inquiry, 1980 and 1990 (1 per cent. sample)

  6. Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample) inquiry with and without Income Support, taken at the end of May 1990 and May 1996.

  Expenditure on disability benefits

  Year

  £million

  1980–1981

  2,740

  1990–1991

  7,388

  1996–1997

  18,906

  Notes:

  1. Total of expenditure on Sickness Benefit, Invalidity Benefit, Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension, Industrial Disablement Benefit and Housing Benefit and Income Support where a Disability Premium is paid. Severe Disablement Benefit replaced Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension in 1984

  2. Sickness Benefit and Invalidity Benefit were replaced by a single Incapacity Benefit in April 1995. Disability Living Allowance and Disability Working Allowance introduced in 1992

  3. The figures do not include all expenditure to people of working age—for example, War Pensions paid to disabled people. Table 4 of the Departmental Report attributes expenditure for a particular benefit to the group where the majority of expenditure arises—in the case of War Pensions this applies to people over working age. The figures also include some expenditure for people not of working age. The figures for Disability Living Allowance include payments made in respect of children under age 16 and to people over age 60

  4. The figures in this table are consistent with Table 4 of the Departmental Report 1998 (Cm 3913) which provides a general guide to benefit expenditure of people of working age, people over working age and people under working age

  5. A detailed breakdown of each benefit by working age could be provided for some benefits and years but this would be at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Reviews
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many reviews have been initiated by his Department since 1 May 1997; how many of these have reported; and what the cost of these reviews has been to date. [44002]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 12 May 1998,Official Report, columns 101–02.
  193

TREASURY

  Environmental Appraisals
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many environmental appraisals were produced by the European Commission to accompany proposals presented to ECOFIN at its meeting on 16 February. [42664]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No formal Commission proposals were put to ECOFIN on 16 February.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the scope and nature of his responsibilities in relation to the review of European structural funds in respect of Wales, indicating the timetable for action by his Department. [42469]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 21 May 1998,Official Report, columns 543–44, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry. The Treasury has an interest in the proposals for reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds in view of the implications for the EC Budget and the UK contribution to it.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assistance the Government are offering to the financial services sector in respect of software problems originating from the formation of EMU. [43140]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is primarily a matter for the industry. However, the Euro Preparations Unit in HM Treasury provides general information and advice on business preparations for the introduction of the euro on 1 January 1999 and will shortly be publishing a factsheet on the IT aspects of this.

  Investment Ombudsman
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the appointment of an Investment Ombudsman to consider complaints relating to the handling of investments by banks and other financial institutions. [43311]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Complaints relating to banks and other financial institutions authorised to do investment business under the Financial Services Act 1986 are currently dealt with by the PIA Ombudsman Bureau, the SFA Complaints Bureau and Arbitration Service, the Investment Ombudsman (for firms supervised by IMRO) and the FSA Direct Regulation Unit and Independent Investigator. The Government have announced plans to introduce a single Financial Services Ombudsman scheme as part of the planned legislation to reform the financial services regulatory structure. A number of representations 194
  have been received on these proposals, including in response to the Financial Services Authority's consultation on this issue.

  Motorists (Petrol)
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average annual excise duty paid by a motorist using(a) leaded and (b) unleaded petrol in (i) 1997–98 and (ii) 1998–99. [43189]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The average annual excise duty paid by a motorist is estimated to be:

  £

  1997–98

  1998–99

  (a) Leaded petrol

  715

  805

  (b) Unleaded petrol

  635

  720

  These figures do not include vehicle excise duty which is currently £150 per car. The estimate is based on Department of Transport data for total car mileage, number of cars and fuel consumption. It also assumes that there will be no further rise in road fuel excise duty before the end of the financial year.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards recent actions by the Government of the Republic of Ireland in respect of the abolition of duty free sales. [43163]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Government have always said they would not oppose a Commission study into the impact of the abolition of intra-EU duty free sales should there be a consensus amongst member states in favour of such a study. This matter was discussed at the ECOFIN Council meeting on 19 May 1998 but there was no consensus in favour of such a study.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the total number of individuals paying any part of their income tax at the lower rate of income tax in(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; [43985]

  (2) if he will estimate the total number of individuals paying any part of their income tax at the higher rate of income tax in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; [43983]

  (3) if he will estimate the total number of income tax payers in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99; [43981]

  (4) if he will estimate the total number of individuals paying any part of their income tax at the basic rate of income tax in (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98 and (c) 1998–99. [43982]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]The latest estimates are given in the table. They are based on the 1995–96 Survey of Personal Incomes and are provisional.
  195

  Number of taxpayers (thousands) paying some income tax at:

  Lower rate

  Basic rate

  Higher rate

  1996–97

  25,900

  18,600

  2,100

  1997–98

  26,100

  18,700

  2,300

  1998–99

  26,200

  18,700

  2,300

  All taxpayers pay at least some of their income tax at the lower rate of tax.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the number of individuals affected by the proposed abolition of retirement relief. [43618]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]It is estimated that there are about 10,000 people with CGT retirement relief each year.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will place in the Library the results of the consultation exercise on changes to capital gains tax before consideration of the relevant clauses in the committee stage of the Finance (No.2) Bill. [43295]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The results of the consultation exercise on capital gains tax were set out as an Annexe to the Budget day Press Release on capital gains tax reform (press release Inland Revenue 16). This press release is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated saving to the Treasury from the proposed abolition of bed and breakfasting in respect of Capital Gains Tax; and how many savers he estimates currently take advantage of this facility. [43613]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Capital Gains Tax yield from the provisions to counter bed and breakfasting of shares may be of the order of £50 million in the long term, but the short term yield is likely to be low and to grow slowly. The number of people undertaking such transactions is highly uncertain but could be of the order of 100,000.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42787]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Government have concentrated on a number of measures to help small businesses although no specific regulations have been removed or amended, a number of measures such as cuts in the small companies' rate of corporation tax and enhanced first year capital allowances. Future changes, such as the transfer of the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue from April next year, will also help to ease the burden on smaller businesses. No specific regulations have been removed or amended.

  Inflation
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to ensure that 196
  the delivery of the Government's inflation target is subject to the Government's objectives for employment and growth. [43970]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Government have put in place monetary and fiscal frameworks designed to achieve economic stability. The Government set, and take responsibility for, the objectives of monetary policy through the inflation target. It is the job of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee to set interest rates to achieve the Government's inflation target.

SCOTLAND

  Prisoners (Television)
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to allow prisoners to have televisions in their cells; and if he will make a statement. [44219]

  Mr. McLeish
  Except in a very limited number of cases for educational purposes, prisoners in Scotland have not been allowed to have televisions in their cells.

  However, having taken into account the support for wider availability of in-cell television evinced by a number of studies—and most recently by the review by the Social Work Services and Prisons Inspectorates of community disposals and the use of custody for women offenders in Scotland—I have decided that in-cell television should be made available on a limited pilot basis as a suicide prevention measure at Comton Vale women's prison.

  The first sets will become available this Autumn. Eligible prisoners will pay a charge of around £1.00 per week to cover the cost of the sets, out of a weekly wage of around £6.00 per week, from which prisoners have to buy all of the items they are allowed but which are not provided by the prison authorities, including 'phone cards, additional toiletries, tobacco and sweets. They will have access to terrestrial channels only, during "lock-up" hours.

  Our expectation is that in-cell television will assist greatly in the normalisation of the prison environment at Cornton Vale, and reduce instances of self-harm among the more damaged members of its population. We shall monitor its use in the pilot study to ensure that it has no detrimental effect on prisoners' participation in the regime of the establishment.

  Consideration is also being given as to when this provision might be extended as an opportunity for a relatively small number of more responsible prisoners at the top end of the prison regime in Scotland, who would earn the privilege of access to in-cell TV through responsible behaviour. Out of a prison population of more than 6,000, such an extension would result in some 500 prisoners qualifying over time.

  Road Traffic Convictions
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many convictions there have been
  197
  under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for each year of its operation; if he will list the sentence imposed in each case; and if he will indicate those offences which relate to incidents involving fatalities. [43605]

  Persons with a charge proved where the main offence is an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, Scotland 1988–96

  Year of disposal

  Number of persons given a custodial sentence

  Number of persons given a community service order

  Number of persons fined

  Number of persons given probation

  Number of persons admonished

  Total

  19881

  11

  3

  8

  —

  —

  22

  19891

  14

  5

  4

  —

  —

  23

  19902

  14

  8

  1

  —

  —

  23

  1991

  11

  9

  8

  —

  —

  28

  1992

  14

  2

  4

  —

  —

  20

  1993

  17

  3

  4

  —

  1

  25

  1994

  8

  4

  3

  1

  —

  16

  1995

  12

  4

  2

  2

  —

  20

  1996

  13

  4

  1

  1

  —

  19

  1 Persons with a charge proved under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972. Section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972 was replaced by section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as later amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991)

  2 Includes one person with a charge proved in 1990 who was proceeded against under section 1(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1972

  NHS Budget
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his Department's budget for the NHS (i) in cash terms, (ii) in real terms in 1998–99 prices and (iii) as a percentage of Scottish gross domestic product in each

  Year

  Cash expenditure1 £ million

  Expenditure at 1998–99 prices1 £ million

  Percentage of Scottish GDP 2

  Per capita expenditure (cash) 2 £

  Per capita expenditure (real)2 £

  1978–79 outturn

  870

  2,833

  6.8

  167

  543

  1979–80 outturn

  1,036

  2,890

  7.1

  199

  555

  1980–81 outturn

  1,307

  3,082

  7.8

  252

  593

  1981–82 outturn

  1,492

  3,208

  8.1

  288

  619

  1982–83 outturn

  1,614

  3,239

  8.1

  312

  627

  1983–84 outturn

  1,720

  3,299

  7.9

  334

  640

  1984–85 outturn

  1,845

  3,370

  8.1

  359

  655

  1985–86 outturn

  1,954

  3,383

  7.7

  380

  659

  1986–87 outturn

  2,071

  3,481

  7.6

  404

  679

  1987–88 outturn

  2,248

  3,587

  7.5

  440

  702

  1988–89 outturn

  2,501

  3,741

  7.6

  491

  734

  1989–90 outturn

  2,721

  3,804

  7.5

  534

  746

  1990–91 outturn

  2,972

  3,847

  7.4

  582

  754

  1991–92 outturn

  3,343

  4,067

  7.9

  655

  796

  1992–93 outturn

  3,668

  4,284

  8.2

  718

  838

  1993–94 outturn

  3,777

  4,285

  8.1

  738

  837

  1994–95 outturn

  3,948

  4,414

  7.9

  769

  860

  1995–96 outturn

  4,092

  4,452

  7.8

  797

  867

  1996–97 outturn

  4,240

  4,480

  37.8

  827

  874

  1997–98 estimated outturn

  4,394

  4,521

  n/a

  858

  883

  1998–99 plans

  4,626

  4,626

  n/a

  898

  898

  1Expenditure covers the period 1 April to 31 March

  2Gross Domestic Product for Scotland and population figures are available only for the calendar year i.e. 1 January to 31 December

  3Provisional

  n/a = not applicable

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Periodicals
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many magazine articles relating to agriculture he has written in the last four months; and if he will list them. [43001]
  198
  Mr. McLeish
  The available information is set out in the table. Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 refers to the offence of causing death by dangerous or reckless driving. Therefore a fatality was involved in each of the cases in the table.

  year since 1978–79; and how much was spent per head of population on the NHS in Scotland in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms, in 1998–99 prices in each of these years. [43390]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: In the past four months, I have contributed by-lined articles to: the Parliamentary Review, on reform of the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU; the Parliamentary Monitor, on the Government's proposals to establish a Food Standards Agency; the Newcastle Journal, on the Informal Council of EU Agriculture Ministers held in the North East on 10–12 May 1998.
  199

  Correspondence
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many letters sent to him before 31 January from hon. Members have not been answered to date; and if he will make a statement. [43006]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The Department has 34 overdue letters from hon. Members, prior to 31 January, awaiting a substantive reply. These letters raise particularly complex issues requiring detailed inquiries before replying. All overdue letters are sent holding replies and interim replies where possible.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the most common factor underlying delays in his responses to letters from hon. Members of more than four months. [43007]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: While every effort is made to ensure that all letters are dealt with within the target set by the Department, there are occasions when replies may be delayed owing to factors not necessarily within the Department's control.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his target period for replying to letters from hon. Members; and what is the percentage of occasions when the target is met. [43003]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The Department aims to reply to letters from hon. Members and Peers within 15 working days. MAFF received over 8,500 such letters in the 12 month period ending April 1998 and 70 per cent. of these received a reply within this target.

  Whaling
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission; and if he will make a statement. [44283]

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultative forum on whaling in respect of making permanent the existing moratorium on commercial whaling; [43429]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Irish proposals on commercial whaling. [43430]

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the proposal of the Commissioner for Ireland to end the 12 year moratorium on commercial whaling; and what representations he has made on this subject. [43052]

  Mr. Morley
  The International Whaling Commission's 50th annual meeting was held in Oman from 16 to 20 May. The United Kingdom delegation was composed of officials from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, assisted by officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and by representatives of environmental organisations.

  At this meeting our delegation emphasised that the UK remains strongly opposed to all whaling, other than some limited subsistence whaling by indigenous people. We
  200
  made it clear that we would like to see all other forms of whaling, including so-called 'scientific' whaling, brought to an end and a permanent, comprehensive international ban on whaling introduced.

  It is with these objectives in mind that we are participating in consideration of ideas put forward by Ireland at the IWC's last annual meeting in Monaco last October. These ideas are intended to provide the basis for a compromise solution acceptable both to those countries opposed to, and to those countries in favour of, whaling. There was only limited further discussion of the Irish proposals in Oman. The UK delegation made it clear once again that while we were prepared to discuss these proposals, and all other possible ways of improving the conservation of whales, we continued to have serious reservations about some aspects of them, in particular those concerning coastal whaling. We and a number of other countries also stressed that further progress on them was unlikely unless the two whaling countries, Norway and Japan, indicated a readiness to end pelagic, and in particular so-called 'scientific', whaling and to accept a ban on international trade in whalemeat: this they declined to do. Nevertheless, the Irish Commissioner, who is the current chairman of the IWC, said that the proposals would remain on the table and that he would continue to try to advance them.

  Throughout the meeting the UK delegation stressed our strong support for the current moratorium on commercial whaling. We opposed a request by Japan for a quota of 50 minke whales, which I am pleased to say was again defeated, and we supported resolutions criticising Norway and Japan's continued whaling activities; although these do not conflict with the letter of the IWC's rules we and many others believe that they are contrary to their spirit and undermine the credibility of the IWC and of the moratorium.

  In recent years the UK has been arguing that environmental pollution and climate change may pose significant long term threats to whales and other cetaceans, and urging the IWC to devote more effort towards assessing these threats. At this meeting two significant resolutions were adopted. The first confirms that environmental issues are central to the IWC and directs the IWC's scientific committee to continue its work on the development of long term research programmes on the effects of pollution and climate change on cetaceans. The second deals with the financing of these programmes: it records an agreement in principle to find the necessary funds, drawing if need be on the IWC' s financial reserves, and to consider establishing a dedicated Environment Research Fund. I very much welcome the increased emphasis that the IWC is now placing on this important area.

  The UK delegation again expressed our concern about the cruelty involved in killing whales. It was agreed that a workshop comprising scientific and veterinary experts would meet next year, immediately before the next annual meeting, to consider ways of improving the humaneness of whale killing methods. The UK will be playing a full role in the workshop.

  Small cetaceans continue to be threatened by human activities in many parts of the world. We took the lead in putting forward a resolution which drew attention to the number of beluga whales killed in subsistence hunts in

  201
  West Greenland and to doubts among scientists that the current level of exploitation may not be sustainable. The IWC Scientific Committee will be examining this issue at its meeting next year. We also drew attention to the numbers of Dall's porpoise killed in directed takes in Japan.

  Other important issues were discussed at this meeting. We and a number of other delegations expressed concern at evidence presented to the IWC's Scientific Committee suggesting that illicit trade in whalemeat may be taking place, and a resolution was adopted reaffirming the need for close co-operation between the IWC and CITES on trade issues and calling on all IWC members to respect previous resolutions on illegal trade in whalemeat. There was a positive debate on whalewatching. The UK highlighted the continuing expansion of this popular tourist activity and underlined the importance of the IWC's role in preparing guidelines and overseeing development in this area. Finally, Japan's proposal to amend the IWC' s rules of procedure to allow secret voting on policy issues was heavily defeated.

  Overall, I believe that this was a successful meeting for the UK. We achieved the majority of our objectives: in particular the moratorium on commercial whaling has not been weakened and there was further recognition of the increasing importance to the IWC of environmental issues. 1 will now be working with the environmental organisations and Government departments represented on the Consultative Forum on Whaling to formulate our objectives for the IWC's next annual meeting, which will take place in Grenada in June 1999.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quotas of minke whales were granted to Norway and Japan over the past five years. [43431]

  Mr. Morley
  None. Under the terms of the current International Whaling Commission moratorium, commercial catch limits have been set at zero. Norway's commercial whaling is carried out under objection to the moratorium and its quota is self-awarded. Japan issues special permits to take minke whales in both the Southern Ocean and the North Pacific as part of its scientific research programme.

  Driftnets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons he is opposing an EU ban on driftnets. [43220]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are actively seeking agreement to an EU ban on those drift nets which result in unacceptable by-catches of dolphins.

  Set-aside
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the agronomic and environmental implications of set-aside under the arable area payment scheme; and if he will make a statement. [44284]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1995 MAFF commissioned a three year agronomic and environmental evaluation of set-aside in England from a consortium including the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, the British Trust for Ornithology and 202
  ADAS and this has now been completed. The evaluation concluded that for most farmers the agronomic costs of set-aside are small, with if anything a yield benefit to crops following set-aside and few increases in pest, weed or disease problems.

  Many farmers have observed positive environmental effects from set-aside and studies indicated that set-aside has benefited some species of farmland birds whose numbers have been in decline in recent years. Field studies showed that set-aside was an important habitat for these birds providing breeding sites and valuable food resources. The Government will consider how voluntary set-aside and the agri-environment schemes can be used to help to retain these benefits if the rate of compulsory set-aside is reduced as a result of EU Commission CAP reform proposals.

  I am placing copies of the full report of the evaluation in the Library of the House.

  EU Agriculture Council
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 25 and 26 May; and if he will make a statement. [44285]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  I chaired a meeting of the European Union Agriculture Council in Brussels on 25 and 26 May. My noble Friend Lord Donoughue, the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for the farming and food industry, represented the United Kingdom, and my noble Friend Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, was also present.

  The principal business of the Council was to assess progress in negotiations on the Commission's proposals for CAP reform made in the framework of Agenda 2000. Those negotiations were launched at a special meeting of the Council which I chaired on 31 March 1998, and have continued at an intensive pace at expert level since then. In the Council, EU Ministers recognised the excellent start which had been made to this work, and discussed draft conclusions which I circulated as Presidency summarising the work to date, identifying the principal issues central to the on-going negotiation, and committing the Council to continuing its intensive work on the Agenda 2000 proposals from now on.

  I am pleased to say that the Council was able to give unanimous approval to those conclusions, which will now be submitted to Foreign Ministers for inclusion in the report to Heads of Government meeting in Cardiff on 15–16 June. The Agriculture Council will then continue its discussions of Agenda 2000 at its July meeting.

  The Council also debated the Commission's proposal on reform of the EU olive oil regime, and noted the principal questions remaining to be resolved on that proposal. I undertook to continue work on the proposal in the hope of finding a basis of agreement at the Council in June.

  The Council had a presentation from the Commission of its proposals for a decision on an EU/Canada veterinary agreement. The Council also reached agreement by qualified majority on a regulation setting out detailed

  203
  rules for genetically modified soya and maize intended for sale to the final consumer; Italy, Sweden and Denmark voted against.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to complete the review of the future role and funding of TECs; and what plans he has to publish the findings. [42673]

  Dr. Howells
  The review will lead to the publication of new Strategic Guidance to TECs in the Autumn. Any resulting changes to the way the Government fund and contract with TECs will also be reflected in TEC contracts for 1999–2000.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) from what source the development fund he plans for use by regional development agencies to analyse and tackle regional skills shortages in their area will be provided; [42674]

  (2) how much he plans to allocate to the development fund for use by regional development agencies to analyse regional skills shortages and to design and implement solutions; [42675]

  (3) when the development fund for use by regional development agencies to tackle skills shortages in their areas will be made available; and whether the shadow RDAs will be able to make use of it. [42676]

  Dr. Howells
  The Development Fund for Regional Development Agencies along with all Government funded programmes is currently being reviewed as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget statement of 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, that an announcement about the Review would take place in the summer. The Development Fund for RDAs will be available from 1 April 1999.

  Higher Education Students
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what changes he plans in eligibility for access and hardship funds for higher education students in 1998–99; [42369]

  (2) what is the planned increase in budget for access funds and hardship funds for higher education students in 1998–99. [42370]

  Dr. Howells
  From the beginning of the 1998–99 academic year the amount available for the higher education Access Funds will be doubled to £44 million in England and eligibility will be extended to part-time students.

  In addition, a new £250 Hardship Loan will be available to students eligible for student loans who are in financial difficulties. This will cost £5 million in England and Wales in the current financial year.
  204

  Women Scientists
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what percentage of PhDs in science subjects were awarded to women in each of the last five years; [42915]

  (2) what percentage of (a) MScs and (b) BScs were awarded to women in each of the last five years. [42916]

  Dr. Howells
  The information covering the five years up to 1996–97, the latest year for which it is available, is given in the table:

  Science1 degrees awarded in UK higher education institutions 1992–93 to 1996–972 by level of degree: percentage awarded to women

  Level

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Doctorate

  26

  27

  28

  31

  31

  Masters

  30

  31

  32

  34

  35

  First Degree

  34

  35

  38

  39

  41

  1 Science subjects are: Medicine and Dentistry, Subjects Allied to Medicine, Biological Sciences, Veterinary Science, Agriculture and Related Subjects, Physical Sciences, Mathematical Sciences, Computer Science, Engineering and Technology, Architecture, Building and Planning. Combined degrees are not included

  2 Because of a change in data collection arrangements in 1994–95, the figures before and from that date may not be directly comparable

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many women currently hold professorships in the sciences. [42917]

  Dr. Howells
  In the 1995–96 academic year, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 280 professors in science subjects who were female, in higher education establishments in the UK. This figure covers those employed within the Professor grade in institutions. There may be others who carry the title of Professor but are employed in other grade structures and so are not included in this figure.

  Tuition Fees
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment who is liable to pay the tuition fees if the relationship between the student and parent breaks down during the education tenure. [43035]

  Dr. Howells
  On admission to a higher education institution, a student is personally liable for the fees charged and liability will continue irrespective of the student's personal circumstances. Where the student holds a mandatory award from an LEA and is eligible for assistance with fees because he or she is from a lower-income family, the LEA will assess and make a contribution from public funds. We have asked higher education institutions to be sensitive in collecting the private contribution in the early months of the degree course having regard to individual circumstances as necessary.

  Education Development Plans
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidelines his Department has issued to local education authorities on the content of education development plans. [43036]
  205
  Mr. Byers
  On 18 February the Department for Education and Employment issued for consultation draft Guidance on Education Development Plans. The deadline for responses was 8 May and officials are currently analysing the responses received. Final guidance in the light of those responses will be issued in due course.

  Further Education
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to replace discretionary grants as a means of support for students wishing to take up courses of study at further education colleges; and if he will make a statement. [43367]

  Dr. Howells
  The Government are committed to replacing LEA discretionary awards with a better targeted system of support for students at Further Education Colleges. We are continuing to consult on this matter and, as part of this process, we will be publishing the report of the Further Education Student Support Advisory Group later this month.

  New Deal (Unemployed Adults)
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has for local New Deal partnerships to organise and deliver the New Deal to those unemployed adults covered by the pilot initiatives due to commence in November. [44286]
  206
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The Government wish, through the use of high quality and innovative provision, to build on the experience gained from the New Deal for 18–24 year olds in taking forward the pilots for unemployed adults aged 25 and over, which were announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, 17 March 1998,Official Report, columns 1097–112, and which are due to begin in November.

  In the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 14 May 1998, Official Report, columns 181–82, I announced an invitation to existing private sector led New Deal partnerships to bid for the delivery of ten of the pilots. I am now inviting by means of a letter distributed this week through Employment Service Regional Directors, each of the remaining New Deal partnerships to bid for the delivery of one of the rest of the pilots. The bids will be assessed in terms of both quality and innovation and their provision of a robust basis for evaluation. For this reason we will not be inviting bids from areas which overlap with any of the prototype Employment Zones established in February. We will also need to consider carefully the case for pilots in areas where in-work benefits Earnings Top Up schemes are operating.

  We aim to announce the successful bidders, which will number around 20, by September.

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

Chinook Helicopter Accident Inquiry
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the deliberations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, they propose to review the findings of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry into the crash of Helicopter Flight No. ZD 576 at the Mull of Kintyre on 2nd June 1994.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, the Select Committee made a detailed examination of the lessons to be learned from this tragic accident. The committee made it clear that it was not its intention to become a further court of appeal, and its report seeks neither to challenge nor to endorse the findings of previous inquiries into the crash. It has unanimously concluded, however, that there was no evidence to support claims that design flaws in the Chinook Mk2 or in its components contributed to this crash. The report includes no recommendations which would prompt the MoD to review the findings of the RAF's board of inquiry.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I express the customary appreciation for the Minister's very full Answer, but will he accept that I am genuinely mystified by the Government's position on this? I am not trying to cause the noble Lord problems, but can he answer one simple question, if possible in a simple way? Given the fact that the president of the Royal Air Force board of inquiry said that no blame could be attached to the pilots, given the fact that the fatal accident inquiry could not attribute any cause to the accident, and given the fact that numerous experts both inside and outside the Royal Air Force have cast doubt on the verdict and on the reliability of certain pieces of equipment, is the Minister seriously telling the House that the Government say and believe that there is absolutely no doubt whatever about the cause of the accident, which is what service regulations require?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware—he has given a great deal of attention to this matter with his usual perspicacity—the fact is that this matter has been reviewed by two sets of Ministers in the previous government and by Ministers in this Government. I had conversations only yesterday with the Secretary of State and with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on this subject and I regret to have to tell the noble Lord that we see no reason to change the view taken by Ministers in either this
178
Government or the previous government. The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence whatever of any combination of possible minor problems or major difficulties which would have affected the skills of the aircrew and prevented them from continuing to fly in conditions of low and deteriorating visibility, at low altitude, below the safety altitude, flying at high speed straight into the obstacle that they encountered with tragic consequences.
I am happy to invite the noble Lord to come to the Ministry of Defence and to review for himself all the material which has been at the disposal of Ministers and which has led them to come to this unhappy conclusion.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the effectiveness of RAF boards of inquiry has not always been universally admired? Can he say what expertise was available to the board of inquiry in this case, and in particular whether a qualified accident investigator was available, as frequently was not the case in the past?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's specific question about an accident investigator, but I have full confidence in Royal Air Force boards of inquiry. One problem is that people find it incredible that skilled pilots could find themselves in this position. However, the fact is—it is a sad state of affairs—that a high proportion of accidents involving skilled pilots, both military and civilian pilots and pilots of scheduled airlines, are due to pilot error. Unfortunately, that is a fact of life.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, is it not the case that helicopter pilots have absolutely clear-cut instructions that on entering cloud they must rise above any nearby landmass and that the only reason for not doing so is engine failure? In this case, the accident investigators proved quite categorically that the engines were on full power and that there was no reason whatever why the pilot should not have taken his aircraft up and avoided the mountain.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am, as always, obliged to the noble Lord for his helpful and clarifying remarks. However, there was more than one way of avoiding the obstacle. The helicopter was approaching a waypoint at which the crew had expected to have a change of course of something like 15 degrees to port. Had they done that, the obstacle of the Mull of Kintyre would have been avoided. I entirely agree with the noble Lord's other remarks.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that we have here the exact equivalent of a verdict of manslaughter without hearing the defence? Is that safe?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not legally qualified to comment on the noble and learned Lord's remarks about a verdict of manslaughter. It is very unfortunate that we have absolutely no survivors to comment on

179
what was happening on the flight deck during the helicopter's last few moments. There is absolutely no evidence whatever—this was confirmed by the recent unanimous report from the Select Committee—that there was anything wrong with the helicopter itself.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, the Minister said—at least I understood him to say—that the aircraft was flying at high speed. Can he say how that was known and at what speed the aircraft was flying?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the aircraft had an indicated air speed of about 130 knots and a tail-wind of 20 to 30 knots.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real problem here is that the inquiry found nothing wrong with the aircraft, but according to the records there was also nothing wrong with the actions of the pilot and crew? Is it not the case that the inquiry concluded that since there was nothing wrong with the aircraft it had to blame the pilots?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, the simple question is: why was the aircraft where it was? Even if one made a series of heroic assumptions, for example that just at the vital moment before impact there had been a catastrophic systems failure in the aircraft, the aircraft should not have been where it was. I am afraid that it is as simple as that.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that a black box will be fitted to every Chinook aircraft so that if there are future accidents we will know what happened?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there is a programme for fitting black boxes to Royal Air Force aircraft.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the relevant RAF regulation states that in only those cases in which there is absolutely no doubt should deceased air crew be found negligent? Is the Minister satisfied that that very heavy onus was borne in mind by those who found negligence; or is a possible explanation that they reached their conclusion on the basis that it was highly probable that it was negligence?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that precisely those considerations were in the minds of the distinguished Air Force officers who came to the painful conclusion to which they felt compelled to come. It would have been far easier for those officers to have taken the view that there was something wrong with the aircraft. It would have been much more painful for them to conclude that very senior, skilful young pilots had committed an act of negligence.

Northern Ireland: School Funding
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I apologise to the House for the fact that the Question should read "Library Boards".
The amended Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are proposing to transfer the funding of voluntary grammar schools from the Northern Ireland Department of Education to the Education and Libraries Boards.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the main reason for this proposal is to reduce the number of funding formulae and thus contribute to the Government's stated policy objective of full commonality of schools funding across the Province. The vast majority of schools are already funded by the boards and there is no convincing reason for funding some schools separately.
Baroness Young: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, as is only proper, I find the response very disappointing. Is the noble Baroness aware that these schools comprise about one quarter of the secondary schools in Northern Ireland and that they are regarded within the United Kingdom as some of the best schools? Moreover, it is generally considered that these schools are some of the few organisations which, for over 50 years, have been a shining example of cross-community co-operation. They are very concerned at what is happening as regards their status at the present time.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness is paying tribute to the work of the schools. There is little logic in having a different funding source for two different schools. A transfer of funding responsibility to the boards will reduce the number currently in operation in the Province. It will ensure also greater transparency and will simplify administration. It will also remove the perception—false but commonly held—in controlled and maintained schools that voluntary grammar schools and grant-maintained integrated schools are treated more favourably than they are because of their direct funding relationship with the department. Under the new arrangements, they will continue to be funded on a cash basis and proper account will be taken of differences in their needs, such as differences in VAT and rates.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposed change will create a great deal of disparity in the funding of the voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland and will deprive those schools of direct access to the department over a whole range of issues that are of vital importance? Given the uncertain future of the boards and their

181
number, surely it would be much better to adhere to the present system which has worked very efficiently and well.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government believe that the new arrangements which will pay funds directly to the schools will protect their existing record of success, maintain their integrity and further government policy.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, recognising the high quality of the schools in question, is it not the case that education will become a devolved subject under the recent agreement which has now been approved by referendum? Will that not restore some democratic accountability to the whole situation?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is correct. This will be a matter for the Northern Ireland assembly. No decision has yet been taken on the timing of the transfer of funding, and the timetable will be dictated by the progress made this year on the development of the common formula.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, is it not a little odd that this old Labour attack on the independence of these schools should take place at a time when the policy of the Department for Education of England and Wales—or at least the policy of Mr. Byers—appears to give greater financial independence to schools? Does the noble Baroness agree that to push through such a radical reform at this stage at breakneck speed demonstrates a rather arrogant attitude towards the new Northern Ireland assembly which the people of the Province are in the process of electing at the present time?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, it is not part of the Government's policy to act with arrogance or to do anything to damage the success of the proposed NI assembly. There has been adequate consultation with the voluntary grammar schools and the grant-maintained integrated schools on the transfer of the responsibility. The funds for those schools will be protected.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, what benefit is the proposed transfer thought to confer on the children?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the benefits include transparency, which will remove the false perception of other schools within the system that the voluntary grammar schools and the grant-maintained integrated schools are funded in a beneficial way. It will remove that sense of difference and the false perception of unfair treatment.

Social Security: Unclaimed Benefits
2.50 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to increase the take-up of unclaimed social security benefits.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Government want everyone who thinks that they may be entitled to a benefit to make a claim. We have already taken steps to encourage claims to industrial injuries benefit and other in-work benefits. Given my noble friend's long-standing commitment to disability issues, he may have in mind the take-up of DLA and attendance allowance which is estimated to be about 50 per cent. If that is his concern, we share it. We are investigating why that should be the case.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, it was my noble friend, much to her credit, who first disclosed here that, far from cheating the system, about half the number of disabled people do not claim their disability benefits. Is she aware of what the disability organisations now call "the stigma attached to claiming—all the more so because of baseless allegations of fraud"? How do the Government respond to the Commons Select Committee on Social Security's withering criticisms of the costly Benefit Integrity Project which,
"uncovered hardly any fraud and caused great distress"?
And what total sums go unclaimed in disability benefits and in income support by the frail elderly people Age Concern and Help the Aged work so humanely to help?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend asks a number of questions. On the last one, if, for example, 90 per cent. of disabled people entitled to DLA and AA claimed their moneys, expenditure would go up from about £7.5 billion to £13 billion on that benefit alone. Equally, we know that something like 1 million elderly people—mainly single women over 75—fail to claim the income support to which they are entitled and therefore miss something like £17 a week. We are anxious that they should take up that money. The wider point that my noble friend raises is right: entitlement is a two-way process. The Government have the responsibility to ensure that the right money is going to the right people—that people are not claiming when they should not but claim the money to which they are entitled. As my noble friend said, out of the 72,000 or so benefit integrity cases that the Government have reviewed—about 2,000 were followed up in greater detail—only five cases have gone forward to the courts. There is very little fraud. There is a great deal of error and serious under-claiming. The Government must address all of those problems.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, so far as concerns the take-up of unclaimed social security benefits generally, will the Minister tell us whether there is any exchange

183
of information between the Inland Revenue and other departments, as there is clearly concern that that might be so? If there is such an exchange, is it done on an individual case basis; and at what level is it approved within the Civil Service?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I shall have to write in greater detail on this to the noble Lord. My memory is that when we dealt with a previous social security administration Bill there were powers within the confines—if I may put it this way—of data protection to exchange information through data matching to ensure that, for example, where there was evidence of abuse or fraud that person could be checked through other systems. Clearly that has to be through data protection. I think that the noble Lord will find that that is primarily an exchange of information between the DSS and local authority-administered social security benefits such as housing benefit. There are additional protections vis-à-vis the Inland Revenue. I shall write to the noble Lord, because clearly the Inland Revenue and the protection of the privacy of Inland Revenue records are sensitive subjects, and rightly so.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, what proportion of those who take the all-work test have failed to pass it? Of those who failed to pass it, what proportion to the Minister's knowledge have subsequently gained work? Is she prepared to reassess the cases of those who failed the test who after a year have been unable to obtain work of any kind that they can do?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, about one in six people who take the all-work test are regarded as fit for work. So about 18 per cent.—if I may put it that way—fail it. There is research in progress, but we do not yet know how many go on to find full-time work. We expect to have those findings soon. The noble Baroness is right to highlight a problem: that the current all-work test which says that one is either fit for work or disabled—either/or—does not reflect the reality of the continuum of disability from which many long-term sick and disabled people suffer. That is why in the Green Paper we are committed to reform of the all-work test. We hope that we shall have the co-operation of the House in so doing.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Does not the Minister's reply show that—in her own words—something like a million pensioners are failing to claim the means-tested benefits to which they are entitled? Is not the lesson of that that even the poor have dignity and find it an affront to have to claim means-tested benefits? Does she therefore agree that the real answer is to build up universal benefits as of right, to which people contribute during their working lives?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend is obviously right. Many pensioners, particularly women over 75, as I said, do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. At the moment we
184
are engaged in about nine project areas, involving 50,000 pensioners, to see why they do not take up that money. We believe that it is a mixture of complexity, ignorance and the stigma associated with means testing in the eyes of many older people. On average, about two-thirds of all pensioners claim the income support to which they are entitled. That is a means-tested benefit. About 50 per cent. only of disabled people appear to be claiming DLA, which of course is not a means-tested benefit. It is not necessarily the case that means testing as such is the major barrier to claims.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that individuals suffering from ME or chronic fatigue syndrome are in a particularly difficult situation when they claim social security benefits because their condition varies so much from day to day? Many of them have had their benefits withdrawn on the basis that they are fit for work on a particular day, although they are not on other days. Will the review take that into account?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have had a number of helpful letters from organisations representing ME sufferers. The all-work test, with its either/or requirement, is inappropriate for those who suffer from fluctuating conditions. That is one of the reasons why we need to review the all-work test. We shall be taking such conditions and illnesses into account.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, what efforts are being made to publicise such information in ethnic minority newspapers so that those who have language difficulties can exercise their full rights in claiming the benefits?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that is an important point. We are taking steps to publicise the situation. It may be that we are not doing enough. I shall follow the matter up and let the noble Lord know exactly what we are doing on that.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that her sympathetic response is warmly appreciated? However, it will require special measures to solve the problem of low take-up. Will the Government consider a special disability benefits week so that the availability of benefits can be highlighted and the rights of eligible people emphasised, with the stigma of applying for those benefits removed?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have already engaged in campaigns to promote—and successfully so, I believe—the take-up of industrial injuries and in-work benefits, for example, family credit and income support. However, there is a specific problem with disability benefits. We do not know why some of the benefits are not being claimed. It is not that they are means tested, because many are not. It may be that the forms are complex. It may be that healthcare professionals do not promote them in the way they should. I welcome the advice of my noble friends on this matter. I propose to raise the issue with the

185
disability benefits forum, with which we are consulting as to how best to ensure that disabled people claim the benefits to which they are entitled. My noble friend and I are entirely at one on this.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, has been trying to ask a question. I should have thought that we could perhaps take the question.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I am most grateful. Can the Minister assure the House that when a couple in receipt of well over £3,000 a year draw child benefit they pay tax on that benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I apologise that I am having trouble with the microphones on this side of the Chamber. If I am right,. the noble Baroness asked whether we shall be considering taxing child benefit. That is a matter for the Chancellor.

A.1: Upgrading of Northern Section
3.1 p.m.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas Lord Selkirk of Douglas asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in planning the next phase or phases upgrading the A.1 to dual carriageway status (a) between Haddington and Dunbar, (b) between Dunbar and the dualling at the Border, and (c) between the Border and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am tempted to say that it is rather like having three Questions for the price of one, but I shall try to answer briefly.
The dualling schemes between Haddington and Dunbar, and indeed around Alnwick, are subject to the strategic review of trunk roads to be completed later this year. Between Dunbar and the Border two minor schemes were completed earlier this year; and the construction of a third is expected to start around September. Other improvements have been identified between the Border and Newcastle. Subject to the availability of funds, and completion of any statutory procedures, work could start on the Felton to Lanehead section next year.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Can I ask for an assurance that as a matter of priority, planning for the future dualling will go ahead so that when resources become available work on construction can start, both in the interests of reducing casualties on those sections of the road and of improving the economic competitiveness of the east of Scotland and north-east of England?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the strategic review of the trunk road programme which was
186
announced by the then Minister for Transport at the Scottish Office in June 1997 forms an important part of the Government's fundamental review of transport policy which was included in their manifesto.
The review examines the rationale behind new roads construction, weighing road improvements against other transport options, and taking into account the criteria of accessibility, safety, economy, environmental impact and integration. All those issues are being considered. It would be wrong and inappropriate to anticipate the result of that review by giving any specific assurance about any particular area.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it gives me particular pleasure to support the noble Lord in his Question since he was the Minister whom I used to ask the same Question in another place?
The dualling of the road from Edinburgh to Newcastle is of great importance. While considering the total transport needs of the area, will the noble Baroness bear in mind the increasing case for reopening the Waverley railway route from Edinburgh to Galashiels, not only in the interests of the economy north of the Border but of the environment and the city? There are now new substantial housing developments in Midlothian which make the project more viable.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sure that that will indeed be taken into account in the overall review. The noble Lord may well be aware—if he is not, he will be interested to know—that a freight scheme is under development at present. The Scottish Office is in regular contact with the developers. Subject to parliamentary approval, it is anticipated that the developer will submit an application for financial assistance under the freight facilities grant scheme. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further in advance of parliamentary approval.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is the Scottish Office still responsible for trunk roads north of the Border, and the Department of the Environment for trunk roads in England and financed respectively? If so, can the Minister give an assurance that improvement of the A.1 in Scotland is not being delayed because adjoining work south of Berwick is receiving less priority?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the situation is as it has always been. Noble Lords opposite who have been in office in the Scottish Office will be well aware of the situation. The responsibilities and priorities remain the same. What was always in the hands of the Scottish Office Ministers remains in their hands.
As some noble Lords opposite will know, the A.1 Steering Group was formed in 1990. It comprises representatives of the Scottish Office, the then Department of Transport, the Highways Agency, local

187
councils and police. It is still in existence and meets once a year. It is in constant and regular contact between meetings.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Pitkeathley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government of Wales Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): 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 Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 21 [Introductory]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, line 37, after ("functions") insert (", and no others,").
The noble Lord said: If the national assembly is the heart of the Bill, the functions clauses are its arteries. We come to them now in Part II of the Bill. Before I introduce the amendment, perhaps I may draw the Committee's attention, as I did at the start of our first day in Committee, to the substantial amendments tabled by the Government. The Minister was good enough to forewarn us by letter of some of those amendments, and we thank him for doing so. We are as anxious as the Government to have the Bill in the best state possible. If that means dropping a clause or two, and inserting yet another schedule as the Government propose, so be it. But I am sure that the Minister will understand that the more government amendments we have, the more inclined we are to probe, as helpfully and expeditiously as possible, to see whether the changes are right.
Since we tabled our amendments, the Government have published their draft Transfer of Functions (National Assembly for Wales) Order 1999—a helpful and substantial guide which answers some of our questions and poses rather more. It is the first order and represents a trawl through some 300 Acts of Parliament for Secretary of State functions, including powers and duties to be transferred, after consultation, to the
188
assembly. It is clear that the order may be the first of a number; and that there is no limit, other than government policy, on the numbers or nature of functions that can be transferred from past, present or future legislation.
We suggest a limitation in our first two amendments—namely, Amendments Nos. 50 and 51—which would permit only a one-off transfer under the Bill. I believe that there is a real danger of the assembly being overwhelmed by having all sorts of functions thrust upon it. Surely it will have enough to be getting on with when this order comes into effect.
Members of the Committee will have noticed that the transfer of power is all one way; in other words, there is no provision for the transfer of a function back from the assembly to the Secretary of State. Clause 22(4) envisages the possibility of the variation or revocation of an order, but the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor General made it clear on Second Reading that this subsection was to be used in the event of an error occurring and a correction being necessary.
Our amendments to Clause 22 seek to make the transfer of functions possible in either direction. That seems to us to be a reasonable precaution in the interests of good government, should anything go wrong at the assembly in the exercise of any of those functions. It would put the assembly on its mettle to make good use of the powers that it has and, at the same time, perhaps demolish the assumption that the assembly can only increase its powers whatever happens. Our Amendment No. 67, which is a proposed new clause, provides for the Secretary of State to intervene if the assembly fails to discharge a function satisfactorily. However, I believe that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will say a little more later about that suggested new clause.
One of our deepest concerns is that functions are to be transferred by order, subject to affirmative resolution by both Chambers. We are all aware that such orders can be disposed of in the other place by an hour and a half's debate and that they are unamendable there. According to Erskine May, Members of this Chamber can propose an affirmative resolution in one of three ways: first, by seeking to negative the Motion—but this, as I understand it, is not general practice nowadays; secondly, by amendment, the effect of which is to withhold agreement to the Motion for approval; or, thirdly, by amendment or separate Motion expressing criticism of the instrument without necessarily challenging it directly.
The long and the short of it is that orders of this kind, and the procedure associated with them, are far from adequate to deal with the substance of what we have before us—that is to say, functions, including powers and duties, culled from 300 Acts of Parliament and transferred to a body that the authors of those Acts probably never even dreamed of. Once the functions have been transferred to the assembly, this Parliament will have no control over the secondary legislation which may flow from it, except in special circumstances noted in Clause 45.
The assembly will have its own scrutiny and approval procedures and, in that context, it is only fair to note the views expressed by the Select Committee on Delegated

189
Powers and Deregulation in its 18th report, which examined the Bill. Referring to provisions transferring the exercise of existing legislative powers to the assembly, the Select Committee states that this,
"raises the new question of whether it is appropriate that a power granted by the Westminster Parliament but made subject to parliamentary control should be transferred to the Assembly when the power will cease to be subject to parliamentary control".
I believe that that puts the matter in a nutshell. The committee went on to say that it considered this to be an issue for this Chamber and that its function was to consider the effectiveness of the scrutiny process by the assembly. The Select Committee concluded that it was "suitably rigorous".
Schedule 2 to the Bill lists the 18 policy areas in which powers must be transferred before the assembly begins its work. Clause 22(2) explains the requirement which is,
"for the transfer of such functions in each of the fields specified in Schedule 2 as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 56 and 59 is to remove the requirement that all the policy areas listed in Schedule 2 must be covered willy-nilly, as it were, whatever the results of consultation on the order over a period of nine months may reveal. Why is it necessary that some functions must be transferred from each of those fields by the time that the assembly is established? The answer to that question is not clear.
Clause 22(1)(a) is very widely drawn. It provides for the,
"transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales".
I believe that Members of the Committee will agree that that is a very broad power. Indeed, it could apply to any Minister—for example, the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Social Services and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and the function could be transferred by order. I am advised that the negative resolution procedure might suffice under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975. Moreover, tax-raising powers might be transferred, although we have the word of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor General that that is not the Government's intention. However, the principle that functions transferred should be limited in some way is important and primary legislation should be required for major change.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach expressed his view most persuasively on Second Reading. Having argued for a clean and clear settlement so that both the assembly in Cardiff and we in Westminster know precisely where we stand, he went on to say that,
"the spirit in which we … approach the issue must be one of trust and encouragement to the assembly, with the result that devolution … must be seen as a process, not an event … On the other hand, if for example this Government or a future government were to consider transferring a function such as giving tax-raising powers to the Welsh assembly, that clearly should be the subject of primary legislation. As I read the Bill, I must say I am not clear as to exactly what will happen and how much discretion lies with the Secretary of State or indeed the Government".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1088.]
190
We are in exactly the same position of uncertainty. About half the total government expenditure in Wales lies outside the control of the Welsh Secretary of State.
It is possible that the assembly may have its eyes on some of this expenditure and the functions associated with it and that it may argue that it should have responsibility for it. On the other hand, it may not wish to have responsibility for a particular item which the Government are anxious to foist upon it. We are accustomed to hearing local authorities complaining of extra duties being imposed upon them without adequate resources to discharge them. In either case, some form of limitation for function transfers would seem to be advisable. The Government should tell us whether there is any limit to the order-making power for the transfer of functions to the assembly or whether it is open ended and one way, whatever happens, as Clause 22 would lead us to believe.
Finally, perhaps I may comment briefly on Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 which are included in this first group. The simple point behind our amendment is that Parliament, being the order-making body, must give sole approval for a variation or a revocation of its order. It is inconceivable that the assembly would be unaware of an order once it is made or of a defect requiring a change, but that its approval, as well as the approval of Parliament, should be necessary seems superfluous and might lead to conflict. Let us suppose that for some reason the assembly refused to give approval when Parliament had already done so. There would be a cockpit situation. I am sure that the need for dual approval is wrong, and perhaps my noble friends are nearer the mark with their Amendment No. 66 which requires consultation only with the assembly. Surely, it must be a matter of courtesy to inform the assembly. But as to its approval of the revocation or change of an order made by Parliament, that is not necessary. I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): As Amendments Nos. 52 and 65 are also being spoken to, I should point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 52 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 53 to 59, inclusive, and that, if Amendment No. 65 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 66.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Amendment No. 66 is grouped with this amendment. It is the first of a number tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Courtown. At this stage, their purpose is to try to discover how the Bill will affect farming and the rural economy. I emphasise that I hope that they will be probing, provided of course that the Minister gives me a sensible, and not a Dark Ages, answer, which I am sure he will.
I remind the Minister that agriculture was not devolved in the 1978 Wales Bill. Bearing in mind that for better or worse Welsh agriculture is irreversibly tied into the common agricultural policy and world markets far more so now than in 1978, I wonder why this change of heart by the Labour Government has taken place; or do the Government agree not at all with the noble Lords,

191
Lord Callaghan and Lord Cledwyn, who were very much involved in the 1978 Bill and therefore were instrumental in deciding that agriculture should not then be devolved?
As I agreed on 13th June 1978 with the Labour Government's decision not to devolve agriculture, I hope that the Minister will agree, first, that I am in good company and understand why I am somewhat doubtful about the practicality of devolving agriculture. In short, I believe that on the question of devolving agriculture the Government are guilty until they prove themself innocent.
I have read the recent transfer order, plus the explanation provided by the Government, and I find it extremely difficult to understand. Indeed, I am not sure that it is worth the paper it is written on. I say that for two reasons. First, only 36 per cent. of the Acts to be devolved are mentioned in the guidance notes. As to the rest, presumably no decision has been made, or if it has we have not been told, or the Government do not want to tell us. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the explanation. Secondly, like the first transfer order, it is not definitive. Those Acts marked to be devolved could, as I understand it, in the end not be so devolved; or those not mentioned could be devolved. I hope that your Lordships will realise why I am somewhat confused.
If the Minister therefore believes that we are querying some matters which appear to him to be perfectly obvious or repeating matters which have been raised by my noble friends on the Front Bench, I can assure him that the lateness of the transfer order, after it had been through the other place and after we had had one day in Committee, and with the guidance notes and the groupings, makes it extremely difficult for those who are not full-time politicians. But obviously the Minister believes that ordinary people should not become involved in Parliament and that Parliament should be left in the hands of full-time politicians or even the Prime Minister, which I understand is now the new Labour gospel. Having said that, I hope that the Minister realises that the way in which he replies to my amendments might make it much easier for the various farming organisations to respond constructively to the Government's autumn consultation.
I am sorry to take time, but Clause 22 is crucial, as was explained by my noble friend, because it explains the mechanism for transferring ministerial functions to the assembly by an Order in Council. A draft of the first Order in Council must be laid before Parliament before the first ordinary election next year. The Government have published two drafts of the first transfer order—the one I have mentioned—and are committed to public consultation on the subject this autumn. Under the terms of subsection (4) of the clause relating to the Orders in Council, they are subject to the affirmative procedure, as pointed out by my noble friend. Therefore, drafts must be consciously approved by Parliament. However, as my noble friend mentioned, the subsection provides that in the case of an Order in Council which varies or revokes a previous order, the order cannot be approved
192
by Parliament unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of the assembly. I think that is where we will have some trouble.
That means that once functions have been transferred to the assembly by means of the first Order in Council, the assembly has an absolute right of veto on future changes to those arrangements. If it were subsequently decided at UK Government level that a function which had been devolved ought instead to have been retained for some national reason, it can be transferred back to the UK Government and Parliament only if the assembly agrees to that. I am not a politician, but knowing what politicians are like it seems likely that the assembly would resist any transfer back of a function, however compelling the case for doing so in policy terms.
The rigidity of the clauses drafted works the other way, too. In other words, if the UK Government subsequently decide that they wish to transfer some additional function to the assembly, the assembly could refuse to accept the proposed function. Your Lordships might think that that is strange. I do not. Although I accept that it is a less likely position than the first problem, it could nonetheless lead to a difficulty in which the assembly perhaps wishes to evade responsibility for a politically unpopular or sensitive matter or one which involves limiting financial funds.
The purpose of Amendment No. 66 is to retain flexibility whereby the Secretary of State would consult with the assembly about subsequent Orders in Council which propose to transfer more functions or to claw them back, but would not give the assembly the veto that it has on this process as the clause is drafted, or as I understand the clause is drafted. The Secretary of State is, of course, accountable to Parliament for his actions. The formula used in this amendment appears in Clause 32 where the Secretary of State is obliged to consult the assembly about the Government's legislative programme.
In case I have not made it clear, I feel strongly about the ability to transfer matters to or from the assembly being made easier and quicker. Who knows what disaster may happen in the future that needs immediate action? Chernobyl springs to mind.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 58 which stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the order transferring powers to the national assembly for Wales is published well before any election is due and, one hopes, well before candidates are selected, so that they may know what the functions of the assembly are to be. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for a letter which answered some of the points I raised at Second Reading. He states,
"I can confirm that we intend that the Order should be made well before the elections on 6 May".
I hope that when the Minister replies he can assure me that that will take place well in advance of candidates being selected to enable them to have sufficient time to

193
consider their functions before they make the rather robust decision to stand for the assembly. The letter continues,
"the Order should be made well before … so that candidates are aware of the Assembly's precise range of functions".
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, I have examined the second draft order. It comprises a wonderful list but it does not impart information. If one is seeking information from it, it may as well be written in Cyrillic characters, as far as I am concerned. However, I am not a lawyer familiar with these things. Some of the transferred Bills have information attached to them but many of them are simply listed.
I then turned to the guide which one would expect to provide information. As regards local government, the area in which I am particularly interested, I found a list of 38 Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, pointed out that this Bill may be added to or subtracted from. I understand that, as negotiations are being carried out and this matter must still be subject to review. However, of the 38 Bills listed only 13 have schedules. One might think that the schedules would provide information. This reveals the core of what I regard as a fundamental problem. I studied the Caldey Island Act 1990. I assume that the natives of Caldey Island are probably familiar with it, but people standing for the assembly of Wales are less likely to be so. The order states that the function is to be exercised concurrently with the Secretary of State. That is fine. The information imparted in the guide in Section 4(3) states,
"The power of the Secretary of State by order to make transitional and supplemental provisions with regard to Caldey in consequence of the Act".
As a layman I am no further forward, except that as a privileged Member of this Chamber I can go to the Library and obtain a copy of the Caldey Act and find out precisely what is in it. However, we should consider the poor man in the west of Wales who is trying to find out what his functions are. He does not share my privilege. He undoubtedly can go to a library somewhere if he is prepared to travel and he may well get access to the document. There is a real difficulty here. We must bear in mind that Clause 22 is the heart of this Bill. It concerns the transfer of functions. The functions are listed and specified. However, they should be listed and specified in such a way that a layman—I count myself a layman—can understand clearly the functions of a member of the assembly. The purpose of my amendment is to get those functions out into the open in good time so that the public may be aware of them in detail.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am in a little difficulty as regards the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I have recently been selected as a candidate for the national assembly. I am proud of that and I thank the constituency party of the Party of Wales, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, for the honour of selecting me to seek election to an elected office. I say that by way of declaring what I hope is a prospective interest. I speak in support of Clause 2 as it stands. However, I must indicate strongly my objection to the tone of those who have spoken so far. With all due respect—as we say in
194
this place—to the Official Opposition, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot on the one hand say that you are in favour of a partnership within the Union but on the other hand threaten reserve powers. Either this is a responsible measure of devolution or it is not. It is obvious to me that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, and others have trawled through the late lamented Act of 1978 which was replete with override powers. There are no such powers in this Bill as it stands.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that Clause 22 is the heart of the Bill. But there is nothing new here: all it does is place on the face of a Bill the process of transfer of powers by Her Majesty through Order in Council. The Welsh Office—that great institution of state which we now all love and which the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will no doubt soon extol as being somehow preferable to further transfers to the Welsh assembly—has been created by this very process. There is nothing mysterious about further transfers that may in time emerge. As I made clear in this Chamber at the beginning of our debates on this Bill, I am not in favour of further transfer of legislative power in the Bill. There are arguments for further transfer of executive functions, and those will emerge when we discuss later amendments. The heart of Clause 22—the process of transfer—is well known to this Chamber.
As regards the notion of the assembly having a veto, I say in all generosity to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, that that is not the kind of language with which we should grace our devolution debates. We are not in the business of talking of vetoes, either as regards this Parliament at Westminster or the parliament at Holyrood or the national assembly in Cardiff Bay. We should talk of partnerships. We should not talk of threats of imminent collapse and the withdrawal of powers. We should not talk of Westminster drawing back powers, nor should we talk of Cardiff refusing to take responsibility. I refer again to the tone of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, who suggested that those of us who seek election to the Welsh assembly might somehow shirk our responsibilities either towards the people in Wales who would elect us or towards this Chamber as a partner assembly within the Union. That is not the way we think of the arrangements that we seek between the peoples and nations of these islands, to coin a phrase so beloved of my noble friend Lord Molyneaux. What we are discussing is how we progress the devolutionary process by agreement, not by threats of imminent collapse or refusal of responsibility.
That brings me to the specific amendment on agriculture. As someone who has lived the whole of his life in rural Wales, I have great difficulty with the notion that agriculture, which is at the very heart of the economy of rural Wales, should not be a matter for which the assembly should have care and responsibility. It is not a matter of coming out of the CAP. No one can come out of the CAP these days, whether in western Europe, central Europe or even eastern Europe. We are searching for ways in which we can work together within that framework and the overall WTO frameworks. But surely there are ways in which an assembly for Wales, having care for the whole rural

195
economy, can improve on the agri-environmental policies that have been pursued by successive governments, and recently in particular by my right honourable friend Ron Davies, the Secretary of State. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and his colleagues moving the amendments relating to agriculture and rural matters must surely realise that in the recent farming crisis the one person who has spoken up for Wales and Welsh agriculture is Mr. Ron Davis, regardless of the failure of Dr. Jack Cunningham to speak for UK agriculture. Therefore, to suggest that somehow agriculture should be taken out of this issue and the list of subjects transferred seems to me to fail the agricultural lobby in Wales—who after all need the support of the whole Welsh electorate and the agri-environmental measures which we shall seek to amend and, it is to be hoped, increase in the assembly. Therefore I speak against the amendments and strongly in favour of Clause 22 as it stands.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I have known the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, long enough to know that it would be very foolish to question his integrity or assiduity, or the determination with which he will pursue his duties in the assembly. Indeed, it is not my intention to question the integrity of any member of the assembly in any way or to extol the virtues of the Welsh Office. I merely wish to draw attention to what we are doing in this Parliament at this time.
Like my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, I am worried and puzzled. My noble friend referred to Caldey Island. As the former Member for Pembroke, I ought to have been immediately able to answer the question he raised on that particular Act. As I expect he knows, almost all the inhabitants of the island are monks. I suspect that the clause to which he refers has something to do with the electoral procedures on Caldey Island. There are problems in conducting elections on an island which cannot always be reached during a campaign or on election day.
The point of my remarks is to draw attention to what this Chamber is being asked to do today. Looking round, I am not sure that every Member present has examined the transfer order or the notes kindly provided by the Government to explain it. My noble friend on the Front Bench thanked the Government for making the notes available, and I believe he described them as helpful. I am sure that was the Government's intention; however, they are the most unhelpful set of notes I have ever read in all my time in Parliament. I do not criticise the civil servants who worked hard to draw them up. It may be my stupidity that means I find it hard to interpret them. The notes tell us that they are the result of a trawl through over 300 Acts of Parliament: one goes back to 1841. A long list is provided of the Acts to which reference will be made in the order.
One then turns to the further notes to see whether one immediately gets a clear view of what it is that we are doing in relation to Clause 22. I had some involvement in the passage of the Water Resources Act 1991.
196
I discover that there are nine pages identifying the powers, and the clauses containing them, that are to be transferred, and those powers that are not.
Most of us have difficulty in passing legislation. We are often confronted with lengthy Bills and do not always find it as easy as do the parliamentary draftsmen to interpret the exact meaning of each clause. However, we usually have the opportunity of turning through a Bill to get a pretty clear idea of its intentions clause by clause. If we are not enlightened by our own reading, the detailed debates in this House will probably throw some further light on the matter. That is the object of a Committee stage. In relation to this Bill, we have to turn to this very long list. Then, in order to discover what it is that we are doing, we have to look at the notes which identify the clauses in the long list of Bills. Presumably, if we then want to know exactly what we are doing, we have to go to the Library and take out the volumes containing the Acts. If we all did that, and brought them into the Chamber, we might bring proceedings to an early halt.
There is a difficulty here. We are being asked to pass a Bill—the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas is absolutely right; Clause 22 is the heart of the Bill—which transfers an enormous range of powers, and yet we are to have the greatest possible difficulty in understanding what we are doing. There is to be an order in due course. I believe that my noble friend said that we shall be able to debate it for an hour and a half—the result of a trawl through more than 300 Bills!
The reality is that we are being asked to pass this legislation largely on trust. We have to assume that the Government have got it right. We have to assume that the civil servants in my former department have gone through the right Acts, extracted the right powers, and included them in the order, and that everything that is being done is being done appropriately.
It is true that under earlier legislation powers were transferred to the Welsh Office—although it has to be said not quite on this scale. The process was spread over a number of years. I had some responsibility for the transfer of powers relating to local government—for example, grant-giving and education powers were transferred step by step in different pieces of legislation. It was possible to consider step by step what was being done in the case of the Welsh Office.
I do not have a solution to the problem that confronts us. Like my noble friends who spoke from the Benches behind me, I am simply confused as to exactly what it is we are doing; and I think it right that this place should understand what it is being asked to do. We should not be misled into believing that all is clarity, and that we as a legislative assembly are clearly in command of the actions that we are taking. I do not believe that to be the case. We are having to take on trust the actions of the Government and those who have done the trawl, and hope that they get it right.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am somewhat puzzled by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. We on these Benches have never had any difficulty in understanding what was meant by

197
devolution and that there would be the transfer of detailed powers, which have over the years been transferred to the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State for Wales piece by piece and by a considered method. We commend those who have produced the draft transfer order for the assiduity with which they have approached their task and the clarity with which they have expressed their proposals. We have until September to consider the first draft and we shall then have an opportunity to consider the matter again. As I understand it, the draft order will not finally come before this House and another place until next year. We thus have a great deal of time to consider and discuss the detailed proposals which are now being put forward.
I wish to draw the attention of those who have put forward the amendments to the fact that the proposals for the transfer of functions are clearly subject to the approval of this House and the other place. Under Clause 22(2), the draft of the first Order in Council has to be placed before each House of Parliament. The subsection does not spell out what functions are to be handed over but says that the order will,
"transfer … such functions … as the Secretary of State considers appropriate".
As for the future, Her Majesty may—it is a discretionary power—by order in council,
"provide for the transfer to the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales".
Under subsection (4)(a), any future order of that nature will be placed before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
I see nothing wrong with the parliamentary scrutiny and the timetable for consideration of these detailed proposals. I emphasise again that, although some 350-odd statutes from the past have been looked at in the draft transfer order, they had already been looked at when the functions were handed over to the Welsh Office by way of administrative devolution.
It seems to me that the purpose of some of the amendments is to snatch back functions from the new Welsh assembly without the consent of that assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said that subsection (4)(b) gives the assembly the right of veto over the actions of Westminster in snatching back powers from Wales. I should like to put it a different way.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord continues, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said quite that. What he said was important. He said that any attempt to take back powers would be disputed in the assembly. That is a fact we must bear in mind.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I fully understand that, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for his intervention. I am saying that, rather than the assembly exercising a right of veto, under Clause 22(4)(b) it has a right to be consulted if Westminster seeks to take back powers and functions already granted to that assembly. Is it proposed that the Welsh assembly should not be able to debate the removal from it of functions granted to it by Parliament?
198
Is it to be assumed that the assembly will have no say in the matter; that it will not have the opportunity to consent to it; and that by some arbitrary act its functions can be diminished? Surely that could never be acceptable to the elected representatives of the people of Wales.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Will the noble Lord give way? He has raised a very important point, on which I should like clarification. As I read the clause, if further powers are granted to the Welsh assembly, or are to be taken away from it, that assembly has a right to be consulted, but it also has a right of veto over proposals to take powers away. It would help me enormously if the Minister could clarify that point when he responds.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I understand the difference between his amendment and that put forward by the Conservative Front Bench, the latter provides that there would be no right for the Welsh assembly to be consulted, whereas the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, being a good Welshman, has at least suggested that someone should ask the Welsh assembly if it has a view to express. I see that the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, agrees with that. There is a vital distinction between the two amendments.
When we come to Amendment No. 67 proposed by the Conservative Front Bench, matters are even worse. If the proposed new clause were to be added to the Bill after Clause 22, it would be entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of State to snatch back the powers and functions of the assembly at his own whim. The proposed new clause states:
"If the Secretary of State is of opinion that the Assembly has failed to discharge any of the functions transferred to the Assembly in a manner that the Secretary of State considers adequate, he shall certify the facts and matters he relies upon and serve notice thereof upon the Assembly".
Then, if he—no one else—is not satisfied with the response and remains satisfied that the facts and matters are detrimental to good public administration in Wales,
"the Secretary of State shall by statutory instrument transfer the relevant function or functions of the Assembly to himself to such extent and for such period as may be therein specified".
That amendment would give complete control to the Secretary of State, at his own whim, at his own political motivation—perhaps "whim" is the wrong word—because he takes a different political view from that of the Welsh assembly, to snatch back those powers and functions without consultation.
If a Welsh assembly is to have any meaning, if devolution, which is being granted by a bold and courageous step by the Government, is to take place, let the assembly be strong and retain power and control over its own functions and powers. These amendments should go no further.
Lord Rees: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he not recognise that the Secretary of State is subject to review by both this House and the other place? The idea that he personally, on a whim, can snatch back powers seems to me to be very wide of the mark. Has the noble

199
Lord given any thought to that possibility? If so, perhaps he will share his views on that matter with the Committee.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rees, for what he said. I did rather withdraw from the word "whim", because perhaps it does not assist my argument. It is better to consider a more realistic situation in which, with a government at Westminster of a different political colour from that of the Welsh assembly, the Secretary of State, with the support of the Cabinet and of the majority in the Houses of Parliament, could operate in such a way as to nullify the powers of the assembly. That would be against the spirit of the Bill.
4 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On the last occasion your Lordships considered the Bill, I ventured to suggest that it had no traditional electoral legitimacy. After the Armed Forces and expatriates had been disfranchised, there was a very narrow majority in favour, in spite of all the resources of the Government being put into the campaign. However, although the Bill has no electoral legitimacy, it has a different, unusual—I think, unique—and very interesting legitimacy. The vote having taken place, all parties, including those who took a negative view and those who thought the proposals did not go far enough, seem to agree that in the circumstances the Bill should be made to work.
That demands an unusual attitude both from the Government and from Members of the Committee. From the Government it demands a much more reflective and flexible response than anything we have had up to now. From Parliament it demands the good will to make this scheme work, bearing in mind—if I may repeat—the very wise pronouncement of Clement Attlee. It was a statement with a profound constitutional sense that democracy is not just government by the majority but government by a majority with deference to the interests of the minority.
The second important matter in the Committee's approach is to eliminate so far as possible areas of conflict. The first thing is to make the proposals for devolution as clear-cut as possible and as indisputable as possible in a forensic sense. The second is to eliminate areas of conflict such as an attempt to take back powers which have once been transferred. Of course, things may go wrong. But if there is an attempt to draw back powers which have once been transferred, things are bound to go wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, was quite right that, if there is any attempt to withdraw powers once granted to the Welsh assembly, that is bound to be hotly resisted by the assembly. It would be irresponsible if we allowed such a situation to be permissible.
It seems to me therefore that, although the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, moved the amendment in his habitual clear, cogent and considerate way, on the whole it runs counter to the attitude that we ought now, in these unusual circumstances, to adopt towards the Bill. I have not yet seen the draft order and perhaps anything I have
200
to say about Clause 22 is better left to the Motion that the clause should stand part of the Bill. In the meantime, I venture to beg the Committee to approach this matter not in any sharply polemical way but in the flexible way of good will towards the assembly and the people who will be governed by it.
4 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps at this stage I may say a few words about Amendment No. 67, as my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy suggested I would. At the risk of annoying the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, this is not a new clause put forward in any spirit of wanting to grab back some of the powers that have been given to the Welsh assembly; it is a recognition that there will be a continuing relationship between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Welsh assembly. Issues will arise when the Government of the United Kingdom, for wider reasons, will have some responsibility for the decisions made by the assembly. For example, those wider reasons may be to do with our membership of the European Union; they may be to do with matters relating to GATT or other worldwide obligations into which the United Kingdom has entered but into which the Welsh assembly will not have entered because it will not have responsibility for those issues.
In those circumstances, or indeed some others—perhaps some of the difficult cross-border issues that take up so many pages on the Marshalled List today—
Lord Elis-Thomas: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene to comment on a remark he made earlier. Surely the assembly will have a shared responsibility in any United Kingdom matters which are partly devolved, in that the assembly is covered by the override power—the only one in the Bill, as far as I understand it—ensuring that the assembly does nothing to contravene UK international obligations. The assembly therefore will be involved in GATT and the WTO, but it will not be contravening what the UK may be doing in those areas.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Indeed, the assembly will be covered by those things, but it will not be involved. in the negotiations or the conclusions. However, I agree with the noble Lord that it will be obliged to follow them.
The problems will arise if the assembly does something or does not do something. That will clearly be difficult for the United Kingdom Government. What powers do the Government or the Secretary of State have? Amendment No. 67 suggests, in a modest manner, a way round the problem. The first part gives the Secretary of State powers to notify the assembly if he considers that it is failing in the discharge of any of the functions delegated to it. One hopes that at that point the assembly will consider the position and take steps to satisfy the Secretary of State that it is doing its job properly by discharging the functions or that it is taking proper cognisance of whatever external issues are being brought to bear on the matter in front of it.

201
The second part of the amendment deals with a situation where, for whatever reason, the assembly decides that it is not going to take any cognisance of the centre. I know that the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elis-Thomas, think that that is my fevered imagination. But government's experience—of both parties—with local government suggests that occasionally subsidiary governments decide to dig in their heels and see what happens. I appreciate that the Welsh assembly may be different from any other body that we have in this country in local government, but I am not entirely convinced. I have watched local government occasionally decide to dig in its heels and challenge central government: "If you want it that way, come and do whatever you need to do. We are not going to play ball".
The second part of the amendment therefore gives the Secretary of State some powers to deal with the situation if he thinks it necessary. If he goes way outside the spirit of the words in the new clause, I have little doubt that the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Williams of Mostyn, and their colleagues in the legal profession will get stuck in, and I do not believe that the Secretary of State would last very long in court if he were clearly going beyond the words on the Marshalled List.
Let us presume that all is well from the legal point of view. In order to attempt to ensure that the Secretary of State does not have dictatorial powers, we have ensured that he can exercise this kind of override position only subject to the democratic control of this Chamber or another place. I accept that it is possible that there may be a huge political divide between the Houses of Parliament in London and the assembly in Cardiff; that will inevitably happen at some stage. I should like to think that neither will take the view that they want to break the whole thing apart by taking a purely political view of any issue.
I should like to think also that the words in the new clause are constructed in such a way that, if a government at Westminster were taking a view which was entirely political and clearly had not much relevance to the wording in the new clause, again the legal profession would be called in to play and the Government would suffer a bloody nose in the courts for exceeding those powers—a subject of which I have some experience in my previous existence, so I know that judges can do that kind of thing.
I hope that I have explained at least a little to the Committee's satisfaction. I am not trying to give the Secretary of State huge or dictatorial powers but measured powers whereby he can point out to the assembly that it is not doing things properly or is making difficulties for itself. That could lead to discussion and the possibility of a satisfactory outcome. Failing that, the Secretary of State could proceed not by diktat but by statutory instrument which would be subject to the democratic control of the House. This is
202
sensible machinery to put into the legislation. I would hope that it never had to be used but it would be in place against the day that it might.
Lord Rees: Every Member of the Committee taking part in the debate approaches the Bill with the utmost good will, benevolence and optimism with regard to the assembly, its functions and future. That was the tenor on Second Reading. Whatever reservations we may have had at an earlier stage we are now faced with the practical prospect of translating the thinking behind the Bill into sensible, statesmanlike measures. Against that background we are obliged and bound to consider in some detail what powers are being transferred to the assembly, how those powers can be modified, increased or diminished in the future, and what is the ultimate control and where does it lie.
I shall not take up the Committee's time on the details of the powers at this stage. There will be many amendments allowing for that. Nor will I consider how those powers can be added to or subtracted from. I want to reflect on the responsibilities of the Westminster Parliament in relation to the assembly. We cannot just wash our hands of the assembly once the Bill is passed into law, if it is passed into law without substantial amendment. We retain constitutionally the ultimate responsibility for the running of the United Kingdom. I shall not deal with delicate matters in relation to Scotland; we shall come to those in due course.
Implicit in the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Elis-Thomas, was that any thought of Westminster needing to control or reflect on the performance or powers of the assembly would be regarded as an affront to the people of Wales or those who might be elected to the assembly. That is absolute nonsense. I come from a part of Wales which reflected its reservations in the referendum in spite of the rather unattractive and shabby way the referendum was put. We indicated our reservations. We were perfectly entitled to do so. We are entitled to reflect those reservations today and in the debate we will be having in weeks to come. We are entitled to consider them.
Supposing things do go wrong? Supposing there is friction between the assembly and Westminster? How are these matters to be resolved? Although we had not seen the Bill at the referendum stage, the way its conception was put to the people of Wales at the referendum was that the long stop after all is Westminster. If it is said that any power handed to the assembly is gone for good, no matter how the assembly performs, then one has to face the fact that a deliberative chamber can reach some very odd conclusions which may not be very practical. Are we to say that that is a matter for the assembly, that we have given it powers and that we have no further responsibility? I do not take that view. We have, and will have, a continuing responsibility.
How that power is exercised and how the assembly exercises its powers will be a matter for deep reflection both here and in Cardiff. We have to face the possibilities in a realistic and practical way. We must not draw conclusions that we do not have confidence in the people of Wales and that we are going to keep them

203
dancing at the end of a string. History, alas, is all too full of examples where people set out with the best intentions and those intentions are not fulfilled.
I hope that we can have a measured and careful debate on these questions, particularly on the relationship of the assembly with Parliament in Westminster. On that basis Amendment No. 67, which my noble friend commended, deserves our careful and sympathetic consideration.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I want to make the briefest of interventions. Obviously devolution is a process and much depends on the civilised relationship between Parliament and the assembly. What I find objectionable in most of the amendments to be put forward is that they are sowing the seeds of dissension into the Bill. It is the attitude that says we want an overall control and right to withdraw powers and so on. That is quite unnecessary. If there were to be a real clash of principle between the assembly and Parliament—after all, this is a major devolution—this Parliament is sovereign. If it came to a question of a clash between the assembly and Parliament, then all the power is with Parliament. Why therefore is it necessary to sow the seeds of dissension into the Bill?
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I agree entirely with the principle of what the noble Lord is saying. However, the noble Lord says that if there is dissension sovereignty rests at Westminster. I do not see where that is written into the Bill. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, misinterpreted the tone of my amendment. I am saying that if things go wrong I want exactly the same as the noble Lord.
Lord Hooson: The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, protested many times during his speech that he was not a politician. I thought he was giving a first-class impression of one. He knows I have very warm regard for him. In a relationship such as we are developing between the Welsh assembly and Parliament, you cannot have everything set in stone. You must not anticipate every little problem and give jagged edges to every solution. It will depend on a civilised relationship.
The citizens of Wales realise there are many advantages of being part of the Union; people in England and Scotland realise there are great advantages in giving the people of Wales a good deal of control over their own affairs. The relationship will be a developing, growing one.
Much will depend on the concordats which will be set out. They will be a means of setting in motion what will become constitutional conventions. No doubt they will be amended along the way, but they will become constitutional conventions in the relationship between Parliament and the assembly. That is the way to proceed, not on a basis of suspicion and spite.
Lord Prys-Davies: I agree that the relationship will surely develop over time. It must be clear from the
204
outset that the Welsh assembly is not an agent or a trustee of the Secretary of State. It is not accountable to the Secretary of State; it is accountable to the Welsh people. Amendment No. 67 misses the point. Even if the Secretary of State takes the view that the assembly is not performing a function in a manner which is acceptable to him, that is a political decision. If that be the view of the assembly members, so be it. Of course, if the assembly acted outwith its powers, that is a matter to be referred to the judicial committee. From the outset we must be clear that the assembly is not an agent or a trustee of the Secretary of State.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As I did not speak to this amendment, not having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, say what had to be said, perhaps I may add this. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, is quite right. There is an overriding responsibility on the British Government in the United Kingdom and on Parliament as to the affairs in any part of the United Kingdom. The amendment envisages a major breakdown, a deplorable breakdown, in administration by the assembly. That is a major matter and it can be corrected. The way to correct it is obviously by primary legislation. That is always within the power of Parliament.
However, that is not what the amendment proposes. It proposes that this should be done by secondary legislation on the say so of the Secretary of State, subject of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, emphasised, to parliamentary approval. But it must be wrong that such a momentous constitutional step should be carried out by secondary legislation.
My own view is that the more the Secretary of State keeps his nose out of Welsh affairs, the better it will be both for him and for Wales. I have the gravest doubt whether the proposal that he may intervene in the legislative affairs of the assembly is justifiable. But certainly to give him this power, to write it into an Act of Parliament, is both to insult the forthcoming assembly and to create the worst kind of atmosphere, when, as I think all your Lordships hold, the assembly should be set up in the best kind of atmosphere.
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to comment on Amendment No. 53. Clause 22 commences with the words:
"Her Majesty may by Order in Council … provide for the transfer to"—
but it does not allow for the transfer from—
"the Assembly of any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown".
Circumstances do change from time to time. I feel that the Government need to protect themselves a little where there are changes so that a Minister can then change his mind over anything in particular.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: A good deal of what underpins the discussion on these linked amendments depends on what kind of creature it is wished should inhabit the new assembly when the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, has decided on its architectural design. I recognise entirely, and recognise with gratitude, the fact that in all corners

205
of the Chamber—virtually without exception—the overwhelming majority has come to the generous conclusion that because there was a majority in the referendum, though modest, all efforts should be put to making the Bill work. But that means that the philosophy underlying the Bill and how we deal with matters—whether we start with an emotional approach which is suspicious or whether we look on it as a confident opportunity for a brand new assembly and a new constitutional device—is very important.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made two points. I agreed with one of them and disagreed with the other. I start with the area of disagreement. It simply is not right to say that the Government have been inflexible. I said at Second Reading on a number of occasions—it was repeated by the Solicitor-General on the same occasion—that any suggestion which improved the Bill would be carefully considered. We have demonstrated that. It simply is not factually correct to say that we have been rigid. Indeed, the whole tone and tenor of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, demonstrates that. He was a keen and influential participant in the discussions about whether we should have a cabinet system or a committee system. Having reflected on the arguments that he and his colleagues put forward, we changed our mind. That is not a sign of inflexibility.
Suggestions were put forward, including some from the party opposite, that we should carefully consider having an ombudsman for the assembly. We considered that and were flexible on it. So it simply is not right to say that we have been rigid.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister will remember that he used the same words on the amendment to allow the Armed Forces to have a say in a matter that affected them. He said, "It would be considered carefully" and "It would be considered sympathetically". The outcome was that they were disenfranchised.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: They were not disenfranchised. They were held to the registered franchise which they had formerly had. That is quite different. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, among others, put forward the proposition which was supported by a number of your Lordships. I went away and came back with, I hope, a reasoned response. We were not able to accept that amendment. However, we accepted the thrust of the argument, which was, "Do you have a cabinet system or do you have a committee system?" That is extremely important and I would say, I hope without stirring up any fury, a good deal more significant than the extent of the franchise that we had and whether or not an Italian waiter might or might not be able to vote when the daughter of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, could not.
Where I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale—I hope therefore that he will not immediately snatch away his agreement from me—is that if one is to have a change to the constitutional arrangements set out in the Bill then, as the noble Lord,
206
Lord Hooson, said, that would be a matter ultimately for the residual sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. But if powers are to be taken away—I do not use the words "snatched back" for fear of being accused of being intemperate in my language—if powers are to be recovered, then, constitutionally, it should be done in the way described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson.
It is right that Clause 22 is the heart of the Bill. There is no difference between us on that. I do not detect any hostility to the concept of the assembly in anything that has been said in various degrees of reproach by noble Lords this afternoon. I welcome what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rees, but it is our duty to get the best possible outcome, the basic frame, as it were, now having been the subject of the positive verdict in the referendum. Therefore, all these amendments—they are by no means internally consistent, if I might gently point that out—deal with the mechanism by which the assembly is to gain the majority of its functions. It is the heart of the constitutional settlement.
A number of noble Lords have made interesting comments. Perhaps I may apologise in advance for being rather longer in my response than I would normally have been. Clause 21 states that the assembly is to have the functions transferred to it or made exercisable by it by virtue of this Act. That is a clear reference to the transfer of ministerial functions under Clause 22. Clause 21 also says perfectly plainly that the assembly is to have the functions,
"conferred or imposed on the Assembly by or under this Act or any other Act".
The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is quite right in that this is a process and not an event: were it an event it would be foolish to embark on it.
Initially, the vast majority of the functions are dealt with by order under Clause 22. But from this autumn onwards other Bills brought forward by your Lordships may confer appropriate functions directly on the assembly. This Bill gives a number of functions directly to the assembly—that is to say, the powers to reform public bodies in Wales in Clauses 28 and 29. I am bound to say that I have not met any opposition to that power. There are powers to support culture in Clause 33 and to hold polls under Clause 37.
Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 are inappropriate because they do not recognise that this Bill itself confers functions on the assembly and we cannot accept them. We cannot accept Amendment No. 52 or its sisters, Amendments Nos. 53, 54, 56 and 65. Amendment No. 52 means that the transfer of functions will lack precision. If the intent of Amendment No. 52 is to make sure that your Lordships' House and the wider public know what the transfer functions are to be, it will fail. The transfer order, which we published on 14th May in second draft, will spell out precisely the functions under which Acts are transferred to the assembly.
We believe that we can give clarity. I agree that it is a somewhat laborious clarity, but that is the nature of legislation. I remind the Committee, as has been said earlier, that quite a lot of functions have already been

207
transferred to the Welsh Office over the years. Apart from the occasional political anorak in Wales, I doubt whether anyone has immediately to hand, mind and heart precisely what all the Welsh Office functions are. That is the purpose of the draft transfer order.
We believe that, with the best will in the world—I impugn no one's motives at all on these occasions—what will happen if any of these amendments are accepted by the Committee, is to bring about confusion and dispute. The point was made about Caldey Island and what it meant. It is equally true, as always, that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, had the answer readily to hand. I believe that he must be unique in your Lordships' House. I make my own public confession that I did not have the answer immediately to hand. However, I had others to assist me, but the noble Lord did not. As is well known to every Welsh schoolboy, the Caldey Island Act gives the Welsh Secretary of State powers in respect of elections, coroners' courts—rarely held, I imagine, in that peaceful island—and the district health authorities on that island, which clearly ought to pass to the assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, is absolutely right. He said that we have to take the Bill on trust. To an extent that is true, but I hope that we are playing our reciprocal part in that process. We are publishing drafts as we go along as soon as we have them. I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has said. I have been as open as I possibly can with him and all Members of the Committee and at as early a stage as possible. I recognise that it is difficult to labour through these drafts which are extremely lengthy. We shall be consulting publicly on a complete draft before making the order and that order will require the resolution of both Houses. So there will be an examination of it by the Joint Scrutiny Committee in the usual way.
Amendment No. 52 purports to transfer all functions to the Secretary of State in the fields specified in Schedule 2. But that is not what we propose. We said in the White Paper that virtually all the functions would be transferred to the assembly, but some would not. I give as an illustration the Secretary of State's function in advising Her Majesty on certain appointments that she makes. That is not intended to be transferred and that is deliberate. That is why the draft transfer order shows that we do not intend to transfer to the assembly functions to do, for instance, with the appointment of the chief inspector of schools in Wales under the School Inspections Act 1996 or the local government commissioner for Wales under the Local Government Act 1974. We have been selective and, I hope, prudently so.
We are also considering transferring powers to the assembly of some functions which are not exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales. Some examples include joint powers where the legislation requires that he acts jointly with his Cabinet colleagues. We aim to remove the requirement for joint action wherever practicable so that the assembly will be free to exercise such powers on its own in and for Wales. Where we believe that to be
208
the right course the transfer order will need to transfer to the assembly not only the Secretary of State's functions, but also some of those of his colleagues.
A question was raised about international obligations. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right because in Clauses 108 to 110 we see there the mechanism for ensuring that whatever the assembly does in the international and EU context has to be compliant.
Perhaps I may spend a moment or two on the amendment which has appealed to the Committee perhaps more than some and that is the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish; namely, Amendment No. 67. I had thought that the long tradition of Stalinist state centrist control had gone from the Conservative Party, but I was wrong. It really is an extraordinary proposition that the noble Lord has put forward. It may well be tongue in cheek, otherwise known as probing, but what he actually said was that if one has subordinate assemblies which do something which the Secretary of State is not satisfied with, the Secretary of State can have that draconian override.
It is quite interesting to look at the phraseology. It is not, "If the assembly behaves unlawfully"—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the judicial mechanism for putting that right on a vires basis is there—but what is said here, as a result of due deliberation, is this. If the assembly, in the Secretary of State's opinion,
"failed to discharge any of the functions transferred to the Assembly in a manner that the Secretary of State considers adequate."
he must serve notice on the assembly. Then, if he is not satisfied with the response, he may himself transfer those powers,
"to such extent and for such period as may be therein specified".
That is the apotheosis of the nanny state—asking for trouble and likely to get it.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must be helpful to the noble Lord and stop him walking into too much trouble of his own making. He drew our attention to Clauses 108 to 110 about the inter-relationship between the assembly and Europe. Perhaps I may read out and remind the noble Lord of Clause 110(3) which states,
"If the Secretary of State considers that any subordinate legislation made, or which could be revoked, by the Assembly is incompatible with any international obligations, he may by order revoke the legislation".
I do not believe that the noble Lord should go too far in accusing me of the nanny state.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord makes my point abundantly and in spades. We are dealing with two categories of activity. Perhaps I may just assist the noble Lord so that he does not stumble further into a trap of his own making and, of course, in a spirit of concordance. On his example—I am sure he will happily withdraw it in a moment or two when I have helpfully explained it to him—we are talking about legal

209
obligations in the international field. What we are speaking about when we scrutinise with a beady eye his Amendment No. 67, is that if the Secretary of State considers that in the exercise of any function the performance of the assembly is inadequate, then he may take it back to himself. I believe that Imperial Caesar would have thought that that was a bit rich!
Lord Rees: I had no hand in the drawing of this amendment so I look at it with a relatively detached eye. Does the Minister concede that this will be the subject of debate and ratification by Parliament at Westminster? Since the Minister is so concerned about the Caesarian state, is he seriously suggesting, as a member of the current Administration, that if it was the opinion of the Secretary of State and, after debate, of the Parliament at Westminster, that,
"matters which give rise to the same are likely to persist to the material detriment of good public administration in Wales without intervention",
the government of the day could wash their hands of what was happening across Offa's Dyke?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Both the noble Lord, Lord Rees, and I used to practise at the Bar so I recognise what he has done. He has immediately disavowed any paternity or even responsibility for the amendment under discussion. If the noble Lord wants to table a reasoned amendment of his own, we shall, of course, give it every proper, due and mature consideration—and probably come to the conclusion that we were right all along anyway! However, we would consider an amendment.
What is being proposed is something wholly different. It is not as wholly different as the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, but it is a lurker in the middle. The phrase, "Is the noble Lord suggesting?" has been put to me rhetorically. I recognise that from forensic fields with which many of us are familiar because it immediately suggests that if I disagree with the proposition, there must be something seriously wrong with me.
I am referring to the possibility of a total breakdown leading to catastrophic consequences of the sort mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I respectfully repeat what I believe to be constitutionally correct. Indeed, it has been confirmed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Ultimately, sovereignty remains at Westminster. The short question is whether we approach this on the basis of being hopeful and confident, on the reasoned basis of recent history, that the assembly is capable of working—in other words, is the assembly fitted for power by the powers that we give it—or whether we should build in such mechanisms as will allow intervention. I respectfully suggest that that is what is absurdly and wrongly offered in Amendment No. 67. If a catastrophe occurred, we should have to consider this, bearing in mind our ultimate constitutional sovereignty here in Parliament. I continue—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Perhaps I may point out that in the new schedule on cross-border issues which
210
the Minister is proposing, there is a power for the Secretary of State to intervene in certain circumstances. Would the Minister care to comment at this stage on that power of intervention which is to be given to the Secretary of State?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Most certainly. That is another helpful intervention, indicating that we are dealing with wholly different circumstances. By definition, cross-border matters do not affect the people who voted for the assembly and who will therefore be governed by it. Cross-border matters relate to colleague nations—if I may use that unattractive phrase—in a different context. I am obliged to the noble Lord, but with great respect perhaps I may advise him that he has again abundantly made the point of principle for which I contended earlier.
We have already considered Schedule 2. We have decided that one of the appointments to the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Disability Council should be made with the assembly's agreement. It is to receive copies of those other bodies' reports. That is a useful, practical and utilitarian step.
We are not willing to rule out now, for ever, the possibility of future transfers of ministerial functions to the assembly. We have no plans to make further orders, but we contemplate the possibility that further powers might at some stage be appropriately transferred. The Opposition's amendments would prevent such transfers (even of modest additional functions) without fresh primary legislation. Again, I remind the Committee that there have been many transfers of responsibility to the Welsh Office throughout the course of its life. I refer to the transfers of responsibility for training, higher education and the arts. I am happy to say that all of those transfers were initiatives from the party opposite, very often under the stewardship of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. So, there have been incremental increases and, by and large, in principle and very often in practice, they have worked well.
Reference has been made to the observations of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. We have provided opportunities in Clause 22 for correcting oversights. Of course, we want to do everything we can to avoid them in the first place. However, it may be that an obscure function in a rarely used old statute has been overlooked. We are looking for a stable constitutional settlement on the basis of confidence that there will be continuity.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, in Amendment No. 66, seeks to provide that functions could be removed from the assembly at the behest of the government of the day. Some noble Lords have hinted that sometimes some governments, when they have large majorities, are careless of the views of others. The noble Lord's amendment provides for exactly that to occur in 20 or 25 years' time, perhaps when there is a difference in political complexion between Cardiff and Westminster.
We believe that Clause 22(4)(b) provides a level of security for the assembly. It is an intended lock. We believe that the noble Lord's amendment would remove

211
that lock. In a contribution which far from being from the dark ages came from the enlightenment, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, asked me specifically whether there was a veto under Clause 22(4)(b). An Order in Council could not take powers away by transfer order without the approval of the assembly. The noble Lord's construction of that provision is correct. It is important to repeat that Parliament could take away functions, but only by primary legislation, as I said earlier. The power to transfer functions by order cannot be used to remove functions unless the assembly agrees. Clause 102 of the Scotland Bill is to the same effect.
We believe—this comes to the principled approach that one seeks to have, whatever it is—that watering down the powers of the assembly would lead to a constant fear of the reimposition of rule from Whitehall by the back door. If anything was well calculated to cause dissatisfaction and disaffection among Welsh people about their continued existence in the Union, that would be a prime candidate.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I warmly endorse his last two sentences. I fail to understand why noble Lords opposite pursue this issue because if anything is calculated to fan the flames of the nationalism (against the revival of which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, continually strives), it is precisely such an override power. The fear of an override power is more likely to generate nationalistic feeling than is anything else.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am obliged to the noble Lord for that contribution.
Amendment No. 67 was consequential in the note provided for me, but offered itself so invitingly that I dealt with it out of chronological order.
I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 58 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. He would like the draft order to be laid no later than 16 weeks before the first elections on 6th May next year. I confirm absolutely, as I think that he was inviting me to do, the contents of the Solicitor-General's letter. I repeat that we intend that the order should have been approved by both Houses and made by Her Majesty before nominations for candidates close at the end of March. Of course, I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee because to an extent it depends on the pressure of business which is not entirely in my hands, particularly in your Lordships' House. That may mean that we are able to lay the draft order more or less than 16 weeks before the elections. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we are happy to aim for his suggested timetable, but that we do not think it appropriate to make it a binding requirement in the legislation. The noble Lord has made his point of principle, but it would be unusual to set that in stone in statute.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his response. I express my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton,
212
for his letter. I have already done so in his absence. The question that I sought to raise on the back of my rather small amendment was whether there would be a plain man's guide to the transfer written in English so that ordinary people could understand it and. perhaps more importantly, written in Welsh so that ordinary Welshmen could understand it. That would be an extremely useful document for candidates in the election and a very useful reference document for everyone. It would avoid having to go through an appalling mish-mash of legal statements and references back to other enactments. A plain man's guide would be very useful.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept the spirit of what the noble Lord said and I am grateful to him. As he said "plain man's guide" I picked up the document in question. I am not sure for how many plain men I could write a guide. Either one prepares something that is so simplistic that it is of little value except on the basis of "mum and apple pie" or one gives the detail so that those who are genuinely interested can make their own researches. However, I shall pay every decent regard to what the noble Lord said. I believe that the answer is likely to be no, for the reason I have given, but I shall certainly consider it. I am grateful for the suggestion.
Amendment No. 59 deals with the question of whether the draft order should contain functions in each of the fields specified in Schedule 2. Subsection (2) does not require that the draft order contains functions in each of the fields in Schedule 2. It requires the draft order to make provision for transferring such functions in each of the fields as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. It is possible, though unlikely, that he may conclude that there should be no functions in the draft order in one of the fields in Schedule 2, so we do not believe that Amendment No. 59 is of benefit.
I have deliberately taken a little while because particular questions have been raised. I believe that some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderney, are directed specifically to the next group of amendments. It is probably more convenient if I deal with them at that stage. However, I shall respond generally to his questions about the position in 1978 vis-à-vis the present proposals. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office have taken on many more functions since 1978. It is for that reason that the functions in the transfer order are much more extensive than those listed in the 1978 Act. I believe that agricultural responsibilities were transferred to the Welsh Office in the course of 1978.
I hope that my responses are helpful. I have deliberately held back my detailed responses to the questions raised by the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Willoughby de Broke. It is probably better if I deal with those issues at that time. On the basis of what I have put forward in a spirit of non-controversy I hope that all noble Lords will decide not to pursue their varying and contradictory amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the Minister for his interesting

213
response to the debate. It would have been surprising had it not been so. All noble Lords realise that the clauses which transfer functions lie at the very heart of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, the transfer of functions is on a massive scale. It would be curious if we did not pause to consider the matter. We are passing functions from the Secretary of State to the assembly under some 300 Acts. We are passing very considerable powers to the assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to partnership. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to the civilised relationship that should exist between Parliament and the assembly. It is no part of our endeavour to belittle the assembly or to snatch functions properly transferred to it. But we believe that there is a duty incumbent upon Parliament to take care of the partner to whom it is transferring functions. Surely, we would be irresponsible if we did not take some kind of precaution in the event that matters did not go well and functions were not properly exercised by the assembly. Difficulties might occur either for the United Kingdom or for the assembly, as we have seen happen in local government, and we would be unable to take back functions given by this Parliament.
The Minister made much of the fact that Amendment No. 67 conferred an override power on the Secretary of State. However, it was pointed out that that power existed in the field of Community obligations and cross-border issues and functions. If they are not properly carried out, the Secretary of State has an interventionist role.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I do not want to delay the noble Lord but I have difficulty understanding his position. I believe that he is in danger of invalidating those very Conservative candidates who presumably will be standing for election to the assembly. Surely, if they are to be elected they are responsible for the devolved functions and are accountable to the electorate whereas international obligations and cross-border issues are precisely so—cross-border issues to do with bodies who have no say in elections to the assembly.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I congratulate the noble Lord who is clearly launching into his campaign. As to Conservative candidates for the assembly—I can assure the noble Lord that there will be a contender against him—there is still a duty upon them, as upon us, to ensure that the assembly performs its functions satisfactorily. What we seek to do is to make some provision in the event that difficulties occur.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not failing to make the distinction between "unpopular" and ultra vires? Is it not rather unwise in this Chamber to suggest that assemblies may lose functions if they discharge them in a way that does not satisfy the Secretary of State?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The Committee has already covered almost all the situations in which there can be malfunction. All that we seek to emphasise here is that the transfer of functions is entirely one way. I would
214
have thought that a Parliament which executed a massive transfer of powers of this kind would make some provision in case those powers were not used appropriately. But I am reassured by the fact that it can be done by primary legislation. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for emphasising that point. I give way.
5 p.m.
Lord Islwyn: Is not the term "carrying out its functions satisfactorily" a relative one? There are differences, for instance, in the pattern of voting in Wales compared with England. We have been led to believe that people of the highest calibre will be encouraged to stand for this new assembly. I hope that many of those people of high calibre will be elected. If they are going merely to dance to the tune played at Westminster, they will not be of much calibre at all.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: All sides of the Committee realise that membership of the assembly should be of the highest quality. The general assumption behind this massive transfer of functions by Parliament to the assembly is that it is, as one noble Lord has said, a matter of trust. It is being done on trust. We are seeking to ensure that should there be any malfunction and substantial call for the return of powers to Parliament that should be provided for. It is possible for such a return of functions to take place, because of the continuing power of this Parliament in primary legislation. Bearing that in mind, and with the assurances that we have been given, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Transfer of Ministerial functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 59 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 13, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) No draft of an Order in Council laid before each House of Parliament under subsection (2) above shall make provision for transferring to the Assembly functions concerning animal health and welfare.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak first to Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 and then follow with Amendment No. 64 which is slightly different. This series of amendments tries to clarify the Government's intentions regarding the transfer to the assembly of four areas of function relating to agriculture: animal health and welfare; food safety; health and safety; and pesticides. It is clear from the guide to the draft transfer of functions order published in May, that the Government:
"has not reached final decisions on all aspects of them".
The guide refers to some agricultural functions being exercisable by the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister of Agriculture, acting together. An option is to

215
split that joint function so that the assembly will be able to exercise the functions separately. The guide points out that before splitting the functions in that way:
"it is necessary to consider whether it is desirable to do so".
I wonder what that phrase means. I hope that the Minister will agree that Parliament should be told now what is or what is not desirable.
The draft order proposes to transfer the main animal health and welfare legislation (the Animal Health Act 1981 and the Animal Health and Welfare Act 1984), but I wonder whether it would be sensible to have different regulations applying to animal diseases either side of the Border. Diseases, particularly animal ones, can spread easily, and are no respecters of boundaries.
Similarly, the main legislation on food safety (the Food Safety Act 1990) is on the list to be transferred, but in the case of some emergency would not it be desirable to have a quick and uniform UK plan? My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has tabled an amendment on the subject. I am concerned also that it must be possible in such cases to transfer power back to the Secretary of State or to the assembly.
It is proposed under the draft order to transfer the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 which includes provisions on the control of pesticides. Surely the Government do not intend to duplicate the specialist and carefully constructed system of scientific advisory committees which currently vet the safety of pesticides, which this place debated at considerable length when that Bill went through. I look forward to a positive answers to those queries, because time is running out.
I move now to Amendment No. 64 which, as I said, is slightly different. Clause 22(1) provides that a function can be transferred to the assembly to be exercised concurrently with the Minister of the Crown. The draft transfer order proposes to transfer the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including provisions for a right of appeal against planning decisions to the Secretary of State.
It is desirable that planning decisions reached on appeal follow a consistent policy and are reached at arm's length from what can often be turbulent local politics surrounding a proposed development. I fear—I am always frightened of everything—that if the assembly had sole charge of reaching decisions on appeals there would be no guarantee of those decisions not becoming politicised in due course. For that reason, there is merit in having that power jointly with the Secretary of State.
I suppose that I should declare an interest. Anyone who has ever had experience of trying to obtain planning permission knows only too well how local authorities—I am sorry to say particularly my own in Anglesey—are swayed by public opinion, and, I fear, on occasions, by backhanders. Farmers today need to diversify to survive. They need to know that their applications to do so will be dealt with in accordance with the guidelines laid down and not on political or personal prejudice. The amendment's intention is to achieve that.
I suspect that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and, of course, the Liberal Peers will say that I should be more trustful. Not only is my name Thomas, but 50 years of farming have made me always assume the worst. We are a revising Chamber, and that is the attitude that we should take. I beg to move.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I speak to Amendment No. 64C which is intended to clarify the Government's intentions with regard to the devolvement to the assembly of food safety powers. The latest draft of the transfer of functions order lists the Food Safety Act as one of the pieces of legislation to be devolved to the assembly in respect of the powers currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales.
As the Minister will be aware, it was under the umbrella of the Food Safety Act 1990 that the beef bones regulations were laid. This is not the moment to rehash the arguments against those regulations which were so heavily criticised in a Motion debate in this place on 27th January last when an overwhelming majority of noble Lords voted that they be revoked.
It might be worth reminding the Committee that the only prosecution to date under those regulations was thrown out of court as they were held to be bad law and unworkable. Will the Minister confirm that through the devolved powers which are vested under the Food Safety Act, the Welsh assembly will have the power to revoke those oppressive and unnecessary regulations?
Lord Crickhowell: The Committee may wonder why Amendment No. 82, which concerns higher education in Wales, is grouped with amendments on agriculture. I believe that that has been done entirely to assist me. I have an engagement later this evening which I simply cannot miss. A debate now may also help a number of other noble Lords who have an interest in higher education in Wales.
My amendment contains a serious flaw. I drafted it entirely in terms of the University of Wales. As I shall elaborate later, my remarks apply equally to other higher education institutions in Wales. I shall set out some of the details of the possible impact on those institutions.
At Second Reading, I expressed anxieties about the future financial arrangements for the University of Wales. I referred to the matter in those terms in the Second Reading debate. The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General sought to reassure me. Subsequently he wrote me a detailed and helpful letter. I have to say that it does not reassure me, but it may be helpful to quote from it. He sets out clearly the present structure under which higher education in Wales is financed. On 5th May, he wrote:
"As you are aware, whilst the Secretary of State for Wales is currently responsible for determining the overall allocation each year for higher education in Wales, it is the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales"—
fondly known, I understand, in university circles as HEFCW—
"to determine the actual allocation that each higher education institution receives for teaching and research.

217
In determining the overall amount to be allocated to higher education, Ministers take full account of a wide variety of issues facing the sector".
I emphasise that sentence.
"The advice of HEFCW on the sector's funding requirements is also sought and fully considered.
There has for decades been an arm's length relationship between governments and HE institutions in order to maintain the traditional independence of universities. The Government believes it is sensible to maintain this approach under devolution, which is why the Higher Education Funding Council will continue in its present form. Therefore, whilst the assembly will have the responsibility for determining the overall allocation to higher education in Wales, it will not assume responsibility for making allocations to individual institutions. That, as at present, will remain the responsibility of HEFCW. The Assembly will also not have any powers to abolish HEFCW, and the ability of Research Councils to fund research in Welsh institutions is also not affected by the Bill.
Given these provisions the Government remains firmly of the view that there is no requirement for the allocation of the overall resources for higher education in Wales to become a joint function of the Assembly and the UK Government. As at present, the sector will have opportunities to press its case in order to seek to secure the level of funding it requires. The Assembly will also no doubt continue to seek the advice of HEFCW on the sector's funding requirements".
Yes, but the problem lies in a later paragraph in the Solicitor-General's letter in which he states:
"The Government had already made it clear that the Barnett formula will continue to be used for determining changes to the whole Welsh Block and any revision to it will be preceded by a full needs assessment in which the Assembly will be involved".
The problem about the Barnett formula is that it is population based. I cannot remember the exact percentage, but about 5.5 per cent. of the total spend is allocated to Wales. The university expenditure has no relationship with the population of Wales. The University of Wales and the other institutions to which I shall refer in detail in a moment are important and great Welsh institutions, but they are also great British institutions. Only a minority of the students come from Wales. Of the approximately 14,000 members of Cardiff University, of which I have the privilege to be president, a large number come from England and Scotland and at present about 1,300 from other parts of the world.
For legitimate and understandable reasons, the assembly may be seriously concerned about the level of expenditure which falls on its budget and which is required in effect to finance the education of people from other parts of the United Kingdom. The numbers are large. For 1998–99, Cardiff University will receive in grants over £52.5 million, nearly £36 million for teaching and over £16.5 million for research. The total for higher education in 1998–99 for all the Welsh higher education institutions amounts to over £240 million. For example, the University of Glamorgan receives over £31 million. The North-East Wales Institute receives £10 million and the Swansea Institute of Higher Education over £9 million. Those are large sums of money. The total is a large sum in relation to the total Welsh block of around £7 billion.
Anyone who has been involved in public expenditure rounds—as many in this Committee have—will know the pressures that arise from the insatiable demands for the funding of the health
218
service, education and other priorities which will be the responsibility of the assembly. There is a fear in university circles that there will be a temptation to whittle away at the initial block allocated to higher education, or at least not to increase it at the same rate at which it is being increased to meet rising numbers, inflation or other factors in the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is a legitimate anxiety which I share. It should give us all considerable grounds for concern. The university sector is now a highly competitive sector. Cardiff has recently leapt sharply up the assessment table for research institutions. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to put on the record the fact that the tables published recently in The Times and other journals unfairly treat the Welsh institutions. The teaching assessment basis is different; the marking is different; and the necessary adjustments have not been made. Therefore a number of the Welsh universities come lower down the table than they should do if the calculation were made on a proper basis.
However, that is not the central point. People are looking closely at the performance of the university sector and individual institutions in it. It is a highly competitive business. To use the old phrase, Welsh colleges and universities have to compete on a level playing field with those elsewhere in the United Kingdom. All I seek to do in my amendment is to provide a protection so that the funding arrangements will ensure that the universities are able to act as they have in the past.
I refer again to the letter of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General in which he said:
"Ministers take full account of a wide variety of issues facing the sector".
When the present allocations were initiated by the Secretary of State for Wales they were not controlled by or decided on the basis of the Barnett formula. They were decided on a basis necessary for higher education in Wales after the responsibility had been transferred to the Welsh Office. It is highly unsatisfactory that we should look to the future in a situation where the Barnett formula may have a damaging impact on Welsh higher education.
The guide to the transfer of functions order, to which I and others referred when speaking to an earlier set of amendments, states that, where appropriate, Schedule 1 directs that certain functions are to be exercised concurrently by the assembly and a Minister of the Crown. That means that both the assembly and the Minister can exercise the power with respect to Wales. The examples given in the guidance notes are interesting. It goes on to state,
"Examples of Section 5 of the Science and Technology Act 1965, power to incur expenditure in carrying on or supporting scientific research, and Section 57 of the Transport Act 1968 grants research and development in connection with transport services".
All I seek to do is to give such concurrent powers. Indeed, I have lifted the wording of my clause from Clause 21 of the Bill, which provides that concurrent powers can be granted. My object in moving the amendment is to protect the higher education

219
institutions in Wales, to make sure that they are adequately funded in the future and to make sure that if the Barnett formula imposes unavoidable tax constraints on the ability of the assembly to fund higher education the Secretary of State and the Government at Westminster can intervene in order to protect the university.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: I followed the references to our university made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on Second Reading and the discussion he said he had had during the past few months with his colleagues in Cardiff on the present situation of the university. I have a similar interest in the University of Bangor and before that as pro-chancellor of Aberystwyth. We are fortunate tonight that we have my noble friend the Minister, who is now pro-chancellor. I am sure he will agree that the people of Wales—north, mid and south—are very proud of their university. We must not forget that the university came into existence more than a century ago because the people of Wales wanted it and because they gave their limited money so that their children, like those in England and Scotland, might have their colleges. It is one of our greatest achievements, of which we are proud. We are aware that there is an intake into the Welsh universities from England and elsewhere, but that does not change the name of the University of Wales or its character.
The members of the assembly will see education as central in its priorities for Wales, and we shall all support that. We are concerned that the University of Wales should be properly funded on the same level as the universities of England and Scotland. I regret that we have run into real difficulties in recent years.
The assembly must be treated properly. It must be enabled to ensure that the colleges have the income to carry out their range of work at the appropriate level. The Welsh assembly can launch the University of Wales into a new era. That is what we intend should take place, and it is one of the reasons why we want an assembly. However, I must draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the general view, and the amendment, are in breach of the principle of devolution upon which the Bill has been constructed. My understanding is that the assembly must be able to determine its policies and its priorities of expenditure without being under a duty to consult a Whitehall Minister, who is unlikely to understand the Welsh background. I feel obliged to draw this to the attention of the Committee. We must be careful not to avoid one of the fundamentals of the Bill.
The Earl of Courtown: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 60 to 64 which stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. First, I declare a former interest. I am a chartered surveyor, qualified in the rural practice division of that institution, and before taking part in your Lordships' House was for a number of years in practice in Wales as a land and estate manager.
220
I understand some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, but I do not believe that they are quite right. The issues covering agriculture are of prime importance. My noble friend and myself are not making an effort to throw a spanner in the works of the Bill but are trying to cover practical, important issues.
This group of amendments deals with the transfer of functions relating to agriculture, animal health and welfare, food safety, health and safety and pesticides. In connection with those issues, I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say when he speaks to the new schedule proposed in Amendment No. 76A. It is not entirely clear to me whether that will solve the problems which concern me.
The draft order proposes to transfer those issues, particularly in the case of animal health and welfare legislation. Surely it would be sensible to have the same regulations each side of the border; for example, in the case of foot and mouth disease, which is no respecter of borders or boundaries. The same principle applies to food and safety. A quick and uniform approach to a worst possible scenario throughout the UK would be imperative. As regards pesticides, such duplication of highly specialised systems could be considered ill-advised and wasteful.
As regards Amendment No. 64, the subject of planning is often debated in your Lordships' House. Consistency in decisions must always be seen to be carried out. The Bill as currently drafted removes the requirement of functions being exercisable only by a Minister once he has consulted or secured the agreement of another Minister. Our amendment would require any town and country planning functions which were to be transferred to be exercised concurrently with a Minister of the Crown, so delivering consistency of decisions.
I am looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply to my amendments and to those of my noble friends Lord Crickhowell and Lord Willoughby de Broke.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: It is unfortunate that these two debates are running together. Not having scrutinised the Marshalled List with great care, I did not realise that we were going to discuss education in the middle of discussing agriculture. Therefore, I shall not comment on what the noble Earl has just said. I shall simply revert to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord is trying to do, but I believe that the amendment goes much too far in specifying that "any function" of the assembly must only be "exercisable" after consultation with a Minister. I have a simple approach to university funding and education: the further the Government keep away from those things the better. I would be most concerned if the assembly were to take a more detailed interest in the various universities which make up the University of Wales than is taken at present by the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. Indeed, I believe that the present system is perfectly appropriate.

221
I can say that because I have had some 10 years' experience in that respect. It enables the border considerations between English and Welsh universities to be reconciled very easily.
When I reflect upon the amount of research that is carried out jointly by Welsh and English universities and the interconnection that exists between them in pursuing those aims, I must say that I would much prefer to see such matters left as far as is possible to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and to the similar council in England. I hope that the assembly will not interfere too much in such matters. Therefore, rather than promote close ministerial collaboration between England and Wales, which will almost certainly lead to greater intervention, on the whole I would go in the other direction. I hope that my noble friend, the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Wales, will agree to do so in his capacity as a Minister of the Crown.
The Earl of Balfour: I have a few brief comments to make. First, Amendment No. 62 deals with health and safety in the workplace. I believe that the Health and Safety Executive should be a universal body within the United Kingdom to ensure that all standards are exactly the same. Secondly, the last two lines of Amendment No. 64C refer to,
"other food and ingredients for human consumption derived from bovine animals".
After the word "human", I wish that we could add the word "animal". I shall explain why. I am quite certain that one of the main causes of BSE was that herbivores were given extracts from meat. I am sure that that is what triggered it off.
Thirdly, when you buy tinned food for a cat, a dog or any pet, it is most disturbing to read the wording on the tins which specifies that the contents contain derivatives of this, that or the other, without giving details of precisely what the can contains. I wish that we could cover both food for humans and food for animals in this provision. I am sure that that would help many a farmer with a dairy herd who wants to keep up his milk yields and who has, therefore, had to give his herd some artificial food. Most of them really do not have a clue what the food is made of.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Members of the Committee heard an important speech from the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. It was obviously deeply researched and, indeed, was cogently argued. I shall make only one minor point. When we talk about the Barnett formula in relation to Wales, it should be known as the Barnett/Rees formula. I point that out to the Committee because it was as Chief Secretary that the noble Lord, Lord Rees, extended the scheme to Wales. Therefore, he should have the credit for doing so. It only goes to show that blood is thicker than bilge.
I turn now to the important intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. Since about the third quarter of the last century, the Government in this country have kept themselves separate—that is to say, at a distance—from the universities: the arm's length approach. Today there is a buffer between the Government and the universities; namely, the Higher Education Funding
222
Council. If such responsibility were transferred to the assembly, I see no reason why it should not, as I believe it should, adopt the arm's length approach and transact its relationship through the appropriate HEFC.
I move on from those elevated matters to the more mundane subject of food safety. Amendment No. 61 and Amendment No. 64C, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, are in total conflict. The former would keep food safety matters as a responsibility of Westminster, while the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, is that they should be handed over specifically to the assembly.
When Members of this Chamber discussed the matter in the context of the order of the Ministry of Agriculture, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, appeared to be reduced to eating his dog's dinner. Therefore, on that ground, I should have thought that he would have much preferred Amendment No. 64C. For myself, I can see no reason why food safety, or indeed consumer protection as proposed in a later amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, should not be the responsibility of the assembly. Indeed, I see every reason why they should be.
Viscount Bledisloe: Into this extraordinary mixture of sheep and university students, I should like to add some brief comments on Amendments Nos. 60 and 63. As a part-time farmer, I confess that I find it a little strange to conceive that there should be different rules for tractor safety, or for pesticides, either side of the Border. However, if there really must be such differences, what would happen to a farm which straddles the Border? Animals move, tractors move and pesticides may be spread on any field on a farm. Will some poor farmer whose farm happens to straddle the Border really be obliged to obey different rules and thereby have his tractors differently equipped, while using different pesticides either side of the Border? Alternatively, will there be some provision whereby such a farm can be treated in its entirety as belonging one side of the Border and not the other, so that a farmer who has, say, hundred hectares in Wales and only 30 hectares in England can be treated as a Welsh farmer and not be obliged to change the cab of his tractor or the mix of his pesticides when he crosses the Border?
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I hope I can be of some small assistance to my noble friend. If he cares to visit the land frontier of the United Kingdom between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic he will find that cross-border traffic, particularly in livestock, is made easy by the construction of a long shed with doors at either end rather like an aircraft hangar. Not only do livestock progress from one end to the other on foot, but there are good tarmac roads leading from either end and whole lorries or sometimes four lorries come in and park there overnight when the Customs staff are not looking and out they go on the other side. Thanks to our wonderful common agricultural policy they manage to acquire subsidy at least six times a day on the same cattle.
Lord Prys-Davies: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 64 and then to Amendment No. 82. Both these

223
amendments have one thing in common. I believe both would involve consultation with a Minister of the Crown. As regards Amendment No. 64, it would be helpful and reassuring if the Minister could indicate how the Welsh assembly will discharge those quasi-judicial functions. A planning appeal is a quasi-judicial function. It would be helpful if the Minister could give an indication of how that will be discharged.
I now turn to Amendment No. 82. I should declare an interest as currently I have the privilege to be a president of the University of Wales, Swansea. I have listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, and the case which he has advanced. Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the letter from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. Perhaps that is my fault. I draw comfort from a statement by the official historian of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Mr. E.L. Ellis, who noted in the official history of that university that,
"The struggle for Welsh national identity and the striving for educational opportunity have always gone hand in hand".
I for my part do not think that the national assembly will easily depart from that tradition. I have a feeling that it will give investment in higher education a high priority indeed. If I am wrong, it seems to me that there is an objection in principle to the amendment which has been ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn has referred to that. The essence of devolution is that the national assembly is to be responsible for the devolved services and is to have the freedom to determine how that block grant is to be distributed between devolved services. I believe that that function should be exercised without consultation with another Whitehall-based department. For those reasons I am unable to accept the amendment which has been spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: This is indeed a curious mix of amendments. I am happy to endorse what was said by my noble friends Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Willoughby de Broke about their amendments. I see no reason to add to that. I thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made a fair point in talking about farms that straddle the border. I know that this matter is of concern to the fanning unions and of course to the farmers who are involved in "split farming" as we might call it, where some land is in Wales and some is outside it.
My noble friend Lord Courtown dealt clearly with the difficult issue of planning appeals. After all, given the fact that so many powers and responsibilities will remain at Westminster—for example, the primary legislation on which so much of planning legislation is based—it could be wiser to make the determination of planning appeals a joint function. I shall be anxious to hear the Minister's response to that point and to the quasi-judicial point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell has made a powerful plea on behalf of the University of Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council. Of
224
course he reflects a concern which is deeply felt in the university. The Minister, as pro-chancellor, will be well aware of that. I was present at a meeting of the University Court which he chaired where a resolution was passed expressing that concern. I should declare an interest and say that I was present as President of the University of Wales College of Medicine.
The concern about funding through the assembly is widespread and extends to other devolved fields. I must admit immediately that I think that higher education is in a special position in that, as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, pointed out, the population of the university and higher education sector is not strictly speaking related to the population of Wales, and neither is its growth. I am sure that we shall undoubtedly return to this subject of funding of the higher education sector and other sectors when we reach Part IV of the Bill and Clause 82 which deals with the Secretary of State's power to make grants to the assembly. We look forward eagerly to receiving any kind of assurance that the Minister can give. I am sure that he will give of his best, bearing in mind his alter ego as pro-chancellor.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: These amendments point in different directions, as has already been observed. Those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stanley and Lord Crickhowell, seek to restrict the transfer of functions. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, seeks to require that other functions are transferred. Amendments Nos. 60 to 63 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, seek to prevent certain functions from being transferred to the assembly.
The noble Viscount asked what happens when you have a farm on both sides of the border. There are a few cases of a farm straddling both sides of the border. At present there are different regulations which obtain on Welsh land as opposed to English land. I shall give examples to assuage any scepticism about my proposition. The moorland livestock extensification (Wales) regulations and the Rural Development Grants Agriculture (Wales) pertain only to land on the Welsh side of the border.
Viscount Bledisloe: Surely those are regulations which relate to the land itself. The point I sought to make was that as regards regulations concerning health and animals, the same animal and the same tractor and the same pesticide may be used or stationed one day on one side of the border and another day on the other side. We all recognise that one may have land part of which is in an environmentally sensitive area and part of which is not, and different regulations apply. My concern is that extremely mobile things such as tractors and sheep may come under different regulations each time they push through a hedge.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for that further illustration. Perhaps I may deal with it. Some of the amendments would prevent a transfer order transferring functions with respect to animal health and welfare, food safety, health and safety in the workplace and the regulation of pesticides, as the noble Lord,

225
Lord Stanley, helpfully set out in his sub-categories. Health and safety are not among the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Government have no plans to transfer any such functions to the assembly. We believe it wrong to rule that out for all time. In five, 10 or 20 years' time, a different view might be taken. But at present there is no possibility of health and safety being transferred as one of the functions of the Secretary of State.
As was pointed out by a number of noble Lords, the Secretary of State has functions with respect to animal health, welfare and food safety. We intend to transfer those to the assembly. In those cases, and therefore also in relation to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, we are considering retaining the arrangements under which functions are exercised jointly with the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that deals with the specific question put by the noble Viscount.
To turn to the noble Earl's point, we believe that pesticides are in a different category. We are considering not transferring those to the assembly for the reasons given; namely, there is a substantial body of acquired expertise. The Welsh Office is entirely dependent on specialist advice from MAFF's Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Health and Safety Executive. We believe that there is a case, examining each case individually, for not transferring those.
We do not believe that there ought to be a limit in the way in which ministerial functions may be transferred in future. If a successor government do not wish to transfer functions, they will not bring forward an order; and if Parliament does not wish the functions to be transferred, then it will not approve such an order. We think that that is a sensible way of dealing with the matter.
Amendment No. 64 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, requires that the transfer order makes the determination of planning appeals a concurrent function, one which either the assembly or the Minister could exercise. We do not believe that that is practically workable for developers, local authorities or individuals. It would not be clear who was going to decide any particular planning appeal since either the assembly or the Minister could exercise that function. We do not think that there should be uncertainty about quasi-judicial functions. My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asked that question specifically. The function will be transferred to the assembly, and I dare say in due time the assembly will wish to give careful attention, when considering its standing orders and methods of procedure, to how it will deal with the problems he identified.
Turning to Amendment No. 82, there is hardly any noble Lord who has spoken who does not seem to have some position of responsibility in the University of Wales. However, I stress, as your Lordships kindly have done already, that I am speaking on behalf of the Government and not the university.
The noble Lord, Lord Merlyn-Rees, has also indicated to me that the University of Glamorgan has inexplicably been left out; but the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has already confessed and avoided that error.
226
The points made by your Lordships, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, are extremely important. We have given a good deal of thought to the matter. We believe the solution we have arrived at to be a legitimate safeguard for the university's interests. We have specifically decided to retain the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.
The functions of that council will remain the same. All that the assembly can do is what is presently capable of being done by the Secretary of State for Wales. It is possible, of course, that the assembly might wish to give increased funding to HEFCW within its budgetary constraints. The assembly will not be able to abolish the funding council under Clause 29—though I appreciate that it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will wish us to alter that. We have therefore decided to recognise the importance of academic institutions in the life of any community, not least on historical and cultural grounds in Wales, to maintain HEFCW and simply to keep intact its functions but transferring the functions that the Secretary of State for Wales has vis-à-vis HEFCW to the assembly. We believe that that is the right way to do it.
Other than that, the Secretary of State has a very limited function in respect of the University of Wales which I mention for the sake of completeness. It is advising Her Majesty from time to time on changes to the charter and statutes, as is seen in the White Paper. The assembly will not take over that role.
Apart from the historical attachment that has been mentioned, there is the enormous economic impact made by the University of Wales to the prosperity of Wales. To take the University of Wales at Cardiff as an example, papers have been produced making it plain that enormous economic benefit goes out to the community generally from institutions of high quality.
We do not see, however, that HEFCW should be treated any differently vis-à-vis assembly decisions, decisions with respect to the Welsh Development Agency, funding for local government or, for instance, plans for improving the trunk road network. The assembly is well placed, first, to identify, and, secondly, to protect the true interests of university education in Wales.
I hope that I have been able to deal with the points made. On that basis, I invite noble Lords to withdraw their respective amendments.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: Before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that the effect of his remarks is that the Welsh assembly will not have the power to revoke the beef bones legislation because it will be subject to joint consultation with the Minister of Agriculture?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is right. If I did not make that plain, I ought to have done. Because the powers remain joint, the assembly alone will not be able to revoke them.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before withdrawing my amendment, perhaps I may answer one or two of the

227
questions put. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, asked about the border problem. If he can wait until then, I have the perfect answer in Amendment No. 196B, which I am absolutely sure the Minister will accept. I leave him in anticipation as to what that is.
I was extremely pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, saw the point over the planning appeals. The matter needs considerable thought. When I suggested this amendment to certain organisations, I just wanted the Secretary of State to do it. That is what I should like. However, I was told that that would be most uncharitable to the assembly—hence the division of power. But serious consideration is needed as to how it will be done. It should be done judicially and quickly and in accordance with the guidelines in order to give those of us on the ground some idea of what we are doing.
I thank the Minister for his answers. He has obviously not been a Minister for long enough to know that he should not give any answer, at any time, at any price. However, I thank him. I am not sure that I liked the answers. As I understood it, the assembly won two and Westminster won two, if I may put it as brutally as that. I am grateful for the Minister's replies and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: I have to confess that I am rather disappointed with the Minister's reply to my Amendment No. 64C. It seems inconsistent with what we have heard this afternoon. All—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Perhaps the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting him. As the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has withdrawn his amendment, I think that we ought to deal with that procedurally before moving to the next.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 61 to 64 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 64A:
Page 13, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) No draft of an Order in Council laid before each House of Parliament under subsection (2) above shall make provision for transferring to the Assembly functions concerning shipping.").
The noble Lord said: I am sorry, I do not know who is in a muddle. Amendment No. 64A is in the next grouping and is totally different from what we have been dealing with; it does not have to do with sheep or students.
I tabled Amendments Nos. 64A and 64B, which are very simple amendments, as a member of the committee of management of the RNLI. As the Minister probably knows, the RNLI undertakes—indeed, binds itself to performing—certain sea rescue services which are determined in discussion with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Briefly, the RNLI is interested in the EC shipping register, navigation systems and aids, yachting, boating, pleasure craft, water sports and other leisure activities, beaches, fishing boats and shipping safety, marine engineering,
228
marine distress signals, construction and equipment standards, VAT and its application to charities and charity-law reform. I realise that the last two areas should be discussed under Clause 114. My reason for raising the other areas of interest of the RNLI is to ask the Minister whether he can give an assurance that none of the matters I have mentioned is likely to be devolved. I am sure he can see the problem it would cause if, for instance, the assembly wanted the RNLI to adhere to a different rescue code from that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In passing, I should say that currently these practices are similar throughout the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.
The Committee may remember that there was, and is, a problem over powered water craft. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, smiling. I am sure that the Minister will understand, as did the noble Baroness at Question Time a month or so ago, that diverse regulations for such craft would not be sensible. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am also interested in these amendments, perhaps on slightly different grounds. So far as concerns shipping, I trust that the buoyed channels, lighthouses, and so on, will continue to be managed by the Trinity House organisation, as has been the case for a long time.
As regards the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, a concern of us all, including, I am sure, the Government, is to prevent drugs coming into the country. I believe that the Coastguard and Customs and Excise services need to be under national control rather than an area control. In this respect, my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Courtown have raised important points.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may briefly intervene on these two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley. I trust that there was never any intention to devolve shipping and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I say that as someone who in the past, for some half a year, had responsibility for shipping and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. It seems to me inconceivable that responsibility for these matters should be devolved.
Shipping is a complicated and international matter. I do not believe that it would be possible for the assembly to have a different shipping policy from that of the UK generally. It would also be inconsistent with the concept of devolution. The same is true of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. My noble friend Lord Balfour made the point very well. I do not believe that we shall even risk the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, by suggesting that these are not matters which should be devolved to the Welsh assembly. I fear that the Minister is being invited to answer the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?". I hope he will be able to give an assurance that these matters not only will not be devolved in the first tranche but will not be devolved in any subsequent tranches, which is really the problem with issues such as this.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In answer to the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?", I think I ought

229
to say, "Yes and no". In respect of the more fundamental question, I am grateful for the opportunity given to me by the noble Lords, Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, to give an assurance on this point. As the noble Lord rightly observed, these are not functions of the Secretary of State for Wales. We have no plans to transfer them to the assembly. As I said on earlier occasions, we do not see a case for ruling them out indefinitely, but I stress that we have no plans, in the first stage or any subsequent stage, to remove these powers or functions to the assembly, substantially for the reasons that have been put forward: that there are some aspects of national life which are best dealt with more generally than specifically.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. That will be a great reassurance. I hope I shall not have to make him stand by it. There are marginal cases, as the noble Baroness knows, when local authorities try to put in different regulations which could cause problems. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 64B not moved.]
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke moved Amendment No. 64C:
Page 13, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) The draft of an Order in Council laid before each House of Parliament under subsection (2) above shall include provision for the transfer to the Assembly of those powers exercisable by Ministers of the Crown in relation to Wales to make provision under the Food Safety Act 1990 in relation to bones, bone-in beef and other food and ingredients for human consumption derived from bovine animals.").
The noble Lord said: I am a little disappointed with the Minister's reply, which seems to be inconsistent with the feelings and sentiments that have been expressed this afternoon in this Chamber. Some of my noble friends on these Benches have sought to withdraw powers from the Welsh assembly. My amendment seeks to give powers to the Welsh assembly; namely, the power to choose whether to eat beef on the bone. That seems entirely consistent with the powers which are to be devolved to the assembly under the Food Safety Act. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, either this is a responsible measure for devolution or it is not. As the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, we must not hold back but must trust that the Welsh assembly will work well. It seems to me inconsistent to retain the powers of the Ministry of Agriculture for this item under the Food Safety Act. I beg to move the amendment and should like to test the opinion of the Committee on it.
6.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 64C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 96.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Anelay of St. Johns, B. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Annaly, L.

Long, V.

Berners, B.

Marsh, L.

Biddulph, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Moran, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Newall, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Denbigh, E.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Harlech, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hemphill, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kenyon, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Keyes, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kimball, L.

Vivian, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Willoughby de Broke, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Addington, L.

Lockwood, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Barnett, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Borrie, L.

Maddock, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar, C.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Carlisle, E.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Chorley, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

David, B.

Nicol, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Orme, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Paul, L.

Dholakia, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Donoughue, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Puttnam, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Geraint, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Gilbert, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Grantchester, L.

St. Davids, V.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Grey, E.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Hampton, L.

Simpson of Dunkeld, L.

Hanworth, V.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Hooson, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hoyle, L.

Tordoff, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Warnock, B.

Islwyn, L.

Whitty, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kennet, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.17 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 66A:
Page 13, line 25, at end insert—
("( Schedule (Transfer etc. of functions: further provisions) (which makes further provision about the transfer etc. of functions by Order in Council under this section) has effect.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 66A is largely self-explanatory. It gives us the opportunity of debating what functions the assembly is to have in England with respect to cross-border bodies; that is, bodies whose activities relate to Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. In moving Amendment No. 66A, I shall speak also to the other amendments in my name in this grouping.
The main effect of the Government's amendments is to replace Clause 23 with a new schedule and I shall therefore concentrate on the paragraphs of the new schedule that are new or changed and on the amendments to Clauses 30, 45 and 59 that flow from them. It may be helpful if I reply at the end of our discussions on this matter to questions raised in relation to Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 196B, which are also included in the group.
The present position is that the Government have flexible arrangements to deal with issues which straddle the border between Wales and England. Obviously, the Rivers Severn, the Wye and the Dee all rise in Wales and flow through parts of England. Cross-boundary issues plainly arise in that regard. For many years we have had in place sensible arrangements whereby the Welsh Office looks after the administration of some issues to do with waters and rivers which extend beyond Wales into parts of Herefordshire and Cheshire and, similarly, the DETR administers some matters for Montgomeryshire.
There does not seem any compelling reason why we should now draw a doctrinaire line down the border between Wales and England and command the waters to part, or why we should have more costly and complex administrative arrangements on the ground. This is the reason why Clause 23(6) allows the assembly to be given functions with respect to cross-border areas, that is, areas including a part but not the whole of England as well as the whole or part of Wales.
We have looked again at the drafting of these provisions, bearing in mind what was said in debates in the other place. Paragraph 3 of the new schedule replaces paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 23(6). The Committee will have seen that the amendment limits the range of functions that the assembly can be given in England to those related to watery matters such as rivers, water courses, water supply and land drainage. It makes clear that the assembly can be given functions only in parts of England that adjoin Wales and only if the assembly is given the equivalent function for the whole or part of Wales. This is a narrowing compared to Clause 23(6)(c) as it presently is.
Paragraph 3 of the new schedule makes clear that the assembly can be given functions in respect of any cross-border body rather than those mentioned in Clause 23(6)(d). This is to ensure that there is no doubt about the ability of the transfer order to confer functions on the assembly in respect of bodies as diverse as the Environment Agency, Audit Commission, Intervention Board and the North West and North Wales Sea Fisheries Committee, to give some examples; as well as undertakers such as Dwr Cymru.
The Bill contains appropriate mechanisms to reflect the fact that, while the assembly may be given functions in parts of England, it will not be elected by people who live there. These mechanisms will not be affected.
The first point I would make is that Parliament has to approve the transfer order before it takes effect. All Members of this House and of the other place will be able to have their say.
We accept that it is important for the necessary accountability arrangements in Parliament to exist in those limited cases where the assembly is exercising functions in parts of England. That is why Clause 45(5) of the Bill ensures that when the assembly makes secondary legislation applying to parts of England it will continue to be subject to the usual parliamentary procedures.
Paragraph 6 of the new schedule provides that in relation to assembly functions in an English border area—which may include secondary legislation and matters such as determinations or directions—the transfer order can require that the assembly should consult, or obtain the agreement of, a UK Government Minister before it exercises the function. The transfer order will in due course set out our proposals for the use of this power.
In developing these proposals it has become apparent that there are a limited number of functions which the assembly will exercise in Wales but whose principal effect may be felt in England. That could, in effect, have a serious adverse impact on water resources, water supply or the quality of water in England. Those relate to abstractions from, and discharges into, rivers that cross the border. We have thought carefully about this and decided that, to recognise the interests of people living in England who may be affected by the assembly's decisions in Wales, there should be a limited override power for the Secretary of State to intervene and to take certain decisions in place of the assembly. This is provided for in paragraph 5 of the new schedule. The override power can be applied to functions in parts of two named Acts only. The transfer order will set out our proposals in due course for the precise cases where the override power will be available. This question was pre-figured by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
Paragraph 7 of the new schedule provides that in determining a formula for how much housing revenue account subsidy local authorities in Wales should receive, the transfer order can require the assembly to obtain the agreement of the Secretary of State for Social Security in relation to the rent rebate element of the subsidy formula. That is necessary because housing

233
policy, which will be a matter for the assembly, and social security matters, which will continue to operate on a UK-wide basis, are locked together in a single provision. Making the exercise of these subsidy powers by the assembly subject to agreement will therefore legitimately safeguard UK-wide social security interests.
Section 80 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 empowers the Secretary of State to decide the amount of housing revenue account subsidy payable to local authorities. In Wales these powers are currently exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales and in England by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. There are different arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
This subsidy is a deficit subsidy to local authorities' housing revenue accounts which relate to council housing. In setting the subsidy formula, various assumptions are made about each authority's rent and other income to the housing revenue account and expenditure by way of management, maintenance, capital charges and other items. These assumptions are a powerful influence on the average rents set by local authorities and on their expenditure decisions.
The other major component of the subsidy formula is the cost of rent rebated to tenants who cannot afford their rent. Such rebates are a social security benefit. Nothing under Section 80 of the 1989 Act bears directly on an individual's entitlement to social security benefits. The rules of entitlement to benefit remain a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Security and we do not intend to disturb this. However, subsidy rules made under Section 80 can be as important as the rules on benefit entitlement in ensuring that housing benefit is delivered equitably and effectively.
A number of the rules within the subsidy determinations relate to rent rebates. These rules are intended to ensure that local authorities administer rent rebates properly and consistently with other housing benefit. They also ensure that rent rebates are not used to deliver a different level of support through the benefit system or to introduce differences in the social security regime from that which operates elsewhere in the UK.
It is important to maintain these safeguards for the wider social security system under the assembly. The mechanism introduced by this paragraph of the new schedule will allow the Secretary of State for Social Security to be satisfied that these interests have been recognised when the assembly makes its subsidy determinations. They will also ensure that the UK Government will be able to carry through any long-term reforms of the benefits system. The amendment is focused on the rent rebate element of the subsidy. We do not intend that the consent mechanism should be used to prevent the assembly from pursuing its legitimate policy interests in devolved matters such as rent policies or that it should encroach on housing policy more generally. Nor is it the intention to impose complete uniformity in the operation of the rent rebate element of the subsidy formula as between England and Wales. However, we do intend that the Secretary of State should be able to withhold consent where the assembly's actions or omissions risk distorting social security policy or
234
adversely affect the proper management and control of housing benefit. It is agreed that the assembly will fund any increases in rent rebate expenditure which are a consequence of its own policies.
In the longer term, we will consider providing for a separate rent rebate subsidy payable by a UK Minister similar to the current arrangements in Scotland. This will provide for a clear separation of responsibilities between social security matters taken forward on a UK basis and housing policy matters devolved to the assembly. This would remove the need for a consent mechanism.
However, such changes will need to be considered in the context of the Government's comprehensive spending review. This may reach conclusions that would entail amending the relevant provisions of the 1989 Act for both England and Wales. We would want to avoid cutting across the conclusions of that review by making changes to the 1989 Act only in respect of Wales. For that reason we are not making such amendments now.
The government amendments to Clauses 30 and 45 are consequential on the new schedule. They ensure that the assembly's subordinate legislation is subject to parliamentary procedures if it is made jointly with or contains provision made by a Minister; or if it relates to England; or if it relates to the functions or activities of a cross-border body outside Wales. The amendment to Clause 59 ensures that the definition of "Assembly general subordinate legislation" excludes any legislation that is subject to parliamentary procedures. Finally, there are four consequential amendments to the definitions in Clause 156.
I have spoken at length. The changes are substantial. They clarify which functions the assembly may be given in areas of England that adjoin Wales and they provide a range of mechanisms to ensure that the interests of people living in England are adequately protected. They will also ensure that the assembly's decisions on housing revenue account subsidy are consistent with the Government's policy of a common level of benefits across the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We are grateful to the Minister for having given us advanced warning of the very extensive changes proposed in the cross-border areas; and very broad they are too, as we have just heard, involving the deletion of Clause 23 and its replacement in effect by a new schedule. The Government clearly took note of points raised in the other place and looked deeper and more closely at cross-border issues. That has resulted in a sharper focus on the functional areas, including rivers, water courses, water supply and drainage. That is certainly an improvement on what was there previously, in particular in Clause 23(6)(c).
I note that the Government intend to retain the provisions in Clause 45(5), which requires that any assembly subordinate legislation applying to English border areas is to be subject to parliamentary procedure and that assembly functions in such areas or in respect of cross-border bodies may be exercised subject to

235
consultation or with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown. Our amendments to Clause 23, as it then stood, Amendments Nos. 80 and 81, were more prescriptive and required the consent of the English Minister rather than consultation. Perhaps the Minister may wish to consider those amendments again. They might help to avoid cross-border problems in years to come.
Am I right in thinking that there is as yet no guarantee that a transfer order would require the assembly to consult with or seek the approval of Ministers before acting in England? If that is the position, these provisions are somewhat inimical to democracy. People in England could be seriously affected by the assembly and yet, because they do not elect representatives to that body, they would have no way of seeking redress. Such arrangements might result in conflict between England and Wales. I should be grateful to the Minister for some assurance and clarification on that point.
We appreciate the fact that the Government have seen fit to include an override power for the Secretary of State to intervene on behalf of those living in England who may be adversely affected by the assembly's decisions. That is a wise precaution. However, it reads oddly to a person like myself living in Wales because the implication is that the assembly can do what it likes with "our water", "our water resources", and so on; we shall just have to endure it; the Secretary of State will not be able to intervene on our behalf.
As the Minister outlined, the new schedule incorporates provisions to ensure that the assembly's exercise of its housing responsibilities in relation to the calculation of the housing revenue account subsidy is subject to the agreement of the Secretary of State. That part of the schedule is very prescriptive. The assembly does not have much choice about accepting the formula. It has to. While all that is perfectly understandable, what worries me is the Minister's admission in his letter that the need for the amendment was identified only recently. It makes one wonder just how many more problematic areas remain to be discovered.
I should be grateful to the Minister for an assurance that English MPs receiving complaints from constituents about actions of the assembly can approach the appropriate Minister in England and that he will then get a response from the executive of the assembly.
The Earl of Balfour: Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look at paragraph 5 of the new schedule. It is a long time since I have been in North Wales but I know that Manchester used to be supplied with most of its water from reservoirs in north Wales. I would imagine that part of the purpose of the amendment is to cover the cross-border functions in that case. Furthermore, although I may have misheard, I am not sure that the Minister made any comment on Amendment No. 196B, which stands in the name of my noble friends Lord Stanley and Lord Courtown.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I rise simply to help and not to be discourteous. I did say that I would respond at
236
the end when I had heard what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, had said, rather than presuming to answer him before he had said it.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful to the Minister. I just wanted to say that I feel that Amendment No. 196B is extremely sensible.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I think I caused some trouble here because I thought that there was an amendment before mine. However, I have just been informed that there is not.
My amendment is Amendment No. 196B. It is intended to suggest an answer to the position of farmers whose agricultural holdings straddle the border between England and Wales. Giving the assembly power to make regulations which apply in Wales could well result, over a period of time, in those farmers facing two quite different sets of regulations for different parts of their farms. It would clearly be very difficult for the farmer to comply with two sets of regulations. For example, regulations relating to the protection of hedgerows, a matter which is certainly engraved on my heart from the previous Session, could differ as between Wales and England. The hedge in question might well run over the border.
A possible solution to this problem is to give farmers in that position the right to make an election as to which set of agricultural or environmental regulations they wished to apply to their business. That certainly applies to husband and wife under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. A right to such an election also applies in relation to the IACS scheme for farmers who farm on the border between England and Wales. As with those farmers, it would not be fair for an election, once made, to be binding for ever as conditions may change. They should therefore have the right, as husband and wife do, to make a fresh election after a period of perhaps one or two years. The Government have just considered the position of border area farmers. Does the Minister agree that they might face peculiar difficulties that could result from different legislation and different orders? What do the Government think is an appropriate remedy if mine is too greedy? I want to be in the same position as the Scots. I should like to choose whichever suits me best.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall respond accordingly to Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 and also to Amendment No. 196B, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. The effect in practice of Amendments Nos. 80 and 81 would be that any function of the assembly with respect to a cross-border body or cross-border area could be exercised only with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown.
Under Clause 45, any assembly subordinate legislation that applies to English border areas will be subject to parliamentary procedures here in Westminster. The question is whether other executive functions in respect of such areas—of the kind the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, had in mind—should be subject to ministerial agreement, given that the assembly will not be elected by or accountable to those who live in England. The answer is that it will depend on the

237
detail of the functions that the assembly will have in English border areas. We have not reached final conclusions about that.
It may be that the difference between us is that we do not believe there should be a blanket requirement for every assembly function in England to be subject to ministerial agreement. There may be some functions where another approach—perhaps a requirement for consultation—would be more appropriate. The drafting of the Bill provides a menu of choices in the transfer order and we believe that that is the best way forward. But it is not always possible to find an immediately acceptable solution to all situations which may arise. If the noble Lord or any other Member of the Committee has any specific suggestions for assembly functions which should be subject to a requirement for ministerial agreement as opposed to consultation, we are more than willing to consider them. The point of detail which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, made about an English person wanting parliamentary redress through his or her Member of Parliament is one of those questions that needs further scrutiny. I am obliged to him for raising it.
We cannot accept that every assembly function should be subject to ministerial agreement. For instance, the Environment Agency is a cross-border body. One effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that a direction by the assembly to the Environment Agency about its operations in Anglesey or Pembrokeshire would then have to be subject to ministerial agreement. I do not believe that anyone would consider that the proper way forward. That is one example of why I believe that our approach is a commonsense one and that we need to tease out more detail. I repeat that I am more than happy to have any proposals put forward in time for our future discussions.
The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, with his Amendment No. 196B, would allow owners of agricultural holdings—I believe the proper word is "business"—which consist of land on both sides of the border, to opt in and out where such legislation might be different in Wales from that in England. I gave earlier examples of the Moorland (Livestock Extensification) (Wales) Regulations 1995 and the Rural Development Grants (Agriculture) (Wales) Regulations 1996 where that position presently obtains. I take the point made about land rather than the operation of vehicles or livestock.
There are a few cases where a single farm lies physically on the border—apparently, there are not many. But if one looks at the small print of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, it refers to,
"agricultural holdings with land partly in Wales and partly in England and which are run as a single business".
That is an extremely ingenious formulation which I shall take a little further. It would be possible for someone who farms in Anglesey, for example, to have a large land holding in East Anglia. He would then be able to opt—the noble Lord has come clean—as often as every three years for the most advantageous financial consequences. I was not born yesterday. I appreciate that the noble Lord is looking for a formula which meets legitimate concerns, but with the dagger of the
238
Chancellor of the Exchequer firmly pointed at my back, I believe that that is going much too far for any reasonable solution.
I believe that it would be what is called "a perverse incentive" to start buying land on the other side of the border in order to cherry pick in that way. It is not entirely dissimilar to the illustrations given by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, in the context of the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. However, it is a fair point that we do not want to burden businesses, whether agricultural or others.
Clause 66 is useful. It provides a very good structural, in-built discipline because it requires the assembly to carry out regulatory appraisals of subordinate legislation so that costs and benefits can be assessed and taken into account. I am not putting on one side the points which the noble Lord made. We believe that businesses, whether agricultural or otherwise, which have land on both sides of the border ought to be able to make their full contribution to those appraisals. That is a useful scheme. I recognise that quite often when legislation is passed problems arise subsequently. The scheme in the Bill is a good one. If it becomes law I hope that it will go a reasonable way towards meeting the noble Lord's points.
The question was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, as to whether the Secretary of State would be able to intervene to allow a new reservoir to be built in Wales which would serve England. I hope that I have his question correctly. Paragraph 5 of the new schedule would not allow the Secretary of State to intervene for a new reservoir to be built in Wales to serve England. The reason for that is that the compulsory purchase and compulsory works powers which would be needed are in Part VI of the Water Industry Act 1991. The override power cannot be used in relation to any functions in that Act. Obviously, if Parliament wished to enact primary legislation it would be open to Parliament to do so. If the noble Earl has any further particular matters of concern within that general area then, as always, I shall be happy to respond in writing in due course.
The Earl of Balfour: I am much obliged.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 22, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As has been pointed out, Clause 22 is the crux of the Bill. The first point deals with the transfer of functions. I believe that many Members of the Committee will find it convenient to know what functions are at present exercised by the Secretary of State and which are not being transferred. Perhaps the noble Lord will consider that and see what can be done about it. I believe that I am pressing my luck somewhat. It would be helpful to know what functions performed by other Ministers in relation to Wales are or are not being transferred.

239
The second point I wish to raise is this. It may be that I understood erroneously from the discussions on the referendum Bill that power was to be transferred over secondary legislation where the primary legislation extends to Wales. There are a number of indications in the Bill that the assembly is to deal with secondary legislation. I refer to Clauses 45, 59 and 67, and I believe that there are a number of others which apply. If the assembly has jurisdiction over all secondary legislation as far as it extends to Wales, I would have expected that to be set out specifically in Clause 22.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the first part of the noble and learned Lord's questions were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that he would welcome a plain man's guide to the kind of matters to which he referred. I said in answer to the noble Lord that it was an idea with some merit and I promised to look at it. I make the same response in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because it seems to me that that kind of clarification, almost by way of a tick list, is likely to be useful. I shall write to the noble and learned Lord on that subject.
On the broader question, if subordinate legislation within the assembly is to have an effect on England, that will be subject to the Westminster parliamentary process. Secondary legislation in respect of Wales is for the assembly. I take the noble and learned Lord's point—he is a constitutional purist—that some reference to that ought to be made in the Bill. I shall reflect on that and write to the noble and learned Lord as soon as I possibly can. It may not be tomorrow or the day after because we shall be engaged in Committee here, but I shall certainly write to him on both matters as soon as I can.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I thank the noble Lord on both counts.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 67 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Fields in which functions are to be transferred by first Order in Council]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 81, line 18, leave out ("Agriculture,").
The noble Lord said: Schedule 2 lists the 18 fields in which functions are to be transferred by the first Order in Council. We have that order before us in draft form. We have sought to amend the first field listed, which relates to,
"Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food",
by removing "agriculture" simply because it was not at all clear to us, or to others, how the Government's responsibilities for agriculture were to be carried out. In a sense, this is therefore a probing amendment.
Shortly before Second Reading, NFU Wales sent a letter to Welsh Peers, signed by its director, Mr. W.J. Goldsworthy, from which I now quote briefly:
"Although the Government proposes to devolve many operational aspects of agriculture, the Secretary of State has emphasized that important aspects of agriculture will not be devolved, including the
240
vital matter of the reform of the CAP where it is envisaged that the Minister of Agriculture will continue to take the lead. He has stated that there will be representation from the Assembly in the UK delegation to EU negotiations. It is not clear, however, how this arrangement would operate in practice".
Those were the words of NFU Wales, as represented to us by Mr. W.J. Goldsworthy, and I am bound to say that I agree very much with the substance of his last sentence because I am not clear about just how that arrangement will work in relation to Brussels.
The noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General threw some light on the matter in the general context of the United Kingdom's relations with the European Union in his speech at the end of our Second Reading debate. He said:
"Where appropriate, assembly secretaries, as well as officials, will have a role to play in delegations to the Council of Ministers, as agreed by the UK Minister leading those negotiations".
As well as referring to taking part
"in relevant negotiations on policy at the Council of Ministers",
the noble and learned Lord said that
"Assembly secretaries will be able, subject to the agreement of the lead UK Minister, to speak on behalf of the UK in relevant negotiations in Brussels".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1130.]
That all sounded fine at the time—until we began to consider the practical realities. Agricultural issues that affect only Wales are practically non-existent. So, the reality of assembly participation in European Union affairs is likely to be very different from the theoretical promise made by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General whom I am glad to see in his place.
There are very difficult years ahead for British farming, years of tricky negotiations in Brussels over Agenda 2000 and on the future of agriculture. Wales at the moment has a much weakened industry, which had its income almost halved last year compared with the year before. There is deep concern, which has been echoed in this Chamber, not only about the future of farming as such, but about the impact of its decline on rural communities. That concern has been expressed repeatedly by my noble friends, and in particular by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley.
As Mr. Goldsworthy said in his letter to us:
"Just before the referendum last September ministers assured farmers that a Welsh Assembly will benefit rural communities".
The NFU welcomed that pledge, but a lack of clarity persists about how that benefit is to be achieved and about what devolution will mean in practice for farming.
Perhaps I may quote Mr. Goldsworthy's letter just once more:
"It appears that some decisions on devolving agriculture have yet to be taken, notably on food safety and animal health matters".
We heard about that earlier. Mr. Goldsworthy continues:
"Whilst the Scottish Parliament will have the power to enact its own food safety legislation which may lead to different laws north of the border, does the Government envisage different secondary legislation on these important matters as between England and Wales, or identical regimes?"
I think that we have had the answer to that question, but there still remains the issue of how the subject of agriculture will be dealt with by the assembly.
The NFU has raised a number of other pertinent issues, but they are more closely related to other clauses to which we shall come in due course. In this discussion, I believe that the Committee would like to hear a fairly detailed account of how it is proposed to deal with agriculture under the scheme of devolution proposed, bearing in mind its current parlous state and the momentous changes proposed at European Union level.
I have also tabled Amendments Nos. 77, 78 and 79, relating to Clause 23 which I understand the Government are to withdraw in its entirety. Therefore, I do not see much point in speaking to those amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 68.
7 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for moving this amendment and for referring particularly to agriculture, to which I shall come in a moment. Grouped with Amendment No. 68 are Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 72 and 73 to 76 which stand in my name. I am pleased to have next to me my noble friend and fellow former party leader on the Cross Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, who can be entrusted to speak to my amendment, Amendment No. 70, on British-lrish issues as they relate to the assembly.
I want to introduce this series of amendments by emphasising what I take to be the object of Schedule 2, which is to name—quite literally—the fields in which functions are to be transferred. In earlier debates, the question of "fields" was given almost a literal definition. I understand that this schedule indicates areas rather than specific functions. It is therefore not surprising that there is not absolute clarity.
During the latter part of the Recess, I read with fascination the transfer order and marvelled at the work of the officials who have combed through all the pieces of legislation relevant to the current functions of the Welsh Office. On that basis, I believe that even potential Welsh assembly members might benefit from a lay-Welshperson's guide to the current functions of the Welsh Office and to what might be the assembly's forthcoming functions. It seems to me that the assembly may spend quite some time trying to find out just what it is able to do and what its competences are in a whole series of policy areas. That is why I have tabled a series of amendments on other fields which are not currently listed.
I believe that an ideal case for transfer is consumer protection. That is an area which is generally administered by local authorities within Wales. In any event, most consumer protection legislation falls within the framework of European legislation. When the Front Bench opposite waxed eloquently about legal conflicts or disagreements between the United Kingdom and the national assembly in Cardiff it occurred to me that it had forgotten that whole areas of domestic policy, particularly in the environmental, public health and consumer protection fields and a host of other matters, already fall within European Union regulation. These areas are subject to directives and legal instruments of the European Union to which the United Kingdom Government and the national assembly must pay equal
242
regard. I believe that consumer protection would be a subject for transfer, and I should like to hear from the Minister why it does not appear in the first draft transfer order.
I turn now to my favourite subject of railways. The particular evidence that I produce is my Rail Rover valid until 10th June and issued at Bangor, Gwynedd. It allows me to travel the length and breadth of Wales. As Members of the Committee are aware, to travel the length and breadth of Wales one must go along the beautiful Marches. One is continually reminded that the borders of Wales have been open for a thousand years. In my view there was no reason to tear up the north-south communication on the west coast either. I believe that if any subject is appropriate for joint action between the national assembly and a Minister of the Crown in England it is the railway network. I shall not spend time, although I could, on the quality of the west coast track or the North Wales connection to Holyhead, at any rate not this evening. Noble Lords should not tempt me. I wish, however, to register one protest about the failure to include railways in the transfer order; similarly, inland waterways, as referred to in my Amendment No. 72. These, like other watercourses, traverse the border. I refer to the beautiful Llangollen Canal and so on. These are very appropriate subjects for immediate transfer.
The police, prisons and probation service are referred to in Amendment No. 73. This is even more probing. I shall not speak about the particular difficulties of Parc. I know that the Minister has those Home Office interests very much at heart. But the administration of the probation service and the police service in Wales appears to be a suitable candidate for effective transfer. Those services are already administered at a Wales level.
In case the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, believes that I was a little rough with him earlier in relation to his amendment dealing with override powers, I totally support his Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 on rural affairs and rural regeneration. I link them with my amendment dealing with sustainable development. That should permeate the whole of the assembly's work. We shall come to that matter in greater detail later. It is important to flag up that we view sustainable development as a subject area in its own right and not as an add-on.
How does the Minister see the assembly progressing requests for further fields of transfer? I believe that there is a case for the assembly having an input into its own specific powers. It may be able to request further transfers to be considered by government by order according to Clause 22, and particularly Schedule 2.
I express disagreement with what I perceive to be the arguments underlying Amendment No. 71. Speaking as a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Environmental Protection Act 1990, I believe that the arrangements arrived at between the conservation agencies in England, Scotland and Wales have worked well. I am disappointed that this subject should be reopened. No doubt the CCW has a view on this matter. I look forward to the Minister informing the Committee

243
of that view. I believe that the Countryside Council has worked admirably as a countryside agency combining habitat concerns and national park and access issues. Of course, it will be accountable to the assembly but it is also a partner in the UK-European wide statutory conservation family. I do not want to see anything done to weaken that partnership. The JNCC is a body in the ownership of the various countryside agencies. I believe that that arrangement should remain under the assembly.
As to the agricultural issues raised so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, it is essential that the assembly has an input into the debate on the future of the CAP. I fail to understand why the noble Lord, who lives in the most attractive valley in Wales, Conwy, and in sight of the most striking mountain range in Wales, seeks to argue that somehow there are issues of Welsh agriculture that are separate from UK agriculture or European agriculture. Surely, the Welsh assembly will be able to scrutinise all potential changes in Agenda 2000 and express a view. That view will be part of the overall UK position as it will be part of the inter-regional debate within Europe concerning mountain regions. Does the noble Lord believe that I am answering for the Government? I seek to help him. These matters should not be subject to division between us. Agricultural policy is borderless. For those reasons it is essential that there should be an input from mountain regions such as Wales into the whole European debate on the CAP. The assembly can provide that directly in a way that is complementary to anything that may be said at UK level. I am pleased to see that agriculture is to be transferred as a subject. I am certain that relationships can be worked out to ensure that the assembly has a strong voice to represent the NFU, the FUW, CLA and all the other agricultural bodies in Wales.
Lord Moran: I should like to say a few words about Amendment No. 71 which stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Chorley, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver. Essentially, it is a probing amendment. We are anxious that there should continue to be in the United Kingdom a common approach to nature conservation. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister precisely how that will be achieved under the Bill. We should also like to be reassured that the present arrangements, worked out with such care eight years ago, cannot be upset without the full consent of Parliament.
Nine years ago we began considering in this House the implications of the previous government's decision, announced on 11th July 1989, to break up the Nature Conservancy Council into three autonomous country agencies. Four months later the government, in the face of strong criticism at the apparent lack of thought given to the scientific base of nature conservation, announced that these bodies would be required to form a joint committee to provide advice about nature conservation with a Great Britain or international dimension and to establish common standards on these matters.
244
The Environmental Protection Bill had started its progress through Parliament. The Select Committee on Science and Technology established a sub-committee to look into this matter. Its chairman was my noble and gallant friend Lord Carver who has put his name to this amendment but who, unfortunately, cannot be here tonight as he has to be in Strasbourg. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and I were members of that sub-committee. I was co-opted as someone who lived in Wales. The Carver Committee reported in March 1990. I wish to quote three brief sections from the sub-committee's opinion. First, in paragraph 3.5 we said:
"Nature conservation needs one scientific base. The Committee reject arguments that the United Kingdom can be split ecologically into separate parts for England, Scotland and Wales. The evidence clearly supports the view that the United Kingdom is a biogeographical continuum … Although there are obvious differences between parts of the British Isles and a few unique characteristics of the north and south, these differences are less significant than the common factors. Most habitats, most flora and fauna and most geological features are to be found in more than one country of the British Isles, or in the sea which surrounds them all. Moreover there is only one science underlying nature conservation".
In paragraph 3.17 we said that,
"it would be very damaging if, in improving the Scottish, Welsh and English perspectives on nature conservation, the broader United Kingdom perspective were lost. Witnesses repeatedly demonstrated that a narrower, more localised, perspective can distort how the overall interests of nature conservation are perceived, especially in the perpetual tussle between conservation and development".
Finally, in two key recommendations we made in our summary of conclusions we said, first, in paragraph 4.4.:
"Devolution must not become disintegration. The new structure must be scientifically effective at home and internationally. A broad United Kingdom perspective must be preserved. The United Kingdom's commitment to nature conservation must be unimpaired".
In paragraph 4.5 we stated:
"The Joint Committee should be the means through which the country councils work together and it should be strong enough to drive forward the cause of nature conservation at a national level".
We set out in our report how we thought that the joint committee should operate and advised on its functions, membership and staffing. Most of our recommendations were accepted and were reflected in Section 7 of the Environmental Protection Act which received Royal Assent on 1st November 1990.
The special functions of the country agencies discharge through the JNCC and defined in Section 137 of the Environmental Protection Act are: the quinquennial review of the schedules of specially protected plants and animals other than birds; advice to Ministers on policies for or affecting nature conservation in Great Britain or elsewhere; dissemination of information to any person about nature conservation in Great Britain or elsewhere; the establishment of common standards throughout Great Britain for the monitoring of nature conservation for research into nature conservation, and the analysis of resulting information; and the undertaking or commissioning of research to support the above function.

245
The JNCC was established in 1991. It has worked well, indeed better than was expected, under the distinguished and skilful chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, whom I am glad to see in his place, and its present chairman Sir Angus Stirling. It is supported by the chairmen of the three constituent councils which of course are now English Nature, Scottish Natural Heritage, and the Countryside Council for Wales.
One provision of the Environmental Protection Act (Section 131(5)) is that the Secretary of State is able to give the JNCC directions of a general or specific character with regard to the discharge of the committee's main functions. That is an important provision, although intended as a last resort, as it ensures that the JNCC duly carries out its functions in the way, and for the purpose, that the Act intended.
The present Bill has the potential to change matters in relation to the conduct of nature conservation by the JNCC. Clause 22 provides for the transfer to the national assembly for Wales of any of the functions exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales. The effect of such a transfer, were it to relate to the Secretary of State's powers of direction to the JNCC, could undermine the committee's role in giving advice in relation to nature conservation in Great Britain as a whole or internationally, or for the setting of common standards for research or monitoring or for the handling of the resultant information. In short, it could begin the unravelling of the procedure which this House was so instrumental in establishing in 1990—a procedure which was established with great thought and care. It is difficult to see how such a power of direction, if applied to the JNCC, would not impact on Great Britain as a whole and not just Wales. At the very least, it could create distortions and difficulties with which it would be difficult to work.
The purpose of the amendment is to safeguard the future operation of nature conservation in the UK at the national and international level, by exempting the functions carried out by Ministers of the Crown, in relation to the work of the JNCC, from the possibility of transfer to the assembly.
I recognise that that may be a theoretical risk only. In the seven years of the JNCC's existence, the Secretary of State has not used the power given to him in Section 131(5) of the Environmental Protection Act. We want to know how the present arrangements can be preserved and secured under devolution. I am, incidentally, puzzled about the interaction of Clauses 22 and 23. Clause 22 provides for an Order in Council to direct a Crown Minister to exercise his functions in relation to Wales to be exercisable concurrently by the assembly, or exercisable subject to the consent or approval of, or after consultation with, the assembly.
Clause 23(6)(c) provides that any function exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to a cross-border area—that is, an area which includes a part of but not the whole of England as well as the whole or a part of Wales, shall be regarded for the purposes of Clause 22 as exercisable by the Minister in relation to Wales. It appears that the scope of Clause 22 is not confined to
246
the matters listed in Clause 23(6), which means that any function of a Crown Minister in relation to Wales could be transferred to the assembly.
If the words "in relation to Wales" were to be defined by the matters listed in Clause 23(6) then the functions of the Minister as regards the JNCC could be implicated by reason that some of the JNCC's functions—for example, advice to Ministers—could relate to only part of England as well as Wales, and therefore come within the definition of a "cross-border area". The JNCC's functions relate also to the sea both within and outside territorial limits, and that is included by Clause 23(6)(b).
I should be grateful for clarification by the Minister of the way in which those clauses are intended to work. I have given him notice that I would ask about this matter.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I am happy to support my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, especially in his plea for the devolution to the new assembly in Wales of all those matters which quite properly would appear to the general public to come within its area of responsibility, because if that is not done, and certain vital powers affecting Wales only are withheld from the assembly, the general public, if they are anything like the general public of Northern Ireland—Northern Ireland testified recently to this—will blame their own elected representatives for the sins of commission or omission by the sovereign Parliament.
My noble friend has a strong case in advocating that where it is safe within the integrity of the UK to devolve to the new assembly in Wales all those matters which are, after all, of real concern to the people who will elect the new assembly, even if that assembly is going to have only about half the membership of the Northern Ireland assembly, given that its population is probably more than twice ours in Northern Ireland, it should do so.
I have no option but to support Amendment No. 70. My authority for so doing is to be found in what has become known as the Belfast Agreement, which we are now told has the status of the law of the Medes and the Persians—unalterable and all the rest of it. The precise reference is to be found under strand three of that document. Paragraph 2 provides for membership of the council of the isles for devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in Wales, and, if appropriate, I suppose, in London. One can hardly imagine that London would leave the UK, but one never knows in these days of rapid change and mass hysteria what lies ahead of us. We should not forget the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and, I suppose, if Atlantis were to resurface that might come into it too.
Amendment No. 70 is, in a way, a necessary act of reciprocity, because without it there could be an element of doubt in the minds of the 71 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate who voted recently, as to whether the people of Wales really wished to be associated with the people of Ireland. We have the opportunity tonight to provide that reassurance.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 are grouped with the amendment. Before I speak to

247
the amendment, perhaps I may emphasise the importance of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about the relationship between the assembly and Brussels. I shall study all the Minister's replies on this subject before Report stage, in particular the relationship between the assembly and Brussels to which I referred when I introduced my first amendment today.
Farmers need clarity on this vital matter. We cannot wait and see. I have to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. His simple and hopeful view that the assembly will find it easy to deal with Brussels may not prove to be quite correct. However, I can assure the noble Lord that a later amendment is intended to tackle the problem of geography, and the railways on the north coast of Wales.
I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that it was the noble Lord, Lord Moran, who made the statement, not me.
Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 enable the Secretary of State to transfer to the assembly his functions over rural affairs and rural regeneration. It is important that that is done. The assembly will then be able to ensure that subject committees have responsibilities in those two fields; some may regard them as the same field. I shall be interested to hear the Government's view. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that rural affairs and rural regeneration will have a statutory place on the subject committees.
Baroness Nicol: I support Amendment No. 71 on which the noble Lord, Lord Moran, spoke so well. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right. The arrangement with the Countryside Council for Wales has worked extremely well. It is to ensure that that happy arrangement can continue that we have put down Amendment No. 71. In the overall picture which is being painted of devolution, we are nervous that the needs of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee may be overlooked. We seek reassurance from the Minister.
The need for that committee is as great now as it was in 1991. I hope that my noble friend will take seriously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, in particular as regards the responsibilities of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in advising Ministers on policies relating to nature conservation in Great Britain as a whole and internationally, and, perhaps most importantly, in establishing common standards for research, monitoring, data collection and analysis. Those matters must be dealt with. I hope that my noble friend will provide some answers.
Lord Prys-Davies: In support of Amendment No. 68, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, drew heavily on a letter from the NFU Wales. I have a letter. My letter is dated 15th April; I am not sure whether we are referring to the same letter. However, in that letter I see no argument for omitting agriculture from Schedule 2. The NFU asks a number of questions, some of which are awkward. When the Minister replies, I shall be grateful if he will
248
confirm that there is no reason why the assembly secretary cannot be a member of the UK representation at the Council of Ministers, and, although a member of the assembly, speak as a representative of the UK with the agreement of the lead department.
No reference has been made to the Farmers' Union of Wales. It is an important agricultural union in Wales. In its letter of 6th May it tells me that it would be "strongly opposed" to a move omitting agriculture from the Bill. That point should be on the record.
I wish briefly to refer to Amendment No. 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I believe that there is a positive case for ensuring that the Welsh assembly will have a representative on the Council of the Isles whenever that is established. There are three reasons why that is important. First, the council will be a permanent forum to discuss matters affecting the British Isles as a whole, and various parts of the British Isles. Secondly, it should provide a link between the two assemblies and the two, and possibly three, parliaments. That will be valuable. Thirdly, it would facilitate the co-ordination of policies where co-ordination is considered appropriate. That is a positive argument on why the assembly should have representation on the Council of the Isles.
The Earl of Selborne: I support the noble Lord, Lord Moran, on Amendment No. 71. I should like to put on record how enormously supportive of the concept of a joint committee was not only the Countryside Council for Wales but also the Welsh Office during the five years that I was chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, was a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. It was instrumental in drawing attention to what would have been a serious gap in the legislation. It was only through the intervention of that committee that the joint committee came on to the statute book. It is appropriate to have this probing amendment which ensures that a system which has worked well continues under the legislation we are considering today.
Lord Chorley: I wish to speak to Amendment No. 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I am happy to follow the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who had such a distinguished chairmanship of the JNCC. He really made it work.
We have been told many times today that in a Bill as complicated and far reaching as this we have to take many factors on trust. One is happy to do that, but at Committee stage of the Bill it is fair to probe exactly what is meant and what can happen. That is what the noble Lord's amendment seeks to do. There is little I need to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said. The crucial issues relate to those areas where nature does not recognise boundaries. It has been said that although normally inhabiting Wales, the red kite does not recognise the Welsh border. Therefore when we seek to establish common standards we need to have a UK-wide framework. That is the rationale of the JNCC.

249
While the Bill is probably acceptable, it would be helpful to have a more knowledgeable and positive assurance from the Minister when he replies. It is to be hoped that that will settle the matter for the next 15 years.
Lord Geraint: I have lived on the land all my life and have been dependent on the agricultural industry. I have spoken to many young farmers during the past three or four months. The majority are in favour of the Welsh assembly discussing agriculture among other issues relevant to the people of Wales. I congratulate the Government for allowing debates on agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food in our parliament. I am delighted that the Government have conceded the requests of the young farmers living in rural Wales.
7.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I wish to make a special appeal in respect of rural affairs and farming. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Stanley will correct me if I am wrong, but the hill farmers—what is regarded within the CAP as the less favoured areas—are having a very difficult time. I am a farmer, but I am not in that bracket.
Secondly, I am surprised that Schedule 2 makes no mention of employment. Employment represents some of the difficulties that we are facing and if the Welsh assembly could take part of that on board it would be good for the country.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may comment on the amendments which my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy did not speak to and give a view on each in turn. I begin with Amendment No. 71, which was spoken to and explained perfectly by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. The Minister should remove from his mind the idea he can resist the noble Earl, Lord Selby, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, any better than could the Government in 1990 in relation to the Environmental Protection Act. The noble Lord made a formidable case, backed by his two formidable noble friends. I, too, look forward to what the Minister has to say. I shall look carefully for the read across to the Scotland Bill, which is soon to appear before us, to see whether environmental aspects regarding Scotland are being dealt with as I believe they should be.
As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I am not convinced about consumer protection. I accept his point that much consumer protection is EU-wide, but not all. Therefore, it is important to keep some of these issues on an all-UK basis. In the unified market of the United Kingdom, let alone that of Europe, it would be wrong to have the potential of running two different systems. I understand that Schedule 5, paragraph 6, to the Scotland Bill makes it clear that such powers are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament. If the Minister is unable to confirm that, no doubt he will write to me if I am wrong.
I believe that railways and inland waterways criss-cross the border, and I do not believe that their separation is sensible. The assembly, like the Scottish parliament, will be able to debate whatever it wishes and
250
no doubt communicate with the Government here when it is concerned about such issues. However, ministerial responsibility should rest in a unified way with the Westminster Government. I suppose that in that I am agreeing with the Government's position as regards this legislation. I would also include prisons, the police and the Probation Service, although the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, having the Home Office brief on these issues, will be able to answer those questions much better than I can.
This Parliament will have the primary legislative powers on legal matters—the civil law and the criminal law—and therefore it is sensible that the police, prisons and the Probation Service should remain here. The Scottish position is quite different because all primary legislative powers will be devolved to the Scottish parliament.
I turn to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Roberts of Conwy. Given that agriculture and forestry are to be devolved, I can see little objection to the amendments proposed. However, together with my noble friend, I have considerable reservations about devolving agriculture. I agree with noble Lords who said that it is important that agriculture should be the concern of the assembly. I fully appreciate that, but I worry about the EU aspect. I shall not develop that argument now because there will be a chance to do so later.
The world is a place where the guy with the Gatling gun controls things, and as regards agriculture, the guy with the Gatling gun will be in this Parliament. He will go to Brussels and conduct the negotiations. I believe that we are doing agriculture and fisheries a disservice in Scotland, Wales and possibly Northern Ireland if we attempt to separate them out in such a way that the Minister who negotiates and makes the decisions will not carry the can in the other place for the decisions he makes about Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have considerable difficulty with those issues, but they are not the subject of my discussion.
As the lawyers say, without prejudice to that position—if that is not what the lawyers say, no doubt they will tell me—I cannot see why, if agriculture and fisheries are devolved, rural affairs, rural regeneration and sustainable development, mentioned by the noble Lord, cannot also be devolved. There is an inconsistency about devolving some things and not devolving others which we shall come across quite a lot. I would rather we addressed agriculture and fisheries in a different way, but if we are to go down the road the Government suggest I can see no reason for them to resist my noble friend's amendment or those of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I shall deal with forestry in later amendments.
I have left the amendment about the Council for the Isles until last because it raises an entirely new and different point for us all. I understand that the council will encompass the UK—I presume in its capacity as the government of England, although I am not sure—the Republic of Ireland, Ulster, Scotland, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey and Wales. I put Wales last because we are discussing Wales tonight. The interesting point is that all of them are different.

251
The Minister's department speaks for Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which do not carry a devolved responsibility. I have recently returned from Guernsey, so I know that it is not devolved in the way that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are to be devolved. The responsibility of the United Kingdom Government is external affairs and defence, not the internal arrangements of those countries. They are not devolved in the way in which we are looking at Ulster, Scotland and Wales; they fall somehow between the devolved position and the totally independent position of the Republic of Ireland.
I presume that the Welsh assembly will be sending a delegate or a delegation to that council, together with delegations or delegates from Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the UK. I presume that there will be English representatives from the UK. If that is the case, matters regarding the Council of the Isles as far as Wales is concerned should be delegated to the Welsh assembly. It would be totally illogical if they were not. If it is to be a proper Council of the Isles, with all those governments, despite their different constitutional arrangements, being represented on it, then the government of Wales—I prefer to think of them as that—should be able to attend with their own delegation from the assembly, taking their own line. Therefore, I am sure that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is right. I look forward to hearing a description of what the Council of the Isles will do. No doubt that will interest the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, just as much as it will interest me.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have discussed Amendments Nos. 68 to 76. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, made it plain that he would not be moving Amendments Nos. 77 to 79 because events have overtaken them. Therefore, the issue essentially relates to the functions which are to be transferred to the assembly.
The first group of amendments seeks by amending Schedule 2, to add to or to subtract from the functions which will transfer to the assembly. Perhaps I may indicate my understanding of what Schedule 2 does and does not do.
Clause 22(2) puts a duty on the Secretary of State for Wales to consider including in the initial transfer order appropriate functions which fall in each of the fields listed in Schedule 2. Without such a provision there would be nothing in the Bill to indicate the extent of the initial powers to be transferred to the assembly. Clause 22(2) and Schedule 2, taken together, reflect the policy that virtually all the functions now exercised by the Secretary of State for Wales should be included in the initial transfer order.
Therefore, adding new fields to the list in Schedule 2 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to consider transferring functions in those other fields to the assembly. It would not require him to transfer any or all of them. If the additions were simply matters included in one of the broad fields already in Schedule 2, the amendment would have no effect at all. Conversely, removing a field from Schedule 2 does not
252
mean that the transfer order under Clause 22 could not transfer functions in that field to the assembly. Schedule 2 does not constrain the ability of an order to transfer any ministerial function.
When introducing Amendment No. 68, the noble Lord, Lord Conwy, whose approach was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, proposed that the assembly should not have functions with respect to agriculture. We take a diametrically opposite view in that respect. I am bound to say that our view is that which was elucidated by the noble Lords, Lord Geraint and Lord Elis-Thomas.
As I indicated, Schedule 2 does not constrain the scope of a transfer order. Therefore, if the objective of Amendment No. 68 is to prevent the assembly having functions vis-à-vis agriculture, it will fail. We do not fundamentally understand why an assembly should not have devolved powers on agriculture in a country such as Wales where it is so important. Indeed, the noble Lord said that farmers are faced with difficult circumstances and that farm incomes have very seriously decreased. However, quite apart from that, it is economically and socially important right across Wales; and, indeed, culturally and linguistically. We believe that it is absolutely right that functions with respect to agricultural policy should, as far as possible, be subject to the democratic scrutiny and accountability of the assembly.
If we had an assembly without devolved powers on agriculture, I believe that that would simply hobble the assembly before it starts its work. I would anticipate—although these are matters for the assembly—that one of the very first tasks that assembly members will consider will be the setting out of a strategy for the next few years as regards agricultural policy within its own competence, domestically, in Wales.
When we devolve powers to the assembly, we do not wish to take away from it at or about its birth functions of such importance. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, asked about employment. Employment, in the sense of the functions of the Employment Service, is not a function of the Secretary of State for Wales. But, of course, economic development is referred to in Schedule 2.
My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies inquired as to whether an assembly secretary could speak at European Council meetings. He is right to suppose that he or she could do so; any assembly secretary could speak at such a meeting and put forward what view had been agreed.
There were also specific questions about—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the Minister for giving way. Although this is perhaps not the time to mention it because we will deal with such matters later, I believe that the Minister will have to try to persuade some of us who have been to such meetings on many occasions—for example, on agriculture and fishing—that, at any time, anyone other than Ministers of member states sits round the table and leads in discussions for their country.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My noble friend Lord Prys-Davies asked whether or not it would be possible for an assembly secretary to speak at a European Union council. I believe that my answer was accurate. It would indeed be possible for him or her so to speak and attend such meetings.
There were specific questions about how the assembly is to organise itself, especially as regards agriculture. They are primarily decisions for the assembly to make. I cannot repeat too often that we do not wish to be prescriptive and dictatorial. We are trusting the assembly with new powers; we are trusting the electorate with their decisions; and it is for the assembly to develop organically through its standing orders and procedures and decide how it wants to carry out its business and how it wants to set its priorities.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, asked a particular question about how requests for further transfers of functions will be dealt with. It is open to the assembly at any time to make representations on any matter. I am happy to confirm that it could make requests for further transfers of functions. Of course, it would then be for the Government and Parliament of the day to decide how to respond to those requests.
There were many distinct questions about Europe. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is right to suggest that we probably ought to deal with such matters when we come to discuss Amendments Nos. 102, 103B and 103C.
The noble Lord, Lord Moran, and other noble Lords spent justifiable time on their concerns about Amendment No. 71, which refers to the "special functions" of the three nature conservancy councils discharged through the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). The second draft of the transfer order indicates that we propose to transfer to the assembly the Secretary of State's power under Section 133 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to direct the Countryside Council for Wales to undertake those special functions in place of the JNCC. That is a reserve power in that the JNCC will continue to discharge its present range of functions unless or until the power of direction is used. Within the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Secretary of State will retain the power of direction in respect of the Nature Conservancy Council for England and the Scottish Executive will inherit the power so far as it relates to the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland.
We are discussing important questions. I have been able to see that the CCW has been in correspondence with the noble Lord who substantially took the burden of this area of the debate. Its view is that it would prefer responsibility for CCW to go to the national assembly. The CCW has come to that view after some thought because its letter is only dated with yesterday's date. The CCW makes the point, which I shall repeat for what it is worth, that the Secretary of State will be left without any expertise in this area and that,
"it will be far better for the national assembly also to have responsibility for the special functions and to share in an ongoing commitment to a common approach to nature conservation. Indeed,
254
if the two special functions arc left with the Secretary of State this could reduce the sense of ongoing commitment on the part of the assembly who will give us in CCW our direction, budget and much else in the future".
I recognise the concerns that were so moderately put by the noble Lord and those who supported him. However, we believe that a good deal of the answer is to be found in the conclusion of the CCW as expressed in its letter.
There may have been a glitch about the prior notice that the noble Lord gave me. He said that he had written to me—and, of course, I accept that—about the duality that he detected as regards Clause 22 and the other clause—
Lord Moran: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I should point out that I did not say that I wrote to him; indeed, I telephoned the Minister's private secretary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is, perhaps, the answer. I have been trying to research a letter. The noble Lord is quite right. However, he did not say that he had telephoned. I regret to say that even my private office is being less than wholly perfect. As far as I am aware, that message did not come to me. Nevertheless, I shall research the matter overnight and hope to have an answer for the noble Lord by tomorrow. I have in fact been asking my officials to find a letter and have been met by indignant denials that any such letter was received. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for resolving the matter.
The amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, seek to add fields to Schedule 2. I have simply explained that, if such amendments were accepted, it would not mean that functions in those fields were obliged to be transferred. Reference was also made to consumer protection. The Secretary of State for Wales does not deal with trading standards or other aspects of consumer protection. Our scheme has been that it is powers which he has presently which are to be devolved to the assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, was right: taking the police, prisons and the Probation Service away from the Home Office, which deals with them so admirably, is not on the menu. We have no plans to change Home Office responsibilities in that area.
Amendment No. 70 refers to the Council of the Isles. I think that the nomenclature now has become the British-Irish Council. It is a dramatic idea and it offers the possibility of a consultative forum between different areas within the islands of Britain. I think that in principle it is a most attractive idea if it can be made to work.
Whether the national assembly wishes to take part in it and make it work is a matter for the assembly, as it will be a matter for the Manx legislature and the legislatures in Guernsey and Jersey. I returned from the Isle of Man yesterday where I discussed this among other issues. I visited Jersey and Guernsey a few days earlier. It is not appropriate to discuss legislation on the British-Irish Council in terms of this Bill. However, it

255
appears to be appropriate to discuss virtually everything else in the discovered world in terms of it. If there is to be such legislation it ought to be discussed when that legislation is brought forward.
Amendment No. 72 refers to railways and inland waterways. The main statutory function that the Secretary of State exercises in relation to rail transport and inland waterways is in respect of freight facilities grants under Sections 139 and 140 of the Railways Act 1993. Those grants encourage the transfer of freight from road to either rail or inland waterways. These functions are more than adequately covered by the field of transport in Schedule 2. The only other functions that the Secretary of State has with respect to railways are incidental ones; for example on planning and non-domestic rating. The principal functions relating to the railways are within the remit of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. These should allow the railways to operate as an integrated network within a clear financing and regulatory regime set by him. The Government have no plans to alter that.
Those are the responses to the matters which have been raised. As I said, I have specifically not discussed those matters which were not raised because of our earlier decision with regard to Clause 23.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I express my disappointment at the decision not to transfer immediately all responsibility for railways. There are aspects of passenger transport as well as freight transport which will be of interest to the assembly and we shall want to return to the matter. I wish to respond positively to what the Minister said with regard to the Council of the Isles. I thank him for his remarks. I am certain the assembly will want to address that issue. It may not be appropriate to do so in this schedule but at some point during the Bill we may wish to return to the question of the relationship between Northern Ireland and the national assembly for Wales. Both assemblies will have much in common in terms of their functions.
As regards the arrangements for the JNCC and the views of CCW, I welcome what the Minister said. My concern with the probing amendment is that it might undermine the active role of the assembly, and in particular the role of the assembly secretary with responsibility for the environment and his officials who will take over the Welsh Office brief, as it were. It would be a mistake to leave with the Secretary of State some reserve powers in one area. I refer to the active environmental commitment which will have to be part of an assembly whose brief will be to promote sustainable development. I cannot believe that an assembly which will have such a duty placed upon it by statute will do anything to disrupt the positive relationship that has existed between CCW, JNCC and the existing Welsh Office. I am sure that is an undertaking that CCW has given. It is one that I am certain all of us in this Chamber who are concerned about the Welsh environment can support.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: When I introduced Amendment No. 68 I stressed that it was a probing
256
amendment. I had hoped that we should be given a fairly full explanation of exactly how the devolution of agriculture would work in practice, but perhaps that was too much to hope for. I hoped also that we should be told precisely how the assembly will relate to Brussels in agricultural matters. I say with all due respect that I do not think the Minister answered the point made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish when he asked how it would be possible for an assembly secretary to speak at Brussels in negotiations. It is our understanding that only lead Ministers have ever spoken in such negotiations, as far as we are aware. They, of course, are part of a unitary government whereas that will not be the case with an assembly secretary. However, I shall not press the amendment.
Lord Moran: I express my gratitude to the Minister for his courteous and helpful reply. He is quite right that the Countryside Council for Wales wrote to me yesterday and stated that it would be far better for the national assembly also to have responsibility for the special functions and to share in an ongoing commitment to a common approach to nature conservation. That may be a fine aspiration and it is something that I believe we would all support, but whether it is a satisfactory arrangement with which to go forward I am not certain. I should like to think about it, to study carefully in Hansard what the Minister said in his reply and to consult with others on the question. That said, I shall not press my amendment.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 69 to 76 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 76A:
After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE
  TRANSFER ETC. OF FUNCTIONS: FURTHER PROVISIONS
    PART I

      FUNCTIONS TRANSFERABLE ETC.
      Existing and future functions
      1.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), an Order in Council under section 22 may make provision about any function of a Minister of the Crown (including a function conferred or imposed after the passing of this Act).
      (2) Such an Order in Council may not make provision about any function conferred or imposed by any provision of this Act except—

      (a) section 3(4),

      (b) section 37(5),

      (c) paragraph 16(9) of Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman),

      (d) sections 127 to 144, and

      (e) Part VII so far as relating to the provisions specified in paragraphs (a) to (d).

      Functions relating to culture or the sea
      2. If and to the extent that any function is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to—

      (a) the Welsh language or any other aspect of Welsh culture, or

      (b) an area of the sea adjoining either the coast of Wales or an area of sea forming part of Wales,

      it shall be regarded for the purposes of section 22 as exercisable by the Minister in relation to Wales.

      Cross-border functions
      3.—(1) The power conferred by section 22 to make an Order in Council about a function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to Wales includes (as well as power to make provision about a function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to the whole or any part of Wales) power to make provision about a function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to—

      (a) a cross-border body, or

      (b) (subject to sub-paragraph (3)), an English border area.

      (2) In this Act—
      "cross-border body" means any body (including a government department) or undertaker exercising functions, or carrying on activities, in or with respect to Wales (or any part of Wales) and anywhere else, and
      "English border area" means a part of England adjoining Wales (but not the whole of England).
      (3) An Order in Council under section 22 may only include provision about a function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to an English border area if—

      (a) the function relates to water resources management, water supply, rivers or other watercourses, control of pollution of water resources, sewerage or land drainage, and

      (b) the Order in Council makes (or another such Order in Council has made) corresponding provision about the function so far as so exercisable in relation to a part of Wales adjoining England or the whole of Wales.

    PART II

      CONTINUING ROLE FOR TRANSFEROR ETC.
      Community obligations
      4. Any power of a Minister of the Crown to make subordinate legislation which has been transferred by an Order in Council under section 22 shall continue to be exercisable by the Minister of the Crown (as it would be had it not been transferred) for the purpose of—

      (a) implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom, or enabling any such obligation to be implemented, or enabling any rights enjoyed or to be enjoyed by the United Kingdom under or by virtue of the Community Treaties to be exercised, or

      (b) dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation or rights or the operation of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972.

      Intervention in case of functions relating to water etc.
      5.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the exercise of a relevant transferred environmental function (or the failure to exercise such a function) in any particular case might have a serious adverse impact on—

      (a) water resources,

      (b) water supply, or

      (c) the quality of water,

      in England, he may intervene under this paragraph in that case.
      (2) If the Secretary of State intervenes in a case under this paragraph—

      (a) he may in that case exercise the function concerned, and

      (b) that function shall not in that case be exercisable by the Assembly.

      (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) a function is a relevant transferred environmental function if it is a function—

      (a) under Part I of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, or

      (b) under Part II, III or VII of the Water Resources Act 1991,

      and it has been transferred to the Assembly by an Order in Council under section 22 which states that this paragraph is to apply in relation to it.
      (4) An intervention by the Secretary of State under this paragraph shall be made by giving notice to the Assembly.
      (5) The notice—

      (a) shall state the reason for the Secretary of State's intervention,

      (b) may make provision about the effect of any steps previously taken by the Assembly or any other person, and

      (c) may extend the time for the taking of any steps by the Secretary of State or any other person (even if the time for taking them would otherwise have expired before the notice is given).

      (6) Where the Secretary of State has made an intervention under this paragraph in a case he shall, in addition to the notice under sub-paragraph (4), give notice to—

      (a) any person who has previously been given notice of any steps taken, or proposed to be taken, in the case,

      (b) the Environment Agency (if concerned in the case), and

      (c) any water undertaker or sewerage undertaker concerned in the case.

      Agreement or consultation
      6. An Order in Council under section 22 which includes provision—

      (a) transferring to the Assembly any function so far as exercisable by a Minister of the Crown in relation to a cross-border body or an English border area, or

      (b) directing that any function shall be exercisable by the Assembly in relation to a cross-border body or an English border area concurrently with the Minister of the Crown by whom it is exercisable,

      may provide that (either generally or to such extent as may be specified in the Order in Council) the function may be exercised by the Assembly only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, a Minister of the Crown.
      7. If an Order in Council under section 22 includes provision transferring to the Assembly the function of determining a formula for the purposes of section 80 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (calculation of Housing Revenue Account subsidy), the Order in Council may provide that the Assembly shall not exercise the function without the agreement of the Secretary of State to the inclusion in the formula of any variable framed (in whatever way) by reference to rent rebates.
      8. Where a function is exercisable by a Minister of the Crown only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, another Minister of the Crown—

      (a) if an Order in Council under section 22 transfers the function, it shall be exercisable by the Assembly free from that requirement unless the Order in Council provides otherwise, and

      (b) if an Order in Council under that section directs that the function shall be exercisable by the Assembly concurrently with the Minister of the Crown by whom it is exercisable, the Order in Council may provide that it shall be exercisable by the Assembly free from that requirement.

    PART III

      SUPPLEMENTARY
      Interpretation
      9. References in section 22 and this Schedule to a Minister of the Crown include references to—

      (a) two or more Ministers of the Crown acting jointly, and

      (b) an officer of a Minister of the Crown or of a government department,

      and, in relation to functions of such an officer, the references in section 22(1) and this Schedule to the Assembly include a member of the Assembly's staff.
      10. References in sections 22 to 26 and this Schedule to a Minister of the Crown include a member of the Scottish executive.
      Saving
      11. An Order in Council under section 22—

      (a) transferring a function exercisable by a Minister of the Crown, or

      (b) directing that a function shall be so exercisable only with the agreement of, or after consultation with, the Assembly,

      shall not affect the validity of anything done by or in relation to the Minister before the coming into force of the Order in Council.").
      The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Lord Hoyle: I beg to move that the House be resumed. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.55 p.m.
      Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
      House resumed.

      Pesticides Bill
      7.59 p.m.
      Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
      Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stone of Blackheath.)
      On Question, Motion agreed to.
      House in Committee accordingly.
      [The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
      Clause 1 [Regulation of pesticides]:
      [Amendment No. 1 not moved.]
      Clause 1 agreed to.
      Clause 2 [Enforcement of controls on pesticides]:
      Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 2:
      Page 2, line 35, after ("officer") insert ("reasonably").
      The noble Baroness said: This amendment would require a person to answer questions put by an officer only when that officer poses questions which he or she has considered it reasonable to ask.
      As presently framed, the test of what questions an officer thinks it appropriate to ask is entirely subjective. This Bill introduces a measure which represents an
      260
      invasion of privacy and a cutting down of the ordinary rights of the individual to answer questions or not. It is therefore important that Parliament should be ready to ensure that the reduction in civil liberties is restricted to what is necessary for the measure itself and no more.
      It could surely never be necessary for an officer to be entitled to ask questions which it was not, when considered objectively, reasonable to ask. It would be wrong for a person who declines to answer a question which is not a reasonable question to be exposed to the risk of prosecution for failing to answer such a question. I note that the power to take action springs from paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 to the 1985 Act. Perhaps I may place on record my gratitude to the Minister and his department for answering some questions that I posed at Second Reading with regard to the source of the legitimacy of proceedings against people who do not answer questions under that provision.
      I do not think that it would be reasonable to object to the insertion of the word "reasonably", as I propose, on the grounds that it might be difficult to define what is reasonable and what is not. That has sometimes been advanced as an argument against the insertion of the word "reasonable" in social security law. On this occasion I advance the view that it is reasonable to accept my amendment simply because the Bill already contains, at line 32 on page 2, the use of the word "reasonable". The Government have therefore already considered it an acceptable use of the word. In line 32, the word is used in the context of restricting the power of the officer to act, in that he or she must first have reasonable cause to believe that a person is able to give information which will assist him or her in carrying out the functions conferred under Part III of the 1985 Act.
      I would therefore argue that the use of the word "reasonably" is not in itself unreasonable in the context of my amendment. Indeed, if that safeguard were not inserted into the Bill, I would argue that the person being questioned would be put into an unreasonable position in being required to answer any questions, however unreasonable they might be, on pain of prosecution if he or she fails to answer. I beg to move.
      Lord Monson: I am every bit as concerned about civil liberties as the noble Baroness and her noble friends. I support the thrust of what she is trying to achieve in this amendment. However, it seems to me that if the word "reasonably" is inserted before the word "thinks", subjectivity creeps into the equation again. The noble Baroness believes that it makes the matter more objective. I suspect that it might not. The officer might think he was being reasonable but might be entirely wrong in that assumption. What the noble Baroness is trying to achieve would be better served if the word "reasonable" were to be inserted between "such" and "questions", so that the sub-paragraph would read: "to answer such reasonable questions as the officer thinks it appropriate to ask". Other noble Lords may disagree, but that is my feeling on the matter.
      Lord Kimball: I hope that the noble Lord will accept this amendment, or give some guarantee that at a later stage he will bring forward an appropriate adjustment.

      261
      While we are on the subject of reasonableness, perhaps I may say how much I and all of us appreciate the trouble taken by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in clearing up the point about expenditure under the Bill. He sent an excellent letter. It was an example of how to deal with all Private Members' Bills which verge on imposing a burden of expenditure. In a spirit of reasonableness, I wish to thank him.
      Lord Stone of Blackheath: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for making a shrewd point. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for leaving out his reasonable amendment, and also for teaching me so much during the passage of this Bill.
      The amendment is not necessary. The Bill already requires an enforcement officer to be reasonable. He or she is already required, as stated in Clause 2 at line 32 of the Bill, to have reasonable cause. The courts can, and already do, decide whether enforcement action has been reasonable. Good judges are being retrained as we speak on this particular practice. A power to ask questions would be subject to the usual public law controls of relevance and reasonableness, and the issue of whether questioning has been reasonable or not could be taken into account in any prosecution for failing to answer questions. Answers given would not in any event be admissible in criminal proceedings against the person answering, or their spouse, except in a case of alleged perjury.
      Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to those who have spoken. I take on board particularly the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, with regard to the importance of the positioning of the word if one is to retain objectivity and avoid subjectivity. I take to heart the noble Lord's comments that I may inadvertently have retained subjectivity by the way in which I have positioned the word "reasonably". On that basis alone, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
      [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
      Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 6:
      Page 3, leave out lines I to 5.
      The noble Baroness said: This amendment seeks to obtain clarification regarding the application of what might be called in shorthand the new Clause 2(2) powers of the Bill.
      I wish to begin by offering an apology to the Committee for taking some time over this matter. However, at Second Reading I attempted to obtain clarification in relation to this new power because there had been some confusion when the issue was discussed in the Commons. It appeared that Ministers in another place were not able fully to complement each other in what they said but seemed at odds with each other.
      Having raised the issue at Second Reading, I then received a letter from MAFF, for which I thank the Minister. It covered some of the points I raised at Second Reading. However, unfortunately, with regard to
      262
      the particular clarification of the new Clause 2(2) powers the letter caused further obfuscation rather than clarification. I therefore tabled an amendment to try to resolve the matter, and in a spirit of co-operation faxed through the entirety of my speaking notes on this amendment to MAFF yesterday. At 6.35 this evening I received a letter from MAFF in reply to those notes. It means, I am afraid, that I feel the need to put the whole issue on record: that is, the scenarios I proposed at Second Reading; the MAFF letter in response; my response; and the final MAFF letter. Only in that way will one be able to approach properly a resolution of what the Clause 2(2) powers may mean.
      The situation arises that under the Clause 2(2) powers somebody may for the first time be required to give information to an officer. In order to explain how that might affect individuals, I proposed three scenarios.
      In the first, I am the defendant. Throughout this process there has been a recalcitrant Mrs. Bloggs. I apologise to all Mrs. Bloggses throughout the country for appropriating that name. But first I am the defendant charged with storing pesticides, and I state in court that I have not stored them. As I understand it, this Bill prevents the prosecution from adducing my original statement as evidence against me in those proceedings. But if the prosecution wishes subsequently to prosecute me in separate proceedings for perjury, then it can use the first statement as evidence.
      In the second scenario I proposed, I am now a prosecution witness in the trial of Mrs. Bloggs, and again I lie and say that I have not stored the pesticides. My first statement could be brought into that case only if the prosecution wished to apply to treat me as a hostile witness by demonstrating that I had made a previous statement inconsistent with my oral evidence. It would be used as to my unreliability as a witness—but not against me as such because the proceedings would not be against me. But the prosecution could subsequently bring a charge of perjury against me and, as in the previous scenario, use the first statement in evidence against me in those proceedings.
      The third scenario is the only one that has been accepted in its entirety by the Government. The Committee will therefore be relieved to hear that after this they will hear no more of scenario three. In this scenario I am a witness for the defence in a prosecution case against Mrs. Bloggs. Again, I lie in court and say that I did not store the illegal pesticides. Again, the first statement can be adduced as evidence but only to demonstrate the unreliability of the oral evidence which I have given. It cannot be used against me because the proceedings are not against me, although again the prosecution could subsequently bring a case of perjury against me.
      The Minister wrote to me with regard to the first two scenarios. I must refer to the letter in detail in order to explain to the House why I believe the Government are still a little muddled in their thinking on this issue. The Minister's letter states:
      "In the first scenario, where the person who has made the statement appears as a defendant, the person admitting illegal storage and suspected of committing an offence would not be interviewed under the clause 2(2) procedure. The interview would

      263
      be conducted in line with the procedures set out in the Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by police officers to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Any confession evidence would then be admissible against the interviewee in court".
      The letter continues:
      "In the second scenario, where the person who made the statement appears as a prosecution witness, the prosecution would seek to avoid having to apply to treat the witness as hostile. For instance, they might ask the witness whether they made the earlier statement and seek to allow them to refresh their memory from the statement".
      I find great difficulty with both parts of the Minister's letter on those two scenarios. With regard to scenario one, the point is that the Clause 2(2) procedure can be used against any person whom the officer has reasonable cause to believe is able to give information which will assist him in carrying out the functions conferred by Part III of the Act. Such a person could include—indeed, must include—a potential defendant. That is the whole point of the provision. Accordingly, I would argue that the first scenario is correct.
      A defendant may well have admitted that he or she is storing illegal pesticides for Mrs. Bloggs in answer to the questioning by the officer under Clause 2(2). After all, the whole purpose of Clause 2(2) is that a person is required to answer the officer's questions or face a penalty for refusing to answer. But the PACE procedure, which I, as a magistrate, was accustomed to seeing invoked, would not arise until a later stage when a decision had been made to detain the person, presumably on the basis, inter alia, of his or her admission to the officer. Such a person would at that stage be interviewed in the normal way under PACE. Only if he or she repeated the admission in that interview could that confession be admissible against that person in court. But if the person denied the matter or refused to answer, the original admission under Clause 2(2) would not be admissible against that person in the proceedings.
      Under PACE a person cannot be required to answer questions. It is possible in certain circumstances in subsequent criminal proceedings for the court to draw inferences from a refusal to answer or a failure to mention facts later relied upon in one's defence, but that is a different matter.
      I therefore argue that it is quite wrong for the Government to state that the person admitting illegal storage and suspected of committing an offence would not be interviewed under the Clause 2(2) procedure. If that is right, the Clause 2(2) procedure might in itself prove completely ineffective and its inclusion in the Bill would be a waste of time. Such a person would not be required to answer the officer's questions, and thereby valuable information as to the storage of pesticides might be withheld. I have little doubt that a person who has admitted illegal storage under the Clause 2(2) procedure might well be arrested and re-interviewed under PACE, when any admission made in the PACE interview would be admissible, but that is a different matter.
      I argued in the notes that I faxed to MAFF that the Government may be confusing two situations. They fail to appreciate that the Clause 2(2) procedure is initiated
      264
      before any admission is made. The admission arises as a result of that procedure. The admission in scenario one ex hypothesi is not repeated in the PACE interview, which of necessity occurs after the Clause 2(2) questioning.
      I promise to be briefer and, I hope, clearer on scenario two. I notice that the noble Lord the Chief Whip appears relieved to hear that. In scenario two the prosecution cannot seek to allow a person to refresh his or her memory from an earlier statement where that person has flatly contradicted the contents of the earlier statement. A witness can, in certain circumstances, be allowed to refresh his or her memory from a statement made by him or her at an earlier time when the memory was clear. The prosecution can seek to allow a witness to refresh his or her memory when a witness says that he or she cannot remember the facts or is unsure about the facts. But in scenario two, ex hypothesi the witness is lying; that is, deliberately and falsely stating that he or she did not store pesticides for Mrs. Bloggs. The only way that the original statement under Clause 2(2) can be brought into the case is by an application to treat the witness as hostile. I therefore argue that scenario two is correct. It is not a memory-refreshing situation.
      We gather pace at this stage—no pun intended, I assure the Committee. This evening, about an hour-and-a-half ago, I received a further letter from MAFF. With regard to scenario one, the Minister writes:
      "You are of course correct"—
      I think it must be the first occasion that a Government Minister has said that I am correct; I must treasure this—
      "that the clause 2(2) procedure can be used against any person whom the officer has reasonable cause to believe is able to give information and it may occur that someone suspected of committing an offence is interviewed under this procedure. But as you point out such information could not be used in court which is why, in practice, when someone is suspected of committing an offence they are more likely to be interviewed according to procedures under PACE. In some cases it may happen that during an interview begun under clause 2(2), because of disclosures made by the interviewee, the interview is stopped, the interviewee is formally cautioned and the interview progresses according to PACE procedures".
      I am greatly concerned as a result of receiving that letter. It had been my understanding that one of the purposes behind this provision in the Bill was to cope with a situation where an employee was forced into the position of giving evidence against his or her employer that would possibly incriminate that person or his or her spouse and that that was such a draconian matter that was being forced on the employee that provision was made within the Bill to give such a person immunity from prosecution in order to protect him or her. What is stated in the letter is that that immunity is going out of the window; that there is an intention from the beginning to say: "If we think we have got you banged to rights, we will do it; we will go ahead and get you. We are not going to use the Clause 2(2) procedure unless we think you have done nothing wrong and you can get off the hook". I have serious concerns about the way the Clause 2(2) procedure is progressing.
      One of my noble and learned friends pointed out to me earlier that PACE does not apply in Scotland. I bow to my noble and learned friend's experience as a

      265
      previous Lord Advocate and Member of your Lordships' House. I ask the Government to clarify the situation with regard to Scotland, in particular as to whether PACE does not apply there.
      With regard to the second scenario, the letter goes on to say:
      "in the extreme case where the witness has blatantly lied then the only course open may well be to treat the witness as hostile. This has no particular advantages for the prosecution and would of course apply to all evidence supplied by that witness, some of which may assist the case. This is why the prosecution will seek to avoid the situation occurring by asking the Court to allow a witness to refresh their memory from an earlier statement. As you say though this is not going to be appropriate when the witness is blatantly lying".
      I am saying more than that. I am saying that not only is it not appropriate, it is simply not possible. Under criminal procedure as it stands, where somebody has lied and one is trying to adduce different evidence, one cannot do it through a procedure of allowing them to refresh their memory. The court will not allow it.
      I repeat my earlier thanks to the Government for taking such care and consideration in trying to resolve this issue. I fear that they have actually dug themselves into a deeper hole by attempting to help me. I regret that. At Second Reading I was genuinely attempting to resolve the situation. I hope that either the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, is able to shed a little more light on these dark corners. I beg to move.
      8.15 p.m.
      Lord Donoughue: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, for his characteristically generous words. I also thank the noble Baroness for being so co-operative during our approach to this Committee stage. She should not be surprised that I described her as "correct"; I often view her as correct, but I hope not too politically correct.
      I shall not detain the Committee with any seductive scenarios. However, I remind Members that the purpose of the power in question is the effective but fair questioning of witnesses. The amendment would create ambiguity on the question of whether someone can be required to answer questions which could incriminate him or his spouse. It would also remove a protection for individuals that is specifically designed to meet human rights concerns. It would be unfair if people's potentially self-incriminating answers to questions put to them under compulsory powers, could be used against them in a subsequent prosecution for a breach of the 1985 Act. Members of the Committee will recall that the European Court of Human Rights, in the Saunders case made precisely that criticism of powers of questioning where the accused had no protection against that unfairness. We believe that the amendment would remove that protection from the statute.
      I am genuinely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for raising this point. As I say, we cannot accept the amendment as it stands, but I acknowledge that the noble Baroness has deep concerns about this matter and has put forward some interesting arguments. I am therefore happy to reflect on the matter and to
      266
      come back to it at Report stage. In that spirit, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
      Lord Stone of Blackheath: I am grateful to the Minister for offering to reflect on that point. I am glad we did not make a snap judgment on these issues. I hope too that this is regarded as reasonable and acceptable by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
      Baroness Anelay of St. John: I shall try to be as reasonable and acceptable as I can, as long as it is reasonable for the Opposition to be so.
      It was not my intention to remove any protection from witnesses under the Bill; indeed, it was to clarify how that protection would operate effectively. I certainly did not intend to press the amendment in its present form. I thank the Minister for his offer to reflect upon the issue and to return to it at Report. I look forward to seeing that further amendment at that stage. I hope it will clarify the position. I am sure that any amendment which protects witnesses will meet with the approval of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
      Clause 2 agreed to.
      Clause 3 agreed to.
      House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
      Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until five minutes before nine o'clock.
      Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
      [The Sitting was suspended from 8.25 to 8.55 p.m.]

      Government of Wales Bill
      House again in Committee.
      Clause 23 [Transfers: supplementary]:
      [Amendments Nos. 77 to 82 not moved.]
      On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: We have just debated Government amendments to Clause 22 making various widespread changes to the Bill's provisions on cross-border functions. Clause 23 as it stands is therefore redundant. I shall therefore oppose the Question that Clause 23 stand part of the Bill.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must say that in all the legislation in which I was involved in the last Parliament I do not think I ever proposed that one of my own clauses should not stand part of the Bill. I must make a stop in the proceedings in order to note this amazing business.
      I find it even more amazing because at 4.40 p.m. this afternoon I wrote down that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that the Government

      267
      would consider any amendment but they would conclude that they were right all along. Quite clearly they have considered their own amendment and concluded that they were wrong all along. They are therefore amending their own Bill. I am not complaining about that; I just want to draw it to the Committee's attention. I hope that if some Members of the Committee decide later in the proceedings that the Bill ought to be amended the Government will not complain too much. If the noble Lord can amend his own Bill then surely the rest of us can amend his Bill.
      My second point is that I hope that the noble Lord appreciates the importance of a revising Chamber. Where would the Government have been if we had been a unicameral body—just like the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament—and had got to the end of the proceedings in the one and only House and suddenly found that their Bill was deficient in significant ways? More than half the pages in the Marshalled List are down to Government amendments.
      My third and most serious point is that these are big changes. The one we are discussing is the insertion of a new schedule into the Bill in place of a clause; later on another large schedule will be put into the Bill in place of a clause. I counted very roughly, and 35 or 36 pages of the Marshalled List will figure in the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee has not been able to give us its views on this new chunk of the Bill. This is a serious problem. If the Government are going to make major amendments to the Bill in Committee, that is something to which the House will have to turn its attention.
      After a quick look through the major amendments which are being put in in place of Clause 23, I notice quite a lot of delegated legislation. As a founder member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, and subsequently as a recipient of some of its adverse reports, I very much appreciate the important work of the committee. I have reservations that we are now seeing a whole new chunk of this Bill which will not be considered by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
      I know that the Minister cannot do anything about the committee but I hope that what I have said will be read by the people who are responsible. I do not know whether the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee can have another look and report before Report stage on what will be very much a rewrite of large portions of the Bill. It is an important issue when one has new parts of the Bill containing delegated powers. That is the point I wanted to make about the noble Lord's intention to oppose his own new clause. I am tempted to resist but I shall resist the temptation.
      9 p.m.
      Lord Thomas of Gresford: I find it extremely refreshing that the Government should be so confident of their position that they can throw out an important clause and replace it with a schedule which explains everything in much more detail. I wish that such an approach to legislation had been adopted by the previous
      268
      government. They clung to every word, every adverb and every verb of the Bills they brought before the House rather than admit for a single second that they were wrong or had rethought the position. Here the Government have rethought the position and have carefully set out their fresh proposals. I hope it is a precedent that the national assembly for Wales will follow.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I am committed to seeing the Government's business through, especially at this time of night. However, I am tempted to intervene as usual, by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. This is a matter of the Government delegating their own intellectual arrangements to rethink their position. That is admirable. I support them.
      Clause 23 negatived.
      Clauses 24 to 27 agreed to.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 83:
      After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—

      CONCORDATS: PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL
      (" . No Minister of the Crown or Government Department shall enter into a concordat with the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
      The noble Lord said: We now turn to the interesting question of concordats. Despite all the words spoken about these new creatures, I am still a little unsure what they are and how they will work. I understand why we cannot see a lot of examples as the parties to the concordats do not yet exist. We have one worked example, as a school textbook may describe it, but, to be honest, it does not make me any the wiser. It reads a little like a series of platitudinous soundbites, but I suppose I should not be surprised. That is very much the approach of the Government to each and every issue.
      Who are these concordats to be between? In the Second Reading debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, replying for the Government, answered some points I made. I asked him specifically who the concordats were going to be between. The noble and learned Lord said:
      "Any draft concordats that the Welsh Office produces in preparation for the assembly will be published, subject to the provisos mentioned in the Government's White Paper on freedom of information".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1131.]
      My first question is: will someone explain that proviso? I think I know what the proviso is. We have been told that some concordats may not even be published in line with the "substantial harm" test proposed in the Government's White Paper on freedom of information. I would be pleased to hear what "substantial harm" there might be in any of the concordats between the Welsh assembly and Parliament or between the government in Wales and the Government of the United Kingdom. I am naturally suspicious when the Government suggest that they may have concordats, which I understand are going to be terribly important, but the public may not know what those concordats are. I should like to know what exactly the proviso really means and preferably be

      269
      given an example of a concordat, or an issue on which a concordat may be appropriate, where it would be in everyone's interest that the secret society should rule.
      The noble and learned Lord went on to say that,
      "concordats are practical documents dealing with working relationships rather than matters that need to feature on the face of legislation … They will not take the form of binding contracts; they will not take the form of statutory documents, but it may well be the case that they will create a legitimate expectation of consultation".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; cols. 1131–32.]
      I ask the Minister this question. Who are the concordats going to be between—between the Welsh assembly and the Westminster Parliament or between the Welsh government and the United Kingdom Government? There was a suggestion in the noble and learned Lord's speech that they might be between a cross-over of the two, that they might be between the Welsh assembly and the United Kingdom Government. Therefore, the Welsh assembly would have a chance to discuss the concordats but Parliament at Westminster would not because it would be the Government who would be the signatory. I am a little confused. I understand that there might be a concordat between the assembly and Parliament. I understand that there might be a concordat between the Welsh government and the United Kingdom Parliament; but I am a little unsure about the cross-overs. Who will sign these concordats? It appears that sometimes it will be civil servants, sometimes Ministers and sometimes a mixture. Lastly, what democratic control will there be?
      Clearly, if the concordats are between the Welsh assembly and the United Kingdom Parliament, there has to be parliamentary scrutiny of some kind, both here and in Cardiff. Interestingly enough, I am not alone in being concerned because I am joined in this group of amendments by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who have an amendment which attacks the same issue, although it asks for a slightly different solution. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has a more detailed amendment, which I find interesting, proposing a slightly different procedure. My amendment requires that all concordats would need affirmative orders of this place. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches have gone for the negative procedure, which means that Parliament would be able to deal with those issues if it felt it needed to debate them. On minor issues, about which there was no disagreement and where it was felt that there was no need to explore what the Government felt or what was behind the concordat, the order would be allowed to go by.
      The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, wants the procedures governing statutory instruments to apply. As both these procedures govern statutory instruments, I am not sure on which side he is coming down. If he wants to leave it open so that some could be negative and some affirmative, we would need to have something written into the Bill to define when it would be one and when it would be the other.
      These matters are difficult. We are obviously now looking at the issue of democratic control. The need for such control seems to me to be highlighted by the problem of the status in law of concordats. I mentioned that and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer,
      270
      replied on the subject, but I must admit that I and some of my noble friends who know more about the law than I do remain puzzled.
      Let us assume that a citizen is aggrieved by the workings of government. He has legal recourse in that he can go for judicial review and various other things. However, if the reason for his aggrieved feeling is in a concordat and that concordat has no legal status because it is not a statutory instrument and it has not been before the Houses of Parliament, I believe that the aggrieved citizen will remain aggrieved in that he has no legal recourse because the document is not legal. It may be that I am wrong about that. If I am I shall be delighted to be told that if someone was aggrieved about the way in which a concordat worked in his or her individual case he would be able to do something about it and get a legal remedy. If that is the case then one of my fears goes by the board.
      The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that they will not be in the form of binding contracts. That suggests to me that they will not be legislative. Indeed, they cannot be unless there are legislative procedures. As I see it, the Government do not intend them to have those procedures. Any one of our amendments tonight would give that legislative power, and that in my view would give the aggrieved citizen, if such ever existed, some recourse.
      I believe the Minister will say to me that there are going to be far too many concordats; that many will not be very important and perhaps not at all controversial and that we should not overload the parliamentary timetable with affirmative orders. I understand that. But the Liberal Democrat amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, gets round that. These two amendments would certainly allow both the assembly and this Parliament to debate and scrutinise where they felt there was a need for public, democratic scrutiny.
      So I say to the Minister that I shall not feel in the least slighted if he turns down my amendment but finds the Liberal Democrat amendment or that of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, more satisfactory. I shall be delighted for the assemblymen in Wales and the Members of this Parliament in both Houses in future if the Government accede to some form of parliamentary scrutiny on this issue. I see that with the affirmative procedure I would be overloading the parliamentary timetable here. That may be quite a good thing because it would stop the Government doing other things. But I do not believe the Government would accept that. In the amendments that the three of us have brought to the attention of the Committee there is genuine concern. I hope that there is the possibility of some kind of suitable solution coming from the Government. I beg to move.
      Lord Thomas of Gresford: I speak to Amendment No. 84. There is no concordat between myself and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and not even with my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas on this occasion. I take as my text that which the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General said in response to this issue when it was raised in the Second Reading debate—that concordats should be flexible working

      271
      arrangements but that they would create a legitimate expectation of proper consultation between the organs of the assembly and the administration of the Westminster Parliament. I stress that these are arrangements that have to be flexible and have to change in the light of developments and working practices that will be created between the two institutions. I have no doubt that in due course concordats will be less meaningful as constitutional conventions come into being.
      There is no point in having the legitimate expectation of consultation to lead to a judicial review of the decision that is taken unless the aggrieved citizen knows precisely what that concordat is. So the purpose of the amendment that we put forward from these Benches is to ensure that there is transparency. We have no objection to flexible working arrangements, nor to changes in those arrangements, as long as they are published and are in the public domain.
      The way we have put it in this amendment is that any concordat that is entered into should be laid in draft before Parliament and then, but only then, should one side or the other think it necessary, will the matter come before Parliament on a Motion to annul it. Its importance is not in order to create a cause of action between the Welsh assembly, on the one hand, and the Westminster Parliament, on the other, so that one would be suing the other or trying to obtain specific performance on some contract or agreement or anything of that nature. The whole purpose of concordats is to create a working relationship and its publication is to enable the citizen to know what is going on. There has been a great deal of heat, but no light, in Wales about what a concordat is and how it should work. We hope that by ventilating the issue this evening we shall have some light shed on this so that the public can understand what is meant by "concordat".
      9.15 p.m.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford for beginning to bring light to the issue of concordats. The only previous light to be shed on this came in a Parliamentary Answer in another place on 27th February, following which a document was placed in the Library. The Answer came from Mr. Ron Davies in response to a Question from Mr. Gareth Thomas and explained the purposes and significance of concordats.
      My concern in Amendment No. 103A is about the transparency of the scrutiny relationships in both Houses here in the Parliament at Westminster and in the national assembly at Cardiff Bay. There should be an understanding that the relationships which are entered into in concordats are of equal value to both parties. Part of my concern, as set out in the amendment, arises from the statement in the guidelines that the non-statutory concordats are to be based on the good working relationships between the Welsh Office and Whitehall departments and on building up confidence in those relationships.
      My concern is that whereas the national assembly will scrutinise the concordats—no doubt assembly secretaries will be subject to detailed questioning from
      272
      assembly members about the arrangements into which they have entered—such scrutiny might not be exercised here in Westminster over the other side of the partnership, as it were. We appreciate that the partnerships are entered into with confidence and with a developmental attitude. We are told that there will be arrangements in the guidance for resolving disagreements. We shall be interested to know what progress has been made so far on that.
      In Amendment No. 103A, I have highlighted a number of areas—I shall not deal specifically with the relationship with the European Community because that is the subject of another amendment—including the question of the arrangements relating to payments to the assembly under Clause 82. Subsection (6)(c) is important because it relates to the arrangements whereby assembly secretaries may seek advice and information from employees of Ministers of the Crown. I refer to the accessibility of information to assembly members emanating from the Whitehall machine, if I may so describe it, or from officials working for the Parliament and Government here.
      There is a mystery in the guidance as it describes the signing of the concordats. Here, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said. The 27th February guidance tells us that if concordats concern politically sensitive issues, they may be signed by UK Ministers and assembly secretaries, otherwise they would be signed at senior official level. But who is to determine which issues are politically sensitive? There is a danger that what is politically sensitive in Cardiff Bay may be regarded as politically insensitive in Westminster, and vice versa. It would be helpful to have some information on that.
      As always in these debates, I try to come up with solutions as well as criticisms. Here we have an opportunity not necessarily to follow either my amendments or that from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, but to find another role for the House of Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs—I understand that it is looking for another role—or, for that matter, for the Welsh Grand Committee in another place or for a yet-to-be-created body, which I can well imagine, such as a Welsh Grand Committee in this House. Such committees could subject to great and detailed scrutiny the relationship between this Parliament at Westminster and the national assembly in Cardiff.
      That function could be carried out by elected or appointed members representing the Principality of Wales in this House and in another place. They would be United Kingdom parliamentarians and would therefore be capable of scrutinising UK matters and relationships between Whitehall departments and assembly departments in Cardiff in terms of the secretaries and executives there. That would be a suitable compromise, ensuring effective scrutiny as well as the democratic legitimacy of both bodies, both this Parliament and the national assembly. I put that forward for starters.
      Lord Hooson: When I looked at the Marshalled List and observed that I had put my name to this amendment

      273
      I wondered why. As I observed it more closely, I concluded that I had signed it to ensure that there was a wider debate on the issue of concordats.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I had assumed that there was a concordat between the noble Lord and his noble friend.
      Lord Hooson: That concordat is of a different nature. I was most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General for his contribution on the issue of concordats in the Second Reading debate. He reinforced my view, which I had already expressed within my party, that a concordat would be a very important matter for justices to consider in an application for judicial review in the unhappy event of a disagreement or something of that kind between the assembly and the Ministry in London. This matter causes concern in Wales and I believe that there is a need for greater clarity in the Government's thinking.
      The noble and learned Lord indicated the general approach but perhaps he will go a little further. As I understand it, concordats are a fairly recent introduction into political life in this country and Europe. I am not a legal historian. The first reference to concordats that I saw was during the Reformation when the Papacy was very concerned, in the emergence of the nation state and the turbulent state of Europe, that other countries should not follow the Tudor example and break away from Rome. The Papacy entered into concordats with various countries. As I understand it, it was not a contract but it laid down a working arrangement and specified those spheres in which the Pope and the monarch would be supreme.
      I believe that to introduce concordats into the Bill is a very wise suggestion. We are treading on entirely new territory in the relationship between the assembly, which is the first of its kind, and Westminster. We are all agreed that the relationship should be reasonably flexible. The greatest mistake that we could make at the moment is to try to embody every detail of the relationship in an Act of Parliament. That would be asking for trouble. In the course of the next five or 10 years we shall see what happens. There will be times when there is a bumpy ride and Parliament has got it wrong; there will be times when the assembly wants more power. What is needed is a set of working arrangements. That is the general purpose of the Government as I understand the words of the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General.
      Therefore, I am not sure that if these three amendments were pressed to a vote I would support any of them. However, I very much want to hear the Government's view as to the purpose of the concordat. When one has no constitutional conventions to govern the relationship between the assembly in Cardiff and Parliament the best alternative is to have a concordat. That can be the basis of a legal ruling if that ever becomes necessary, but the concordat must be capable of adjustment from time to time. The concordat governing the relationship between Parliament and the assembly should be reviewed from time to time to see
      274
      whether the assembly, Parliament, or the government department concerned wants to make adjustments in the light of experience.
      I do not believe that it is entirely suitable to treat concordats as though they were statutory instruments. Having reflected upon the matter, I am convinced that the Government's approach is right. We are dealing here with normal working relationships. We do not want things embodied in stone, as it were; we want adjustable relationships. Over the first five or six years, the concordats will be important. Thereafter, they will become less and less important, because conventions will have been established and a relationship set up. On reflection, I believe that I was right to sign the amendment, because it will engender a response from the Government as to their latest thinking on the subject.
      Lord Prys-Davies: The noble Lord was right to sign the amendment, because it gives us an opportunity to discuss the role of the concordat. I should like to pursue some of the points raised by the noble Lord. As I see it, the concordat represents a low-key approach to the question of co-operation, but if co-operation is enthusiastic it does not require to be based on any written document. Nevertheless, a document would be of value. It would remind the assembly and the departments here in London of their obligations. The task of drawing up the concordat would be helpful in identifying the obstacles to co-operation which need to be dealt with.
      I understand from what Ministers have said in the other place and here that the concordat may vary from department to department. That is all very well, but I should have thought that there were certain common principles that would govern all concordats. I am not asking for those principles to be embodied in the Bill, but it would be helpful if Ministers could identify them.
      We have heard this evening that those principles include, first, the duty to co-operate; secondly, the duty to agree certain procedural rules and to observe them; thirdly, how the parties will solve the disagreements—I shall not use the word "dispute"—which probably will arise. I cannot recall that the fourth point has been made, but it appears to me that whatever may be the procedure, that procedure should not be interfered with by either party, except by agreement. I should be grateful if my noble friends the Ministers, either today or at some other stage, would indicate what are the obligations which will be binding on the parties.
      Viscount St. Davids: We all understand what the concordats seek to achieve—a working procedure between the assembly or the committees of the assembly and the Westminster Parliament. If we follow the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Roberts, they will be given a judicial status, but would that judicial status stand up in the courts if judicial review were sought or would the courts look to the underlying law which gave rise to the problem and therein seek a remedy? The concordats will need to be flexible. They will need constant amendment. They will need to be published and to be signed by both parties, so that both

      275
      parties will have signed up. I cannot understand what their legal status would be if we follow the procedure whereby they become part of secondary legislation.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley: Even though he is a lawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, explained clearly the purpose of a concordat. My question is simple and down to the ground: what happens when that concordat goes wrong? Who can act? Is it the assembly? Is it Westminster? I know not which it will be, but it will go wrong. Life always goes wrong. When the Minister replies perhaps he will say how he is able to correct it.
      9.30 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): I am grateful for the opportunity to throw a little more light, if I can, on the nature of the concordats in the context of this useful debate about their purpose. All the amendments proposed seek to provide some statutory basis for concordats. That would be in sharp contrast with what the Secretary of State for Wales said on 27th February: that they should not be part of any statutory Bill; they should be non-statutory. I agree with that. In the context of what we expect concordats to do, perhaps I may explain why that seems the right approach.
      As the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, said, the aim and purpose of the agreement is easily stated. It is to preserve good working relationships which currently exist and ensure that the business of government in Wales and at UK level is conducted smoothly and efficiently after devolution takes effect. The concordats involve in effect non-statutory, non-legally binding agreements between the Welsh assembly and various relevant departments of the Executive in London. Those concordats will contain provisions setting out how such things as information should be exchanged between the assembly and the department in London; how consultation should take place between the two parties to the concordat; and how disagreements, if they arise, should be resolved between the Welsh assembly and the department. Those matters will apply not simply in relation to domestic issues but also to European Union issues.
      The people who sign the concordats normally will be senior officials acting on behalf both of the assembly on the one hand and the department on the other. There will be cases where it is inappropriate for officials to sign. It may then be appropriate for an assembly secretary to sign with a Minister from the Government of the UK.
      A noble Lord asked how we will know what is a politically sensitive concordat and whether that is a matter for London, Westminster or the Welsh assembly to decide. I should have thought that it was a matter to be determined by the parties to the concordat. Where one is dealing with a non-statutory instrument such as that, where the parties have to form a sensible view at the time, it is plainly not possible in a debate of this
      276
      kind, or in advance of seeing what the specific concordats are about, to state what would or would not be regarded as a politically sensitive concordat.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry to stop the noble and learned Lord. He keeps using the words he used at Second Reading—agreement between the assembly and the department of the Government in Whitehall. I understand that the Bill has been changed. There will be a government of Wales using a Cabinet structure. My first rather simplistic question is this. Why is the concordat not between either the civil servants from, let us say, the health department in Wales and the civil servants in the health department at Whitehall, or between Ministers? The Minister keeps saying that it is between the assembly and the Whitehall Government.
      My second question is more general. If the concordat concerns the assembly, am I right in assuming that the assembly will know about the concordat and will be able to discuss it? That being the case, it seems to me that Parliament here will not be able to discuss it.
      I am not trying to be difficult. I understand why we need concordats. However, I wish to be clear about who the parties will be, and what right either party has. It seems to me that Parliament here, which will be one party to the deal, is being blocked from discussing those concordats.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: With respect, I do not believe that what the noble Lord said is correct. The nature of the arrangements is that the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales are being transferred to the assembly. It is then for the assembly to determine how those executive functions in part are dealt under the new arrangements. That is why I continue to refer to the arrangements being between the assembly on the one hand and the departments in Whitehall on the other.
      The noble Lord's second point brings me to the transparency of the arrangements. It was made clear on Second Reading, it was made clear by my right honourable friend in another place and I make it clear again that almost invariably the terms of a concordat will be published. I say "almost invariably" because, as I have indicated, they will not be published where they fall within an exception in the Freedom of Information Act. Broadly, the relevant exception is that publication would cause substantial harm. It is difficult to think what an exceptional case might be. Although I cannot helpfully give chapter and verse, one has in mind the kind of case where the arrangements would be the exchange of information about the commission of a crime and when, if one indicated how one would provide information from one place to another, that would be detrimental to the public interest and would cause harm because it would help people in committing crimes. Alternatively, perhaps it would be information in relation to defence. I put forward those exceptions extremely tentatively because it is the Government's belief that the occasions when the concordats are not published will be very exceptional.
      It has been said by a number of speakers in the debate that the concordats must be flexible. I entirely agree. When one is seeking to embody practical working

      277
      relationships, it would be wrong to give them the force of a statute or to surround them with the procedures attaching to a statute, whether it be primary or secondary legislation. Surely, when one is seeking to set out working relationships it would be more sensible to have flexibility.
      The legal impact of the arrangements between people who are trying to set out practical working relationships—whether it be between government departments and the assembly or between the existing Welsh Office and local authorities—would never appropriately be a legally binding contract or some kind of statutory scheme. It would be a non-legally binding, non-statutory arrangement. As I said on Second Reading, it might well give rise to a legitimate expectation that, before a particular step was taken by, for example, central government or the Welsh assembly, a particular procedure would be gone through. It might well give rise to a legitimate expectation. If there were a procedure for seeking to resolve disputes between the assembly on the one hand and central government on the other and that had not be gone through it would deprive someone of his legitimate expectation. Who could bring proceedings in relation to that? It would be any individual who could satisfy the court that he had adequate locus to say, "I have been individually harmed by the failure to comply with the terms of the concordat".
      It is not for me here to develop the law in relation to that; that will be a matter for the court. However, in many other areas where arrangements for consultation are not complied with, if an individual is harmed by them he has recourse to the courts under judicial review, not in relation to breach of contract and not in relation to breach of statutory duties.
      The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested that we would be blocking parliamentary control and that we would be squeezing out Parliament in relation to this process. We are not squeezing out parliamentary control. Plainly, if there are matters of considerable concern either to the assembly or to Parliament because these concordats are published, the matter can be raised in Parliament like any other matter of public interest. There is no attempt to hide or disguise any matter in relation to it. If I may say so with respect, that would be ludicrously overstating the present position. I hope that my response has clarified what the position is in relation to concordats. I believe it is clear that it would be wholly inappropriate, wrong and damaging for concordats to be placed either on the face of the Bill or to be given legal effect.
      I turn now to the specific amendments. I believe that I have already said most of what I need to say in relation to them. Amendment No. 83 would require concordats to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Amendment No. 103A would also require parliamentary approval for them. For the reasons that I have given, we believe that that would be excessive. Although it is far from exact, there is a parallel in that treaties and other international agreements entered into by Her Majesty's Government are not generally subject to a requirement of parliamentary approval.
      278
      There is even less of a case for submitting before each Chamber the detailed administrative arrangements for the assembly's working relationship with government departments. After all, the Bill is aimed at the creation of a national assembly, which will be directly accountable to the people of Wales for the functions that are to be devolved. Therefore, it really is a nonsense to suggest that the manner in which the assembly conducts its relationships with other arms of government must be subject to a form of second guessing by Parliament. As I said, we believe that it would be both unhelpful and wrong in principle for concordats to have statutory backing or for them to be binding contracts. They will work through a spirit of co-operation which will be to the benefit of both the assembly and Whitehall. The assembly will agree the terms of the various concordats after it has been elected.
      Amendment No. 103A would also require concordats to allow assembly secretaries to have access to officials of government departments. That goes far beyond current practice and, therefore, I see no basis for the view that assembly secretaries should be able to place demands on officials in Whitehall or elsewhere within the UK. Indeed, there are only a few matters upon which the Secretary of State for Wales takes advice from officials in other government departments. I believe that the Forestry Commission is the most notable example in that respect. As I said, it will be for the assembly to agree the terms of the concordats.
      Finally, Amendment No. 103A would provide for a concordat to allow the assembly to make representations about payments made to it under Clause 82. This proposed provision is wholly unnecessary as Clause 34 allows the assembly to consider any matter affecting Wales and make representations accordingly. I hope that I have made clear that the Government cannot accept these amendments. However, the debate has given the Government the opportunity to try to lay to rest many of the fears about concordats. I also hope that, on reflection, those noble Lords who proposed the amendments will realise that they are not really necessary.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I have had the opportunity to reflect and find myself unexpectedly in agreement with my noble friend Lord Hooson. Nevertheless, we have had a useful debate. What concerns me is that the nature of the relationships and the nature of the scrutiny of the relationships should be of equal value in both Houses of Parliament and in the national assembly. I would not want members of the national assembly to feel that some background deals were going on in terms of concordats—or not going on, as the case may be—with Westminster and Whitehall departments. If we are talking about development of the positive relationship between the Welsh Office and Whitehall that we have had in the past, obviously that is something which we would all endorse. However, we must not allow assembly members or supporters of devolution in Wales to have grounds for suspicion that there is some kind of secret residual agenda regarding indirect control of the assembly. In that spirit, I am quite prepared to consider not moving my amendment.
      9.45 p.m.
      Lord Thomas of Gresford: We on these Benches are happy with the full exposition that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General has given of the situation. We have never had any problem with the legal remedy available by way of judicial review. I think I made it clear in my opening remarks on speaking to Amendment No. 84 that the matter which concerned me was that there should be full publication so that if necessary Parliament can take up an issue or an aggrieved person can complain if he believes that procedures have not been followed in a particular case which has caused him harm or loss. From what the noble and learned Lord has said, I envisage that these concordats will be published in some form of loose-leaf volume which could be added to or subtracted from as the arrangements change, and that they will be available for everyone to look at. I am completely happy with that.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I cannot say that I am completely happy but then I suppose I am here to scrutinise the legislation and not just to applaud the Government. I did not have any real fears about concordats but any I may have had have certainly been allayed. I am still puzzled by a few matters although I welcome the noble and learned Lord's view that an individual who felt he had been harmed by a concordat would have some legal recourse. I am content to hear that the courts would consider such a matter in the way that I suggested.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I said that an individual would not be harmed by a concordat, but would be harmed by non-compliance with a concordat.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps that is where my fear arises. I understand the point the noble and learned Lord makes about a concordat not being adhered to. But what if it is the operation of a concordat that causes aggravation to an individual? I am not too bothered about Parliament or the assembly being aggrieved because they are big enough—dare I say ugly enough?—to look after themselves. However, I am worried about an individual who may be aggrieved. I shall have to seek advice on what the noble and learned Lord has just said.
      As regards raising the concordats in Parliament, that is akin to what an MP says to an aggrieved constituent to get him out of the surgery on a Friday night. The MP says, "I shall raise this matter on the Floor of the Chamber". However, it is not all that easy to raise matters on the Floor of the other place. I am not easily persuaded that if some Members are worried about a concordat they can raise the matter in Parliament. The reality is that it is more difficult to raise matters in Parliament than the noble and learned Lord made it sound.
      I understand the point about not publishing some concordats, but I refer to the example the noble and learned Lord mentioned of criminal activity or defence. I do not believe a concordat would be needed as regards the police or the Home Office in London asking the Welsh authorities for some information about Joe Bloggs who may be up to some serious evil doings. I suspect that a concordat will set out the machinery by
      280
      which information will be transmitted, although it will not provide the information. I realise that the noble and learned Lord was trying to find an example of that. It seems to me that a concordat which can enable information to be passed to and fro does not need to be secret. Indeed, I should have thought it would be positively advantageous for wrongdoers or potential wrongdoers to know that information may be passed to and fro. That would perhaps prevent their wrongdoing. I am still a little puzzled as regards the classification of concordats that may need to be hidden from the public view. However, I understand what the Minister has said.
      I still have a problem as regards the point about the assembly. However, my noble friend Lord Roberts has suggested to me that the real problem is that the Bill as it stands leaves it to the assembly to decide whether it will have a Cabinet structure. The Scottish Bill certainly does not do that. I shall have to see whether the Scottish Bill is different in some degree and whether concordats between the United Kingdom Government and Scotland can be entered into at government level, whereas the position is different in Wales because of the differing powers in relation to the assembly.
      If that is the explanation, then my puzzlement begins to drift away. I am grateful to the Minister. I shall not just roll over in quite the same way as the other two noble Lords have done on this issue. I shall study these matters and if I feel that there is a point to which we should return, I shall certainly do so. If that means that I have to get some people to use their ingenuity to see whether we can find a lesser form of parliamentary scrutiny, below the level of statutory instrument, perhaps that would provide an answer. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was trying to feel his way towards that.
      After all, we found a way to deal with deregulation during the passage of the deregulation Bill which was separate from statutory instruments and from anything that we had done. It was rather long-winded; I am not suggesting anything like that. However, it is not beyond the wit of man, and even government, to find a way in which Parliament could have a report given to it about the concordats so that there would be an opportunity for debate if Members of either House wanted that. It is a possible way that I shall have to explore. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
      Clause 28 [Reform of Welsh health authorities]:
      The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that Amendment No. 84A contains a printing error. The amendment should read:
      "Page 17, line 2, leave out from ("transfer") to end of line 3 and insert",
      the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 84A:
      Page 17, line 2, leave out from ("transfer") to end of line 3 and insert ("of any or all of the functions of a Welsh health authority to an existing or new Welsh health authority.").
      The noble Lord said: Clause 28 allows the reform of Welsh health authorities. These two amendments in my name are probing amendments. They have been tabled in the hope that the Government will tell us what they have in mind for the health service in Wales. Clearly they intend that the assembly shall have power to take over the functions of any of the five existing area health authorities and the Welsh Health Common Services Authority and the Health Promotion Authority for Wales. That much is implied in the recent Green Paper, Better Health—Better Wales.
      What has struck a number of people as curious is the way in which the Government have embarked on major changes in the NHS in Wales before the assembly comes into being. There is the project plan for the reconfiguration of NHS trusts which is proceeding apace and is currently the subject of consultation. As I understand it, it is proposed to scrap or merge the current 29 trusts and reduce them to 15. That is already causing howls of protest in areas such as Gwent and mid-Wales.
      The new configuration is expected to be in place by 1st April 1999, a month before the assembly elections. It occurs to one to ask what will happen supposing that the assembly, when it comes to consider the NHS, does not like the new configuration. Presumably there will be a further upheaval.
      But our main concerns here are the health authorities. The Green Paper states at paragraph 6.19:
      "Health authorities will have new duties of partnership, particularly with Local Authorities and the voluntary sector, to improve the health of their populations".
      The next paragraph states:
      "The new priorities for Health Authorities will require them to become more strategic and more focused on improving health. They will retain many of their existing responsibilities which were not associated with the internal market",
      and so on. The question occurs: where does the assembly feature in all this policy-making? Will the assembly have any say in the matter, or will it simply rubber-stamp and carry out changes already agreed at UK level and endorsed by Welsh Office Ministers?
      The White Paper, A Voice for Wales, outlined the assembly's intended health functions, and they are recapitulated in the health Green Paper. It is remarkable how little freedom of manoeuvre the assembly will have within the parameters of government health policy. The assembly will set the strategic framework with the objective of improving health across Wales, tackling,
      "inequalities in health status and in access to appropriate services".
      The Green Paper goes on to say:
      "The Government believes that this can be achieved by ensuring that health effects are taken into account in other agendas and by new forms of collaboration",
      and so on. What that means is that there is a connection between health and housing, for example, and that there will be cross-departmental collaboration in this and
      282
      other relevant fields. The more one reads, the more one wonders how much freedom the assembly will have to develop its own policies for the NHS in Wales. My answer is that it will probably have less freedom than the Welsh Office has had in the past or has now. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance. Health is currently a matter of great concern to us in Wales and will, I am sure, concern us greatly in the future. I beg to move.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am glad to have the opportunity to try to explain the purpose of the provision in Clause 28(1). The Government have made clear that they are committed to bringing public bodies in Wales under democratic control via the assembly. To that end, we propose to bring Welsh public bodies under the full control of the assembly. We see no need for health authorities to be treated any differently in that regard. Implicit in that approach is that the assembly must be able to reach decisions on how it views the commissioning and delivery of services. The NHS is a key public service in Wales and the assembly needs the power to determine how best to meet the health needs of all people in all areas of Wales.
      Since its inception, the NHS has undergone widespread structural and organisational change. Those changes continue apace. What might appear appropriate today may not be appropriate in some years' time. In particular, the role of health authorities is changing and will change further, as we move to replace the wasteful internal market, to abolish GP fundholding, to establish local health groups and to embrace a new public health agenda—many of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to.
      The assembly will be best placed to determine what structure of health authorities, if any, Wales needs. Under existing statutory powers that we propose to transfer, the assembly will be able to re-draw the health authority map, if it sees fit, or to rescind the existing delegation of certain functions to health authorities and discharge them itself. However, it would be unable under existing powers to transfer to itself those functions presently bestowed directly on health authorities by statute, particularly functions in relation to family health services. Thus it could choose to relieve an authority of most of its functions but yet be required to retain the authority in existence when it would be more effective to discharge the remaining functions in another way. Clause 28 is designed to ensure that such an anomaly does not arise. The amendment would frustrate that intention and oblige the assembly to apply to Parliament for help in handling a matter of relevance solely to Wales. It is intended to provide greater flexibility, rather than less.
      I submit that it would be a misplaced use of your Lordships' time if the Government had to bring forward primary legislation to give effect to changes in the NHS in Wales that the assembly could perfectly well handle for itself. That is why we wish to give the assembly the powers over health authorities in Clause 28, which mirror those applicable to other public bodies in Clause 29, and those that the assembly will inherit over NHS trusts when existing statutory powers are

      283
      transferred to it. Health authorities are important bodies with an important role, but there is no reason to put them in a privileged position as compared to other important public bodies in Wales.
      That is not to say that the assembly would necessarily want to abolish any or all health authorities in Wales. Our contention is merely that it is conceivable that the assembly might reasonably wish to have the flexibility to do so at some future date and that it would be wholly contrary to the spirit of the Bill to deny the assembly the power to do so, if appropriate. These amendments would leave with Parliament a power that the assembly might need and should have.
      The assembly's powers over the NHS will make the health service in Wales fully accountable and responsive to Welsh needs. At the same time, the NHS in Wales will remain very much a part of an integrated national service with common standards on matters that require a common approach. The Committee will also have heard the persuasive speech on NHS matters at Second Reading from my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I am pleased to reassure him and other Members of the Committee that close working relationships between the NHS in Wales and the rest of the UK remain very much part of our plans. However, potentially useful powers that will not prejudice such relationships should be in the assembly's hands. That is what Clause 28 is intended to accomplish and what the proposed amendments would constrain.
      In view of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment to a vote.
      10 p.m.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I understand all the reasons for the clause; what I do not understand is the Government's current haste to reform the NHS before the assembly comes into being. However, there will no doubt be a further opportunity to discuss the health service in Wales when we discuss the new clause to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, relating to the health service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 84B not moved.]
      Clause 28 agreed to.
      Clause 29 agreed to.
      Schedule 3 [Public bodies subject to reform by Assembly]:
      Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 85:
      Page 82, leave out lines 5 and 6.
      The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 85, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 86 to 91. These amendments are concerned with the powers being given to the assembly under Clause 29 and Schedule 3 of the Bill to reform a number of Welsh public bodies. Those bodies, listed in Part III—for example, the Countryside Council for Wales—may only gain functions under this process. However, bodies listed in Part I of the schedule
      284
      may lose or gain functions and, in the case of the former, the assembly is given power to abolish the function and, indeed, the body if it feels so inclined.
      There are three bodies of direct concern to agriculture listed in Part I; namely, the dwellinghouse advisory committees in Wales, the agricultural wages committee for Wales and the sub-committee for Wales of the statutory advisory committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland set up under the Hill Farming Act 1946. They will advise on the exercise of powers under that Act.
      Those bodies provide an important service on these subjects in Wales yet, as the Bill is drafted, it is possible that in the extreme case both the functions and the bodies could be abolished. The purpose of these amendments is to ask what the Government's intentions are with regard to them. Those intentions are tested by a proposal to transfer those bodies to Part III, thus joining the list of bodies which may only gain functions.
      In passing, perhaps I may mention that while in my rat and pigeon-infested attic I fell over the Wales 1978 file. Strangely enough, I discovered that the agricultural dwellinghouse committee was not devolved in that Act. I beg to move.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for falling over the 1978 Act in his attic. I am sure it is not rat infested, as he maintains. I am sure that those picturesque windmills that he has on his land will have blown all the rats away.
      My particular amendments grouped here relate to the Higher Education Funding Council. I should declare an interest as chair of the Welsh Language Board, which may lose or gain functions under Part I. I will not rehearse what was said in earlier higher education debates.
      My concern is about the separation of functions between the Further Education Funding Council and the Higher Education Funding Council. I speak as someone whose only serious job ever was in adult and then higher education—or so my mother keeps telling me. She is 82 and would know these things.
      I am concerned about the joint planning and funding of the whole of the education system post-16. The different nomenclatures of continuing, lifelong, higher and further mean that the system is now so complex in terms of provision and need that these distinctions are not what they used to be. Therefore, to place the HEFCW in a reserve position under Part III and not to make possible a more effective integration of the further education and higher education planning functions represents a step backwards.
      There is serious concern, particularly in the bilingual sector of education—which obviously I represent in a statutory capacity—about the failure of strategic planning and the lack of effective allocation of resources. The separation away of HEFCW from the further education body can only exacerbate that. I ask the Government to give an indication of whether they are serious about the lifelong planning of post-16

      285
      education in Wales in the context of the assembly. Otherwise the assembly will be hampered in attempting to get value for money in post-16 education.
      The Earl of Courtown: The Committee will be glad to hear that I shall be extremely brief. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley has explained the purpose of his amendments to which my name is attached. I will not repeat what he said. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's intentions for safeguarding these bodies. He may say in response that it will be up to the assembly to make such a decision. That will be very little comfort to the agricultural industry. As we are all aware—it has been said many times this evening—agricultural confidence is at its lowest level for years, particularly in Wales.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: My noble friend Lord Stanley, the noble Earl and the members of the three agricultural bodies listed in Part I have my sympathies. They were wrongly described as quangos by the Labour Party in opposition. They are in fact advisory rather than executive and helpful both to the Government and to the industry.
      The main point about Schedule 3 with its four categories of bodies subject to reform by the assembly is that it appears to pre-empt the assembly's consideration of these bodies. A more ample explanation is required than that available to us in the Government's notes on clauses. The bodies under threat are clearly those listed in Part I and the potential gainers are those listed in Parts III and IV. Those in Part IV are royal charter bodies and cannot be touched anyway.
      Is Clause 29, to which this schedule is attached, primarily inspired by the commitment to reduce the number of quangos in Wales? I hope not because some of these bodies do invaluable work on an all-Wales basis. It would be a shame to carve them up so that they lost their effectiveness. An example is the Wales Tourist Board. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I must express surprise at finding the further and higher education funding councils divided. As a Minister I had a hand in setting them up on a very economical basis, as I thought, whereby they were jointly administered, much to the benefit of both.
      The further education sector in Wales is not really large enough to justify a separate administration. We were fortunate to be able to couple them. There are other advantages to running the two sectors together, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, implied. I am saddened at the prospect of their division, and I hope that they can soon be reunited.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 85 to 92 inclusive. The amendments seek to change the list of bodies that would be within the assembly's power in Clause 29, to take functions away from them, and ultimately to abolish them.
      Reform of public bodies in Wales is one of the key planks of the Bill. Part VI provides for the winding up of the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Land Authority for Wales, Tai Cymru and the Residuary Body for Wales. We have announced plans for the
      286
      winding up of Cardiff Bay Development Corporation. Under existing powers in NHS legislation, we are abolishing the two special health authorities in Wales and are consulting on a significant reduction in the number of NHS trusts. The number of training and enterprise councils is to be reduced from six to four.
      As we made plain in the White Paper, decisions on most of the remaining bodies would be for the assembly itself. While we will have made a very significant start—by reducing the number of unelected bodies and making all those that are left fully accountable to the assembly—it would be for the assembly to take other decisions under its powers in Clause 29. That is entirely consistent with the logic of the Bill. It is a matter for Wales to decide, through its assembly, what should be done. However, even if the assembly decided to abolish further bodies, the work that they do would still need to be done.
      The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, proposes in Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 that the three agricultural committees mentioned in Schedule 3 should not be subject to the assembly's reform power except to the extent that they might gain functions. The Government do not accept that analysis. The effect of Clause 149 is that the assembly could merge the agricultural wages committees in Wales into a single committee for the whole of Wales, and the pattern of agricultural dwelling house advisory committees would follow suit. But the Government believe that the assembly should, if it wishes, be able to go further and transfer the functions of these committees to other bodies and abolish them.
      As for the sub-committee for Wales on hill farming, the Government's position is that all the advisory bodies bar one—the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales—should be within the assembly's reform power. That is the logic of the Government's position. In my view, it is entirely consistent with the whole purpose of the Bill.
      Amendments Nos. 88 and 92, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, propose that the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales should be brought fully within the assembly's reform power in Clause 29. As a result the assembly would be able to transfer functions from the funding council to a range of other public bodies in Wales, including to the assembly itself; and if it transferred all the functions from the funding council, the assembly would have the power to abolish it. The Government's view is that the Higher Education Funding Council should not be within the category of bodies which can have their functions taken away from them, or be abolished, by the assembly.
      The traditional independence of the universities has meant that successive governments have, for decades, left decisions on their funding to specialised, arm's length bodies; the Universities Grants Committee and now the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales.
      The proposal that the Further Education Funding Council for Wales should be within the assembly's reform power does not mean that the independence of further education institutions is under threat. The function of funding further education will remain. But there are options for reform which the assembly may

      287
      wish to consider, taking account of the increasing links between the higher and further education sectors and the position of vocational training, which is currently funded by the training and enterprise councils.
      We have to bear in mind that there is a significant difference between further education institutions on the one hand and the higher education sector on the other. The latter operates in a UK-wide and international market for students, whereas further education meets mainly local needs. A total of 38 per cent. of students at Welsh higher education institutions come from elsewhere in the United Kingdom and 9 per cent. from abroad. Therefore, there is a case for the sector to be funded and monitored on a similar basis to other parts of the UK and in the new arrangements differently from the further education sector. In the light of the explanations that I have given, I hope that the noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
      10.15 p.m.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: Perhaps I may respond to one point. Does the Minister's analysis of the relationship between higher and further education preclude further close collaboration and cross-funding by the assembly? It seems to me that his argument is that the TECs and the FE sector are for one market and HE is for another. That fails to take into account the Government's own strategy in terms of continuous and life-long learning. I ask the Minister to reconsider that.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There are options for reform which the assembly can take which will have the effect of increasing links between the higher and further education sectors. So the proposal does not lead to the separation of the two.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley: As my noble friend Lord Roberts said, the particular bodies that I mentioned as regards my amendment are not unelected. They are advisory bodies, which is rather different from the point that they were quangos. I hope that that is borne in mind.
      I have to say to the noble and learned Lord that this is the first time that I have been quite concerned by his reply. He said that these bodies could be abolished. Being the cynic that I am, I can see a fully urbanised assembly and therefore I shall vote with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to make sure that it is not. But he might be in a minority of one. I can see the tremendous agricultural value that these three bodies have not being appreciated. I hope that the Minister understands why I am so suspicious.
      I shall think about this amendment and take advice. I am not happy about the bodies being subsumed into some organisation which has no agricultural or rural background. It matters very much in Wales. No doubt all we fellow farmers suspect each other, but we suspect those who are not farmers even more than each other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 86 to 92 not moved.]
      Schedule 3 agreed to.
      Clause 30 [Implementation of Community law]:
      Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 93:
      Page 19, line 25, at end insert—
      ("( ) The power of the assembly to make regulations under this section shall not include power to make any regulations which result in, or are likely to result in, any diminution of European Community support measures for agriculture or rural communities in Wales, or which result in, or are likely to result in, any discrimination against agriculture or rural communities in Wales in comparison to other parts of the United Kingdom.").
      The noble Lord said: I am sorry to upset the Committee, but I must take this amendment separately. I have warned the Minister and my Front Bench. I am sorry that I did not realise before that it was rather different from the other seven or eight amendments. If I dealt with them altogether I would not only get the Committee in a muddle but, more importantly, I would get myself into one.
      Clause 30 of the Bill is concerned with the implementation of European Community law where the assembly has been designated in relation to particular matters or for particular purposes. To do so it may exercise powers currently used by Ministers to make regulations under the European Communities Act 1972. The purpose of this amendment is to find out how this proposed power for the assembly might operate in relation to agriculture in Wales. In particular, farmers would wish to be assured that there is no risk that the assembly could pass regulations which resulted in a reduction in support measures for agriculture or rural communities or which would result in discrimination against farmers in Wales as compared to farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister will say that I am being suspicious, but, as drafted, the Bill does not appear to contain any safeguard which would deliver that assurance.
      I have a number of specific questions which need clarification. They are as follows. First, will the assembly have any power to alter European Union agricultural grants? Secondly, will it have powers to alter national agricultural top-up money? As the Minister no doubt knows, there is a national element in the HLCA payments. Could the assembly be given powers to divert that into, say, the beef special premium or, as the spirit moved it, into some other part of agriculture, or elsewhere? Thirdly, will the assembly be in charge financially and administratively of any agri-environmental scheme and could agri-environmental payments for similar schemes be paid at different rates by the assembly from the rest of the United Kingdom? That is a particularly important point because, as we know, Agenda 2000 proposes alterations in such schemes. It is thought, for instance, that the HLCA payment could become an agri-environmental payment. Would the assembly receive such payments direct from Brussels, to do as Brussels says, or would such payments go into the Welsh block grant?
      I realise that the Minister may find my questions rather confusing. I thought of them only last night. They are certainly confusing to me. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord will be able to get his officials to prepare a statement on how the Government intend to approach these problems and queries, plus others which I have no doubt forgotten or failed to see, and whether he can place such a statement in the Library before Report stage so that we may try to understand this. I beg to move.
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord did, indeed, give me notice that he would degroup Amendment No. 93 and I quite understand why. In principle, we are not minded to accept the amendment because we do not think that we should fetter the powers of the assembly in the way that the amendment is specifically designed to do so.
      I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to have the matter researched and I undertake to write to him with detailed answers to his specific questions as soon as possible, and certainly before Report stage. I understand that Amendment No. 93 is a probing amendment, designed to flush out questions of some disquiet to the noble Lord's colleagues in the farming industry.
      Lord Hooson: Will the noble Lord also undertake to circulate a copy of that letter or at least to place one in the Library so that other spokesmen on this matter may see it?
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that we have a good record on that. We generally circulate such information. I have not promised to circulate information on every occasion simply because time is passing.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: The sort of reply that I expect that we shall get from the Minister is the sort of reply that I had hoped to get when we proposed to probe matters by leaving agriculture out of the list of devolved subjects.
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: I accept that. If any supplementary answer is required, I shall include it in what is by now the large postcard that I shall be sending to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley: I am enormously grateful to the Minister, particularly for his last remarks. Saying, "Perhaps you would bring along later anything that I have forgotten", is the sort of remark that I make to my wife. I am most grateful to the Minister. His response will be most helpful. I am glad that he understands that this was a probing amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 93A and 93B.
      Page 19, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert ("contains regulations—

      (a) made by a Minister of the Crown or government department (whether or not jointly with the Assembly),

      (b) relating to an English border area, or

      (c) relating to a cross-border body (and not relating only to the exercise of functions, or the carrying on of activities, by the body in or with respect to Wales or a part of Wales).").

      Page 19, line 42 leave out ("also contains regulations made by a Minister") and insert ("contains regulations—

      (a) made by a Minister of the Crown (whether or not jointly with the Assembly),

      (b) relating to an English border area, or

      (c) relating to a cross-border body (and not relating only to the exercise of functions, or the carrying on of activities, by the body in or with respect to Wales or a part of Wales).").

      The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendment No. 93A. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 93A and 93B formally.
      On Question, amendments agreed to.
      Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 94:
      Page 19, line 42, at end insert—
      ("( ) The subordinate legislation scrutiny committee established under section 59(1) shall—

      (a) consider any draft statutory instrument or regulations made under the powers contained in this section, and

      (b) report to the Assembly whether the draft statutory instrument or regulations would impose on businesses in Wales greater obligations or costs than the minimum required for the implementation of the obligation or the enjoyment of the right thereby implemented or enabled.").

      The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 94. This group of amendments relates to the costs that may be incurred by the subordinate legislation activity of the assembly. They refer to the possibility of greater costs being imposed on businesses in Wales than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Similar issues arise in Clause 43 in terms of consideration by the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee of the costs and obligations and in Clause 59 in terms of a report to the assembly (Amendment No. 155) as to whether appropriate business representatives have been consulted in accordance with Section 66(3) about any draft instrument or regulation. Amendments Nos. 194B and 194C also relate to compliance costs in financial, social or environmental matters, so that the costing is a green costing. Amendment No. 194C also extends "business" to include other organisations that may have an interest in the whole question of the breadth of compliance costs.
      A number of these amendments have been tabled as probing amendments at the request of the CBI; others have been tabled at the request of the environmental movement. The amendments are an attempt to elicit a brief response from the Government on the whole question of the compliance costs of the assembly's activities, in particular the cost to businesses in Wales. I raise these issues because of my concern not so much about the costs of the large corporate sector but the relative importance of small and medium size enterprises within the Welsh economy. The cost effect

      291
      of the activities of the assembly on businesses is an issue of concern to them. I appreciate that we shall return in greater detail to the whole question of the relationship between the assembly and businesses generally and the new arrangements for schemes to promote businesses.
      I should like to have an initial response from the Minister about the Government's latest thinking on the relative impact of the assembly's activities on business costs in order to allay fears raised quite rightly during the referendum debate by various sections of the business community in Wales about the imposition of another level of government and the effect of that on enterprise. I invite the Minster in response to indicate the benefits to business in Wales that will accrue from effective partnership with the assembly, in particular the opportunities to strengthen the SME sector which arise out of the creation of the new powerhouse agency. Obviously, we shall look at that agency in detail at later stages of the Bill. However, it may be appropriate at this stage if the Minster indicates the benefits as well as the costs to enterprise of the legislative processes of the assembly.
      10.30 p.m.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is an interesting set of amendments. I was a little puzzled by it and I shall explain why. I am slightly less puzzled when I hear the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, say that these amendments emanate from the CBI. Presumably, he has tabled these amendments to give the Government the opportunity to calm the fears of the CBI about additional costs. It is odd that the noble Lord should table these amendments. Although I believe he indicates that he is not in favour of total independence for Wales, I thought that that was what Plaid stood for, but never mind. Obviously, Plaid Cymru is a little different from the Scottish National Party.
      What I find interesting about this series of amendments is that—if I may paraphrase them like this—"We want to have our own powers separate and different from England, but we must not impose anything on the Welsh people, especially Welsh business, which is not being imposed upon our English competitors". I hope I paraphrase fairly the concerns of the CBI. It is concerned that the secondary legislation in Wales might be drawn up in such a way that additional costs will be placed on business in Wales which will not be placed on business in England because of the way the Government here have drawn up the secondary legislation for England.
      If that is a genuine concern of the noble Lord, it might be safer to leave all the powers at Westminster. The playing fields would always be level. There would never be any danger that they might be tilted a little against the interests of Welsh businesses. They would then be facing heavier costs and greater administrative burdens than their English competitors. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that, because central to the whole principle of devolution is that the assembly will make secondary legislation for Wales regardless of what the English are doing. Otherwise there is no point in what is being proposed. It is just
      292
      cosmetic. I do not believe that the Government intend it to be just cosmetic. At least I hope, given all the time and trouble that everyone is taking over it, that they do not intend it to be cosmetic.
      The reality is that something has to be different. If it is secondary legislation that is going to the Welsh assembly, then surely there is no point in that happening unless we can conceive of circumstances, and approve of them, in which that secondary legislation will be different. It may well be that it will be framed in such a way that it will reduce costs to Welsh business, and place less heavy administrative burdens on Welsh business. Good, but they may be greater. They should not constantly be looking over Offa's Dyke to see what the English are doing.
      What if the English decide to change their secondary legislation to reduce burdens, demands and costs on English business? Will the scrutiny committee immediately look at that? Do we then assume that the Welsh assembly in those circumstances would immediately change its regulations? I have to say gently, even though it is late, that if that is what is proposed why are we bothering to have devolution of secondary legislation?
      I appreciate that the noble Lord is trying to ensure that the CBI's voice is heard. It is a little contradictory to the general proposition underlying the noble Lord's own principles with regard to the Bill and, I suspect, the Government's own principles. I should be surprised if the Government can give Welsh business any comfort in that regard, other than that the assembly will obviously be mindful. They cannot suggest that all the time the assembly will be looking at the parallel English secondary legislation to ensure that business in Wales is not disadvantaged. I look forward to watching the Minister wriggle on this particular hook.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley: I have two amendments in this group. They are Amendments Nos. 194A and 194D. I have a nasty feeling that my noble friend Lord Mackay might say the same about my amendments as he said about those of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. We will wait and see. Clause 66 is welcome in principle in that it ensures that an appraisal as to the likely costs and benefits of complying with any proposed assembly legislation should be carried out before a draft of the legislation is laid before the assembly.
      However, the clause provides no guidance on what form such appraisals might take. In relation to environmental matters, it is possible that the assembly will be pressed to pass regulations which are tougher—I can hear my noble friend coughing—and more expensive to comply with for land managers in Wales than in England. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that proposed environmental legislation appraisals must compare the costs to business of complying with any similar legislation in force or proposed for England.
      In my final amendment on that point, Clause 66(3) ensures that if a regulatory appraisal indicates that the costs of complying with any proposed assembly

      293
      legislation are likely to be significant, appropriate consultation (including with business) must be carried out and the regulatory appraisal published. This begs a number of questions including how a judgment is to be made about whether costs are likely to be significant. Does the way the clause is drafted mean that there is no obligation to publish regulatory appraisals unless it is judged that the cost of complying would be significant?
      The purpose of the amendment is to probe the application of assembly regulation to farmers by providing that, if legislation would result in lower payments to farmers in Wales compared with those payable for similar purposes to farmers in England, then the costs of complying must be considered significant, and therefore statutory consultation must be carried out.
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: Amendments Nos. 94, 107, 155, 194A, 194B, 194C and 194D are grouped together. I shall deal with them together.
      They fall into this group because they are all concerned with the assembly procedures for making subordinate legislation and, in particular, the regulatory appraisals which will frequently be an element of those procedures.
      Amendment No. 94 deals with implementing Community law. In so far as it seeks to add appraisals to those procedures, it is unnecessary. Orders implementing Community law will be assembly general subordinate legislation under Clause 59, and therefore Clause 66 applies.
      The same argument applies to Amendment No. 107. Clause 43, to which the amendment relates, does not in fact confer a separate category of order-making powers on the assembly. It simply explains the nature of the order-making powers which have been or will be conferred on the assembly under transfer of function orders. Orders under the order-making powers will be assembly general subordinate legislation, and so regulatory appraisals will generally apply.
      The question is raised as to the nature of the appraisals which will operate. Amendment No. 94 calls for a report to be made on whether the costs to business would exceed the minimum necessary for proper implementation. Amendments No. 107, 155, 194A and 194D want comparisons to be made with the costs arising from parallel developments in either the United Kingdom or England. Amendments Nos. 194B and 194C envisage that appraisals should contain assessments of financial, social and environmental costs as well as the costs to business. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, invited me to wriggle on the hook. I have no intention of wriggling because I believe that that is in many ways unrealistic. It would be a burden on the assembly which in all likelihood would be impossible to sustain. As the noble Lord rightly said, the assembly would be expected not only to assess the implications of its own proposals but also those proposed for England or for the United Kingdom. If the proposals for England were not yet in place so that an assessment could not be made, one presumes that the assembly would not be able to make its orders. If there were changes to the English orders, as the noble
      294
      Lord, Lord Mackay pointed out, there would be the call for a re-review of assembly costs or assembly regulation consequences.
      This does not address the realities of the situation. We are looking for regulatory appraisal where appropriate. There will be consultations with the representatives of business, in which I include agriculture. Those representatives will draw attention to any apparently excessive burden being placed on Welsh business. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that, if one is going to devolve, one has to accept the necessary consequences: that the assembly will come to conclusions which may well be different from those which obtain in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland. That is an inevitable and right consequence of devolution. There is no point in giving apparent power to assemblies or parliaments and then saying that they may not exercise them. I agree with the noble Lord. I do not wriggle because I detect no hook.
      On Amendments Nos. 194B and 194C, the Bill sets out a framework for regulatory appraisal. It is for the assembly to determine what sort of appraisal it needs. Not all appraisals will have to be exactly identical for each set of subordinate regulations. It is for the assembly to decide these things. If its members are fit to be elected, they are fit to be trusted with coming to discrete conclusions on different topics.
      The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, invited me to say—I am not sure that this is quite the occasion—what the benefits to business will be. They will be the development of the powerhouse; a closer connection with devolved institutions and powers; the opportunity to affect them, if they wish, by standing for election; the opportunity for close consultation; and the opportunity for business, if the assembly and the reconstruction of the agencies into the powerhouse works well, of a decent climate. We hope in particular—I think sensibly—that the agricultural recovery that is required will be more easily facilitated if we have the assembly with devolved powers in agriculture.
      I say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that Amendments Nos. 94, 107 and 155 proceed under a misapprehension that it will be for the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee to undertake and report on the outcome of regulatory appraisals. That is not in fact the intention. The flow-chart on page 33 of the advisory group's consultation paper indicates that either the assembly secretary or the relevant subject committee will arrange the appraisal, depending on whether "fast-track" or "full" scrutiny is proposed for the relevant draft order. In other words, responsibility is placed on assembly members to decide as appropriate in suitable circumstances.
      As regards Amendment No. 194D, we do not think it appropriate that the concept of "significant" costs identified by an appraisal should be illustrated by a specific and tightly drawn example such as is proposed in that amendment. I have every sympathy with the particular example, but we believe that the significance of costs needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis and in particular contexts. We should not as a matter of principled approach try to limit the assembly's freedom of action by specific provision in the Bill.

      295
      Those are the comments which I offer on the amendments. They are not necessary. They are an unreasonable and rather doubting, feeble-faced approach to the powers we are giving the assembly.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: The Minister, with the able assistance of the Opposition Front Bench, has given the robust response which I probably expected. We will wish to return to the matter when we debate Clause 115 on consultation with business. I am sure that many of us believe that that represents a weak response to the issues which have been put forward by all sections of the business community.
      The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, expressed surprise that I should speak for the CBI in Wales on these matters. We in Wales are a great family and we speak with and of each other on all kinds of occasions. As it happens, I have a close working relationship with the CBI through the public-private partnership which I chair on media development. He should understand that the Left, the centre-Left and the centre-Right in Wales are one big family. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 31 [Consultation about public appointments]:
      Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 94A:
      Page 19, line 44, after ("Crown") insert (", Assembly Secretary").
      The noble Lord said: This is a simple and easily acceptable amendment. It is about the need for the Crown to ensure in making public appointments that consultation includes not only assembly secretaries but the assembly itself. It results from a concern about the appointment of public bodies which has been expressed on a number of occasions, in particular by the great Labour Party, which I love to call the party in Wales as opposed to the party of Wales. Which party becomes the party for Wales is a matter of conjecture at this time of night and a matter for election in due course. That of course includes the Liberal Democrats.
      As a result of the concern about public appointments, it is essential to state that we do not want to see the replacement of a Whitehall-based "quangocracy" with a Cardiff-Bay based "quangocracy". Assembly secretaries should not be able to appoint persons to public bodies without consultation with the assembly itself. I beg to move.
      10.45 p.m.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The purpose of Clause 31 is to ensure that, as a matter of statute, Ministers of the UK Government or other persons are required to consult the assembly about appointments to public posts which relate to Wales. An example of the provision that we intend should appear in the Order in Council under Clause 31 is a requirement for the assembly to be consulted about the appointment of the BBC national governor for Wales, members of S4C and the Welsh member of the Independent Television Commission.
      296
      The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, explained that his amendment was designed to ensure that assembly secretaries would consult the assembly about appointments made by them. I remind him that the proposal by the National Assembly Advisory Group in paragraph 6.10 of its consultation paper—namely, that appointments to public bodies in Wales should be made by assembly secretaries—is a consultation proposal. The group has yet to present its full and final advice to the Secretary of State on this question, but I know that it is giving careful consideration to the input which subject committees might have into the appointment process.
      Finally, Clause 31 is not strictly relevant to the question of the position of assembly secretaries. The exercise of a power of appointment by an assembly secretary would be a matter to be dealt with by delegation under Clause 63. Clause 31 deals with the separate matter of powers of appointment exercisable not by the assembly but by Ministers or other persons quite separate from the assembly. In view of my response, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I shall, of course, roll over—to use the words of the Opposition spokesman—but I should like, first, to place on record my objection to the advice of the National Assembly Advisory Group on these matters, and my concern that there will indeed be a tendency for assembly secretaries to become replacements for Welsh Office Ministers who made public appointments with or without consultation in the past, nothwithstanding the fact that some of them might have been good appointments. Therefore, I give the Minister due warning of other later amendments which would ensure that such powers should reside in the assembly rather than in assembly secretaries. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 31 agreed to.
      Clause 32 [Consultation about government's legislative programme]:
      Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 95:
      Page 21, line 3, leave out ("such").
      The noble Lord said: I should say, first, that we on this side of the Committee will inherit the title of the "party for Wales" from a 120-year Liberal tradition in Wales. With this series of amendments; we are concerned with the role of the Secretary of State. We wonder whether the Secretary of State should consult at his own—a word I used earlier—whim the assembly in relation to the Government's legislative programme or whether, following the Queen's Speech at the beginning of a parliamentary Session, he should be required to go to the assembly and discuss with it the positive Bills that the Government are proposing here in Westminster to introduce into Parliament during the Session.
      There are echoes about Clause 32 as presently drawn of Amendment No. 67 which we discussed earlier and which was dismissed out of hand by the Minister. As he rightly said, under that amendment the Secretary of State would have been given far too wide a discretion

      297
      to interfere with the functions of the assembly. Clause 32 states that the Secretary of State need only consult with the assembly about the Government's legislative programme to the extent that it,
      "appears to him to be appropriate".
      Moreover, should a new Bill be introduced, he is only required to undertake such consultation as, again, appears to him to be appropriate.
      To make it absolutely clear, subsection (4) of the clause says:
      "This section does not require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the Assembly about a bill if he considers that there are considerations relating to the bill which make it inappropriate for him to do so".
      What if the assembly thinks it is a matter which should be discussed with it? What if the assembly says to the Secretary of State, "This Bill that is to be introduced into the Westminster Parliament has such implications for Wales in a way that you may not as yet have fully comprehended that we must put our representations to you. You are the link between the assembly and the Government"?
      The Government's proposals—rightly, we say—are to retain the role of the Secretary of State as a member of the Cabinet. In that Cabinet he will no doubt speak for the Welsh assembly, and when he goes to the Welsh assembly he will no doubt speak for the Government. He is the essential channel of communication. Under the Bill as presently drafted if a particular Bill raises inconvenient or embarrassing issues that he does not particularly want to have aired in Wales, it is left to him to say to the assembly, "I, in my discretion, shall not consult you at all". That would seem to us on these Benches to be entirely wrong. These amendments simply ask the Government to reconsider the position so that the assembly will have that essential channel of communication kept open in relation to all new legislation brought before Parliament. I beg to move.
      Earl Russell: The words this amendment seeks to delete seem to me an ideal example for illustrative purposes of the Cambyses clause, the clause that says the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes. The words are that,
      "the Secretary of State shall undertake … such consultation … as appears to him to be appropriate".
      It is fairly precisely a case of the Secretary of State may do whatever he likes.
      Just over two weeks ago we had a debate in this Chamber about the decline of Parliament. It appeared to me, listening to that debate, that the issue in this Chamber was which party, if any, was to be blamed rather than whether such a decline was taking place. If that is the case, this kind of permissive draftsmanship, allowing the Secretary of State an almost infinite degree of discretion, seems to me one of the things which are in part to blame. Secretaries of State should have powers and with powers should go duties. If the duties are whittled down to mere discretion, then legislation falls out of balance and the Secretary of State's powers increase where they should not.
      298
      The Minister has more experience of arguing about the judicial construction of Acts of Parliament than comes to most of us in a lifetime. Can he tell us directly whether this clause would permit the Secretary of State, if it appeared to him to be appropriate, to conduct no consultation whatever? If the answer to that question is yes, it follows that this amendment must be accepted.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: The thrust of Clause 32 is clear; it is, of course, to enable the Secretary of State to discuss with the assembly the Government's legislative programme for the Session and its implications for Wales and for the assembly. There could well be a case for special provisions in legislation relating to Wales, as in a number of Acts passed in recent years. Obviously it would be for the assembly, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to ensure that such provisions were included in the proposed legislation.
      There is nothing in the Bill about any prior consultation on the intended contents of the legislative programme, or any separate legislative proposals that the assembly might have. This is the shortcoming that some of the noble Lord's amendments seek to address. The Government's answer may be that there is nothing to prevent any body, including the assembly, from putting forward legislative proposals to the party in government. Such proposals would be considered along with others from different sources. But the assembly is in a special position, being a body with legislative powers, albeit secondary, and extensive executive powers. It may therefore see a clear need for a particular piece of primary legislation which relates specifically to Wales. We have had such legislation in the past. The Welsh Language Act is a good example, and there are a number of others. I am sure that the need will arise again in future.
      The question for the Government is whether there is a need to incorporate the duty to consult on the assembly's legislative proposals in the Bill in line with Amendment No. 98. Personally, I see no harm in it, and some merit. Consultation does not give the assembly a right to a place in the legislative programme. No government will ever concede that to any body outside themselves, although the European Commission comes pretty close to it on occasions.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Clause 32(1) as presently drafted places on the Secretary of State a statutory obligation to consult about the Government's legislative programme as appears to him to be appropriate. Clause 32(4),
      "does not require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the Assembly about a bill if he considers that there are considerations relating to the bill which make it inappropriate for him to do so".
      The effect of the Bill as presently drafted is that there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consult on such Bills. The consultation is to be in such form as he thinks appropriate and can be on such Bills as he thinks appropriate. It is nevertheless a statutory duty, and if he exercises his discretion in a way that is unlawful, he could be susceptible to judicial review. That is the extent of the obligation placed upon him by this subsection.

      299
      It is almost invariably the case that this is the way in which legislation of this sort is drafted and there is no other practical way of dealing with it. For example, it is suggested that the words, "such consultation as he thinks appropriate" should be replaced by the word, "consultation", without any indication as to what form the consultation would take. The effect of that as a matter of law would probably be precisely the same as the Bill as drafted, because it would be for the Secretary of State in those circumstances to form a judgment about what form the consultation would take.
      The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in effect proposes that the Secretary of State would have to undertake consultation on every single piece of the UK Parliament's legislative programme—even a Bill that related only to England, for example. There are also some subjects which plainly fall outside the assembly's responsibilities. For example, taxation is dealt with through the annual Finance Bill. That is why subsection (4) of the clause allows the Secretary of State to decide that there are considerations which make consultation with the assembly inappropriate. Accordingly, the Government cannot accept Amendments Nos. 95, 97, 99, 100 or 101 because they would in effect impose an impractical and unnecessary obligation on the Secretary of State which is not necessary in the context of the arrangements.
      Moreover, in my respectful submission, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is wrong to say that there is no content to this obligation. There is a content to the obligation. It is a statutory duty, the precise limits of which are susceptible to judicial review.
      So far as—
      Lord Hooson: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Perhaps he will consider Clause 32(4), which is the most objectionable part of this provision. It states:
      "This section does not require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the Assembly about a bill if he considers that there are considerations relating to the bill which make it inappropriate for him to do so".
      Suppose we had a Secretary of State of a different political complexion from that of the assembly. What he might consider the considerations relating to the Bill which make it inappropriate for him to consult the assembly may be very different from what the noble and learned Lord has in mind here. I know that my noble friend does not intend to press this matter to a Division, but it may be necessary to return to it on Report. It seems to me that problems arise from Clause 32 as at present drafted. Can the noble and learned Lord give us an assurance that the matter will be reconsidered before Report stage?
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Before inviting Members of the Committee to withdraw their amendments, I can assure them that we intend that there should be full consultation with the assembly about those Government Bills which affect the assembly's responsibilities, such as education, health, housing and the environment.
      300
      To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, the way that the clause is drafted inevitably gives an element of judgment to the Secretary of State to determine what Bills he consults upon. We think that that is inevitable if there are some Bills that should not be consulted upon and some that should. In practice, it cannot be done in any other way. I undertake to consider all that the noble Lord said about that; but I suspect that, as a matter of drafting technique, this is the only practical way to do it.
      Lord Hooson: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I am sure that he is not right about this. I have no doubt that the Government, in their present frame of mind, intend that this clause should provide the consultation that is indicated. What I am concerned about is whether in future the form of words used here will ensure that that consultation takes place.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I fully understood what the noble Lord said. I will certainly think about it, but to some extent I stand by the remark that I made. I hope that, in the light of the explanations that I have given and of my undertaking to consider what has been said in relation to the matter, Members will withdraw their amendments.
      Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for a carefully considered reply, to which I listened with a great deal of care. The question is not, as my noble friend said, about intention. Always the question on this type of issue is about the vires which are being created and left behind. I was particularly interested in what the noble and learned Lord said about judicial review. I should be grateful if he could fill that out a little more. Is that judicial review of which he speaks under the Wednesbury principle? If it is, that gives us some grounds for considering what issues it might apply to. The Secretary of State might consider it inappropriate to consult, for a great variety of reasons. Suppose, for example, an English nationalist majority appeared at Westminster and decided to repeal the Welsh Language Act and thought it inappropriate to consult the Welsh assembly on that matter. Would that be Wednesbury unreasonable?
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would be wholly wrong for me to express off-the-cuff views in relation to what may or may not be Wednesbury unreasonable. I go back to the first question that the noble Earl asked as to the kind of principles that would apply in relation to judicial review. They would be the normal principles that would apply to the exercise of a statutory discretion by a Minister such as the Secretary of State. They would normally include the obligation on the part of the Minister to act in accordance with a Wednesbury degree of reasonableness. As we indicated earlier, they would require that the person who brought the proceedings had some adequate locus to bring those kinds of proceedings.
      I fully appreciate that intention is not the issue that is raised in principle by the noble Earl or the noble Lord, Lord Hooson; it is a matter of what is the detailed extent

      301
      of the obligation. I think it would be inappropriate for me to go any further at this stage than to say that the ordinary principles of judicial review would apply, which is in a sense the answer to the point that the noble Earl made. I cannot remember exactly how he put it, but it was to the effect that this provision means that the Minister can do what he likes. I believe that that is a totally inaccurate statement of the effect of the imposition of a duty such as this.
      Lord Thomas of Gresford: Even though this may shock the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, this is an occasion when, as Ministers may understand, we do not propose to "roll over".
      It seems to me that this is an important matter and that the answers given by the noble and learned Lord are, at the moment, wholly inadequate. The noble and learned Lord may have overlooked the fact that an unusual and novel situation is proposed in the whole framework of this Bill—I referred to it at Second Reading—namely, that the Westminster Parliament remains responsible for primary legislation and the assembly is confined within that primary legislation in the making of secondary legislation. It is not as though the Welsh assembly will have a free discretion to make whatever secondary legislation it likes. It is confined to the policy laid down by the primary legislation. It is therefore inconceivable that on any matter involving primary legislation in relation to the areas of responsibility of the assembly, the relevant Bill could be introduced into Westminster without the assembly's views having first been sought.
      It is important that the Government should grasp the principle that, from now on, every Bill which affects the responsibilities that have been devolved to Wales, every piece of primary legislation is in itself a devolution instrument. It has implications; it sets out the limits, the policies within which that secondary legislation can take place. Even when one gets to the spheres of policy which have been reserved to the Westminster Parliament—matters of defence, foreign affairs, social security, taxation and so forth—the assembly will have a view. It may not have any power to make secondary legislation, but there will be representatives elected by the people of Wales with a specific view to pass to the Secretary of State. For the Secretary of State simply to have a discretion, as my noble friend pointed out—under subsection (4) he is not required to consult the assembly if he considers it inappropriate to do so—is entirely inadequate.
      To turn to the judicial review aspect of the matter, suppose the assembly were to judicially review the Secretary of State—a difficult concept—and say, "You have not consulted with us". The matter may go before the judge and the judge may ask what are the specific powers set out in the Government of Wales Act which has been through Parliament. When he looks at it he will see that the Secretary of State does not necessarily have to consult. What is the touchstone? It is not whether he is acting reasonably or unreasonably; it is whether he thinks that it is inappropriate for him to do
      302
      so. The Bill will answer any judicial review that is based upon Wednesbury unreasonableness principles and there will be no answer to it.
      I have to say to the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, that this Bill is not properly drafted. I know that the intentions are good but the phraseology must be looked at again. It must be redrafted to firm up the duty of the Secretary of State to consult. He will not be an adequate channel between the assembly and the Westminster Parliament if it is left in this way. We will most certainly return to this issue on Report, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 96:
      Page 21, line 3, at end insert ("and the Assembly's legislative proposals").
      The noble Lord said: This represents the reverse of the process which has been so admirably proposed by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford from the party for Wales, as I shall now always call it. It provides that the Secretary of State should have regard to what I term in Amendment No. 96, and later in Amendment No. 98, as the assembly's legislative proposals. I tabled this amendment following the instigation and spiritual support of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who, with his usual customary wit and intelligence, picked up in the course of my Second Reading speech some attempt to construct a form of primary legislative fast-track procedure at Westminster which might deal with any issues arising from the delegated legislation activity of the national assembly. I am looking forward earnestly to having his strong support and that of his noble friend on these two amendments.
      We are seeking a way of ensuring that the assembly is able to propose aspects of primary legislation to government so that there is a two-way process. What I indicated clearly at Second Reading was misinterpreted by some of my political critics inside my party, of whom I have few—at least two. They seem to imply that I have become unionist. I have been called many things in my political turnarounds, but never a unionist. In this sense I am a unionist. On Second Reading I was not seeking to institute proceedings which would transfer to Cardiff Bay greater legislative powers beyond the delegated legislation. I was seeking to look for processes at Westminster which would become the primary legislative body in relation to any issues which might arise out of Cardiff deliberations on delegated legislation and which might require further primary legislative activity.
      I mentioned one in particular which is of concern to me as chairman of the language board; namely, the question of the registration of births that occur over the border in Wales where bi-lingual registration does not apply. I hope that we can deal with that at some stage, perhaps in the next session of Parliament, with government support.
      In moving these amendments I am looking for the possibility of using the amended structure of the Welsh Select Committee or the Welsh Grand Committee or a

      303
      special standing committee structure—or whatever applies in another place—and a parallel structure here to deal with these matters so that there will not be a logjam in Westminster as regards primary legislation. It would be dealt with by elected members from Wales. It would obviously not be approved as primary legislation by both Houses of Parliament except by a majority of the Government of the day, otherwise it would not be possible. These would obviously not be aspects of controversial legislation that would be dealt with. They would provide for Westminster to be able to deal with that unique dimension as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, that we are creating a national assembly whose role is delegated legislation but where the primary legislation still resides in the Palace of Westminster. That has to be dealt with.
      Although I did not speak in order to save time, I support fully the earlier set of amendments. There is clear consultation on the Government's programme on a whole range of primary legislation which will have an effect on the assembly. That is absolutely essential. I shall certainly support any amendments that may be moved at a later stage on that issue.
      There is another side of the process; namely, that the assembly may be able to instigate changes of a non-controversial nature and that they may be dealt with as primary legislation in this House.
      I ask the Government to take away these amendments and consider them, even if they cannot instantaneously accept them. I know they have the support in spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I beg to move.
      Lord Prys-Davies: I support this amendment. I was in support of Amendments Nos. 95 and 97, although I did not speak due to the late hour. I am sure that the consultations under Clause 32 should be two way. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that in a system of executive devolution which requires the separation of primary legislation and execution, upon which this Bill is based, then the day-to-day management of the government of the assembly will certainly show from time to time the need for new primary legislation or for amendments to it. A matter which at the outset seems to be one calling for a minor adjustment of policy may grow into a question which requires primary legislation or the amendment of primary legislation.
      The clause as it stands is defective because it proposes a duty on the Secretary of State only to consult the assembly upon the legislative programme which he has in mind. But the clause should impose a corresponding duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements of the assembly for new primary legislation or amendments to legislation. I very much hope that the Minister will give careful consideration to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas.
      11.15 p.m.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: In speaking to the previous group of amendments, I inadvertently gave my support to Amendment No. 98. It is being dealt with separately now but I reiterate that support. It seems to be perfectly legitimate for consultation to take place with regard to any legislative proposals that the assembly may have. Being a legislative body, albeit one concerned with secondary legislation, the assembly will be in a very good position to anticipate the need for primary legislation. That matter should be discussed with the Secretary of State.
      It is quite clearly necessary for the Secretary of State to consult the assembly as soon as the Government's legislative programme has been outlined in the Queen's Speech. At that stage Bills have very often not been fully prepared and there may well be a need, which the assembly will recognise, for special provisions relating to Wales. It is surely proper that there should be an opportunity for the assembly to bring the need for such provisions to the attention of the Secretary of State.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The extent of the commitment made in the White Paper about the assembly was that the Secretary of State would be under a duty to consult about Parliament's legislative programme. That undertaking is delivered in the present draft of Clause 32. What the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is proposing is that the Secretary of State should also be obliged, in effect, to consult about the assembly's proposals for legislation by Parliament. He is saying that it should be a two-way process, with the assembly coming forward with proposals for Parliament to legislate, whether by way of primary legislation or by way of primary legislation to amend existing Acts, or, presumably, Bills in the process of going through the Houses of Parliament. I do not quite know how one would know what amendments to propose if one did not know what the Bill proposed, but that is a moderately minor point.
      Both the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the prospect of a situation arising where the assembly in its deliberations—for example, in relation to secondary legislation—thinks it appropriate to propose amendments to primary legislation. I respectfully suggest that the appropriate way for the assembly to seek to influence legislation at Westminster in those circumstances would be for it to use its powers in Clause 34 of the Bill. It states:
      "The Assembly may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales".
      The assembly could make appropriate representations to whomsoever it chose about any Bill before Parliament affecting Wales, whether or not that Bill related to the fields in Schedule 2. Those representations might include suggested amendments which could be published or sent to the Government Minister or to any Member of this House or the other place. Obviously, it would be for the Government or Parliament, as the case may be, to decide what, if anything, they wished to do in the light of the assembly's representations.

      305
      As to the assembly drafting whole Bills, which appears to be contemplated by the amendments, if the assembly were seeking to argue that some specific, new legislative proposal provision should be enacted for Wales, that would most satisfactorily be put forward in a policy document, again using the powers in Clause 34 rather than in a draft Bill. If the government of the day were to take up such a suggestion from the assembly they would clearly wish to have their own Bill drafted by parliamentary counsel, as now.
      In the light of this response I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that the assembly will be able to make its views heard on primary legislation and that he will withdraw his amendment.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: The breadth of support for this amendment from the Conservative Benches and from the Party for Wales, from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and from the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, indicates that I should withdraw the amendment this evening. However, it seems to me that this matter needs to be explored in the context of both Clause 32 and Clause 34.
      I do not believe it is satisfactory that legislative proposals coming from a body which itself will be producing delegated legislation should be regarded as appropriate representation about matters affecting Wales, as set out in Clause 34. Therefore, although I appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General that this represents a way in which the assembly can take action of this kind, it does not seem to me satisfactory. I thank Members of the Committee at this late hour for their support and I give notice that this is a topic we shall need to return to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 97 to 101 not moved.]
      Clause 32 agreed to.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 102:
      After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

      CONSULTATION ON COMMUNITY MATTERS
      (" .—(1) Before a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Communities, the Secretary of State shall undertake with the Assembly such consultation about the government's negotiating position as appears to him to be appropriate.
      (2) As soon as is reasonably practical after the conclusion of a meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Secretary of State shall provide a report to the Assembly on any matters arising in such a meeting affecting Wales.
      (3) This section does not require the Secretary of State to undertake consultation with the Assembly about the government's negotiating position if he considers that there are considerations relating to the negotiations which make it inappropriate for him to do so.").
      The noble Lord said: I am sorry that we come to this important amendment so late in the evening, but I make no apology for moving it because it is very important. It is important for Wales, for Scotland and for other legislation. It will be important, in time, for Northern Ireland. It concerns the relationship between these
      306
      subordinate legislatures and governments and the all-important, in many respects, Council of Ministers and meetings within the European Union.
      Although the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell discusses any meeting of the Council of Ministers, I shall use as my worked example, so to speak—and the most important, too—the detail affecting everyday life of many people working in Wales. I refer to agriculture through the common agricultural policy and fishing through the common fisheries policy. These two subjects are to be devolved. We discussed them earlier. I have no problem about their being devolved in part. I have no problem about the assembly debating these matters. I am sure we could find certain parts of agriculture that could easily be devolved to the assembly which are not totally entwined with what the Council of Ministers decides in Brussels.
      I am genuinely concerned that the most vital aspects affecting farmers and fishermen in Wales will be decided by a UK Government Minister responsible to the UK Parliament and its Members and without any answerability for policy outcomes in Wales. I understand that preliminary discussions can go on. They do at present between the Welsh Office and MAFF. Agreed positions are arrived at, often at official level. Often it is more the order of importance attached to each issue rather than the issues themselves which have to be decided at ministerial level and, just occasionally, at Cabinet level. Debates can be, and are, held in the other place, in which MPs from Wales and England can argue the case for their farming and fishing constituents with the Ministers who will negotiate in Brussels.
      The MAFF ministerial team then goes to Brussels with or without a Minister from the Welsh Office. I grant that it is quite a long time ago now and my memory could be getting dim, but I cannot recall ever going to a Fisheries Council—I attended every one while I was a Minister at the Scottish Office—at which a Minister from Wales was part of the team. Therefore, I think that I can say that most frequently the ministerial team will go to Brussels without a Welsh Office Minister. That may not be the case so often with regard to agriculture. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will tell me how many times that happens, but I am pretty certain that it is a fact that they do not go very often.
      Deals are done at those meetings; votes are taken; and the team has to decide whether or not to sign up to a package. Such deals are often done in the middle of the night. I must warn the Committee that in Brussels this hour would be considered quite early in the evening. There is seldom, if ever, any opportunity for elaborate consultation back home. Anybody one wishes to consult is fast asleep in bed back in Britain. Frequently, the real problem is that one has to judge the outcome against one's initial wish list. It is often a difficult balancing act to decide whether, if one continues negotiations, one will get any more and whether one has got the best deal possible, often judging the interests of one part of the country against another, with a little bit being given here and a little bit obtained there.
      I have no doubt that just occasionally over the years that this operation has gone on some Welsh Ministers have been less than satisfied with the outcome, but everyone in government had signed up to it. Ministers from MAFF and the Welsh Office backed the deal and usually said that it was an excellent outcome. I hear the same words from this Government as I remember that we used to use when we were in power. There must be a little dictionary giving the quotations used to explain, "This is the best possible deal in the best of all possible worlds". Ministers then stand shoulder to shoulder in defence of the deal.
      As I understand the future, we are to have concordats which will mean that Welsh Ministers—Welsh "secretaries", as they are to be called—will have discussions with MAFF, no doubt preceded by discussions at official level. I have no doubt that most of the time agreed positions will be arrived at—but not always. Just occasionally there will be a difference on the policy or, more importantly, on the place of the policy objective in the order of priorities in the negotiations.
      Who resolves those issues? Let us assume that the weight of MAFF carries the day. Is the Welsh assembly Minister bound by that decision? What about the MPs and the members of the Welsh assembly? I note that both can debate such matters, but will a Welsh MP be able to raise issues about agriculture, which is devolved, in the other place without Madam Speaker saying the equivalent of—not that she would ever be so common—"Nothing to do with us, guy"? Even if Madam Speaker allows the debate, will the MAFF Minister feel obliged to respond to a purely Welsh question or will he say, "Nothing to do with me, guv"?
      Then there are the negotiations and the outcomes. The outcome will be decided by MAFF Ministers. A Welsh assembly official may be present. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, seeks that in his related amendment. The Welsh assembly official may complain, but the MAFF Minister could be forgiven for thinking, "So the Welsh won't be happy; see if I care. I don't have to answer for Welsh agriculture in the Commons. It is devolved. I don't have to go to Cardiff. The poor sod who answers in Cardiff will just have to like it or lump it"—and the poor sod who answers in Cardiff will have to do just that because if we are to believe the White Papers leading up to these Bills, the concordats will have bound him to a collective decision even if he had no real part to play in the last act in the drama in Brussels.
      Noble Lords may be wondering about the Secretary of State for Wales, believing that because he is in the UK Government, he can influence decisions. I do not believe that he can because he has no responsibility for agriculture or fishing. The matter has been devolved, so even if he tries to intervene he does not have a locus standi.
      I hope that I shall not be told that the Welsh assembly secretary may go to Brussels and negotiate in the Council of Ministers. I just do not believe that that can happen. No MAFF Minister will ever hand over the
      308
      negotiating reins on behalf of the whole of the UK, in particular the large English agriculture interest, to someone with no responsibility for that interest who is not answerable to English MPs down the corridor. The Government Front Bench lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land if it holds that belief.
      This amendment gives the Secretary of State a full role in those important matters. He consults and reports to the assembly but the details of the agreed position in the negotiations and the outcome are for him to discuss with his ministerial colleagues inside the same government. As he will have played a key part in the decision-making he will be answerable to Welsh MPs down the corridor and, through them, to the Welsh people. In addition, as subsection (2) makes clear, he will be responsible and answerable to the Welsh assembly.
      Amendment No. 103B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, addresses much the same issues, although it widens the scope a little beyond the Council of Ministers. I shall be interested to hear the discussion on the Committee of the Regions. This is an important point. Up to now people who have been sent to the Committee of the Regions have come largely from local government. That is true in Scotland and Wales. Perhaps that is in part the reason for the noble Lord's amendment. One wonders what the Government believe will be the future there. Will people from the assembly go there while local government is cut out, or will it be a combination of the two? Looking at Amendment No. 103C, that appears to be what the noble Lord is after. He has my support in that objective.
      I firmly believe that the Bill exposes Welsh agriculture and fishing to a situation in which those interests can very easily and quickly be sidelined unless they concur with the wider English interests represented by MAFF. Those noble Lords who have had dealings with MAFF will be aware that it is a very powerful Ministry, particularly its agricultural sector. It carries all the big cards in these negotiations irrespective of what government are in power. We cannot rely just on concordats to ensure that Welsh agriculture and fishing are properly looked after in critical negotiations on the CFP and CAP in Brussels. I beg to move.
      11.30 p.m.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for introducing the European debate in what I understand to be the early afternoon in Brussels. Amendments Nos. 103B and 103C, the latter being a starred amendment which was a later thought on a similar theme, propose a way to ensure representation on ECOSOC and the Committee of the Regions based on a combination of representatives of the national assembly and local government and consultation arrangements between the Secretary of State and the assembly's secretary. I should like to hear from the Government how they foresee the consultation and nomination procedures. Although clearly the assembly will have the means of indirect election, I understand that the appointments will be a matter for member state governments. Therefore, the Government will have a

      309
      view on the role of the Secretary of State in relation to nominations from the assembly and/or local government.
      As the noble Lord has indicated, Amendment No. 103B has a wider remit. It deals with officials attending the Council of Ministers, representatives of ECOSOC and the Committee of the Regions and the scrutiny of assembly proposals by the assembly. We may return to the scrutiny issue at a later stage. Not this evening, but at another Brussels hour we will have the opportunity to debate the question of a European committee of the assembly.
      On assembly representation in the EU, the National Advisory Group—I hesitate to criticise its reports because the distinguished noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, who sensibly is not with us at this late hour, is a member of that committee and no doubt is preparing for another meeting of that group—suggested that the first secretary should represent the assembly in EU matters. I should have thought that the first secretary would have plenty to do at home, answering the detailed questions of assembly members who are keen to find out what the executive committee is up to in its meetings.
      There is a strong case—this brings me to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—for example, for the agriculture, countryside and agri-environment secretary—whatever the title might be, because it might be the sustainable development secretary—of the assembly to be the regular European secretary who attends meetings of the Council of Ministers and other European meetings.
      One could argue that other departments' secretaries, such as culture secretaries, might be able to perform a similar task. I believe that it is a task that the noble friend of the Lord, Lord Mackay, has performed at least once when the Welsh Office took the lead in a European Council meeting on the subject of minority languages. That is clear from the fourth report of the Welsh Affairs Committee of the other place 1994–95. I cannot believe that that person who was leading on minority languages could possibly have been other than the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: It should be said that the person involved was a senior civil servant.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: Can the former Minister confirm that he did attend as Minister of State an informal council on regional policy in November 1993?
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: Yes.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: We are getting somewhere. We now have it established that a senior Welsh Office official led, at official level, a debate on minority languages—obviously that is something that I endorse fully, although I do not endorse the term "minority languages"—and that the Minister of State attended an informal council on regional policy. So we are there already. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, shakes his head. I know that he will say that we are not leading the negotiations. These things do not work in that way. He
      310
      knows full well that European Councils, in terms of formal votes and so on late at night, are part of the proceedings but that most of the work goes on in the serious discussions beforehand.
      Clearly the national assembly will be represented there, both through UKREP and the input into the relevant European interdepartmental committee of the UK Government. It is important to put this in the overall European context. We are dealing with a flexible and moving scenario of European representations by regional Ministers.
      I am surprised that in our debates no mention has been made—I shall not go into detail—of the constitutions of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Belgian state, or the diverse and wonderful arrangements that our colleagues in Catalonia manage to derive through their continuing relationships with parties of various hues in Madrid and elsewhere. We are dealing with a moving picture of European representation both at official and ministerial level. Whether it is in the formal sense of the federal state structure or the more asymmetrical form of autonomy in the Iberian peninsula, which is much more like what is emerging in the UK, those are facts of political life. Therefore I am certain that the national assembly will be able to devise its various strategies for operating as a serious partner at the European level in the formal sense as well as in the existing less formal contacts we have through the procedures instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is getting excited.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can understand why and how a senior civil servant from the Welsh Office, who was a senior civil servant of the British Government, could take a lead on an issue peculiar to Wales (if I may use that word in its nicest sense of minority language) which does not have a great deal of English interest. The Scottish Office must have been content to allow the Civil Service to bat on behalf of Gaelic as well.
      However, as regards fishing and agriculture, while I accept that theoretically there may be occasions when the issue before the Council of Ministers may be one entirely contained within Wales, I cannot envisage those circumstances. Therefore it will be a UK problem which is developed and explored in the Council of Ministers. That is where I do not believe that a Minister from the Welsh assembly could speak for the United Kingdom. That is my problem.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I see that his unionism excites the noble Lord at this stage of the evening.
      I can well envisage that a UK government of whatever colour might decide that the secretary for agriculture, countryside, agri-environment and sheepmeat, of the national assembly for Wales, might be the appropriate person to take a lead role on that issue in terms of reform of the common agricultural policy. I can well imagine that a UK Government might decide that on agri-environment initiatives and the development of national parks it would be appropriate for the secretary from the national assembly to lead in European

      311
      Union debates on behalf of the UK. There are no national parks in Scotland; and the national parks in England are part of one happy family with Wales.
      For the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to suggest that somehow secretaries of the national assembly for Wales are less competent to speak on the European level, and less able to lead on an agreed UK line than Ministers of the UK Parliament does a grave disservice to the partnership arrangements between the Parliament and the national assembly.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. I do not doubt for a moment that they might be perfectly able to lead from an ability point of view, and know all about their subject. I question the issue from the constitutional position. It is a Council of Ministers of the member states of the Union. The member state is the United Kingdom. The Minister we are envisaging, no matter how able, is not a Minister of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I am making a mountain out of a molehill, but I think that it is a serious problem and no one has answered me properly.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: This is my final riposte to the noble Lord. Other member states make specific arrangements. I said that I would not involve myself in the federal position in Belgium. But arrangements are made there. There are four or five categories—I forget how many—of Council ministers. The mix depends on which region leads on which subject.
      Many arrangements are possible within a devolved structure. The Scottish parliament has precisely the same relationship with the European Union as the national assembly will have, except possibly in the area of legislation. It could be argued that Scottish Ministers could debate legislation directly whereas national assembly Ministers might not on primary legislation. Apart from that, relationships are similar. On reflection, I am sure the noble Lord will concede that his unionist tendencies have overtaken his judgment.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This is an important debate. The nub of Amendments Nos. 102 and 103C is the role the assembly will play in discussions on EU matters in the United Kingdom and with EU institutions.
      In respect of Amendment No. 103B spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, as I explained earlier, the Government do not believe that it is appropriate for concordats to have the force of law, or for the detail to appear on the face of the Bill.
      Both amendments seek to explore the level of representation that the assembly will have in Europe. The Government's position is that the assembly will play a direct role, but that it is not appropriate for that to be dealt with on the face of the Bill.
      I readily acknowledge the extensive personal knowledge of the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on how both the Scottish and Welsh Offices operated within a unitary government. I hope that they will accept that in this Bill
      312
      we are dealing with an entirely different internal constitutional background. We do not consider it appropriate to put that in the Bill. It is an attempt to write into legislation the role that the assembly will play in discussions on EU matters in the UK and with EU institutions. That can be handled much better by agreed arrangements, if necessary through concordats, with government departments which will be prepared in due course. The UK Government will continue to have overall responsibility for foreign policy, including issues arising from membership of the EU. That is plain, too, in the drafting of the Scotland Bill.
      The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, slithered between two different positions. First, when he was taking his fisheries example, he was talking about practicality. But then the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, was politely interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, saying that constitutionally there would be a difficulty about somebody from the assembly speaking in the Council of Ministers. Then in the course of the debate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, confirmed that a senior official from the Welsh Office, or possibly himself, had spoken in the Council of Ministers on a Welsh language issue. Taking that as an example, if a Welsh language issue is raised by an EU institution, the representative at the EU institution is plainly a representative of the UK Government. But there is nothing wrong with the UK Government saying that the obvious and most appropriate person to speak on behalf of the UK Government, which is the player in foreign policy terms, is somebody from the Welsh assembly. That particular issue has been transferred to the assembly.
      I see neither practical difficulty in that case nor any constitutional difficulty, so long as it is remembered at all times that the relevant player in foreign policy terms is the UK, because it is a member of the EU.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me for repeating his expression, I believe that he slithered neatly from the position of a civil servant, an official, albeit of the Welsh Office, who is of the United Kingdom service taking the position on the front desk. Civil servants do take positions in place of Ministers, especially during election interregnums in a country where there is no government, as occasionally is the case with some of our European friends, thanks to proportional representation. They have to be represented by officials, but they are officials of the member state's government.
      The official who represented the UK perhaps came from the Welsh Office but he was a UK civil servant. I understand that civil servants who work for the Welsh assembly will still be UK civil servants. I suspect that there may not be such a problem about them, but is the Minister saying that assembly members will be civil servants in some capacity and that they will be able to represent the UK in the same way as a civil servant? I believe that that is a bit of a slither.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is obviously my fault for not making myself sufficiently clear to the noble Lord. The starting point is that the UK is the member of the EU. The UK can choose who is the most appropriate person to

      313
      speak for the UK, on behalf of the UK, in the Council of Ministers. The UK could choose to have as its representative a secretary from the Welsh assembly who would be in a parallel position to that in which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, found himself when he was speaking on behalf of the UK in relation to the UK government.
      With the greatest respect, I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he was slightly muddying the waters by bringing in the idea, which is entirely accurate, that the civil servants serving the Welsh assembly and the assembly secretaries will be members of the Home Civil Service. If a civil servant serving a secretary from the Welsh assembly goes to such a meeting, he will do so on behalf of his Welsh assembly secretary.
      Surely the critical point raised by these amendments is whether there are situations where an assembly secretary can attend and speak on behalf of the UK Government. If the UK Government, which means the national government, agree, the answer is yes, he or she can. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, reacts as though that were some great concession. It has never been any part of the arrangements, other than those for foreign policy which includes EU policy. It is for this Parliament and not for the Welsh assembly. However, that does not mean that the Welsh assembly has no part to play; indeed, as I have indicated, that could include representation subject to the agreement of the UK Government.
      Clause 109 of the Bill makes clear that the assembly will have a duty to ensure the implementation and enforcement of Community obligations in Wales, to the extent that it has the power to do so. There is no doubt, then, that the assembly will have a direct interest in the effects of a wide range of EU legislation.
      The assembly will be able to scrutinise European Union documents and proposals and respond to them. Clause 34 makes clear that it has the power to consider and make appropriate representations on any matter that affects Wales. Its powers under Clause 33—to support culture and so forth—and under Clause 41—its supplementary powers—may also be relevant here. Of course, the Government intend to enable the assembly to implement European law under Clause 30.
      The assembly will be involved in discussions that decide the UK negotiating line on those proposals, to the extent that they fall within its remit—for example, on agriculture and on the environment. There will need to be close liaison between the assembly and government departments to ensure that the assembly's views are fed into UK policy formation on Europe and are taken into account during negotiations in the Council of Ministers and working groups. The Government are committed to that end.
      As I have already said, assembly secretaries will be able, subject to the agreement of the lead UK Minister, to take part in relevant policy negotiations at the Council of Ministers and to speak on behalf of the UK.
      Amendment No. 103C would impose on the Secretary of State and the assembly who should and should not be represented on the Committee of the Regions and would require the Secretary of State to consult the first secretary about representation on the Economic and Social Committee. The Bill already contains provisions
      314
      to allow members of the assembly to be members of the Committee of the Regions, but we do not believe that it would be right to prescribe on the face of the Bill who should and should not be nominated.
      Amendment No. 102 is inappropriate in the Government's view because it would give an intermediary role to the Secretary of State when the intention is that the assembly will deal directly with the relevant government departments on these European matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, knows, the Government envisage the same arrangements for the Scottish Executive.
      Whether or not assembly secretaries form part of the UK delegation at meetings of the Council of Ministers, arrangements will be made for them to know the outcome of those discussions which are relevant to the assembly's responsibilities. Again, in relation to that exchange, there is no need to interpose the Secretary of State.
      Apart from the channels that I have mentioned, we also have to bear in mind that the assembly will have open to it various means of exerting influence in other ways. The assembly may well choose to have its own representative office in Brussels. I imagine that it will want to maintain close links with the Welsh Members of the European Parliament. Assembly members will, from 2002 onwards, be able to represent Wales on the Committee of the Regions. These and other routes of influence will be available to the assembly.
      I believe that Amendment No. 102 fails to recognise the new constitutional landscape. It suggests that the only way of dealing with business is the present system, with decisions on these matters taken by the UK Government alone, while the new devolved administrations are left on the outside with the crumbs of being consulted beforehand and being told after the event what has transpired. That, I believe, does not reflect the political dynamic of the constitutional changes that the Government are putting in place. In view of my response I invite the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley: I would not wish the discussion on this amendment to be concluded without my saying how important my noble friends' amendment is as regards agriculture. I think—I only think at this stage of the night—that the noble and learned Lord added a little to my understanding of the position, but I shall with my advisers read carefully the whole of this debate before the next stage. As I said, the amendment is vitally important to agriculture.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. He clarified a little what the Government hope will be the position. However, I am still less than convinced that if I were a Welsh farmer I would be entirely satisfied with that. The noble and learned Lord suggested that I was somehow a little old fashioned as I wanted decisions taken by the UK Government alone. The point is decisions are not

      315
      taken by the UK Government alone; they are taken by 15 governments, and perhaps more in the future. Decisions are often taken at this time of night and later. It is not the preliminary position that bothers me too much, although to be honest I think the Ministers on the Front Bench opposite do not quite appreciate how important and powerful a central UK department—with the might, for example, of English agriculture behind it—can be when dealing with what are called the "territorial" departments. Perhaps that is just the experience I had in government, but when I listen to the current Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food I am pretty certain that he does not bow too often to his territorial friends and that he takes a pretty robust view of his senior and leading role.
      These decisions are taken in the Council of Ministers and by the Council of Ministers. That is what really bothers me. When we discuss the Scottish Bill I shall discuss the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers. I have spoken for the United Kingdom on fisheries matters with no MAFF Minister beside me. I have spoken on matters which involved Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. I was welcomed back with a full creel by the fishermen, at least in terms of the total allowable catch. Whether they transferred the total allowable catch into real fish and creels, I am not sure. I was able to speak in that way because I was a member of a United Kingdom government. My noble friend Lord Roberts was at the meeting which has been mentioned because he was a member of a United Kingdom government. Perhaps I am being a little stupid and not grasping the nuances of the noble and learned Lord, but I am worried that the secretaries of the Welsh assembly will not be considered members of the United Kingdom Government. That is the problem.
      However, I do not think we shall make any great advances on this matter tonight. I shall read what the noble and learned Lord has said. I leave him with one request. Through much of this argument has run the suggestion—although the noble and learned Lord did not mention it—that if we considered the Council of Ministers we would see circumstances in which Ministers from the German Länder or Ministers from the various regional governments of Spain have attended meetings of the Council of Ministers and have spoken and voted on behalf of the member state on issues which affected the entire member state. I would be deeply grateful to receive a letter—a copy of which could be put in the Library—indicating instances where this has happened.
      I do not refer to instances where there has been a peculiar issue before the Council of Ministers relevant only to that particular region or Land, but where the Minister from a Land, from Catalonia or wherever it is, has actually represented the whole of Germany, the whole of Spain and interests far beyond his boundaries. I should be interested to see examples of that actually happening in the Council of Ministers. I do not refer to informal ministerial meetings but formal Council meetings where decisions are made. It would go some way to help me and, I suspect, many other people in agriculture and fisheries if I had concrete examples of
      316
      that happening. I hope that the Minister might be able to send me a letter giving some examples between now and Report stage.
      12 midnight
      Lord Prys-Davies: Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, I wonder whether he is not missing the point. It is not that the assembly secretary will be a member of the UK Government. Of course he will not be. But he will be a representative of the UK ministerial team and, as such, will be authorised to commit the Government of the UK. The authority for that, apart from what we have heard from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General, is also to be found in Article 146 of the EC treaty as amended by the Maastricht Treaty. That makes it abundantly clear that a person such as the assembly secretary can represent, and commit, the UK Government provided that he has the authority of the lead department.
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I am interested, and therefore I shall no doubt be given lots of examples of Council of Ministers meetings, especially in agriculture and fisheries, which are the two most important ones so far as concerns rural life in Wales, where Ministers from, for example, German Länder actually represented their government on an all-German issue and cast that government's votes if the matter came to a vote. I shall be very interested to read that, and it might go some way to persuade me that this may not be as bad a deal for Scottish and Welsh agriculture and fisheries as I sometimes fear. I look forward to the letter which I hope will come to me before Report stage, when one way or another we shall return to this issue.
      Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord whether it is necessary, for the purpose of calming fears in the agricultural community in Scotland and Wales, that there should be examples of Ministers of Länder, or from regional governments in Spain or wherever, representing the whole of their country as opposed to the regions for which they are responsible, but representing that region—for example, in Wales, obtaining Objective 1 status or making representation on that account. Are we not interested to know whether Ministers from regional governments have, with the consent of their national governments, been able to put forward regional issues?
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am happy to enlarge my request. However, my real point still is—and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has quite grasped it—that all of the negotiations in which I ever took part involved all the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Sometimes there were minor players; sometimes the issues were major ones. But it was an all-UK issue. So it was not merely a case of me, in my capacity as a UK Government Minister, speaking for Scotland; I was speaking about fishing issues in relation to Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. That is the point I am trying to make. I can see that with an issue

      317
      which only affected a particular area it might be able to work that way. But, as I doubt that that happens very often, and in major negotiations in agriculture—such as decisions about price fixing, HLCAs and many other matters, and even objective status—they do not merely discuss whether Wales is to get Objective 1 status—they are probably discussing a whole raft of issues relating to Objective 1 status all over Europe. I do not believe it can be nearly as narrow as the noble Lord's intervention seems to indicate. Frankly, any example will be of great interest to me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 103:
      After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

      DUTY TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF RURAL WALES
      (" . The Assembly shall seek to foster the economic and social well-being of rural communities, and shall for that purpose co-operate with local authorities and public bodies whose functions include the promotion of economic or social development in Wales.").
      The noble Lord said: I shall try to be as brief as possible, but there are no less than 10 amendments grouped with Amendment No. 103. That is not my fault but that of my old friend, the Government Chief Whip. For reasons I do not understand, he no longer listens to me.
      In Clause 33 there is a general duty on the assembly to do anything it considers appropriate to support Welsh culture, including language, arts and crafts, sport, and so on. Much of the area of Wales is rural and is highly prized in terms of its countryside and way of life. It is very desirable for the health of agriculture and of related industries, including tourism, that the economic and social well-being of rural communities should be fostered in future. The purpose of Amendment No. 103 is to place a statutory duty on the assembly to this end and to ensure that the assembly co-operates with local authorities and public bodies which are relevant to the promotion of economic or social development in Wales. Although some people are sceptical about the value of general statutory duties, I believe that there is merit in setting the assembly a clear objective.
      Amendment No. 105A is complementary to the new clause which I propose in order to oblige the assembly to foster the economic and social wellbeing of rural communities. The amendment would place the assembly under a specific duty to consult with farming and other rural organisations when formulating policy and preparing legislation which would affect those interests. Although in Clause 115 there is a general duty on the assembly to consult business as appropriate, the rural character of much of Wales justifies a much more specific guarantee of consultation on action which the assembly is contemplating.
      As I understand it, commissioners will be appointed to draw up the standing orders for the assembly and, having done that, be exterminated. Amendment No. 113 would ensure that at least one of the commissioners had knowledge of agriculture and rural affairs. I fear the Minister will say that the commissioners' job will be
      318
      merely technical. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree with me that technical matters are often very important. I hope that, despite his background, or indeed because of it, the Minister will understand the importance of having at least one person as a commissioner who is not a lawyer or an accountant, as I believe is proposed. I should like to know whether, when the commissioners have drawn up the standing orders, they will, in the modern term, be downsized, or, in my terms, be made unemployed.
      The purpose of Amendments Nos. 120, 153, 159 and 161 is to ensure that there will be adequate rural representation on the various committees of the assembly. If I understand correctly, the committees will be constituted on a party basis, in the same way as Select Committees studying Bills in another place. If I am not correct—and, if I am not, I shall, like the Irish, change the question—I can foresee a situation in which there might be no rural representation on a committee because a political party might not have, or want to choose, a person with rural experience. I accept that that is less likely in relation to the regional committees, as opposed to the main Cardiff-based subject committees.
      The purpose of Amendments Nos. 154 and 170 is to ensure that the assembly will have to take account of the economic and social well-being of rural and local communities, and that will be in addition to the advice from regional committees, with which I deal in Amendments Nos. 165 and 166—I believe we are dealing with them tomorrow.
      We then come to Amendments Nos. 260 and 262, which are extremely important. Amendment No. 260 seeks to ensure that the Welsh Development Agency will consider the effects that its proposals will have on rural Wales. Amendment No. 262 seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State can select a person as a member of the Welsh Development Agency on account of his wide experience of and capacity in agriculture and the rural development.
      More importantly, I should like to raise a specific problem of such organisations as the Welsh Food Promotion. That organisation includes other sub-organisations such as the Farm Assurance Scheme and the Guild of Welsh Slaughterhouses. I understand that the Government have reservations about that organisation; indeed strong reservations. I am sorry to hear that, for a lot of voluntary work has gone into it. Slowly, farmers and slaughterhouse men realise that they need to join such schemes. I fear that the Secretary of State may, like me, suffer from impatience.
      My question is an important one and I should like an answer from the Minister. If food promotion and all that it involves is going to be subsumed into the new Welsh Development Agency, will there be a specific agricultural section in it with agriculturalists on it? I believe that deals with all 10 amendments, with which I have dealt in five minutes so there is no need for the noble Lord to go to sleep. I beg to move.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have a great deal of sympathy for the thrust of the amendments so ably

      319
      moved by my noble friend. They reflect the general concern of people in Wales about the future of rural areas.
      My noble friend seeks to ensure that rural interests are represented at commissioner and assembly committee level, and that the economic and social well-being of rural communities is in the forefront of the assembly committee's deliberations. It is a hope that I share. But the Government may feel reluctant to incorporate the amendments in the Bill and it may be that, when we come to discuss the regional committee structure, we should return to this issue of the future safeguarding and promotion of rural areas.
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: I share the sympathy which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, expressed. However, we do not believe that the right way forward is to deal with all these amendments together.
      The general theme seems to be that there ought to be special treatment for agricultural and rural communities. But the assembly is to be an inclusive forum for the whole of Wales and Clause 120 requires the assembly to make arrangements with a view to ensuring that functions are exercised with due regard to equality of opportunity for all. It would not be right to single out specific communities for special treatment. Indeed, there are many urban areas which suffer significant hardship—not those one normally thinks of, perhaps, but they include the slate-mining districts of Gwynedd, the South Wales valleys and parts of Cardiff not far from where the assembly will have its home.
      We do not agree that the assembly should have a duty to foster the economic and social well-being simply of rural communities—Amendment No. 103. The whole point of the assembly is co-operatively to foster the economic and social well-being of the whole of Wales. In doing that, the priorities ought to be for the assembly and not for the Bill
      In relation to Amendment No. 105A, I sympathise with the noble Lord's concerns. Sound policy making requires consultation. But of course that is already in the Bill—Clause 66 dealing with regulatory appraisals and Clause 115 on consultation with business. Agriculture and rural interests would be covered, where relevant, by both those provisions.
      Amendments Nos. 113, 120, 153, 159 and 161 seek to ensure appropriate rural representation on committees and the standing orders commission. Amendment No. 154 requires subject committees to exercise functions having regard to consequences for local communities in rural areas.
      Amendment No. 153 is misconceived. The nature of the commissioners' work on the standing orders commission is not to require rural or indeed urban or industrial or business representation. It is simply, as the noble Lord thought I might say, to draft detailed rules for the conduct of business—details such as quorums, motions for debates, committee procedures and the like. A rural representative, designated as such, has nothing
      320
      to put forward by way of offering anything to the commission. It is really a matter for the assembly to decide.
      I have to give the same answer to Amendments Nos. 120, 153, 159 and 161. In accordance with the political balance principle, a consequence of Clause 55, each party will have an allocation of seats on each committee. It is then for each party to nominate those of its members it wishes to fill the allocation of seats on each committee. It is a matter for the parties to decide who is best for a particular committee. It will be a matter in practice for the parties, not for the assembly.
      Amendment No. 154 would require each subject committee to have regard to the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas. We would expect any such subject committee to consider the consequences of its proposals for all of the local communities likely to be affected, whether in rural or urban areas, whether they were mining communities suffering from a decline in the coal industry or agricultural areas suffering from the recent decline in agricultural prosperity.
      As to Amendments Nos. 260 and 262, again I understand the noble Lord's concern that the enlarged WDA should take into account the needs of rural Wales. We believe that the enlarged agency will do that. The Development Board for Rural Wales has been taken into the new agency which will be responsible for the development of all parts of Wales, including rural areas. There will therefore be a parity of expertise available throughout Wales.
      It has already been announced that the agency is to create a rural policy unit located in mid-Wales. The unit will co-ordinate the agency's work in respect of rural areas to ensure that those areas benefit wherever possible and as appropriate from the agency's activities. It is implicit in Section 1 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 that the functions of the agency are to be discharged in such a way as to have a positive effect on the economic and social well-being of local communities whether in urban or rural parts of Wales.
      The second part of Amendment No. 260 requires the agency to devote as much of its resources to rural parts as to non-rural parts of Wales. I simply do not understand how that could possibly work. How could one define rural Wales appropriately? How can one possibly get this fly to stop flying around my head? I think there ought to be a special committee for that. How precisely is one to define minimum amounts of expenditure? The aim has merit. I do not dissent from that. However, achieving such aims is best done in the co-operative way I have described rather than through over-prescription. There are enormous numbers of prescriptions here.
      Rural areas, particularly the more remote areas of Wales, have their problems. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Welsh Office recently announced the creation of a rural partnership to take forward development of the themes to which the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, is so committed.

      321
      Amendment No. 262 would require the WDA to have on its board at least one member with rural affairs expertise. No representation has been made by the WDA to have a board member with such particular expertise. We have had 400 responses to advertisements for board members. We hope to get a strong board, bringing expertise from many walks of life, but over-prescription is really not the answer. Everyone knows how important agriculture is as an industry in Wales and as a social component. The WDA Act already puts a duty on the agency to have proper regard to the needs of agriculture in the exercise of its functions.
      I have dealt with the amendments perhaps a little lengthily but I know their importance not only to the noble Lord who has tabled them but to a large section of the Welsh population generally. I hope that I have dealt with the question of Welsh Food Promotion. There will be the rural policy unit. It will be based in mid-Wales and it will have the appropriate expertise to deal with the matters which are within the ambit of Welsh Food Promotion. I do not dismiss or treat lightly the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, but we conscientiously believe that this overprescriptive approach is not the right way to get the sought-after remedies.
      Lord Stanley of Alderley: I thank the Minister for that answer. Perhaps I may first of all say that I did not put all those amendments together and I did not want them put together. They were complicated enough and they were rather too much of a mish-mash. I suppose what I am saying is that urban areas have more votes than rural areas, which is what concerns us. I fully accept what the Minister said about Amendment No. 1 13—that commissioners are merely draftsmen and therefore they can be lawyers, accountants and such like. I just wanted confirmation that that was their job. I am not quite so keen on parties deciding on who will sit on the committees, for the reasons I gave in my original speech.
      I know that Welsh Food Promotion is a touchy subject, not only with the Secretary of State but also with farmers who have served on it. My telephone has been quite hot recently. I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I am not sure that it will entirely satisfy those who ring me up and so I may have to come back to the matter on Report. Meanwhile, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendments Nos. 103A to 103C not moved.]
      Clause 33 [Support of culture etc.]:
      Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 104:
      Page 21, line 23, after ("historical") insert ("or archeological").
      The noble Lord said: It is a little early in the morning to discourse on the difference between "historical" and "archeological" as in my amendment but I would ask the Minister in his response to explain the wording of Clause 33(a) and to confirm that the archeological artefacts within the ownership of the Secretary of State
      322
      and also others that are in private ownership but are conserved are to become part of the assembly's activity of support.
      Amendment No. 105 was inspired by the rather uncharacteristic remarks at Second Reading of my noble friend Lord Moran. I have notified him of my intention to raise this issue. I declare my interest as chair of the Welsh Language Board. In his Second Reading speech he indicated (at col. 1092 of Hansard) that in its handling of the Welsh language the assembly should be careful not to go too far in imposing Welsh on everyone. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the policy of successive governments has been to extend the Welsh language by consent and by voluntary agreement through schemes with public bodies which obviously have a statutory force. But the implementation of those schemes has been continually by public consent on the basis of guidelines approved by Parliament. Clearly, the assembly will proceed on similar lines. Indeed, the linguistic clauses of the Bill are equivalent to those of the Welsh Language Act 1993.
      My noble friend suggested that Clause 33, to which my amendment relates, would allow the assembly to promote the Welsh language and would create difficulties. He went on to instance his experience as High Commissioner in Canada and to talk of the militant language policy in Quebec and its effect on businesses. He then referred to "language police". He said:
      "I hope that we shall never see the introduction of language police in Wales, or the adoption of policies which arc burdensome to business".
      He concluded that part of his speech by saying:
      "Bilingual debates in the assembly, with simultaneous interpretation, will be practicable but they will be expensive".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1093.]
      I wish to make it quite clear that I very much regret that those remarks were made in debate in this House. I fail to see where they come from. I have spent much time, along with my officials of the language board, in the county of Powys where my noble friend lives and in discussion recently at a seminar with Powys County Council. I can say that in that border area of Wales, where not much Welsh is spoken in most of the homes, there is strong support for the development of bilingualism among consenting adults both in public and in private.
      Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept that the intention of the assembly is to be positive and to promote the Welsh language within the context of promoting the English language equally within Wales. It is about the promotion of two languages and not about one replacing another, whatever may be the unsuccessful policies pursued by some of my transatlantic colleagues in Quebec.
      Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 202A which refers to standing orders and,
      "consideration to be given to the translation of information … into languages other than Welsh and English".
      It concerns the issue of languages in Wales which are spoken by significant numbers of communities but which are not official languages recognised as such

      323
      either in this Bill or outwith it. I shall return to this matter at a later stage when we can talk at greater length about the concept of citizenship in Wales.
      There is concern among certain members of the community in Wales. Members of our communities are described in a term which I would not personally endorse as "ethnic minority community members" and represent a small minority of the population. According to census figures it is less than 2 per cent., although that is a strange way of collating the figures. There is concern that they are not fully aware of the implications of the assembly for them as citizens and that they are not sufficiently included in the Secretary of State's inclusive formula for the assembly. I have had private discussions with the chair of the CRE in Wales, Commissioner Ray Singh, who is a distinguished lawyer and a member of the national advisory group. I know that he is very much aware of the need to ensure that all members of our communities feel that they are equal citizens of Wales. An indication that the assembly will be able legally to undertake activity in a limited way in other languages as well as Welsh and English would be helpful to indicate linguistic inclusiveness. I beg to move.
      Lord Monson: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, will not misinterpret my intervention as in any way a criticism of his specific amendments. But I would like to take this one opportunity of questioning the Government on the whole purpose of Clause 33, although had I realised at 10 o'clock that this amendment would not come up until after midnight I might well have preferred to remain in a state of ignorance.
      Clause 33 theoretically empowers the assembly to do anything that it considers appropriate to support museums, the Welsh language, arts and crafts, and so on. But it cannot do literally anything which it considers appropriate since it has no legislative powers as far as primary legislation is concerned, although, as the noble Lord,
      Lord Thomas of Gresford, reminded us one hour and 20 minutes ago, it does have certain powers of secondary legislation, but these are tightly circumscribed. So in essence virtually all that it can do as regards museums, historic houses and so forth is to decide on the optimum distribution of the £7 billion collectively at its disposal annually. This being the case, does not Clause 33 merely replicate in part Schedule 2, given that all the subjects deemed worthy of support and encouragement in Clause 33 are already devolved by the Bill? In other words, they are already listed in Schedule 2. I refer specifically to items 2, 3, 13, 18 and, to some extent, item 5. Clause 33 has a nice idealistic ring about it, but does it actually add anything of substance to the Bill?
      12.30 a.m.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: As a former chairman of the steering committee of Cadw: Welsh Historic Monuments for many years, I rise briefly to say that we always regarded archaeology as an integral part of history. It may not always have been so and that may be why we had a variety of bodies dealing with it: the Ancient Monuments Board, the Royal Commission, the National Museum and
      324
      Cadw itself. One of the great achievements of Cadw was to co-ordinate all that activity and to bring all those involved together under its own umbrella, where, to the best of my knowledge, it rightly remains.
      With regard to Amendment No. 105, I would be very wary of leaving out a direct reference to the Welsh language, although I appreciate what the noble Lord has in mind. I fear that there are too many people who would take advantage of the opportunity to disregard their statutory responsibility for the language.
      Lord Prys-Davies: I rise to express my concerns about Amendment No. 105. I welcomed paragraph (c) of Clause 33, as it appeared to me to confer a right, if the need arose, for the assembly to take some positive steps to promote the policy of supporting the Welsh language where no specific power would otherwise be available for that. The Minister will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but I have understood that there is no such power in the transfer functions orders made since 1964. Therefore, I very much welcome that provision.
      I believe that if the amendment were carried, it might bring comfort to some people who believe that the Welsh language is already receiving too much support. If the Government accepted the amendment, that would not allay the anxieties about the Welsh language commitment of the assembly which I have heard expressed. There are those who are concerned that, with its budget under pressure, the language may suffer. To treat in 1998 the requirements of the Welsh language in Wales as if it were on a par with any other language spoken in Wales, as was the case 100 or even 50 years ago, or to treat it as if it were on a par with the French language in Canada is, in my view, right out of the question.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for initiating this interesting debate even though it is rather early in the morning.
      Amendment No. 104 invites us to add buildings of archaeological interest to those which the assembly may support under Clause 33. It seems very likely that a building which is of archaeological interest will also be of historical or architectural interest, so in that sense the amendment may be unnecessary. More relevant is that the assembly will, we intend, inherit the functions of the Secretary of State under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, which provides explicit powers for providing support for sites of archaeological interest. I believe that that covers the point raised in Amendment No. 104.
      Amendment No. 105 seeks to provide that the assembly can provide support for "languages in Wales" as opposed to the Welsh language. I fully understand the concerns that led the noble Lord to table the amendment. Indeed, they were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. I hope that he will not mind my saying that the English language, which is the relevant one, is unlikely to require such support. The Government are perfectly content with the present wording of the clause and do not share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Moran, about the language police. In any event, it may be that the answer to the noble Lord's point is that the assembly will inherit specific functions in the field of education and that in the exercise of its

      325
      function it must have regard to equal opportunities for all under Clause 120. That may encompass the provision of service or information where appropriate in languages other than Welsh and English, including Braille and various minority languages.
      Turning to Amendment No. 202A, I congratulate the noble Lord on the intellectual ingenuity of the proposition that standing orders must require the assembly to consider translation of information about its work into languages other than English or Welsh. We are not persuaded that standing orders could properly contain a provision requiring the assembly to consider whether it wanted to do something.
      Leaving that aside, we appreciate the point that is made. The assembly will need to reach out to all people in Wales and seek to communicate with them in the most effective way, irrespective of race or ethnic origin. That may involve the provision of information in languages other than English and Welsh, but that must be a matter for the assembly to decide in the light of the resources available to it. It may be that, subject to the views of the electorate of Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, the noble Lord will be in a good position to influence the assembly's approach to this matter.
      What does Clause 33 add to any of the powers listed in Schedule 2? As to Schedule 2, that lists areas of policy in which the Secretary of State must consider transferring powers to the assembly, whereas Clause 33 gives the assembly in effect power straight away to spend money on the particular issues raised there.
      I hope that that answers satisfactorily all the points raised. We cannot accept the amendment, and we hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister. I am glad that we have had this short debate and that my noble friends have taken part in it. Perhaps I am a little over-sensitive on issues of bilingualism and equality, but I have a horror of returning to the bad old days. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
      Clause 33 agreed to.
      [Amendment No. 105A not moved.]
      Clause 35 [Staff]:
      Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 106:
      Page 22, line 11, at end insert—
      ("( ) Where, under the powers provided in subsection (1), the Assembly makes appointments of staff, it may, if it considers it appropriate, direct the Permanent Secretary to the Assembly (as defined in section 64(2)) that—

      (a) certain staff shall be answerable to the Assembly First Secretary and the Executive Committee of the Assembly and shall be regarded as the staff of the Assembly First Secretary and the Executive Committee; and

      (b) certain staff shall be answerable to the Assembly (or committees of the Assembly) and shall be regarded as the staff of the Assembly and its committees.").

      The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Crickhowell dealt with the points raised in the amendments to Clauses 33 and 47 during Second Reading. He acknowledged his indebtedness to certain Members of the other place who had sought to explore the issues. My noble friend crystallised the position with regard to staff in the following way:
      "With a cabinet system most of [the staff] will have primary responsibility to the executive, but the assembly will need its own servants—its clerks and those who are responsible for its administration.".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1058.]
      Amendment No. 106 provides that the assembly directs the permanent secretary to allocate the staff between the executive and assembly committees and that they be answerable accordingly.
      It is quite clear from this amendment and Amendment No. 112 to Clause 47, which refers to the professional loyalty of civil servants, that my noble friend is anxious to avoid a clash between civil service loyalty to the executive and to the assembly in its executive-checking role. The point is an important one. It is obvious that the executive will have its own interests and that they may have to be closely guarded at times. After all, it will probably meet in secret. It is equally obvious that the ordinary assembly member will have his or her separate interests in the executive's activities and in a wider field. Some division of staff is inevitable. We are familiar with that here in Parliament, where we are well and independently served as Members by our own staff in both Houses. There is no question of where their loyalty lies, even though they all belong to the Home Civil Service. We may not have the division of labour exactly right in the amendments, but I do not think that we are far from it. I commend the amendments to the Committee. I beg to move.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: I shall speak to Amendment No. 193 in this group. It is intended to lay on the commissioners and the assembly's standing orders the specification of the proportion of staff who will be delegated to provide information for members who are not necessarily members of the executive committee. That is a concern that I shall obviously rehearse later this evening on another amendment. It is merely to note the point that I do not believe that the Government so far, or perhaps the National Assembly Advisory Group so far, has grappled with the consequences of creating a cabinet system for the rest of the assembly members. Those are the consequences in terms of the flow of information, and what is called in another place and this place, the "guarantee of the rights of Back Benchers". I use that expression in quotes, because my view of the national assembly is that there should be no Back Benchers. It is a body corporate of 60 people, all of whom have a responsibility for the governance of the country and for their activity there. We must have ways of ensuring that all members, including the subject committee members, who are not members of the executive, will be able to be serviced properly by the staff of the Welsh Office, whose excellence we are observing even at this early hour of the morning.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton: This group of amendments is concerned with the structure of the

      327
      Civil Service which will support the assembly. It raises an issue which we are all concerned to see settled satisfactorily—that is, to ensure that all parts of the assembly have the administrative support they need to function effectively.
      The structure of the assembly—its executive committee, its subject committees and so on—is designed carefully to give a balance between an effective executive and a full and meaningful involvement of minority parties in the policy-making and legislative processes of the assembly.
      We all share the aim of ensuring that the assembly, in all its roles, including those which involve vigorous scrutiny of the assembly, is properly supported by its staff. I hope that the Committee will equally share our aim of preserving the valuable political impartiality of the Civil Service so that we avoid the risk of political interference in the running of the assembly's administration.
      The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, made clear on Second Reading his intention to examine the position of the civil servants and the support that they will provide to assembly members. I remind the Committee that those issues have been addressed also by the National Assembly Advisory Group set up by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I refer in particular to Chapter 5 of the advisory group's consultation document, issued on 17th April, copies of which are in the Library.
      Clauses 35 and 64 are intended to ensure that the permanent secretary (and not elected members) remains responsible for the management of the assembly's officials. As the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Crickhowell, will know from their extensive experience of the Welsh Office, permanent secretaries do not exercise that function in isolation from their Ministers; they do so in consultation with them, and in ways which will deliver the service that Ministers require. The Civil Service serves the political agenda. That will be equally true under the assembly.
      Amendments Nos. 106 and 112 would require the creation of separate groups of staff among the civil servants who will support the work of the assembly. I do not believe that it is right or necessary to prescribe in statute how the staff of the assembly should be organised. In addition, the amendments will be a departure from the principle underpinning the Bill, that all the staff of the assembly, whether they support directly the assembly and its committees or the assembly secretaries, will be members of the Home Civil Service.
      The role of the Civil Service will evolve under the assembly. It will be serving not "the Government of the day" but the assembly, in all its roles. We expect most of the Civil Servants to work in support of the assembly secretaries and the executive committee, in a manner not too dissimilar to the support which the Secretary of State receives from staff at the Welsh Office—to develop and implement the functions and policies of the assembly.
      The role of the office of the presiding officer—to organise the business of the assembly, to enable the subject committees to operate effectively and, vitally, to
      328
      safeguard the right of individual members—will mean that the staff there will need to be seen as independent of the assembly secretaries and the executive committee.
      However, there is no need to suggest that the consequence of this is a need to create different groups of staff within the civil servants supporting the assembly as a whole. As is currently the case with the Welsh Office, staff are able to undertake a range of responsibilities within different areas of the department. Such moves are encouraged for career development purposes and I would anticipate that this should apply equally with the assembly. Of course, there may well be circumstances where staff will have to work within "Chinese walls" but this is a concept that is well understood.
      In view of this explanation, I urge that the two amendments are withdrawn.
      Turning to Amendment No. 193, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that it will be important that those members who are not assembly secretaries suffer no disadvantage in being able to access support and information to fully discharge their roles. However, I am sure that the noble Lord is not seeking to suggest that civil servants should be asked to provide personal support to help such members in their constituency and political business.
      Nonetheless, I agree that members not represented on the executive committee need to be well informed, and this was also a point made in the advisory group's consultation paper. The Government's proposals for freedom of information legislation, together with the provision of modern IT facilities, central library and research facilities for assembly members are very much in our thinking in the range of office-based support which members should receive. A more novel proposal put forward by the advisory group is that there should be regular factual briefings by senior officials of the assembly.
      I hope that I have indicated that we hold firmly to the need to retain the Civil Service principles of impartiality and political neutrality, but that at the same time we are exploring with an open mind the best ways of organising the assembly's staff to ensure that it properly supports the whole assembly. It would not be helpful to legislate to enforce a particular division of roles within the assembly. That would freeze the position and prevent the organisation from evolving in the light of experience.
      In view of my reassurances about support and provision of information to members, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, to withdraw his amendment.
      Before the noble Lord does so, in this group is a government amendment, Amendment No. 192A. That amendment is intended to bring greater clarity to the drafting in Clause 64. It is purely drafting.
      Lord Elis-Thomas: In view of the reassurances so ably drafted by the officials that will serve the assembly, I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am not totally convinced that a division of the staff will not be necessary. When

      329
      I introduced the amendment, I believe that I made an error in describing the servants of this House as being members of the Home Civil Service. I am told that they are in fact employed by the Clerk of the Parliaments. I stand corrected by myself.
      We shall consider carefully what has been said. We may return to the subject at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 35 agreed to.
      12.45 a.m.
      On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
      The Earl of Balfour: Clause 36 deals with inquiries and states:
      "The Assembly may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter relevant to the exercise of any of its functions".
      Subsection (2) of the clause refers to Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (witnesses and costs at local inquiries). Witnesses can be called and may be required to produce documents. However, the assembly is not a local authority; it is a new body. Surely a new body requires its own legislative powers to force a witness to be required to take an oath: "I will tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".
      In Scotland, the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936 clearly provides for the oath of witnesses, and if they do not take it they can be fined. I wish to draw the Committee's attention to Clause 25 of the Scotland Bill. Its title is "Witnesses and documents: general" and it states:
      "The Presiding Officer or such other person as may be authorised by standing orders may … administer an oath to any person giving evidence in proceedings of the Parliament, and require him to take the oath. Any person who refuses to take an oath when required to do so … is guilty of an offence".
      I found nothing in this Government of Wales Bill which provides for these conditions of oath. It is an important point. I realise that the hour is late and I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight. However, would he be good enough to look at the matter between now and Report?
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, certainly.
      Clause 36 agreed to.
      Clause 37 [Polls for ascertaining views of the public]:
      On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
      Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I have a small point to make. I was reading the clause earlier. Subsection (1) states:
      "The Assembly may hold a poll in an area consisting of Wales or any part (or parts) of Wales for the purpose of ascertaining the views of those polled about whether or how any of the Assembly's functions… should be exercised".
      330
      That seemed fair enough. Then I noticed that in brackets it states:
      "(other than those under section 34)".
      I went back to Clause 34, which states:
      "The Assembly may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales".
      Does the bracket read "other than any matter affecting Wales"? I suspect that I know what is intended, but I wonder whether the draftsman would like to cast his eagle eye over this to ensure that there is not something wrong about the way the provision has been constructed.
      Secondly, if it has been constructed the way I think it has, is that to prevent the assembly ever being able to organise a poll about the independence of Wales?
      Lord Williams of Mostyn: The draftsman is, I am sure, absolutely confident in the rightness of his drafting—but will, of course, review it appropriately. There is no ulterior motive to be found in any clause of this magnificent construction.
      Clause 37 agreed to.
      Clauses 38 to 42 agreed to.
      Clause 43 [Different exercise of functions by Assembly]:
      [Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
      Clause 43 agreed to.
      Clause 44 [Construction of references to Ministers and departments]:
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 108:
      Page 24, line 31, at end insert—
      ("( ) References in any enactment to property vested in or held for the purposes of a government department shall be construed as including references to property vested in or held for the purposes of the Assembly (and in relation to property so vested or held the Assembly shall be deemed to be a government department for the purposes of any enactment).").
      The noble and learned Lord said: This minor amendment to Clause 44 ensures that references in enactments to property vested in or held for the purposes of a government department are to be construed as including references to property vested in or held for the purposes of the assembly. The equivalent provision was made by subsection (2) of Section 74 of the Wales Act 1978.
      The amendments are necessary because the assembly will not be a government department. The various references to land held by government departments would, without these amendments, need specific amendment in the transfer order or in an order under Clause 151. These arrangements will be relevant in relation to statutory provisions referring to Crown land. An example is Section 327(1) of the Highways Act 1980 which, in common with similar provisions, refers to Crown land as including land belonging to a government department. I beg to move.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 109:
      Page 24, line 32, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section").
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 45 [Parliamentary procedures for subordinate legislation]:
      Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 110:
      Page 24, line 35, leave out (", confirm or approve").
      The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111A. These are drafting amendments. Subsection (1) of Clause 45 refers to, "make, confirm or approve", whereas subsections (3) and (4) refer only to "made". Amendment No. 111A also ensures that parliamentary procedures do not apply to subordinate legislation made by the assembly simply because the legislation is subject to the agreement of a Minister of the Crown or government department.
      As we discussed in the context of cross-border matters, assembly subordinate legislation will be subject to parliamentary procedure if the assembly's legislation applies to England, or if it applies to the activities of a cross-border body outside Wales or if it contains legislation made by or with a Minister of the Crown. I invite Members of the Committee to agree these technical amendments.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 110A and 110B:
      Page 24, line 42, leave out ("that purpose") and insert ("the purposes of this Act").
      Page 25, line 11, leave out from ("if") to ("in") in line 23 and insert ("it—

      (a) contains subordinate legislation made or to be made by a Minister of the Crown or government department (whether or not jointly with the Assembly),

      (b) contains (or confirms or approves) subordinate legislation relating to an English border area, or

      (c) contains (or confirms or approves) subordinate legislation relating to a cross-border body (and not relating only to the exercise of functions, or the carrying on of activities. by the body").

      On Question, amendments agreed to.
      [Amendment No. 111 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
      Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 111A:
      Page 25, line 31, at end insert—
      ("( ) In this section "make" includes confirm or approve and related expressions (except "made exercisable") shall be construed accordingly; but an instrument (or draft) does not fall within subsection (4)(a) just because it contains subordinate legislation made (or to be made) by the Assembly with the agreement of a Minister of the Crown or government department.").
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
      Clause 46 agreed to.
      Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
      Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

      Audit Commission Bill [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to.
      Petroleum Bill [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to.
      Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Bill [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.

      National Lottery Bill [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; the Commons amendments ordered to be printed.
      House adjourned at three minutes before one o'clock.

  Association of Chief Police Officers for Scotland
  Association of Chief Police Officers for Scotland
  Grampian Police: Inspection Report
  Grampian Police: Inspection Report
  Dunblane Inquiry: Chief Constable's Report
  Dunblane Inquiry: Chief Constable's Report
  Prisoners: Incentives and Privileges
  Prisoners: Incentives and Privileges
  "Public Authority": Definition
  "Public Authority": Definition
  Police Officers and Surrendered Firearms
  Police Officers and Surrendered Firearms
  Firearms Forms and Rules: Review
  Firearms Forms and Rules: Review
  Firearms Licensing: Good Practice
  Firearms Licensing: Good Practice
  General Election Voting Percentages
  General Election Voting Percentages
  Firearms Law Revision
  Firearms Law Revision
  Anglo-Israeli Military Co-operation
  Anglo-Israeli Military Co-operation
  Miners' Health Claims: Financial Provision
  Miners' Health Claims: Financial Provision