Sitting of 3 June 1998

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

  Constitutional Referendums
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In the last 25 years, there have been eight referendums. Between 1973 and 1997, there were four—an average of one every six years. In the first year of this Labour Government, there have been a further four. It is clear that the Government believe in referendums; we all know that they plan many more. It is essential that the conduct of those referendums is above reproach, or else the suspicion will be that they are being used to direct public opinion for party political ends, rather than to determine public opinion for the public good.
  There are three groups of questions which must be answered when considering referendums; why, when and how? First, why hold a referendum at all when we have a parliamentary democracy? Secondly, if the principle of referendums is accepted, when should they be held? Thirdly, if they are held, how should they be conducted?
  There are those who say that it is a Government's job to govern, to make decisions and to be responsible for their effect. They argue that referendums are an abdication of that responsibility, and introduce danger and uncertainty, and that therefore they should never take place.
  The alternative point of view is held by the Minister without Portfolio, who, earlier this year, said in Germany:
  "It may be that the era of purely representative democracy is coming to an end."
  He added that its place would be taken by
  "plebiscites, focus groups, lobbies, citizens' movements and the Internet."
  I do not subscribe to either of those extremist wings. I understand why the Government's thought policeman would want to bypass considered parliamentary scrutiny and control, and I deplore it. I agree that the Government alone should be held to account for the effect of their decisions, but there may be times when Parliament will want to consult the people. The question is when.
  Mr. Eric Forth: The question is not just when. If my hon. Friend is going to argue in favour of referendums, I hope that he will address the question whether we can always reduce a complex issue to a sufficiently simple question to get a legitimate answer in a referendum.
  Mr. Sayeed: I am profoundly grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question, which leads me very nicely to my next remark.
  278
  As a believer in representative parliamentary democracy, I am clear that referendums should be used only under certain circumstances. The first is when the matter is of great significance. The next is when its effect will be profound, enduring and not subject to a change of Government. The next criteria is when the detailed facts are widely known, understood and—to answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—capable of being reduced to a clear and simple single question.
  How do we achieve that? There can be no definitive answer, because it depends on the circumstances, but guidelines can be formulated. First, referendums are not a substitute for parliamentary democracy. They must be used only to advise Parliament, not to dictate to or coerce it.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation in Switzerland, where, because of the cantonal system, they prefer the idea of a referendum? Consequently, the most reactionary legislation—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I should like to see the hon. Gentleman's handsome face.
  Mr. Fabricant: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
  Consequently, in Switzerland, the most reactionary legislation has been passed on immigration, women's suffrage and capital punishment—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might welcome, but which does not lead to liberal democracy.
  Mr. Sayeed: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Referendums—such as proposition 13, in California—should be used only extremely sparingly, and not as a substitute for parliamentary democracy. This is the place where we can argue out the issues.
  Referendums should be used only on matters of great and lasting significance, and when the consequences are appreciated and the need for change is demonstrable and coherent, and spans party political divides.
  Referendums should be used only when all reasonable points of view have an equal chance of being heard. Electors affected by any decision in a referendum should be entitled to take some part in that referendum.
  No referendum should occur until Parliament has considered, debated and amended the legislation that would implement the proposals that may be put before the people.
  If those guidelines are not followed, referendums might be used—I believe that they are being used—to stifle debate and to bushwhack the Houses of Parliament. Therefore, to forestall any hint of such developments, the Government should, at the outset, clearly state what they consider to be the minimum threshold and participation rate of any referendum.
  We should now consider whether the four recent referendums have met any of the criteria that any reasonable person would expect to be applied in a referendum. We should then go on to determine how we can ensure that, in future, conduct of referendums is not only fair but agreed to be fair. If we do not ensure such

  279
  agreement, I believe that the results of referendums will be in dispute and their consequences rejected, and democracy will be held in contempt.
  In last year's referendum on Scottish devolution, six out of 10 eligible Scottish electors voted. Three quarters of those who did so voted in support of a Scottish Parliament. As a Conservative and a Unionist, I regret the result, although I accept that it reflected the Scottish view at that time. However, as an honestly conducted referendum, it failed. It was pre-legislative, so the detailed facts were not known. The result is being used to coerce Parliament. Public money was used to promote the yes vote, but there was no similar funding of the no campaign.
  In the Scottish referendum, English electors were disfranchised. Yet—after that referendum, and even after the start of the Scottish Parliament—the poorer English regions will continue to fund richer Scottish regions. In this place, Scotland will continue to be over-represented by Scottish Members, with greater powers but fewer responsibilities than their English counterparts.
  The referendum in Wales was an even greater fiasco. The result was a flop: the votes of one quarter of the electorate were deemed by the Government to be decisive. Worse still, that pitiful result—which was achieved only with public money given to the yes campaign—was placed in doubt because of allegations about how the ballot was conducted. Although some of the allegations were made by the Secretary of State for Wales's own constituency Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman refused to clear up the mess and establish an independent inquiry. In London, the turnout for the referendum was even lower than it was in Wales.
  Unless the Government plan on using referendums as a party political tool—if they do, they must say so—they must mend their ways. I have stated some guidelines that I believe should be followed. The constitution unit's commission on the conduct of referendums has made even more detailed recommendations. Today, I hope that the Minister will give us his considered response to the safeguards that both the unit and I have proposed. Above all, we need today to hear from the Government an acknowledgement that referendums are too important to be entrusted to the self-serving whims of any one political party.
  The House will want to hear the Minister accept that, if the results of referendums are to be above suspicion, beyond reproach and not treated with contempt, their conduct should be determined by an independent body—comprising the brightest and the best, encompassing all political parties but dominated by no one political party, and dedicated to the impartial questioning of our political masters, the people.
  9.45 am
  Mr. Eric Forth: I should like quickly to make a few points, as I am aware that there is little time, and many hon. Members would like to speak in this debate.
  As we have no constitution in the United Kingdom, it is doubly—trebly—important that, when we undertake to change our electoral or political arrangements, we have in place proper safeguards. Generally, I am rather happy that, unlike many countries, we do not have a written
  280
  constitution, which tend to be a hidebound way of approaching matters. I think that, over the years and down the centuries, our friends in the United States have come to regret their written constitution.
  Nevertheless, as we do not have such a constitution, surely it is incumbent on hon. Members—even more so on the Government—to guarantee that safeguards are in place when contemplating the type of changes described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), primarily to ensure that the Government cannot change the rules that govern their own election. Ultimately, that is what we are talking about.
  My hon. Friend gave as examples the referendums held in Scotland, Wales and London. However, the background threat is that the Government might eventually propose changes to the very system by which they themselves will seek to be re-elected. That is the biggest danger of all. Today, at the very least, we must receive from the Government cast-iron assurances that they would do no such thing—that, without first establishing proper safeguards, they would never embark on a course leading them to change the rules by which they offer themselves for re-election. Such safeguards are essential.
  My hon. Friend also discussed the questions that should perhaps be asked in a referendum. We have some good recent examples of how the choice of questions can go badly wrong.
  The example foremost in my mind—I suspect that it is foremost also in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), who is in the Chamber—is the question, or lack of questions, asked in the London referendum. We believe that, at the very least, the people of London were entitled to a say in whether they wanted an executive mayor in London and/or an assembly. However, the Government out-manoeuvred everyone else, and insisted on asking only one question, whereas two quite separate issues were bundled into one question—for the sake of political expediency. The example demonstrates the type of danger that we face.
  Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been or will be asked what they want, but England has never been asked what it wants. When will the English be asked a question in a referendum? That question has to be answered. To date, the Government have been able to decide—on the basis of political convenience—what they ask, when they ask it, and whom they ask. What we need to know is, when is the bulk of the United Kingdom's population going to be asked some questions and have an opportunity to give an answer? We might find the answers interesting, if the right questions were asked.
  The only other matter I want to mention in this context is European economic and monetary union. It is obvious that the Government are going to wait until such time as they consider propitious for the answer they want before putting the questions, which illustrates all too well the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.
  There is also the issue of reversibility, or, when can we return to the question? New Zealand is the most interesting example available of this issue. A few years ago, the people of New Zealand were asked the wrong question about changing their political electoral system, and they answered that they wanted something different. They got something different—a proportional system, which did not give them the Government they expected,

  281
  because of back-room deals between political parties. Already, only a few years later, serious consideration is being given to asking the questions whether the change has proved satisfactory, and whether they should go back to what they had before.
  That raises an important question: does a referendum answer last for ever? Surely not, but that raises the question, at what point can we legitimately return to the issue and say that, although we decided something by referendum, we now believe in the light of experience that we made a mistake, and that we should return to what we had before or move on to something else?
  Mr. Fabricant: On the issue of getting it wrong, does my right hon. Friend not find it ironic that market research companies have found that asking simple questions with yes or no answers results in the most inaccurate response? If the Government have their way, are we not likely to see a drift away from referenda and towards focus groups; and would that not be far worse?
  Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I suspect that the Government may say that the country is just one enormous focus group, and that endless referendums are an adequate way of consulting the people.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Forth: The Minister may say no—in any case, it would be interesting to hear his response to that point.
  I hope that, at some stage, the Minister will give a strong indication of his view on the extent to which it would be legitimate—indeed, necessary in many cases—to return to the issue once the question had been asked, and in the light of further experience. Any of us who have been to New Zealand know well how bitterly disappointed the people are at having been misled by the question put to them and by the change in their electoral system, and how desperately they want to go back to what they had before.
  Mr. Alan Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am most grateful for your allowing me to raise a point of order that relates to the language in which we communicate in this Chamber. Your predecessor once rebuked me for using the language of the Common Market: I said "faute de mieux", for which he immediately called me to order. The word "referendum" is being scattered about, but, although my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) used the correct plural, I have often heard colleagues refer to "referendums", which is an exceedingly ugly term.
  May we have from you, Madam Speaker, a ruling, or at least an expression of preference, as to whether we continue to use the Latin word, which many would think historically appropriate in the Chamber, or whether you have no objection to the continual anglicisation of the term and the use of the word "referendums"? Were you to express a preference for the Latin form, which I hope you will, you would certainly be striking a blow for classical revivalism.
  Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman raises an esoteric point, albeit hardly a point of order: more a matter
  282
  of taste. I notice that, in the public Bills list, the word "referendums" is used in relation to Scotland and Wales. The word "referendum" was first used in English 150 years ago, according to the Oxford English dictionary, which I have just consulted, and I imagine that, after 150 years, the House is now used to it. The plural is a matter of taste, but I have always preferred the use of the English language to any Latin form; I hope that that provides some guidance.
  9.54 am
  Mr. John Home Robertson: Coming from the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), that was a wonderfully communautaire point of order. In France, they have Government bodies that determine how the language should be used, but that is the first time I have ever heard the Speaker of the House of Commons being asked to rule on which words are appropriate to the English language. The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the interesting question of "referendums" versus "referenda", because the subject is a topical one, with several referendums already having been held, and more in prospect.
  I take the view that, in general, in a parliamentary democracy, Parliament should decide, but there is obviously a case for saying that it is appropriate to refer major constitutional issues to the people. The risk is that one can get into a la carte choices on which decisions are appropriate to be referred to the people, and which should be left to Parliament.
  It should be possible to take such decisions on an objective basis: for example, many people outside would love to have a referendum on whether capital punishment should be reintroduced, but that is a policy issue, which is most appropriately dealt with by Parliament; but there is a case for referring amendments to the constitution and to the way in which the country is governed to the people, as we have done.
  The speeches so far have addressed specific concerns that I share about the current status of referenda in our constitution. The idea of having a referendum on the establishment of a Parliament in Scotland was sold as a means of entrenching the position of the Scottish Parliament, but Conservative Members have shown that they cannot wait for an opportunity to overturn the decision of the Scottish people.
  Mr. James Gray: I just wanted to pick up on the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "referenda". Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), I wanted to point out that "referendum" is the gerundive—in other words, it means "requiring to be discussed"; therefore, in English the correct plural is "referendums", not "referenda".
  Mr. Home Robertson: It is quite a long time since I failed my Latin A-level, so I shall not pursue that point.
  The questions that require clarification are: what the criteria for holding a referendum should be; how a referendum should be conducted; who should decide which issues are appropriate to be referred to the people by referendum; and, above all, what the status of a referendum result is at the end of the day.

  283
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) acknowledged that we have just had a fairly dramatic and conclusive result to a referendum in Scotland, on a perfectly respectable turnout of 61 per cent. of the people, 75 per cent. of whom voted yes to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. Politically, that should be the end of the story—the subject was debated for many years, and a conclusive decision has been given, not only in the referendum, but in the results in Scotland at successive general elections. However, constitutionally, it is still technically possible to dismiss that result, and for Parliament to legislate in a different direction altogether.
  Speeches from Conservative Members—the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) used the term "reversibility"—show that they are already questioning the validity or the binding nature of the outcome of the Scottish referendum, so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister whether it would be possible to ensure that, when legislation is enacted with the specific endorsement of a referendum, that fact is acknowledged on the face of the Act; and to ensure that any repeal of that legislation is also subject to a referendum.
  It would be scandalous if, after 20 years' debate about home rule for Scotland, successive general election results endorsing the establishment of a Parliament for Scotland, and an overwhelming referendum decision to establish a Scottish Parliament, some future Government, simply on a political whim, could turn the whole thing on its head.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that argument would have much greater force if one had post-legislative referendums rather than pre-legislative ones? Is not part of the problem, which casts doubt on what is expressed in referendums, the way in which subsequent legislation often differs from promises made before the referendum?
  Mr. Home Robertson: That is an illustration of the sort of problem that I have in mind. If there is any doubt, anywhere, there is always somebody, usually on the Conservative Benches, who wants to nit-pick. Who better than the hon. Gentleman to fulfil that role?
  Endorsement of legislation by referendum should be specifically referred to in that legislation. There should be an implicit requirement that any radical repeal of the legislation—I am not saying that it should not be possible to amend legislation—should also be subject to a referendum, so that no future Parliament can repeal an Act that is entrenched by a referendum.
  I fear that Conservative Members are doing themselves no good when they call into question the validity of the result of the referendum in Scotland. A Parliament is to be established in Scotland, and we want it to be a success and to play its role in the framework of the United Kingdom. Endless nit-picking can only endanger that settlement.
  10.1 am
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am glad of this timely opportunity to speak on the subject of referenda—the option to my taste—since, under this Government, they have once again become a familiar part
  284
  of our political life We have had referenda in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which we fully supported as clear issues of constitutional significance.
  The referendum on London government was less clear-cut, but, on balance, still necessary as a means of moving to regional self-government. Liberal Democrats shared many of the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the question that was used. We would have preferred two questions, and believe that the Government cheated, to an extent, by using the one-question device.
  People continue to be concerned about the use of referenda, mainly because the power to hold or withhold them is still in the Government's hands. There is a complete lack of rules on when or where referenda may or may not be used, although they are perfectly legitimate in an open democratic society with a strong constitutional framework. Indeed, we want it to become mandatory that constitutional change is contingent on support in a referendum. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) described that as the "why" decision on holding a referendum. We would ultimately like that enshrined in a written constitution which sets out conditions for holding such a referendum.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I heard what the hon. Gentleman said about consulting the people over major constitutional change. He will know that, in Wales, the decision was taken—although only one in four people wanted it—to set up a non-tax-raising assembly. Why did his party try to amend the legislation so that, in future, the Welsh assembly could introduce tax-raising powers, without consulting the Welsh people?
  Mr. Allan: The specific measure to which the hon. Gentleman refers was part of my party's open, stated position at the general election—our manifesto commitment. Colleagues in the Welsh team decided to take that forward to air the issue during the passage of the legislation. It is perfectly acceptable if they choose to do so.
  Mr. Grieve: Does not that precisely illustrate the point that I was trying to make about the problems of pre-legislative referendums? In, for example, the Welsh referendum, the Welsh people were offered a committee form of government as the great selling point, yet, by the time the legislation had gone through the House, a sort of cabinet government was proposed. How can the wishes of people be reflected in pre-legislative referendums?
  Mr. Allan: Although I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's fundamental point that post-legislative referenda are preferable, there were precedents—Labour and Liberal manifesto commitments and a pre-election agreement—for the legislation that has been taken forward in this Parliament, which meant that the measures would progress quite rapidly. That was made clear at the general election.
  Rather than using examples of perverse use of referenda in countries such as Switzerland, which I accept has not been helpful, we should look across the sea to the Irish example. They have a written constitution, which they have successfully amended and updated through the

  285
  use of referenda. They have managed to avoid many of the European arguments that we have had in this country, because every stage of ceding power to the European Union has been accompanied by a legitimate decision of the Irish people through the use of referenda.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not important that there should be a separate constitutional body to make regulations to control referenda? In the Republic, the funding for both the yes and the no campaigns is equal, whereas, in our situation, Government funding tries to manipulate the will of the electorate. Ministers make promises during the referendum campaign that are not normally fulfilled.
  Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman must have picked up a copy of my speaking notes. I was about to say that we should have an independent electoral commission to oversee the use of referenda, particularly as we are expecting one on the fundamental issue of moving towards a more proportional voting system, with all that that entails, and—possibly—one on the single European currency, which will be hugely contentious, not least on the Opposition Benches.
  We need rules that are accepted by all sides, and an independent statutory commission to oversee them. We have made clear our support for a permanent electoral commission to oversee the administration of elections. Such a body was recommended by the 1991 all-party Hansard Society commission on elections. Parliament could give an electoral commission such responsibility for referenda. The commission would organise matters such as the poll, the count and the declaration of results, as well as overseeing the wording of questions. Parliament could pass primary legislation on matters specific to particular referenda as they arise.
  The commission would be a procedural body. It would not help to make the decision about the constitutional status of referenda. We should consider whether referenda are mandatory or advisory. The Government certainly have enough access to private polling and focus groups without the need to transform the people of the United Kingdom into yet another one. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire that referenda should not be used as focus groups. Their role needs to be clearer.
  Given our present lack of a constitution, we need to consider thresholds. I am convinced that they have standing neither in constitutional theory nor in electoral practice. We would all like 100 per cent. of the electorate to vote in general elections. The precise percentage of voter turnout in a general election in no way affects the binding quality of the result. I would be interested to know at what levels hon. Members who propose participation rates and thresholds think they should be set for the House in order to give the Government legitimacy—the same principles apply.
  We should like Parliament to set up an effective information campaign on a referendum, and for a decent period to be provided for it. We would suggest three weeks—as there is before a general election—to debate a referendum.
  In that time, the electoral commission would ensure that both yes and no campaigns had equal access to resources. It must introduce the kind of legislation that applies to a general election, covering limits on spending and
  286
  broadcasting, and the way in which literature is produced. Having advanced toward a written constitution and an electoral commission, an agreed role for referenda could be established, so that there would no longer be any need to nit-pick over thresholds or the conduct of campaigns, as we have unfortunately seen over the important constitutional referenda since the change of Government last year.
  10.8 am
  Mr. Martin Linton: I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on raising this subject. Many points need to be clarified about the use of referendums—starting, of course, with the plural of the word. In our own referendum on the plural of the word, the House is 3:2 in favour of the use of "referendums".
  I can report to the House that, during my former employment at The Guardian, a long, almost religious debate took place over many years, before the issue was finally settled in the style book in favour of "referendums". The argument was that the word "referendum" is a Latin gerundive, not a noun, but has been taken into English as a noun, so the Latin plural is not relevant.
  Mr. Home Robertson: When did The Guardian ever spell anything right?
  Mr. Linton: The days when misspellings frequently appeared in The Guardian are many years in the past. My hon. Friend shows his age by remembering the days of bad proofreading, before new technology arrived. Certainly The Guardian always had an intended spelling—an ideal spelling to which it aspired and which, in the later editions, it usually achieved. Perhaps my hon. Friend, in Scotland, may have read the earlier editions, which were always riddled with literals.
  There is a good argument for the use of "referendums", which is that, in Latin, the word "referendum" is simply a heading for a list to be referred. "Est referendum" means simply that something is to be referred. If there were two items, the heading would be "Sunt referenda", but if there were only one—[Interruption.] It is simply a Latin phrase.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, in Latin, the gerundive is much stronger than in the English language. Its use implies not simply something to be discussed, but something that should be discussed—that the discussion must take place.
  Mr. Linton rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, may I say that although this is an interesting debate about the origin of the word "referendum" and its plural forms, I should be grateful if we could now return to the substance of the debate? I also remind all hon. Members that many people still want to speak, and if others make their contributions reasonably brief, more will be able to do so.
  Mr. Linton: I take the point, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

  287
  My substantive argument is that several features of referendums in this country need to be established. One is the funding of the two sides. Another is entrenchment, in the sense discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). Surely a measure passed as the result of a referendum should be repealed only after a subsequent referendum. There is also the question of reversibility, as raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)-although the issue is not always as simple as he made it seem.
  On thresholds, I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that it is nonsense to try to insist on a particular participation level for all referendums. As we saw in the London referendum, the turnout depends on the level of controversy or opposition to the proposition being put forward.
  In a sense, a referendum is a safeguard for the public, enabling them to scream, "No, we don't like that." In London, the issue was, correctly, put to a referendum, because it was assumed that there would be party political controversy, or at least public controversy, on the subject, and there would be a lot of publicity and a high participation rate.
  As it turned out, that did not happen. My local authority spent thousands of pounds issuing a glossy leaflet to put through every front door opposing the referendum, but one week later it announced that, as the leader of its party had said that the Conservatives would support the referendum, their opposition was of no avail, and the council tax payers of Wandsworth should forget about the glossy leaflet and support the referendum.
  The promised opposition never materialised. Television crews from London Weekend scoured London looking for plausible groups to advocate a no vote, so that they could cover it on their evening newscasts. Without an opposition, the media could not cover the two sides of the debate, so they gave it no publicity. Consequently, although the turnout was reasonable, considering that the referendum was held on the same day as the local elections, it was not very high.
  That does not invalidate the result. It simply means that, because it met so little opposition, the issue referred to the people of London did not spark off the kind of debate that would have produced a high turnout. The result should not be condemned on the grounds that the proposal received so little opposition. It would be nonsense to say that, because the turnout did not reach a certain level, the result should not be accepted.
  The corollary of that argument would be that only on hotly controversial issues would the turnout pass the threshold. Indeed, that idea affected what happened with the Scotland Bill in the 1970s, when a threshold was inserted.
  Mr. Fabricant: Would the hon. Gentleman say that the Welsh referendum had passed that threshold?
  Mr. Linton: I am arguing against the use of thresholds. Thresholds are nonsense, because participation will depend on the degree to which people disagree with the proposition. Often, something put to the people in a referendum sparks little controversy and is passed easily.
  288
  People would go and vote if they thought that the proposition was likely to be defeated, but as it is not they do not bother. That does not invalidate the result.
  There are two further arguments about the New Zealand and London referendums. I do not recognise the description by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the New Zealand "preferendum". There were two referendums on the voting system. In the first, the people of New Zealand clearly indicated that they wanted a change—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Of what?"] They wanted to change the system.
  A commission was set up and recommended an alternative—the mixed member proportional, or MMP, system. That was put to the people in another referendum and they voted in favour of it, despite a well financed campaign for the first-past-the-post system. That campaign spent much more money than its opponents could find, but, despite the overwhelming superiority of resources behind the first-past-the-post system, MMP won fairly and squarely. It was clearly the expressed view of the New Zealand people that that system should be used.
  The fact that Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First party, allowed himself to be elected as an opponent of the National party only to announce three weeks later that he would support that party, is a function not of the voting system but of the fact that Winston Peters changed his mind. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should speak for himself.
  In the previous New Zealand election, carried out under the first-past-the-post system, Winston Peters would have been in exactly the same situation—holding the balance of power—had it not been for a handful of votes. Only after the final recount under first past the post did it turn out that he would not hold the balance of power. Had he won that vote, he would have been able to do exactly the same after the previous election. That shows that the situation was a function of the behaviour of Winston Peters rather than of the voting system.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what that has to do with today's debate, as opposed to yesterday's debate?
  Mr. Home Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman think that he is the Speaker?
  Mr. Linton: I look to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are arguing about the use of referendums, and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that what happened in the New Zealand referendum showed that the use of referendums was invalid. I am pointing out that the use of referendums in New Zealand was perfectly legitimate. The decision was clearly arrived at, despite the overwhelming superiority of the resources deployed against it. Nothing in the New Zealand experience should disillusion us about the use of referendums; rather, it should disillusion us about the election of politicians who subsequently change their minds.
  10.17 am
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: I am sorry that I was slow to rise to my feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I was stunned by the prospect that the debate might be returning to the track on which it started.

  289
  Today the House has the opportunity to reassert its authority. One of its principal functions is to hold the Executive to account. With a Government majority of 179—and, I must add, the comfortable pact between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats—such issues are left to the Conservative Opposition to raise. They are of vast importance, and I am appalled by the low attendance on the Government Benches.
  Not content with the mathematical domination of this place, Ministers, especially the Prime Minister, have decided to ignore the House. They declare that the people should decide. Of course, there is a compelling argument that a Government should listen to the people and consult. Certainly it would be wrong to proceed otherwise on issues such as the single currency.
  I believe that my constituents have already made a choice—having heard, questioned and endorsed my views, they sent me to Westminster to decide. Now, however, the peoples of the nations that make up the United Kingdom are being sent to the polls again and again. A referendum was held in London about whether to have a mayor, and the Prime Minister promises that more will follow.
  I do not rule out referendums altogether, especially on matters of major constitutional reform, but where does one draw the line? Why, having had referendums on Scottish and Welsh devolution, should not we have a referendum on English regional government? Perhaps the Government draw the line where they fear that they will not win, even though they have the power greatly to improve the chance that a referendum will go their way—they set the question and the programme for the vote, and decide how the vote should be construed. In reality, the people do not decide—the question is rigged, and the answer is therefore open to interpretation.
  Leaving aside the point that referendums undermine the power and the authority—and, indeed, the sovereignty—of Parliament, I believe that the time has come to set out some rules. A framework is now needed—that is the point of this debate. There must be firm rules, so that the system cannot be abused. Issues of time allocation and broadcasting must be addressed.
  We must tackle four key areas. First, we must decide what subjects are appropriate for a referendum. For example, having voted on a tartan tax, should the people of Scotland—and the rest of us—now have the opportunity to vote on all new taxes? Secondly, should the result of a referendum be binding on the Executive? At what level does a referendum have moral authority—is it 50 per cent. of those who vote, or 50 per cent. of those who are eligible to vote? If a threshold based on those who are eligible to vote is good enough for trade union membership, should not that principle be extended? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions.
  Mr. Alex Salmond: Many people in Scotland are interested to know why the Conservative party did not call for a threshold in the London referendum, given that it so loudly called for one in the referendums in Scotland and Wales. Why does it not argue that the result of the London referendum is invalid, as no great threshold was reached?
  Mr. Fraser: We called for a 50 per cent. threshold, although I shall not dwell on that, as we do not have much time.
  290
  Thirdly, we should ask how the question should be framed to command universal, or near-universal, acceptance. I believe that an independent body should devise the question, so that the charge that the question had been fixed can be avoided.
  Fourthly, and most important, has the issue been closely defined? How do the people know, in detail, what the consequences of a yes of no result will be? Has a problem with existing arrangements been identified before the referendum takes place? Has a White Paper been published or a Bill drafted? Unless we deal with those questions, it will continue to seem as though the purpose of the referendum is to short-circuit debate in the House, so that Labour Members can repeat, parrot-like, "The people have decided."
  The referendum has been used by every dictator in history. It would be most inappropriate to suggest that the Prime Minister is a dictator—I would not dream of doing so—but one has to question whether the plebiscite is a vehicle for true democracy or a vehicle to dupe the people, so that the Government receive blanket approval to do what they please. I fear that experience since May last year suggests the latter—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) said, in Scotland and Wales the referendums were held before Parliament could scrutinise, amend and enact the legislation.
  The Labour Government were elected to govern, to make decisions, and to be responsible for the effects of those decisions. Why do they accept the responsibility of government, but avoid the responsibility of making decisions? As Lord Lawson once said, quoting Pierre Mendes France:
  "To govern is to choose. To appear to be unable to choose is to appear to be unable to govern."
  10.24 am
  Mr. David Maclean: Constitutionally in this country, decisions have been made by Members elected to the House of Commons. The public have never questioned the integrity of the decisions made in the House by a majority of the governing party—[Interruption.] They may question it at times, but they accept the validity of the right of the majority party to implement measures—they know that there are rules to govern the election of Members of Parliament.
  There is a brief period after elections when individuals may be challenged on their election expenses, but no one challenges the Representation of the People Acts, which lay down rules governing our election. All the important decisions that are taken in the House have their roots in a system of rules laid down in legislation to deal with how Members are elected, the expenses that may be incurred and the broadcasting of elections. That system has worked exceptionally well.
  I do not intend to quibble with the results of the various referenda, although I understand why some people nit-pick—to use the word of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson)—the results, given the way in which the Government chose to conduct the referenda. We are moving into a new political landscape—I do not particularly like it, as it has not benefited my party in the past year—but, if that is to involve the regular use of referenda, we must have rules

  291
  to govern how they are conducted, just as we have legislation to govern how we, the current decision makers, are elected to the House of Commons.
  As many of my hon. Friends want to speak in the short time available, that is the only argument I want to make today, but the Minister must address it in all seriousness. I regret that this is the second consecutive day when I have had to say that the Home Secretary is an honourable and decent man, but he must see the validity of the argument. If referenda are to become a regular part of the political scene, they must be governed by detailed rules on timing, the question asked and all the other points that have been raised today—whether the referendum should be pre-legislative, whether it should be binding, and whether there should be a threshold.
  Even though, God help us, there are already 150 review groups and task forces telling the Government what to do, we need one more. We need a properly independent commission, not the partial—or, as the Home Secretary described it yesterday, "relatively independent"—Jenkins commission.
  Unlike the Cookie whitewash inquiry, the commission should be chaired by a properly independent judge; it should comprise not necessarily the great and the good, but those who understand these things and who can recommend the procedures that should be followed. All players in the House will accept the recommendations of a commission only if that commission is independent, with the Home Office acting as an able secretariat; we shall accept referenda only if there are rules, guidelines and legislation to govern how they are conducted.
  It is no good for the Labour party to complain that individual Members of Parliament are quibbling about referenda. Of course Members of Parliament from other parties will quibble, as, at the moment, referenda are perceived to be set by Millbank and the Labour party hierarchy—they are phrased, timed and manipulated by the Labour party. I believe that the Government want to use referenda as a legitimate tool of government, but referenda can be a legitimate tool of government only if they are legitimised through legislation.
  10.28 am
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: Despite a leaflet being put through the letter box of every house in London, and despite the Minister for Transport in London handing out scratchcards at tube stations encouraging people to vote in the London referendum, there was a derisory turnout. Only 35 per cent. of the public voted, and about 75 per cent. either said no or expressed no opinion. In my opinion, the London referendum lacked legitimacy: its result cannot be considered representative of the overall view of Londoners. If we are to continue to have referendums as a matter of course, there should be a threshold.
  On Report on the London Referendum Bill, the Opposition tabled an amendment calling for a 50 per cent. turnout, so that at least half the electorate should express a view on the proposals before them.
  Mr. Allan: Is the hon. Gentleman therefore of the view that all London borough councillors should resign, since there was a similar turnout at the local elections?
  292
  Is he also aware that 75 per cent. of the voters in Westminster did not vote for the Conservative council there?
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman's intervention brings me to the second part of my point. I have no idea how many people voted for him at the general election, but I understand that it was not very many.
  Mr. Allan: It was more than 50 per cent.
  Mr. Ottaway: Then I wish the hon. Gentleman the best of luck.
  If a proposal is of such extreme constitutional importance that it is the subject of a referendum, that raises it above the tone of normal council or parliamentary elections. If we are to change the constitutional basis of our country, surely a 50 per cent. threshold is appropriate.
  Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman proposes a 50 per cent. turnout, but the threshold that the Conservatives tried to introduce in the Scotland Bill involved not a 50 per cent. turnout, which is normally easily surpassed—for example, in Scotland in 1979—but 40 per cent. of the total vote. Why do the Conservatives propose one threshold for London and another for Scotland and Wales?
  Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman should consider our proposals as alternatives. We are an Opposition party putting forward our ideas. I am not that familiar with Scottish affairs, but I think that a 40 per cent. yes vote was a feature of the 1979 referendum, so it would seem not illogical that the Scottish team should make a similar proposal. It is a different matter in London.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Ottaway: No. I am very short of time, and I have already given way twice.
  I do not find it illogical to suggest that more people should express a view than not for a proposal to become binding.
  My second point was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and relates to the representation of the people legislation. If a television broadcaster running a London current affairs programme supported one side of the referendum, should he come off the airwaves?
  In London, Mr. Trevor Phillips, the presenter of a programme called "Crosstalk", was an active member of the yes campaign. Indeed, it is rumoured that he will be a mayoral candidate for London. I make no criticism whatsoever of Mr. Trevor Phillips—indeed, I have much praise for him. He conducts his programme in a genuinely neutral way, and when I have been interviewed by him, I have never felt that his party allegiance has in any way prejudiced what he has to say. However, there was nothing in the London Referendum Bill that gave any guidance on whether he should be allowed to stay on the airwaves.
  I referred the matter to the Independent Television Commission, which has a code of conduct on such matters. Its view was that the principles enshrined in the

  293
  representation of the people legislation should apply in a referendum. I do not know how it happened, but within a matter of days, Mr. Phillips came off the airwaves. However, it should not be left to Opposition Members to raise such matters with the ITC. They should be dealt with in the Bill. The position of the representation of the people legislation is far from clear. If nothing else happens, it should be incorporated into future referendum Bills.
  My third and final point is whether or not there should be funding for a no campaign. In London, some £3 million was allocated to a so-called awareness programme, including the leaflets to which I referred. There was an awareness programme on the radio, and leaflets were put through every door, but there was no funding whatsoever for those who wanted to make counter-proposals or to express outright opposition. The Government believe that their proposals were put forward in a neutral way, but they were actually saying, "This is what we think—take it or leave it. Say yes or no in the referendum."
  There is no justice in that attitude. It is like a jury at the Old Bailey being asked to make a judgment after hearing just the case for the prosecution, not the case for the defence. In truth, it is impossible to be neutral about a positive set of proposals. Therefore, I believe that a no or counter-proposal campaign should have the opportunity to express a view, given that so much taxpayers' money is being spent putting over the positive set of proposals.
  We have had four referendums so far, and on the strength of their results, the Government believe that they have a mandate for action. There are at least two more to come—on monetary union and electoral reform. The issues require clarification. There should at least be some legislation setting up an organisation, so that they can be addressed.
  10.36 am
  Mr. Robert Syms: Referendums are becoming very much a part of our political life; they are much more common than they were, and the practice of treating the electorate as an opinion poll sample is likely to continue in future. That is dangerous in our constitution, especially as there may be a big question mark over the future of the House of Lords. A two-House system provides a check on the Government, and if the other place is weakened, watered down or abolished, the referendum may become a far more dangerous constitutional innovation.
  In many nations, referendums result from citizens' action and petition; the referendum is a bottom-up procedure. In the British political context, however, it is a device of the majority party. Governments institute referendums; they decide the wording and the timing. With all the temptations of power and of government, that is pretty dangerous.
  I shall not dwell on what has happened in the past; it is more important to look to the future. It is important to establish an independent commission, or at least a code of conduct, so that we all know where we stand. That is a matter not only for the Opposition but for the Government, as the majority of today may be the minority of tomorrow, and a future Government may well use the lack of rules to reverse or change the position or to promote a very different agenda.
  It is sensible that rules that we all understand should apply to the body politic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said,
  294
  we make almost a fetish of rules for parliamentary elections, and agents spend all their time telling us what we can or cannot do. Yet referendums are open season: there are no tight rules.
  Referendums must be seen to be fair and legitimate. If we are to face the expense and upheaval, it is in everyone's interests that they are seen to be so; that requires the establishment of a code of conduct or an independent commission.
  Certain questions need to be addressed. Who may initiate a referendum, and on what issues? We must not forget that referendums can be very bad news for minorities—and in a democracy it is important to protect minorities. Who will decide the wording—the Government or a special commission? How many questions should be asked? How will the referendum be organised and financed? How should money be raised, and should there be expenditure limits? What constitutes approval? Should it be by a majority or by a percentage of the electorate? Can a question be put again? Denmark, for example, was forced to hold a second referendum, having given what might have been thought the wrong answer. Should a referendum be pre-legislative or post-legislative? Finally, what rules should govern television and media access?
  Those are all important subjects. Since we started to hold referendums, many academic conferences have been held on how they should be structured. We in the political class should set ground rules that are clear, transparent and widely accepted. Then we will know when people are cheating and when they are not. If referendums are to be held, they must be fair, legitimate and accepted by all participants at least as a democratic exercise in which everyone has a chance to put their point of view.
  10.40 am
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: I find myself in an unaccustomed position. Luckily, the organ grinder is here should the monkey fail.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on bringing an enormously important subject before the House. Now I come to think of it, I am amazed that we have not debated it many months, or even years, before now. This is a useful and timely debate.
  My right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and for Poole (Mr. Syms) all made significant points.
  I can summarise the consistent theme that has run through the debate in five points. First, a range of questions clearly remains unanswered. There is no doubt that there are issues that have not been resolved concerning the holding of referendums. Secondly, it is abundantly clear—for this we also have to thank hon. Members from other parties—that there needs to be cross-party agreement on a framework; the issue should be raised above party politics.
  Thirdly, there needs to be an independent commission to conduct referendums. As several of my hon. Friends said, it is implausible that a fair referendum—or at least one that would be seen to be fair—can be conducted at

  295
  the behest of a Government who are necessarily a participant in that referendum and in the arguments within it.
  Fourthly, there needs to be a set of rules governing access to the media, as there is for general elections, although the rules will have to be different, because equal access to the media needs to be provided for the yes and the no campaigns—which may be a quite different proposition from equal access for political parties. For example, all political parties could be on one side in a referendum, but the other side should be equally represented in the media. Finally, there needs to be a settled decision—the will of the British people—about what should constitute a fair threshold for a result.
  None of that is new; the issue has been studied by a group of people, under the aegis of the constitution unit of University College London and the Electoral Reform Society—not, as the Home Secretary's phrase, a relatively independent group, but a genuinely independent group. It is chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne and includes Dr. David Butler, representatives of all the political parties, and a number of distinguished academics.
  That group sat for some months and considered the issue in great detail. Its findings have been much spoken of in the other place. It recommended, among other things:

  "It is essential that referendums should be conducted in a manner which enables all competing views to be heard…special guidance should be drawn up…An independent statutory Commission should be established…A balance should be maintained between the 'Yes' and 'No' viewpoints rather than between the different political parties…Every household should receive a publicly funded leaflet giving general information on the holding of the referendum and statements of the 'Yes' and 'No' cases".
  If an independent commission has reached such a conclusion, if there is broad cross-party agreement that such rules are necessary, and if—as the Home Secretary graciously came close to telling the House yesterday—the Government impose an orderly procedure on the referendum on proportional representation, we have every reason to hope that, in just a few minutes, the Minister will tell us that the Government have at last concluded that it is necessary to impose such order on referendums generally.
  I want to take the debate one step further and ask a question that has not been sufficiently explored—why is all this so important now? Why was my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire right to raise the matter today? One point that has been raised, by implication, in the debate is the dizzy speed of constitutional change under this Government. Indeed, constitutionally they are the most radical Government since 1688—
  Mr. Home Robertson: Thank God for that.
  Mr. Letwin: I would not echo the hon. Gentleman's sentiment. I regret almost every aspect of the Government's agenda for constitutional change. However, that is not the burden of my argument today. Whether one welcomes it or disdains it; whether one regards it as unsettling to the whole nature of our constitution and our democracy or the best thing since sliced bread is neither here nor there. It has happened and is continuing to happen at a dizzying pace. It is happening by means of something which is itself a constitutional innovation,
  296
  on which we do not yet have a settled view or settled rules. We cannot be confident that fair play will be involved—a necessary tool of any referendum. It behoves the Government, much more than their predecessors, seriously to take this question in hand and do something about the structuring of referendums.
  There is a second point, of equal importance. The most important referendum that will be held—perhaps not in this Parliament, but shortly thereafter if the Government have their way—is that on a European currency. Many of us see that as a Rubicon. In that referendum, if none of the action recommended by the independent commission and many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members is taken, there will be a severe danger that that critical referendum will not be, and will not be seen to be, fair.
  In that case, there will be an awesome power of money behind one position. There is a great danger that a Government allied with the European Commission would use taxpayers' funds and a set of rules that did not have cross-party support or national acceptance to distort the likely result. Whether we fall on one side or the other of the argument in that referendum, it is of the greatest importance to all in this country that the result is seen to be fair and to have been fairly obtained.
  There is a further point. It is not simply a matter of the European referendum; we were told yesterday that there is likely to be a referendum on proportional representation. In respect of the conduct of this House and the British constitution, that referendum will probably be, in its long-term effects, the biggest issue to be faced in this Parliament. The Home Secretary gave us at least a hint that the Government might impose rules that would establish fairness in the conduct of that referendum. However, that is not enough.
  The Government want to seek parliamentary approval—unfortunately, they are likely to obtain it—to constrain the way in which political parties are funded at general elections. We understand that the Government will try to establish a position in which internal political debate, when it is conducted outside the context of a referendum, will be constrained by the amount of money that can be spent by either side. Yet within the referendum itself, there will be no rules to preclude the Government spending not politically raised money, but taxpayers' money, on trying to persuade the public to take one view rather than another.
  It is therefore wholly possible under the current regime—although the Home Secretary has assured us that he does not want this—for the Government to issue large-scale information on one side of the issue, in reality propaganda posing as information, in a referendum on proportional representation. If the Government were to act in that way, they would be undercutting the rules on political funding, using taxpayers' money to distort a constitutional outcome. That would seriously undermine the structure of our democracy and people's faith in it.
  The Government must translate the Home Secretary's hints of yesterday into the reality of guidelines and an independent commission that would make it clear that taxpayers' money will not be used to distort the critical outcome of a referendum on proportional representation or any other referendum, whether European or domestic. If the House takes heed of that, and if the Minister conveys that to the Home Secretary so that the Government can take heed of it, my hon. Friend the

  297
  Member for Mid-Bedfordshire will live in history as having contributed, through a debate that has hardly been attended by Labour Members, to a major constitutional improvement.
  10.49 am
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) on securing the debate and on having, for the most part, presented his arguments thoughtfully and interestingly. I also commend him on his timing, as it is less than two weeks since the fourth referendum of this Parliament was held. Each of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom has recent experience of a referendum, and this is a good time to reflect on that experience.
  Most of the points made in debate were thoughtful, and I shall shortly say a little about the general principles raised. I should cover two points immediately, however, because they do not fall under general headings. First, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked, under the heading of reversibility, how long referendum results will last and when questions can be reconsidered. It is open to Parliament to reopen any issue on which it has already legislated, whether or not it has been subject to a referendum.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept it in the spirit in which it is intended if I say that I am confident that the referendums we have had have been popular and reasonably successful. I do not think that there will be any immediate demand from the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland—possibly even the people of Wales—to revisit those issues. However, if there is at any time such popular demand, the House will debate the matters, and further action will flow from that. The option is always open.
  The second point, raised by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), was the question of thresholds. Different circumstances require different rules, and it is not possible to generalise. In some cases, a threshold may be appropriate, but in others it will not. Even where it might be appropriate, different levels might apply in different cases, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said.
  It was not appropriate to set a threshold in any of the referendums that we held over the past year.
  Mr. Salmond rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not intend to give way often, as I have very little time.
  Mr. Salmond: I certainly agree that there should have been no thresholds in the referendums that we have had. However, the Minister seemed to suggest that there might be some reasons for having a threshold. I plead with him not to do that. Thresholds have caused any amount of trouble in Scotland, and if a threshold had been imposed on the London referendum, it would, by any description, have been considered a failure. I want a principled statement from the Government that they will not indulge in any fancy franchise at any referendum.
  Mr. Howarth: My point was that I do not want to prescribe the position for every set of circumstances.
  298
  So far, we have seen no case for a threshold. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea spoke very clearly on the general principle of thresholds, but I would not want to rule them out in every case, because we cannot see what will happen in future.
  Mr. Home Robertson rose—
  Mr. Howarth: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but I ask him to appreciate that my time is very limited.
  Mr. Home Robertson: Yes, but this is a very important point. This is a minefield. A 40 per cent. threshold was imposed in the referendum held in Scotland in 1979, and, although there was a clear yes vote, that artificial rule meant that the decision of the people of Scotland was thrown out. We had to wait nearly 20 years before we got our Parliament. That sort of fancy franchise cannot be tolerated anywhere.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is quite right, and that is why it was not considered right to set a threshold in the Scottish referendum this time. That supports the point I am making about what is or is not appropriate.
  Referendums are not a new device. Indeed, their use can be traced back to Roman times, and we have had an interesting diversion on the origin of the word itself. In the last century and until quite recently, there were temperance ballots in Wales. I believe that the last dry area went wet last year; if I am mistaken on that, no doubt someone will write to me. A so-called border poll in Northern Ireland 25 years ago under a Conservative Government produced a yes vote of 98.5 per cent., but its usefulness was undermined by the fact that it was boycotted by the nationalist community. The very high turnouts in the north and in the south of Ireland in the referendums on 22 May show the progress we have made since then.
  In 1975 we had the United Kingdom's first, and so far only, national referendum, when there was a two-to-one vote to stay in the Common Market, as it was then called. That was followed by the first Scottish and Welsh devolution referendums. The recent referendums in those two countries make it possible to measure how far public opinion has moved. In 1979, the people of Wales voted four-to-one against devolution, but by 1997, a majority—albeit not a large one—of those who voted were in favour of the Government's devolution proposals. On the present crop of referendums, we made a clear manifesto commitment that our devolution proposals would be subject to referendums, and they were.
  I was remiss earlier in not congratulating the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) on his first outing at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that there will be many more. His speech was very clear and, though partisan, thoughtful. I have no doubt we will hear much more from him.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) and others raised the question of the single currency referendum. We are committed to a referendum on that. What characterises these subjects is that they involve a transfer of power away from central government, and bringing decisions closer to the people.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire made a key point about the conduct of referendums. Overall, the experience of the recent referendums has been very

  299
  positive and it is a considerable tribute to those responsible for the conduct of elections that everything went so smoothly and efficiently, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the referendums in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland went ahead with relatively little notice, and the poll in London was combined with local elections. I certainly pay tribute to the electoral administrators involved.
  The hon. Gentleman also suggested that there would be merit in establishing a permanent referendum commission to oversee the operation of regional and national referendums. I am not wholly persuaded of the merits of that suggestion. It was considered by the Electoral Reform Society and UCL constitution unit. In the recent referendums, we considered it right that Parliament should determine the wording of any question in a referendum being conducted by central Government. The number of amendments tabled to subsequent Bills bore out our contention that that was the right way to act. The polling and counting arrangements were not subject to any criticism as far as I am aware.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested, unless I am mistaken, that public money was spent to fund the yes campaigns in Scotland and Wales. I flatly refute that allegation: no public money was spent on those campaigns. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will check the facts and retract that statement.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Howarth: No I shall not give way—it is very late.
  The position is clear: there will be occasions when referendums are appropriate, and occasions when they are not. They cannot create unity where no unity exists, and they cannot change the fact that Parliament is a sovereign body. However, they provide a unique way of consulting the people on specific issues, particularly on policies that are important in particular countries or parts of the country. That is why the Government committed themselves to holding a number of referendums. The electorate endorsed that principle and elected this Government, and we have carried out those promises.
  We have had a useful debate, but we should be clear that referendums have a place and will not always be used in every circumstance. They will be used where appropriate.

  Turnberg Health Proposals
  10.59 am
  Mr. Tony Colman: The Labour party welcomed the Turnberg proposals in February this year. As I could not ask questions of the Secretary of State following his statement in the House, I will concentrate the bulk of my comments on the effects of the proposals on my constituency. Some of my hon. Friends have said that they will touch on the report's wider implications and what has happened since February. The report was widely welcomed, not least in Putney, whose residents suffered years of cuts in services and uncertainty, particularly in the provision of hospital services.
  May I make a declaration of interest? Since 1966, my family and I have been treated at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton, my local hospital. I have fought for its retention almost all my adult life. My predecessor also fought for it, but in the last two years of the Tory Government, Queen Mary's suffered severe cuts. Under the Tories, and before I became the Member for Putney, the hospital lost acute surgery, paediatrics, orthopaedics, maternity services—my sons were among the last to be born there—gynaecology and obstetrics. Also before the last election, the accident and emergency department was downgraded. Those cuts totally undermined the viability of the burns and plastics unit remaining on site.
  I state those facts because the local Conservatives have been reinventing history in the recent local elections. It is worth reminding the House that those cuts in services were not opposed by my predecessor or by the local Conservative council at the time. It is only since the general election that the Conservatives have done a U-turn, conveniently forgetting that they made the cuts themselves. The cuts were not opposed by the Conservative nominees on the community health council, with the honourable exception of the late councillor, Duncan Hawkins.
  The doctors and nurses at Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton have coped brilliantly and have performed miracles over the past year to cope with those Tory cuts. The Turnberg report gave a vision for a new, secure Queen Mary's hospital—a secure community hospital for the 21st century. I shall devote the remainder of my speech to the future of Queen Mary's and how it has fulfilled that vision in implementing the Turnberg proposals.
  More than 90 per cent. of the services previously provided on the site will continue into the next millennium. The transfer of the remaining acute services to neighbouring hospitals is proceeding to plan and the new wards at Kingston hospital will be available in August. However, the out-patient services, which form the vast bulk of the services available to my constituents, will be immeasurably strengthened and improved by a new, integrated care centre offering rapid diagnosis and treatment, out-patient and clinic services in ENT, gastroenterology, elderly care, dermatology, gynaecology—including ante-natal, post-natal and assisted conception—neurology, oral and orthodontics, ophthalmology, orthopaedic and fractures, paediatrics, pain control, plastics, rheumatology, urology and HIV-AIDS, haematology, and a beta-cell diabetes service.
  Some 200 in-patient beds will cover rehabilitation and respite care, mental health and elderly continuing care. Day units will continue, including the Bryceson-White

  301
  unit for elderly people, the mental health resource centre and the Bader rehabilitation unit. The nationally renowned skin bank will remain.
  I could go on with a laundry list of all the services available at the new Queen Mary's, but suffice it to say that it is a substantial hospital. I thank the Minister for his rapid and positive response to the referral of the proposals from Wandsworth community health council this year. I am grateful for his support for the rapid diagnostic centre, the minor injuries unit, the day surgery up to level 9 under local anaesthetic, and primarily for his support for the financing of brand new hospital buildings through the private finance initiative under a successful business case. A project manager has been appointed; the business case is being worked on and should go to the Minister this autumn. We all hope that building will commence within the next three years. In the meantime, the hospital will continue to use the existing buildings that have served the area well for so long.
  The number of acute beds moving from Queen Mary' s is 172 but, as I said, more than 200 non-acute beds will remain; 137 replacement beds will open at Kingston, 34 will open at St. George's, 12 will open at Chelsea and Westminster, and two will open at West Middlesex. Those new beds reflect the range of choices that the people of Putney should have. I obtained those figures before yesterday afternoon's announcement of additional beds for London.
  The movement of the burns and plastics unit will be accompanied by an identical number of beds in its new location. The new wards that will be available at Kingston in the autumn are of the portakabin type, and it is important that capital is made available for permanent buildings at Kingston and elsewhere. It is also important that the once-an-hour bus service between the two hospitals becomes a half-hourly service. Kingston out-patient services are becoming overcrowded. With shorter waiting lists at Queen Mary's hospital, local health care experts should perhaps look at transferring all out-patients to Queen Mary's hospital from Kingston, thereby releasing space for the required permanent acute care facilities at Kingston.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we have one thing in common: both our sons were born in Queen Mary's hospital. However, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is trying to convey to the House. He has listed new services and said that many of the services have been moved to other hospitals around Putney. Is that not precisely what is necessary to give rationality to our health service? The hon. Gentleman complained about Tory cuts at Roehampton, but have any of those services been restored on-site? If not, is he not saying that the Labour Government are continuing the previous Government' s policies of rationalising the NHS?
  Mr. Colman: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman does not realise that, once services are moved off-site, doctors, nurses and facilities are also moved. That has happened. If he suggests that the Tory cuts can easily be reversed, he should go to his local hospital and ask how transferred services can be brought back.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman asks me to understand that point; it is a pity that some of his hon.
  302
  Friends did not make that point when Edgware hospital was closed. They gave the impression that the accident and emergency department at Edgware could be reopened.
  Mr. Colman: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) will make his point adequately if he is able to attend this debate. I must make it clear that what happened at Edgware and Queen Mary's happened under the Tory Government, and they were responsible for those changes.
  The transfer of acute beds from Queen Mary's to Kingston created a balance, but it is important that, as soon as practicable after the transfer of those acute beds, the transfer of beds from Putney hospital should take place. There must not be a gap when Queen Mary's hospital is not used to its full capacity. Following that transfer, I look forward to new health care facilities in a public-private partnership with the local council, housing associations and the private sector, ensuring that Putney hospital continues to be a health care facility for the people of Putney. I further endorse the use of accommodation at Putney hospital by students of the Roehampton institute, a university that has a number of proposals on how it can work in partnership with the hospital across the road.
  There is an urgent need to train general practitioners and hospital staff in management issues, particularly in the development of primary care groups and trusts. That could dovetail well with the Roehampton institute's plans for the expansion of health care subjects.
  As I said, Queen Mary's continues to have the world famous Bader rehabilitation unit for amputees, with associated prosthetics and orthotics manufacturing workshops, and wheelchair manufacture and service. The workshops have been provided by two private companies—RSL and Steepers—which, in the past few days, have merged. I am pleased to tell the House that I have received assurances from Stephen Horam, the finance director of RSL, that there will be no reduction of the continued operational work force of more than 500, and Roehampton will continue, through the public-private partnership of the NHS and those companies, as a world centre for prosthetics and orthotics.
  I welcome the White Paper on the future of the health service, particularly because of the way in which it backs up the principles outlined in the Turnberg report. I especially welcome the encouragement of trust mergers, and I look forward to a reconfiguration of trusts in south-west London, potentially based on the Queen Mary's site. A dialogue has now opened in south-west London between trusts, health authorities, GPs, local authorities and local communities. That dialogue must continue and seek ways in which to achieve a more holistic approach to community services in particular. With the development of larger hospital trusts, there must follow the development of a larger critical mass for community services, to provide an appropriate balance.
  The next five years should bring much larger trusts, in terms of geography and service provision. Their roles will include co-ordinating and providing health promotion services, professional development of nurses and other clinical staff, provision of specialist managerial advice and support and, of course, the efficient running of comprehensive primary and community health services.
  Queen Mary's and other hospitals like it in London have a key role to play in providing a more local and accessible service for their communities, while seeking

  303
  ways in which to achieve greater flexibility in developing partnerships in care, and shaping local health services to meet the future needs of local people.
  On a contentious note, as a former local authority leader, I feel that health authorities should be replaced by joint commissioning by primary care groups and local councils. The Berlin wall could then finally be removed from health care. Local health authorities, forced as they were under the Tories continually to cut back services, often did so in ways unacceptable to local residents—as is the case with Queen Mary's, as fully described in the Turnberg report. It is important to realise that local councils have been managing care in the community for the past six years with considerable success, and with at least 85 per cent. of services purchased from the not-for-profit or profit sectors. That has worked. Local councils should replace local health authorities in London.
  I also welcome a single London-wide health authority, as recommended by the Turnberg report, but I hope that on the back of successful trials of local council purchasing of health care, the Greater London authority could take over that London-wide role. I realise that that may take time.
  In the meantime, I pay tribute to the work of Sir William Wells, chairman of the South Thames regional health authority until its demise next year. He has done a huge amount in the past five months to ensure that the Turnberg proposals have been put into action in the South Thames region. I wish him well in his new role outside London.
  Queen Mary's hospital has been through a difficult period over the past three years, but the time since February has been managed well. The new chief executive, Veronica Cotterill, has led her staff well into a secure future. I pay tribute to Dr. Elizabeth Nelson, the new chair of the Richmond, Twickenham and Roehampton trust, who has done so much to lead from the front and who has plans way beyond those that I have mentioned today. Finally, I pay particular tribute to Mrs. Alex Elliott, chair of the Queen Mary's League of Friends, who is sitting in the Gallery. She represents the most important people—the Queen Mary's community. She spoke last Sunday about an exciting new future for Queen Mary's and the friends' plans to support it. She has been brilliant.
  After Turnberg, Queen Mary's has a different future. In the 50th year of the NHS, Queen Mary's future has been not only secured, but strengthened as a model of how the national health service can adapt itself to reflect new patterns of health care, while serving local residents in the most appropriate way for the 21st century.
  11.13 am
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I thank the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for securing this debate, which is the first since the Government's announcement on the Turnberg proposals four months ago. On 3 February, I generally welcomed the report. It was also widely welcomed in the House and outside, as the hon. Gentleman said. It set out many good paths for the health service in London, and we can see that progress has been made.
  First, I congratulate the Government on acting speedily on one of the recommendations, by accepting the logical proposal that London should have one strategic health
  304
  authority. Many of us have argued that case for many years, and the Government have announced that it will be set up next year. Like the hon. Gentleman, I welcome that, but, as the Minister knows, I also believe that we should go further and make the Greater London authority, when it is set up, the strategic health authority for London. In all logic, that should be the case. I know that there are implications concerning what should be done in the rest of country, and that different management structures would be in place, but it would be far better if strategic planning were done by elected people rather than by people whom nobody knows or chooses.
  Chapter 4 of the Turnberg report examined locality commissioning, and work is being done on that. I hope that the Minister will accept that there will be a problem if there is not a common set of boundaries with local government. There is a desire to have such common boundaries, within which locality groups fit, and for health authority and local authority boundaries gradually coming together. That would be common sense. However, there is a democratic deficit, and some people have a problem with the idea that developments in primary care will be led by practitioners, rather than by the public, who would make sure that practitioners did what the patients wanted.
  The Secretary of State and I had an exchange yesterday on public involvement in health services. He was wrong to say that no party has ever proposed that there should be democratic management of the health service. My party believes that health and social services should be merged under local government control, and that the local authority should therefore also be the health commissioning body. The Government have not come that far, but they are moving in that direction.
  The hon. Member for Putney rightly said that the Berlin wall in health care must be broken down. I ask the House and Ministers to accept that there will come a time when we merge health and social services commissioning, as in Northern Ireland. Those services deal with the same people at different stages in their treatment and need, and the illogicality of one service being a local government social services function and another being a separate health authority function does not work for the patient or the practitioner.
  I hope that the Government will also seriously consider making more democratic the representation on trusts and health authorities, as well as evaluating the idea of health commissioning eventually being merged with local government. The Government are committed to reforming local government structures; let us not ignore health structures.
  The Minister is well aware of the problems in primary care alluded to by Turnberg. In London, we face a severe prospective crisis in the number of doctors and GPs and, in some areas, of nurses and other practitioners. That is very worrying. Some areas of London have staff shortages of up to 20 per cent. By the end of the next five or 10 years, the health service must deal with these problems, particularly in the capital, where pressures are greater and travelling and housing are more expensive.
  Ministers probably say privately to their colleagues over the road that they do not want Chancellors, including the present one, to insist on pay awards being staggered, as was done this year. Pay awards should not have been staggered this year. It has not helped; nurses were furious

  305
  and other workers were unhappy. If the economy allows it, as it currently does, pay awards should be made in full to encourage people to come into nursing and the other professions in public services, such as medicine and therapies. I hope that the Minister will tell us—if not today, then soon—how he plans to deal with recruitment needs in London. If we do not meet those needs, we shall be unable to implement all the proposals made by Sir Leslie Turnberg and his colleagues.
  On intermediate care, the health service is at an interesting stage. We now realize—as do the Government, and I commend them for it—that the community does not need only intensive care beds, high dependency beds or long-term beds, for respite care or convalescence, or to reduce blocking hospital beds. It needs a network of community hospitals in London, which we used to have. I do not blame this Government for closing them down. I should be interested to hear how the Government plan to respond to that need and open them up.
  All areas of London should have a community hospital. To take a local example, I know that, when people, particularly the elderly, from the north of Southwark no longer need acute care, or need other care, they often cannot find it locally. They are cared for at home, if that is possible, or sent a long way from their community, where their partners, spouses, families and friends cannot easily visit if there is no public transport or they have no private transport. I hope that the need for a second tier of in-patient care in London, with and without nursing help, will be addressed.
  Sir Leslie's report rightly concentrates on the needs of mental health care in London. Ministers understand the pressure, but the long-awaited paper on mental health has still not been published. It has been much delayed, and we keep being told that it is imminent. The Minister may make an announcement on that. The Under-Secretary of State, who is responsible for mental health matters, has promised to announce the Government's policy in this area.
  My plea to the Government is that they ensure soon that London has the 24-hour services that Sir Leslie and his colleagues recommend. People's crisis needs can be greatly alleviated if there is somewhere they can go at any time. Mental health provision for people who are not in-patients is extremely under-resourced.
  Some welcome announcements have been made about bed closures. Will the increase in the number of establishment beds in London be permanent? Yesterday's announcement referred to the new beds as beds to deal with the waiting list and waiting times problem. I welcome that, but will they be available next year and the year after? Turnberg said—thank goodness—that we could no longer afford any further closures of hospital beds in London. The NHS Confederation says that, between 1990 and 1996, the number of acute in-patient beds fell by 2,761, which is a hell of a lot of beds. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether it is Government policy to have a particular number of beds and what that number is, and whether the new beds will be included in future projections.
  The report considers that the sensible way in which to deal with the planned five parts of London is a separation of acute and elective care to ensure, among other things, that people's planned operations are not cancelled. If that
  306
  can be achieved—it is the logic of the Bart's decision—it will be welcome. The two services should not be muddled.
  The Minister would be surprised if I did not say something about the largest hospital trust in the country, Guy's and St. Thomas's. On or near his desk is a set of papers awaiting his decision about the final configuration of services. We must all try to ensure that no health service money is wasted. The Minister knows that, if we do what the trust proposes and move the paediatric department from Guy's to St. Thomas's, a new building will have to be built at a cost of about £50 million, and seven floors of a relatively new building at Guy's will be left clinically empty. The plan is to use them for administration, which is nonsense.
  People in charge of the cardiac centre have told me that, at the same time, they do not have enough money to do their job properly. We must ensure that the money is used where the need is, which, I would argue, would require paediatric services to stay at Guy's without huge additional expenditure, and the cardiac centre to have the money it needs, rather than buildings to be built that are not needed.
  I hope that the Minister will make people happy, will make the health service more effective and will use money more wisely by making the popular decision that Guy's shall have 400 to 500 beds and the elective care, while acute care is concentrated be on the St. Thomas's site.
  The hon. Member for Putney was trying to ensure that Labour was not blamed for Tory decisions. In my part of London, we still believe that Labour should take its responsibility because it endorsed the Tory proposal to close accident and emergency services at Guy's. The Government cannot get out of their responsibility. That may not apply in the hon. Gentleman's part of London, but it was as much a Labour as a Tory decision to close our accident and emergency services. It was certainly not the platform on which the Labour party campaigned against me at the general election. People were told that Guy's would be saved on day one of a Labour Government. If that did not include saving the accident and emergency services, I do not know what they thought people believed they meant.
  Yesterday, the Chancellor said that he would continue to be an iron Chancellor. The health service requires a Chancellor who understands its resource needs. Sir Leslie has said that the health service in London needs the resources to do the jobs that we all want it to do. Health ministers will make their case, but the proof of the effectiveness of the Government's health service pudding will be whether the Chancellor next month announces significant increases in resources for the health service in London and elsewhere. Without them, much of what is in this excellent report will not come to pass.
  11.25 am
  Mr. Keith Darvill: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this important debate. I should like to confine my remarks to two aspects of the report: chapter 11 on Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals, and chapter 6 on primary care.
  Harold Wood hospital is in my constituency, and Oldchurch hospital is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon). Both hospitals come under the Barking and Havering

  307
  health authority and are in the London borough of Havering. The Turnberg report made a firm recommendation. On page 71, it states:
  "We endorse the single site Oldchurch area proposal as optimal on the grounds of access to a large proportion of the most deprived population and the strong support from the local authorities and GPs."
  Those words, brief as they are, have been taken wrongly by some, including the BBC, to mean the closure of Harold Wood hospital, but that is not the case. I have had numerous discussions with the executives of the Havering hospitals trust, the BHB trust, the area health authority and the regional health authority about the implementation and recommendations of the report and its knock-on effect on Harold Wood hospital. It will undoubtedly mean different health services at Harold Wood, but it does not mean closure.
  I could go on at length about the services that are planned and will be delivered in the future at Harold Wood, but that can wait for a more appropriate time, especially in view of the imminent launch of the local consultation process on the future of hospital services in the area. The indications are that positive proposals will be forthcoming, which will be welcomed by my constituents.
  Ms Linda Perham: As my hon. Friend knows, Members from north-east London have worked well on local hospital issues, but the report acknowledged that its recommendation for Oldchurch will have an impact on King George's hospital in Ilford, which most of my constituents use. Will he join me in urging the Minister to consider the impact on my local services and on services in the whole of the north-east London area?
  Mr. Darvill: I am pleased to urge the Minister to consider the impact on hospitals in the surrounding areas.
  Health care services will be fit for the new millennium under the proposed package of measures. It will ensure the maximum use of facilities developed through limited investment over the past 10 years. Despite the scare stories that have emanated from some quarters—mainly from our political opponents in the lead-up to the local elections—my main concern is about the time it will take to implement the report's recommendations. The proposals referred to in the report have been developed locally. They are exciting and will provide a new general hospital at Oldchurch close to the existing hospital and just four miles from Harold Wood. The new hospital will be built on land currently owned by the London borough of Havering, which will be exchanged for area health authority land.
  After the new hospital has been built and services have decamped from the old hospital to the new, the old hospital will be demolished, leaving Havering council free to build its long-awaited sports stadium. A new hospital close to a public sports facility would enable the link between healthy living and sports injuries facilities to become more than a vision; it would become a reality. Such public facilities, developed in partnership across agencies, would be welcome.
  I am concerned about procrastination and about delay which, unfortunately, has been the hallmark of past Administrations. There has been some investment, but it has been piecemeal, and there does not appear to have
  308
  been a coherent strategy, which has understandably led to public scepticism and frustration. Procrastination and delay in implementing necessary changes have left health services deteriorating, which has affected the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Ms Hodge) and for Dagenham (Ms Church) especially harshly. I fear that further years of delay will fail the populations further, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that this recommendation is high on the list of priorities.
  There is a popular misunderstanding about outer east London, which is considered to be a leafy suburb without deprivation. That is not the case, and the area is often overlooked because of that misconception. Recent reports commissioned by the area health authority and the local authorities contain ample evidence of serious health needs that must be addressed.
  My constituents and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and for Dagenham need and deserve the new facility, which will provide improved services closer to the centre of population that it would serve. Further delay would do our constituents a disservice; a quick advance would enable the partnership that has developed between the area health authorities, the hospital trusts, the London boroughs, the community health council and Members of Parliament to flourish, in marked and notable contrast to years gone by.
  Lack of investment and failure to recognise the area's health needs, especially the almost crisis position of primary care, are evidenced by the Turnberg report, which states on page 33:
  "Despite considerable investment in primary care services in the last few years, services lag woefully behind those in the remainder of the country. The number of practices below recommended standards remains high, too many premises remain poor, single handed practices represent a larger proportion than elsewhere, recruitment is difficult and the total number of GPs has fallen slightly in the face of a rise across England."
  The table on page 36 shows the acuteness of the problem in east London: only 8 per cent. of premises in the Barking and Havering health authority area are above the minimum standard, and across east London generally, only 20 per cent. are above the minimum standard.
  There is a considerable shortage of GPs: the area health authority is 50 short, which has a knock-on effect. GPs who practise in the area have to work under difficult circumstances with long patient lists, crowded surgeries and heavy demands. That has a contributory effect on the average demand on accident and emergency access services.
  For those reasons, I welcome the report's recommendations in chapter 6, paragraph 23, especially paragraph 23.6, which states:
  "London's health authorities should be required to ensure that the proportion of practice premises which are below minimum standards should be reduced from the current 50 per cent. by 10 per cent. annually. Funding for cash-limited GP premises nationally should be related to the proportion of practice premises which are below the minimum standards. The Regional Offices should ensure that there is co-ordinated advice and support for general practitioners on all aspects of premises provision for London."
  In view of that, I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the timetable for the implementation of those recommendations, for only when they are implemented will we, as politicians who have been elected to improve the health service, have honoured our pledges.
  I welcome the debate and the report, which was ordered speedily after the general election and delivered promptly by the independent panel. Its recommendations have been

  309
  widely welcomed, and we have to implement them with urgency of purpose, so that the people of London have their health services improved and restored.
  11.34 am
  Mr. John Wilkinson: I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) for giving us the opportunity to comment on the Turnberg report and to make observations on the future of the health service in London, especially hospital services.
  I represent a constituency on the edge of Greater London. Mount Vernon hospital, about which I initiated an Adjournment debate on Friday 6 March, is located there. Earlier this year, the Minister of State, Department of Health was good enough to receive a deputation which I took to the Department to discuss its future. On Friday 29 May, Hillingdon health authority produced a consultation document, "A Contract With Local People", which makes drastic recommendations about Mount Vernon hospital and other hospital services, especially Hillingdon hospital in the north of Hillingdon borough.
  I fear that the Turnberg report and the Government's plans for the future of the health service in London do not take sufficient note of hospitals such as Mount Vernon, which, historically, have drawn patients from well beyond the Greater London area. I must repeat what I said on 6 March: Mount Vernon is the largest cancer centre in the south-east on a single site. More important, it is probably the premier cancer treatment location in the south of England, if not the country, and combines fantastic clinical facilities for the treatment of cancer with research facilities of international repute, especially the Gray laboratory and the Marie Curie centre.
  Furthermore, there is an outstanding hospice, Michael Sobel house, and a scanner centre, the Paul Strickland centre, which have been built up largely by private contributions from generous people over many years. Another charity, the Reconstruction of Appearance and Function Trust, is at Mount Vernon, as is the Cleft Lip and Palate Association. Mount Vernon is a genuine centre of outstanding excellence, but such a cancer centre cannot stand on its own: it has to have a range of supportive services in general medicine, surgery and many other disciplines. They are being put at risk by wide-ranging reviews undertaken for reasons of supposed rationalisation and supposed better organisation of services in the area; but the conclusions are highly questionable and would be prejudicial to the long-term future of the hospital. Indeed, they would call into question its viability beyond the next 10 years or so.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the hon. Member for Putney suggested that the health service in London would be better administered by the Greater London authority than by the single health authority for the capital proposed by Her Majesty's Government. I do not understand how the Greater London authority could have the range of competence and the professional expertise to run London's health service. How it would administer the budget is unclear to me.
  The suggestion of the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and for Putney is contrary to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the future governance of London. The proposals are directed at the strategic development of the capital in terms of industry
  310
  and commerce, transport, strategic planning and so on. They have nothing to do with the health service, and it would be a retrograde step if Her Majesty's Government took their advice. It would not, as they somewhat disingenuously suppose, constitute an advance towards democratic control of the health service.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman used the phrase "retrograde step". Does he accept, with the benefit of hindsight, that his failure to oppose the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Mount Vernon hospital when his party was in government was a retrograde step, and will he take this opportunity to apologise to his constituents—and, indeed, mine—for his failure in that regard?
  Mr. Wilkinson: I have no reason to apologise. I initiated an Adjournment debate calling for the accident and emergency unit to be kept open at night when there were plans to close it at night. The then Minister—now my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young)—acceded to my request, and the unit was kept open at night for a while; but the health professionals believed that its closure would constitute a better use of resources. They felt that it would be better to concentrate on A and E services at what they considered to be better-equipped hospitals, such as Watford general, Northwick Park and Hillingdon. Hon. Members are extremely rash if they arrogate to themselves a professional competence in matters of health service clinical judgment which are rightly in the domain of health service professionals.
  I was not happy with the proposal. It went against the grain. Local people, however, were informed that the unit had to close; they were told that the cancer treatment service would be built up, and that that would become the hospital's specialist role—which indeed it has, to the credit of all concerned. I am arguing that organisational changes in the health service in London are putting at risk even the long-term future of the cancer centre.
  The proposed changes are fundamental. Paragraph 4.34 of the consultation document proposes that
  "from April 1999 inpatient services for acute medicine and care of the elderly, including those provided in the medical assessment and coronary care units, be transferred from Mount Vernon Hospital to The Hillingdon Hospital".
  That is to happen at the beginning of the next financial year. The document continues:
  "inpatient services for non-acute medicine and care of the elderly, together with medical day care, medical outpatient services and the minor injuries service remain on the Mount Vernon Hospital site".
  However, the next paragraph states:
  "from April 2001 the above inpatient services of non-acute medicine and care of the elderly, medical outpatients and minor injuries, plus other services, e. g. children's services, should transfer into the community hospital in the north of the borough".
  In other words, there is a stay of execution. In the early part of the next century, Mount Vernon will be deprived of much of its bread-and-butter work.
  Paragraph 4.37 states:
  "Medical staff would work together as a joint team covering both The Hillingdon and Mount Vernon hospitals, providing acute inpatient care at The Hillingdon Hospital and outpatient and day hospital services across the borough."
  That is all very well, and a reasonable person would commend such proposals to make better use of skilled personnel; but, at the same time, it is proposed that

  311
  Mount Vernon hospital—which currently forms a joint trust with Watford general—should merge with Hemel Hempstead and St. Albans NHS hospital trusts in Hertfordshire. That will complicate the cross-London boundary dimension of the health service still further.
  The North Thames regional executive dealt with both the home counties north of London and London north of the Thames. That allowed co-ordination, which was thoroughly healthy—especially for hospitals such as Mount Vernon, which took patients from north of Greater London. How things will work under the new regional authorities has yet to be defined: I hope that the Minister will be able to explain.
  I am particularly perturbed about the future of the burns and plastic surgery units on the Mount Vernon site. Those specialties are crucial to the underpinning of the cancer centre. The possibilities under consideration appear to be the resiting of the entire unit at Northwick Park hospital in Harrow, the resiting of the plastic surgery centre at Northwick Park—with the burns element going to Chelsea and Westminster hospital—and division of the work between Northwick Park and Chelsea and Westminster, with the burns element going to Chelsea and Westminster. I do not comprehend why those changes are proposed; I do not see how they will help to ensure the long-term future of Mount Vernon as a cancer centre.
  The same applies to Hillingdon health authority's further proposals. According to paragraph 4.54 of last Friday's consultation document,
  "from April 1999 complex elective inpatient surgery, especially vascular surgery, should be transferred from Mount Vernon Hospital to The Hillingdon Hospital. From April 2001 all elective inpatient surgery should be transferred from Mount Vernon Hospital to The Hillingdon Hospital. Day case surgery for selected patients, together with surgical outpatient services, should remain at Mount Vernon Hospital until such time as a community hospital is developed in the north of the borough."
  Again, there is only a stay of execution.
  All in all, it would seem that the powers that be have it in for Mount Vernon hospital—God alone knows why. Mount Vernon is an outstanding institution. Most people who have been treated there, have visited the hospital or have the privilege of working there describe it as a centre of excellence. This death by a thousand cuts would be a tragedy.
  I am convinced that my constituents, and those who benefit from the hospital's services, will fight for its future. They believe that it ought to be built up rather than run down, and that the fact that Her Majesty's Government—who have made such play of their commitment to the NHS, during their election campaign and since—should contemplate damaging a premier cancer centre beggars belief. I hope that wiser counsels will prevail.
  11.47 am
  Mr. Roger Casale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on obtaining the debate. I know how hard he has worked to secure the future of Queen Mary's hospital, both before and since his election. I, too, campaigned, in my neighbouring constituency, to keep Queen Mary's accident and emergency unit open. We did not claim that
  312
  it would automatically be restored if we were elected, but I venture to suggest that had my hon. Friend been the Member for Putney since 1992 rather than 1997, the situation at Queen Mary's might be very different.
  The Tory Government left the new Labour Government an appalling legacy of underfunding and huge regional disparities in health care. However, we also have another inheritance: the Labour party set up the NHS, and initiated the principles and philosophy behind it, along with the commitment to rebuild it. If there was one reason why support for Labour was so strong in my constituency last May, it was the belief that Labour would rebuild the NHS.
  Underfunding in London, including my area of south-west London, is a particular problem, as the Turnberg report makes clear. Some time ago, my health authority, Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth, produced a report called "The River Runs Dry". According to the health authority, that phrase
  "most accurately describes our financial position…We do not believe that it will be possible to achieve an income and expenditure balance"
  in the next financial year
  "without major reductions in staff and other costs of our providers."
  Since the publication of that report, the Government have made additional resources available, and detailed negotiations to secure a bridging loan have taken place with the NHS regional executive.
  I do not share the rosy view of the South Thames regional executive that is held by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. I hope that proper funding arrangements for the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority can be secured. Difficult and acrimonious negotiations have been taking place. A local GP told me, "The deficit is being passed from the trusts to the health authority and back again. Nobody wants to be left with the deficit when the music stops."
  If the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth authority cannot get a bridging loan to cover the non-recurring part of its deficit, the consequences for my constituents will be severe. They will look to the Government, in responding to the Turnberg report, to address the specific problem of resource allocation in London. The NHS needs more resources nationally and more must flow to where they are needed most.
  My constituents welcome, as does Turnberg, the Government's commitment to a review of the national distribution of funds for the health service. Page 26 of the Turnberg report suggests that that should be done
  "through the creation of a working party to review the resource allocation formula and to study the implications of its findings for London."
  In the report "The River Runs Dry", Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority states:
  "We have major concerns about aspects of the capitation formula. We spend the vast majority of our resources on what we would regard as high priority unavoidable need and the allocation that we receive does not appear to adequately reflect the needs of our population."
  That assessment is consistent with Turnberg's findings for London as a whole. All is not well with London's health service, and the problems must be sorted out.
  Coming to grips with the immensity of London's population and the diversity of health needs and life situations of Londoners will be no easy task. One could do worse than consult the list of special factors that are

  313
  part of the everyday reality of health care in south-west London and which are cited in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth report. Do other areas spend the same amount on AIDS and HIV treatment and care, on serious mental illnesses, on people with learning disabilities and on mentally disordered offenders? Do other regions have the same diverse cultural mix, the same mobility and the same age profile of the population as London does? Does the present capitation formula adequately reflect those factors? My interpretation of Turnberg is that it does not.
  If those factors had been taken into account in the Government's review of the formula, the health needs of my constituents would have been more truly reflected, the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth deficit would be reduced or eliminated, and local health care resources would be increased.
  There are some important proposals in the Turnberg report for cutting the cost of administration by the merger of South Thames and the North Thames regional health executives. In the short term, I am sure that the South Thames executive will ensure that my local authority gets the bridging loan that is needed. In the longer term, we must move away, as my authority wishes to do, from the continuing need for such transitional arrangements by making sure that the formula more truly reflects local health needs. We must also increase the share of national income that is spent on health.
  Mr. Colman: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority's major problems is underfunding of the treatment of mentally disordered offenders, and that that underfunding amounts to almost £7 million a year? That dates back to the previous Government because I understand that those costs were moved from the Home Office to the Department of Health, and that the issue has never been properly dealt with. Given the importance of Springfield hospital, which is within the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order.
  Mr. Colman—that matter should be addressed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I rise the hon. Gentleman should sit down immediately.
  Mr. Colman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already made a speech and he is starting to make another one.
  Mr. Casale: I understand that the non-recurring deficit is down to about £5 million. The £7 million to which my hon. Friend refers, if properly reflected in the formula, would solve the immediate funding crisis. I have cited some other pressing underfunding issues, but the one to which my hon. Friend refers would in itself deal with the health authority's current problems.
  However, it is not just a question of more money for the NHS, although, of course, more for London and especially south-west London is crucial. As the Turnberg report makes clear, we must also involve and consult local people in deciding how that money is spent. As Turnberg puts it, the problem is not whether the public should be involved but how they should be involved.
  314
  The report is rightly critical of old-fashioned and out-moded methods such as public meetings, circulars and so on. It criticises the NHS Executive guidance on public consultation, which, as Turnberg says, needs to be urgently reviewed. Some of the suggestions in the report, such as focus groups and citizen juries, will be familiar to students of modern-day consultation techniques, but consulting the public is a difficult and many-sided job. and deciding how best to do it is difficult. I congratulate the local health authority on setting up a series of regular meetings with hon. Members in my area. They have been valuable, and, as Turnberg acknowledges, the community health councils also play an important local role.
  Local civic forums and health forums, and consultations with voluntary and community groups also have a role to play, but the overall question of how genuinely to involve the public remains difficult, given the immensity and diversity of London's population. Moreover, a sustained effort is needed if consultation is to be effective.
  My community health council and the health authority produce excellent leaflets from time to time, but, after one or two issues, they peter out. When there is a funding crisis, the flow of information dries up because there is no money to pay for consultation materials. Just when maximum consultation is needed, there is silence followed by cuts in services.
  I congratulate the Government on opening the meetings of health authorities and trusts to the public. With the help of my local community health trust, I have obtained the dates of public meetings and, in the coming months, I plan to distribute a list to all interested parties for wide circulation in my constituency. However, we must go further, by having lists of such meetings posted in GPs' surgeries. Perhaps every surgery should have a television set, which could also show films and videos to inform local people. We must grapple with this difficult subject of consultation, so that we can formulate a coherent, sustainable and effective strategy for consultation of local people. It will be a daunting task. The Turnberg report gives pointers, but we need to go further.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: The report states that a positive communication strategy is necessary to facilitate pan-London debates on the capital's health service. Does my hon. Friend agree that the excellent result in the recent London referendum augurs well for such a debate under the auspices of a Greater London authority? Does he further agree that one of the reasons for so much under-investment in London's health service is precisely because London has not had a voice?
  Mr. Casale: I agree. Londoners are not as aware as they should be of regional disparities in health care. Although the authority may not have a direct role in the expert provision of health care, it should give Londoners a greater say in the shaping of local health care. The Greater London authority will be valuable, as will the London civic forum, in informing Londoners about the key issues of strategic health care in the capital. Involving local people will be the first hurdle that we must surmount, and it is part of the wider consultation strategy on health services in which those bodies will play a vital role.
  Local commissioning groups are mentioned in the Turnberg report and they are beginning to take shape in my constituency in line with the White Paper proposals.

  315
  There is a potential cluster of important primary health care trusts in my constituency. At its heart is the Nelson hospital which can be a hub for the services and a future high-quality community hospital. I am working on that with the full co-operation of the St. Helier trust and I should also like to involve the Government and my constituents in that process. I was delighted by the recent visit to my constituency of the Minister's PPS, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), to discuss how we can proceed.
  It is the 50th anniversary of the NHS, which should be allowed at least to voice a wish list of what it wants for its birthday. For my constituency, I should like to see not only a start made on improving services at Nelson hospital, making it the hub of new services, linking it with the new primary care trusts, but a review of the capitation formula and more resources nationwide for the health service, so that my constituents and those throughout London receive the health services that they certainly deserve and desperately need.
  11.59 am
  Mr. Tony McNulty: I wish to make just three quick points under the auspices of this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing the debate. As has been said, it is much needed.
  The three quick points that I want to make are, first, that I think I sit somewhere between those who suggest that we should have directly elected borough health representatives and those who suggest that the Greater London authority should fulfil the role. I said on Second and, I think, Third Reading of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Bill that it was crucial that the Greater London authority had a key scrutiny role at least in relation to strategic provision for London's health. I still adhere to that view and hope that that comes out when we get to the legislation, but I agree that it should have a strategic role rather than a specific Londonwide commissioning role.
  Secondly, it is interesting that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), who mentioned me carte blanche, I suppose, with other north-west London Labour Members in relation to Edgware, has now gone. It is touching that he is now suddenly involved and concerned about Edgware's accident and emergency department. I was a key figure in the campaign for that department for four years and can say happily, hand on heart, that we saw the hon. Gentleman precisely zero times throughout that campaign.
  Guilty men were involved in that campaign, but happily we have seen their demise as Conservative Members of Parliament. They are Messrs Gorst and Dykes, who—I choose my words extremely carefully—have lied through their teeth to the public in the past year about some silly bit of paper that they had by way of a promise from the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), about the A and E department remaining open.
  The only honest person—again, I choose my words carefully—in the whole process in the then Government was the right hon. Member for Charnwood, who said in June 1996 that the A and E department was closing and
  316
  that he would do all that he could to ensure that it closed long before the general election ensued. He stuck to his promise and, on April fools' day 1997, the department was closed beyond redemption in terms of buildings, legal contracts and assorted other tendering processes. Therefore, we will take no lessons from the now absent hon. Member for Chipping Barnet or from any other Conservative Member—the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) should please rub the bit about Edgware out of his debut speech from the Dispatch Box.
  The third point concerns specialisms, one particular sector on which Turnberg does not really touch; it was not in the brief, which is fine. I have the great pleasure of having the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital NHS trust slap bang in the middle of my constituency. It carries out orthopaedic work of international repute, which is beyond any challenge. The hospital is a fairly substantial one and carries out a major specialism.
  The hospital has been waiting for the best part of 15 or 20 years for the regional health authority to secure its future on the current Stanmore site. The latest bureaucratic nicety from the authority is a musculo-skeletal review, which will determine whether that orthopaedic provision will be available on the Stanmore site, or otherwise. There will be serious ramifications and knock-on effects for surrounding local hospitals throughout north-west London if the future of the Royal National Orthopaedic is not secured.
  Happily, the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), has agreed to meet me and other north-west London Members to try to resolve the situation. For such a significant national treasure in the NHS still to be floundering after 15 or 20 years with its future not secured is wrong; that situation must come to an end at the earliest possible time. If it does not, and it lingers on and on, the hospital will fail. It will fail ultimately to attract key international personnel, who happily come to it for some work experience and training, and it will fail to attract the brightest national brains in terms of orthopaedic provision and musculo-skeletal work.
  I hope that the Minister of State—not necessarily in his winding-up speech, but subsequently, when we meet—will tell us that the position of the Royal National Orthopaedic is assured. I know that His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester, who opened a significant scanner on the site yesterday and had the pleasure of visiting a ward there that was named after his father, would endorse the proposals. Everyone in north-west London would. I hope that that proposal, which is, I accept, a non-Turnberg proposal, is addressed sooner rather than later, for the betterment of health provision.
  12.5 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) kindly referred to this as my first attempt to reply at the Dispatch Box, and indeed it is. It is a great pleasure at last to be dealing with doctors rather than spin doctors.
  The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) has done the House a service in raising this topic for debate. It is a matter of great importance and, of course, of legitimate constituency interest to him. However, he suffered something of a memory lapse when he said that Queen Mary's hospital would enjoy a different future. Indeed it will, but it is very different from the future that his party promised in the run-up to the general election.

  317
  The Conservative health team will endeavour at all stages to be constructive. As we approach the 50th anniversary of the NHS, our mission is to help to develop and to improve it. It may be fertile territory for political combat, but our side will never join battle at the expense of the NHS. This issue requires mature attention. A capital city is a complicated area for health provision. The issue is politically charged, but where there is rapid medical progress, where there are demographic and infrastructure changes, where there is deterioration in buildings and development pressure around them, there is a need from time to time for a fundamental review, which is exactly what we did with the Tomlinson report and, for rather different reasons, what the Government are doing with the Turnberg report.
  It is sad that the response to Tomlinson when we were in government was not mature. The then Opposition did not attempt to improve the health service. It was low party politics. The result was that the present Government became boxed in, which is why the Turnberg report was necessary in the first place. It was designed as something behind which the Government could hide. Perhaps the most cynical would say that it was designed as a convenient dustbin for their pre-election promises. It was not about saving hospitals: it was about saving the Minister's face. It is no thanks to the Government that Sir Leslie Turnberg managed to convert his task into such a useful exercise. His starting point was that primary care in the capital matters. I think that we all share that view and recognise that the debate principally centres on hospitals.
  The Government came to office with a pledge to review London's health service. They came with a certain amount of pre-election baggage because they had promised an enormous amount to local communities. They played on the fears about the future of local hospitals; many of those who voted Labour believed that a Labour Government would save those hospitals, just as Labour had promised, only to find that they are now severely disappointed.
  Ms Margaret Hodge: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that it was a mature decision by the previous Government to close Bart's, and that it is part of the pre-election baggage of this Government to ensure that it remains open as a facility for Londoners?
  Mr. Duncan: I will come in a moment to the deceit that the Government have shown on the issue of Bart's and the promises that they made in the run-up to the election which have not been met.
  In opposition, the Labour party complained that London had too few hospital beds. One function of the Turnberg report was to allow the Government to claim that London now had about the right number of hospital beds. That was the first step towards their current programme of closures and cuts. The paltry number of extra beds announced the other day by the Secretary of State does not make up the 200 that the Government have slashed from our plans for the new Royal London hospital.
  As the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) has suggested, the Government needed to be able to claim that they had saved Bart's. Turnberg has given them an excellent public relations formula for doing so, despite the
  318
  fact that Bart's is now closed as a district general hospital for the local community—a fundamental element of the campaign to save Bart's.
  Mr. McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us exactly when he will start being mature and constructive?
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman should perhaps listen to the facts and feel ashamed that the Government he supports have betrayed so many of the promises which, no doubt, helped him get elected.
  A raft of promises were made to the people of Edgware and Roehampton, and the Turnberg report has been able help here, too—offering a convenient way of removing accident and emergency facilities from local people.
  I should like to ask the Minister certain specific questions which it is his duty to answer. The Turnberg report recommends the downgrading of Queen Charlotte's hospital, with Hammersmith taking on most of the extra work load. We are concerned, as is Turnberg, about the clinical base of Hammersmith hospital. If it is to be able to handle the extra work caused by the transfer of Queen Charlotte hospital's facilities, significant investment in Hammersmith will be needed, and there are concerns about the suitability of the Hammersmith site for such work. May I have an assurance from the Minister on his plans for investing in Hammersmith?
  I should like the Minister to explain how the interim period before such investment occurs will be handled. What plans does he have for increased co-ordination with Queen Charlotte's hospital and Charing Cross hospital? How will the financial base for the hospital be managed? Those are important questions which I hope he will answer.
  The Secretary of State was proud to have saved Bart's. He admitted as much in the original debate on Turnberg, when he said that one of his principal reasons for commissioning the report was to avoid the history books recording that it was he who closed that ancient hospital. That was noble of him, but Bart's, in the way he promised, has not been saved. Bart's has been closed as a district general hospital for local people. It will no longer serve the community. To its traditional patient base, Bart's no longer exists.
  In addition, health care in south-west London was a significant pre-election battleground for the Government. The people of Roehampton—who the hon. Member for Putney conveniently seems to have forgotten—were given specific assurances by their Labour candidates, and they must feel disillusioned that they put their trust in them. The decision in effect to close Queen Mary's hospital, with the removal of its accident and emergency facilities, has broken Labour's pre-election promise to keep that institution open.
  Mr. Colman: I see this as a personal attack on me. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the decisions to close the acute surgery service and other acute services and to downgrade the accident and emergency department were taken in the November before the general election and were acted on on 1 April, all fools' day, one month before the election?
  Mr. Duncan: All Labour candidates who had an interest in the hospital—and in the party's campaign

  319
  nationally—led the country to believe that such a decision would be reversed. That has not happened, and it is that deceit which I find so contemptible.
  The Turnberg reforms have many merits. There are questions that I hope the Minister will answer, but it is difficult to trust the Government on something like this in the climate in which they are running the NHS today. People should be aware that, when the Government say that they have increased funding, they have not. There is £940 million less going to the health service than would have been the case had the Conservative party returned to office. Waiting lists have gone up by 137,000.
  What in Sir Leslie Turnberg's proposals will suffer as a result of the Minister's panic and efforts to restore waiting lists to the levels that the Government inherited from us? I have high hopes for health care in London, but little confidence that the Government will deliver. They are spending less, closing more and making people wait longer. In that context, it is unlikely that the Turnberg proposals will deliver the health care that we all expect.
  12.15 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) on securing this debate. This debate is extremely important, not just for his constituents and for him, but for the House as a whole—and particularly for hon. Members representing London constituencies.
  The Government share my hon. Friend's aim of ensuring that Londoners in all parts of this capital city have access to the highest-quality health care possible—not just in hospitals, but through primary care and community health services.
  For the first time in decades—thanks to Sir Leslie Turnberg and his team, and the Government's adoption of all the recommendations—there is now a clear agenda for health, health services and social care in London. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said when announcing the Government's acceptance of the Turnberg report on 3 February, the time for action on London's health service has arrived.
  Sir Leslie Turnberg's team did a remarkable job, and I pay tribute to him and them. The comments of the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) were astonishing. He must be the only person in this building—he is probably the only person in London—who supported the Tomlinson report, which found no favour with the public, politicians and, most important, with the people who work in the NHS in this city. As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, there has been universal praise for the way in which the review was carried out, and there has been broad agreement on the diagnosis of the problems.
  The recommendations not only tackled major strategic concerns—to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton referred—but dealt in a hard-headed way with extremely difficult operational issues. As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) reminded us, those issues do not go away. Change is endemic in the NHS. Turnberg, and the Government's acceptance of the report's recommendations, does not put
  320
  a halt to change in the NHS; it is the start of a 10-year modernisation programme for the NHS in London and its environment.
  Watford and the surrounding hospitals are the subject of consultation. We will bear in mind what the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said and ensure that, when the final decisions are taken, they will be in the best interests of patients in his constituency and others served by those hospitals.
  We are at the start of the programme which will see London's health service getting better step by step, year by year. It is important that we make it clear from the outset that there is much on which to build. We often concentrate in these debates on things that are wrong, and there is much that is wrong in London's health service. However, there is a great deal of which to be proud as well—great hospitals at the cutting edge of medicine, science, teaching and research, high-quality local hospitals, GP surgeries and more. There are also formidable challenges for London's NHS. The best services in the land sit cheek by jowl with some of the worst.
  Turnberg reversed the absurd Tomlinson position that London was over-bedded compared with the rest of the country. The Government seek to build on that important recognition. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey asked whether the commitment to improving waiting lists was continuing. I remind him that Turnberg called for more detailed work on ensuring that we have the right number of beds. That work is being done, and the evaluation is continuing. We will have to ensure that we have the right resources, staff and bed numbers to ensure that we get waiting lists down—we want to do that not only this year, but in subsequent years.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: There was a recommendation that the panel should examine the bed issue. The Minister said that that work has already started. Does he have any idea when he will receive recommendations on bed numbers and the implications of those numbers?
  Mr. Milburn: I do not, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman know as soon as I do. If he contacts my office, we can arrange a response.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Casale) spoke about the sheer size of London and the problems that that creates. Our capital city has a unique health service, which has unique problems in serving massive health needs. We are determined specifically to tackle London's deprivation and inequalities. The fact is that 40 per cent. of Londoners are among the most deprived 10 per cent. of our country's population. Sir Leslie and his team rightly highlighted the special needs of many groups in London, such as elderly people, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, homeless people, refugees and asylum seekers. We have to translate our good intentions for those groups into action.
  Mr. Wilkinson: From the Minister's statement today, may we have confidence that there will never be a translation of financial resources out of London into the provinces? The old resource allocation working party system did the health service in London great damage.
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment, I am about to deal with the resource allocation issue, partly in response to the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon.

  321
  The action necessary to deal with problems cannot occur without partnership. Working together in partnership, across boundaries, is vital if we are to improve services, improve the health of Londoners and—most important—tackle the appalling health inequalities that scar our capital city. We are therefore fostering co-operation in the NHS, by getting rid of the internal market introduced by the Tories when in government. To tackle those inequalities, we are also breaking down the Berlin walls between health and social care, the NHS and local authorities, and the public and voluntary sector.
  New ways of joint working are being pioneered in London's two health action zones—which represent a recognition of the fact that the job of improving health is one for local government, employers, community organisations and the NHS. Such an approach to partnership is in line with the Turnberg recommendations.
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my hon. Friend mention the widely supported proposals on pooling health and social services budgets?
  Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important point. We will soon produce a consultation document on how to ensure greater flexibility in the provision of health and social care services—for the benefit of patients, especially those who are at the interface of those services, such as elderly people, people with metal health problems and people with disabilities. The document will deal with the pooled budget issue.
  The Government accepted all the Turnberg recommendations, and we have acted quickly to create a programme to implement them. We will deliver better services for Londoners through investment and modernisation. The two go together.
  We are committed, first, to sustained investment in health services and facilities in London. Since we came to power—to contradict the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton—the Government have invested £300 million in London's national health service. Last year, £26 million went to the capital, to ease pressures on health and social services provision. This year, £48 million has been targeted specifically at lowering waiting lists in London. As a consequence of the tough targets that we have set ourselves in reducing waiting lists, by March 1999 London's national health service should have more than 10,000 fewer patients waiting for treatment than the record level of March 1997 which we inherited from the Tories.
  The extra money for this year includes £30 million targeted on primary care, mental health, intermediate care and community services. We will provide at least an additional £140 million of investment in those services for London over the lifetime of this Parliament.
  Today's debate has rightly concentrated on London's hospitals. However, primary care is the primary point of contact with the NHS for the overwhelming majority of Londoners. As we know, there is much to commend primary care services in the capital. However, there is also much that is wrong with the services, which we are determined to put right.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) and the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned the problem of recruiting a sufficient number of general practitioners in the capital.
  322
  We fully endorse the need for Londoners to receive their fair share of GPs. A national group—which includes Professor Jarman, who was a member of Sir Leslie's team—is working to identify a formula that would accord every area its proper share of family doctors. The results should be available in the summer.
  Ms Hodge: Is consideration being given to introducing salaried general practitioners in those London areas where it is extremely difficult to recruit people into general practice?
  Mr. Milburn: I assure my hon. Friend that we have successfully reached an agreement with the British Medical Association, and have—for the first time in the history of the NHS—introduced a salaried doctors scheme, which I believe will be the way forward in many areas where it is currently difficult to recruit GPs. The scheme will bring new, younger and energetic GPs into general practice, which will be a great improvement in primary care in many parts of London.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon asked about resource allocation, and how we can ensure that London receives its fair share of resources. As he knows, a working group is dealing with the matter and will report later this year. I expect that its recommendations will be implemented in the next financial year.
  As part of a modernisation programme, there is more investment in London's front-line health services. Moreover, that money for front-line services is backed by capital investment, as we cannot build a 21st-century NHS in London in 19th century hospitals. The Turnberg report paved the way for £800 million of new investment to build more new, modern hospitals and to improve existing ones—such as at the West Middlesex, University College hospital, King's and St. George's. It paved the way also for a proper, 21st-century hospital in Whitechapel. Furthermore, we are not only saving Bart's—which the previous Government intended to close—but giving it a great future.
  There will also be a great future as a local community hospital for Queen Mary's hospital, Roehampton. Five years of uncertainty is at an end. Queen Mary's will have a robust and healthy future, providing services for local people into the next century. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and by the hospital league of friends. Most of all, I pay tribute to the work done by the hospital's staff, who have ensured that services are delivered throughout a most difficult period of uncertainty and confusion—which is now at an end. Our plans will give staff and the local community a new hospital for a new century.
  We have also endorsed the London review recommendation that a new hospital should be built in the Oldchurch area. The Havering Hospitals NHS trust is producing a strategic outline case for that investment. We expect the case for making the investment to be a strong one. If it is, the trust will be able to take forward procurement in 1999.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster expressed concern about the Harold Wood site. Harold Wood's future will have to be considered in the light of the Oldchurch development. Similarly, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) that plans for the new hospital will take account of the

  323
  relatively new facilities at King George's hospital, and that clinicians from King George's are actively involved in helping to plan services at the new hospital.
  I am aware that, because of work done by the trust, submissions on Guy's and St. Thomas's will be made to me. I also realise that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey has an alternative proposal. As I said when I met him, I should be more than happy to consider his proposal. I should be happy to meet him again, if he thinks that that is necessary.
  I also assure the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton that Hammersmith is a very important hospital and that it has a secure future. However, we have to assess how best it should play its part in delivering local health services within the overall context of services in west London. That is why we are reviewing services in the area and the Hammersmith is part of that review.
  Those are all far-reaching changes for London's NHS, which will not be easy to achieve and which will require time and careful management. We have faced difficult decisions and an unenviable legacy from our predecessors of uncertainty and failure, but we are making considerable progress, with new hospitals being built, extra cash being invested and a new direction for London's health service being implemented. There is a long way to go to deliver the first-class NHS that the Government want to be available throughout London, but we have made a good start and we are determined to make rapid progress. We believe that Londoners deserve no less.

  Newhaven Port
  12.29 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I am pleased to have this opportunity to initiate a debate on a matter that is vital to my constituency and, as I shall try to shows, to the economy of a much wider sub-region.
  This is a critical time for Newhaven. The port is at a crossroads, if the House will forgive the mixed metaphor. It has the potential to become a major success story of the next century, but might also slip away, leaving a shell of derelict buildings, rusting metal and high unemployment. It could go either way, and which way it goes will depend, at least in part, on the events of the next few months. The Government, local councils and, crucially, the private sector must all deliver if we are succeed, and I see it as part of my job to ensure that that happens.
  Let me deal with the port's potential. First, there is the its geographical location: it is not, as some tend to portray it, at the periphery, but well inside the triangle that takes in London, Paris and Brussels; if one draws a line from London to Paris, Newhaven is the port closest to that line. The port's potential is shown by the fact that 1.2 million people live within an hour's drive of Newhaven. However, when people think of channel ports, they think of Dover, Southampton and Portsmouth, and consistently underrate Newhaven's potential.
  Secondly, there is the Newhaven Economic Partnership which, as the Minister will know, is a private company, limited by guarantee, set up to revitalise the port. All the town's major employers are represented, including Sea Containers, which owns the port; P and O Stena, which operates the ferry service; James Fisher and Sons, which has in Newhaven the largest cold store for imported fruit and vegetables in the country; and companies such as Parker Pen and Concord Lighting, which are major employers in Newhaven.
  All three levels of local council are represented—the county, the district and the town—and so am I, as the local Member of Parliament. In addition, Lewes tertiary college is also an active member, giving valuable help on employment training.
  The NEP has been successful in securing single regeneration fund money from the Government, capital challenge funding for a new port access road and Interreg money earmarked for local schemes. In addition, the partners, especially the local councils, have committed funds to the partnership's pot. That has helped with several valuable local projects, such as saving the Hillcrest centre, which is a focal point for the community.
  Thirdly, there is the unique and strong relationship with Dieppe. The ferry crossing between the two ports goes back well into the last century. In recent years, Dieppe has had a huge amount of investment in its port, and the French now want the same to happen in Newhaven. To that end, a joint action group was formed between Dieppe chamber of commerce and Lewes district council. More recently, the chamber became a full member of the NEP, which is the first time a French chamber has voluntarily put itself under the jurisdiction of English law. Dieppe believes in the crossing and in Newhaven; it is now time to show clearly that people on this side of the channel also believe in Newhaven.
  That leads me to the current situation. An improved port is absolutely essential to the future of Newhaven and to the wider sub-region, including Brighton.

  325
  The regeneration project in Newhaven is a complex jigsaw, which will not work unless all the pieces are in place. An improved port is the key piece, to which all others are connected.
  The port in its current configuration is limited in capacity in a way which, if it remains unimproved, spells had news for Newhaven tomorrow. The present generation of ferries can only just negotiate the port, and, with bigger ferries coming on stream elsewhere, Newhaven faces a loss of competitiveness against other south coast ports if it cannot match any increase in size.
  Furthermore, the depth of the port—only 5m—means that James Fisher and Sons is operating well below capacity, because boats are getting bigger, and now touch the bottom when they arrive. That in turn makes it difficult for shippers to obtain insurance cover, with the result that business goes elsewhere. Time and again, contracts have been won by Fisher, only to be lost at the last minute because of the insurance problem. Put bluntly, there must be a possibility that Fisher, a major employer in the town, will close and the ferry operation be scaled down, with the loss of numerous jobs, if an improved port cannot be provided soon. It was that fact that provided a major impetus for the setting up of the NEP.
  The good news is that many of the jigsaw pieces have been assembled, and some are fixed together. Planning permission has been achieved for a new outer port, subject to a few final details being ironed out by the district council as the planning authority. Planning permission has also been granted for a new port access road, which will link the trunk road network with the port. Those two proposals are inextricably linked to the port's future. Formal withdrawal of outstanding objections to compulsory purchase orders has been achieved, so that obstacle is out of the way.
  The existing road winds around residential streets, passing a nursery school and local shops. It is the most inappropriate port access imaginable. The new road will not only solve that problem and link the trunk road network with the new outer port, but also open up access to the biggest unused piece of land identified for industrial purposes anywhere along the south coast—at least between Eastbourne and Worthing, and probably further. The land will be used to provide an Eastside business park. The road scheme is estimated to cost £7.8 million, with £6.8 million coming from a successful capital challenge bid and the rest from Interreg funding.
  It is worth noting that East Sussex county council has already spent around £500,000 on design and securing planning permission for the road. The council also says that it is prepared to shoulder the debt payments from servicing the capital challenge funding, which will come to another £500,000. The county council tells me that it is fully committed to building the road, and I and the people of Newhaven intend to hold them to that commitment.
  That is the background; I apologise for the fact that I have taken some time to set it out, but I thought it best to put matters in context. I come now to what I should like the Government to do to help Newhaven.
  First, it would be helpful if the Minister could set out exactly what the Government's strategy is for ports, especially their vision for the south coast. The hon. Lady will no doubt be aware of the European Union Green Paper on sea ports and maritime infrastructure, so I
  326
  presume that she has already given that key matter some thought. Currently, 80 per cent. of cross-channel traffic goes through Kent. Does the Minister agree that it is sensible not to put all one's eggs in one basket? The benefits of diversity alone suggest that Newhaven should be protected and enhanced—small ports have an important role to play. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to a diversity of ports, and that they will oppose any contraction of the number available on the south coast?
  Given that Newhaven is already on the trans-European rail network, will the Minister undertake to help to put together a case for EU funding for Newhaven port, which might well be available under the proposals in the Green Paper, as I understand them? In short, I am asking for an assurance that the Government, like people in Newhaven and Dieppe, believe that Newhaven port has a solid future in the next century. If the answer to that is yes, I ask the Minister to put that on the record today, because that assurance alone will help in the current circumstances. In addition, it is unclear what is to be the role of the regional development agencies in port policy and support, so some clarification would be helpful.
  I said that the trans-European rail network includes Newhaven, and I ask for the Minister's help in that respect. Is she aware that Railtrack's published plans for the next 10 years do not even mention Newhaven? That is despite the trans-European link, despite the fact that major redevelopment of the port would give an opportunity to combine the current three railway stations—which are a shambolic first sight for visitors arriving in Newhaven from the continent—into one brand-new one, and despite the fact that there is considerable potential for moving freight by rail from Newhaven. The infrastructure from decades ago still remains, and the rail lines literally go down to the quayside.
  There is still plenty of land for expansion, and, as the Minister knows from our correspondence, English, Welsh and Scottish Railfreight has expressed considerable interest in the site. Indeed, the company's No. 2 in this country, Julian Worth, has met me and others from the Newhaven Economic Partnership on site to discuss the potential. He went away interested in Newhaven port.
  The Government are rightly committed to shifting the bias of transport away from the private car and lorry and on to more environmentally friendly transport, including rail. Does the Minister therefore share my view that plans for a new port in Newhaven provide a wonderful opportunity to achieve the Government's objectives? If a new port were almost totally dependent on private road transport, a great opportunity would have been missed.
  My requests of the Government in respect of rail are as follows. Will they continue to support Newhaven's place in the trans-European network? Will they give support today for the principle of rail freight movements from and through Newhaven? Will they make representations to Railtrack in order that it assesses the potential for Newhaven, with a view to putting the scheme in its forward programme?
  Will the Government please reconsider their decision not to stop the sale of so-called redundant rail land in the town, the loss of which might jeopardise the development of rail freight in the port? I apologise to the Minister for raising that yet again, but I am working on the basis that,

  327
  if I raise it frequently enough, I may get the answer for which I am looking. Even limiting sales to companies with rail interests would help. The policy of disposal of land that was identified as surplus by the Tories, who were not interested in rail and are not present for today's debate, is so out of line with the Government's mainly refreshingly sensible transport policy.
  On the wider transport infrastructure, will the Government examine what is being done in Dieppe to see how improvements in Newhaven might dovetail? Will the Government undertake to consider the A26 and the parallel rail line as part of a corridor study on the route north of Newhaven, in line with proposals for such studies in the Government's forthcoming White Paper on transport—if newspaper stories are to be believed?
  I return to the key aspect of the debate: proposals for an improved port and a new port access road. The start of construction on the port access road has slipped due to uncertainties over the new port and the merger of two ferry companies. The merger has also made it very difficult for P and O Stena Line and Sea Containers to reach a long-term agreement, given the merger's restrictive conditions.
  Under those circumstances, it is being discussed whether, in the interim, it may make sense for the road to access a new deeper berth in the existing harbour rather than a brand new port immediately. That could well cut through some of the problems, deliver an improvement in time to safeguard the port, and achieve the aims that the Government originally set out when approving capital challenge funding. I am advised that such a modified route for the road would not require a new planning application.
  I ask the Government for time and flexibility to tie up negotiations among the various partners. In the past few days, as the Minister will imagine, I have spoken to several partners in the public and private sectors to assess progress, and I believe that a solution is in sight and achievable. It is therefore crucial that the rug is not pulled from under our feet by rigid adherence to a timetable that was set under different circumstances.
  The Government office for the south-east has been constructive and entirely helpful in the process, but can obviously go only so far without a ministerial steer. Will the Minister use her contacts to put pressure on the private sector in particular to reach agreements that will enable investment to proceed? The public sector locally has, by and large. delivered its part of the bargain.
  Newhaven has suffered from years of under-investment. The merger of P and O and Stena Line, although representing a strengthening of the position in Newhaven, has nevertheless caused short-term uncertainty. The forthcoming loss of duty-free trade has added to that, and could be bad for the town. I cannot emphasise enough, however, that Newhaven's potential is enormous as a cross-channel ferry port and railhead, a back-up to the channel tunnel—the only potential one—a major import-export location, and an economic engine for the entire sub-region as far north as Haywards Heath and East Grinstead.
  Like a game in a Christmas cracker, this matter is a question of getting all the silver balls into the holes at the same time. The Government's attitude to Newhaven, how flexible they are in funding the port access road,
  328
  how seriously they take the potential for rail freight, how hard they are prepared to lean on those in the private sector, the signals that they send out and the stance that they take, are all crucial. I ask the Minister to respond positively and helpfully to my points—I am sure she will—in order to let the people of Newhaven know that the Government are on their side and will help them.
  12.44 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on obtaining this Adjournment debate. As he so rightly says, the topic of Newhaven port is of importance not only to his constituents but to the entire region.
  The port of Newhaven is a major local employment provider through companies such as P and O Stena Line and James Fisher, employing several hundred people. As the hon. Member pointed out, it plays an important role in linking the south-east region with the markets of continental Europe, and, like neighbouring Shoreham, is a key port in handling marine aggregates for the construction industry. As the hon. Gentleman also pointed out, it handles a variety of traffic, including passengers, fruit and vegetables, forest products and fish. As he further pointed out, there has been recent investment in a cool storage facility for fruit and vegetable traffic. In all, the port handled 1.3 million tonnes of cargo in 1996, with a passenger throughput of 841,000 and about 160,000 vehicles.
  In December 1996, East Sussex county council was awarded credit approval of £6.8 million under the capital challenge towards the £7.8 million cost of the port access road. The road, as the hon. Member for Lewes also pointed out in great detail, is seen as the key to the regeneration of Newhaven. The wider regeneration scheme for Newhaven amounts to more than £80 million, which includes £6.5 million single regeneration budget challenge funding. Most of the private sector investment—Sea Containers Ltd. and P and O Stena Line—will be in the renewal of Newhaven port, including the construction of the outer harbour. The road, the harbour and the wider regeneration of the town are inextricably linked.
  East Sussex county council has also submitted a bid through the European funding programme, Interreg, for a £1 million contribution towards the port access road. The application has been received, and is being considered by the Government Office for the South-East and my Department.
  In addition, Lewes district council has applied to the Ministry of Agriculture for grants to aid the fisheries aspect of the port's modernisation. Up to 50 per cent. grant is available from MAFF for work including rebuilding the fishermen's jetties and a new fish market building. The application is under consideration by MAFF. Grant for a feasibility study for the development of the port has already been made available under the PESCA scheme for restructuring fishing dependent areas.
  Although I am aware of such plans for a major redevelopment of the port facilities at Newhaven, and cognisant of the pleas of the hon. Member for Lewes, I cannot comment on the detail of the plans, because they may be subject to approvals from my Department,

  329
  for which formal applications have yet to be made. The environmental impact of such a project will be carefully considered as part of the approvals procedure.
  As well as raising several detailed points about Newhaven port, the hon. Member raised a number of points about the Government's general policy towards ports and port development. As he will be aware, and as the House knows, we are shortly to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's integrated transport policy. We fully recognise that our ports are a vital link in the supply chain. Some 95 per cent. of our international trade by volume, as well as considerable domestic traffic, goes through them. We must ensure that they are integrated into our transport networks in ways which contribute to the aims of a more effective and more environmentally friendly transport system.
  It is important to recognise that our ports are competing vigorously both in the United Kingdom and the European market. We therefore support measures to develop a level playing field throughout Europe, and we will continue to support policies that encourage competition and efficiency in the ports industry on a fully commercial basis. In doing so, we will also seek to ensure fair employment standards and better, more effective regulation of safety issues and environmental safeguards.

  Our broad aims are to ensure that ports play a full role in supporting the competitiveness of their regions: that any port development is sympathetic to the surrounding natural environment and local communities. Ports can enhance sustainable freight distribution by their connection to more environmentally friendly modes, and increased port efficiency can increase the attractiveness of those modes.
  Newhaven, like almost every other port, depends for its business on freight movements by road—but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is one of the many that also has rail access. We agree with him that we must try to ensure that in future advantage is taken of that fact wherever possible in encouraging the transfer of freight from road to rail.
  The context for those broad aims is a forward-looking integrated transport policy that supports a strong economy, contributes to a sustainable environment and helps to create a just and inclusive society. That is a huge challenge, and one of the encouraging aspects of an ambitious task is the degree of consensus throughout the nation on the need to change.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in good access to the port of Newhaven. He will know that we are carrying out a review of the role of trunk roads, including the A27. We have involved a wide range of advice and expertise, including local authorities, businesses, trade unions, transport professionals and transport users. As he also knows, we are developing a new appraisal methodology that takes a wider view of accessibility by all modes in terms of the economy and the environment.
  Against the background of increased congestion, we have three broad options for roads. To make better use of existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It has been provided at substantial cost in both financial and environmental terms, and we must make the best use of that investment. We need, however, to be realistic about what the various options can deliver.
  We must also look seriously at other harder options, such as managing demand and providing new infrastructure. Managing demand is a vast topic.
  330
  It encompasses reducing the need to travel, an assessment of the extent to which a shift to other modes can be encouraged, and, inevitably, the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms.
  Providing new infrastructure is a difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Our starting point is that we will not proceed with major new road construction unless we are satisfied that there is no better alternative; even then, there will be difficult choices to be made within the limited resources available.
  We have held regional consultations to elicit views on whether the schemes in the inherited roads programme address the most important transport problems, or whether other problems deserve greater priority. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review—a firm short-term investment programme and a programme of studies to look at the remaining problems, out of which the medium and long-term investment programme will emerge.
  The hon. Gentleman raised the question of the proposed access road to the harbour. As he said, that scheme, designed to link the trunk road network to the proposed new port and ferry terminal, received credit approval of £6.8 million through the capital challenge pilot scheme in December 1996. Capital challenge is a three-year pilot, and all funding is programmed to terminate at the end of March 2000.
  Cognisant of the plea that the hon. Gentleman has repeated, I must tell him that there are no plans to extend that deadline at present. Proposed changes to the scheme, resulting from any revision of the development plans, would have to be consistent with the initial aims of the capital challenge bid. I understand that to date no firm proposals have been received, although there have been some preliminary discussions of different options.
  The hon. Gentleman also talked about the possibility of the scheme's slipping. I understand that the county council has resolved not to proceed with the road until there is valid planning permission for the port and a firm commitment from Sea Containers to proceed with the port improvements. Of course, as he rightly pointed out, the road network is only one piece of the transport jigsaw. He also mentioned freight to and from Newhaven port.
  The Government are determined to encourage greater use of the railways for passengers and freight. We want to see improvements in existing rail services. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited a fragmented rail system with no strategic vision for the development of the network, a confusing regulatory system, and a need for leadership and direction.
  The Government have already demonstrated their intentions by conducting a fundamental review of rail regulation, including the Rail Regulator's inquiry into the rolling stock leasing market. We have also taken action within the existing regulatory constraints. Last November, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport announced an interim package of measures designed to boost regulation of the railways, which included new objectives for the franchising director. Those require him to manage existing franchise contracts tightly in the public interest, by making sure that train operators live up to their contractual commitments.
  We have made it clear that our overriding goal is to get more freight on to rail. We are currently considering what further action we may take to boost rail freight in the

  331
  context of the integrated transport policy White Paper. Action has already been taken to encourage more freight on to the railway by overhauling the freight grants scheme. Shortly after coming to office, we doubled the grant available for moving freight from the roads, and we have increased it by a further £10 million for the year 1998–99. An initiative to publicise the system has resulted in nearly all last year's £30 million being taken up, and £28 million of this year's grant money is already accounted for.
  Railtrack is investigating the scope to develop several major routes for freight, and, with a group of local authorities, is studying congestion on the south coast rail route from Weymouth to Dover with the aim of improving services to encourage more use of the route. We are watching that study with interest. The new freight companies have adopted positive attitudes and ambitious targets that would quadruple the proportion of freight tonne kilometres by rail over the next 10 years. Rail freight volume has already shown a 5 per cent. growth in tonne kilometres over 1996–97—the first such increase in many years.
  We acknowledge there is more to be done. We are committed to the creation of a new rail authority, and will announce our proposals in the White Paper. The authority is likely to have responsibility for, among other things, managing and enforcing existing franchise contracts, developing a strategic vision for investment in the network, promoting integration between rail and other modes of transport, and balancing the needs of passengers and freight users, as no one body currently can.
  I understand that a community partnership venture between the operating company Connex South Central and Newhaven Economic Partnership has been set up, as a result of which the station at Newhaven will receive a face lift later this summer. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the bad state not only of the network but of stations in his area. We too recognise the importance of clean, smart, comfortable and safe public transport facilities in helping to encourage people to switch from their cars to using public transport.
  The hon. Gentleman asked about the abolition of duty-free sales, and its anticipated effect on the port of Newhaven. I can only say that the decision to abolish intra-European Union duty-free sales was taken unanimously by the Council of Finance Ministers in 1991 as part of the single market programme. It is primarily a
  332
  fiscal matter, and not a matter for the United Kingdom in isolation but subject to unanimity among the 15 member states.
  We have said that we would not oppose any move by the Commission to set up a study into the effects of the abolition of duty-free sales. There is, however, no consensus of support among the member states for a continuation of duty-free sales, or even for a study of the impact of abolition. We are, through Customs and Excise, in discussion with UK trade interests and the Commission to explore the practicalities of implementing the successor regime after June 1999, when abolition takes effect.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing Government support for Newhaven port to the attention of the House. As I have said, more than £13 million in Government funding has been committed so far to assisting the regeneration of Newhaven, and I can assure him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of Newhaven port to the local, regional and national economy.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that many of the specific issues on which he wanted a direct commitment on my part will be covered in our White Paper on an integrated transport system. They will also be covered in the more detailed documents on regional development. He rightly raised the subject of the sale of railway land, and, from a sedentary position, I responded by referring to the "drip, drip" technique. He is well aware that, when the railways were privatised, the land deemed most essential for the future expansion of our railway system went into Railtrack's ownership—that is, the remaining lands in Railway Properties Ltd.
  All such land is advertised before sale, and the freight companies are advised of proposed sales. I understand that the piece of land that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is shortly to go out to tender, and I know that Railway Properties Ltd. has made it abundantly clear to interested parties that it is available. I well understand his argument that such land should be reserved, but I am sure that he will understand that freezing the land could have a most deleterious effect on the market for such properties, and that Railway Properties Ltd. has a duty to ensure that such sales are for the benefit of the public purse.
  Although I cannot give detailed responses to many of the pleas that the hon. Gentleman made in a most interesting speech, I assure him that the Government are fully aware of the importance of Newhaven port—as he rightly said, it is important to the economy not only locally, but regionally and nationally. I have little doubt that, when he sees our White Paper, he will be very pleased with its content.

  Western Sahara
  12.59 pm
  Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful for this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to Western Sahara, which is under Moroccan occupation. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on that sadly neglected country.

  I first became aware of the situation in Western Sahara in 1985, when I was an aid worker with the charity War on Want, the first United Kingdom organisation to provide assistance to Saharawi refugees from Western Sahara. Since then, I have followed events in the area with interest and, since I was elected to Parliament, I have had the honour to serve as chair of the all-party group on Western Sahara.
  I hope the House will forgive me if I indulge in a short history lesson and give the background to the situation, as I am sure that many people, even many hon. Members, are not fully aware of the plight of Western Sahara and the Saharawi people. That is itself a scandal, as the Moroccan invasion of Western Sahara closely mirrored the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Iraqi invasion attracted worldwide condemnation and swift international intervention, whereas the Moroccan invasion was swept under the international carpet—there was no international uproar or military force to liberate Western Sahara, although cynics may say that that was because there are no working oilfields in Western Sahara.
  Western Sahara lies on the Atlantic coast of Africa, between Mauritania and Morocco. Historically, the people who lived there—the Saharawi—were nomadic and had a life style similar to that of their Tuareg neighbours. The area was colonised by the Spanish in the 19th century and named Spanish Sahara. The indigenous people, as in most other African countries that were colonies, set up an independence movement to resist colonisation, the Polisario Front. In 1966, the United Nations General Assembly called on Spain to organise a referendum of self-determination for the people of Western Sahara. Spain organised a census in 1974, which revealed that 74,000 Saharawi people were living in the territory—that figure was supposed to serve as the basis for an electorate for the referendum, which, it was planned, would happen speedily. The road to independence seemed to be laid out.
  Morocco did not like that one bit, and laid claim to the territory. The International Court of Justice was asked to deliver an opinion on whether Morocco or Mauritania had any claim to the area; it found that there were no historic ties that could debar Spanish Sahara from decolonisation or from self-determination. Again, the way seemed clear for the Saharawi people to move forward to independence.
  In response, Morocco almost immediately invaded Western Sahara. Tens of thousands of Saharawi people fled. Women and children were bombed by Moroccan forces and napalm was used against them—it was an international scandal, but, sadly, the international community turned its face away. Around 180,000 refugees fled to southern Algeria, where they have lived in enormous camps—huge tented cities—for the past 23 years.
  The Saharawi refugees are mostly dependent on food aid administered by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Despite the dire conditions
  334
  in which they live, however, they have created a society in their camps whose rates of literacy are unparalleled in Africa. They have created a good health system and a democratic structure that ensures that women play a full part in running and managing the camps. The fact that the Saharawi people have survived those conditions for 23 years demonstrates their deep desire to secure their right to self-determination—many other groups would have packed their bags and gone home.
  For more than 20 years, the Polisario Front waged a guerrilla war against the occupying forces. It had steadfast support from the Organisation of African Unity. When, in 1985, the Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic—the state in exile—was admitted to OAU membership, Morocco promptly walked out of the organisation.
  In 1990, the United Nations—freed from the shackles of the cold war—turned its attention to Western Sahara. A peace plan was drawn up, calling for a referendum based on the 1974 Spanish census to be organised and supervised by the UN. A ceasefire between the warring parties was agreed, and, yet again, all looked set for the Saharawi people to decide whether they wanted their territory to become independent or to be part of Morocco. Sadly, eight years later, the UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara—MINURSO—is still in the area and the Saharawi people are still waiting for their referendum.
  In the intervening years, the UN has failed to enforce its peace plan for Western Sahara. I believe that the main problems have been Morocco's refusal to accept the 1974 census as the basis for the referendum, and its continual disruption of the peace process. The UN mission has faced criticism from its own members. In 1995, Ambassador Frank Ruddy, the former deputy chair of the MINURSO voter identification commission, said that, during his time in Western Sahara,
  "Morocco conducted, without a raised eyebrow from Boutros Ghali's hand picked representative who ran the referendum, a campaign of terror against the Saharan people. I had not seen anything like it since I observed the apartheid government in South Africa."
  In October 1996, Douglas Dryden, the former United States military representative to the special liaison office of MINURSO, said:
  "the atmosphere at the MINURSO force HQ in L'Ayoun is practically a siege mentality. The mission is not allowed to function independently, but as a creature of the Moroccans. It is the only UN mission that I am aware of where the flag of one of the parties"—
  he means the Moroccan flag—
  "is required to fly alongside that of the UN."
  Thankfully, the appointment of Kofi Annan seems to have galvanised the UN into action, giving it a new willingness to make a reality the Saharawi referendum for self-determination. In March 1997, Kofi Annan appointed James Baker, the former US Secretary of State, as his personal envoy to Western Sahara. James Baker moved quickly and, following meetings in London—which were facilitated, I am pleased to say, by the new Labour Government—Lisbon and Houston, Morocco and the Polisario Front agreed to a proposal on voter identification and a code of conduct guaranteeing the UN authority to oversee a fair and free referendum for the Saharawi people.
  That agreement, known as the Houston agreement, was endorsed by the UN, and, in December 1997, voter identification was under way. Once again,

  335
  the referendum seemed to be back on track. Unfortunately, however, things are not progressing smoothly—in his recent report to the UN Security Council, Kofi Annan admitted that the referendum was unlikely to take place in 1998 as planned. I believe that much of the delay is caused by the Moroccan Government's stalling tactics.
  Morocco has, for many years, been engaged in a sustained campaign of intimidation against the Saharawi people in the occupied territory. Saharawi people who call for independence have been systematically detained, tortured and subjected to extra-judicial killings. Amnesty International continues to receive reports of disappearances and torture. Morocco is also pushing for the registration of 12,000 extra voters from specific tribal groups, all of whom live in Morocco; none of them appeared in the 1974 Spanish census, which was, as I said, the agreed basis for the electorate for the referendum.
  Like many other organisations, the Labour party has long supported the right of the Saharawi people to self-determination. I welcome the role that the Government played in helping James Baker to put the peace plan back on track, and I strongly welcome the part that they have played as president of the Friends of Western Sahara Group at the UN Security Council. I now welcome the chance to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to some questions, whose resolution would, I believe, strongly help the peace process to move forward fairly and speedily. I believe that the British Government can play a dynamic role in moving the peace process to a free and fair referendum and in ensuring that both parties in the dispute keep to the spirit of the Houston agreement.
  I understand that the Minister recently visited Morocco, and I should be interested to hear how his discussions with Moroccan Ministers went. In line with our ethical foreign policy, I should particularly like to know whether he has raised the issue of Morocco's continued human rights abuses against the Saharawi people—the arbitrary detentions and torture—with the Moroccan Government. I understand that our Government's position is one of positive engagement with countries with poor human rights records such as China and Indonesia, and I hope that we have been consistent with that in respect of Morocco's poor human rights record. I should also like to know what plans my hon. Friend has to meet representatives of the Polisario Front in order to obtain a balanced view of the current situation in Western Sahara.
  My hon. Friend is also aware that, at the beginning of the UN peace plan, the United Kingdom provided personnel to MINURSO, but, for some time now, we have had no presence. We are the only one of the permanent five countries on the UN Security Council not to be providing military or civilian personnel. I feel quite ashamed, given our long-term support for the peace process, that we are not providing that support. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some encouraging news on that.
  I also hope that we shall send a United Kingdom delegation of election monitors to cover the run-up to the referendum and the referendum in Western Sahara. As a former election monitor in Albania for the United Kingdom Government, I know how important that is.
  336
  Finally, I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that we shall continue to do all we can to ensure that a free and fair referendum happens speedily for the Saharawi people. They have waited long enough. I am sure that the British Government will never allow strategic interests and EU trade negotiations to muddy our view of the justice of the issue. The parallels between the invasion of Western Sahara by Morocco and the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq are indisputable. I sincerely hope that the Government will be as tough in their dealings with Morocco, in persuading her to abide by UN resolutions and international law, as they were with the Iraqi regime. The Saharawi people deserve nothing less from a Labour Government.
  1.11 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham) for the way in which she introduced the debate. We all know of her long-term interest in and keen commitment to the issue, and I am grateful for her opening comments.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of questions, and I shall try to answer them fully. She gave us a useful background to the current situation. I shall repeat some of the points she made in the context of my response, but not in any sense to deny the historical background that she set out.
  My hon. Friend asked about the Government's policy towards Western Sahara. It is very simple: we seek a just and lasting settlement and we support the United Nations' efforts to bring one about. We want to see a clean, fair and transparent referendum that will give the people of the territory the opportunity to decide whether their future lies with Morocco or as an independent state.
  Our commitment to do all that we can to help underlies our support for the United Nations Secretary-General, his personal envoy James Baker and his special representative Charles Dunbar. We have also used our presidency of the European Union to bring the on-going developments in Western Sahara into sharper focus. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that we have played and will continue to play a positive role.
  My hon. Friend rightly said that the dispute in Western Sahara has lasted too long and needs to be brought to a swift, mutually acceptable conclusion. We welcomed the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan' s appointment just over a year ago of James Baker as his personal envoy to Western Sahara. That was an important step forward. As hon. Members will know, James Baker was charged with the task of assessing the situation and considering whether the United Nations' settlement plan for Western Sahara, which at the time had been stalled for more than a year, could be fully implemented.
  James Baker visited the region and decided that, if he was to make any progress, he would have to bring together the parties to the dispute—Morocco and the Polisario—for talks. When he asked the British Government whether we would be able to assist him in his first steps towards achieving that, we were, of course, pleased to help. We provided a suitable venue and logistical support for meetings that he wanted to hold with Morocco, the Polisario, Algeria and Mauritania. I am delighted that we were able to assist in that way, and I can tell my hon. Friend that James Baker was delighted with the support he received from the United Kingdom Labour Government.

  337
  The two days of talks that followed, in summer 1997, concluded with Morocco and the Polisario taking the landmark decision to meet face to face, under United Nations auspices, in an attempt to iron out their differences. I hope that, along with James Baker, we can take some credit for that progress. There followed a series of meetings to which my hon. Friend referred—some in London and some in Lisbon—which made valuable progress. In particular, the talks quickly established that both Morocco and the Polisario had no interest in pursuing any political solution other than implementation of the settlement plan. Neither party showed any enthusiasm for any kind of autonomy for the people of the territory within the kingdom of Morocco.
  Differences over how the eligibility of individuals to vote might be assessed remained—and remains—the key issue. When they were resolved at the final session of talks in Houston, the Moroccan authorities and the Polisario signed what is now termed the Houston agreement, to which my hon. Friend referred. It included a code of conduct for the referendum. The Secretary-General's report of 13 November 1997 set out the plan and timetable for the referendum, which is scheduled for 7 December 1998.
  I hope that I have been able to persuade the House that the Government have been active in respect of Western Sahara. Let me set out some further initiatives and responsibilities that we have pursued. Whenever Western Sahara is discussed at the United Nations, we firmly support the United Nations Secretary-General and his personal envoy. We are also responsible for co-ordinating the Friends of Western Sahara Group at the United Nations. We therefore have played, and will continue to play, a central role in New York and elsewhere.
  Although we are conscious that Western Sahara is inevitably an agenda item on which the United Nations has the lead, we have sought to raise its standing within the European Union. During our presidency of the European Union, we have ensured that Western Sahara regularly features on the agenda at the monthly Maghreb-Mashreq working group meetings in Brussels. I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pleased about that. I am sure that many others will be, too.
  As a result of one United Kingdom initiative, the European Union heads of mission in Rabat are now permitted to visit Western Sahara to see things for themselves, whereas previously visiting was restricted to junior members of embassy staff. We believe that not only visits but the level of those visits is important. Additionally, we know that many of our European partners do not enjoy the range of information on events in Western Sahara that we possess, so we have circulated comprehensive reports from our ambassador in Rabat.

  We were pleased that the United Nations Secretary-General was able to put together a timetable for the run-up to the referendum so quickly, and that MINURSO in Western Sahara was able to recommence the voter identification process at the beginning of December last year. That has continued, with few interruptions.
  It is very encouraging to note—I shall come to my hon. Friend's points—that the United Nations Secretary-General's report of 13 April 1998 included the 60,112 applicants identified during the first phase of the identification process, which ran from August 1994 to
  338
  December 1995. More than 100,000 have been identified as potential voters, and fewer than 60,000 remain to be convoked.
  Since the identification process resumed, British Government officials have made three separate visits to Laayoune in Western Sahara, where MINURSO is based. We also try to visit Tindouf, the Algerian town around which the Polisario camps lie, as often as possible. Unfortunately, the logistical difficulties are such that our last visit to Western Sahara, outside Laayoune, was in September 1997, when officials visited Tindouf, the MINURSO team site at Mehaires and Smara. They travelled from Mehaires through minefields and across the Berm to Smara, and saw for themselves the terrain and conditions that have hindered the work of the United Nations for so long. That is an indication of many of the problems and difficulties resulting from the fighting in the region.
  I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that British officials are undertaking another visit to Western Sahara at this very moment. I should like to take this opportunity to reiterate our gratitude to the United Nations for its assistance with these visits. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that on the ground, through our embassy and other staff, we are active in finding out what the conditions are within Western Sahara.
  I also believe that practical demonstrations of support, such as visits, are vital for MINURSO. They not only provide a visible and much appreciated sign of our support, but help us to understand the conditions that it has to work under and the difficulties that it has to face. We are also keen to take every possible opportunity to improve our knowledge and understanding of developments in the territory itself. I know from the many letters we receive in the Foreign Office that there is great interest in the United Kingdom in what is going on in Western Sahara. Indeed, I am delighted to see so many of my hon. Friends in the Chamber for the debate. Yet again, there is not one Opposition Back Bencher here—but we are becoming accustomed to that.
  We are told of allegations of human rights abuses, the manipulation of the press, demonstrations and disturbances. The United Nations independent jurist, Professor Rocounas, is engaged in those issues, and we support him in his work. Our regular visits offer us the ideal opportunity to find out from those on the spot what is really happening. I know that those visits are important for MINURSO morale, and they underline, in a practical way, our continuing commitment to the successful resolution of the dispute.
  It has been said by some that, if the UN process stalls again, for whatever reason, Morocco would not be too bothered—it would continue to inhabit the towns west of the Berm, much as it has done since the Spanish, and latterly the Mauritanians, withdrew from the territory. I do not believe that that is what the Moroccans want. Nor is it in Morocco's interests for the sovereignty of Western Sahara to remain unresolved. My hon. Friend asked about my recent visit to Morocco. I reassure her that the issue of Western Sahara was a key element in my discussions with the king, the Prime Minister and other Ministers. Our commitment to a resolution of the issue and to the United Nations position was stressed during all those meetings.

  339
  There are also some who argue that MINURSO is biased; that it is somehow pro the Polisario and anti-Moroccan. We believe otherwise. MINURSO has proved its value and its integrity, and we shall continue to hold that view unless there is any available evidence to the contrary. At the moment, there is none.
  My hon. Friend asked me about the possibility of UK Government contacts with the Polisario. As she knows, I was due to meet the Secretary General of the Polisario, Mohamed Abdelaziz, this morning. I understand that Mr. Abdelaziz is in London for this week. Unfortunately, because of other diary commitments, it was not possible for me to have that meeting. I assure my hon. Friend that it is important that Britain, as a key player in Europe, in the region, at the Security Council and in the Friends of Western Sahara Group in New York, should know what is really happening at this crucial time for Western Sahara. We shall seek that information from all possible sources.
  There seems to be some difficulty in arranging meetings with Mohamed Abdelaziz. I understand that my predecessor, Jeremy Hanley, arranged to meet him in north Africa early in 1997, but Mr. Abdelaziz had to pull out of that meeting. We may be fated not to meet. However, I again assure my hon. Friend that we shall seek information from all the key players in the process.
  I reiterate to the House our continued determination to see the Western Sahara dispute resolved through the referendum. Britain takes no position on the outcome, and we will not alter that stance. We neither support the Moroccan claim to sovereignty over the territory, nor recognise the Polisario's self-proclaimed Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic. Indeed, my hon. Friend would not wish me to take any other position. Her argument is that the matter is one for self-determination by the people. We support the United Nations, and we want to see the dispute resolved peacefully. Morocco and the Polisario have agreed to put the matter to a free vote. We shall do all we can to make sure that there is a vote and that it is free and fair. We shall do all we can to help implement whatever decision the people make.
  In February this year, I was pleased to be able to meet the United Nations Secretary-General's newly appointed special representative to Western Sahara, Mr. Charles Dunbar. Mr. Dunbar is a former US ambassador who has worked extensively in the region. I know from reports received that he has been extremely active in his efforts.
  340
  He has been admirably and effectively supported by Mr. Robin Kinloch, the British UN staff member who heads the identification commission. My hon. Friend asked about the British role. Robin Kinloch is a key element in the resources that we make available.
  I pointed out earlier the progress made on the identification of the non-contested applicants who wish to be assessed as to their qualification as voters in the referendum. As my hon. Friend and others will be aware, there are about 65,000 individuals whose eligibility to submit themselves to MINURSO for interview remains to be confirmed. That is a key issue, to which my hon. Friend referred. Now is not the time or the opportunity for me to go into the problem of the contested tribes in depth. However, in brief, Morocco believes that the members of those tribes should all have the opportunity to submit themselves for identification as voters. The Polisario believes that to do so would be contrary to the Houston agreement. It is clear that both parties see the issue as of paramount importance. We agree that a successful resolution in regard to Western Sahara requires the settlement of the dispute over those tribal groups. If there is any way in which we can assist in that process, we shall be happy to do so.
  All applicants in Western Sahara, including those from the contested tribal groups, have been convoked to attend one of the UN identification centres. Those who attend are interviewed by MINURSO staff and representatives of the Polisario and Morocco. Their eligibility for registration is assessed under UN criteria. On the dates on which the 65,000 members of the contested tribes were invited to attend for identification, only 4,000 came forward. Only 1,500 have been interviewed. I regret that the Moroccans have refused to participate in interviewing the remaining 2,500 until they have received satisfactory assurances from the United Nations about how remaining members of those tribes will be dealt with. Charles Dunbar is working hard on that issue, which is crucial to the resolution of the problem, and we shall continue to assist in whatever way we can.
  I hope that I have been able to answer the points raised by my hon. Friend, and to assure her that we are active on this matter and are looking for a peaceful solution through the referendum process. If the United Kingdom can assist the UN in any way to resolve this long-standing issue, we will be keen to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising an issue of such importance, and we look forward to the existence of a map of north Africa without this dispute.

  Community Hospitals (Oxfordshire)
  1.30 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am delighted to open a timely debate on the crisis—that is not too strong a word—that affects our health service. Community hospitals are particularly under threat, and not only hospitals but community beds. Abingdon community hospital in my constituency, and the hospitals at Burford, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward), at Wantage, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson), and at Watlington, in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), are all at risk. Although none of those right hon. and hon. Members is present, I know that they feel strongly about the potential closures of those hospitals.
  The closures faced by the people of Oxfordshire are caused by chronic underfunding of the health service and the acute financial crisis facing the health service this year, both of which are particular problems for Oxfordshire. It would be a false economy—bad not only for patients, but for financial reasons—to close community hospital beds in the way proposed. I plead with the Minister to intervene, even at this stage, because community hospital beds are threatened throughout the country. I ask him to ensure that extra money allocated this year is used not only to provide adequate community services for patients, but to avoid false economies and thereby to release cash for the health service.
  The overall funding problem in the NHS has been well stated by the Liberal Democrats over the years. The NHS is chronically underfunded, to the tune of several billion pounds. Government leaks to the press confirm that sort of figure. The Daily Telegraph this morning says that the Department of Health will put in a megabid to the Treasury of around £8 billion. I do not know whether the Government will confirm that figure, but the British Medical Association and others who work in the field recognise that the NHS is chronically underfunded to around that sum.
  On top of that, the health service, where the staff have to work hard just to keep it afloat, needs real-terms increases of about 3 per cent. a year to cope with NHS inflation, over and above retail price index rises. The Conservative Government wasted money on bureaucracy and the internal market, but they still managed to average 3.1 per cent. over their period in office, although it came in fits and starts. By adopting Conservative spending plans, the new Government have, sadly, managed real-terms spending increases of only 2.2 per cent. in the NHS budget for England in 1997–98 and 1998–99. That is not sufficient to keep the NHS going without cuts in services. We have seen the pressure on waiting lists. It is not so obvious in community hospitals, where there is no obvious proxy such as waiting list numbers or waiting times, but the pressure is there. It is also on mental health services.
  It is fair to say that the Labour manifesto promised a real-terms increase of only 0.1 per cent. or less. However, the Government have revised that upwards, and have claimed that Labour is the only party able to revise its pledges upwards. They have done that not by allocating new money, but by using money initially allocated in other areas, such as the Department of Trade and
  342
  Industry's underspend in 1997–98 for the £270 million allocated for winter pressures, and £1.2 billion from the Treasury reserve for this year. That is not new money. It is hard to believe that only a Labour Chancellor would spend that money from the reserve on the health service, while a Liberal Democrat or Conservative Chancellor would merely burn it on a bonfire.
  An increase of only 2.2 per cent. is not enough to prevent pressures on waiting lists and other services. At the general election, I made it clear to the people of Oxfordshire, who were already worried about their community hospitals, that the Liberal Democrats would match existing resources, including the reserve and underspends, and, in addition, would give £550 million per year in new money raised by increasing tax revenues.
  The extra money from the Government is based on old inflation figures, not the new figures that they found when they took office. In real terms, the money allocated in 1997–98 and—without including the allocation from the reserve, which all parties would have made—for 1998£99 is less than the Conservatives planned. More important, it is less than health authority finance bosses figured would come from a Government elected on the platform that there were "14 days to save the NHS" and "things can only get better". On community hospitals, and on waiting lists, things have only got worse.
  It is important to nail the myth that the Government have offered more money than the Liberal Democrats promised at the election. They have offered significantly less. It is embarrassing for the Government that the money for community hospital services and other NHS services is less even than the amount that the Conservatives planned to spend in real terms.
  Health authorities such as Oxfordshire face a bill for millennium compliance, for which there is no separate funding allocation. They face initiatives, on pain of sanction, to reduce waiting lists. They face those things with a level of overall increased funding—including the new £500 million announced this year, which is still less than 3 per cent. more in real terms—that is likely to increase waiting times.
  Oxfordshire is particularly badly affected, as it is significantly below its target funding. It got a little more than the average allocation, but that was nowhere near the 3 per cent. minimum increase required. All trusts in Oxfordshire are in recovery plan mode, except the community hospital trust, which still faces cuts. As all the trusts face cuts, the health authority cannot be accused of picking on the community hospital trust. It is seeking even bigger cuts from the bigger budgets of the area's acute trusts.
  It is hard to say what makes me and the people of Oxford, West and Abingdon more angry. Is it the raised expectations that were dashed after the Government said that "things can only get better"? Is it the stance of Conservative Members, who blame the Government for underfunding the NHS although the Government are merely adopting Conservative spending plans?
  Is it premature for the health authority to agree a three-year or four-year funding cut, including closure of community hospitals and community hospital beds, at a time when the new structure of the health authority will, at least in the medium term, move such decisions to primary care groups? They are keen to be given a chance to take a view on whether those cuts should happen, or

  343
  whether, when they get the budget in one or two years, time, another way can be found to make the savings that the Government are forcing on them.
  Given that Oxfordshire's problems result from the Government's underfunding of the health service, and given that cuts must be made, there is a question of whether those are the most appropriate cuts. They will affect local services that are delivered to people near their homes. Oxfordshire has rural areas, in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Witney, who is now here, in which transport is difficult. The requirement for community hospital beds to be locally available to people and to their general practitioners is vital to better care. The community hospitals uniquely offer what I have called—in a separate debate on community care with the Under-Secretary of State for Health—the three Rs of NHS community care.
  The first is rehabilitation, which allows, for patients who need it, enough time for active physiotherapy before they are discharged to home care. Instead, too often, they are discharged to a nursing home or residential home care because there is no time for the active rehabilitation that would enable them to return to their homes. Most patients would rather be at home and, in many cases, although not all, that provides a cheaper package of care for the local social services, particularly if the patients do not have their own funding.
  The second of the three Rs is recuperation. It is vital that patients are given a chance to recuperate from operations or acute emergency admissions—perhaps for serious illnesses such as pneumonia—in their own time. If they are rushed back into the community, an extra work load is placed on community services, which are already underfunded. When patients are discharged from acute hospitals too early and a community hospital is not available to help them recover in their own time, the work load falls on social services. Alternatively—this is just as bad—the acute hospital cannot discharge the patient because of the lack of services available to pick up the care. That causes an increase in delayed discharges, which are already high in Oxfordshire. A lack of recuperation beds is not only bad for patients: it is financially bad.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, we have three community hospitals? The first, at Burford, certainly faces closure under Oxfordshire health authority's plan. The second faces a 25 per cent. cut in the number of beds and the third faces further cuts. Thus, all three hospitals face either closure or dramatic cuts in beds. In the light of what my hon. Friend has been saying, does he feel that savings could be made by reducing the huge number of trusts in Oxfordshire to free up funds that would prevent dramatic cuts, not only in my constituency but in his and others in Oxfordshire?
  Dr. Harris: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I remind him that I am his hon. Friend only in that I seek to preserve community services. Given the Conservative funding that undermined the health service before the current cuts, I could not describe myself as his friend.
  I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that his constituency hospitals are particularly badly hit, although the scale of the underfunding in Oxfordshire is such that
  344
  even radical trust mergers would not release sufficient management savings to provide the necessary funding to preserve those hospitals. That approach could be considered, however, as Oxfordshire has too many trusts. The Liberal Democrats have never opposed trust mergers. We feel that the issue of losing separate trust status is far less important than the loss of services.
  The third R that community hospitals provide for local patients is respite care. If community beds are cut, patients will have less opportunity for respite care. That could mean extra admissions to acute hospitals when patients and their carers cannot cope at home for long periods. General practitioners use community hospitals as an alternative to acute hospital admission. The Government have considered it useful to fund that with their "winter pressures" money, with hospital-at-home schemes as an alternative to admission. I would argue that community hospitals are large-scale hospital-at-home schemes and are an alternative to expensive or inappropriate acute hospital admission.
  Social services in Oxfordshire are badly affected by Government spending cuts. They have not benefited from a release from the reserve or from special money. I remind the Minister that the total social services standard spending assessment has, according to House of Commons Library figures, been cut by 1.4 per cent. in real terms in 1997–98 and by 1.1 per cent. in real terms in 1998–99, even before demographic pressures are taken into account.
  Social services are simply unable to take up the extra work load that will be put on them as a result of hospital closures and reductions in community hospital beds. Therefore, I fear that the biggest work load will fall on acute hospitals. As has been predicted not only by me but by Lord Walton of Detchant, a local resident of Oxfordshire and an acknowledged expert on those matters, there will be a massive increase in delayed discharges and in admissions to hospital of people who could otherwise be managed at home or in a community hospital.
  That makes no financial sense, because it is twice as expensive to keep people in acute hospital beds than it is to look after them in community hospital beds. It is certainly more expensive to the state to send patients without their own funding to a social services-funded nursing home than it would be, in the long term, to give them the rehabilitation that they may need in a community hospital.
  As the matter is still out to consultation, I understand that the Minister will not be able to give his view, or even his likely view, on his decision on the proposal to close those community hospitals and beds. However, does he consider it reasonable for the local health authority and the NHS regional office to look carefully at whether the extra £65 million announced nationally, specifically for community and mental health services out of the extra £500 million announced for the NHS this year could be used profitably as a cash-releasing measure to avoid the false economy of increasing the number of delayed discharges? If he looks, as I suspect that he will have to in due course when the measure comes before him, at the consultation document issued by the health authority, he will notice that that question is not even addressed.

  345
  The question of whether the number of delayed discharges and admissions of patients who would otherwise be treated in community hospitals would increase was glossed over in the section on the effects on other acute trusts. Already, we read in the local newspapers today and yesterday that the Oxford Radcliffe hospital trust must close wards because it cannot provide enough staff to keep them open. Will it not result in double trouble for the Government's waiting list initiative if wards are closed to new admissions not only because of staff shortages but because of delayed discharges?
  There is a good case for allocating the money given to the Oxford and Anglia region not on a weighted capitation allocation basis—that would be an unthinking way of proceeding—but as a cash-releasing measure to provide the resources that Oxfordshire needs to expand its services so that local people begin to see improvements. The Oxfordshire social services settlement suffered not only from an overall real-terms cut in the past two years, despite increased demography, but from a savage cut of 10 per cent. in its SSA for elderly residential care because of formula changes.
  No reasonable explanation has been given to Oxfordshire county council why the Labour Government think that it suddenly costs 10 per cent. less to keep elderly people in residential accommodation. It is also hard to understand how local social services, which interlink crucially with community hospitals, can be rescued from such a huge cut in their resources.
  Oxfordshire has suffered particularly badly under the Government's spending plans, which owe much to those that they adopted—unnecessarily, the Liberal Democrats believe—after the last election. There is therefore a strong case for providing the limited extra money that the Government allocated to Oxford and Anglia regional health authority to Oxfordshire health authority specifically to avoid cuts in community hospitals and in mental health services in Oxfordshire. Otherwise, those cuts will be bad, not only for the finances of the health authority, but for patients across Oxfordshire.
  1.48 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate. This is an important issue, as community hospitals can be a valuable part of the local health service in many parts of the country. I know that there are real concerns not just in the hon. Gentleman's constituency but in the constituency of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) about the health authority's proposals.
  I should say at the outset that there is no single national blueprint for the configuration of services that will suit all localities. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises, all localities are different and, in some cases, community hospitals may not be the best way of delivering local services. It is the job of health authorities and NHS trusts to ensure that local services are matched to local need.
  The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the Government's position on the future of Oxfordshire's community hospitals. If a local community health council objects to the health authority's proposals, the matters will be referred to Ministers. Until then, we must remain impartial about any future decision.
  The public consultation on the proposals to reshape community services in the county began on 4 April. Public meetings have now been held in all 11 towns that
  346
  have community hospitals. I understand that the health authority has circulated more than 5,000 consultation documents and 10,000 summary documents. I urge all hon. Members and members of the public who are concerned about the issue to submit their views to the health authority. The whole point of having a consultation is for the health authority to ascertain the views of local people and interested parties. I can tell the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Witney that, if the issue is referred to Ministers, we shall listen carefully to what they and local people have to say.
  Two options are being considered by the health authority and the NHS trust. Both options would mean that the 12-bed hospital at Bicester would be replaced by a new 30-bed hospital and a new minor injuries unit would be developed for Witney. To achieve that, the first option would involve closing Burford and Watlington hospitals and reducing the number of beds at five of the other community hospitals. The second option would also involve closing Burford hospital, and the wards and day hospital at Wallingford, and reducing the number of beds at four of the other community hospitals. Under that proposal, a new day hospital would be developed at Didcot, and there would be an increase in beds at Watlington. The health authority claims that, with both options, the aim is to reduce bed numbers in areas where there is relatively generous provision and to increase bed numbers where there is a greater need.
  Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the pros and cons of the options while the consultation is still going on.
  Mr. Woodward: The Minister said that both options include the proposal to close Burford hospital. It may help him to know that the hospital has an average annual occupancy of over 90 per cent. If Burford were to close, the nearest available community hospital would be at Witney, which has 61 beds. It is proposed to close about 25 per cent. of the beds at Witney. When I was there a few weeks ago, there was only one empty bed, and the hospital's average occupancy was also over 90 per cent. As the acute hospital, John Radcliffe, has spent many months of this year on red alert, not only will be there be no community bed provision, but there will be no acute bed provision. That makes nonsense of the NHS White Paper's support for local provision, because there will be no provision for such patients in west Oxfordshire.
  Mr. Milburn: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that, if the health authority's proposals come to Ministers, they will of course be judged in the context of the White Paper. However, I understand that the health authority claims that the proposals, which are fully supported by the community health trust, aim to tackle fairness of access to services. Our White Paper clearly states that there should be an end to unfairness and that high standards should be available to all patients. I expect that the hon. Members for Witney and for Oxford, West and Abingdon would support that principle. I understand that, even without any financial pressures, the health authority and the NHS trust believe that change would have to be made to ensure a fairer distribution of health care in the county.
  The health authority has stated that there are considerably more community hospital beds for people aged over 65 in the south and west of the county than in the north. Clearly, those are difficult issues, which will

  347
  need to be considered carefully. As I said, they will be considered within the policy context of our White Paper, "The New NHS". There is no doubt that community hospitals will be part of our vision for the NHS. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon rightly said, nobody benefits if people are admitted to hospital unnecessarily or are kept in acute hospitals longer than necessary. Waiting lists get longer and hospital services become stretched to the limit.
  Much work is being done to provide imaginative alternatives to traditional rehabilitation and recuperation services which meet patients' needs. However, we need to ensure that access to such services is dependent not on where patients live but on meeting their needs. Again, if proposals come to Ministers, we shall judge them in the context of that principle.
  We currently do not have enough evidence to stipulate whether intermediate care should be provided through community hospitals or in the patient's home. There is a need for better evaluation as models of care develop. In particular, the health authority will need to consider how community hospitals best fit in with acute hospitals and other community facilities to ensure the best balance of emergency, planned and rehabilitation care.
  Dr. Peter Brand: The Minister has highlighted the national importance of having a policy for community hospitals. Would it not would be a great shame if the hospitals that he has mentioned—which I visited recently—were to close and the opportunity to use the set-up in Oxfordshire as a national pilot for a more integrated health service were lost?
  Mr. Milburn: As I said, first, there is no uniform community hospital and, secondly, local needs vary according to local circumstances. That is why the health authority and the NHS trusts concerned must be clear about the relationship between community hospitals, acute care, primary care and other NHS services. That is for the health authority to determine following consultation. There is no single national blueprint. If we tried to impose one, the national health service would not best meet local patients' needs, and we want to avoid that result at all costs.
  No part of the national health service stands alone. Clinicians, other members of staff and, increasingly, patients have reached that understanding over the past few years. The NHS is an interconnected system. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is right, and we want more integrated forms of care in future so that patients who need access to hospital services, and, equally, to primary care, rehabilitation and social services, have a greater continuum of care than in the past. In some parts of the country, community hospitals will provide a vital role in providing that form of integrated care, but that is a matter for local determination.
  That brings me—sadly, because the debate had been going well—to money. I say to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that the Liberal Democrats
  348
  are playing a tired old record. Time and again, we hear fantasy figures conjured out of thin air. The facts are straightforward: the Government have allocated an extra £2,000 million to the national health service on top of the allocations planned by the previous Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am grateful for the support for that proposition from the Liberal Democrat Benches, where there is at last a glimmer of reality.
  I remind the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon that it is important that all hon. Members remember what we promised the electorate at the general election. We promised real-terms increases in funding for the national health service, and we are delivering them. The Liberal Democrats promised increased investment of £540 million per annum. That was generous, but we have doubled that. Now the hon. Gentleman is crying crocodile tears and trying to leapfrog the Government's additional investment in the NHS.
  I make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we recognise that Oxfordshire has particular problems. That is why we have allocated an extra £2.8 million to help with the strategic changes taking place in the county. That is why more money was given to Oxfordshire to help with winter pressures than to any other county in the region. That is why, since we came to power on 1 May last year, we have allocated to the health service in the county £20 million more than the previous Government were planning. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.
  Dr. Harris: It is necessary to point out, for the record, that the cheers for the Minister's statement came from Labour Members—including the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—sitting in Liberal Democrat seats, who are queueing for Gallery tickets. Clearly, the Liberal Democrats would spend more in real terms than the Government, and for the Government to ignore inflation is to ignore reality for patients in Oxfordshire.
  Finally, does the Minister agree that it would not be unreasonable for the local NHS executive to make specific cash releasing allocations of extra money to prevent false economies?
  Mr. Milburn: That is an extremely good point. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, £65 million was made available for the waiting list initiative and to improve primary, community, mental health and social services. I expect that the region will take account of local circumstances in determining how best to allocate that money for the maximum benefit of patients.
  We all want a modern national health service. There is no doubt that community hospitals will have a role to play in some areas. If the matter comes before Ministers, I can assure the hon. Gentleman—
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Multinational Companies (Business Practices)
    Mr. Michael Clapham: What discussions she has had with United Kingdom-based multinationals about their business practices in relation to overseas projects. [42497]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I have had many discussions with multinational companies about their investment and trading practices. We have discussed the growing ethical consumer movements, and their focus on core labour and environmental standards.
    I have also discussed the welcome support of the major pharmaceutical companies for the roll back malaria initiative. I have had many discussions on the interest of developing countries in attracting beneficial investments, and the interest of companies in supporting development. My Department is consulting widely with the private sector on how we can be best work together to promote those objectives.
    Mr. Clapham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but may I tell her that on 13 May, the day on which Rio Tinto, the largest mining company in the world, held its annual general meeting, the International Union of Chemical, Energy and General Workers published a booklet entitled "Rio Tinto: Tainted Titan", and held a stakeholders' meeting to draw attention to the fact that the company had shown disregard for human rights and for the environment? I agree that it is now addressing those issues, but will my right hon. Friend continue to press to ensure that multinational companies exercise the best practices and have regard for human rights and for the environment?
    Clare Short: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that undertaking, but there is definitely a new mood among multinational companies. They are seeking meetings with my Department and, one by one, they are making commitments to human rights and to monitoring their performance overseas. There is a real sea change, and if we encourage that, we could improve standards of protection of the environment and core labour standards across the world. It is an important opportunity.
    Rio Tinto had a bad reputation, but it seems to be working to change. I recently gave out the World Aware awards, and the company won one. I was visited by missionaries who had been working in the Philippines and who were critical of the company's record. I arranged that they should meet, but, apparently, Rio Tinto is not in the Philippines any more. All of us, including my hon. Friend, should meet Rio Tinto and get behind those improvements in performance, because they are beneficial to everyone.
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: Can the Secretary of State confirm that her conversations also cover behaviour such as marketing vigorously in overseas
    350
    countries goods that have been banned or found to be dangerous in this country? Will she look at the record of the tobacco companies that flog cigarettes vigorously overseas as they are unable to flog them here, because we understand the dangers? Will she also consider countries that still promote tinned and powdered milk, when everyone believes that maternal milk is infinitely better for children?
    Clare Short: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to look at any issue, but I do not pretend to have invincible power to cause multinational capital suddenly to take on the standards that he advocates. We have all been campaigning to get rid of irresponsible baby milk advertising, which is so destructive. I confess that I have never looked into the tobacco issue in detail, but I am aware of it from press coverage. I will take a look at it.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the remarks of Adair Turner, from the Confederation of British Industry, in favour of international action to combat bribery in international trade? That is a change of position for the CBI. Given my right hon. Friend's support in the White Paper for action to implement the convention of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on combating international bribery, will she or her Government colleagues be introducing legislation to tackle the problem?
    Clare Short: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. We have a great opportunity, because the OECD has called for companies from industrialised countries to clean up their act, for Governments to cease the practice of allowing bribes in overseas countries to be tax-deductible—it is disgraceful that they ever were tax-deductible—and for it to be made a crime to offer a bribe to a public official overseas. I am keen for Britain and other countries to embrace this opportunity, especially when Governments of developing countries, particularly in Africa, are giving a lead and are taking steps at home. There is no doubt that corruption hurts the poor. We are considering legislation, and I am hopeful that Britain will take a lead.

    Sudan
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If she will make a statement on the current provision of aid to Sudan. [42499]
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If she will make a statement on her Department's aid programmes to the people of southern Sudan. [42500]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I am happy to say that, since my statement to the House on 28 April, the Government of Sudan, partly due to the pressure of international public opinion, have gradually improved access to the worst-affected areas, particularly in Bahr El Ghazal. I approved further British contributions during May totalling £6.23 million, which brings our overall assistance to Sudan since February to £10.23 million. The European Union General Affairs Council on 25 May

    351
    again called for a ceasefire for humanitarian purposes, which remains the most urgent requirement. Unfortunately, the Sudan People's Liberation Army has refused to consider that request. A recent mission by an official of my Department reported that access remained a problem, despite the fact that we had been given assurances that it was now adequate, and that feeding standards for children were too low and were below international standards.
    Mr. Kirkwood: It is self-evident that the problems of delivering aid to southern Sudan are politically complex. The Secretary of State has been bedevilled by the problem of access. In today's edition of The Times, she rehearses some of her worries about fundraising by aid agencies, particularly the Red Cross. Will she confirm that her reported remarks should not be interpreted as the Government saying that fundraising is not necessary to deliver help to the needy of southern Sudan?
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that no one should believe what they read in The Times. The little man involved wanted to put an aggressive slant on an important issue of public discussion. The truth is that Sudan does not need public appeals. I have guaranteed that funds would be provided, and so did other Governments. The problem is complex. We must be able to provide the money rapidly and get the food delivered when we have the opportunity. There is no shortage of resources for food, but the international community must continue to put pressure on the Government of Sudan—it has already had some effect—and on the southern factions. Ideally, there should be a ceasefire so that a trainload of food can get to everyone who needs it in that large area.
    Many of the non-governmental organisations are doing wonderful work on the ground delivering food to the people. I regret the public appeal. The NGOs were divided in their view, because such appeals confuse the message about the nature of the problem. Good people in our country think that there is a shortage of money. That is not the problem: it is the politicians on both sides of the conflict who deliberately prevent access and cause people to starve.
    Mr. Winterton: Although I accept that more food is needed for the very deprived people of Sudan, especially southern Sudan, and that access is one of the main causes of the delay in getting the food to them, I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is the continuing civil war between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Army that has created the major elements of the problem. What fresh initiatives will be taken to bring both parties in the civil war to the table and to negotiate the establishment of a forum or agency that can bring the suffering of these extraordinary people to an end? We are all impressed by the passive way in which they are prepared to accept their lot.
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; it is a humanitarian disaster. Many such disasters have already occurred, and more will come.
    This disaster is a direct result of the war. The area where the famine is has been fought over by a faction that changed sides; consequently, people have been displaced and crops uprooted. The famine has been compounded by
    352
    the fact that the Sudan Government would not allow us access, and by the fact that, now that they have, the southern factions will not allow a ceasefire. It is our duty to provide humanitarian relief, but we shall not solve the problem in that way.
    We have done our best to send a message during the crisis—a message from all the people of the world who are concerned. The Sudan Government changed their position: they allowed more access and offered a ceasefire. The southern factions, however, have not responded. Following my statement in the House, we put pressure on both sides in our European Union presidency role. The Governments of the surrounding countries—comprising the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, or IGAD—are trying to broker peace talks; the last round did not lead far, but further talks will take place in July or August, hosted by Johannes Pronk, the Netherlands Minister for Development Co-operation.
    The whole international community must put pressure on both sides. No side can win the war by fighting: if the fighting continues, the people of Sudan will continue to suffer. We must do all we can to call for a ceasefire and a reasonable settlement.
    Ann Clwyd: There seems to be a difference of opinion about whether money is needed. The United Nations said today that it needed US$109 million to deal immediately with the humanitarian crisis. As Governments have committed only 20 per cent. of that so far, and as only 7.2 per cent. has been paid, there is clearly a shortage of money. Can we do anything to help?
    Clare Short: I assure my hon. Friend that there is no problem of money or food. The trouble is that, in the humanitarian aid business, there is competition over who is in the headlines and who is raising the money, and that gets in the way of the true message. Operation Lifeline Sudan—which, as my hon. Friend knows, is headed by the United Nations—tells us that the Sudan Government have improved access, and that there is enough food. As I have said, an official from my Department has come back and told us that that view is too optimistic, but, as I have also said, we will continue to provide the necessary funds. The EU is about to disburse a considerable amount.
    I insist on this point first because it is true, but also because we must not muddle the message to the public. I ask the public to use all their influence to put pressure for a ceasefire on both sides. We will deliver the money: there is no shortage of money, and anyone who suggests that there is misleads the public.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We understand that there is no shortage of money in some places. However, although I agree that the Sudan People's Liberation Army ought to call a ceasefire, does the Secretary of State not accept that, at a time when the National Islamic Front, with its cohorts, invades four counties containing about 2 million people—scattering and butchering them in an attempt to maintain control of an area that may produce oil—there is something wrong with the balance, given that it claims that it is giving humanitarian aid on the airstrips?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Sudan Government have done many undesirable

    353
    things, but deep, dreadful and monstrous wrongs have been done by all sides in the civil war. I do not think that anyone should line up with one side or the other. The people of Sudan desperately need a ceasefire and a peace settlement, securing the rights of people in all parts of the country. No one will win through the war; the suffering will go on, and those with any feeling for any of the people of Sudan must use all their influence to secure peace.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to The Guardian for its recent campaign relating to the crippling problems of the poorest countries on the planet—including Sudan—under the slogan "the new slavery"? Does she agree that finding new and better ways in which to bring effective help to the 1.3 billion people throughout the world, including Sudan, who live in abject poverty—including the redemption of debt, albeit linked to good governance—is one of the biggest issues facing politicians in the developed world? Have we not a Christian duty to do all we can?
    Clare Short: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I welcome his promotion to this important portfolio. I hope that he will forgive me for paying tribute to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Sir A. Goodlad), whose commitment to the cause of international development was sincere and deep. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me when I say that, however big his commitment, it could not be any greater than the right hon. Gentleman's. I agree that there is a moral duty on people of all moralities and religions to give the poor of the world a chance to climb out of their poverty. Our people have an interest in reducing inequality, division and instability because they are dangerous for everyone. As I have said before, this is the most noble cause in politics, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman to it.
    Mr. Streeter: In view of the critical reaction of several leading agencies to the Secretary of State's remarks on Thursday about the use of shocking images to attract public interest to events in Sudan and to other tragedies, in the light of recent figures which show that the British public are certainly not suffering from compassion fatigue, and in the light of the confusion that has been caused by her remarks, would she take this opportunity to reconsider them?
    Clare Short: No, I would not. The hon. Gentleman should not believe misleading accounts in The Times or in other newspapers. The issue is enormously important, and there was no need for a public appeal for funds for Sudan. There was a big division among NGOs about whether there should be one, and most of them joined together in a group appeal. First, many of them took the view that a public appeal would confuse the message to the public about the cause of the suffering in Sudan and about how public opinion could be used to try to get some relief for the people of Sudan.
    Secondly, I have referred to a book by Richard Jolly, who is a great development academic. He used to be with the United Nations Children's Fund, and now edits the United Nations Development Programme report. There is compassion fatigue in the industrialised countries at a
    354
    time when it is apparent that more development has been achieved over the past 50 years than ever before. It is undermining the commitment of Governments to development and confusing the public.
    Appeals that use constant images of famine and failure are helping to feed a compassion fatigue that is reflected in reduced commitment and spend by Governments. It is a real issue, and I am making a speech to the media this afternoon about how we might do better. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of that. Many NGOs agree that we must try to do better.

    Sierra Leone
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What aid has been given to Sierra Leone during 1998. [42501]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Since the return of President Kabbah's democratically elected Government, we have provided £1 million to re-establish core functions and services to enable the Government to be up and running; £1 million for non-governmental organisations delivering humanitarian and development assistance and £1 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross to enable it to continue its humanitarian aid and protection work. The European Union is providing 2 million ecu for seeds and tools, and 200,000 ecu to help refugees in Guinea to return home. We are looking at what more we can do to strengthen governance and bring immediate relief to the people. We hope in future to be able to assist in demobilising and reintegrating ex-combatants.
    Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that full and helpful answer. All hon. Members welcome the giving of humanitarian aid where it is greatly needed. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that none of her officials knew of or supported the activities of Sandline International in breaking the Government's embargo on Sierra Leone?
    Clare Short: I can give the hon. Lady that absolute assurance. Beyond that, as she knows, an inquiry is taking place into the matter. The proper, democratically elected Government have been restored. The coup in Sierra Leone was vicious and brutal; a set of people went around chopping off the arms and legs of children. It is good for humanity that that is over. The paradox of the return is that it was led by the Nigerians, which means that an undemocratic Government helped to restore a democratic one. That is the biggest irony. The details of the Sandline operations will be resolved by the current inquiry, but my Department has no engagement whatever.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Now that there is a legitimate regime in Sierra Leone, does my right hon. Friend agree that, rather than waiting for the millennium and the Jubilee 2000 appeal to apply to every poor country, a group of nations, perhaps under EU leadership, could use debt relief in some poor test countries to determine the effectiveness of offering the remission of debts? It would be on the basis that those countries passed the money to the poor and not into some rich, elite pockets.
    Clare Short: That is exactly what we are doing. Forty-one countries are on the list of highly indebted

    355
    countries, with unsustainable debt affecting their capacity to deliver services to their people. A formula has been agreed by the International Monetary Fund and the World bank. I refer to debt to multinationals, not commercial debt; that is a confusion in some of the debate.
    About 20 of those countries will qualify, if we can do better on post-conflict countries, which include Sierra Leone, Rwanda and Liberia, but debt relief is only part of the answer. The problem is poverty. Some countries have poverty without debt: some countries with debt are not interested in the poor. Giving debt relief within the context of supporting Governments who want to eradicate poverty and to provide for human development is what we are doing and will continue to do.
    Dr. Jenny Tonge: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in Sierra Leone last year, aid was reduced as part of the political pressure to oust the junta, yet, as in the case of Sudan, arms continued to flow into the country? Does she agree that, although humanitarian aid must never be reduced to the poorest people in the world, because poverty leads to conflict, which leads to poverty, we must also look at the supply of arms to those countries? It is only by the prevention of conflict that we shall ultimately solve the problem of the poor.
    Clare Short: I agree with the hon. Lady's second point, but we did not reduce humanitarian aid to Sierra Leone to put pressure on the coup leaders. I personally met my officials and supervised everything we did on that. That allegation has been made by one NGO, and it just is not so; some of my officials have written to it on the matter. There was real trouble getting resources in without feeding the fighters. That is always a serious problem, but, through NGOs and the Red Cross, we put in as much relief as we could get through to people. We also funded a radio station so that people could gain access to the truth. We funded many refugees and prepared the Government to return. We did not cut resources to hurt people.
    On the wider question of the feeding of conflict by access to arms, the hon. Lady is right. Oxfam and others have launched an important campaign on small arms. Africa is littered with them. They feed fighting in very poor countries, where having a weapon makes people strong and means that they can get resources that others cannot. Sadly, much of the ammunition is manufactured in Africa, so it is not a question just of imports, but we must do better. Conflict is breaking out in the poorest countries and impoverishing them further.

    Drought and Famine
    Mr. Barry Jones: What extra moneys she has earmarked to combat drought and famine since 1 May; and if she will make a statement. [42502]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): We have a contingency reserve that is set aside for emergencies and funds can also be allocated from country programme budgets. I assure my hon. Friend that we give the highest priority to ensuring that adequate resources are made available very quickly for humanitarian emergencies. Since 1 May this year, we have pledged £6.23 million for the emergency in the Sudan.
    Mr. Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that information and for his efforts as a Minister. Is it his view that, in the
    356
    Sudan, there is a shortage of food for people who are hungry, or that the hungry cannot get access to the food that is there? Has he any further advice to the Red Cross as to how it conducts its campaigns for money for people who are hungry and poor?
    Mr. Foulkes: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, we have already agreed more than £10 million to the Sudan. The problem is not money. Even the Disasters Emergency Committee was divided when it considered whether to have an appeal for the Sudan. My right hon. Friend has done the country and this issue a service by opening up the debate. The media sometimes seem obsessed with disasters. If it bleeds, it leads, in some media. That means that we do not get the positive message over of some of the success of the development work that we and other countries have been doing.
    Mr. Shaun Woodward: Given the Minister's undoubted commitment to the principle of humanitarian aid, will he tell the House whether his Department was consulted about clause 63 of the Finance Bill, and what effects he and his Department believe clause 63 will have on the provision of overseas aid by British charities?
    Mr. Foulkes: Departments are consulted regularly about matters that affect them. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the arrangements he has made for tax relief for people who are willing to give money to charities, which has been a great boost for them. That is the kind of issue he should be raising, rather than quibbling about that particular clause.

    Debt Reduction
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: What action her Department intends to take to assist in the reduction of the debt burden of countries that do not qualify under the terms of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative because of recent conflict. [42503]
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress has been made in reducing the indebtedness of countries that do not qualify for the heavily indebted poor countries initiative because they have recently come out of conflict; and if she will make a statement. [42507]
    The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Following a British initiative, the G8 summit agreed on the need to look at ways in which to provide more and earlier debt relief to help heavily indebted post-conflict countries, such as Rwanda and Liberia. Special arrangements are needed because, by definition, they lack a track record of good economic management, having come out of war and crisis. We are working to implement this and, in the case of Rwanda, the UK has made a substantial pledge to the debt trust fund for Rwanda at the donors meeting which is taking place in Stockholm.
    Mrs. Heal: Will my right hon. Friend—who is aware of the particular problems of those countries—do all she can to urge the international community to respond to their exceptional needs as they try to rebuild their

    357
    political, economic and social systems? She will know of the many organisations linked with Jubilee 2000, and of the concerns of the British Medical Association about the impact that debt has on the health of those countries.
    Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. In Birmingham, I met lots of people who came—with enormous dignity and good spirits—to call for help with debt relief. Rwanda is coming out of bitterness and pain after surviving genocide, when the world let it down and failed to intervene, and it has a Government who are trying to do the right things. If we do not assist the Government in bringing relief to the country—Rwanda is one of the poorest countries in the world—the chance of it returning to conflict is great. It is in everyone's interests that we make greater progress and are not rigid about the formula, thus excluding post-conflict countries.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I was pleased to hear that part of the Secretary of State's response which suggested that we would be able to make a contribution to Rwanda's being able to meet its current debt. Does she accept that many of the countries of the poorer world find it unfair that the international mechanism seems to be a one-way street? The UN did not deliver protection from genocide in Rwanda, yet countries are expected to fit in with incredibly stiff recommendations in terms of meeting debt relief proposals. Will she work to try to make sure that, within debt relief programmes, the future prospects and accountability of a country are taken into account, as well as its history?
    Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend, as did Kofi Annan and all serious observers, that the international community badly let down Rwanda. We are committed by convention, following the holocaust in Europe, always to intervene to prevent genocide. We failed to do so, and we pulled out UN troops. There was systematic, organised slaughter, and we should never forgive ourselves for that. I do not fully agree that, in all cases, the debt owed to the IMF, to the World bank and for export credits is unfairly imposed. In some cases, bad Governments have been replaced by good Governments, and they need help. Borrowing is not always bad. If it is borrowing for good investment, it is desirable. We need good Governments to get out from the overhang of bad debt so that they can build their economies for the future.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: No one doubts the personal commitment of the Secretary of State to debt redemption. However, she will be aware of the widespread disappointment and anger at the abject failure of the recent G8 summit to take the matter forward. Can she confirm that the Government remain committed to giving a lead in relation to debt redemption, albeit linked to good governance? Will she continue to seek to persuade leaders of other creditor nations to do exactly the same?
    Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman must not believe everything he reads in the newspapers—he should have read the communiqué produced at the summit. The truth is that, shortly after forming our Government, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made a speech calling for speeding up of the implementation of the HIPC initiative, and for three quarters of eligible countries to be untrapped
    358
    by 2000. Immediately after the general election, in a meeting with the World bank and the IMF, we could not reach agreement on the initiative. We now have the support of all the major countries. Partly because of pressure by those good people demonstrating on the streets of Birmingham, implementation of the initiative is being speeded up. We need now to make more progress in dealing with the debt problems of post-conflict countries, which will be a complex matter. However, for some of the poorest countries, the problem is not debt. We have to act on poverty and on good governance—which includes dealing with debt, but not only with that.
    Mr. John Townend: Will the right hon. Lady reassure the House that, if the United Kingdom writes off a country's debts, we shall not make further loans out of taxpayers' money to that country? Otherwise, in 10 years' time, we might be faced with the same problem. When help is needed, is it not better to provide it as aid rather than as loans that will not be repaid?
    Clare Short: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the initiative is not only British, but international; that the issue encompasses export credits to many countries, IMF debt and World bank debt; and that the initiative provides relief only to countries that adopt good economic management to improve their economy and benefit poor people in their country. Countries must have a track record of such economic management both before and after they sign on for debt relief. I assure the hon. Gentleman that no country will receive debt relief unless it is being very responsible in its economic management. I give him that complete assurance.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 3 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today. I have also sent a message of condolence to the people and Government of Germany about the appalling rail tragedy earlier today.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Prime Minister recall that, when we were in opposition, we used to groan at the fawning, obsequious, softball, well-rehearsed and planted questions asked by Conservative Members of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major)? Will my right hon. Friend distinguish his period in office by discouraging such practices—which diminish Prime Minister's Question Time—during this Parliament? Furthermore, in view of the rather depleted official Opposition, will he encourage rather than discourage—

    359
    without fear or favour, and without showing partiality or affection—loyal Labour Back Benchers who wish to seek and provide scrutiny and accountability in this place?
    The Prime Minister: I fully respect my hon. Friend's independence of mind, and shall do my very best to ensure that he retains it.
    Mr. William Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, may I say that we wish to associate ourselves entirely with the Prime Minister's remarks on the tragedy in Germany?
    In the new and highly welcome atmosphere of reconciliation in Northern Ireland, would it not now be appropriate for the Government to review as a matter of urgency the prison sentences of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright?
    The Prime Minister: That review is being conducted. I should not say anything about it, as it is being conducted in a quasi-judicial capacity by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. However, I understand the concern that has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and many others. I am sure that it is shared on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Hague: We all understand that the cases are difficult, and I know that the Prime Minister understands the immense difficulties faced by our armed forces in Northern Ireland and the terrible pressures on soldiers, which can sometimes result in tragic incidents. I hope that he will ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to re-examine the matter, and to bring forward the review of the cases, which are causing growing public concern.
    The Prime Minister: First, I give my warmest congratulations on the work that they do to our armed forces in Northern Ireland and to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In respect of the particular case, there was a court case which concluded on Friday 22 May; before that court case was concluded, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was not able to conduct her own review. Now that it is out of the way, she will do that, and do so as quickly as possible.
    Mr. John Hutton: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in the past 12 months, the Government have given the go-ahead for the construction of 30 new hospitals—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Hutton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Those hospitals amount to the biggest programme of modernisation and renewal in the history of the national health service. Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that the construction of those new hospitals is not only an excellent way to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the national health service, but provides further evidence that Labour Governments are always good news—[Interruption.]—for the national health service?
    The Prime Minister: I fully concur with that. It is no surprise that Conservative Members do not like it, because they promised those new hospitals, but never built a single
    360
    one. It is this Government who are building 30 new hospitals, six of them already under way, and spending a further £2 billion in the health service.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, one, the efforts of the international community so far to persuade President Milosevic to exercise some restraint in Kosovo have had no visible effect; two, that the situation in the province is now speedily deteriorating; and, three, that in these matters it is far, far better to take strong, preventive action early than to wait until one is left with doing too little, too late?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with that. The first meeting of the working group, which was convened in part by Britain, took place a few weeks ago; and, subsequent to that, a series of further meetings have taken place. In addition, Mr. Rugova is now in Washington and has met President Clinton; there will be an attempt to have further dialogue between him and Mr. Milosevic. I want to make it very clear that we are watching the situation in Kosovo extremely carefully. We believe that we cannot afford to have an extension of violence and disorder there—[Interruption.] Before, in a similar situation nearby, the international community acted with great firmness, and we must make sure that we do the same again. In answer to the question from the Opposition Benches, "Why bother?" we bother because disorder in that part of the world would have a huge impact on all of us, including this country.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister draws a parallel with Bosnia and is right to do so, but may I remind him that it was during the previous United Kingdom presidency in 1992 that we missed the decisive opportunity to act early in Bosnia? As the current President of the EU, will he consider these three actions: one, to reinforce the United Nations troops on the Macedonian border; two, to deploy a screening force from NATO on the Albanian border; and, three, to make it absolutely clear to President Milosevic that if he should act in gross contravention of international human rights and with the effect of destabilising the nations in the area, the international community will regard that as an act in violation of international law?
    The Prime Minister: In respect of the specific action that we will take, I have already said, and will repeat, that we do not believe that we could afford to have disorder spreading in that part of the world. I hope that that is a sufficiently clear message to Mr. Milosevic.
    In respect of the measures for which the right hon. Gentleman asked, he may like to know that Ministers have already commissioned military advice on support for United Nations and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe monitoring activity, as well as NATO preventive deployments in that region; we are looking very carefully at what we need to do. There are certain discussions currently going on between Mr. Milosevic and Mr. Rugova, and we are watching very carefully. Again, I make it clear that we do not believe that it could be in the interests of our country or of the world community to allow a similar situation to develop there as developed in Bosnia.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the profits announced

    361
    by Camelot, which amount to more than £1.5 million a week, are excessive, and that we ought to ensure that the next company chosen does not profit out of good causes? At the end of the day, the people who have lost by more than £1.5 million a week are the beneficiaries throughout the regions. Would not a fairer spread of lottery money throughout the regions he better?
    The Prime Minister: We are committed to seeking an efficient, not-for-profit operator, and we want to maximise the money available for good causes. The National Lottery Bill will create the new opportunities fund, which will fund school clubs, information technology training for teachers and librarians, and healthy living centres, as well as the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts. I hope that, as a result of the Bill, we will be able to get more money for good causes that would otherwise not be funded from public spending. As I say, we are committed to seeking an efficient, not-for-profit operator.
    Mr. James Gray: The number of people on hospital waiting lists in Wiltshire has increased by 1,911 since Labour came to power this time last year. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree that now is a particularly unfortunate time for ward closures, such as that planned for the Cameron ward for the mentally ill in Chippenham and other similar wards in Trowbridge and Warminster? Will he join me in supporting the group that is opposing those ward closures? If he will not, will he accept that those closures are symptomatic of new Labour's approach to the health service?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not accept that at all. We are spending some £2 billion more than the previous Government, whom the hon. Gentleman supported, spent on the national health service. What is more, the waiting list pledge that we made, we will meet—as we said that we would. When we meet it, it will be the first time in years that waiting lists have come down. They will come down under a Labour Government, having risen year on year on year under the Tories.
    Mr. Roger Stott: It is normal to preface a question, "Is my right hon. Friend aware". May I turn that round to say that my right hon. Friend is probably not aware that I spent the week leading up to the referendum in Northern Ireland in Derry, knocking on doors and persuading people to vote yes to the agreement? That agreement has been solidified by the votes of the people in both the north and the south of Ireland. As this is the first Prime Minister's Question Time since the result of the referendum, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend for putting in so much work to achieve that decision?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to thank all the political leaders who did a lot to secure a yes vote in that referendum. That vote was a vote for the future in Northern Ireland; it was a vote to give the children of Northern Ireland a better future than that of their parents. I hope very much that the efforts of everyone will go to make the agreement work. We now have a set of structures and principles that can give Northern Ireland
    362
    the future it needs. I hope that everyone there accepts the democratic will of the majority of people in Northern Ireland and makes this work for the future.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Prime Minister will know that, last week, the Socialist group in the European Parliament tabled a motion congratulating him on his conduct of the British presidency. He will also be aware that, quite rightly, the motion was heavily defeated. Who does he blame for the failure of the British presidency—the Foreign Secretary or himself?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Member's question. The one issue that I would have thought it very unwise—even for a new member of the Opposition Front-Bench team—to raise is the subject of Europe, when the Conservative party is split from head to toe on the issue, there has been an interesting reshuffle that seems to me to have something of the right about it, and, even today, we are reading that Norman Lamont and the leader of his group in the European Parliament are falling out with one another.
    Ms Diane Abbott: The Prime Minister will be aware that, last week, the people of Hong Kong held their first election since the handover to China. Despite the many deficiencies of the electoral system, two of the positive things about the election were the huge turnout—much bigger than expected—and the fact that the pro-democracy candidates, such as Martin Lee and Emily Lau, had an enormous electoral mandate. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to assure the ordinary people of Hong Kong of the continuing concern of the House of Commons, and of the fact that we will never allow trade or other strategic considerations to divert us from giving the maximum support and encouragement for the people of Hong Kong to move forward to full universal suffrage?
    The Prime Minister: Obviously, I strongly support the agreement concluded in respect of the future of Hong Kong, and I am also delighted at the strong trade and investment links between this country and Hong Kong. One of the interesting things about the period since the handover is the fact that, despite some people's expectations, Hong Kong has been highly successful in very difficult economic circumstances, and its political circumstances have done nothing but improve.
    Mr. William Hague: On the subject of reshuffles, as the Prime Minister has a Secretary of State for Health who does not know how many hospitals he is closing, and a Foreign Secretary who does not know how many coups he is supporting, may I suggest to him that a reshuffle in the Government might be in order?
    We have heard today more revelations about Labour councils in Scotland, and about their spectacular mismanagement and gross incompetence in particular. Is the Prime Minister prepared to take some responsibility for the scandalous behaviour of so many of his party's elected representatives?
    The Prime Minister: When the particular irregularities were brought to light, we acted. That is the difference.

    363
    We are still waiting for action from the Conservative party over Westminster council. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet he will tell us what action he intends to take. We have taken action.
    Mr. Hague rose—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Hague: I will answer. Westminster was in 1988—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    Mr. Hague rose—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Mr. McNulty, just be careful.
    Mr. Hague: Westminster was in 1988, when the Prime Minister was wearing a CND badge; we are talking about 1998, for which he is responsible. He says that the Government act, but the record of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Labour party is to have an inquiry and do nothing about it. They suspended the Monklands councillors, and they let them back in; they had an inquiry into East Ayrshire, and now they will not reveal the results; they have had inquiries into Paisley that never end and never report.
    Is the Prime Minister aware that police chiefs have now said that they have had to send police officers into Renfrewshire council so often that, if it had been a pub, they would have closed it down? That is the position now; is it not time that we had an independent inquiry into the crisis in local government in Scotland so that we can see what the Prime Minister's party is doing to local government in Scotland?
    The Prime Minister: First, every time that there has been an inquiry we have abided by the result. Secondly, the inquiry into the matter that the right hon. Gentleman is raising is independent. Thirdly, people in Westminster still live with the consequences of what Westminster council did.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has still not given us an independent public inquiry into what is happening in Scotland. It is all talk and no action, as it always is with the Government now—talk about national health service waiting lists while waiting lists go up, talk about class sizes while class sizes go up, and talk about cleaning up local government in Scotland while the dirt grows every day. It is talk, talk, talk, and nothing to show for it. When will the Prime Minister stop talking about all those problems and start acting on them?
    The Prime Minister: We have acted. We have acted by appointing the very independent people that the right hon. Gentleman has called for—and we did so before he called for them. That stands in the sharpest contrast to the way in which he has behaved in relation to Conservative councils. As for the national health service and class sizes, waiting lists rose year on year under the Conservatives, and class sizes went up for 10 years. We are going to get them down. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make it a test at the next election whether we have met those
    364
    pledges on NHS waiting lists and class sizes, let him do so—when he does, we will pass those tests and no one will ever believe that the Tories will do a good job on schools and hospitals.
    Mr. David Watts: Given that crime has doubled since the election of the last Government, will my right hon. Friend say what action this Government will take to cut crime in communities such as St. Helens?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right—under the Tory Government, not only did class sizes and waiting lists increase, but crime doubled. We are taking action in the Crime and Disorder Bill by introducing new parental supervision orders and measures on youth justice, and we are ensuring speedier justice in the young offenders courts. As a result of action that this Government are taking, we are already, in those areas where we have put in place the new proposals, halving the time it takes to get young offenders to court. That is the action that we promised; that is the action that we are delivering.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: When the Prime Minister is next chauffeur-driven through Chesham and Amersham to visit his second home—or is it his third?—at Chequers, will he stop to tell those 4,500 of my constituents, his neighbours, who are currently on the South Buckinghamshire waiting list for operations when they will finally have their operations—this year, next year, some time or never?
    The Prime Minister: I was telling the House a moment ago how much extra money we have put in, so let me tell the hon. Lady that, as a result of the extra money this year—£1.7 billion—we will see this year, for the first time in years, waiting lists coming back down. We were never going to turn round 20 years of Tory government on the NHS in one year, but turn it round we will. When we do, it will be because we have a Labour government who believe in the NHS, not a Tory Government who spent 20 years undermining it.
    Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Is the Prime Minister aware that, after 18 long Tory years of complete mismanagement of the economy, the average household income in Great Yarmouth is only 50 per cent. of that in the rest of East Anglia? I am sure that my constituents warmly welcome the Government's initiative in implementing a minimum wage, but will he assure us that, before he brings the Low Pay Commission's report back to the House, he will also accept reports from other organisations on 16 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 21-year-olds?
    The Prime Minister: We will listen to all the representations that we have had. It is important that we introduce a national minimum wage not only for reasons of justice, but because it is not right that, at the moment, we are spending £3 billion to subsidise low pay. However, we have always said, as we did in our manifesto, that we would introduce it sensibly—we must introduce it in a manner that is consistent with the overall and prudent running of the economy. We will do that to make sure that we meet our requirements for both justice and enterprise.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister recall telling the House six weeks ago that

    365
    enriched uranium had to come from Georgia to Dounreay because the Georgians could not guarantee its safety? In the intervening period, the head of security at Dounreay has resigned because he could not guarantee the plant's integrity; there has been a serious nuclear incident, which has shut down the processing unit—the reprocessing was already shut; there could be criminal prosecutions; emissions have been underestimated by a factor of 10; and 170 kg of enriched uranium, which is enough to build 10 nuclear devices, have been lost or mislaid or cannot be accounted for. Will the Prime Minister tell the House where the lost enriched uranium from Dounreay is? Will he guarantee that no more nuclear materials will be taken into the plant in its current condition?
    The Prime Minister: I really think that the Scottish National party has behaved with utter irresponsibility right from the start. First, the hon. Gentleman has just alleged that a nuclear accident caused the review by the Health and Safety Executive. It was not; it was the loss of electrical supplies to the fuel cycle area.
    The allegations about the supposedly missing highly enriched uranium were based on a misinterpretation of 30-year-old records which are far from complete by any modern standards. The Atomic Energy Authority has explained already, in line with the results of its 1963 and 1973 investigations, that the discrepancies in the amounts of material arose because of accounting and measurement uncertainties. There is absolutely no evidence to back up the suggestion that the hon. Gentleman keeps making, for wholly irresponsible reasons, that any material has been stolen or has fallen into the hands of terrorists or foreign Governments.
    I can confirm that no such material has ever been sent from Dounreay for use for United Kingdom weapons purposes, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads carefully what has already been said by the chief executive and others on the issue. For the hon. Gentleman to alarm the public in this way is irresponsible in the extreme, but entirely typical of him.
    Dan Norris: Following the tragic death and injury of 33 babies at Bristol Royal infirmary, the General Medical Council's inquiry heard that even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health could not intervene in the internal running of the trust. What steps does my right hon. Friend intend to take to ensure that the medical profession is accountable and controlled so that the tragedy in Bristol can never happen again? Will he join me in praising Dr. Stephen Bolsin, the anaesthetist who tried to speak out at the time of the tragedy and sadly was unsuccessful?
    The Prime Minister: I can say to my hon. Friend that the appalling tragedy at Bristol must never be repeated. We have given a commitment to the parents that there will be an inquiry into what went wrong. We believe that procedures have changed already. However, as we announced in our recent White Paper, we are committed to an independent commission for health improvement. Its job will be to ensure that quality controls are in place in every hospital in the country.
    Every national health service trust will be visited every three to four years. The commission will have special powers to investigate whether there are particular problems in any hospital. Its findings will be made public
    366
    and acted on, and patients themselves will have a voice on the commission. We believe that the combination of existing procedures—which have improved since these deplorable incidents—and the improvements that we shall put in will provide the best possible chance of avoiding any such tragedy happening again.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: I assure the Prime Minister that this is not a planted question. He will be aware from his security advisers that Mr. Gerry Adams and Mr. Martin McGuinness are believed to be members of the seven-man IRA Army Council. Will the Prime Minister give an unequivocal assurance to the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland that the representatives of terrorist groups that still retain their weaponry will not be placed in government over them until such groups agree to decommission and to commence decommissioning? Will he give a further assurance that, before the assembly elections, his Government will publish the draft legislation giving substance to the pledges that he made to the people of Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign?
    The Prime Minister: Certainly we will give effect to the pledges that have been made prior to the assembly elections. That is absolutely right. As I have made clear throughout and do so again now, the provisions in relation to decommissioning and what I said about it before the referendum campaign stand and must properly be put in the legislation. I have also always made it clear that we regard Sinn Fein and the IRA as inextricably linked. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that in the House on Monday. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, having been on the wrong side of the referendum campaign—perfectly honourably, as he is entitled to be—accepts the verdict of the overwhelming majority and, if he is elected to the assembly, goes in with the right spirit of mind to make it work for the people of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Hanson: When my right hon. Friend attends the Cardiff summit in a couple of weeks, will he take the opportunity to ask his fellow leaders to check, when they return home, whether they have hereditary peers or hereditary members in their national assemblies? I think that he will find that they do not.
    Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we want a modern democracy in Europe and a modern democracy at home? In abolishing hereditary peers, my right hon. Friend may well wipe out a large number of the Conservative's shadow Cabinet in the House of Lords.
    The Prime Minister: It is an interesting reshuffle that puts 14 hereditary peers on the Conservative Front Bench.
    We are committed to the reform of the hereditary element of the House of Lords, for two reasons. First, it cannot possibly be right that people sit as legislators in the Houses of Parliament on the basis that their birth makes them hereditary peers. Secondly, it is an absolute democratic scandal that hereditary Conservative peers outnumber the peers of the elected Government of the day by three to one. In other words, there is an in-built Tory majority in the House of Lords in perpetuity. That may be justified by the Conservative party because it believes in that sort of thing—but it is our job, as a new Labour Government, to remove that and make our Houses of Parliament democratic.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the channel tunnel rail link. Mindful of your recent request, I shall keep my remarks as short as is possible for such a complicated subject of such importance to the House. To assist hon. Members, I will make arrangements for a memorandum to be placed in the Library.
In March 1996, the development agreement to build the channel tunnel rail link was awarded to London and Continental Railways, known as LCR. LCR also took control of the Eurostar service. Its plan was to commence construction in late 1997. The agreement provided for a taxpayer contribution worth £1.8 billion.
When I had the chance to examine the details of the deal put in place by the previous Government, I was appalled. They took the cheapest bid based on over-optimistic forecasts of Eurostar revenue, without even commissioning their own independent forecasts—a failing we have now put right.
The Government were seriously exposed because of the small financial commitment made by the private sector. Furthermore, as a consequence of the previous Government's intention to conceal public subsidy of the channel tunnel financing, Eurostar was hampered by the requirement to pay Eurotunnel for train paths that it was not using. Even this week I was asked to find £100 million to pay for specially designed sleeper trains which do not work, have never been used, and are now lying idle in a field.
The kindest thing that I can say about this whole agreement is that it was flawed from the start. In January of this year, it almost collapsed; the company could not fulfil its contract. At that point, I was faced with a clear choice. I could have abandoned the present contract with LCR and invited new tenders—but that would have meant two years or more of delay, with all the blight and uncertainty that that would have caused. The equivalent of two thirds of the grant would have been spent on Eurostar's debts and continuing losses, with nothing to show for it. Eurostar is losing £150 million a year. If we multiply that by four or five years compensation, it is clear that I would have had to pay an amount almost equivalent to the grant for the project, but would have got nothing in return. Alternatively, I could ask the company to reconsider the financing of the project and come forward with proposals to meet all its original obligations. That was the path I chose.
I explained that LCR had requested an additional £1.2 billion of taxpayers' money, on top of the £1.8 billion already committed. That was unacceptable. I gave LCR one month to come up with new proposals, and subsequently extended that period ultimately to this week. At the end of March, LCR made an improved proposal, but still failed to meet the Government's requirements.
I am aware of the importance that hon. Members on both sides of the House attach to this project, which was approved by the House. I have always believed that Britain should have a high-speed passenger and freight link to Europe that is the equal of those on the other side of the channel. This an important project, comparable to
368
any that the Government are promoting. It is a key part of our integrated transport policy, and a national asset that will bring benefits not just to the south-east, but to all parts of Britain.
All parties supported the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, which was unopposed on its Second and Third Readings. The project offers immense economic, transport, and environmental benefits, and improved speed, reliability and capacity for international and domestic services for passengers and freight. It will also play a major part in regenerating north Kent and the east Thames corridor, including Stratford and King's Cross. The Government want to see this project proceed, but, as I have made clear, not at any price.
My firm view was that LCR could carry on only if it were able to deliver the whole project from the tunnel to St. Pancras according to the contract. I made it clear that the Government also required a further reduction in the proposed additional cost to the taxpayer; a robust financing plan based on realistic forecasts for Eurostar; a balance of incentives that would ensure construction of the whole rail link; and increased risk transfer to the private sector.
For the past four months we have been involved in intensive negotiations, and I can inform the House of their outcome. The call on public finances represents good value for the taxpayer. There is a robust financing plan, which is based on a proper assessment of future Eurostar revenue. Incentives to complete the whole link are in place, and the private sector will take a greater share of risk. In short, there will be a high-speed channel tunnel rail link.
Today, I signed with LCR and Railtrack a statement of principles which meets all our requirements and which fulfils the contract agreed by the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who I see is in his place. Under this public-private partnership, LCR has been strengthened. A new management team is in place, and LCR has agreed to raise more equity to support the project. Railtrack has agreed to take a key role in building the link. It will manage construction for the railway to north Kent, and will commit to purchase it upon completion. Railtrack will have an option to build and buy the remainder of the link.
LCR has secured a strong partner to operate Eurostar. Two very strong bids were considered—one from Virgin, the other from a consortium comprising British Airways, National Express and the national railways of France and Belgium. LCR today agreed to award the contract to the consortium. LCR has an obligation to build the entire 68 miles of railway from the channel tunnel to St. Pancras in London, via Ebbsfleet and Stratford, in accordance with the 1996 Act endorsed by the House.
The link will be built to the same route, the same specification and the same high standards as before. There will be the same environmental and heritage safeguards, and the undertakings and assurances given during the passage of the 1996 Act remain.
Construction will begin towards the end of this year. The stretch from the channel tunnel to the turn-off in Kent to Waterloo is due to be completed by 2003, and services from Waterloo will then benefit from the new high-speed line. Construction beyond that point is expected to commence in 2001, with the line through Ebbsfleet and Stratford to St. Pancras finished by 2007. That will

369
include the proposed new Thameslink station at St. Pancras. The Eurostar consortium will operate trains from Waterloo to Paris and Brussels, and, in due course, services from St. Pancras. There will be no change of route under this agreement; it will be exactly as in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act.
I realise that many hon. Members want an early start to regional services. I can assure the House that LCR remains under an obligation to provide the infrastructure for regional Eurostar services. The trains for those services are currently lying idle. I have therefore asked the consortium to review urgently the feasibility of such services, and to put proposals to me before the end of the year. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review in due course.
I know that the consortium has a vision of Heathrow as a gateway to Europe for services from across the country. The consortium proposes to establish, from as early as 2001, a service from Heathrow airport to Paris. Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport. It is already one of Britain's biggest bus stations; it is connected to the largest underground network in the world; and the Heathrow Express provides the fastest connection from any airport to a central urban area. That new service should, in time, establish Heathrow airport as an integrated transport interchange of international importance, connecting long-haul air services directly to the European high-speed rail network. It will be beneficial to the growth in passengers using the high-speed train.
I have always made it clear that the Government required a significant degree of risk transfer to the private sector, and this deal achieves that. If construction costs overrun, Railtrack will carry the full cost. If Eurostar revenues are less than forecast, Railtrack and the consortium will share the burden along with the Government. I have made it clear that there must be a strong incentive to complete the whole link from the tunnel to St. Pancras, and this deal achieves that. The Act requires the whole link to be built; the contract obliges LCR to build the entire link.
I have always made it clear that the Government required a fair deal for the taxpayer, consistent with the Government's existing obligations under the contract, and this deal most certainly achieves that. The basic grant remains at £1.8 billion. There will be no requirement for additional Government support before 2010. Moreover, following intensive negotiations, the extent of the Government's additional contribution will not be the £1.2 billion requested in January, nor the £700 million about which hon. Members may have read in the press this week. It will be £140 million. After 2020, our share in the benefits will probably more than compensate for the extra money that we are asked to provide in 2010.
All the parties have contributed to that improvement: LCR, Railtrack, the consortium and the Government. Recognising the unique features of the project and our commitment to strengthen international rail transport links, we have agreed that the Government's credit will stand behind £3.7 billion of bonds issued by LCR privately in the City to fund the project. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who will pay?"] Hang on. That debt will be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of the completed link. The risk of the Government incurring liability under the guarantees is therefore remote. The Government will support the financing package, which will allow this project to proceed now and at the minimum financing cost. It is a
370
unique financing deal, and I should like to express my appreciation to the Chancellor and the Treasury for having arrived at that agreement. The alternative would have been considerable delay and increased costs.
The Government do not intend to offer taxpayers' support without asking for something in return—unlike the previous Administration.
Mr. Alan Clark: Free tickets?
Mr. Prescott: If the right hon. Member would listen to what was being said, he would not be so contemptuous of the rewards that we have gained for the taxpayer.
The Government believe that, in a real public-private partnership, not only costs but benefits are shared. The Government are sharing the risk, so it is only right that the taxpayer should share the benefits. I have therefore agreed with the parties that the Government will take a public stakeholder share in LCR, yielding a 35 per cent. share of the company's pre-tax surplus after 2020. The Government will also have a 5 per cent. stake in the Eurostar management company. That will be a public-private partnership with strong public accountability. Moreover, if LCR decides to sell the business—it cannot do so without the Government's agreement, as we shall hold a golden share in the company—the taxpayer will share at least 35 per cent. of the proceeds.
As I said earlier, those extra benefits should not simply balance the additional £140 million of public subsidy. This deal should provide that, taken over the long term, LCR pays a premium to the Government. Under the original plan, the concession for that agreement was 999 years. Eurostar was privatised for ever. The parties have now agreed to reduce the concession to 90 years. In 2086, the railway and the Eurostar service will revert to public ownership, along with the channel tunnel. I look forward to appearing before the House on that occasion to announce the event—my zimmer frame will be outside.
There is one more point. I have negotiated a share for the Government in any savings in the construction cost. I have also negotiated a mechanism to prevent any of the parties involved from enjoying excessive windfall gains at the taxpayer's expense. In that way we aim to avoid any repeat of the fiascos that have marked railway privatisation, not least the sale of the rolling stock companies.
There is still much work to be done. Regulatory bodies must be satisfied, and there will be many more months of detailed negotiation.
This is an agreement snatched from the ashes of the LCR's collapse. The channel tunnel rail link will be built all the way to St. Pancras. Construction will begin this year and we shall join the fast track to Europe. This deal is good for integrated transport, good for the environment and good for the taxpayer, and it is good enough for me to commend to the House.
Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for making it, and additional information, available to me in advance. The copy of the statement which I received bears only a limited resemblance to the one he made, but one should be grateful for small mercies.

371
I must begin with this complaint: the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned advance press coverage of this statement and, even for his Government, the amount of detailed press briefing has been disgraceful. Last night, some 14 hours before the House was even told that there would be a statement, the BBC was in possession of detailed facts, as were today's newspapers and sound media. I have written to you, Madam Speaker, on the matter, and it is a cause for sadness that the Deputy Prime Minister should treat the House with such contempt.
The right hon. Gentleman began his statement with fighting words. One can only assume from the late arrival of the text that he was engaged in last-ditch battles with the Treasury and spin doctors at No. 10. Indeed, he has almost admitted as much. Eventually he got round to admitting that the project is important for the country, that there is all-party support for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996, and that the link offers immense benefits to the whole nation.
The right hon. Gentleman has described the scheme as a public-private sector partnership. Last January, when the Secretary of State made his previous statement to the House on this matter, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—who is, as always, in his place—claimed that this was the first taste of nationalisation. Leaving that aside, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the Government guarantee should and will be classified by the Treasury as public expenditure, and if not, why not?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government are supporting the scheme to the tune not of £140 million, £700 million or £1.2 billion, but £5.64 billion? Would he call that nationalisation by the back door? If it is, will it be a comfort for the hon. Member for Bolsover? Does the £140 million which the Secretary of State mentioned refer to phase 1 or phase 2?
What will be the contractual obligation for London and Continental Railways if Railtrack does not wish to go ahead, and under what circumstances might that occur? What will happen if the costs overrun the estimates that the right hon. Gentleman has given the House today? On what basis have the passenger projections been calculated? As this matter will interest the taxpayer, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make public the outcome of the independent review that his Department has commissioned?
The right hon. Gentleman has described the two phases of the scheme. When is the Ebbsfleet station to be built, and what will be the arrangements for passengers and trains before it is built? Phase 2 of the project will not only regenerate east London but make the huge benefits of the channel tunnel rail link available to the rest of the country. What guarantees can the right hon. Gentleman give the House that phase 2 will be completed, and can he give us a timetable?
How much of Eurostar UK's new management company will be controlled by the state-owned French and Belgian railways, and what control do they already have in the Eurostar trilateral partnership?
It is welcome news that the Thameslink 2000 proposals for the St. Pancras station will go ahead as planned. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when?
The right hon. Gentleman began his statement with fighting words. Conservative Members note with interest that, in order to make progress, the right hon. Gentleman
372
is calling on the expertise and success of private industries such as Railtrack, National Express and British Airways. Does he agree that life sometimes has its ironies?
Mr. Prescott: I welcome the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) to her new job. I tried to assist her by providing technical advice, which I hoped would be helpful. Her tone was extremely churlish, to say the least. Many of the questions that she asked showed that she had not read the statement: it contains a number of the answers.
There were some last-minute negotiations about the final details of the percentage. I pushed right up to the last minute to ensure that the taxpayer had the best deal. If the previous Government had had that attitude, we would not have had to raise this kind of money to achieve a deal. Does the right hon. Lady not realise that the private enterprise company that was talked of by the Secretary of State for Transport in the Conservative Administration collapsed and asked for a further £1.2 billion on top of the £1.8 billion given by the previous Government, without any guarantees and with no comeback for the taxpayer? She should have begun her contribution with an apology to the House before she spoke such drivel about the statement.
I was not involved in any leaks to newspapers. I am always concerned to ensure that information is provided to the House first. It gave me great pleasure to note that the leaks to the press and to the radio this morning were wrong. The figure of £700 million additional public contribution was incorrect: it is £140 million. That information was in the statement, and if the right hon. Lady had read it she would have known that. The leaks certainly did not come from us. The House should be delighted that, wherever they came from, they were wrong. People were wrong to follow the Financial Times. It is always difficult, because various parties are involved in such negotiations and it is inevitable that they will talk to the press.
I assure the House that I said absolutely nothing to the press about this matter. I strongly believe that I should always report to the House first. After the collapse of the agreement, I even made a statement to the House at 10 o'clock at night to ensure that hon. Members did not read about it in the morning papers first. If I look offended, it is because I am a little offended. I played the issue absolutely right. I hope that the right hon. Lady and I can have a better relationship on these matters in future.
The right hon. Lady asked about guarantees. Any moneys that are guaranteed under Government-guaranteed bonds—although they are in the name of LCR—must be assessed by the independent Office for National Statistics. It has agreed with the Treasury that, because the risk is very low, the bonds do not count as a public expenditure liability. That practice is followed by all Governments. I am surprised that there is some doubt about that. The only qualification that has changed over the years is that now the European Statistical Office must endorse that judgment. Governments have always used that practice to judge whether such moneys are part of the public sector borrowing requirement.
In respect of incentives and whether we should complete the link, major incentives have been given for the part between Ebbsfleet and Stratford. Most of the grant has been retained for that, and hon. Members should

373
look at the memorandum to see precisely what proportion is involved. The previous Administration made the requirement that Government money would come in only after two thirds had been expended by the private sector. The trouble with that was that they could not even raise 10 per cent. of the money, never mind two thirds of it.
In this case, we have reserved the same principle: at each stage, the Government will still require that two thirds has been spent before the additional third comes in from our side. It is a guarantee that construction will take place. We have made sure that the second part, through Stratford into King's Cross, is heavily loaded in the grants with a huge incentive to complete the deal. We have every reason to believe that we have geared and balanced the risks and the rewards, and have made sure of the completion of the deal as the House agreed.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for the reassurance about the second link, although, not unreasonably, I want to study his complicated statement. What hope can he hold out to people with blighted properties, and especially to people in the second stage who are losing their small and medium-sized businesses through the inaction of the old company in response to their reasonable request to purchase their properties and facilitate transfer to new locations?
Mr. Prescott: This is a matter of great concern. My hon. Friend has expressed it from time to time, both in the House and to me. We have inherited the obligations that were entered into in the original agreement. What is most helpful to those people is the certainty of the date—we will start this year. If we had re-advertised and gone out to competitive tender, a wait of two or three years would have added to all the concerns of blight. We have an agreement that means that we can start immediately, which is reassuring, and we have confirmed the completion of the route from Folkestone and Dover up to St. Pancras. That is the commitment we have entered into, and we have arranged the finances to achieve it.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is no doubt that the Deputy Prime Minister has had an extremely difficult job in sorting out an appalling mess left by the previous Government. I congratulate him on many aspects of this complex and clever agreement, albeit that it could leave larger liabilities on the public sector. I hope, with him, that that will not occur.
However, the agreement has not secured a guarantee of the completion of phase 2. It is hard to understand why—perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister will explain—given the incentives to which he referred and the assurance he felt able to give the House that phase 2 would be built. Did any of the consortiums at any stage offer such a guarantee and did he seek to obtain one? Given the long gap between the completion of phases 1 and 2, what will happen on the commuter lines into Waterloo, which already operate at capacity, and into other London stations? Will Eurostar not operate during rush-hour periods, or will commuter services have to be cut to accommodate the Eurostar service?
Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The negotiations have, indeed, been complex, and I offer my congratulations to all those on the private
374
side, in the public sector and in the Government who have been involved: difficult situations have arisen, and they have done well. All of us can be satisfied with the result, and I am therefore pleased to accept the hon. Gentleman's congratulations on behalf of everyone involved in the detailed negotiations.
Train services will be no different from those under the original agreement.
Mr. Taylor: And that collapsed.
Mr. Prescott: There is a problem, but it is not changed by this agreement. Inevitably, we must start at one end and proceed to the conclusion, St. Pancras in this case. As different sections are built, we shall begin to use the track, which will relieve some of the pressure. For example, going for the route near Ebbsfleet will mean that we provide more space, but that is not the most congested area—as the hon. Gentleman said, that is the Waterloo area.
The only concern over any differences must be that construction may not be completed. That was the hon. Gentleman's first point.
We have a contract with LCR, under which it will complete the work. Railtrack is building the section up to near Ebbsfleet. One of the problems is that, as a private company, Railtrack has certain obligations. The fact that its access charges will probably have to be reassessed twice by the regulator, if matters remain as they are now, causes great uncertainty. If Railtrack were publicly owned, we would not have those difficulties, but I have to live with companies as they are. Certain commercial problems have been created, especially for companies with share prices and equity, which must take such obligations into account.
What we have done is ensure that two thirds of the amount necessary to complete the work is available in Government funds and grants. That is a considerable incentive for any company, and I believe that, under the contractual obligation agreed with LCR, it will complete the work.
Mr. Chris Pond: I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, and congratulate him and his team on their difficult negotiations.
The Ebbsfleet development, which is in my constituency, is essential to the economic regeneration of north Kent. The statement has lifted the uncertainty, and that means that we can get on with not just the development of Ebbsfleet, but the economic regeneration that is so important in other areas.
The uncertainty that the collapse of the original LCR proposal caused so many people has now been removed. Many of our constituents were very anxious about the likely outcome, and there was also much anger about the fact that the last Government had provided the consortium with such a generous wodge of public money—some £6 billion in cash and other resources. As someone said at the time, it was a case of, "Buy the train set and we will throw in the toyshop as well." However, everything collapsed because of unrealistic assumptions about Eurostar traffic. My constituents, and many others—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but a great many Members want to ask

375
questions. We must have direct questions to the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than long statements. I understand how welcome the news is in some parts of the country, but the hon. Gentleman must now ask a direct question. I want to call as many hon. Members as possible.
Mr. Pond: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I will now ask a direct question.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister give us a clear assurance that the second stage will also proceed as quickly as possible? That, too, is important, not only for the regeneration of east London, but to ensure that the whole project in north Kent is effective in terms of economic regeneration.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, I can give that assurance. As I said in my statement, the second stage will start in 2001.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: We shall want to read the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I compliment him on finding a solution to a complex and difficult problem. I am one of the few Members who know how difficult were the issues that he had to address.
As the Secretary of State who insisted that Stratford should be part of the line because of the regenerative benefit that would be experienced by the east end of London, may I also compliment the right hon. Gentleman on ensuring that the whole line will be completed? I hope that he will forgive me, however, if I take with a pinch of salt his comment that he was appalled that the last Government had accepted the lowest tender at the time. I can imagine what he would have said if we had not done so.
Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some estimate of when the policy that he has again confirmed this afternoon will come into effect? There are to be non-stop services from Peterborough down the east coast to Paris and Brussels, and from Milton Keynes down the west coast to the same destinations. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when those services are likely to start?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I understand why he should say that he took what I said about the lowest tender with a pinch of salt, but my point was that the last Government's acceptance of the lowest tender had been based on a very optimistic estimate of the likely flow of passengers—some 11 million. So far, the figure has reached only 6 million. The previous Government should have carried out an independent assessment, which is what we did, to determine proper traffic flow. If they had done that before the negotiations, perhaps they would not have accepted the lowest bid, because they would have realised that it was unrealistic, as other bidders for the contract said at the time. I think that it was also said in the House.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I have asked for an urgent report on regional services, and I should like shortly to report to the House on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman was right in what he said about regions and regeneration. When we continue and complete the phases of the contract, there will be the
376
equivalent of about £1 billion of regeneration. There is a connection to Stratford, and we want to get benefits from the investment.
Mr. Stephen Timms: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's determination throughout the process to secure the whole link, to ensure that Britain is properly connected to the European high-speed rail network early in the new millennium. He spoke about services to Heathrow airport. That is a new element, and presumably those services will run through south London. Can he confirm that the developments and the processes that will be required to put those services in place will not be at the expense of services along the new line that are envisaged in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996?
Mr. Prescott: I think that I can confirm that they will not be at the expense of those services. The Heathrow proposal provides not only an opportunity for more people to engage in intercontinental travel, perhaps flying here from America and going by train to Paris, but will ease congestion on, for example, European slots at Heathrow. It is a true example of integration, and it will be useful not only to the south-east but to the United Kingdom economy. As my hon. Friend will know, increased services have been announced for the northern regions as well. Transport is growing at a considerable rate, and our White Paper is about how to integrate these developments, which have a great future.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that nothing in the history of Eurostar or the former British Rail's estimation of traffic flows gives me any confidence whatever that the generation of traffic will enable the company to raise the additional equity that it is expected to raise? What happens to the project if it does not raise that equity?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman define freight? Hitherto the only freight that has been considered for that line was the kind that could travel in passenger-type trains. Does he mean that the kind of freight that will now be carried will be much more diverse?
Mr. Prescott: There has always been great difficulty about the projection of those figures. I can remember the hon. Gentleman being critical of statements by British Rail or by the private company that took over. I think that we have made a more realistic assessment, and there is a memorandum in the Library for those who wish to make judgments. A proper assessment is critical, and there is much agreement between us and the consortium, even on our independent assessment, on the judgment of how many people will travel and at what time. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the memorandum from which he can judge that.
The hon. Gentleman asked about raising equity. That was one of the essential points in the previous Government's deal. We are involved not in raising equity but in a guarantee in the way that I have explained. Of course we have asked the original shareholders to pay more. They were committed to only about £60 million, and we are asking them to pay more towards the LCR equity. It is right for us to do that.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about freight. English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and Freightliner are already taking considerable traffic growth through the tunnel.

377
We want to encourage that, and our White Paper is about how we might encourage more rail freight. One of my first discoveries on coming to office was that the transfer of the three rail companies to EWS was not a sale. It was given £250 million to take them off our hands. That was another example of a sale of public assets at the direct expense of the taxpayer.
Mr. Paul Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on saving an essential national asset, and on drawing something from the jaws of disaster. I should like to ask about north Kent. Obviously, I have not had an opportunity to read the memorandum, and the answer may be there.
My right hon. Friend made it clear that work on the second part would start in 2001, and that it would be completed by 2007 or 2008. What I am particularly concerned about—it was alluded to earlier—is the in-between period and the effect on commuters and on traffic trying to get into London; we should try to minimise that as far as possible. Will the Deputy Prime Minister say whether 2007–08 is the latest or the earliest date that that second phase will be completed?
Mr. Prescott: They are the dates that we have come to an agreement about, and, as soon as we have gone through all the details, I shall give a further statement to the House and place it in the Library at the appropriate time, so that the final details and contracts can be seen; but I believe that date to be a realistic one.
As my hon. Friend will notice, that phase will start before the completion of the one that goes through Ebbsfleet, so I believe that it is a realistic date. We have an agreement completed. The line is going through to St. Pancras. There will be problems, particularly with available services. One can see that those problems were obviously going to arise. I shall give my attention to those now that we know that we do have a proper financial arrangement to provide us with the channel tunnel rail link.
Mr. Damian Green: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf all of those businesses and households in Ashford that have suffered the uncertainty caused by blight, which will be relieved to know that at least that end of the line will be going ahead relatively quickly, but may I ask him for two assurances?
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that the environmental protection measures would be exactly the same as those agreed in the original Bill. Given that the Government will now take a direct financial and managerial interest in this project, will he accept from now on responsibility for ensuring that those environmental conditions are met? Many of my constituents are concerned that Rail Link Engineering and London and Continental Railways have been trying to bend the rules, if you like, to try to avoid some of the environmental considerations.
Secondly, my biggest regret about the statement was that it was made as though there were simply one station on the line this side of the channel tunnel—at Waterloo. Part of the problem of London and Continental's management is that it has consistently undervalued Ashford station's potential. I hope that, with the new management in place, London and Continental will
378

recognise the importance of Ashford station not just for my constituency, but for environmental reasons. Having people travelling into central London via a relatively under-used station, rather than travelling on the M25 and M20, would be extremely helpful for the whole of south-east England.
Mr. Prescott: I understand the importance of Ashford station. Indeed, in order to emphasise that it is an important stopping point, I invited Environment Ministers at the recent G8 summit, who had their conference at Leeds castle, to get off the train at Ashford.
We have to sell more of Eurostar's services. The restructured management is an important step in that direction. Having new people on the board who have had other transport experience will play an important part in increasing the amount of traffic and exploiting the full potential of Eurostar services.
I made the point that the obligations that we entered into with the previous contracts still remain. Government will have a responsibility with regard to environmental matters, but we do that as Government rather than as a 5 per cent. shareholder on some board. The proper way is for Government to address Government responsibilities, and private companies to address their responsibilities.
Ms Margaret Hodge: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on what appears to be an imaginative deal, and congratulate him in particular on his success in ensuring that the guarantee will not be counted against public spending for future years, which is particularly welcome.
My constituents have been the innocent victims of the previous Government's botched plans. They now require real certainty. In part of his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said that Railtrack would have an option to build the remainder of the track. He later said that the second phase would start in 2001. My constituents need certainty. Will that phase start in 2001, or could Railtrack talk itself out of that option?
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Prescott: Well, the hon. Gentleman was on the programme, without having seen this, giving us all the judgments, and then congratulates me on delivering something different.
With regard to the Railtrack application, it is attractive for Railtrack to go into that second phase. Railtrack's income is based on access charges, which are being reviewed by the regulator. Two reviews may be involved, and it is very difficult to take a long-term view—that is one of the difficulties of the private sector. That is why Governments get involved in such long-term infrastructure programmes. If the company chooses not to complete the work—although it certainly wants to do so—it would be easy to find another contractor to complete it. LCR has a contractual obligation to complete the link, and I intend to see that it does.
Mr. John Wilkinson: I welcome the commitment of the Government to seek an extension to St. Pancras, which I am sure my constituents in

379
north-west London and people in the north of England welcome. Regarding Heathrow, the high-speed rail link is especially imaginative—for all the reasons the Deputy Prime Minister described—but will its commercial viability be contingent upon the construction of the fifth terminal at the airport?
Mr. Prescott: No, it is in no way contingent on that at all.
Mr. John Heppell: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on rescuing the project. I spent a year of my life on the Channel Tunnel Select Committee, and I would hate to have wasted all that time with nothing at the end of it.
One of the things we realised in the Committee was that for real benefits to go to the regions—especially my region of the east midlands and my city of Nottingham—it was essential that we had the full link right through to St. Pancras station. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that that will happen? I want to go back to the city and tell people not to worry, and that we have promised that the link will be built as far as St. Pancras station.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, the contractual arrangements are to complete the link to St. Pancras. As to whether the link will run any further to other cities in the north, I have that under review, and I hope to have a report by December. Following an experiment which found that only 10 people were travelling on the regional services, the services were discontinued. Whether that was an excuse because the company did not want to continue the regional services, I do not know. Given this House's interest in regional services and the completion to King's Cross and St. Pancras, I am sure that the matter will be constantly debated. I will be constantly accountable to the House—that is the commitment I give, and that is the contract I have with LCR.
Mr. David Curry: Following the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), am I right in concluding that he can give no absolute guarantee that the second phase of the project will be built, but that he is building incentives into the financing in the hope that the company wishes to build it, and that if it does not, he hopes that somebody else will replace it to do so?
Mr. Prescott: The contract is not with the constructors. It is with the company that entered into the contract with me—the same company that the previous Government were prepared to accept—LCR. We have strengthened the contract and the company has given a commitment. The company will complete what it is contracted to do, to St. Pancras. The company was acceptable for the previous Government to negotiate with. We have strengthened the deal and changed the financial arrangements. We have every reason to believe that, with a proper balance of incentives, we can complete that work. I believe that the company has entered into the contract in good faith, and that it will be able to complete it.
Mr. John Gunnell: Bearing in mind the news two months ago that Eurostar was
380
cancelling its orders for trains which would have enabled the company to have direct links to the north of England, will my right hon. Friend—when he reports back to the House on regional services—ensure that he has raised with those responsible the question of the direct link to the north of England, so that we can be assured that such a link will be in place in due course, using the completed route to St. Pancras?
Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear that I want to see a feasibility report from the company on regional services. I can do no more than that. As soon as I have that report—I have said that it should be ready by the end of the year—I shall report back to the House.
Mr. Eric Pickles: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we will be able to find other contractors to build phase 2 if Railtrack cannot do it, as phase 2 is the most difficult part of the project. Moreover, for the economy, it is the crucial part. Although I understand the need for incentives, does the £140 million relate specifically to phase 1 or to phase 2? Furthermore, did the right hon. Gentleman say that building the Heathrow link was an option for Railtrack and not part of the contract?
Mr. Prescott: Railtrack is not under an obligation to build a link to Heathrow. The consortium would like services to be increased, but current links allow connection from Heathrow to the railway system. Although there will be subsequent reports on the link, it is not part of Railtrack's agreement with LCR.
The £140 million is for the whole contract and is not payable until 2010—assuming that there is not an even greater surplus, in which case the consortium will be paying us, rather than the other way round.
On Eurostar services—I am sorry; I have lost the point of the other question.
Madam Speaker: It would be good if hon. Members asked only one question.
Mr. Eric Martlew: I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on today's statement to the House—after the shambles that we were left with in January—and find hon. Members' carping on it very objectionable. After many years, the west coast main line will be upgraded. I am also pleased to hear that we will have a link to St. Pancras. We are talking about regeneration not only of parts of Kent and London but of the west coast of Britain—which includes England, Wales, Scotland and, to some extent, Northern Ireland.
Mr. Prescott: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments, which have re-emphasised the fact that regeneration comes from moving not only passengers but freight. Moving freight and moving passengers is equally important. We are doing all we can—we have renegotiated a number of contracts—to improve passage of freight through the tunnel. Although the rail link has a special regeneration value for the east London area, it will bring regeneration also to the rest of the United Kingdom. Transport infrastructure brings regeneration, which is why the Government think that it is so important.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what are the other elements in

381
Railtrack's options, as well as access charges? On the related issue of the Thameslink project, will he say when he expects the work at Blackfriars station to commence?
Mr. Prescott: I am not sure of the answer to the hon. Lady's second question, but I will write to her on it.
The difficulty is that, although Railtrack is a private company, it is bound by laws passed by the House, and the regulator will review its track access charges in the next two years. The review is an essential part of the agreement, which makes it difficult to obtain from Railtrack a longer-term commitment on phase 2. However, there are so many incentives in the project—about three quarters of the cost is available—that I do not accept for a moment that LCR cannot find another contractor to complete phase 2. Nevertheless, I believe that Railtrack not only wants to build it, but can build it. However, at this stage, properly, it must take account of the regulator's judgments, which will not be made for some time yet.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) and the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the Deputy Prime Minister referred to a report on the regions. Forgive us a little impatience, but are we really going to say to people in Glasgow or Nottingham, "We will tell you next year when you may expect a rail link"? Why do we have to wait until December, after all that has gone under the bridges? What can we sensibly say to people who are becoming pretty impatient about business decisions?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful remark. Like him, I want regional railway services to be connected to international railway services. However, I have had to turn my attention to saving the one currently available deal that is essential for regional services—essentially to complete the link to St. Pancras. I have now completed the deal, which is good news for Scotland, Wales and every other part of the United Kingdom that will use the new international route into the Community.
However, I should say that advertised experimental services from Glasgow took about 10 or 11 hours. There is some doubt whether one can fill trains of whatever length at whatever time if people want to fly to Paris or Brussels instead of taking a 10-hour train journey. Those are legitimate concerns, which must be given proper consideration without committing a great deal of money.
I have asked—I think that it is the best way—whether, if there are spare sets there now, we can do something about starting some useful services right away. It is possible to get on to the network coming from the north—we do not have to wait for the completion of St. Pancras—and that is why I have asked them to look the possibility of getting a quicker start without waiting for the completion of St. Pancras. That is what I hope to report to the House in December.
Mr. Alan Clark: The Deputy Prime Minister did not give an intelligible answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe). One of the provisions in his statement was that LCR should seek to raise additional equity in the financial markets; but what happens if it cannot do so?
Mr. Prescott: We have made a judgment about the guarantees involved in raising money, and that is what
382
the market will look at in the circumstances. Those guarantees, we have been assured, are sufficient to guarantee the borrowing requirements and the stability and credibility of this company. It is a unique financial deal, and when the right hon. Gentleman looks at the memorandum, he will see that using bonds and having them supported by Government is probably the strongest credibility possible in these matters.
I am bound to say that it is a lot cheaper than the way in which it was done under the previous Administration. What the company was telling us when I reported back to the House was that, in order to be able to raise the equity on the market to which it was committed—about £1 billion—it wanted another £1.2 billion sweetener as to attract the market to put in equity. I am not doing that, because it is too expensive. I have found a better way, which is better for the taxpayer.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on looking at the regional dimension of the link. Is it not important that that committee looks at regional services before the new line is completed? On Friday last week, I received a letter from the managing director of Eurostar, which told me that, although the track infrastructure safety case for the east coast main line has now been completed, they have not even started to do the safety case for the rolling stock, and the problems with electrical interference are being studied only on the west coast main line. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that equal weight and urgency is given to developing the case for the east coast main line?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Perhaps I should have told the House that one of the difficulties with the rolling stock is that it has not yet got its safety case, which is important to operation, because the electronics cause difficulties with the existing signalling system, which clearly creates problems from a safety point of view. I have asked them to look urgently at that matter.
I have been looking at the sort of stock provided for the channel tunnel service, and at the sleeper stock, for which the taxpayers now have to fork out £100 million because it cannot be used. The way in which the engineers designed it meant that the power demands were greater than could be provided for the train, and that has now cost us £100 million in compensation. It is important to try to get the rolling stock working. I am doing all I can, and perhaps I shall be able by the end of the year to give a more appropriate and informed answer than I can give today.
Mr. Tom Brake: Can the Deputy Prime Minister say whether any of the original consortiums provided a guarantee that they would build the complete link?
Mr. Prescott: It not the consortiums that are giving the guarantee—they run the Eurostar; it is LCR that has entered into the contract and signed up, and, yes, the contract is for the completion of the link.
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I start by apologising to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister for being one of those fooled by yesterday's Financial Times article, which said that he

383
had secured £700 million from the Chancellor. Perhaps we should have known better, given the Chancellor's recent pronouncements. Having said that, the obvious negotiating skills of the Deputy Prime Minister and his team ensured that they did not need that amount of money.
The fact that the whole link is to be built, given the disastrous deal struck by the Conservatives, is welcome. However, given the length of time needed for the construction of the whole link, does my right hon. Friend believe that the regeneration of east London will begin before commencement of construction of the second half of the link, in 2001; and will the blight that has affected so many homes and businesses in east London also be dealt with by his statement today?
Mr. Prescott: Yes, today's statement will add to the certainty of these matters. Regeneration effects can begin now. We have given a commitment on the matter. Following the blight and uncertainty that people have suffered over the past few years—certainly before the previous contract—we now have a much more robust financial position. I suggest that my hon. Friend looks at the statement in the Library. At last we can begin to reap the regeneration effects from the investment and provide fast connections to Europe, so that we can meet the standards that have been enjoyed in Europe for a while, and enjoy them here in the United Kingdom, too.
Sir Robert Smith: Although we will have to study the details of the memorandum, will the Deputy Prime Minister say what penalty will be imposed on LCR in 2001 if construction has not started? Given that LCR will not
384
have much of an asset base or an income stream, what penalties can he impose on it if it fails to honour its side of the contract?
Mr. Prescott: I think that I have shown that I am quite prepared to act robustly if anyone is in breach of contract. The hon. Gentleman can expect me to ensure that LCR fulfils its obligations.
Mr. Mike Gapes: May I also congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister? I am not clear on one point from his statement. When Railtrack exercises its option of whether to go ahead with buying the second phase of the link, will sufficient notice be given at the time so that, if it chooses not to do so, the project will not be delayed further, which could cause further uncertainty in east London?
Mr. Prescott: As I said to the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), there is an issue of contract obligations. If a company goes bust, as has happened in this case, it is fair for it to say, "We are not going to do it." That is one of the difficulties with a private company. We have international agreements and obligations to complete services in these matters. I am trying to do that by working through an obligation with a company. Some of the details are yet to be worked out. We have the general framework, which I have communicated to the House. I will want to ensure that we do not have to wait until the specified date for the full benefits. There is the completion to St. Pancras; there are things that we can get on with now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Thank you, Mr. Prescott. We must move on.

Drinks Containers (Redemption)
4.31 pm
Mr. Christopher Leslie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the redemption of certain drinks containers; and for connected purposes.
Every year in Britain, more than 5 billion drinks cans are thrown away. They usually end up in waste dumps, filling holes in the ground and causing pollution. Hon. Members may be interested to know that, if those drink cans were laid end to end, they would circle the earth 15 times. That shows the sheer waste involved in drinks containers and packaging in this country.
Not only is the practice an environmental hazard: it is an expensive business, particularly as landfill sites become more scarce. Barely a third of aluminium drinks containers are recycled in this country—largely because recycling is wholly voluntary, and we rely on the altruism and good will of the public to recycle. The Bill proposes to give a great incentive to people so that recycling pays.
I am proposing that all glass, metal and plastic drinks containers—except glass milk bottles, which are already re-used fairly efficiently—should each have a 5p deposit or redemption value. That deposit would be returnable to consumers when they take their empty bottles and cans back to the shop. The scheme is free from Government intervention, and there is no cost to the taxpayer. Retailers would not lose, because they would gain a handling fee of 0.5p a container for storing consumers' returned cans, as well as being paid the 5p redemption value by distributors when they collect the empty containers for recycling.
Manufacturers and distributors would also gain by keeping not only the greater scrap metal and glass value of the recycled containers but the unclaimed deposits on the few unredeemed containers that will never be returned. Above all, consumers would have a financial motivation to save each empty can, bottle and container, and take them to retailers in order to redeem the value.
Under the proposal, retailers would be obliged to accept containers and pay the redemption value on returned products if they sell the same brand in their shop. However, shopkeepers could refuse excessively dirty containers, and would be obliged to accept only 100 cans or bottles from any individual in any given 24 hours, in order to ease problems of storage.
Deposit schemes are successful worldwide, and the practicalities of my Bill have already been widely tested. The deposit and redemption scheme that I propose for drinks containers has already been an outstanding success elsewhere. For example, container recycling rates are 91 per cent. in Sweden and more than 90 per cent. in Denmark, because of those countries' deposit schemes. The many states in America with "bottle deposit Bills" have recycling rates of between 70 and 90 per cent. The Netherlands also runs a successful deposit and refund system.
I understand that a British Government study commissioned in 1992 by the Department of Trade and Industry and what was then the Department of the Environment, carried out by a company called Environmental Resources Ltd., concluded that up to 95 per cent. of containers could be recycled if we had a deposit-refund system in this country.
Recycling is vital, and we must recycle more bottles and cans. There are limited resources of the minerals used in the production of many drinks containers, especially
386
metal cans. Resource conservation is needed, and recycling helps to reduce the environmental impact of some of the mining techniques used all over the world to extract the raw materials for the metals.
Recycling also requires less energy and electricity consumption than the costly, intensive and more polluting production of a new container from raw materials each time one is needed. For example, bauxite refinement takes two and a half times as much energy and ore as the equivalent cost and weight of recycled aluminium.
The current system of recycling in Britain is effective to a certain degree. Much excellent work is undertaken by supermarkets, local authorities and other local organisations, such as the Aluminium Can Recycling Association. However, voluntary comprehensive recycling programmes organised by local councils and others are costly to administer and difficult to get off the ground. I do not believe that we can rely solely on those schemes, good though they are, to achieve really radical recycling rates in Britain.
Another benefit of the deposit-refund system is that it would help to cut the demand for landfill. Drinks containers currently represent 8 to 10 per cent. of landfill waste. Landfill sites are scarce and filling up fast, and new sites are often unpopular. Given the dramatic reduction in landfill that would occur in the United Kingdom if most bottles and cans could be recycled, I estimate that, nationally, about £50 million of taxpayers' money could be saved each year on landfill and transport costs. For example, Bradford metropolitan district council, my local authority, estimates that it could save about £500,000 in waste disposal and handling costs if the Bill became law.
Another environmental benefit of the scheme is that it would reduce litter. The litter of discarded bottles and cans is a safety hazard, a public nuisance and an aesthetic blight. The consequences of the throwaway culture are significant. Certainly my constituents are fed up with the mountains of litter that constantly accumulate in the parks and streets of Shipley.
Bottle and can deposit schemes help to make streets cleaner and reduce litter in public places, because, in countries where the system operates, sharp-eyed members of the public often retrieve and redeem containers discarded by the litter bugs. That in turn helps to reduce the costs of litter collection for local authorities, which now face large cleansing bills each year.
Container redemption systems help to foster an anti-litter ethic in the community. In Oregon, in the United States, where the scheme operates, a widespread public ethos against dropping litter has been created, partly as a result of its long-standing deposit-refund scheme. I understand that, two years after the scheme was introduced, roadside litter in Oregon had been halved.
The deposit idea is nothing new. Indeed, many hon. Members may recall that, until a few years ago, deposit schemes used to operate for many of the larger bottles in this country. Most have now disappeared, except for a few products such as Barr's Irn Bru in Scotland.
A further spin-off of deposit schemes is that voluntary groups and charities have ready access to an easy source of fund-raising activity. The collection of empty containers would be encouraged by such organisations, which are eager to generate resources in a simple and understandable way.

387
Businesses as well as individuals would be able to take part in the container redemption system. In particular, pubs, clubs and restaurants—which, according to the organisation British Glass Recycling, currently throw away about 95 per cent. of their glass bottles—would have a monetary incentive to recycle rather than to contribute to more and more landfill.
Recycling is a habit, and the public support it. In countries where the deposit scheme operates, the public have become more enthused about recycling, which has led to a greater popular awareness of the scarcity of natural resources and an increase in other recycling activities.
The drinks container redemption scheme has many environmental benefits and an excellent track record. Next time that you are walking down the street, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I urge you to cast your eyes to the ground to see how many empty vessels litter the streets; I urge you to consider how the drinks container redemption system would clear up the parks, open spaces and roadsides throughout the community. I sincerely hope that such a system will come into operation in this country, and that the House will support the idea.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Leslie, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Ms Helen Southworth, Maria Eagle, Mr. Paul Truswell, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Andrew Love, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Angela Smith and Mr. Norman Baker.

DRINKS CONTAINERS (REDEMPTION)
Mr. Leslie accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the redemption of certain drinks containers; 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 195].

HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [2nd June] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.
Report considered accordingly.
Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Following is the report of the Business Committee [2 June]:
That the days which under the Order [1st June] are allotted to remaining proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below:—

TABLE

Allotted day

Proceedings

First day

Clauses 2 to 4

Second day

Clauses 5 and 6

Third day

Clauses 7 to 12

Fourth day

Remaining proceedings.

Orders of the Day

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 20 May].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
    Clause 2

      INTERPRETATION OF CONVENTION RIGHTS
      4.42 pm
      Mr. James Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'take into account' and insert 'have regard to'.
      No. 6, in page 2, leave out lines 5 to 10.
      No. 7, in page 2, line 11, leave out 'whenever made or given'.
      Mr. Clappison: The amendments raise important issues concerning the relationship between the jurisprudence of the European Court and the way in which United Kingdom courts will apply the convention after incorporation. Clause 2 deals with the way in which UK courts determine questions relating to convention rights and take account of the relevant jurisprudence from the commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers.
      Under clause 2, a United Kingdom court or tribunal, in determining a question that has arisen in connection with a right under the European convention,
      "must take into account"—
      I use the words of the Bill, as it is important to be precise—
      "any …judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court"
      as well as opinions and decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers. To be absolutely clear, I should say that when I refer to the commission, I mean not the Commission of the European Union, but the European Commission of Human Rights, which is the body that individuals alleging a breach of convention rights first approach. The commission plays an important role in the operation of the convention and is a quite separate body from the Commission of the European Union.
      We wish to explore, through the amendments, the use of the phrase "must take into account". In particular, we wonder whether it is best suited to the purpose of defining the way in which United Kingdom courts should approach the jurisprudence emanating from the European Court of Human Rights and the commission. We are also concerned that the course that the Government are taking has the potential to cause problems in future.

      389
      Talking about potential problems is no reflection of our confidence in our United Kingdom courts; we have great faith in the quality of our United Kingdom judiciary, and we do not want to make life any more difficult than it need be. We feel that the phrase "may have regard to" in amendment Nos. 4 and 5 is more suited to the circumstances in guiding the relationship between United Kingdom and European law. To put it in broad terms, it more appropriately fits the bill.
      In earlier debates on the Bill, we were rightly warned about the dangers of attempting to dance on the head of a pin. I shall not undertake to do that today. Let me spell out the difference between our amendment and the Bill as drafted. It is more than the width of the head of a pin, and we believe that, potentially, it could make the difference between putting our courts in an unnecessary straitjacket and giving them the flexibility to do what is right in the circumstances in which the convention is to be applied in the United Kingdom, if it is incorporated.
      We believe that the phrase "may have regard to" would be better than what is in the clause—"must take into account". It is a matter of what is better suited to the circumstances. I must make it clear that, in tabling the amendments and making these comments, we are not seeking to rebel against the European Court, to cast ourselves adrift from its jurisprudence or, still less, to raise other matters to do with the European Court or any other European issues—far from it.
      I should like to refer back to what the shadow Attorney-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), said in an earlier debate, when he identified three important points of principle. He said that we do not want the United Kingdom judiciary creating a separate body of law for the United Kingdom, which might go further than would the commission or the European Court at Strasbourg. We want our approach to be within the general framework of the jurisprudence of the European Court, but not to be too tightly bound by it. That is what our amendment seeks to achieve.
      Against that background, let me make two further points. First, the European Court has adopted the margin of appreciation that has been for some time an established part of its jurisprudence and thinking. We acknowledge the importance of that feature, and we believe that it has played a valuable part in decision making by the European Court in the past. Implicit within the doctrine of the margin of appreciation is the proposition that the decisions of national authorities should be treated with a certain respect. National authorities are considered by the court to be in the best position to look at the requirements of public interest within their nations. Therefore, the court is prepared to give national authorities a certain amount of latitude in their national affairs. Of course the court must look objectively at the convention rights from state to state, but it does so against the background of some latitude for individual states in their own affairs.
      The margin of appreciation is an established doctrine, but we shall hear more about it if the convention is incorporated, which is the will of the Government. We want the spirit of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation to be in evidence in United Kingdom courts. In the past, the European Court of Human Rights has shown some caution and conservatism. It has not always got it right, and I know that my hon. Friends and, perhaps, other hon. Members could easily think of decisions on
      390
      some high-profile cases with which they disagree. That is bound to be the case, given the nature of the matters with which the court has to deal. However, it has always been right to approach matters with some caution. That general frame of reference is appropriate.
      If the convention is to be incorporated, a degree of prudence and caution, together with respect for national values, will not be inappropriate for the UK courts when they apply the convention to the circumstances of our own country. No doubt our courts will, in the fulness of time, arrive at that view. We want the UK courts to follow the general approach of the European Court in those important respects. However, we want the European Court's decisions on the judgments of UK courts to be persuasive rather than prescriptive.
      Clause 2 requires
      "any … judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights … whenever made or given"
      to be taken into account.
      As the Minister knows, we have tabled an amendment relating to the words "whenever made or given". We presume that the Government intend that to include judgments, decisions, declarations or opinions of the European Court in which the United Kingdom was not a party. We note the use of the word "any", so we make the straightforward assumption that the Government intend that all that jurisprudence should be taken into account in the way required in the Bill. I look to the Minister for confirmation of that, as he was looking slightly puzzled a moment ago. We believe it to be a straightforward assumption to make from the wording in the Bill.
      That being so, it means that, in any cases involving any of the 40 countries across the length and breadth of Europe that are party to the convention, the judgments, decisions, declarations or opinions of the European Court or the commission would have to be taken into account by UK courts. It must follow from that that cases involving other parties to the European convention will not reflect a margin of appreciation for the United Kingdom. They may reflect a margin of appreciation for the country concerned, but not for us. The Bill says that our courts must take those decisions into account, so we must ask whether that is entirely appropriate. What may be right for other countries may not necessarily be right for the United Kingdom.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Such cases form part of the jurisprudence of the European convention, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I remind him that, when these matters were debated in another place, the Opposition argued that the Strasbourg jurisprudence should be binding on United Kingdom courts. Have the Opposition changed their view?
      Mr. Clappison: The Minister makes a mistake by taking too partisan an approach to these matters. We are seeking to explore the margin of appreciation. I hope that he paid close attention when I made it clear that we commended the generally cautious, conservative approach of the European Court, and he will know that that has been widely recognised by commentators. We do not seek to rebel against that, but we need to explore how the Bill will require the margin of appreciation that may be taken into account in decisions by the European Court on other

      391
      countries to be dealt with in our courts when they consider the decisions and judgments of the European Court. That is an entirely legitimate concern, and we were right to explore it in the other place and here.
      I shall come shortly to some important remarks made by the Lord Chancellor. The Minister is the Lord Chancellor's spokesman, and may be able to intervene on those. We are trying to explore important arguments for being within the reach of the European Court, but not being bound too tightly by its decisions. As the Minister has fallen into the habit of drawing on what was said in the other place, let me tell him what his noble Friend said. Having given him a sneak preview of my intention to mention those remarks, let me give him a slight surprise: I rather agree with the Lord Chancellor's sentiments, although not perhaps with his oft-expressed enthusiasm for the terms in which the Bill is drafted and in which he has taken some pride.
      Perhaps the Lord Chancellor's spokesman would like to pay close attention to the Lord Chancellor's words. He said:
      "There may also be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions. We must remember that the interpretation of the convention rights develops over the years. Circumstances may therefore arise in which a judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights decades ago contains pronouncements which it would not be appropriate to apply to the letter in the circumstances of today in a particular set of circumstances affecting this country…The United Kingdom is not, of course, bound in international law to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party and it would be strange to require courts in the United Kingdom to be bound by such decisions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 1271.]
      We agree with those sentiments, but must question how well the drafting of the Bill reflects them. Juxtaposed with those sentiments, the drafting of the Bill, which we seek legitimately to explore, looks a little rum.
      First, we need to explore what our courts are intended to understand by the phrase "must take into account". It was said in another place that those words would permit UK courts to depart from existing Strasbourg decisions and that, on occasion, it might be appropriate to do so and the courts might give a successful lead to Strasbourg. Those words were spoken by another Minister in the other place. We are happy with that. Indeed, it may be recalled that, in our earlier debates, my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Attorney-General made it clear that, whatever other reservations we might have, one of the benefits of incorporation is that British judges would have an opportunity to have an input into the fashioning of convention law. That is all well and good, but the Government have not yet been sufficiently clear on what they intend by the phrase "must take into account".
      5 pm
      If those words are not binding—we take it that they are not—the Government must spell out more clearly the nature and extent of the circumstances in which United Kingdom courts may choose not to follow Strasbourg decisions. The Government apparently contemplate that UK courts would be permitted to depart from Strasbourg decisions when there had been no precise ruling on the matter in question. Such an example was given by the Lord Chancellor in the debate on this clause in the other
      392
      place. What about cases in which there has been a precise ruling by Strasbourg? Do the words "must take into account" mean that UK courts must follow to the letter rulings in cases in which the court or the commission has made a judgment, decision, declaration or opinion in the relevant circumstances? Do our courts have to follow them at all?
      Will the Minister say whether UK courts may depart from such decisions when there has been a precise ruling by Strasbourg? The matter was left unclear when it was debated in another place. It is important for the future and for our courts that we know the Government's position. It is all very well to say that our courts can feel free to go their own way when there is no precise ruling from Strasbourg, but what about cases when there is?
      Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his question. The answer is clear: it is for the independent judgment of a court to resolve the issue before it. Nothing that can be said here will affect that independence. I am surprised to hear him pursue that argument, because, by doing so, he seeks to fetter that independence. If a court arrives at an apparently incorrect decision, there is the prospect of an appeal, which ultimately could end up in the court in Strasbourg. Those matters are routinely resolved before the courts every day of the year. The hon. Gentleman seeks to go into a logical cul de sac from which there is no exit.
      Mr. Clappison: The Minister is making too much of the matter. I simply wish to explore what was left unclear in another place. I hope that he will give a more considered response later in view of the way in which the matter was left in the House of Lords, because it will not do as it stands. The Minister must deal with the question: what is the effect on United Kingdom courts if there is a precise ruling from Strasbourg on a matter that a UK court seeks to determine in this country?
      The Minister must give a better answer than he has given so far. It is no use trying to remit the issue to the courts in a general way, by saying that we shall leave it to the courts' good judgment. The Government have already gone so far as to say that our courts need not feel bound when there is no precise ruling from Strasbourg—they went that far in another place, in a more considered response than the Minister has just given—but what about cases when there is a precise ruling? What do the words "must take into account" import in those circumstances?
      I realise that the Minister is impatient to get on with the Bill, but he must give the matter a little more consideration. It is an important issue for the future. We want to guide our courts appropriately, as much as we can.
      I hope that the Minister will not take my remarks as an implied attack on the European Court. As I have made clear, we welcome the cautious approach that it has often taken. However, we note a word of warning given in another place by the noble Law Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, who, while praising the record to date of the European Court, said:
      "a major change is taking place. We are now seeing a wider range of judges adjudicating such matters, a number of them drawn from jurisdictions 10 years ago not famous for their observance of human rights. It might be dangerous to tie ourselves to that".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 November 1997; Vol. 583, c. 513.]
      As that warning comes from such a source, we should be wise to take it on board.

      393
      I move on now to amendment No. 6. Clause 2 requires United Kingdom courts in certain circumstances to take into account decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers. I want to explore two points. First, is it the Government's intention to require the courts to give the same weight to decisions of those bodies as to those of the European Court? Again, I make it clear that I mean no disrespect to the commission, which I appreciate is of a high calibre and carries out valuable work. However, we need to consider whether it is right in effect to give the commission parity of esteem with the European Court, as the Bill apparently does. Clause 2 puts the commission on the same footing as the court. Is that the signal that the Government mean to send out?
      My second point concerns the potential problem when the European Court arrives at a different view from the commission. Under article 31, which is mentioned in clause 2(1)(b), the commission will, in a matter where it has been unable to bring the parties to a friendly settlement, draw up a report and give its opinion as to whether there has been a breach. That, of course, is standard procedure. I apprehend that subsection (1)(b) requires a United Kingdom court to take into account such an opinion even though the European Court has yet to give a view. No doubt the Minister will correct me if I am wrong.
      On that basis, what will happen if the United Kingdom court takes the commission's opinion into account and the European Court, also having taken into account that opinion, comes to a different conclusion, which is not altogether unknown? That would appear to be a possibility. I assume that the Government have thought that through. Will the Minister tell us what will happen in those circumstances?
      There are a number of potential dangers, and our amendments reflect our concerns. We seek a constructive and considered response from the Government. They know that the courts will in future consider carefully what is said about the Bill, and the Government owe it to the courts to get it right. If the convention is to be incorporated, we want a genuine partnership between Parliament and the courts. I shall say more about that later. If we are to do our job right by the courts, we must not leave them in a difficult and uncertain position on the relationship between European jurisprudence and the decisions that our courts must make in considering cases involving breaches of convention rights. Those are serious issues, and we look to the Government for a considered response.
      Mrs. Theresa May: Unlike, I suspect, the majority of hon. Members present, I am no lawyer, so terms such as "margin of appreciation" and legal terms will not trip easily off my tongue.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made clear, this is an important issue, concerning the relationship between the jurisprudence of the court in Strasbourg and the position of the courts in the UK, and the extent to which our courts have flexibility in interpreting that jurisprudence in applying decisions in the UK. That is obviously relevant to us all.
      I suspect that the Minister, in his response, will refer to the fact that we have approached the matter from two different angles in the debate in the other place and in this debate. Our approach is entirely reasonable, because we
      394
      are trying to tease out from the Government the degree of flexibility that they intend UK courts to have. In response to the amendment moved by the shadow Lord Chancellor in the other place, the Lord Chancellor made statements about the Government's intentions. His remarks suggest that the Government's position is perhaps closer to our amendments than the Minister's intervention implied. It will be interesting to see whether the Government are willing to accept these amendments, because they put into effect the intention of the Lord Chancellor's words.
      The Lord Chancellor said in the debate in the other place:
      "There may also be occasions when it would be right for the United Kingdom courts to depart from Strasbourg decisions. We must remember that the interpretation of the convention rights develops over the years. Circumstances may therefore arise in which a judgment given by the European Court of Human Rights decades ago contains pronouncements which it would not be appropriate to apply to the letter in the circumstances of today in a particular set of circumstances affecting this country … The United Kingdom is not, of course, bound in international law to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party and it would be strange to require courts in the United Kingdom to be bound by such decisions."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 1271.]
      Those remarks reflect the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere and suggest that the Government intend to provide the flexibility proposed in amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.
      Amendment No. 7 is particularly relevant, because it deals with clause 2, which provides that the courts must take into account any judgment or decision "whenever made or given". The Lord Chancellor's remarks make it clear that it would be inappropriate to suggest that decisions taken a considerable time ago are of relevance today. Amendment No. 7, which would remove the phrase "whenever made or given", would put his remarks into effect so that courts would not have to take account of past decisions regardless of their relevance.
      Mr. Hoon: Is not that precisely what the straightforward English expression "take into account" means?
      Mrs. May: We have tabled these amendments to find out what the Government mean by the phrase "take into account". By providing that these issues should be taken into account, the Government are placing a greater emphasis on the courts following those rules and judgments than they intend. I seek from the Minister a clearer definition of "take into account".
      We should consider amendment No. 7, especially in the light of the Lord Chancellor's comments. It would give his remarks and the Government's intentions immediate effect. If the Government accept any of the amendments, I hope that they will accept amendment No. 7.
      Other provisions of clause 2(1) are also of concern. Amendment No. 6 deals with the opinions and decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers. If there is to be flexibility, the courts should not be required to take into account or to have regard to opinions. They are merely opinions of the commission and have not yet become judgments or decisions. Our amendments are about the extent of the flexibility and independence of courts in this country to be able to interpret the convention. The courts should not be required to take into account matters that have not yet been decided.

      395
      5.15 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere dealt most ably with amendments No. 4 and 5. We look forward to hearing the Government's interpretation of those issues. Notwithstanding the Lord Chancellor's comments, the requirement that these matters "must" be taken into account rather than "may" be taken into account, regardless of whether a decision has been made or whether an opinion has become a decision, implies a degree of inflexibility. The Government's pronouncements on the issue suggest that that is not their intention.
      I hope that the Minister will consider our amendments as sympathetic to the Government's stated intentions. They try to improve the wording of the Bill, to give greater effect to the Government's intentions. The purpose of these important amendments is to tease from the Government clarification of their intentions with regard to the flexibility of the courts. I support the amendments, because they would provide the flexibility that the Government intend.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I support the amendments. It is entirely right that the courts should have flexibility when taking into account or having regard to the judgments and opinions described in clause 2. It is important that we should make it plain that the courts are not bound—that is to say, not obliged—to implement decisions made in other jurisdictions, previous decisions of the court or the opinions of the commission. I believe that it is the Minister's intention that clause 2 should not impose on the courts of the United Kingdom an obligation to be bound by such judgment, decision or opinion. It would be extremely helpful if he would make that wholly plain. The purpose of the amendments ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is to give the Minister an opportunity to do that.
      I have no objection to the word "must", but I do not particularly wish to see the word "may" incorporated in the legislation. In this context, it is right that the courts of the United Kingdom should take into account the stated decisions and opinions, although it is for the courts to determine their relevance and appropriate weight.
      I dissent from the Government's proposal to give equality of weight to the judgment of the European Court and the opinion or decision of the commission and the decision of the Committee of Ministers. A difference of weight should be given to the judgment of the European Court on the one hand and to the opinions and decisions of the commission and the Committee of Ministers on the other. The problem with the drafting is that no distinction is made in the Bill, and I regret that. The Bill gives all decisions equal weight, and I fancy that that is a mistake.
      This has been a useful probing debate, because the Government can make wholly plain what I believe to be their intention: that the courts are not bound by the decisions and opinions referred to in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will say just that.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I am happy to participate, I hope reasonably briefly, in the debate.
      Having read clause 2 a number of times reasonably carefully, I have little to disagree with. The difficulty, and the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere
      396
      (Mr. Clappison) has properly proposed probing amendments, is that there is bound to be anxiety about the way in which the courts will operate in practice.
      My understanding of what is intended—the Minister will doubtless disagree with me if I have got it wrong—is that the wording in clause 2 is designed to give a court or a tribunal discretion in applying the various areas of the decision making—the jurisprudence—of the European Court of Human Rights, or of other bodies similar to that of an English court applying the decision making of other common law jurisdictions. That is how I interpret it. Therefore, there would be wide discretion, and, I would also infer, the operation of the margin of appreciation as to whether such decisions are relevant to the particular circumstances, which the European Court has to determine in so far as they relate to the United Kingdom.
      Clearly, the anxiety is whether the wording is correct and will provide that measure of discretion. I share the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) that the use of the word "must" as opposed to the word "may" is perfectly appropriate in particular circumstances to enable the court to do that.
      I have further anxiety about two points. I do not want to exaggerate their effects, but I shall probe the Minister about the intention behind the inclusion of two specific references. First, the words "whenever made or given" appear in clause 2(1)(d). I infer that that is surplusage: the words are unnecessary because, by their very nature, decisions by bodies referred to in clause 2(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d) will be relevant, irrespective of when they were made or given, but the Minister may be able to persuade me otherwise.
      Applying sensible English common law principles, less weight will be attached to a decision that is old, pertains to matters that have been passed by the march of events and has been doubted somewhere else than to a more recent decision. Will the Minister clarify why those words were specifically included? There may have been a desire that people should not think that only decisions made subsequent to the passage of the Bill would be affected. That may be the answer, and I should be interested to hear from him on that point.
      The other issue that puzzles me a little is the way in which different decision-making bodies are lumped together in clause 2(1)(a), (b), (c) and (d). The oddest is subsection (1)(d), which states:
      "decision of the Committee of Ministers taken under Article 46 of the Convention".
      As I understand it, article 46 provides a mechanism by which extra structures can be added to the convention. It states:
      "Any of the High Contracting Parties may at any time declare that it recognises as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court in all matters concerning the interpretation and application of the present Convention.
      The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity".
      That does not have much to do with the development of jurisprudence. Has it not rather more to do with the extent to which the international obligations of the parties may be extended? Therefore, I find it odd that that should appear amid what otherwise appear to be matters of jurisprudence. The Minister may be able to answer that point.

      397
      Having thought about the different weight being given to a judgment or an opinion or a decision of the commission, I am not as concerned as some of my hon. Friends. The key issue in clause 2 is the meaning of the words "must take into account". The clause revolves around that. It has been suggested that the words "have regard to" might be better, and, as a term of art bandied around in the courts, they would trip off the tongues of lawyers rather more easily than "taking into account". Having thought about it carefully, I consider that there is no difference between them.
      It is worth bearing in mind, however, that Law Lords continually say that they or the court should "have regard to" something, so a wise draftsman might have regard to those words. I simply invite the Minister to say whether that point has been considered. Save for that, clause 2 should enable the courts to have the necessary discretion to apply the convention while not being fettered slavishly by it. I hope that he will confirm the generality of what I have said. Provided that that can be achieved, clause 2 as drafted, or even if the amendments were accepted, would still do the same job.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: At first sight, the debate may seem to involve lawyers dancing on the head of a pin and talking about whether we "may" or "must" take account of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights or whether we should be bound by it. Anyone listening to our debate would wonder what on earth we are going on about and why it is so important. Before the Minister nods too vigorously, I shall explain why the debate is important.
      We had a lengthy debate a couple of weeks ago on the impact of the Bill on religious liberties, Church schools and the rest. The constant refrain of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who summed up for the Government and replied to the points made by me and other hon. Members, was, "I don't know what hon. Members are going on about. The convention has been around since 1951, and if it was such a threat to religious liberties or to Church schools, and if people were going to take organisations to court, that would have happened a long time ago." The problem is that the jurisprudence of the European Court is limited. I have the figures: of the 45 applications to Strasbourg on article 9, only five have been allowed to proceed to the European Court. The article 9 point is important, because the Government have constantly argued that it will protect conventions. The point that I have made all along is that the jurisprudence is weak.
      The Minister has had a bit of fun today, because he has obviously read the debate in the other place, as I have. He maintains that Conservatives there argued that we should be bound by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court, while we are saying the opposite. Leaving aside the fact that we are perfectly entitled to probe the Government, the reason for that is that many of us are fundamentally unhappy about incorporating the convention and are unhappy about the Bill. We believe that it is virtually impossible for the Government to resolve the dilemma.
      Let us assume that we go down the route advocated by my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor. He made the sensible point, with which I agree, that, if we are to protect our religious liberties, we should give more cognisance and more authority to the jurisprudence of the European Court, because it has been conservative in moral, social and religious matters.
      398
      I think that Lord Kingsland's argument was entirely justifiable. The Lord Chancellor disagreed, and said that our judges would be bound too closely. However, Lord Kingsland's argument—and my argument—is that we are in danger of not simply incorporating the convention in our law, but going much further. What we are creating is an entirely new Bill of Rights. We are giving our judges—who, under clause 2, must "take into account" the matters specified—considerable flexibility in how they interpret the convention.
      5.30 pm
      My hon. Friends and I have referred to religious liberties, and the threat that the convention might pose to Church schools and other religious charities. The European Court has been very conservative, and, for that reason, the jurisprudence is very limited. The European Court has constantly applied the margin of appreciation, telling people that the cases that they have brought to it are really matters for the national courts.
      Our judges, however, will not be bound by the European jurisprudence, and we anticipate a rash of cases of the kind that we were discussing a couple of weeks ago. An example is a Catholic school being taken to court because it has dismissed a head teacher following her divorce. We feel that our judges, rather than being in the conservative mould of the European judges, might go much further, and that there could be a real threat to religious freedoms.
      That is why I consider Lord Kingsland's argument perfectly logical. The problem is that anyone wishing to advance such an argument must be pretty pro-Europe. The Lord Chancellor teased his shadow, accusing him of being "Janus-like". Another Law Lord who has already been mentioned—I think it was Lord Browne-Wilkinson—disagreed with the amendments that we were pressing in the other place. His point, which I think has already been referred to, was that the European Court had been much expanded, and now contained judges not just from western Europe but from central and eastern Europe. Some of those countries do not have our long traditions of freedom.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I think Lord Kingsland's point was one that he made on Second Reading last November. He feared that the jurisprudence of the European convention, and of the Court in Strasbourg, would not be exactly replicated in the decision making of British judges. I think he said that it would not be "an exact photograph".
      Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. The visual image conveyed by the phrase "an exact photograph" is very powerful.
      Mr. Hogg: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest and some surprise. As I understand it, he is saying that he feels safer with the interpretation of the convention by the European Court than with the prospect of its interpretation's being at the discretion of our judges. That is a most unusual position for my hon. Friend to adopt, and I am anxious to confirm that I have not misunderstood him.
      Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend, with his piercing intellect and acute mind, has gone to the heart of

      399
      the difficulty that I face. He is, of course, absolutely right. I am afraid that there is no easy way out of the dilemma, except to reject the Bill entirely, which we are not going to do—or, rather, the House of Commons is not going to do. We must try to argue our way out of the problem.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend implied, given the track record of the European Court's jurisprudence over the past 50 years, I have more confidence in it than in the jurisprudence that may develop in our own courts.
      Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. Does he believe that the Conservative party should reject incorporation?
      Mr. Leigh: My personal view, which I have argued all along, is that we should reject it. Along with those of my hon. Friends who, like me, have a particular interest in religious liberties, I have said that we are going down a very dangerous route.
      Mr. John Bercow: I hope that my hon. Friend will not be self-effacing about his opposition to incorporation. It is extremely robust, very articulate and widely shared.
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is typically generous. I claim no particular virtue in opposing incorporation, except to make a general point. I believe that, over many centuries, our country has developed a rigid demarcation between the role of judges, which is to interpret the law, and the role of Parliament, which is to make the law. Those of us who oppose incorporation do so because we believe that judges will be given a new, expanded role that will eventually politicise them in the way in which they have been politicised in the United States.
      Mr. Hogg: As this is a Committee stage, I hope that I shall be forgiven for intervening again—and, no doubt, again and again.
      I know the background from which my hon. Friend comes, and I know that he is concerned about the religious issues raised by the convention. May I suggest, however, that while his conclusion that he is safer with the European judges' interpretation of the convention may be justified in the context of religious freedoms, it is not justified in the wider context?
      I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the judges of the European Court have extended the convention well beyond what the founding fathers originally contemplated, in, for instance, the sphere of unusual punishments. I suggest that, because of his concern about one particular point—religious freedoms, and what has been done in the European Court to safeguard them—my hon. Friend has reached the general conclusion that he is safer in the hands of the European Court than in those of the courts of England and Wales.
      Mr. Leigh: My right hon. and learned Friend may be making a valid point. I hope that he will not mind if I see my role in this short debate as that of spokesman for religious organisations. As he will know, there is a great deal of concern, especially in the religious press and among religious organisations such as the Roman Catholic
      400
      and Anglican Churches. Those bodies need to be reassured, and I therefore thought it important to mention them today, as I did a couple of weeks ago.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend has moved on to important terrain. Religious organisations will be looking for protection from the European Court, within the conservative frame of reference that we have been discussing. As they will no longer have an absolute defence, as the Lords Committee voted to take it out of the Bill, will they not now look for a certain amount of judicial self-restraint from judges in this country and in the European Court to protect them from the vexatious litigants that many fear will follow decisions that we have already made?
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope that the Minister will make a similar point. There are vexatious litigants waiting out there—people with an anti-Church agenda. I assume that the Bill will be passed as it is now drafted, given the parliamentary arithmetic. Our judges will therefore not feel bound by the conservative jurisprudence that has developed in Europe over the past 40 or 50 years. They will have to apply many self-denying ordinances to ensure that they do not go down a dangerous route. I can see no way out of the dilemma. If the Bill is enacted, our judges may be bound by European jurisprudence. I do not want that, because I have great confidence in our judges.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: I do not accept that there is an argument for the incorporation of the convention rights into English law, but if there were, incorporation would allow our judges to make decisions in the English context based on their interpretation of the convention. The argument continues that, if the matter proceeds to the European Court of Human Rights, at least the input of our judges will have been taken into account.
      Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be extraordinary if our judges were bound by previous decisions of the European Court, the opinions and decisions of the commission and decisions by the Committee of Ministers, because one of the strongest arguments for incorporation is precisely that our judges can interpret the convention afresh?
      Mr. Leigh: I presume that, if the Lord Chancellor were taking part in the debate, he would make a similar point. He would say that I do not have sufficient confidence in our judges and in the precedents that have developed over hundreds of years.
      Our system is unique because our judges base their judgments on precedent, but there is no precedent in this case. We are opening a whole new area into which judges can walk—I shall not say wander, because that would be pejorative—and make new judge-made law. Under the fast-track procedure, an Order in Council may be used or the Government may decide that Parliament should accept such judgments and our constitution could be radically changed. That is why those of us who oppose incorporation are worried by the Bill.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: My hon. Friend brings us back to the dilemma. Our choice is between allowing European jurisprudence to continue or,

      401
      as the Government have said, bringing it home to our judges. My hon. Friend expressed a preference for the more conservative jurisprudence of Europe, but is he confident that that will continue? Does he accept that many of us are reluctant to accept incorporation into English law because we believe that we would be better off renouncing our accession to the convention in its entirety?
      Mr. Leigh: I do not know how European jurisprudence will develop. However, judging by recent history, it has taken the view, under margin of appreciation, that these matters are best dealt with by national courts. I understand that vexatious litigants who attack Churches and other religious organisations, charities and Church schools have had the door of the European Court shut in their face. That is why I have said that of the 45 applications to Strasbourg under article 9 only five have been allowed to proceed to the court.
      My original point is important. The Secretary of State for Scotland made a fundamental error when he said, "Don't worry. The convention has been around for ages, and if there had been a problem dozens of schools would have been taken to court." However the European Court is international, and such courts have always locked their doors and said that such matters are best decided by national courts. We are moving into a new and dangerous area in which we will no longer have that protection. Judges will not be bound by the traditional, conservative jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court. There will be no other court to which they can refer such matters, and they will not be able to turn away vexatious litigants. They will be unable to say, "We cannot hear your case, and it would be better dealt with by another court." They will have to hear it.
      By their nature, Church organisations are not rich. People put a few pennies on the collection plate, and they do not do so to fund expensive cases at the lower court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. However, some vexatious litigants are well funded; that is why we are worried.
      Mr. Garnier: I take it that my hon. Friend uses the expression "vexatious litigant" in the non-legal sense. Anyone who is deemed to be such a litigant would be shut out. I presume that he means a tiresome person.
      Mr. Leigh: Perhaps I should not use that term. I should have referred to organisations that have particular agendas, are well funded and contrary to the Secretary of State for Scotland's assurances, will be able to take organisations to court. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister will deal with the worries of Church organisations.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Hoon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on wringing every last nuance of alleged ambiguity out of the Bill's plain, straightforward English words. He was keen on the word "flexibility". As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said, I sought to expose the flexibility of the Opposition in the context of their attitude here and their attitude in the other place. I need not have troubled, because much flexibility was on display in Committee.
      402
      I am not sure whether any Opposition Member agreed with the hon. Member for Hertsmere, but I may be unkindly wrong. If I am, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
      I shall deal with the matters that have been raised, but if any hon. Member feels that I have not done so thoroughly, I shall return to them. Clause 2(1) provides that a court or tribunal that is determining a question in connection with a convention right must take account of the relevant jurisprudence of the European Commission, the European Court of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers whenever it was made or given. The purpose of the provision is to point our courts towards an interpretation of convention rights that is consistent with the interpretation in Strasbourg. In other words, we are bringing home the jurisprudence of the convention rights as well as the rights themselves. Amendment No. 4 would make taking those matters into account discretionary rather than mandatory.
      Mr. Heald: Does the Minister agree that there are alternatives? One is to have uniform jurisprudence in this area throughout Europe, in which case the Bill as framed may suit. The other is that the United Kingdom courts can, in the circumstances of this country, make their own judgment and interpretation of the convention. Lord Browne-Wilkinson spoke about that distinction and said that uniform jurisprudence may not be in this country's best interests.
      Mr. Hoon: With respect, the hon. Gentleman puts two different points. The words "take into account" have the precise meaning of his second point. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) also asked about this matter. The phrase clearly allows for Strasbourg jurisprudence not to be precisely followed but to be taken into account. That is the meaning of the English words.
      Mr. Heald: The Minister chooses to stress the words "take into account", but the courts may take special account of the word "must". Does he agree that the words "must take into account" impose a heavy burden on the English courts to move towards uniform jurisprudence matching that of Strasbourg? That point was made by the noble Lord Browne-Wilkinson.
      Mr. Hoon: The word "must" in this context clearly means that the courts must take into account the jurisprudence. That is what the words in English say. They do not mean that there has to be uniform jurisprudence. They mean that the courts must take the jurisprudence into account in reaching a decision.
      Let me suggest what the effect of the discretionary word "may" will be. It will mean that our courts might produce, on the same set of facts, different results because some may take the jurisprudence into account and some may not. That can hardly be sensible when we are trying to promote consistency in the decision making of our courts. If we allow courts not to take into account the jurisprudence, we shall end up, on similar facts, with different results. That can hardly be satisfactory.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with much of what the Minister says, but may I probe the Government's position on this a little further? Ultimately, the Government will have in

      403
      mind an objective. Is it their objective that, in the generality of cases, United Kingdom courts will follow the jurisprudence of the European Court and all the other decisions and opinions there stated, so that, in the generality of cases, the ways in which this country's courts interpret the convention will be shaped by the decisions made by the European jurisprudence?
      Mr. Hoon: Clearly, it is important, because the UK is bound internationally by the convention's provisions, that our law should be consistent with the general provisions of the European convention. That is already the law of the UK in relation to the international position. The Government are seeking to incorporate those international obligations into our domestic law. Therefore, it is important, ultimately, that the law of the UK, as applied by UK courts, is broadly consistent with the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court.
      That is something which, if cases were pressed to their logical and ultimate conclusion, is already necessary. Having been bound internationally to satisfy the terms of the convention, there is an obligation on the UK, as a signatory state to the European convention, to translate those decisions into our domestic legislation, so there is no legal distinction between the position today and the position that will obtain once incorporation has taken place.
      Mr. Heald: In his explanation, the hon. Gentleman seemed to argue that, if the factual basis of a case were the same in Greece as in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or England, the outcome would have to be the same, on the basis of his present drafting. Is that really the situation?
      Mr. Hoon: I did not say that, and the hon. Gentleman knows full well that I did not say that. I congratulate him on his ingenuity. What I said was that the Opposition amendment would lead to a situation where it would be possible for a court in one part of the UK to apply the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court and a court in another part not to take it into account, producing different results on the same facts within the UK. That cannot be satisfactory. It is important that courts are consistent in the material and information that they take into account. That is why the Opposition amendment is defective, and it is clear from comments by certain Conservative Members that they recognise that fact.
      Amendment No. 5 would require the court or tribunal to "have regard to" the convention jurisprudence, rather than take it into account. Like the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I do not think that there is any significant difference between "have regard to" and "take into account". I struggled hard, as he did, to see what the purpose of the amendment was. Like him, I have failed to find any distinction. The latter phrase is in the Bill, and I do not see why it needs to be changed.
      Amendment No. 6 would retain the reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, but remove the reference to the opinions and decisions of the European Commission of Human Rights and the Committee of Ministers. I believe that the domestic courts should, when determining questions in connection with
      404
      the convention of rights, be required to take into account all relevant decisions of the Strasbourg authorities, rather than only those of the European Court of Human Rights.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the Committee the extent to which the commission and the Committee of Ministers hear argument before expressing an opinion or making a decision? I simply do not know. Therefore, I do not know to what extent the decision results from the process of argument and debate.
      Mr. Hoon: It is impossible to give a precise answer to that question because, clearly, it depends on the circumstances of the particular case. An application to the commission, which first hears the application, may be so manifestly ill founded that it can be dealt with immediately, without a formal hearing. On the other hand, for those cases where clearly there is a substantial issue, there is a full hearing at present before the commission. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman were to walk into its courtroom, he would find that it looks very much like a court and like the European Court of Human Rights. As he may know, that is one of the reasons why, after the reform of the process of the European Court of Human Rights, there will be a unified and single court from 1 November this year. Therefore, depending on the circumstances, there will be thorough argument before the commission. Indeed, its decision may look very much like a decision of the court.
      It is important to recognise that many cases are settled on the basis of an opinion of the commission and do not necessarily proceed to the court, but that opinion may nevertheless be extremely relevant to the interpretation of the convention by the domestic courts. Perhaps more important still, the commission is responsible currently for decisions on the basic admissibility of complaints, including whether they are manifestly ill founded, as I have mentioned. That is an important part of the body of Strasbourg decisions and one that, on any view, it is right for our courts to take into account.
      Amendment No. 7 would remove the reference to judgments "whenever made or given".
      Mr. Grieve: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, let me say that I have no difficulty with his points about the commission and its role, but I found it a little more difficult to understand why the Committee of Ministers—particularly the reference to its decisions under article 46—is slotted in at that point. He may not know the answer. There may be an obvious answer that I have completely missed, but I should be grateful to know why it was thought that that point—where one is dealing with jurisprudence, as I understand it, and previous decision making—is the appropriate place to put that reference.
      Mr. Hoon: The obvious answer may be that the hon. Gentleman has missed the amendment to article 46 in protocol 11. Essentially, article 46 requires the high contracting parties, the signatory member states, to undertake to abide by final judgments in the court in any case to which they are parties. Therefore, in that sense, the decision of the Committee of Ministers is on all fours with decisions of the court. That is why that particular provision appears in its place in the Bill.

      405
      I was dealing with the point that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield made about amendment No. 7 and the reason for the inclusion of the words "whenever made or given". That phrase makes it clear that the domestic courts are to take into account not only existing jurisprudence of the convention institutions, but their future jurisprudence, which in due course will be influenced by the contribution of our courts. Removing the phrase would serve only to cast doubt on the duty to take account of future Strasbourg jurisprudence. I think that, during his debate with himself, he reached that conclusion in any event, but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I make that clear.
      Having explained to Opposition Members the weakness of the various amendments that have been tabled, I hope that they will be willing to withdraw them.
      6 pm
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I cannot claim to speak with any of the legal authority of so many of my distinguished right hon. and hon. Friends. I was no more than a humble high street solicitor, and the extent to which I have practised in human rights in 22 years is almost exactly nil. My interest in the debate was engaged by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who began to develop his anxieties—which I share—about the distinction that we have sustained in this country between the role of Parliament and the role of the judges.
      This is a political judgment—I shall not try to follow the lawyers in their legal arguments. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough gave rise to a political question—who appoints the judges? In this country, we have the anomalous but rather magnificent position of the Lord Chancellor—splendidly ensconced as he is. He is the complete denial of the separation of powers and the rule of law, because he is, at the same time, a member of the legislature, of the Executive and of the judiciary. His record in appointing judges has been rather good.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, what happens if we begin to assume forms and practices not unlike those in the United States of America? We all know what happens in terms of appointments to the Supreme Court, which are made by senators—for all practical purposes—who are divided on party lines. They examine the record of the candidate, not least his personal life—it seems to be an automatic feature of American politics that someone's private life is thoroughly turned over—and his previous political positions.
      During the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson, there was a suggestion that a man by the name of Abe Fortas be appointed to the Supreme Court, which had a vacancy in its fixed number of judges. He had developed a reputation as a liberal judge in a more junior forum, and the conservatives on Capitol hill began to argue against his appointment. In particular, they reckoned that he had a liberal record on cinema licensing and that he had let all sorts of things go through. They arranged to get all the films that Abe Fortas had permitted as film censor, and they had a constant show of the films approved by the liberal Abe Fortas. It was known as the Abe Fortas film festival. That is a fine level to which to reduce the appointment of judges.
      Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. If we go down that route, we may end up with a system
      406
      similar to that of America where, from the early 19th century, the judges have claimed the last word on the constitution. Effectively, that means that, on important areas such as abortion, contraception and capital punishment, the Supreme Court and the judges, not Congress, make the law. Indeed, the Supreme Court strikes down Congress on those matters. This country may legitimise the politicisation of our judiciary, which we believe would be fatal to the way in which our constitution has developed over three or four centuries.
      Mr. Taylor: I do not think that I could have put it as well as that. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and for adding that lustre to what will become an important record of this significant debate.
      Mr. Bercow: I agree with virtually everything that my hon. Friend has said, as I ordinarily do. The only exception is that, in his references to the Lord Chancellor, he was showing excessive generosity to what might be regarded by some members of the Committee as an undeserving cause. Further to the observation of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), does my hon. Friend agree that the effect of this increasing arrogation of powers to the courts and the simultaneous stripping away of the powers of the elected legislature threaten to weaken the umbilical cord that has traditionally linked the Government of this country with the people who elect the Government?
      Mr. Taylor: That is the fear at the heart of the matter. Whatever references I may have made to the Lord Chancellor were references to an office, and not to any particular incumbent. I had the great honour of serving a previous incumbent in this House, and I hold the office in high regard.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend has endorsed what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said—that we are giving judges the final say on a range of rights. However, that is surely the consequence of any Bill of Rights. It is, in fact, the logical objection to the Bill of Rights. Once we have accepted a Bill of Rights—as we have done by adopting the convention—the question for this Committee and this House is whether the judge in question is a European-based or a UK-based judge. That is the narrow question we face, rather than the broad issue so eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.
      Mr. Taylor: My right hon. and learned Friend contends that the adoption of the convention into domestic law is the beginning of a Bill of Rights. I offer an alternative interpretation—that it is perhaps the beginning of a written constitution. He would be welcome to intervene on me on that matter if he wished to do so.
      Mr. Hogg: Of course it is—this is indeed a Bill of Rights. It does indeed mean a written constitution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members are straying further and further from the amendment. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) must get back to the amendment.
      Mr. Taylor: I shall get back to it—if I was ever there. The correct way for me to bring my speech to a

      407
      conclusion is to remind the Committee that it is a part of our culture, our idiom and all that we have developed in this great country in our great history that the judges defer to Parliament. That point has not been made in the debate. The judges have a customary form of words with which they defer to Parliament—as seen in many law reports—which is "Parliament in its wisdom". That is the view of the judges towards Parliament, and it is a good attitude for them to take.
      Mr. Garnier: I do not know whether my hon. Friend intended to or not, but he was on point in at least some of his remarks. Clause 2(1)(a) refers to a
      "judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights."
      If, in his 22 years as a solicitor, my hon. Friend has read some of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, he will have seen that, in some cases, the court says candidly that it sees the convention and the development of its rights as a constitutional Bill of Rights. The court makes no secret of that.
      Mr. Taylor: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for comforting me, even at the conclusion of my speech. I take that solace and endorsement very kindly. I have—to answer his question—read judgments of the Court. Furthermore, having served briefly as a member of the Council of Europe, I have also read the convention. I remind myself that the convention was written largely by British lawyers. We were the first to initial it, and the first to endorse it. It is not exactly an alien creature, except perhaps in its new constitutional setting.
      My initial view of the matter generally was that part of the British people's objection to judgments made in Strasbourg was, more or less, that they were made in Strasbourg by people who were not citizens of the United Kingdom, and whose surnames made it sound as if they were not citizens of the United Kingdom. Initially, I felt that the British people would be happier with the convention, feel kinder towards it and have greater respect for its general authority if it were incorporated into domestic law, and if contentious human rights issues could be decided by English and Welsh judges in law courts in the Strand.
      Mr. Lord, that was my speech, and those were some of the points that I wanted to make. I am very glad of the opportunity to be able to do so.
      Mr. Heald: Many hon. Members in the Chamber are lawyers. I make that confession—mea culpa.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): It is a badge of honour.
      Mr. Heald: I am pleased to hear the Home Secretary say that, and I certainly would not disagree with it.
      I do not know how many hon. Members in the Chamber have experience of taking human rights cases to the European Court of Human Rights. I have not. However, over many years, I have had experience of appearing in the English courts and being impressed by the quality of our judges and the way in which the law is allowed to interact with the circumstances within our island. I think
      408
      that many of us want to protect the history and quality of our judges being able to interpret the law based on the conditions within our island—or in England and Wales, which is the jurisdiction in which I practise.
      Above all, our judiciary do not involve themselves in political decisions, or in decisions that involve interpreting high-sounding and vague principles—the type of imprecise statements in the European convention on human rights itself.
      In our jurisdiction, the convention has operated so that our judges have had no involvement with it. Our judges have always made their decisions in the traditional manner, although there has also been the right of recourse to the European Court of Human Rights when that is appropriate.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is making an extremely valuable point. Is he aware of the recent decision of Lord Justice Mustill, in which he drew attention to the great difference between the general terms in which judgments are given in the European Court of Human Rights and the more precise terms in which they are given in the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend agree that there can be a very big difference between the two?
      Mr. Heald: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is a danger that, if we import into our judges' jurisdiction the idea that vague and imprecise concepts can be the subject of their jurisprudence, and that they can reach that type of decision, the overall system may become contaminated, changing our current precise practice of the law—which has been a proud part of our history—into a much more vague, imprecise and undoubtedly high-sounding practice. Ultimately, however, it will result in political judgments being made.
      Mr. Grieve: I do not disagree with any of the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend. Many judgments of the European Court of Human Rights seem to be very woolly and general. Does he not think that English judges are likely to apply their minds to such decisions—as they have had to do to decisions of the European Court of Justice, which have the same quality of woolliness—and succeed in extrapolating basic principles from that woolliness? They have subsequently applied those principles very specifically—so greatly improving jurisprudence, and case law, in this case, in relation to the convention.
      Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend expresses the contrary viewpoint, with which I was about to deal. If our judges are allowed to be pioneers in the matter, they will not half improve that sphere of jurisprudence across Europe, especially as it operates for United Kingdom citizens— [Interruption.] The Minister does not like the way in which I have described the argument. However, I think that he himself would accept that his argument is that our judges should have an input into the matter and be able to define and deal with cases on the basis of the European convention.
      I do not accept that argument. I think that there is a danger of contaminating our system and of changing it, so that it conducts not a precise legal exercise, as it currently does, but a rather vague, woolly and rather imprecise one, as the convention demands.

      409
      6.15 pm
      In the other place, Lord McCluskey—who is no Conservative, but, none the less, a former Law Officer—said:
      "The present Bill does a great deal to achieve a remarkable and reasonable compromise. However, I still believe that it offends against points of fundamental principle. By incorporating into our domestic law vague, imprecise and high sounding statements of legal rights, we hand what is truly legislative power away from a democratic and accountable Parliament to an appointed, unelected and unaccountable judiciary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1266.]
      Mr. Hogg: That is already the position. Once we subscribed to the convention, that was the consequence. The question that the Committee and the House will have continually to face is whether interpretation of existing provisions under the existing convention is best entrusted exclusively to the courts in Strasbourg or, in the first instance, to courts in the United Kingdom. Speaking for myself, at first instance, I prefer having a United Kingdom judicial interpretation to not having one.
      Mr. Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend has made the contrary argument that I tried to describe. I do not know whether he accepts that that was the contrary view that I was trying to describe.
      Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend did describe it.
      Mr. Heald: The question is the effect on domestic jurisdiction of incorporating such vague principles. My view—like Lord McCluskey's—is that it would be bad for our law and our tradition in the courts of England and Wales.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is advancing a powerful argument. Does he agree that, in contemplating the fears that he has expressed, it is not necessary for Committee members to gaze into the crystal ball, when we can already for ourselves read the book? Is it not the case that—precisely as a result of the ambiguity of existing European law, of the European convention and of European treaties—much political rancour within and between member states of the European Union has resulted? The precise fear that he has expressed has already been justified and vindicated by the train of events that have occurred over many years.
      Mr. Heald: There is a trade-off between the important declaratory effect of the convention itself and the price that one pays for it, which is an element of—almost certainly political—interference in the affairs of the countries that sign the convention. I accept that that is a proper concern for my hon. Friend.
      The Minister tried to allay my fears about the use of the word "must" in clause 2, which would be changed by amendment No. 4. If one accepts the argument made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which I have described as the contrary argument—that our judges should decide these matters—how does one achieve the type of benefits described by my right hon. and learned Friend: our judges being able to consider the convention in the light of the circumstances within the country in which they exercise their discretion—England and
      410
      Wales—so that they can give us the benefit of importing their wisdom to the convention and considering local circumstances?
      If judges are going to be required, as the word "must" implies they will be, to take into account the judgments, decisions, declarations and advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights, we are going down the route of trying to achieve a sort of international jurisprudence—a uniform jurisprudence—for the convention. That is to say that the convention is not one that all countries ratify and are then able to interpret according to their own individual circumstances, but one that is introduced and results in a case in Greece determining the outcome of a case in England.
      I would argue against that, if one accepts the argument advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, which I do not, one has to say that it is important that English judges should be able to take account of English conditions when making their decisions. The mandatory quality of the word "must" is wrong—the word should be "may".
      Mr. Hogg: I do not like to defend the Parliamentary Secretary, but I shall in this case. He will say, rightly, that the word "must" requires a court to take into account—have regard to—the decisions about which we have been talking, and that it would be impossible to have a situation in which the courts in Scotland and in England might or might not do so. There must be a duty on the courts to have regard, but the phrase "to have regard" does not oblige the courts to adopt. There is a difference between "having regard to" and "being bound by", and the form of words used does not require the courts to be bound by the decisions in question.
      Mr. Heald: I fully appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend's point—that the fact that the courts must take account of those decisions does not mean that they have to follow the judgment. However, my point, which is much the same point as was made by the noble Lord Browne-Wilkinson, is that, in practice, there is encouragement to follow and produce a uniform jurisprudence once one has got as far as saying "must". The argument my right hon. and learned Friend deploys makes my point for me, because Scotland is a separate jurisdiction, and, once one has made the concession of saying that a factual basis in one country for legal purposes must mean that the outcome—or at least the way in which the jurisprudence is dealt with—is the same in another country, one is saying that there should be a uniform jurisprudence.
      I do not accept that. The best way in which the convention could be incorporated in English law, although I do not want that to happen, would be to allow the English courts to look at the circumstances in England and apply their own judgment as to whether or not to take account of the judgments, decisions, declarations or advisory opinions of the European Court of Human Rights. What the courts will have to take account of is the wording of the convention itself, and I do not see why we

      411
      cannot have a system in which each court in each country that has the convention can make its decisions in the light of that country's own circumstances and traditions.
      Mr. Hoon: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman believes all the rhetoric he is using, but will he put it to the test by applying the same arguments to the decisions of the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg?
      Mr. Heald: The Minister's point is not really valid—he laughs, but I have seen him laugh and enjoy himself many times over the years. The European Union is a form of grouping very different from that which takes in the countries that have signed the European convention on human rights—there may be parallels, but the body and the body of law are not the same.
      Mr. Garnier: May I help my hon. Friend by pointing out that the Minister's point is false? Under the treaty governing the European Union, which deals with the European Court of Justice, we are obliged to subordinate our legislation to that of the decisions of the European Court of Justice, so there is no genuine parallel of the sort suggested.
      Mr. Heald: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for that point, which makes it game, set and match.
      Mr. Leigh: May I, too, assist my hon. Friend in rebutting the attack on his arguments by our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? My right hon. and learned Friend appears to be suggesting that it is better to have British judges making the decisions than to have European judges making them.
      Can my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) quote the remarks made by a distinguished former Law Officer in a previous Labour Government, Lord McCluskey, who dealt precisely with that point? He started by saying that we were effectively "empowering judicial legislation", and that, in general terms, we would be giving the same power to judges here as are enjoyed by judges in the United States. He went on to make a powerful point, which answers the one made by my right hon. and learned Friend, saying:
      "Parliament will at once move to bring the law into line with what judges say the convention says it is. In fact, Parliament has no option if the Strasbourg Court so decides."
      He went on:
      "The certain aim of British judges will be to interpret the convention in the way that they think the Strasbourg Court will. Otherwise, they will be overturned in Strasbourg."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1267.]
      Mr. Heald: That is such an eloquent statement of my point that I need not add to it.
      In answer to the Minister's rather footling point, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, rightly, that there was no direct and clear parallel between the European Court of Justice and
      412
      the European Court of Human Rights. The classic statement of that was made in the other place by the Lord Chancellor, who conceded that the United Kingdom was
      "not … bound…to follow the court's judgments in cases to which it has not been a party".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 January 1998; Vol. 584, c. 1271.]
      That is not the case in respect of the European Court of Justice, and I am surprised that the Minister, with all his years of learning in the law, was not aware of that.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to speak again—although this is Committee, so one is entitled to do so—but I should like to respond to what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said. His analysis of the role of the courts in this country runs something like this: the courts in the United Kingdom will interpret the convention in the way they think that the court in Strasbourg will interpret it; and therefore no benefit will flow from having brought the convention back to this country. That is his position, and it is one that deserves serious attention, because it is advanced by my hon. Friend and supported by others.
      I do not agree with that position, because the doctrine of margin of appreciation means that the Strasbourg court will itself place great weight on the interpretation that the courts in this country place on the language of the convention. Therefore, the effect of bringing the convention back to the United Kingdom will be to give the courts of this country an important—indeed, paramount—role in the interpretation of the convention in so far as it bites on circumstances in this country.
      It is a mistake to think that the courts in this country will simply seek to adopt what they deem would have been the ultimate decision made in Strasbourg, had the Strasbourg court determined the matter in the first instance. Therefore, on that point, I disagree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Clappison: This has been a very interesting and useful debate, on an important subject that is well worth exploring. I shall deal with a few of the points raised by my hon. Friends.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made a very important point about the effect of decisions taken some time ago, and whether equal weight should be given to them. It is common sense that we should not be bound too much by practices of the past.
      Although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made certain technical points about the amendments, he agreed with the thrust of what we are seeking to do and the issues that we are trying to explore.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made some very important points arising from his general concern about the approach of the European court and his wish to see a similarly cautious approach following incorporation.
      The Minister was not entirely correct to suggest that European Court jurisprudence will be the same following incorporation. The courts have decided in several cases that they cannot take jurisprudence into account as though it had already been incorporated into our law. In the fairly recent Brind case, as well as many others, the higher

      413
      courts have made that explicit. They can use jurisprudence as an aid to interpretation, because they have taken the view that Parliament would not want to legislate inconsistently with the convention, but they have not taken the view that the position now is the same as it would be following incorporation should we eventually decide to incorporate the convention.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made an important speech, which I enjoyed. His remarks were the antidote to the comments of all those who speak about bringing rights home—as though they had ever left this place. This Parliament is the guarantor of our rights, and we have faith in its record as the defender of our liberties.
      Without wishing to be prejudiced against the European convention on human rights, the mere fact that a document contains rights and describes itself as a Bill of Rights or a written guarantee of rights is, on historical evidence, no guarantee of those rights. The other day I read a document that contained a very fine statement of human rights. It guaranteed, it said, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and freedom of thought and conscience. Then I saw that it was the constitution of the Soviet Union of 1936. I do not think that any of us would judge that as the fountainhead of human rights.
      I listened carefully to the Minister. He has taken the debate on the words "must take into account" a little further since it was discussed in the other place. He began by saying that there was no difference between our amendments and what is in the Bill, but then said that the amendments were technically defective. There is a slight contradiction in that. None the less, we got out of the Minister in the end the measure of flexibility for which we have been looking.
      It has been our objective all along to try to ascertain just how flexible the Government are prepared to allow our courts to be through the use of the term "must take in account". Since the matter has been taken a little further, I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Hoon: I beg to move amendment No. 119, in page 2, line 18, leave out 'Lord Advocate or'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 126 and 127.
      Mr. Hoon: The amendments are purely technical, arising out of the Scotland Bill and the transfer of powers to the Scottish Executive when it is established. I shall try to explain the matter as briefly as I can.
      The Scotland Bill will provide for any powers that the Lord Advocate has to make subordinate legislation to be transferred either to Scottish Ministers or to the Secretary of State for Scotland, depending on whether they relate to devolved or reserved matters. Those include the power to make procedural rules relating to tribunals, which is referred to in clauses 2(3)(a) and 7(11)(b) of the Human Rights Bill. The effect of the technical amendments is to remove references to the Lord Advocate in those clauses, and therefore to pave the way for the transfer of powers that will take place when the Scottish Executive comes into being.
      Mr. Clappison: I appreciate that the amendments are technical. The Minister has explained that references to
      414
      the Lord Advocate concerning the rule-making power are to be omitted because they are contingent on devolution in Scotland. Will he assist the Committee by telling us who will end up with that rule-making power following these technical amendments?
      Mr. Hoon: That will clearly depend on whether the matters are devolved or reserved. The Scotland Bill clearly indicates which are which. Amendments to the Human Rights Bill are necessary in order to ensure that, depending on whether the matters are reserved or devolved, they go in the appropriate direction.
      Mr. Grieve: That is not quite right—is it? Is not the reality that the Government have not sorted out where the powers are to lie under the devolved legislation? The Scotland Bill does not make it clear where some of the powers will reside. I thought that that was unfinished business.
      Mr. Hoon: The Scottish legislation provides that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will cease to be members of the United Kingdom Government, and become members of the Scottish Executive. It is therefore necessary, in the context of references to the Lord Advocate, to ensure that the powers enjoyed are either exercised in relation to reserved matters by the Secretary of State for Scotland or such other appropriate Minister as he or she should ultimately designate, or dealt with as devolved matters through the Scottish Executive.
      Mr. Clappison: If the Minister is saying that the powers will be either devolved or reserved, will he tell us which the Government wish them to be?
      Mr. Hoon: It is not a matter for the Government to wish or desire. The Scottish legislation specifies what is devolved and what is reserved. The amendments are purely consequential on, and, in effect, tidy up, matters that have arisen from that legislation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 137, in page 2, leave out lines 22 to 35.—[Mr. Hoon.]
      Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Clappison: I should like to highlight a point that I made in a brief intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). We, and therefore the judges, are entering new territory. It is important that we spend time getting this right, and recognise the difficulties that judges will face in interpreting the European legislation and how it will mean a change in the judicial way of thinking. In the course of debates on clause 2, we have tried to create a partnership between judges and Parliament, of which it is important for us to keep sight. We shall return to the theme.
      Mrs. May: I should like to refer to debates on the first allotted day in Committee, which relate to clause 2 and amendment No. 137. I hope that the Minister will reiterate that the Government have taken on board the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and others on the extent to which the concerns of the Churches should be taken

      415
      into account in the context of the Bill. A long debate in the other place focused on whether, in taking into account various aspects of decisions in clause 2, the Bill should also require the issue of religious faith to be taken into account.
      The Home Secretary made it clear that the Government were very alive to the concerns that the Churches had expressed. It is important that we do not allow the debate on clause stand part to pass without asking the Government to reiterate their assurance. The Churches are greatly concerned about the impact of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us again.
      Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to give the Committee that assurance, in response to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary set out precisely and very clearly the Government's position during debates on clause 1. I am entirely happy to endorse it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      LEGISLATION
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'possible' and insert `reasonable'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 38, after 'legislation', insert 'where ambiguous'.
      Amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 38, leave out 'read and given effect' and insert 'interpreted'.
      Amendment No. 101, in page 2, line 38, after 'way', insert
      'which reflects the intentions of Parliament and'.
      Amendment No. 26, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, after 'cannot', insert 'reasonably'.
      New clause 8—Margin of appreciation—
      'In any proceedings in which a court is considering the question of whether primary or subordinate legislation is compatible with a Convention Right, full regard shall be had to the margin of appreciation accorded to a member state in relation to its statute or common law.'.
      Mr. Clappison: The amendments are exploratory. Clause 3 deals with the way in which United Kingdom courts are to interpret legislation following incorporation. That is an important issue, and we want to ensure that the clearly expressed will of Parliament is heeded if incorporation takes place.
      Amendment No. 13 explores that issue. We are conscious of the fact that it reflects a current pre-incorporation practice of the courts, in that the convention can be relied on as a guide to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament where the domestic court finds that the relevant statutory provision is ambiguous. That rests
      416
      on the basis that Parliament can be presumed to have legislated in a manner consistent with Britain's treaty obligations.
      Next we wish to explore how the courts are to go about what is required of them under clause 4. Earlier this afternoon, we were told that the Government were keen on plain English and consistency in language, and that words had to be given their ordinary meanings, so we were slightly intrigued to see the term "read and given effect" in clause 3. We were even more intrigued when we looked at the heading—"Interpretation of legislation"—and we wondered why the body of the clause did not simply use the term "interpreted" rather than the term "read and given effect". Is there any significance in the difference? We look to the Government to tell us what, if anything, is meant by it.
      Amendment No. 101 explores the question of interpreting legislation in a way that reflects the intentions of Parliament. We think that that is important. The other amendments in the group are similar. We want to ensure that the will of Parliament is not overridden in inappropriate circumstances. If the courts find that legislation is incompatible, the proper course under the Bill is for a declaration of incompatibility to be made.
      Although new clause 8 is important, I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I speak only briefly about it, because we have already been through the arguments about the margin of appreciation, which we regard as an important doctrine. We want to put those words in the Bill because we want that doctrine to be reflected in our courts when they apply the European convention.
      The amendments explore important issues, and we look to the Government for a constructive and clear response.
      Mrs. May: I shall concentrate my brief comments on amendment No. 101 and new clause 8, because both are at the heart of the concerns expressed by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends in our earlier debates, both on the first day in Committee and today, about the relationship between the courts and Parliament.
      The importance of that relationship was ably described by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who, in an earlier debate, talked about the way in which it has stood the test of time and maintained human rights in this country for many hundreds of years. We should retain that relationship, and there is a genuine concern about the extent to which the implications of the Bill will strike at its heart, and at the distinction of powers between the judiciary and Parliament.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said in his summing up of the first group of amendments tabled to clause 2, Parliament has been the defender and protector of human rights in this country for many years—a position that has stood the test of time—yet there is concern about the Bill's impact on the role of Parliament as the protector of human rights in the United Kingdom.
      The Government have stated their position several times—that they do not intend that relationship to be usurped and that they respect the role of Parliament as it has been described. The intention of amendment No. 101 is to make the role of Parliament clearer on the face of

      417
      the Bill and to draw attention to it. It would insert words into clause 3(1) so that it would read:
      "primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which reflects the intentions of Parliament",
      as well as
      "in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights."
      6.45 pm
      It is important to explore that issue with the Government and to ensure that their intentions are clear. We reiterate the importance of the requirement that the will and intentions of Parliament should be taken into account. The Bill will give more powers to the judiciary in this country, and it is important that we continue to explore the relationship that will exist after enactment, assuming that the Bill is passed—it does not need the power of Mystic Meg to guess that it will be passed.
      The intentions of Parliament should be referred to in the Bill. If I understand the notes on clauses correctly, the Government have conceded that
      "there comes a point when an interpretation must yield to the intention of Parliament notwithstanding that, in the result, the legislation is incompatible with the Convention rights."
      Amendment No. 101, like several of our other amendments, would put words in the Bill to give effect to the intention that the Government have expressed.
      Many references have been made to the concept of the margin of appreciation. New clause 8 would specify on the face of the Bill that
      "full regard shall be had to the margin of appreciation".
      I believe that the importance of that concept is accepted on both sides of the Chamber, but, as the Bill stands, it is not expressly referred to or explicitly stated.

      The European Court of Human Rights has already allowed for the concept of the margin of appreciation, to respect the sovereignty of each nation state that is signatory to the convention. If new clause 8 were added to the Bill, rather than our simply accepting that that practice has occurred over the years, the concept would appear explicitly in the Bill. That would be useful in drawing to the attention of the United Kingdom courts that issue and the importance that Parliament attaches to it—an attitude that is shared and respected throughout the House of Commons. I therefore hope that the Government will look favourably on new clause 8.
      Mr. David Maclean: I wish to speak briefly on this group of amendments. I am deeply concerned about the proposal that the judiciary should have the right to strike down subordinate legislation without any reference to Parliament. The Committee will be fed up with hearing me say, as I now do for the third time in two days, that the Home Secretary is a reasonable man—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is on the wrong group of amendments. The amendment to which he refers comes later.
      Mr. Maclean: I beg your pardon, Mr. Lord. I wished to talk about amendment No. 17.
      Mr. Hogg: The use in the clause of the word "possible" causes me some concern, as it may encourage the courts
      418
      to give an unduly artificial interpretation to statutory language. I support amendment No. 9, as it substitutes "reasonable" for "possible".
      An argument that may appeal to the Home Secretary is that, once one has started in one statutory context to give language an artificial meaning, there is a danger that it could serve as a precedent and be carried over into other interpretations in a different context: a word that has a particular meaning in one statute may serve as a precedent for the interpretation of that word in a different context. I prefer the word "reasonable" to "possible", as suggested in the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). A declaration of incompatibility is the proper remedy if the statute cannot properly and reasonably be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the convention.
      A different point arises from new clause 8, on which I shall follow from where my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) left off. It is clear and right that a court should be slow to depart from the decisions of a Parliament in concluding that a Parliament has derogated from convention rights—that has long been accepted in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. I think it right that that should be specified in the Bill, as the Bill will guide the United Kingdom courts in their approach to the convention.
      The statute should expressly state that the courts should have due regard to the expressions of parliamentary will, in the hope that the courts will be slow to hold that Parliament has departed and derogated from convention rights. I believe that there is an advantage in specifying in the Bill the concept of a margin of appreciation.
      Mr. Paul Stinchcombe: I wish to reply to some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North Hykeham and Sleaford—
      Mr. Hogg: Sleaford and North Hykeham.
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I was close.
      The points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) were seductively made, but they were wrong in principle and dangerous in effect. Clause 3(1) and clause 6(1) are the provisions that truly give the Bill teeth—if rights are to be brought home, it will be precisely because of those provisions. Clause 3(1) states:
      "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with Convention rights."
      Paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the White Paper "Rights Brought Home" make it clear that those words are intended to go beyond pre-existing law:
      "This goes beyond the present rule which enables the courts to take the Convention into account in resolving any ambiguity in a legislative provision. The courts will be required to interpret legislation so as to uphold the Convention rights unless legislation itself is so clearly incompatible with the convention that it is impossible so to do."
      It is precisely because of the opening words of the clause and their effect that convention law will be moved forward in this country in a way that I believe is desirable.
      Mr. Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for

      419
      Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I want to know whether the construction of those words will force courts into making artificial interpretations. Would it not be better for the courts to tell Parliament that primary or subordinate legislation was incompatible with the convention than—as might happen under the current wording—to do painful gymnastic exercises to make existing legislation fit convention principles when it cannot?
      Mr. Stinchcombe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I reject it—I shall invite my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to confirm that clause 3(1) was constructed in accordance with paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8 of the White Paper precisely to avoid such problems.
      Hon. Members may know that there has been some academic discussion about the opening words of the clause. Sir William Wade, who is a member of the chambers of which I was a member before I came to the House, and the hon. Michael Beloff, who is head of those chambers, have publicly disagreed in academic articles and speeches about the meaning of the words. It is now a perfectly appropriate time, given Pepper v. Hart, for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to resolve the matter once and for all. We must make it clear that the words in clause 3(1) mean what they say and what we said that they meant in paragraph 2.7 of the White Paper—the words go beyond the present rule and, wherever any interpretation of legislation can be made so as to uphold convention rights, that is what the courts must be invited to do.
      Mr. Swayne: I hope that the Home Secretary will confirm, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) requested, that that is the plain meaning of the words. I fear that the courts will avoid the clear parliamentary intention of legislation and do the gymnastics that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) described to accommodate the word "possible"; I fear that they will place a construction on legislation to make it compatible with the convention when it clearly is not, so circumventing the proper remedy in the Bill, which is to bring the matter back to Parliament.
      Mr. Straw: This has been a short, but interesting, debate on one of the most fundamental issues about the method that we have chosen to incorporate the European convention on human rights in British law. As hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber will understand, there was considerable debate inside the Labour party and between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats before the election, and much consideration by the Government after the election, about the form that incorporation should take.
      As the White Paper makes clear, we considered how other common law countries had incorporated Bills of Rights. We examined how Canada and New Zealand—both outside the continent of Europe—had dealt with similar issues and whether a Bill of Rights could appropriately be entrenched as a basic and fundamental law with a higher status than the law passed by their Parliaments. We decided to reject Canada's approach, which was, in effect, to establish a fundamental law that, in certain circumstances, took precedence over laws
      420
      passed by its Parliament. We also considered the New Zealand model. We came up with our own approach—it is a British answer to a British problem—fundamental to which is the sovereignty and supremacy of Parliament.
      I have never believed—my colleagues share this view—that it would be sensible in this country to have a supreme court that could override the will of Parliament. Indeed, such a system would be extremely dangerous without a written or codified constitution or—as applies in the United States and almost all other constitutions—the mechanisms to override the fundamental law as laid down by a supreme court.
      It would mean that judges in a British supreme court would be accorded more power than is, in practice, accorded to US Supreme Court judges, whose decisions can, in the final analysis, be overridden by the popular will through an amendment to the constitution—without such a facility to override judges who are unelected or who were elected many years before, the democratic processes cannot operate effectively.
      For that reason, we decided that, while of course the courts would have clear powers to apply the European convention—without that, we would not be bringing rights home—ultimately Parliament's will would prevail. We have applied that in a number of ways which I shall place on record before answering the specific points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
      Clause 19 requires a Minister introducing a new measure to
      "make a statement to the effect that in his view the provisions of the legislation are or are not compatible with the Convention rights"
      or say that he is unable to make such a statement.
      7 pm
      Nothing could be more compatible with the sovereignty of Parliament than the fact that the Bill incorporating the convention on human rights refers to the possibility—that may happen week by week—that Ministers have to apply it to future legislation. That is not to say that they have to force future Bills into the apparent straitjacket of the convention; they simply have to make a statement to the House on whether a measure is compatible with the European convention, and therefore with the Bill.
      Obviously, it will be incumbent on Ministers—certainly under the present Administration—to do their best to ensure that Bills are compatible with the convention. Indeed, that practice was followed for many years by the previous Administration. They also subscribed to decent human rights, and for the practical reason that, if Bills were introduced that were knowingly incompatible with the convention, the Government could easily end up in trouble, if not with United Kingdom courts, with the European Court of Human Rights, which in practice has a facility to override Parliament so long as Parliament decides to accede to the convention. That is the first way in which we respect the sovereignty of the House.
      The second is through clause 3, which is very clear. I should let the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) know that we will go on to discussing its detailed wording—it was easier to refer to his constituency when he represented the former Prime Minister's home town, which was not such a mouthful.

      421
      Clause 3(1) states:
      "So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights."
      Subsection (2)(b) makes it absolutely clear that
      "This section … does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation".
      The issue of incompatibility of legislation can be addressed only by the higher courts. I should explain to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) that no group of senior judges looking at the clause will come to any other view but that the intention of Parliament is that there may be legislation that is incompatible with the convention—either in future or previously—and, that even if it is found to be incompatible, it will remain in force unless and until the House, by accelerated or normal procedure, decides otherwise.
      Mr. Hogg: The Home Secretary has been making the point that, in this context, the Government are keen not to undermine parliamentary sovereignty. Does he understand that Opposition Members who have studied the argument would have much greater confidence in that approach had he not adopted the remedial order procedure set out in the Bill, which provides for affirmative resolutions for changing primary legislation? We would feel very much happier if he gave sympathetic consideration to amendment No. 64 to clause 10. We would then have much greater confidence in his assertion that he is not seeking to undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an important point that he also made on Second Reading. I have been considering it, but I shall make no promises, except to say that I found it a cogent argument. It is by no means the only occasion on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a cogent argument, and I listened to him with great care. We shall discuss the matter in more detail when we reach clause 10, but our intention is that the procedure under clause 10 should be used not to bypass the will of the House, but simply to deal with practical problems that may arise. I hope to provide the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a satisfactory explanation when we reach clause 10 and, if I cannot, I shall take further account of his remarks.
      Even on the most dismal interpretation of clause 10, the will of the House still prevails. It may be a truncated procedure, but it certainly does not give the courts the power to say what the law of the land should be. We are seeking to provide a truncated procedure with rather more care than the previous Administration took with the famous Henry VIII clauses on deregulation, for example.
      I shall now respond to some of the specific points that have been raised during the debate, although I hope that Opposition Members will accept that I have dealt with the gravamen of their points in some detail.
      Amendment No. 9 would require legislation to be construed in accordance with convention rights so far as it is "reasonable" to do so, rather than so far as it is "possible" to do so. The likely result—and no doubt the intention—is that the courts would not go so far down the road of interpreting legislation as they would under the terms of clause 3 as it stands.
      As I have said, we want the courts to strive to find an interpretation of legislation that is consistent with convention rights, so far as the plain words of the
      422
      legislation allow, and only in the last resort to conclude that the legislation is simply incompatible with them. The Opposition want the courts to arrive somewhat earlier at the conclusion that the legislation is simply incompatible with the convention. I cannot see what could be gained by that, bearing in mind our responsibilities under the convention, apart from the prospect of more cases ending up in Strasbourg because fewer people would be satisfied with the interpretation of the United Kingdom courts.
      Mr. Hogg: There are at least two disadvantages to the Home Secretary's argument. First, the courts may be required to give a strained meaning to language, and that in principle is not a good thing. Secondly, if they give a strained meaning to language in the context of this legislation, it could serve as a precedent that reads across and guides courts in their interpretation of language that is wholly outwith the statute under discussion.
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right on his second point. The legal section of the House of Commons Library, like any other law library, has wonderful tomes—of which, no doubt, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made good use, as I did in my brief practice—of words and phrases judicially interpreted. Of course interpretation by one of the higher courts of a particular word will read across into many other circumstances, often anticipated. That is why, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows better than I do, parliamentary counsel is so keen on one word rather than another.
      I am not convinced, however, by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point that the courts will contort the meaning of words until they lose their meaning altogether. In many cases, particularly in respect of statutory interpretation, the whole task of the court is not to make up the law, but to say what it means where that is not clear or where its application in particular circumstances is not clear. The courts are well versed in the interpretation of the law and of Parliament's intention.
      Let me say in reply to a point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead that there was a time when all the courts could do to divine the intention of Parliament was to apply themselves to the words on the face of any Act. Now, following Pepper v. Hart, they are able to look behind that and, not least, to look at the words used by Ministers. I do not think the courts will need to apply themselves to the words that I am about to use, but, for the avoidance of doubt, I will say that it is not our intention that the courts, in applying what is now clause 3, should contort the meaning of words to produce implausible or incredible meanings. I am talking about plain words in what is actually a clear Bill with plain language-with the intention of Parliament set out in Hansard, should the courts wish to refer to it.
      Mr. Grieve: Perhaps the clause should say "possible and reasonable", but the right hon. Gentleman might then say that the courts are always supposed to be reasonable, so it is not necessary to include that word.
      Mr. Straw: Ever since the Wednesbury decision, the courts have chided others for being unreasonable, so it is difficult to imagine them not being reasonable. If we had used just the word "reasonable", we would have created a subjective test. "Possible" is different. It means,

      423
      "What is the possible interpretation? Let us look at this set of words and the possible interpretations." My bet is—without putting this in the Bill—
      Mr. Clappison: How much?
      Mr. Straw: More than I have placed on a horse in the Derby, but the amount remains a matter between me and my bookmaker.
      My bet is that the courts will say that they will adopt a reasonable approach. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, they would be the last to admit to adopting an unreasonable approach. I am comfortable with the words in the Bill and I do not believe that the courts will contort them in the way that hon. Members implied.
      I come back to the point about parliamentary sovereignty. If the higher courts come up with an interpretation that makes the intention of Parliament risible and means that legislation is applied in a way that is unreasonable and has ridiculous results, it is open to the House to change the decision. For example, in the Crime and Disorder Bill we are overturning the decision of the court in Regina v. Khan—
      Mr. Clappison: No, you are not.
      Mr. Straw: With great respect, we are; we are abolishing the concept of doli incapax—[Interruption.] I hope that we are overturning Khan, but I will not go any further into that—[Interruption.] It is open to the House—it is its ultimate right—to change a decision.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe) asked which of the academics I backed. I back those who have read the plain words in this clause and take the view that it moves us on from the way in which the courts currently interpret convention legislation. Hon. Members should feel reassured by the fact that our courts have had quite a lot of experience in interpreting the convention. Where there is ambiguity, they come down on the side of the convention.
      Just before the general election, I amused myself by reading The Times law reports. I try to do that most days. There was a very technical report about the interpretation of a contract. To resolve the issue, the Court of Appeal had wisely looked at the European convention—this was a long time before there was any prospect of its being incorporated—to help it to form a view. The courts have experience. We are moving forward, and we intend to ensure, as the wording makes clear, that, in so far as it is possible, primary and subordinate legislation is read and given effect in a way that is compatible with convention rights.
      I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised. In conclusion, I want to deal with new clause 8. It would require the courts, in considering whether legislation was compatible with convention rights, to have full regard to the margin of appreciation accorded to states by Strasbourg institutions. Presumably that is intended to signal to the courts that they should recognise the primary responsibility of Governments for detailed decisions on how convention rights are given effect in domestic law.
      424
      The doctrine of the margin of appreciation—it is an important one—recognises that a state is allowed a certain measure of discretion, subject to European supervision, when it takes legislative, judicial or administrative action in respect of some convention rights. In other words, it is best placed to decide in the first place whether—and, if so, what—action is required.
      My first point about the margin of appreciation is that it is more relevant to some convention rights than to others. It is especially relevant to articles 8 to 11, which enable restrictions to be placed on rights where that is necessary in a democratic society, for any one of a number of reasons. It is less relevant to some of the other articles, for example, article 2 on the right to life, and article 3 on the prohibition on torture or inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
      7.15 pm
      The doctrine of the margin of appreciation means allowing this country a margin of appreciation when it interprets our law and the actions of our Governments in an international court, perhaps the European Court of Human Rights. Through incorporation we are giving a profound margin of appreciation to British courts to interpret the convention in accordance with British jurisprudence as well as European jurisprudence.
      One of the frustrations of non-incorporation has been that our own judges—for whom I have a high regard, as, I believe, do Opposition Members—have not been able to bring their intellectual skills and our great tradition of common law to bear on the development of European convention jurisprudence.
      Mr. Grieve: I agree with every word that the right hon. Gentleman has said on this matter. It is why I favour incorporation. However, it is interesting to note that, although that is clearly the intention—and I believe will be the result—this Bill is statute, not common, law. Where does it spell out to the judiciary that the margin of appreciation is available to it in the way that it interprets the Bill? This is an interesting point and I would welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments on it. We may have implied that that is what the courts should do, but where is that stated in the Bill?
      Mr. Straw: The margin of appreciation is laid down in many commission and court judgments. Therefore, it is spelt out in the meaning of clause 2. That is the direct answer to the hon. Gentleman's point. In addition, and as the financial memorandum makes clear, we will spend £5 million on judicial training. I am not making a trivial point. A great deal of time, effort and money will go into the training of the judiciary. I know from my contacts with senior members of the judiciary that they are already alive to the need to bring themselves up to speed on this important development of our law.
      Mr. Hogg: Is it the right hon. Gentleman's view that the British courts should be very slow to find that, where Parliament has expressly dealt with an issue involving convention rights, the decision of Parliament is a derogation, a departure or a diminution of convention rights? The working assumption should be that, when Parliament has addressed a matter, it has not derogated

      425
      from convention rights. If that is the approach that the courts should adopt, would it not be helpful to put that concept—perhaps differently expressed—in the Bill?
      Mr. Straw: We are working that matter not only into the drafting of future legislation, but into the presentation of Bills by Ministers. That is the purpose of clause 19. When a Bill comes before Parliament, the Minister will give Parliament his best view, based on advice from officials and, above all, parliamentary counsel, on whether it is compatible with the convention.
      That was the practice for some time under the previous Conservative Administration. I think that it would be impossible to say that all legislation, of whatever antiquity, was passed in a manner compatible with the convention. It is, by definition, impossible to say that of legislation passed before the convention was even a gleam in the eye of a former Conservative Lord Chancellor.
      It took some decades before the House, our courts and the parliamentary draftsmen became sensitised to the need to ensure compatibility. It was not until the changes of 1966, allowing individual petition to the European Commission, that Governments began to take on board the need for compatibility in the way in which they went about their daily business and in the drafting of Bills. That is my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
      Mr. Hogg: It is an historical answer.
      Mr. Straw: It is. As far as the future is concerned, we are of course inviting the courts to work on the assumption that the House has applied itself to ensuring that legislation is compatible with the convention, except where a Minister comes to the House to say that there are overriding reasons why it is not, to give those reasons and to ask the House to agree the legislation in any case.
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman has made a sound point, and I concede that he is right. However, I see no objection to the concept of incorporating into the Bill the proposition that, for prospective legislation, the courts should proceed on the assumption that there has not been a derogation of convention rights where Parliament has expressly addressed that question. I see certain advantages in doing that.
      Mr. Straw: We are achieving the right hon. and learned Gentleman's purpose by a different route through clause 19, which we shall discuss when we reach it. I ask him to read that and to contribute at that stage.
      I have gone into some detail to answer the important points that have been made. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting debate, and the Home Secretary, having rightly acknowledged that important points have been raised, has endeavoured to deal with them. It has been reasonable—if I dare use that word—to explore these issues. My first reaction to the proposals was similar to that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Having considered the words used in the clause, we were concerned by the prospect of courts straining to give legislation an unrealistic interpretation,
      426
      and by the possibility that the clearly expressed will of Parliament might be lost in that process. In those circumstances, it would have been preferable for the courts simply to make a declaration of incompatibility, which would have resulted in legislation returning to the House.
      I drew some encouragement from the Home Secretary's initial remarks. I respected the clearly argued contribution of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Stinchcombe), who drew on academic authorities. The Home Secretary's response against that background gave me some encouragement about the importance that the Home Secretary attached to parliamentary sovereignty. The Home Secretary clearly feels that parliamentary sovereignty has been preserved in the Bill.
      We have reservations about clause 10, to which the Home Secretary referred, and we may put some of his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in the bank for when we debate that. I appreciate that the Home Secretary made those remarks quite deliberately, but they may, less deliberately, have implications for the next group of amendments, which relate to the striking down by courts of subordinate legislation without that legislation coming back to the House.
      The Home Secretary knows our concerns. We wanted a clear exposition from the Government to the effect that the courts were not to strain to give legislation an artificial or unrealistic meaning. We have drawn some reassurance from his remarks, although not complete reassurance. On that basis, and because we need to make progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 46, leave out from 'legislation' to end of line 2 on page 3.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 4, page 3, line 13, leave out from 'right' to end of line 15.
      No. 12, in page 3, line 16, at end insert
      'and save for making a declaration of incompatibility as aforesaid a court shall not otherwise strike down any subordinate legislation by reason of its incompatibility with a Convention right'.
      Mr. Clappison: We now come to what happens when a court finds that legislation is incompatible with a convention right. In the case of primary legislation, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility, which results in the procedure for remedial action to which I referred in the previous debate.
      In the case of subordinate legislation, the position is a little more complicated. If subordinate legislation is incompatible with a convention right, and the primary legislation under which it was made prevents removal of that incompatibility, the court may make a declaration of incompatibility. If, however, the subordinate legislation is incompatible and the primary legislation does not prevent removal of the incompatibility, the court may strike down the subordinate legislation without it coming back to the House.
      That is a significant development, which goes beyond the present position, in which courts may hold subordinate legislation to be invalid only in certain limited

      427
      circumstances under judicial review. I do not want to go too far into the intricacies of that, but it is established that the grounds on which courts can strike down legislation are limited.
      The powers to strike down subordinate legislation conferred by the Bill go beyond that, and take us into new constitutional territory. The courts will be able to strike down subordinate legislation that is unobjectionable on existing grounds of ultra vires. We do not question the legitimacy of the established doctrine of judicial review on grounds of ultra vires, but we are worried by the new constitutional implications of allowing courts to strike down subordinate legislation on grounds of incompatibility where the legislation is not ultra vires and without the matter coming back to the House. That may mark a change in the constitutional role of the courts, which we should not allow to pass without comment.
      The Lord Chancellor, a supporter of incorporation of the European convention on human rights, made a robust statement of the principles governing the constitutional position of the courts in his 1995 Administrative Law Bar Association lecture. He said that the key principle was that
      "judicial review is not an appellate procedure. The court must not substitute its opinion for that of the decision maker. The court must rule only upon the legality of the decision and not upon its correctness. The court will concern itself with the manner in which a decision is reached rather than with the substantive merits of the decision itself."
      The Lord Chancellor was correct on that occasion, and right to draw a distinction between the procedural grounds on which judicial review is exercised and an appellate procedure that looks at the substantive merits of a decision.
      The Bill's new procedure seems to lead the courts into considering the substantive merits of issues, rather than procedure. The Lord Chancellor's considered speech drew on a long line of historical precedents, to justify his analysis of the constitutional role of the courts and the place that they occupy in our constitution. The Lord Chancellor's line of precedence went back at great length, almost, although not quite, to Tudor times—I say that without meaning anything by it—and began with Bonham's case in 1610.
      We know that the noble Lord Chancellor loves historical precedents, and he drew together a number to justify what he thought was the correct constitutional position between Parliament and the courts. We think that that was right, but we are now being asked to do something new under the clause. It involves the courts moving beyond the existing constitutional framework into new territory. We cannot allow that to happen without marking it in some way.
      One of our main concerns throughout the Bill has been the position of parliamentary sovereignty. We have just heard the Home Secretary speak at length on how parliamentary sovereignty has been preserved, notwithstanding incorporation, through the mechanisms in the Bill. However, we now have an example of exactly what the Home Secretary warned about: courts having the power to strike down legislation without the matter coming back to the House. Although we have reservations about the Government's remedial action, it is important, as a matter of principle, for legislation to come back to the House rather than be struck down by the courts without coming back to the House.
      428
      This is a constitutional precedent, and it is relevant to parliamentary sovereignty. The Committee should mark it and not allow it to pass.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Grieve: I find the position in respect of this clause particularly difficult. I shall explain why. We are dealing with subordinate legislation, and my experience as a barrister is that subordinate legislation is sometimes struck down by judges for being ultra vires. When that has happened, no seismic shock has passed through this House, because most subordinate legislation is brought into being after the merest scrutiny by the House.
      I sit on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I know that our method of scrutinising subordinate legislation is totally inadequate. It is not far from being a disgrace. I say that on a non-partisan basis, because it has existed for a long time.
      Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Grieve: I should like to develop my argument first.
      The prospect of the courts striking down subordinate legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with the European convention as incorporated bothers me less than my anxiety that this will be an area of potential conflict unless Parliament puts into operation proper methods of scrutiny of subordinate legislation before it comes into being. In practical terms, it is far more likely that subordinate legislation will be the subject of dispute than primary legislation, although I am sure that the Government and individual Departments will in future provide close scrutiny of subsequent subordinate legislation to ensure that that does not happen.
      The problem, which we shall come to when we consider the Henry VIII clause, is that I have always been absolutely persuaded that, if the principle of incorporation is to work, it will be because Parliament and the courts seem to be acting in tandem because one is not subordinate to the other and it is Parliament's will that the rights as set out in the Bill should be incorporated and upheld, and because Members of Parliament will look to the courts to provide them with guidance in carrying that out.
      We must move away for a moment from the question of the precise wording of the Bill and whether judges ultimately have the power to strike down subordinate legislation and persuade the Government, particularly the Parliamentary Secretary and the Home Secretary, that regard must be had to how subordinate legislation is brought into being. Unless it is perceived by both Parliament and the public that Parliament takes an active role in ensuring that the subordinate legislation is compatible with the European convention, we shall subsequently have a fertile area of conflict if the judges then go round striking it down.
      I accept that I am widening the scope of the argument a little beyond the precise wording of the amendment, and I apologise to you, Sir Alan, for doing so. However, it is a point of fundamental importance and it must be addressed. I am aware that Justice has been particularly exercised on the matter, because it is convinced that there will have to be some form of parliamentary Committee to scrutinise subordinate legislation. With a certain refreshing naivety, it came to see me and inquired whether

      429
      I thought that the Select Committee dealing with statutory instruments could do the job. The answer is, "Yes, it could. But it would have to be several Committees, not one, and it would have to be given the teeth to do it. It certainly has the expertise."
      I realise that it is a separate issue, which will be discrete from the Bill, but the acceptability of the courts striking down subordinate legislation will be greatly enhanced if the mechanisms by which that subordinate legislation is brought into being are subject to proper scrutiny. Unless they are, we run the serious risk of the courts operating in that area, and Parliament will be held in contempt. We do not scrutinise subordinate legislation properly in the first place, so we shall be ill prepared to complain when subsequently it is deleted.
      That is more important, potentially, than amending the Bill as it stands. My experience as a barrister is that, ultimately, subordinate legislation is regarded as the creature of Ministers. If Ministers get it wrong and it is struck down, no seismic shocks ripple through our constitution. Nevertheless, it is an important point and I hope that the mere fact that it highlights the deficiencies in the creation of subordinate legislation means that we shall end up with a much better constitutional procedure for dealing with the growing amount of such legislation. In the 1960s, we passed some 25 pieces of subordinate legislation a year, and today we look at about 70 a week in Committee. Unless the matter is brought under control, it will cause serious problems in the future.
      Mr. Hogg: I wish to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has been saying. Ever since I have been in the House, I have been extremely concerned by the volume of secondary legislation and how the House considers it. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a scandal. Important obligations are created and extensive penalties sometimes imposed through the process of secondary legislation. As we all know, the House pays almost no attention to the content. Frequently, we cannot do so because it is the subject of the negative resolution procedure. Even when we can, because it is the subject of the affirmative resolution procedure, the debate is extremely short—normally 90 minutes—and one cannot amend the documents. One can simply hope that a draft is presented for discussion before the order is ultimately laid.
      I admit that the Government of which I was a member used secondary legislation to a huge extent—all Governments do. The House should resist doing that. The paradox is that, if the Committee accepts the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and, as a consequence, improves how we consider and debate secondary legislation, it will be much more offensive to allow the courts to strike it down on the ground of incompatibility.
      A serious constitutional issue is raised by the courts' ability to strike down any form of legislation—in this case, we are discussing secondary legislation—and that will probably be made greater if we do what we should do, which is fundamentally to overhaul how we consider and control secondary legislation.
      Mr. Leigh: I must confess that I have difficulty with the arguments presented to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and my
      430
      right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). They seem to be arguing that the fact that the House gives inadequate consideration to subordinate legislation is a good excuse for allowing judges to strike it down. If that is their contention, it is extraordinary. That is not a good excuse for allowing judges to strike down subordinate legislation.
      If we are convinced that we are giving inadequate attention to subordinate legislation, surely the remedy lies in our hands: we should make the House less of a legislative sausage machine, and allow sufficient time to consider subordinate legislation. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham knows full well from his experience in government, currently that is impossible because we should have to meet not only all week, but all weekend, and we should have no recesses at all. In any event, much subordinate legislation is very technical and the House does not want to consider it. I do not accept the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham.
      This is a dangerous precedent, because we are extending the remit of judges. We have made that point repeatedly in these debates. It may well be that striking down such legislation would not, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, produce a seismic shock in the constitution, and no doubt it would not be commented widely upon in the tabloid press. However, that does not negate the important principle that, for the first time, as I understand it—I may be wrong—judges will, at the stroke of a pen, be able to strike down legislation, albeit subordinate, of a sovereign Parliament. That is a development about which we should be considerably worried.
      I have been trying to research these matters. There is one point that I do not understand in the otherwise excellent briefing supplied to us by the Library. It states:
      "Clause 3 is not intended to affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any incompatible primary legislation, or any incompatible subordinate legislation if primary legislation prevents the removal of the incompatibility."
      I confess that I find that concept difficult to understand. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain exactly what it means?
      I note that subordinate legislation, as defined in clause 21, seems to relate to a great deal of legislation emanating from Acts of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or measures of the Northern Ireland assembly. I wonder whether we are allowing judges to take a close interest in legislation that was passed by the former Stormont Parliament or which will be passed by the future Northern Ireland assembly. That is a small point, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to respond to it.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for arguing the line he did, because it is important, and I followed it with great interest.
      I am not clear whether the amendments deal primarily with an issue of great importance because of the underlying principle or because there could be major consequences in terms of the numbers of cases where the courts felt called on to consider subordinate legislation.

      431
      I do not know whether the Government, in putting forward the proposal in the Bill, had in mind the possibility of a flood of cases arising from subordinate legislation and thought that it would be impractical or difficult to bring them all back to Parliament on a signal from the judiciary that there was incompatibility and deal with them as the Bill proposes to deal with cases arising from primary legislation.
      It is hard to decide whether to proceed with subordinate legislation in the same way that is proposed for primary legislation. That would open a huge Pandora's box. Because of the manner in which Parliament reviews secondary legislation, we are guilty of allowing inadvertently to be passed much that should not be passed. The wider constitutional points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield were well put, and I endorse them.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, but the point goes further than he has contemplated, because European Union legislation is directly incorporated into the United Kingdom by reason of the treaty. A great deal of subordinate legislation is simply EU legislation that is carried over and is not the subject of any discussion.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: It is such thoughts that make me think that there may be a profound practical reason for accepting the present drafting of the Bill. That must make much stronger the case for the improvement of our scrutiny procedures. I hope that I am not straying out of order in dealing with this point—I think that it is germane to the issue under discussion. There is a problem of overload in this House. We are dispensing powers to other assemblies and Parliaments and we may consider the tasks that should be done in another place if it is reformed and democratised, so there will be plenty of work to be done by both Houses of Parliament, notwithstanding those significant changes, in ensuring that subordinate legislation does not risk running foul of the European convention on human rights.
      Mr. Hoon: The amendments would affect the powers of the courts in respect of subordinate legislation. Amendment No. 17 would amend clause 3(2)(c) so that, notwithstanding the interpretative provisions of clause 3, all incompatible subordinate legislation, rather than only inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation—that is, subordinate legislation that inevitably takes an incompatible form because of the terms of the primary legislation under which it is made—would have continuing force and effect.
      Amendment No. 11 is consequential. It would amend clause 4(4)(b) so that the power to make a declaration would apply to all subordinate legislation, not only to inevitably incompatible subordinate legislation as at present.
      Amendment No. 12 would insert an additional phrase into clause 4(4) to make it clear, in conjunction with amendment No. 17, that the courts could not strike down subordinate legislation. That, I hope, is a fair summary of the amendments.
      432
      The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) raised the issue Second Reading, and gave notice that he would return to it in Committee. The present debate gives me an opportunity to explain more fully why the Government disagree with the Opposition's view that the Bill confers on the courts a power in respect of subordinate legislation which differs in kind from that which they already possess. I shall also explain why the amendments would harm the Bill.
      The twin starting points are, once again, the sovereignty of Parliament and the protection of individuals' rights under the convention. The Government have decided that the courts should not be able to strike down primary legislation because of the special status that Acts of Parliament and various other measures enjoy. That special status is, of course, acknowledged by the existing powers of the courts. They cannot strike down Acts of Parliament because of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty.
      However, subordinate legislation can already be, and is, struck down by the courts in certain circumstances. The courts will review the exercise by a Minister of a power to make subordinate legislation, just as they will review the exercise by any public authority of a discretionary power. I emphasise that, because it may be their reluctance to take that on board that lies behind the Opposition's difficulties with the Bill on that point.
      Subordinate legislation may be struck down as ultra vires when the making of the instrument in question is outside the scope of the enabling power. Such legislation may also be attacked on procedural grounds—for example, when the mandatory procedure for making it as set out in the parent statute has not been followed or, less commonly, on the ground that the discretion involved in making the relevant instrument has been exercised unreasonably.
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister's argument is less good than he thinks it is. He is saying that the courts already have the power to strike down secondary legislation on the ground of ultra vires and under the Wednesbury principles. I understand that, but we are arguing about the courts having the power to strike down secondary legislation on the ground of incompatibility. That raises the question of merit, which goes beyond vires. Although there is a power to strike down secondary legislation, it is narrowly defined and usually applies to ultra vires or unreasonable acts, whereas the Bill gives the courts an ability to determine not just issues of vires but questions as to compatibility that are themselves issues of merit.
      Mr. Hoon: I shall deal with that point as I develop my argument in relation to the Bill. I hope that it is common ground between us that, if a Minister exercises an order-making power in a way that is not permitted by the parent Act, the courts should be able to disapply that order. I doubt that there is any dispute about that. In doing so, the courts would, in effect, be reinforcing the will of Parliament by ensuring that the Act that it approved was properly applied. In that sense, the courts would be upholding parliamentary sovereignty, by ensuring that the will of Parliament in primary legislation had been given effect. I hope that that point will be accepted.
      Let me apply that argument to the Bill. If Parliament passes an Act that contains order-making powers that are capable of being exercised in a way that is compatible

      433
      with convention rights, what is the objection to providing that, if a Minister fails to exercise those powers consistently with those rights, the courts should be able to quash the instrument or set it aside? I cannot see what is wrong with that argument. Indeed, it is the absence of such a power with which I would have difficulty. The Human Rights Bill, if it is approved, will become an Act of Parliament, and it is perfectly reasonable to require that subordinate legislation be consistent both with the terms of its parent statute and with the Human Rights Act. That is what the Bill provides.
      It is inherent in the public authority provisions in clause 6 that Ministers will be acting unlawfully if they make subordinate legislation that is incompatible with a convention right, unless the parent statute requires the subordinate legislation to take that form. I hope that that is the answer that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was seeking. If he reads clause 6(1), he will find that Ministers are under that duty. These provisions are wholly beneficial. If it is the will of Parliament that something should be done that is incompatible with a convention right, Parliament must be prepared to say so in primary legislation.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) raised the issue of subordinate legislation that is inevitably incompatible with convention rights. The nature of the primary legislation under which an order is made may be such that any subordinate legislation will necessarily be in conflict with convention rights. If the courts were to have the power to strike down such subordinate legislation, it would, at least indirectly, amount to a challenge to the primary legislation itself. That would place the courts at odds with Parliament. I could understand the concern of Conservative Members if the Human Rights Bill gave the courts the power to quash such subordinate legislation, but it does not do so. Clause 3(2)(c) makes that point abundantly clear.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister confirm that this provision will not have retrospective application?
      Mr. Hoon: Clearly, it will apply to legislation in force once the Human Rights Act is itself in force.
      I hope that Conservative Members will accept that the amendments address an illusory concern. They are not needed to protect the sovereignty of Parliament. Indeed, without these provisions, the sovereignty of Parliament would be threatened, because we would not be able to give effect to parliamentary sovereignty and to the will of Parliament as expressed in primary legislation. The amendments would tie the hands of the courts and would weaken the protection that individuals receive from convention rights. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Clappison: This has been an interesting debate, and we have had some good contributions from Conservative Members. Whatever view we may have of the merits of the process for scrutinising secondary legislation, we are united in our desire to express our zealousness in defending parliamentary sovereignty. We are not satisfied with the Minister's response.
      I listened carefully to what the Minister said about ultra vires legislation. This point was anticipated if not in my opening speech, which may not have been sufficiently
      434
      clear, then certainly in the intervention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who expressed the same view as I did, but more elegantly and more forcefully. The clause will allow the courts to strike down perfectly good subordinate legislation that is not ultra vires and has no procedural defects merely by considering its merits. The Bill is taking us into new territory. The courts will be able to examine the merits of legislation and to strike it down without reference to Parliament.
      The Minister argues that the clause safeguards parliamentary sovereignty. We think that Parliament should be the judge of that. The matter should be subject to parliamentary sovereignty. To make our mark and to register our disapproval of this provision, we shall press the amendment to a vote.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 324.

      Division No. 291]

      [7.55 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Hammond, Philip

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Heald, Oliver

      Beggs, Roy

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bercow, John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Horam, John

      Body, Sir Richard

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Bums, Simon

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Butterfill, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Lansley, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Chope, Christopher

      Letwin, Oliver

      Clappison, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Lidington, David

      Colvin, Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cran, James

      Loughton, Tim

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Day, Stephen

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Maples, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Mates, Michael

      Faber, David

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Fabricant, Michael

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Flight, Howard

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Moss, Malcolm

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Norman, Archie

      Fraser, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gale, Roger

      Paterson, Owen

      Garnier, Edward

      Pickles, Eric

      Gibb, Nick

      Prior, David

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Randall, John

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

      Robathan, Andrew

      Gray, James

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Green, Damian

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Greenway, John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Ruffley, David

      435

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Tredinnick, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Trend, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Viggers, Peter

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Walter, Robert

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Wardle, Charles

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Spring, Richard

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Wilkinson, John

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Willetts, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Woodward, Shaun

      Syms, Robert

      Yeo, Tim

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Sir David Madel and Mr. Tim Collins.

      Townend, John

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ainger, Nick

      Clapham, Michael

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Allan, Richard

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Allen, Graham

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Clelland, David

      Ashton, Joe

      Clwyd, Ann

      Austin, John

      Coaker, Vernon

      Ballard, Jackie

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Barnes, Harry

      Coleman, Iain

      Barron, Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Battle, John

      Cooper, Yvette

      Bayley, Hugh

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Beard, Nigel

      Cotter, Brian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Cranston, Ross

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Crausby, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Benton, Joe

      Cummings, John

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Berry, Roger

      Dalyell, Tam

      Best, Harold

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Betts, Clive

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davidson, Ian

      Blizzard, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Boateng, Paul

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Brake, Tom

      Denham, John

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Dismore, Andrew

      Breed, Colin

      Dobbin, Jim

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Doran, Frank

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Dowd, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Drew, David

      Browne, Desmond

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Burden, Richard

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Burgon, Colin

      Edwards, Huw

      Burnett, John

      Efford, Clive

      Burstow, Paul

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Ennis, Jeff

      Byers, Stephen

      Fatchett, Derek

      Caborn, Richard

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Flint, Caroline

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Flynn, Paul

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Casale, Roger

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Chaytor, David

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Chidgey, David

      Foulkes, George

      436

      Fyfe, Maria

      Livingstone, Ken

      Galbraith, Sam

      Livsey, Richard

      Gapes, Mike

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Gardiner, Barry

      Lock, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Love, Andrew

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McAllion, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Godsiff, Roger

      McCabe, Steve

      Goggins, Paul

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gorrie, Donald

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Grogan, John

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Gunnell, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hancock, Mike

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hanson, David

      Mallaber, Judy

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Martlew, Eric

      Heppell, John

      Maxton, John

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Meale, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Merron, Gillian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michael, Alun

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hoey, Kate

      Milburn, Alan

      Home Robertson, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Moore, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Morley, Elliot

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Mudie, George

      Hurst, Alan

      Mullin, Chris

      Hutton, John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Norri's, Dan

      Illsley, Eric

      Oaten, Mark

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Olner, Bill

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Pope, Greg

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Pound, Stephen

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keetch, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kidney, David

      Radice, Giles

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Rapson, Syd

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Lepper, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Leslie, Christopher

      Rooker, Jeff

      Levitt, Tom

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Roy, Frank

      Linton, Martin

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      437

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Salmond, Alex

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Salter, Martin

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Timms, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Touhig, Don

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trickett, Jon

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Truswell, Paul

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Singh, Marsha

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Soley, Clive

      Watts, David

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      White, Brian

      Spellar, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Willis, Phil

      Stevenson, George

      Wills, Michael

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wood, Mike

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Woolas, Phil

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stott, Roger

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stringer, Graham

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stunell, Andrew

      Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. John McFall.

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      DECLARATION OF INCOMPATIBILITY
      Mr. Garnier: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 7, at end insert
      `setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in page 3, line 7, at end insert—
      '(2A) A court may not make a declaration of incompatibility unless it is necessary for the purpose of determining the matter before it.'.
      No. 16, in page 3, line 16, at end insert
      'setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court'.
      Mr. Garnier: We believe that clause 4 represents a collision point in the constitution. It does not merely represent a meeting between the supervisory code on human rights that we gain from the convention and the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty; it represents a meeting between the powers of the courts and this place to instigate a parliamentary process of statutory change. Clause 4 empowers the courts—as defined in subsection (5)—to declare that primary legislation is incompatible with a convention right.
      438
      Clause 4 should be read in conjunction with clause 21, which defines primary legislation. According to that clause, "primary legislation" means any
      "public general Act…local and personal Act…private Act…Measure of the Church Assembly … Measure of the General Synod of the Church of England…Order in Council made under…the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973…Order in Council made in exercise of Her Majesty's Royal Prerogative…and includes an order or other instrument made under primary legislation to the extent to which it operates to bring one or more provisions of that legislation into force or amends any primary legislation".
      Subordinate legislation is also defined in clause 21, and was referred to in an earlier debate.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. and learned Friend has listed the measures that would be caught by the description "primary legislation". Will he tell us whether the matter has been debated by the General Synod, whether its views have been sought and whether they have been referred to the House? Surely that is a material issue, as the new law will apply to the whole body of law passed by the General Synod of the established Church.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is right: that is a material question. Sadly, I do not know the answer, but other hon. Members who are past or present members of the General Synod may be able to help us.
      Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. and learned Friend take this a stage further? Normally, matters pertaining to the Church of England that are to be debated in the House of Commons are brought before the Ecclesiastical Committee, for two reasons. First, the Committee is a joint Committee of both Houses; secondly, unlike the Synod, it contains not just members of the Church of England but members of other Churches, because it scrutinises legislation to see how it will affect other subjects of Her Majesty. Clearly, the Bill will have an effect on the Synod.
      I am a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, but I have not received a note about the matter. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can find out whether the Committee has been able to debate it, and to decide whether it is content with the implications for the Church of England.
      Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. He has immense experience of the affairs of the Church of England, and I was interested to hear that, although he no longer belongs to that Church, he continues to take a close interest in it. I suspect that my right hon. Friend will know better than I whether, in one or other of its various forums, the Church has been able to express a view on clause 4. The Minister, too, may have better information than I.
      We must consider clause 4 in conjunction not just with clause 21, which defines primary legislation, but with clause 5, which gives the Crown—and, subject to amendments that we may or may not debate later in Committee stage, others—the right to intervene in court proceedings. If those amendments are accepted—strictly speaking, they are not germane to this debate-and if other interveners are given rights under clause 5, the Church of England and other affected bodies, as well as the Crown, may well be entitled to take an interest in a clause 4 question.

      439
      When considering the effect of clause 4 we must also consider clauses 10, 11 and 12, especially clause 12 (3)(a) and (3)(b), because they deal with remedial action—broadly, what Parliament will do in the event of a declaration of incompatibility under clause 4. Clause 12(3) states:
      "A remedial order (or draft) laid before Parliament must be accompanied by a statement containing—

      (a) an explanation of the incompatibility which the order seeks to remove, including particulars of the relevant declaration, finding or order; and

      (b) a statement of the reasons why the person making it (or proposing to make it) considers an order in those terms appropriate."

      The person making it would be the Minister. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are especially relevant when considering our amendments that deal with the beginning of the process—the making of a declaration by one of the courts that are listed in clause 4(5) in relation to primary legislation. We debated secondary legislation earlier, but we are now dealing with primary legislation.
      I spoke deliberately about a collision point on the constitution because the Strasbourg system is invasive. From time to time, the European Court of Human Rights determines that some aspect of national law or practice is incompatible with a provision in the convention. The way in which human rights are protected in a country that adheres to the convention is no longer exclusively a matter of national sovereignty. In addition, the convention system has not stood still, and has constantly been adapted to bring it into line with contemporary notions of human rights protection—for example, through the introduction of new protocols.
      In some Strasbourg court judgments it has been said that the convention represents
      "the public order of Europe"
      that it imposes objective obligations on the convention states for the protection of human rights in Europe and that the convention is evolving as Europe's constitutional Bill of Rights. Those are the words of the European Court judges, and they may ring alarm bells loudly for my right hon. and hon. Friends, and possibly in the massed ranks of Labour Members.
      The convention is no longer seen as an international treaty that creates reciprocal arrangements between contracting states. It is increasingly being interpreted in line with the object and purpose rule—I am sure that the Committee knows all about that—in the Vienna convention on the law of treaties which was entered into in 1969 as Europe's constitutional Bill of Rights.
      As I said in an intervention, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights over the past 30 to 50 years has been entirely candid in seeing the convention as a growing Bill of Rights for Europe. In the corporal punishment case affecting this country, Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, in 1978, the court said that the convention was a living instrument and that it had to consider the standards of behaviour, morality and ethics that are accepted in contemporary European society, and not those that were applicable when the convention came into being in the early 1950s.
      The line between judicial interpretation and judicial legislation may be increasingly breached. The amendments are intended to guard against that and to
      440
      prevent United Kingdom courts from going further than is warranted under our constitution. In view of the parliamentary arithmetic—a phrase which was used not long ago—there can be no doubt that the Bill will become an Act and that the convention, or at least those parts of it that are specified in the Bill, will be incorporated into British law. The amendments seek to limit the damage that we think may be done to our constitution if clause 4 is unamended. It has been said that the Bill would wreck our constitution, but I would not go that far.
      In the debate on the Queen's Speech after the election, I said that I had no religious or principled objection to the introduction of the European convention on human rights into domestic British law. However, I remain worried that the procedures that we are adopting could damage the constitution, perhaps unintentionally. That underlines my argument on the amendments. I do not accuse the Government, at least on this occasion, of deliberately setting out to destroy the constitution, but we could make that charge stick on other occasions and we shall have an opportunity to do that.
      As the Bill, amended or unamended, will become law, we must do all we can to ensure that the doctrine of the separation of powers, which underscores our constitution, is not put at risk. Our amendments are designed to protect the constitution and to prevent unwanted and perhaps unintended contests between Parliament and the courts. Why is that matter important and why are we determined to prevent the dangers that we expect would arise from an unamended clause?
      The Minister does not always give me prizes for original thinking on political philosophy, and I do not think that he will give me a prize for suggesting that elected, accountable Members of Parliament, assembled in Parliament, are the proper persons to make the law, but that unelected, disinterested, unaccountable judges should interpret it. That is our system, and, under our constitution, the courts have no power to declare that an Act of Parliament is invalid.
      The United States has an entirely different system. Under its system of judicial review, which is not to be confused with ours, federal judges—the constitutional judges in the Supreme Court—can strike down Acts of Congress if they believe that they contravene the United States constitution. We do not have that, and long may that position remain.
      In an earlier debate, we briefly discussed secondary legislation. Because of the development of such legislation and the increasing use of regulation-making powers that are given to Ministers by statute—a matter which greatly concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—the courts have felt able to develop the scope of judicial review of administrative action. In some cases, that has led to political criticism of the judiciary when it pronounced on matters of social or political controversy.
      Sadly—or perhaps not sadly—hon. Members and the editorials of newspapers are not slow to criticise judges when they make pronouncements with which we disagree. That is what we are entitled to do. We touched on that matter in a debate on the Scotland Bill two or three weeks ago, when we discussed the appointment or removal of Scottish judges and sheriffs under the new Scottish parliamentary system.

      441
      One of the points that the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) brought out was that a judge could be criticised, for example, for overly lenient sentencing and hounded by a group of politicians for doing so. One does not have to go very far back in English political history to know that there have been criticisms of our judges by members of the Labour party and of the trade union movement, who were concerned that English judges were producing laws that were contrary to those members' interests.
      8.30 pm
      You, Sir Alan, may remember the cries of, "Tory judges are doing the Government's work," in the 1980s. Although that was no doubt a sincere and well-intended criticism—or perhaps an ill-intended criticism—it was wrong-headed because they were not Tory judges, but wholly disinterested politically. None of their judgments was based on their political opinions; they were based on an interpretation of the law, which happened to have been enacted under a Tory Government. The confusion is between Tory laws passed by a Tory Government with a majority in the House of Commons and the interpretation of those Tory laws by disinterested judges.
      Mr. Humfrey Matins: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the great strength of our constitution is the fact that the judges have been and remain politically disinterested and separate? That is why people have so much confidence in the judges, despite what one occasionally hears from the Labour Benches. They are politically disinterested, and they realise that their job is to administer the law, not to make it.
      Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why our amendments are so important. They will remove any doubt that may rest in the minds of those who know less about it than they should that the judges who make the declarations of incompatibility are motivated by anything other than a desire properly to interpret the statute law that is in front of them.
      This is not a new problem. The tension between the two lives that I lead—one in the law and one in Parliament—is often referred to. It has been referred to by far more eminent lawyers than are here tonight, and I include myself in that. Trade union legislation in the early 1980s caused such alarm among the Labour party. You may remember, Sir Alan, the steel strike of the early 1980s, which led to all sorts of industrial action and then secondary industrial action. Laws were passed by the Conservative Government that made secondary action unlawful. It resulted in the case of Duport Steels v. Sirs.
      When that case arrived at the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, Lord Diplock said this. I always like referring to cases in which Lord Diplock has contributed a judgment. He was a very intellectually rigorous man, but he was not without a sense of humour, as I am sure the Minister will appreciate. Lord Diplock was a keen follower of the foxhounds and had a horse called Circuit. When he was at the Bar and his clients rang up and asked, "Is Mr. Diplock available?" his clerk could legitimately say, "No. I'm afraid he is away on Circuit." I digress and I apologise for doing so.
      442
      I want to read just a small section of Lord Diplock's judgment in the Duport Steels case, because he well illustrates the points that inform my amendments:
      "at a time when more and more cases involving the application of legislation which gives effect to policies that are the subject of bitter public and parliamentary controversy, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based on the separation of powers: Parliament makes the laws, the judiciary interpret them. When Parliament legislates to remedy what the majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect or a lacuna in the existing law (whether it be the written law enacted by existing statutes or the unwritten common law as it has been expounded by the judges in decided cases), the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and to giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our constitution, it is Parliament's opinion on these matters that is paramount."
      Those words are as true today as they were when they were uttered.
      Mr. Leigh: I think that my hon. and learned Friend can add to his point and make it even more powerful. As he knows, in that case, the House of Lords was striking down a judgment by Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal. Just as my hon. and learned Friend admires Lord Diplock, I admired Lord Denning. From my political viewpoint, I particularly admired a remark that he made in the Court of Appeal judgment in that case. He was dealing with that trade union dispute and said that it could have a
      "disastrous effect on the economy and well-being of the country".
      As much as Conservative Members may admire what he said in those circumstances, the House of Lords acted properly. It struck down Lord Denning. He should not have been making a political point of that nature. That is the powerful point that Lord Diplock was making in that case.
      Mr. Garnier: That is exactly right. That is why the Court of Appeal was overturned in that case. Both the point that my hon. Friend makes and the point that I am developing in support of our amendments show that, where one is dealing with the introduction of convention rights into domestic law, and where one is introducing something into our system of law, which traditionally has been concerned more with remedies and duties than rights, the courts are sometimes tempted to introduce the sort of language that the Court of Appeal heard from Lord Denning, which is impermissible under our constitution.
      Parliament—this House and the other place—should have the first word and the last. I am positive that A. V. Dicey put it more elegantly than I have, but where we are putting the broad brush—I think that, as I am dealing with European matters, I am allowed to descend into purple prose—of the European convention across the canvas of our constitution, we should endeavour to paint a coherent picture.
      I hope that the Minister enjoyed that because I want to remind him of something that Lord Kingsland, the shadow Lord Chancellor, said in the other place on Second Reading of the Bill last November. It was a model speech,

      443
      if I may say so. It completely stripped bare the Lord Chancellor's arguments in favour of the Bill, and presented a thoroughly unmatched set of arguments. My noble Friend said that, if the Bill, became law—I paraphrase at the moment—it would be a defining moment in the life of our constitution, and as important in the history of our constitution as, for example, the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949. He said that all those matters
      "lie at the heart of the doctrine of the separation of the powers in our constitution, which has been the hallmark of our liberties throughout the centuries."
      We should not scoff at the protection of our liberties under the constitution. Lord Kingsland suggested that the Lord Chancellor had gone for a hybrid of the New Zealand and Canadian models and that
      "he is not striking down the previous statute but is giving judges the power to make a declaration of incompatibility. He then gives Parliament the option to legislate not by full primary statute but by order in council.
      I believe that that solution is constitutionally unacceptable for two reasons which I shall try to explain … In the Bill the courts of this country are not bound by the decisions of the court in Strasbourg."
      He said that it is to have
      "persuasive but not obligatory effect. When a court in this country makes a declaration of incompatibility, it might be making a declaration which is not an accurate photograph of the law of the convention. Indeed, that option is expressly incorporated in the Bill. To the extent that a declaration of incompatibility does not reflect the true construction of the jurisprudence of the convention, the judges will be making a declaration about the making of new law, judge-made law. Indeed, they will be doing more than that. They will be initiating a legislative procedure in Parliament."
      If that is what the clause proposes, it will introduce something that we should be well aware of, and we should do something about it. Clause 4(2) says:
      "If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility."
      Amendment No. 15 proposes to add these words immediately afterwards:
      "setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court"
      so that, when the declaration of incompatibility is made by the court, the Government—who will have to introduce a remedial order—will know precisely why the court has found that the Act is incompatible with the convention rights.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. and learned Friend says that it is important that the Government know that. May I suggest that it is more important that the people should know? This is an unusual mechanism—like him, I do not have too extreme a view of it—and some Labour Members appear to agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the change in the constitution. There are a lot of people outside who will be at least suspicious about the matter. Therefore, the Committee should accept nothing less if we want those people to accept the system.
      Mr. Garnier: My right hon. Friend is right to pull me up. Of course it is the people who have the right to know. I was thinking, naively, that the Government actually took account of the interests of the people. I was mistaken, and I apologise for being such a silly billy. This Government
      444
      were described as "unusually tyrannical" in the other place by Lord Simon of Glaisdale—not a man given to hyperbole.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to pull me up. We purport to represent the people in this place—I do not know what the Government think they are doing. They seem to pay precious little attention to what the people care about. [Interruption.] I will not be diverted by grumblings from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who is not a noted constitutional lawyer as far as I am aware.
      Fiona Mactaggart rose—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady must not assume that she has the Floor until it has been conceded to her by the Member she is seeking to interrupt.
      Fiona Mactaggart: I apologise, Sir Alan, for misreading the body language of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The point that was being made before I attempted to intervene was about representing the people. I have never suggested to anyone that I am an eminent lawyer; I have never sought to play such a role. However—like the Labour party—I have listened to and represent the people of Slough, which is why we are implementing such a substantial and important change in the Bill.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Garnier: I think that I may have been mistaken not to conceal my body language. After that intervention, I shall keep my body language to myself.
      My noble Friend Lord Kingsland identified the constitutional danger posed by clause 4, which would allow judges to introduce a legislative initiative. I think that amendment No. 15 goes some way in dealing with the concerns expressed by my noble Friend, which are also felt by very many people in the United Kingdom.
      When introducing a convention conferring rights—the interpretation of which has been subject to argument and debate in Strasbourg and in the domestic courts of nations that are amenable to the convention, and still no exactitude has been provided—into a system of law that has until now been concerned more with remedies and duties, it is vital that Parliament should tell, the courts what we expect of them.
      On 3 November 1997, the Lord Chancellor said in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading:
      "the Bill is carefully drafted and designed to respect our traditional understanding of the separation of powers."
      That is undoubtedly a worthy sentiment. However, as the Lord Chancellor has also said that his legal aid reforms are designed to "increase access to justice", we should be very careful of sentiment emanating from that noble mouth.
      The Lord Chancellor said:
      "The design of the Bill is to give the courts as much space as possible to protect human rights, short of a power to set aside or ignore Acts of Parliament."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1228.]
      We have tabled this group of amendments to restrict the space within which Parliament allows the courts to operate, not to inhibit the courts from protecting human

      445
      rights. We fear that, without the amendments, the courts will increasingly push at the boundaries between the judiciary and Parliament, which would so upset the pertaining balance.
      Under the Bill, the courts will take on a new role. Hon. Members must be careful before ceding our powers to initiate legislation to the courts. If we are to have clause 4 declarations, they must be explicit, capable of withstanding scrutiny and public explanation, and in such a form that they can sensibly inform the process that the Bill envisages in clause 12(3).
      If we are to have remedial orders, they must work in concert with the final judicial wording of the declarations of incompatibility. To do otherwise would merely add to the tension that will come to exist between this place and the courts. Although it is important that there is a creative tension between them, it is vital that the Bill should not allow a destructive tension to build up.
      I suggest that passing the amendments would relieve the constitution of a potential danger—one which would act to the detriment of our constituents.
      Mr. Gummer: I shall not detain the Committee long, but I believe that the amendment is of considerable importance because of the need to explain to the public as a whole the effects of this new situation.
      I am unhappy about the concept of rights; I happen to believe that we have obligations, and that in our obligations lie other people's rights—as a matter of fact, I do not think, philosophically, that created beings can have rights. It is a pity that we have not understood the distinction, which we have never before had in our laws. We have always seen that there is a matter of duties and obligations, and that has been the key to our handling of the sort of issues with which the European convention is concerned. However, because it is a European convention, it is heavily influenced by the works of Tom Paine and the French revolution, and papal reinterpretation of that in the latter part of the 19th century. One clearly sees that stretch of attitude in the way in which the convention is framed.
      Mr. Maclennan: Would it not be historically more accurate to acknowledge the debt owed to the works of Jesuit priests and writers such as Hugo Grotius, Vitoria and others in the long Catholic European tradition, going right back to the laws of nature, which recognised rights?
      Mr. Gummer: It would be possible to acknowledge that, but it would be contrary to the truth. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the fact that, until the end of the 19th century, the Catholic position was quite clear: rights were not possible for a created being; a created being had obligations, and those obligations conferred rights on others, because others were able to depend on his carrying out those obligations and to expect that he would do so.
      The matter is not merely semantic, because the problem arises that the attitude towards rights that is so marked a result of the changes in the 19th century has affected Britain rather differently from the rest of Europe. As an enthusiastic supporter of our close connection with the rest of Europe, I believe that we can offer others some things where we are different and where our long history gives us a certain amount of experience that they do not
      446
      have. One of those aspects of our history is the long stability that we have enjoyed in this country, but that has not been the experience of many of our neighbours.
      Part of that stability arises from the division of powers. Therefore, if we are going to, at the very least, narrow that division, it is important that, on the occasions when that happens, the reason is clear to the public. The public have respect for judges, but do not expect judges to make the law; they have no respect for Members of Parliament, but do expect Members of Parliament to make the law. That distinction is important. On this occasion, we are allowing judges to come closer to making the law than they do in any other circumstance. That is the crucial issue.
      Having read the debates in another place, I should have thought that the Government would want to make sure that their promise there would be carried through. They said there that they wished to make this new excursion as compatible as possible with our historic separation of powers.
      I hope that the Government will not feel that that there is any way an unpleasantness about the amendment or that it should be overruled merely because the Government have a majority. I should have thought that the Government would not find an amendment that asks that courts give a clear statement of why they find a measure incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights one on which to divide the Committee. It seems to me that everyone could agree on the matter—not just so that the Minister would find it easier to frame amending legislation, but so that the public should be easier in their minds that the judges have acted properly and constitutionally within the framework laid down by Parliament. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment as a result of that first point.
      Secondly—although less importantly, as the public are most at risk of feeling that the change is not one of which they are assured—I hope that the Government will see the amendment as their defence. As things happen to be, it is likely that this Government will be in power on the first occasion—probably within the next three or four years—on which the provision operates. If it takes place after that, this Government will not have to make a decision. Ministers will surely want to know, not least on that first occasion, precisely what this is all about; what the judges are getting at; how narrowly amending legislation can be drawn.
      Let us imagine circumstances in which the Government managed to pass a measure that had been hard fought against as it went through the House. Let us imagine that the Opposition had tabled amendments pointing to the incompatibility of some measure that the Government were proposing. Let us think that, in a heated moment, the Government had said very clearly that the Opposition were wrong and that the measure was not contrary to the effects of the European Convention on Human Rights. Let us think that the debate continued along that line and that, in the end, the majority ruled and the Government got their way. In those circumstances, the Government would want to be quite sure that, if the judges struck down the measure, they had the best ground for being able to eat their words. They would like to be able to say to the Opposition, "Well, what you said was not generally true, although it appears that, in a particular case, there was some truth in it."

      447
      I do not want the Government to feel that they must overcompensate for what has been mistaken. In other words, if the courts struck down, or appeared to strike down, some decision of the House, the Government would want to make as small an alteration as is compatible. How could they do that unless they knew precisely why the courts had struck down the matter? I do not know why I am busy defending the Government—except that we shall inherit the matter thereafter. However, the Government need to be defended from a position in which they will have to make the remedy but will not know how widely that remedy will have to run.
      That brings me to the third point. I want to defend not only the Government but all other hon. Members. The Minister is a very honourable Member, and will no doubt seek, if the task falls to him, to bring in as narrow a change as absolutely necessary. However, others will be less scrupulous, and will say to themselves, "We do not want to get mixed up with those courts any more, so let us go as far as it could be thought that the courts might expect us to, and get out of the problem in future." Unless we insist upon the detailed amendment, the Government could propose to amend the legislation far beyond what would be necessary if there were a more particular statement of what the courts were concerned about.
      There are therefore three reasons why I believe it necessary for us to carry the amendment into law—the defence of the people so that they know where they are, the defence of the Government so that they know where they are, and the defence of the House, to ensure that its will is not gainsaid by one iota or scintilla more than is absolutely necessary to meet the obligations that the convention lays upon it.
      9 pm
      Those should be views commonly held on both sides of the Committee. I see nothing in them that could possibly be thought party political. However, my last point is party political. One of the problems with judges is that they share the human frailty of seeking always to move as far as their powers allow. We all tend that way. All assemblies move to become Parliaments; all Parliaments seek greater power; courts are rarely satisfied with the restrictions laid upon them. I believe it is necessary to ensure that our courts do not gain an appetite for what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) described as the attitudes of the European Courts of Human Rights and of Justice and of other courts in individual nations in the European Union and beyond.
      That is why the amendment is necessary for the good of the courts, as well as for the good of the Government, the good of the people and the good of the House. I believe that the courts' natural appetite for the extension of their powers should be restrained, and the only one body that can so restrain them is the House. That is the nature of the separation of powers.
      Therefore, the Committee owes it to the courts to be clear in the way that it legislates today and throughout the further stages of the Bill. We must be clear, and we can do that only if we insist that the courts be clear, for in their clarity will be their restriction. Because they have to say in detail what they find incompatible, they will not be
      448
      able to stretch their powers beyond the degree to which we—of necessity, if the Bill is passed—will have to increase them.
      That is why I hope that the Committee will accept that the amendment is reasonable and would be for the good of many of Her Majesty's subjects.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am sorry to have to say that I did not find the speech by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) compelling in its history, its philosophy, its politics or its law. It finished with a rather curious, although not entirely frontal, attack on the judiciary, suggesting that they were institutionally engaged in self-aggrandisement.
      That is a caricature of how our judiciary perform. It is evident that our judges are extremely careful not to trespass on the role of Parliament. Indeed, they made it plain before the Bill was introduced that, although they broadly favour the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights, they would prefer at this stage in the development of our constitutional thinking not to be given a power to strike down in a simple and straightforward way legislation that they consider incompatible.
      The Bill represents a novel approach to the incorporation of a Bill of Rights, and its construction owes a great deal to the judicial restraint of the highest judges in the country—including Lord Bingham and many others—who publicly spoke in favour of incorporation and advised that they should not be empowered like the Supreme Court in the United States simply to strike down incompatible legislation. The attack on the judiciary by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was very wide of the mark.
      I do not see how the language of the amendments would do anything to achieve what they seem to be intended to achieve. They are not lapidary in their clarity; indeed, they could create a source of great argument and confusion. It would have been one thing if the amendments had stated simply that the declaration of incompatibility should be accompanied by reasons—one might then have been able to understand what was in the minds of those Conservative Members who tabled them—but they are couched in rather serpentine language.
      Amendment No. 15 would insert the words
      "setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court".
      Almost every phrase of that could give rise to argument—barrack-room lawyers would argue about whether the judges, in making a declaration of incompatibility, had conformed precisely with the terms suggested by amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
      It is clearly the case that a declaration of incompatibility would be a constitutionally solemn decision, which the courts would not take lightly or ill advisedly. I believe that the courts would take such a decision very rarely as, like Parliament, judges have, in developing common law, broadly assumed that it was the will of the British people that our obligations under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights should be observed. It is a natural construction—an a priori view—that Parliament has not legislated inadvertently to breach the convention's provisions, so I believe that a declaration of incompatibility would be prayed in aid only rarely. To suggest that there is any

      449
      automaticity in the provision—that there is an automatic triggering of legislation as a result of the declaration of incompatibility—is to misrepresent the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Leigh: As the right hon. Gentleman said, of course Parliament does not legislate knowingly to be incompatible with the convention, but the convention and the European Court move on and what might have been compatible in the past is no longer compatible. That is why there might be rather more cases coming before the European Court than he might imagine.
      Mr. Maclennan: We shall see, but I doubt it. I do not doubt that cases will be brought before the European Court praying in aid the convention rights, but they will stem not from defective legislation or parliamentary activity, but more from the executive actions of public authorities.
      The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal implied that a declaration of incompatibility bordered on a legislative provision. That is a distortion of language. First, it is quite plain that the Bill provides a permissive power to make a declaration of incompatibility. The court is not required to make such a declaration. Clause 4(2) allows the court to make such a declaration. Secondly, such a declaration does not require the Government to introduce legislation under clause 10. That also is permissive. So to suggest that the Bill contains a trigger mechanism that could be fired and in some way diminish the role of the executive arm of government and the scrutiny of Parliament is to fail to appreciate the checks and balances that have been carefully written into a remarkable Bill.
      The Bill is remarkable because it fulfils the need to provide a remedy quickly in order to avoid the injustices that would flow from a court finding an incompatibility with the European convention and the remedy depending on Strasbourg because of the difficulty of finding legislative time to introduce primary legislation to overturn the incompatible measure. The Bill has neatly tackled that problem, and in so doing has safeguarded the justice of our system without trespassing on parliamentary sovereignty.
      Mr. Gummer: Has not the right hon. Gentleman now disproved his previous contention? He suggests that the reason for the particular arrangements under the Bill is to enable the remedy to be applied very quickly if a court declares a measure to be incompatible. Obviously, he expects that, if a court declares a Bill to be incompatible, there will be a speedy remedy. I suggested not that that gave the courts the ability to rule, but that it was adjacent to ruling, because it is likely that Parliament would find it almost impossible not to apply that remedy. Therefore, has not the right hon. Gentleman proved that what I said was strictly accurate?
      Mr. Maclennan: No. The right hon. Gentleman has not made his case very effectively. It is quite plain that, if a court makes a formal declaration of incompatibility, it will do so advisedly because it considers the matter to be sufficiently important to trigger the mechanism if the executive arm of government and Parliament consider that it is appropriate to respond to it. It would make such a
      450
      declaration only if there were an issue of some importance that required remedy. Otherwise, it is not obliged to make a declaration—
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Garnier: I think that the right hon. Gentleman's body language suggested that I was being invited to intervene, and I am grateful to him for that.
      The difficulty that the Bill presents is that the procedure begins in clause 19. That is where the Minister makes a statement of compatibility. A litigant might take a matter to court, and if the court agreed with him, it would then make a declaration under clause 4. Even before that, there is the potential for dispute between the Executive—whether within Parliament or without—and the court. The right hon. Gentleman has addressed many points, but not that one.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. and learned Gentleman understood my body language and I understood his, but I confess that I did not understand the point that he was making. I am a little nonplussed by it and I apologise for my failure to comprehend.
      I believe that the amendments were devised to make a political point—a constitutional point, which in itself is quite important. Those who want to amend the Bill do not want the right of Parliament to deliberate, in the manner to which we are accustomed, curtailed or changed by an act of the judiciary. That is an important issue that should be discussed. However, the language in the amendment can cause nothing but confusion. Therefore, I hope that it will be resisted.
      Miss Anne McIntosh: I intend to do my level best to encourage my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) to make an even more robust rejection of the proposal to incorporate the convention into UK law.
      I am sure that the Minister will agree that we share some confusion—having both been active in another place—about the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Even greater confusion is caused by the fact that, for part of the year, the European Court of Human Rights meets in the same place as the European Parliament. The public are greatly confused by that.
      I vigorously support amendment No. 15. I am concerned about the impact that the convention, and particularly clause 4, will have on primary legislation. In view of the Bowman judgment, it is clear that, if the convention had already been incorporated into UK law, the courts would be seeking to repeal part of the Representation of the People Act. That is one of the questions that we should consider.
      I regret the intrusiveness and invasiveness of clause 4, and the impact—particularly following the Bowman judgment—that the convention will have when we adopt it into our political, electoral and judicial systems. The Strasbourg system is definitely invasive, and new legislation will have to be deemed Strasbourg-proof before we can adopt it, or we will have a plethora of court

      451
      cases. Will the Government tell us what mechanism they envisage using to prepare future legislation in a Strasbourg-proof way?
      Mr. Hoon: I can deal with that point now. The previous Government ensured for eight years or so that draft legislation was consistent with the terms of the convention. Clause 6 is also absolutely clear. Procedures are already in place, and they will be strengthened by the Bill's passage.
      Miss McIntosh: I am not sure that I am convinced by that answer, but I am grateful to the Minister.
      What concerns me most about clause 4 is that courts will be able to determine in future that some aspects of national law are incompatible with the convention. I am sure that the Government—the listening Government, the people's Government, they tell us—will appreciate that that could occur in politically sensitive areas, such as prisons, immigration and administrative matters, including judicial review. They may regret their proposal to incorporate the convention in United Kingdom law in toto.
      The amendment should be welcomed, because it would ensure that judges would say specifically why they believed any primary legislation to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. The amendment would also give judges a clear indication that declarations of incompatibility should not be issued unless required to resolve a particular case before the court. I hope that the judge—I mean the Minister; I did not mean to elevate him to another Bench—will comment on that when he winds up.
      I do not mean to denigrate the judiciary in any way, but a substantial period will be needed if it is to adapt to its new responsibilities under clause 4. Similar problems were experienced in 1973 when the treaty of Rome was introduced to the UK. Courts and practitioners applying European law for the first time needed a substantial period to be educated—for want of a better word—on the impact of the treaty on the interpretation of legislation.
      I am delighted to say, Mr. Martin, that Scotland led the way in that regard, particularly through Professor J. D. B. Mitchell, of whom I had the great honour to be a student. We led the way because constitutional law courses in Scotland implemented a vigorous education for budding practitioners at an early stage. Present practitioners do not have that experience.
      Mr. Hoon: Was the hon. Lady happy with how the treaty of Rome was incorporated into UK law?
      Miss McIntosh: It might be more appropriate to comment on that on some other occasion, as we have more pressing matters to discuss this evening. Perhaps the Minister would like to discuss it with me at greater length in one of the parliamentary bars, so that we do not take up the Committee's time.
      I commend the amendment to the Committee, and hope that the Government might be minded to support it.
      Mr. Malins: First, I declare an interest. I am a recorder of the Crown court and, for some years, I have been an
      452
      acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, so I have a great deal of judicial experience behind me. That has enabled me to realise that, when I sit judicially, it is my job to apply the law, whereas in this House it is our job to make the law. It is terribly important to understand and to maintain those differences.
      When I spoke on Second Reading, I was vehement in my opposition to the principle of the Bill. I said that the danger was that it would effectively give the judges of this country powers to make law, whereas their job is to interpret it.
      The right hon.Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) was a little unkind to my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) when he accused him of launching an attack on the judiciary. My right hon. Friend did no such thing. He was rightly pointing to the different roles of the judiciary and Parliament, and saying that he feared that we might move towards a stage when the judiciary began to overlap into the fields that belong principally to Members of this House. He went no further—indeed, he was generous in his remarks about the judiciary.
      Clause 4 is the cutting edge of the Bill. It is the point where the convention will bite in particular litigation to enable the litigant to invite the judge to come to a conclusion different from that which he would have reached but for the convention. Thus the amendments, and the clause generally, are extremely important. I urge the Government to accept the amendments. I see hon. Members who I know have reasonable attitudes. I shall not name them, but a number are known to be sensible thinkers about these matters. If they listen to our arguments carefully, as I can see they are doing, they will inevitably take them on board, and are likely to support us later tonight.
      The past is in the past, and I must accept that my opposition to the Bill on Second Reading was not enough to carry the House on that occasion—not enough hon. Members took the same view. I said then, and I repeat tonight, that the roles of the judiciary and the legislature are, and should remain, entirely different. We must deal with the method by which the Government seek to give practical effect to the convention in English law. Having accepted the will of the House, it is important for me carefully to examine the problem, and to argue my corner about how best to give practical effect to the convention in our law.
      Surely we can all agree on the need for clarity rather than obscurity and confusion when choosing the method of giving effect to the convention. The Bill's method is to enable the judge to make a declaration of incompatibility between a provision of existing domestic law and a convention provision. There is no reason in principle why that provision of domestic law should be a statutory provision or a provision of delegated legislation; it could well refer to common law. I add that a declaration of incompatibility may occur between a provision of existing domestic law and a convention provision as already interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights.
      9.30 pm
      The amendments, particularly amendment No. 15, ask the court properly to particularise the incompatibility. I hope to show why that is not only desirable but

      453
      absolutely essential. Let us take a simple law case. It may arise under existing landlord and tenant or employment legislation—it matters not.
      Let us say that landlord and tenant legislation provides that a three-week period is reasonable notice for a change in the relationship between the parties. Suppose the court, on hearing argument, finds that the three-week period fails adequately to safeguard one or more convention rights. It would be unhelpful—indeed, arguably, faintly ludicrous—for the judge simply to say that and go no further. The judge should perhaps say what period would be a sufficient safeguard.
      One can think of Revenue cases, particularly those concerning penalty time limits, in which such a point might be highly relevant. In my hypothetical case, it is no good the judge simply issuing a declaration of incompatibility and saying that three weeks is not long enough: he must go further.
      Mr. Maclennan: Is not the hon. Gentleman, in making that suggestion, inviting the judge to usurp the legislative function and say what should be done? That is very much a matter for the House.
      Mr. Malins: As I continued to explore that argument, I asked myself that very question. Was I in fact suggesting that the judge should move into the legislative sphere? However, that is not my point. My point is that the judge should not simply issue the declaration of incompatibility but give much more explanation, so that the House and others know what the judge considers the problem to be.
      In my example of the three-week period in the relationship under landlord and tenant law on which the judge issues a declaration of incompatibility, such a statement is not enough. For example, what would the House do when faced with such a simple declaration of incompatibility? Would it remedy the point by substituting four, five or six weeks, only to have the same or a different judge saying later that that was not long enough?
      The law should not be a game of ping-pong between the courts and the elected House of Commons. There is a danger that that will happen unless the amendments are accepted.
      Here is an example of the problem as it currently exists. Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, a limitation clause in a contract may limit damages to £100,000, and the judge may strike it down as unreasonable. It could be argued that the unjustness in that case arises because we gave no power or duty to the judge to substitute a reasonable figure. Once the limit is judged unreasonable, the contract contains no limit: there is unlimited liability.
      There is no obligation on the judge in such a case to tell the parties what would be a reasonable provision, and thus enable them to plan their future affairs properly. We cannot allow such a situation to exist. The amendments are right, and the judge must be required to state what aspect of the provision is incompatible and to what degree. The judge should produce a fully particularised judgment, so that people know why he or she has come to such a conclusion. The parties—the people of this country if it is a common law point, and the House of
      454
      Commons if it is a statutory point—should know exactly how to alter their respective affairs or the law so as to comply with the convention.
      Mr. Hoon: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but some of them are a little far-fetched. Can he contemplate a decision by any of the courts listed in clause 4(5) that does not give carefully particularised reasons for the finding of incompatibility?
      Mr. Malins: If the Bill had stated that, the Opposition would not have tabled the amendment. The clause provides that the court
      "may make a declaration of that incompatibility."
      We want to add the words
      "setting out the nature and extent thereof in so far as arises from the nature of the case before the court".
      The Minister asked whether I. could imagine a case in which the court would not fully particularise the matter in such detail and with such observations.
      Mr. Leigh: The Minister has at least done the House a service. Under Pepper v. Hart, a Minister's words—especially such a distinguished Minister as the hon. Gentleman—can be used by the courts to interpret the intentions of Parliament. Although the Minister will instruct his minions to vote down this sensible amendment, he has just said, in effect, that the courts should do precisely what the amendment would require them to do.
      Mr. Matins: My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. It is all very well the Minister sitting there smiling, but this is a serious point, because people outside the House will take note of what is said in this debate. The Minister asked me whether I could envisage a case in which the court did not issue a fully particularised and detailed view on the matter. That requirement is not in the Bill, and the Minister's words may come back to haunt him. He seems to have accepted the substance of the amendment.
      Mr. Grieve: I can think of a number of judgments of superior courts, including the House of Lords, which, while dealing with a precise point that had arisen before them, provided no guidelines on how the law might be complied with. That is precisely the point that the amendment is designed to address.
      Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend, who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), has a distinguished career in the law, again makes a valid point. Conservative Members are afeared that the Bill means what it says. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but it says that a declaration of incompatibility will be issued.
      I have been asked whether I could imagine a situation in which such a declaration would not be full, covering all the points of the amendment. If the Minister is saying that he is absolutely certain that its spirit and wording would be observed in practice, we should be happy to hear it, but that is not in the Bill, which is why we are advancing these arguments.
      I must make a few concluding remarks, because the thrust of my arguments has, I hope, become clear. It has certainly become clear to me. Our amendments would

      455
      help to prevent, or certainly discourage, judges from pushing for changes in our law that were not strictly necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) referred to that danger, and it lies ahead. The amendments would also discourage judges from getting involved in the political arena too much, and pressure groups from pushing too hard to open up a whole field in any particular case.
      It must be clear to Labour Members that the Minister has, by his words tonight, effectively accepted our amendment. Therefore, I am sure that, having heard the arguments, he will accept it and bring his colleagues with him into the Lobby with us. if he does, and if he recognises our concerns, we shall be satisfied.
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: The clause goes to the heart of the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was absolutely right to say that it is a collision point; I regard it as a recipe for permanent conflict between Parliament and our courts. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend's assertion and encourage him to go further in attacking the Government. He said that he acquitted them of seeking to destroy the constitution through the Bill. He is a reasonable man, which is a reason why he advanced that case. I am not of such charitable disposition.
      As I have said previously in the House, I believe that the Bill is one of a series of measures—on Scotland, the Welsh Assembly and the proposals for the European Parliament—that strike at the constitution. A constitutional arrangement that has served the people of Britain well is being systematically destroyed. That owes much to the vanity of the Prime Minister. He has no great economic issue to fight, because that was done by the Conservatives over 18 glorious years; therefore, he has turned his attention to wrecking the constitution.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said that people outside the Chamber would listen to the debate with great interest. I am afraid that he was joking, because our debates on the great constitutional issues, which affect the people of this country, are not being reported. We need only look to see the number of journalists taking careful note of what is said.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to say that the people have an interest in constitutional measures, but those issues are not being brought to their attention. As the Minister knows, people are much more interested in the Lord Chancellor's wallpaper. As the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) knows, I played a small part—I should be the first to acknowledge that that is an important issue, but it is not half as important as the issues that we are debating.
      Consider the relative coverage that constitutional issues have been given by the media: Gazza, and Ginger Spice leaving the Spice Girls have commanded acres of coverage. One day, the people of Britain will wake up, and will see that all these changes are being made to our constitution.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to the amendment. The matters to which he is referring have nothing to do with it.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Howarth: You are very kind, Mr. Martin, but I am trying to draw attention to the importance of the issue. I think that what I am saying is pertinent to the amendment, which requires the courts, if they seek to strike down legislation on the ground that it is incompatible with a convention right, to give reasons for doing so. I think that such questions should be aired to a much wider public than they are now.
      The Bill strikes at the heart of the concept of the separation of powers. I do not share the benign, indeed complacent, view of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan). He does not think it possible that judges would seek to challenge Parliament—but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal pointed out, judges are human beings like the rest of us. As I think my right hon. Friend said, they have a natural appetite for the extension of their powers, and that should be constrained.
      In this place, we should anticipate what might come to pass. There are enough eminent lawyers around—I single out just two, George Carman and Geoffrey Robertson—who quite enjoy the limelight. I cast no aspersions on them, of course—not tonight, anyway—but I think that, if the Bill becomes law, we could well be faced with a new breed of judge, who would seek—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with this. He is trying to engage in a Second Reading debate, but, as he must know, there are amendments before the Committee, and he must zero in on them.
      Mr. Howarth: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Martin.
      We have been discussing the separation of powers, and how the amendments relate to it. My point is that there is a grave danger that the courts will seek to exercise new powers that the Bill confers on them. The amendments merely require them to explain why they seek to strike down laws enacted by this sovereign Parliament.
      Mr. Gummer: May I return my hon. Friend to the subject of the amendment? Its purpose, surely, is specifically to constrain the human condition. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) took it so personally; I merely said that we were all heir to the same danger—the danger of wanting greater rather than lesser powers. That seems manifestly true to me, and the amendment would enable us to restrain such powers in an elegant but important way.
      Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend has made his case eloquently, and he is entirely right. I hope that the complacency of the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross will be noted, because I think it extremely dangerous. It should be made clear that, unless the amendment is accepted, the courts may seek to overthrow the rights of our Parliament.
      In October last year, in an interesting article in The Times, Sir Brian Cubbon—formerly Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office—wrote:
      "The redress of grievances has been a traditional role of the House of Commons. The Bill would shift that responsibility to the courts over the whole field of what are called human rights in the European

      457
      Convention. This goes far beyond the present scope of judicial review … Rights under the convention cover many of the grievances which MPs receive from their constituents about public authorities."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Woking said that pressure groups, having failed to impress their case on Parliament, might seek to come not to this place but to the courts, where they will argue their case in the hope that they will enable the judges to strike down laws that were enacted by Parliament.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) wishes to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude by saying that Mr. Francis Bennion, an eminent constitutional lawyer, has said that the Bill is neither a mirror image of the Strasbourg convention nor free standing, and could enable the courts not to reflect the Strasbourg convention but to interpret it in their own way. Will judges be required to interpret the laws of the land as being consistent with the European convention on human rights or will they be free to develop their own law? It is important to establish that.
      The amendment is modest, and the Minister has acknowledged the case for it. If he agrees with its thrust, accepting it will do him no harm, and will clearly show the public exactly what we are trying to achieve.
      Mr. Grieve: I do not wish it to be thought that the only speeches supporting the amendments came from those who, on broad principle, were against the Bill. As I think the Minister knows, I support incorporation, although there are some matters that I wish to scrutinise and criticise during the passage of the legislation. I appreciate the point, which I am sure the Minister will make, that one would normally expect a court, when pronouncing on a question of incompatibility, to set out the nature and the extent of that incompatibility as it arises from the nature of the case that is before the court. In principle, that is what one would expect, but, in my experience, courts occasionally do not do that. It is an indispensable prerequisite to Parliament being able to make an objective and correct judgment on incompatibility and on how it wishes to proceed for that decision to be made here.
      One of the anxieties that has been expressed at length during consideration of the Bill and with which I broadly disagree, although I understand its nature, is that the courts will start to substitute themselves for Parliament in ensuring the freedoms of the people. As I have said, this legislation will work and will go down in history as being great if it is subsequently perceived that Parliament and the courts are working in tandem to achieve good human rights in accordance with the convention and its incorporation in our national law. It follows that, if primary legislation is considered to be incompatible with the terms of the Bill and the incorporated convention—an event which, I hope, will rarely occur—we should be clear about what the court has said is the problem, and there should be public consideration of the matter.
      As I said on Second Reading, the Bill is not written in stone. On occasions, Parliament, having considered the matter carefully, might decide that, notwithstanding what has been said, it wishes to derogate from the court's decision, for sound public policy reasons. I hope that it would not have to do that, but it might. It seems that little would be lost by including amendments Nos. 15 and 16, which relate to subordinate legislation, and that something might be gained, although I would understand the
      458
      Minister saying, "Normally, I would expect this to be dealt with without any specific reference to it being made." Nevertheless, if no harm would result from including the amendment—I do not see what harm would result—it could properly be put in the Bill.
      The matter is somewhat different in respect of amendment No. 103. It requests that a court should not make a declaration of incompatibility
      "unless it is necessary for the purpose of determining the matter before it."
      I had some hesitation about that when I first considered it, because what the courts may say in obiter parts of their judgment is important for lawyers in respect of similar cases, but it would still be open to a court to reveal in the course of a judgment its anxiety over some passage relating to a case not before it, without making a declaration of incompatibility that did not relate to the matter before it.
      I do not think that the amendment will fetter a court's ability to make obiter pronouncements suggesting that, in some other respect, something that it is considering may not be compatible with the convention. I therefore ask the Minister to consider that amendment as well, although I would be not be as worried about it not being made as I would be about the other two amendments not being accepted.
      Mr. Hoon: I agree with Opposition Members to this extent. Clause 4 is central to the careful compromise that the Government propose in the Bill—a compromise between parliamentary sovereignty and the need to give proper effect to the European convention. However, the Government will resist the Opposition amendments because they will unnecessarily disturb the careful balance that the Government have sought to establish.
      Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would require a court making a declaration of incompatibility to set out the nature and extent of the incompatibility in so far as that arose from the nature of the case before the court. It is important to remind the Committee of what the court will do when it makes a declaration of incompatibility by virtue of clause 4.
      By virtue of clause 3, the court will have done everything possible to find an interpretation of the relevant legislation that is compatible with the convention rights. If one of the courts that is specified in clause 4 is satisfied that it is simply not possible to find a compatible interpretation, it will be able to say so formally by means of a declaration of incompatibility. That is most likely to have followed the procedure that is set out in clause 5 giving the Crown the right to intervene.
      With great respect to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I believe that his description of courts suggested that they would pronounce on incompatibility almost at the drop of a hat. There will be a vigorous contest before a court, and both sides of the argument will be extensively debated and discussed before that court reaches a decision. As I have said in an intervention, it will be obvious that the matter has been explored in considerable detail and, clearly, one of the higher courts that are set out in clauses 4 and 5 will be required to explain in some detail the reasons for issuing the declaration.
      A declaration of incompatibility will be a statement that, in the court's view, there is a problem with a piece of legislation in terms of its compatibility with the

      459
      convention, and it is not open to the court itself to rectify or to make good the legislation. That may happen because a Government may have deliberately provided in a Bill that it is not to be open to the court to strike down primary legislation. That course of action could have been considered by the Government when making our proposals. As we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), that approach is adopted in some countries when dealing with such measures. Nevertheless, the Government decided that, in the interests of maintaining parliamentary sovereignty, that would not be the course we would commend to Parliament.
      Interestingly, great stress was placed on parliamentary sovereignty in our earlier discussions, but there has been a curious absence of it in this debate. We have placed parliamentary sovereignty at the centre of the proposals and we have not allowed the courts to strike down legislation. By enabling the courts to make a declaration of incompatibility, the situation can be brought to the notice of Parliament and the deficiency subsequently rectified by Parliament, whether by primary legislation or by approving a remedial order. That allows Parliament precisely the opportunity for which Opposition Members have been arguing. I am sorry that they have not accepted that during my comments.
      10 pm
      Perhaps I should turn in more detail to the formulation offered in amendments Nos. 15 and 16. I doubt whether a requirement on the court to explain the "nature and extent" of the incompatibility would add anything to the Bill, from anyone's point of view. As the Bill stands, I would expect a court, when making a declaration, to explain what the difficulty was and why it had been impossible to overcome it by constructive interpretation of clause 3. How the declaration arose would be apparent from the judgment as a whole.
      A legislative provision will be either compatible or incompatible. The idea that it is possible for a court to certify the extent of the incompatibility is patent nonsense—forgive me for putting it so brutally. It is not possible to certify the extent of an incompatibility. There is either a breach of the convention or there is not. That part of the amendments is patently absurd. There will not be degrees of incompatibility, or any difference between one kind of incompatibility and another.
      I am not sure what is meant by the "nature" of the case before the court. Does that refer to distinctions between civil and criminal cases, between cases involving juveniles and cases involving adults, between long and short cases, or between cases with a jury and cases without a jury? Not one Opposition Member has troubled to try to explain that aspect.
      Even if we accepted such wording, why is the nature of the case relevant to whether legislation can or cannot be interpreted compatibly with the convention? The implication is that legislation could mean one thing in one case and another in another case. That hardly strikes me as a sound basis for judicial interpretation. Having thought more carefully about the amendment, I hope that Opposition Members will accept that they are not arguing for anything terribly sensible.
      460
      That applies equally to amendment No. 103. The purpose of a declaration is to draw attention to a legislative incompatibility with the convention and to act as a trigger for a remedial order under clauses 10 to 12. A declaration of incompatibility has no effect on the case before the court. Clause 4(6) expressly provides that a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the relevant legislative provision. This is because we think that any decision to change primary legislation should be reserved for the consideration of Parliament. Again, the Government are upholding the sovereignty of Parliament and are not in any way breaching that principle.
      Amendment No. 103 would prevent a declaration from being made unless that were specifically necessary to determine the case in question, yet the kinds of cases where the issues are likely to arise will almost inevitably be complex and involve different issues, each of which will have to be resolved by the court. Under this amendment, it is highly unlikely that a declaration of incompatibility would ever be made. That may be the real intention of the Opposition. [Interruption.]
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There are so many conversations going on that I cannot hear the Minister.
      Mr. Hoon: Opposition Members have been anxiously awaiting these observations. I am sorry that they appear to find them less than exciting.
      It is important that we deal properly with incompatibility and the declaration that might follow. Amendment No. 103 simply does not deal with it, and has no place in the scheme that we have established in clause 4.
      The Government believe that this group of amendments is fundamentally misconceived. I do not believe that the amendments have been read carefully by Opposition Members. I therefore invite the hon. and learned Member for Harborough to seek leave to withdraw amendment No. 15.
      Mr. Garnier: I am grateful for this brief opportunity to respond to some of the points made in this debate, particularly those made by my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      In a considered and cogent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) produced four reasons why this group of amendments should be supported: in defence of the people; in defence of the Government; in defence of the House; and in defence of the courts. Nothing that has fallen from the Minister's lips has done anything to persuade either me or my right hon. and hon. Friends that the arguments in favour of the amendments have been in any way defeated.
      The right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan) hides within his gentle exterior a waspish tongue. I am not in the least bit surprised that his nickname across the county that he represents is "Tiger". Despite his waspish tongue, he did not say anything to knock our arguments on the head one jot. The substance of his complaint was that the language of amendment No. 15 was confusing. That is a matter for him, but it seems pretty clear to us.

      461
      My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for Woking (Mr. Malins) spoke with experience of membership of the House and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York, as a Member of the European Parliament and Scottish law graduate, and, in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, as a recorder and stipendiary magistrate, with practical experience of the judicial function. Both realise the dangers of breaking down the barriers separating two of the three limbs of our constitution. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking also very carefully suggested that the incompatibility which is to be declared under clause 4 must be properly particularised. Nothing has been said by the Minister to dissuade me from the rightness of that argument.
      I am happy to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) gave a characteristically robust performance. He was certainly not put off his stride by some of the interventions with which he dealt so expertly.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has become a noted star of our debates on both the Human Rights Bill and the other constitutional issues with which he has had to deal. He supported amendment No. 15 from the interesting position of someone who supports incorporation. He deserves to be listened to with particular attention. It is perhaps worth reminding the Minister of a point that he mentioned—the European Court of Human Rights does not distinguish between obiter dicta and the ratio of a judgment.
      The Minister promised much, but delivered nothing. He is complacent. He is always complacent—on this subject and on others—about the prospect of a constitutional collision about which we have warned. He displayed a touching faith in his own rhetoric, without understanding what has been going on in this debate. Not a single argument that he advanced has persuaded me or my hon. Friends that the matter should be left to lie. I invite my hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby in supporting the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 128, Noes 320.

      Division No. 292]

      [10.8 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Amess, D avid

      Cran, James

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Beggs, Roy

      Day, Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan, Alan

      Blunt, Crispin

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Body, Sir Richard

      Evans, Nigel

      Boswell, Tim

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fallon, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Flight, Howard

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Butterfill, John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gale, Roger

      Garnier, Edward

      Chope, Christopher

      Gibb, Nick

      Clappison, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gray, James

      Colvin, Michael

      Greenway, John

      462

      Grieve, Dominic

      Prior, David

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Randall, John

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hammond, Philip

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Heald, Oliver

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ruffley, David

      Horam, John

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Hunter, Andrew

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Spring, Richard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Steen, Anthony

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Swayne, Desmond

      Lansley, Andrew

      Syms, Robert

      Leigh, Edward

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Letwin, Oliver

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Townend, John

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Tredinnick, David

      Loughton, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Viggers, Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Walter, Robert

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Wardle, Charles

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Malins, Humfrey

      Whittingdale, John

      Maples, John

      Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

      Mates, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Willetts, David

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Woodward, Shaun

      Moss, Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Norman, Archie

      Paice, James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Paterson, Owen

      Sir David Madel and Mr. Tim Collins.

      Pickles, Eric

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ainger, Nick

      Breed, Colin

      Allan, Richard

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Browne, Desmond

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ashton, Joe

      Burden, Richard

      Austin, John

      Burgon, Colin

      Ballard, Jackie

      Burnett, John

      Barnes, Harry

      Burstow, Paul

      Barron, Kevin

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Battle, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caborn, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Cann, Jamie

      Benton, Joe

      Casale, Roger

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Berry, Roger

      Chaytor, David

      Best, Harold

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Betts, Clive

      Clapham, Michael

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Boateng, Paul

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Clelland, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clwyd, Ann

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coaker, Vernon

      Brake, Tom

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      463

      Coleman, Iain

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Colman, Tony

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Cotter, Brian

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Cranston, Ross

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Crausby, David

      Hutton, John

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cummings, John

      Illsley, Eric

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jamieson, David

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Jenkins, Brian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davidson, Ian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Drew, David

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Keetch, Paul

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Edwards, Huw

      Kidney, David

      Efford, Clive

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Ennis, Jeff

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lepper, David

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fisher, Mark

      Levitt, Tom

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Flint, Caroline

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Flynn, Paul

      Linton, Martin

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Livingstone, Ken

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Livsey, Richard

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Lock, David

      Foulkes, George

      Love, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      McAllion, John

      Galbraith, Sam

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gapes, Mike

      McCabe, Steve

      Gardiner, Barry

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      Macdonald, Calum

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      McDonnell, John

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Gorrie, Donald

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNulty, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Grogan, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Gunnell, John

      McWilliam, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hancock, Mike

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hanson, David

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Maxton, John

      Heppell, John

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Meale, Alan

      Hill, Keith

      Merron, Gillian

      Hinchliffe, David

      Michael, Alun

      Hoey, Kate

      Milburn, Alan

      Home Robertson, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hope, Phil

      Moffatt, Laura

      464

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moore, Michael

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

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

      Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

      Soley, Clive

      Morley, Elliot

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Spellar, John

      Mudie, George

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mullin, Chris

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Stevenson, George

      Norris, Dan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Oaten, Mark

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Olner, Bill

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      O'Neill, Martin

      Stott, Roger

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Palmer, Dr Nick

      Stringer, Graham

      Pearson, Ian

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stunell, Andrew

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pond, Chris

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pound, Stephen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Touhig, Don

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Trickett, Jon

      Purchase, Ken

      Truswell, Paul

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Vaz, Keith

      Radice, Giles

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Rammell, Bill

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Rapson, Syd

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wareing, Robert N

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Watts, David

      Rendel, David

      White, Brian

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Roy, Frank

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Willis, Phil

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Wills, Michael

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Winnick, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Salter, Martin

      Wood, Mike

      Sawford, Phil

      Woolas, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 107, in page 3, line 24, at end insert—

      '(f) in Jersey, the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal;

      (g) in Guernsey, the Royal Court or the Court of Appeal;

      (h) in the Isle of Man, the High Court'.

      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 108, in clause 5, page 3, line 40, after 'Scotland', insert
      `, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man'.

      465
      No. 109, in clause 21, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
      `() law passed by the legislature of any of the Channel Islands or of the Isle of Man'.
      No. 110, in clause 22, page 14, line 22, at end insert—
      '(6A) This Act extends to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and shall have effect as if each of them were part of the United Kingdom.'.
      Mr. Mitchell: The amendments would extend incorporation of the European convention to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I suppose that the only phrase to describe them is "semi-independent statelets", but they have a unique status as dependencies of the Crown, too. They are Britain's offshore anomalies, because, although they are responsible for their own domestic law, financial affairs and tax regimes, the United Kingdom has the overall responsibility for good government in the islands.
      The United Kingdom can legislate for the islands; it has the paramount power to do so. However, in practice, it does not do so except on matters involving international treaties and international agreements—such as the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, which we signed on their behalf at the outset.
      Paragraph 1472 of the Kilbrandon commission's report on the constitution, dated 1973, said
      "Parliament does have power to legislate for the Islands without their consent on any matter in order to give effect to an international agreement"—
      such as the European convention on human rights. The power was used in relation to the Extradition Act 1989, which was extended to the Channel Islands as if they were part of the United Kingdom, and also in connection with the Marine, etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967, which was effectively imposed on the Isle of Man.
      The British Government's power to legislate is appropriate, as they have the responsibility to ensure that rights are maintained in the islands. Moreover, the British Government have to answer cases brought to Strasbourg about infringements of rights on the islands—we signed the convention on the islands' behalf. Indeed, in the birching case, the European Court ruled that convention rights applied to the Isle of Man.
      My argument is that the convention should be incorporated not only into British law but into the law of the islands. Rights should be protected in these small democracies and dependencies, which are intimate and closed—they are, in many respects, living loopholes from the 20th century. There is no real party democracy that could make the legislature accountable, no open government and no base for dissent. The islands have their own tax regimes, which must cost our Exchequer billions of pounds in lost revenues. They do not have clear, powerful, effective financial regulations—they have become little offshore entrepots for the manipulation of money.
      Powers are not separated: in Jersey, for example, the Bailiff—the Lord Chancellor—is also the Speaker of the States, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General sit in the States and there is no independent Director of Public Prosecutions. Women have no employment or benefits rights.
      The islands have all the intimacies and pressures of any small community—they are like Salem without the witches. In Jersey, which is the richest of them, power is, in effect, controlled by the wealthy island elite—the island
      466
      establishment—which has a vested interest in providing services to finance. Many members of the elite are business men or maintainers of name plates for incoming companies; many are involved with Jersey banks and the offshoots of other banks in Jersey that manipulate money. The elite controls power through the parliamentary institutions. It also controls the media—Senator Walker owns the Jersey Evening Post, which is, therefore, hardly likely to be a vibrant source of dissent.
      The islands have been humorously described—by me—as one-party states run by the freemasons. There are no parties and no opposition, so the regimes are cloying and potentially corrupt, because, in Jersey in particular, the governing elite does so well out of the provision of facilities for financial services, which give such a rich living—£200 billion is handled in the Jersey banks and financial institutions, and financial services provide more than 50 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Jersey.
      If the people who control political power are also involved in the financial system, that system will be run for their interests and for those of the offshore capitalism that washes through, but leaves little residue for the people of the islands—there is no great trickle-down effect for the mass of the people. It is also possible that they will use their power to control legislation to further their own interests. In other words, legislation could be effectively up for sale. They resent any interference by the British Government or any attempt to control what is going on or to demand stricter regulation or a more effective tax regime.
      Two years ago, however, they were perfectly prepared to intervene in the financial affairs of the United Kingdom in respect of limited liability partnerships. Big accountancy firms, terrified of lawsuits resulting from bad audits, were lobbying the British Government, who were then of another party, to give them limited liability status. Rather than becoming joint stock companies as they were given the power to do under the Companies Act 1989—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am very interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but it does not fall within the scope of the amendments. He is talking about the status of the islands rather than the courts. The hon. Gentleman knows better than I do how to handle the amendments.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Mitchell: Amendment No. 107 would extend the incorporation of the convention into the islands' legislation. Rights are threatened by the dominance of the financial interests. Those rights can best be protected by the incorporation of the convention.
      A row that resulted in a real threat to rights in Jersey was caused by the attempt two years ago to interfere in the United Kingdom financial system in respect of limited liability partnerships in Jersey. Effectively, two accountancy houses bought legislation in Jersey to limit liability. The legislation was drawn up by a London barrister at a cost of £1 million, and was promised a fast-track passage into law by the Jersey States. They sought to interfere here, as the idea was that they would force the British Government to follow suit. The protest against the rapid passage of that legislation resulted in a threat to the rights of Senator Syvaret, whose case is an illustration of the need to incorporate the convention into the legislation of the islands.

      467
      Any threat to intervene there is bitterly resented. The establishment in Jersey tries to maintain good relations with the Minister—usually a peer at the Home Office—who is richly and lavishly entertained. One establishment talks rhubarb to another establishment. Not satisfied with that, it employs extensive public relations advice, which is appropriate to the modern world of spin doctors and public relations.
      The Max Clifford of Jersey is the Shandwick public affairs consultancy, which was paid £225,000 until the row over limited liability partnerships, when its fee was upped by another £200,000, so nearly £500,000 was paid out of the taxes of the people of Jersey to defend the interests of the elite. That involved all sorts of activities, which I shall not go into as they would divert me from the incorporation of the convention on human rights into the laws of Jersey.
      However, I should mention in passing that part of the £500,000 that was spent on public relations as a result of the row over limited liability partnerships was paid in writing letters to me. Shandwick reported to the Jersey States about my article, saying:
      "I have ensured that Labour party key people have been briefed on the Jersey line"
      which was against me. It continued:
      "Mr. Mitchell is regarded as being a liability by the Labour party".
      I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to assure the people of Jersey that that is not the case, and that I am indeed regarded as an asset by the Labour party.
      Mr. Straw: I give my very old and honourable Friend that categorical assurance.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend. That stage-managed intervention gives me a great deal of pleasure.
      In contrast to what was said about me, it was said about my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice):
      "He is not likely to be made a member of the Government but I think he is worth targeting because of his level of knowledge and because he is still listened to by those in senior positions."
      That is picking and choosing in the Labour party, but it is part of public relations—[Interruption.] I am leaving the topic.
      I want to deal with the abridgement of rights that resulted from the attempt to limit liability for partnerships of accountancy houses, which was passed, under the fast-track procedure, by the Jersey States. The problem is that, when the elite feels threatened—when there is a threat to its vested financial interests and the provision of services—whether it be by the British Government or by critics in this country, it is prepared to use all the power and resources at its disposal to beat off that threat, whether it is internal or external. That often produces abridgements of rights, which are endemic in a system where there is no separation of powers; where the Executive is also the legislature; where there is no meaningful opposition; and where there is no protection of rights.
      I have already referred to the lack of protection of the rights of women. I was told in a telephone conversation today that a man in Sark still has the right to beat his
      468
      wife, provided that the stick is thinner than his thumb and he does not draw blood. I do not want to provoke a rush of public school Conservatives wanting to settle in the island as a result of that revelation, but it is a sign of the feudal nature of the regime in Sark and the abuses of rights that it produces. The newspapers cite numerous instances of that.
      In Guernsey, not long ago, there was the case of three men being locked up over a bank holiday without trial. The case did not come to court until five months later, and they were acquitted. A construction worker on the island of Brecqhou who was arrested in a drugs case was taken from Guernsey to Sark and charged, probably in the wrong jurisdiction, subjected to a trial in French—a language that he did not speak—and then told by a lawyer on the telephone, "You might as well plead guilty and get it over with." His rights were abridged.
      There is the case of the Barclay brothers, the owners of The Scotsman. It involved an abridgement of rights. David Barclay wrote to me saying:
      "I have discovered by bitter experience over the past three or four years, and to my immense cost, the lack of natural justice and democratic rights in the Bailiwick of Guernsey and the island of Sark".
      He said that, on Sark:
      "The Seigneur is the head of the Chief Pleas, Sark's Parliament, which is made up of 40 unelected members and he collects a thirteenth of the price of every property purchased on the island. This money is for his own personal benefit"—
      it is a marvellous racket—
      "and serves no economic benefit whatsoever to the community. He appoints the Seneschal; he appoints the Prevot (Sheriff); he appoints the Greffier; he appoints the Treasurer and he approves the Constable."
      What defence of rights is there in such a situation?
      David Barclay continued:
      "The previous owner of Brecqhou"—
      which the Barclay brothers now own—
      "was forced into a legal dispute to establish rightful ownership of the island under the feudal laws of primogeniture."
      There was a long dispute over which court applied—Sark or Guernsey. The case was referred to Guernsey, but after six years it remained unresolved. The owner was told that the court case could go on for another six years. Justice denied is a loss of rights. There is no appeal; there is no check on that sort of excess, which is now affecting the Barclay brothers. That is an appalling situation. The Barclay brothers are wealthy enough to take care of themselves, but it is difficult to do so when there is no protection for rights.
      The case of Senator Syvaret arose from limited liability partnerships. When a Bill was rushed through the Jersey States, he drew attention to a conflict of interest by pointing out that Senator Reg Jeune was part of Mourant, du Feu and Jeune, which was acting for Price Waterhouse and Ernst and Young in trying to pass the Bill. There is a fascinating precedent in that Bill, which we could observe. The introduction expresses Jersey's indebtedness to Ernst and Young and Price Waterhouse for writing the Bill. Perhaps we could have sponsored legislation, too. It is a marvellous system.
      Thus the Bill was being handled by Mourant, du Feu and Jeune, while Senator Jeune was urging its speedy passage. When Senator Syvaret drew attention to that

      469
      conflict of interest, he was suspended indefinitely, unless he withdrew his remarks and apologised. He was deprived of his rights as a legislator, and his constituents were deprived of representation. Basic rights were denied, and there was no appeal.
      Appeals to the Home Office Minister then responsible produced no result. I tabled an early-day motion that was well supported, and which produced a change of heart in Jersey. Senator Syvaret was allowed back without making an apology. They huddled him in by the back door. He is involved in a legal action over the deprivation of his rights, so that the case can go to Strasbourg, but that will remain a long, difficult road unless we incorporate the convention into the laws of all the islands, as my amendments would do.
      We have the power to do that, and we have a moral obligation to do it. If we do not, in my view, and in the view of lawyers whom I have read, we shall be in breach of article 14 of the convention, if it is read alongside article 6. We are responsible for the islands, and when Senator Syvaret's case reaches Strasbourg, it will be titled Syvaret v. the United Kingdom. What formidable odds the senator from little Jersey faces as he takes on the entire United Kingdom. We are responsible for derelictions of rights in the islands, and we have a right to act under the external agreement. The royal commission on the constitution of 1973 made that explicit.
      My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is a canny man. Perhaps he is doing a nice guy, nasty guy routine, and he might portray me as a mean, moody monster who threatens the independence and integrity of the islands. My right hon. Friend knows that that is not my nature; I am warm and cuddly, and I have a vacuous smile for all, as any new Labour politician must. To portray me as some kind of brute or monster, trampling on the freedom of the islands, would be wrong.
      I know—I have read it in the papers, and I have been handed letters that confirm it—that the fact that the amendments were tabled encouraged the Under-Secretary, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to go to Guernsey. He did not get to Jersey, because there was a strike, so the Jersey elite paddled over in rowing boats to consult him. They agreed to pass the legislation, but I want to know why it should be done that way. Would it not be better to do it for ourselves? Then there would be no backsliding, and it would be done without delay. The legislative processes in the islands are very slow—unless they are financed by Price Waterhouse or Ernst and Young. It can take three years, and rights would still be abused in that period.
      I notice from the newspapers that Senator Pierre Horsfall of Jersey said that the Bailiff told Lord Williams that, when Sir Philip Bailhache was previously Attorney-General—he is now the Bailiff—
      "Jersey was on the verge of adopting the convention but was asked not to do so by the Home Office as the UK Government did not want to be seen to be following a dependency in adopting the provisions of the Human Rights Convention."
      That cannot possibly be true. I should like my right hon. Friend to comment on it.
      10.45 pm
      An editorial in the Guernsey Evening Press says, more or less, that I should mind my own business. It states:

      "We would rather see the Labour MP turn his attention to real problems in the UK, such as the growing hospital waiting lists, prison overcrowding and drugs".
      470
      That comes from an island where there is a shortage of nurses and prison staff because they are not paid enough and there is a growing drugs problem. The island cannot afford the latest medical technology, and urgent and serious cases are sent to Southampton for treatment. The British health service and all British social services are being drained of billions of pounds through the taxes and fiddles that are going on in the independent financial regime there.
      We shall not ratify the fourth protocol at present, for reasons that were explained to me by the Home Office Minister. I wish to put a further question to my right hon. Friend about the fourth protocol, which has been put to me from Jersey. Is it possible to include the fourth protocol in any Jersey Bill if it is not included in the British Bill—and if not, why not? Is there any reason why Jersey or Guernsey could not introduce the fourth protocol in local Bills, even if the UK does not?
      I am afraid that I have spoken for too long, so I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion. Many other hon. Members want to participate in the debate and give their views on offshore havens—those curious offshore anomalies. I know that my right hon. Friend is interested in and concerned about the issue. He has demonstrated his concern by initiating an inquiry into the regulatory regime. I hope that he will rush to accept my amendment, so that we can get the matter over with without delay or backsliding from the islands. If not, I hope that he has bankable assurances from the islands that they will legislate for themselves if he is anxious to maintain the convention. In my view, it is not necessary to do so because I want the rights of the masses of ordinary people in the islands—not those of the elite, who can take care of themselves—to be protected, so that we can make the islands fit for people, not just for money.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) has raised a valuable issue. In another place, my noble Friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill gave my party's view, which is broadly sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's objectives, and we support the principle of incorporation for the offshore dependencies. It is not necessary to go into all the circumstances that he has adduced in support of his argument, or even to adopt his reasoning. However, there is no doubt about our ability to do what he suggests.
      Mr. Mitchell: I omitted to express my indebtedness to Lord Lester, who wrote the amendments and provided me with helpful support and advice. I am grateful to him. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that.
      Mr. Maclennan: In turn, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, as my noble Friend will be.
      This country's obligation to take the rights of those living in those dependencies seriously is undoubted. How that is done—whether in the Bill or by the legislatures of the islands themselves—is of secondary importance. What is crucial is that it be done. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has said that it is likely that it will be done within the islands, or at least that such an intention has been expressed, and I am advised that it is at least probable. That would not necessarily have happened if the issue had not been pressed, as it has been by the hon. Gentleman, and if the House had not expressed strong concern about regularising the position.

      471
      I do not doubt that one point that surprises many other countries about our adherence to the convention is that we did not long ago provide domestic remedies designed to give effect to the convention rights. Equivalent legislation was certainly passed in all the other signatory countries. It would be highly anomalous if the islands were to remain outwith the convention scheme under which domestic remedies are made available to give effect to the rights. I hope that that view will have been heard in all the islands and that we shall have no more Manx birching cases being contested in Strasbourg, because they can be handled in Douglas.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) for tabling the amendments and raising this important issue, just as the Government were grateful in the other place for the way in which Lord Lester raised the matter there.
      As we have heard, the amendments would apply the Bill's provisions in various ways to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. My hon. Friend has pointed out that the United Kingdom is obliged to ensure that the islands comply with the convention and that there is a right of individual petition to the convention institutions in Strasbourg in respect of the islands, but that the convention does not at present have effect in their domestic law. I am happy to tell the Committee that the island authorities have made it clear that they want to bring rights home to the islands, just as we are doing in the United Kingdom.
      Before I move on to the detail of that, it may assist the Committee if I say something about the constitutional relationship between the United Kingdom and the islands. That was set out in detail in the report of the royal commission on the constitution in 1973—the Kilbrandon report. My hon. Friend referred in particular to paragraph 1494 and the conclusions in paragraph 1513.
      Briefly, the conclusion of the Kilbrandon report is that the United Kingdom Government are responsible for the defence and international relations of the islands, and the Crown is ultimately responsible for their good government. It falls to the Home Secretary to advise the Crown on the exercise of those duties and responsibilities. The United Kingdom Parliament has the power to legislate for the islands, but it would exercise that power without their agreement in relation to domestic matters only in the most exceptional circumstances.
      A domestic circumstance that also affected all the countries that make up the United Kingdom—and, to some extent, had international effects—which was cited at length in the Kilbrandon report, was the issue, which those of us of a certain age remember only too well, of the so-called pirate radio stations that were set up off the shore of the Isle of Man in the early 1960s. Some of us still remember the catch tune of Radio Caroline. Much of the noise harassment that some of us now suffer could be said to have flowed from that experiment. Those were exceptional circumstances: legislation on domestic matters usually takes the form of laws enacted by the island legislatures, although they are subject to endorsement by me as Secretary of State for the Home Department and by the Privy Council.
      United Kingdom laws are sometimes extended to the islands with their agreement. We consulted the island authorities about the extension of the Bill to them. All
      472
      three said that they did not wish it to be so extended, and, as we want to maintain satisfactory relations with the islands, we paid careful attention to their views, as always.
      The Committee will be glad to know that my noble Friend Lord Williams, the Minister with responsibility for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, has undertaken a series of visits to find out from the island authorities what plans they have in the human rights field. I am pleased to say that their responses have all been positive. Each of the island authorities has made clear its intentions with respect to the Bill and the incorporation in its domestic law of the European convention. I have placed copies of their public statements and letters in the Library and have made them available to the official Opposition, to the Liberal Democrats and to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby.
      It is worth pointing out that Jersey has fairly said that, six years ago, under the previous Administration, a proposal that the island should enact legislation to incorporate the European convention was raised with Home Office officials and was discussed informally with the Secretary-General of the Commission in Strasbourg. The island's Attorney-General was informed at that time by officials that the Home Office did not favour the island acting in advance of the United Kingdom, so the matter was shelved. Consultation goes both ways, and the previous Government, for reasons that I understand, but do not agree with, decided that they did not want incorporation of the convention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and asked the island authorities to follow suit.
      The Bailiff of Jersey has now made it clear that the insular authorities
      "wish to confirm their previously declared intention to progress the matter of legislation to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into Jersey law, having regard to the particular circumstances of the Island, once the United Kingdom Bill has completed its progress through Parliament in Westminster."
      The Bailiffs letter goes on:
      "The Insular Authorities confidently expect to have a draft law with the Home Office for pre audit in the normal way by the end of this year."
      The States of Guernsey issued a public statement on 22 May. The President of the Advisory and Finance Committee said:
      "The States Advisory and Finance Committee intends to recommend to the States of Guernsey that legislation be enacted"
      to incorporate the convention—
      "having regard to the particular circumstances of the Island".
      He said that, once the Bill has become law, recommendations will be laid before the States of Guernsey. He added:
      "The Committee is confident that it will be possible to submit a draft law to the Home Office for pre-audit before the end of this year."
      In December 1997, the Isle of Man made it clear that it intended to introduce legislation to give effect in Manx law to the convention on human rights. It says:
      "Before any Government Bill is introduced in the House of Keys, a draft is always sent to the Home Office for their comments, if necessary after consultation with other United Kingdom Departments, and appropriate measures are taken to consult local interests."
      In the light of those statements, I hope that the Committee will recognise that the Governments of each of the three islands are committed to introducing

      473
      legislation fully to incorporate the European convention into their own law and to consult me, my officials and the Government more widely on the precise terms of that incorporation.
      I believe that that is a satisfactory outcome.
      Mr. Jim Cousins: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      11 pm
      Mr. Straw: Of course, in a moment.
      I hope that, in the light of those clear undertakings, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
      My hon. Friend asked whether any of the island authorities could incorporate into their domestic law the fourth protocol of the convention, even though it is not being incorporated into the Bill. The answer is that they cannot incorporate any part of the convention that the United Kingdom and the Crown, as high contracting party to the convention, have not accepted. That important part of our relationship with the islands gives the Crown and the United Kingdom Parliament ultimate authority over them we, and not they, enter into all international obligations, which are then binding on the islands.
      That said, it would none the less be open to each of the island authorities and Parliaments, should they want to, to write the terms of the fourth protocol, or of any other protocol not incorporated into the Bill, into their domestic law.
      Mr. Cousins: My right hon. Friend's remarks have been extremely helpful—indeed, fascinating—but may I draw his attention to the fact that the third protocol of the treaty of accession to the treaty of Rome, which was passed by the United Kingdom Parliament, specifically exempts the Crown dependencies from participating in the European Union for the purposes of people, finance and capital? They participate in the EU solely for the purpose of movement of goods for trading. Is he satisfied that the rather anomalous position of the Crown dependencies within the EU provides the right constitutional foundation for fully satisfying the terms of the Bill?
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I shall not detain the Committee, because we are due to finish this business in 10 minutes, except to say that, as part of the somewhat onerous duties of the presidency of the European Union, I spent two and a half days in Brussels last week as President of the Justice and Home Affairs Council. A lot of time was devoted to the extent to which the islands were subject to various treaties under the treaty of Rome. We are dealing with a convention arising not under the treaty of Rome and the European Communities treaties, but under the Council of Europe, of which we have been a member for many more years than we have been a member of the European Communities.
      The position in respect of the European Union and the islands is complicated, not only because of what the islands desire, but because of difficulties for Gibraltar and other places—not dependencies of the United Kingdom—over how such territories should be dealt with in those treaties. Similar problems arise in respect of Spanish dependencies, for example, but in the Justice and Home
      474
      Affairs Council last week, we agreed that a convention on a European judicial network should apply to the islands. That will not directly impose obligations on them, but will give them some discretion.
      As we had been unable to consult, I did not accept a proposal from other member states that the islands should, without consultation, be made subject to the Eurodac convention on the fingerprinting of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants, and to the convention on driving disqualifications.
      Sark has been referred to. I had to point out to some colleagues in the Justice and Home Affairs Council that, whatever else one may worry about on Sark, driving disqualifications should not keep us up all night. As I think the Committee famously knows, there is only one vehicle on Sark, which I understand is a Daimler.
      In the light of what I have said, and the clear undertakings given by the island authorities, I hope that my hon. Friend will seek leave to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant: I speak, as a good Tory grammar school boy—not, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) suggested, a Tory public school boy—to support the Home Secretary in his opposition to the amendments. I thought it particularly sad that the hon. Member cited the Marine, etc., Broadcasting (Offences) Act 1967 as a reason why Parliament should impose legislation on the states of Jersey and Guernsey and the House of Keys. The 1967 Act had a direct impact on me, although I was very young at the time. I remember who introduced the legislation: the notorious John Stonehouse, the then Postmaster General.
      One of the reasons for my opposition to the implementation of the legislation on the islands is the fact of their independence. I felt that, in some ways, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby was rather xenophobic in his remarks about Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man—although, of course, xenophobia is not the right word in this context, because it means a fear of foreigners. Those islanders are not foreigners at all; they regard themselves very much as part of the British isles, although not of the British isles.
      I am not even convinced that whether those islanders choose to adopt the convention will make much difference. Two years ago, a constituent of mine, Stan Allsop, a truck driver, was arrested and held in France, which is a signatory to the convention. He was held in solitary confinement for 11 weeks. For five weeks, his wife, children and grandchildren were not even informed of his whereabouts. As my former right hon. Friend Malcolm Rifkind said to me at the time, France provided a marvellous example of habeas without the corpus. The convention clearly gave Mr. Allsop no protection.
      I do not believe that the Bill will have any impact on the United Kingdom, which will accept it; nor do I believe that we should impose it on the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man. To do so would not set a precedent, because such legislation was imposed on those islands when the 1967 Act was implemented, but I think that, in the new generation that has grown up over the past 10 years, the Bill creates a dangerous precedent. The islands have secured independence; we have chosen not to involve them in our law, and I think that to do so now would be wrong.

      475
      We should also remember the islands' special place in the European Union. They are not part of the EU as such; they have independence in the sense that they are not part of the customs union, and we respect that. I think we should say that they should either be incorporated totally in the EU, or not at all. To do it piecemeal would be completely wrong. Whether the Home Secretary is right to induce them to absorb the convention is for the House of Keys and the Jersey and Guernsey Parliaments to decide, but I feel that it should be their decision and not that of the Committee. For that reason, I oppose the amendments.
      The long catalogue of personal objections raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about why Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man should have the legislation imposed on them seemed to be more related to personal slight by agencies or spin doctors than to any legal reasons. I therefore oppose the amendments.
      Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) for sharply stating his objections. I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his good reply, and I commend him for the efforts that have been put into persuading the islands to pass the legislation in their own way. I would prefer it to be done our way because that avoids delays, which will occur, and any backsliding, which might occur. I trust the Home Secretary more than I trust some legislators. Guernsey had to be pushed into this fairly rapidly.
      The image of the islands might be "Bergerac", but the reality is lax financial and tax regulation which gives rise to scandals such as money laundering and BCCI. Some day, we shall have to grasp the nettle of this so-called independence. I am grateful to the Home Secretary, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Local Agenda 21
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  11.11 pm
  Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to be able to debate the topic of Local Agenda 21. It is ironic but pleasing that it is sandwiched between yesterday's debate on electoral reform and tomorrow's debate on the modernisation of the House. Local Agenda 21 and its constituent parts shows what is happening in the wider political field. It shows that there is much democratic engagement outside this place, and we must recognise that and view it as an opportunity and not as a threat.
  Many hon. Members will know about Local Agenda 21, but it is important to discuss it and to speak about my experiences in my constituency and in Gloucestershire. The Government have already picked up the ball on the agenda and if in some small way I can help the process along, I am willing to do so. It is not for me to pre-empt what the Minister will say, but "Opportunities for Change", the Government's consultation document on sustainable development and sustainable local communities for the 21st century on why and how to prepare an effective Local Agenda 21 strategy, is an important statement. The Government have shown how the debate can be advanced.
  What is Local Agenda 21 and its true meaning? It derives from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the so-called Earth summit, which was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. At the conference, 179 countries, including, of course, the United Kingdom, signed up to an agenda for change in the 21st century, known as Agenda 21. Local Agenda 21 reflects the important part that was played by local government and local democracy at that conference, and important requirements were placed upon them to produce the necessary local change. That was not an imposition, but rather an evolution of what was happening and what could be achieved. The key element is the drive towards sustainable development that is most attainable locally.
  As has been said:
  "Many of the problems and solutions being addressed by Agenda 21 have their roots in local activities … By 1996, most Local Authorities in each country should have undertaken a consultative process with their populations and achieved a consensus on 'a Local Agenda 21 for the community'.
  Through consultation and consensus-building, Local Authorities would learn from citizens and from local, civic, community, business and industrial organisations and acquire the information needed for formulating the best strategies. The process of consultation would increase household awareness of sustainable development issues. Local Authority programmes, policies, laws and regulations to achieve Agenda 21 objectives would be assessed and modified, based on local programmes adopted."
  My experience relates to Vision 21 in Gloucestershire, which is how we refer to Local Agenda 21 there. Local Agenda 21 was welcomed in my county. Since 1993, an enthusiastic group of individuals have gradually moulded into a successful team, and have steered the local agenda process with a remarkable amount of achievement. It was originally parented by the Rendezvous Society, and, for that, all of us who have been involved in the process owe it an enormous debt of gratitude.

  477
  Vision 21 is now held up as a model of what is possible, and I know that other local agenda teams have drawn heavily on its experiences. If, as the Government suggest, there is much to be learned by the spread of good practice, there appears to be no better place to use as an exemplar.
  As part of Vision 21, many thousands of different individuals have come together to engage in this most worthwhile of pursuits—to plan our future society on the basis of a sustainable development approach. Many of those individuals may have attended only one event, such as a conference or campaign activity. However, their contribution has always been welcomed and valued.
  As always, while some of our involvement has been minimal, others have worked relentlessly to make Vision 21 the success that it has become. It is never possible to mention many by name, but I should like to make special mention of Lindsay Colbourne, Julia Bennett, Alison Parfitt, Conrad Young, David Christmas, Sue Porter, Diana Ray and Richard Keating, who have done so much to drive Vision 21 along. If I have left out others who should be mentioned, I apologise, but I feel that at least some should be recalled by name, such has been their contribution to democracy in all its form, particularly from Gloucestershire's perspective.
  One of the most pleasing aspects of the whole exercise has been the way in which people from across the political divide have combined for the benefit of their constituents—likewise, the manner in which professionals have worked with amateurs, activists from particular pressure groups have combined with generalists from the political class, and the fact that age, class, gender, physical or mental capacity or ethnic origin has been no barrier to participation.
  Much has depended on the willing involvement of local government officers, who have given so generously of their time, much of it voluntarily. I pay my respects to my local authority, Stroud district council, and to Gloucestershire county council, which have had a lot to do with the success of Vision 21. All in all, that has shown how it is possible to build consensual relationships, and, if managed properly, how powerful they can become.
  Enough of the plaudits. What did Vision 21 set out to achieve, and how can its outcomes be measured? To start with, six big issues were identified as the key challenges facing the county: first, to enhance the physical environment, biodiversity and natural resources; secondly, to introduce new value systems that reflect the importance of the quality of life and environment, rather than simply monetary considerations; thirdly, to embrace the new economy and new ways of working that value the formal and informal sectors; fourthly, to adopt new decision-making processes and structures that promote power sharing, co-operation, local participation, empowerment, democracy and an holistic long-term approach; fifthly, to increase awareness of sustainability and improve access to the quality, scope and aims of education, information, communication and monitoring; lastly, to bring about widespread behavioural and attitudinal change.
  The means of meeting those challenges were set out via a series of major conferences, campaigns, local consultations and events. The on-going work was carried out through eight working groups, which covered the following sectors: natural resources and countryside;
  478
  the built environment; energy, transport, waste and pollution; health and social issues; the economy and education; community and involvement.
  The working group agenda followed three different stages. First, where are we now? Secondly, where do we want to be? Thirdly, how do we get there? While the context was essentially local and regional, national and global contexts were always referred to where appropriate.
  Several underlying themes arose through the work of each group: the importance of rural dimensions; the need for vision; changes in employment and livelihood; critical environmental balance; the dislocation of supply and demand for natural supplies and the increasing role that conservation would play; and how important community values would be for solving problems.
  What has been accomplished? In terms of measurable outcomes, the very fact that Vision 21 has continued to grow and evolve five years on speaks volumes. The true value will be seen with regard to how it is assimilated into structure and local plans, new modes of activity affecting the arts, recreation and people's quality of life, ensuring that future generations are active citizens, and raising the general level of awareness through communication of ideas and educational advancement. Most of these will take many years to come to fruition, but many of us in Gloucestershire feel that a valuable new beginning has been made.
  Major stepping stones were laid, which could be seen from a series of publications. "Sustainable Gloucestershire—a general handbook"—which gives an overview of what has happened—and "Sustainable Gloucestershire—an agenda for urgent action for local government" are two worthy of mention, but there are others. The regular editions of "21 Today" newsletters are worth emphasising. Wider communication with both the general public and specialist constituencies has been a crucial element and aim throughout Vision 21's deliberations.
  Additionally, a major conference was held on "Accommodating Gloucestershire" which took the housing debate forward and allowed for a perceptive discussion on how much, where and what type of housing should be provided for the county. I have had recourse to this in am earlier Adjournment debate. Other conferences are planned for transport and the local economy. Vision 21 has also launched many practical projects. Three taken at random are a sustainable parish regeneration project, a sustainable energy centre and a rickshaw taxi service—we have everything in Gloucestershire.
  Finally, the programme has spawned some community initiatives, including the community planning conference in my town of Stroud. This involved a massive investment of people's time and effort, spread over both weekday evenings and weekends. Its remit was to look to replan the town of Stroud and its immediate environs with practical ideas such as providing a new cinema, regenerating the town centre, setting up the community health forum and greening up the urban area.
  As someone who witnessed this at first hand, I can say that the quality and input given on a voluntary basis by many hundreds of individuals gave me hope for what could be accomplished by such an exercise. It is linked, where appropriate, with other community initiatives, especially a credit union, a local exchange trading scheme

  479
  and incipient co-operatives. This groundwork provided the basis for part of a succesful bid for single regeneration budget funds, which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions was able to announce on her recent visit to Stroud.
  By looking elsewhere, we can put all this into context. I was pleased to receive a letter today from the corporation of London, which asked me to mention some of the excellent things that it has been involved with. I know that it is one of many authorities which have taken this on board seriously.
  I am indebted to the Local Government Management Board—which regularly investigates and evaluates the progress of Local Agenda 21—for the information it has sent. The LGMB has shown that, despite the difficulty in collating the information, there is a great deal going on across the country—much of which we can be inspired by. As it said in its executive summary:
  "Significantly, there is evidence that Local Agenda 21 is staring to play a role in enhancing local democracy and ensuring community involvement in local decision-making processes."
  It goes on to talk about local government using Local Agenda 21 as a vehicle for change in community participation, and new democratic structures arising accordingly. The LGMB shows how far local government has gone in terms of eco-management and audit schemes, and how much environmental awareness has been assimilated into this activity.
  The LGMB is very explicit in identifying the many pluses—with some minuses—in terms of how it sees Local Agenda 21 performing so far. It also points out many lessons that can be learned and measures that can be introduced to help the process on its way. I am sure that the Government will take close notice of this, and act accordingly.
  From my perspective, what has been the Government's response to the process? As I said, they have produced a number of important documents that are well worth highlighting. Vital to the process is the fact that Labour is willing to place sustainable development at the centre of what it is trying to do—whether in production and consumption, in building communities or in managing the environment and resources—by adopting radical new means of engaging in democratic structures, and by working in partnership with a range of different stakeholders.
  Pleasingly, the Government have set 2000 as the target date for all local authorities to sign up to Local Agenda 21. In itself, that is an important move. They have placed clear obligations on all local authorities, prescribing action checklists and providing help in evolving strategies that move from the theoretical to the very practical. They have also signalled their willingness not only to listen but to act, and to use a range of tools, such as introduction of best value, to effect necessary change. Similarly, they will provide the nexus of new policy initiatives in transport, housing and social policy.
  There are some criticisms of Local Agenda 21 that the Government will have to take on board. Some of the process, for example, seems to be rather introverted, and can occasionally be described as a talking shop. Nevertheless, if the process is allowed to follow its proper
  480
  course, it will be very valuable in informing communities, and ensuring that people have a proper say in how they want their society to evolve.
  What can the Government do to help? With so much already happening and appearing to go so well, it may seem churlish to ask them to do more. However, in seeking advice from those with whom I have worked in Vision 21, a number of points have been raised.
  First, how can Local Agenda 21 enable active citizenship, without burying people in more bureaucracy? That is a real issue, and there is a need to fund research into and the dissemination of enabling structures, focusing especially on how local authorities can contribute to such structures. if that is to happen, the LGMB, the Government offices for the regions and the Local Government Association should be asked to work with grass-roots activists from Local Agenda 21—thereby helping to create a better understanding of the bidding process, which often militates against smaller organisations and local partnerships. Often, such bodies cannot get into the running, or waste enormous time resources on futile bids.
  Secondly, how can local authorities' overload be reduced? The deluge of sustainability-related legislation and regulations—although valuable in its own right—is beginning to put local government under pressure, as each change demands an evaluation and response, and incorporation into existing policies. Authorities might be helped in adapting if there were a way of redefining the changes so that emphasis was placed on the process rather than on fixed outcomes.
  Thirdly, how can help be given for community development and for capacity-building and parallel organisational development? There is a belief that insufficient effort is being placed on developing the whole organisation by meeting identified training needs, and on how such training could be used to encourage better collaborative working at lower skill levels and in higher-order skills, such as by developing new approaches to audit, evaluation and planning processes.
  Finally, there seems to be some weakness in how Local Agenda 21 might be translated to the regional level—which, because of the Government's intention of devolving responsibility to the regions, could be so important.
  I could make other points, but, as I know that the Minister would like to reply to the debate, I shall end there.
  11.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on securing this debate. Sustainable development is central to the Government's policies. As this debate has shown, and as many hon. Members will know from their constituency work, sustainable development grass-roots expression—which is Local Agenda 21—is thriving across the country, not least in Gloucestershire.
  I am delighted to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the excellent work of the Local Agenda 21 steering group, with its wide membership of nongovernmental organisations, of community, education and business

  481
  groups and of central and local government. I pay tribute also to the many local authorities, and their communities, which are contributing to the United Kingdom's growing reputation as a world leader in implementing at local level the commitments of the Rio Earth summit.
  As we have heard tonight, Local Agenda 21 recognises no political divides among parties, tiers of government, NGOs, businesses, the rich, the poor, the young, the old, volunteers, employees or ethnic groups. It is a policy that links us all to a joint determination to improve the way in which we live; it is a way of translating concern about our environment into action; and it is a way to ensure that each and every individual can have an effect and can make a difference. I hope that we can use tonight's debate to encourage those communities which are not yet fully committed to the process to get stuck in.
  The terms "sustainable development"—and, indeed, Local Agenda 21—are puzzling to many. People do not immediately understand what the concept means, or get excited by it; but the concept underlying the phrases—that of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come—is one that the public fully support and that can provide plentiful and enthusiastic resources into which local authorities can tap.
  As a Government, we are committed to getting people involved in the national debate to determine our new sustainability strategy. Now that we have come to the end of the consultation period on the debate, which was launched in February in "Opportunities for Change", responses are flooding in: we have already received more than 4,000 responses, and 500 more detailed comments.
  In that document, we proposed a new and integrated way of thinking about choices right across Government and throughout the country, so as to build, for the present and for the future, a modern and fair society that is founded on a strong economy and a healthy environment. We need to bring together the most important economic, environmental and social objectives, so that we can set in train social progress that recognises the needs of everybody, while at the same time effectively protecting the environment, using natural resources prudently and maintaining high and stable levels of economic growth and employment. We also need to monitor achievement, through target setting and devising meaningful indicators that keep track of progress; and to report that in a way that is clear, comprehensive and meaningful to a wider audience.
  As part of our initiative to encourage people to understand what sustainable development means and to contribute to the national effort to achieve lasting improvements, we are keen to encourage people to play their part in creating a more sustainable world. Schemes such as "Doing your bit" and Eco Cal, the computer gadget with which Going for Green is involved and which measures the greenness of individual life styles, show all of us how we can help the environment by reducing pollution and saving energy.
  We know that people are concerned about the environment and global warming, and that they want to do something about it, yet many do not appreciate how much their personal use of energy causes global warming. Many are also sceptical that their individual action is important, but it is. The schemes aim to bring home the message that individual actions do count and that the public can make a big contribution to protecting both their
  482
  local and their global environment. Simple things, like sometimes walking or cycling rather than always using the car, cleaning the car with a bucket and not a hose, or heating only enough water in the kettle for a cup of coffee, all help.
  Our research shows that, after seeing "Doing your bit", people were more likely to mention as environmentally friendly turning the television off instead of leaving it on standby, switching off unnecessary lights, and keeping the car tuned. The main messages they picked up were to reduce car use, use less energy and resources and stop pollution. They also picked up on the need to save the environment, fight global warming and do something positive; and the fact that environmental pollution can aggravate asthma.
  I am delighted that so many local authorities are taking up the challenge set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the United Nations General Assembly special session in New York last June, when he called on all local authorities to have a Local Agenda 21 strategy in place by the end of the year 2000.
  In January, at a Local Government Association conference in London, my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment launched a guidance document, which we had jointly produced with the LGA and the local government management board, to show why and how to produce a local strategy. I am glad to say that it is proving very popular: we have already issued 10,000 copies of "Sustainable local communities for the 21st century" and are having to print more.
  Over the next few weeks, each of our Government offices in the regions will be holding a seminar to offer practical guidance on producing and implementing effective Local Agenda 21 strategies. They will be targeted in particular on those local authorities that have yet to develop such a strategy, but there will be workshop options for councils and authorities to work at more advanced stages. We believe that, if sustainable development is to become a reality, the concept must become part of the structural processes of planning within the organisation. That means creating commitment and understanding at all levels.
  Actions of groups such as Gloucester Vision 21 take the sustainable development campaign right out to the local level. The dynamic Local Agenda 21 strategy is about creating a vision for a community's action plan to produce a lasting improvement in the quality of life for all, and then deciding how to implement it, review it and update it. It means identifying the major priorities for long-term action for that community, and then working with and through local groups by harnessing their resources and enthusiasm to deliver action to help meet those priorities.
  It means measuring and reporting on progress, and being honest about areas where more needs to be done—perhaps where the community is not behaving sustainably. It is about raising awareness about what everyone can do: business, trade unions, voluntary bodies, central and local government, families and individuals.
  My hon. Friend rightly praised the work of Gloucestershire's Vision 21. That local project is somewhat unusual in being co-ordinated by a local charity—Rendezvous—but it has won the full participation and support of local authorities in the county.

  483
  It shows that there is no single template for success, but that Local Agenda 21 is strongest when it grows from a base of local commitment and enthusiasm. Indeed, the Gloucestershire model will be just one of a number of varied approaches to producing Local Agenda 21 strategies, which will be highlighted in the new guidance being produced by the Local Government Association in the early autumn.
  Equally commendable work is taking place in many other places. Obviously, I have not time to mention them all, but some inspiring examples are given in the Local Government Management Board's review of the first five years of Local Agenda 21 in the UK and in the case studies that we are jointly funding to disseminate best practice. For example, in Reading, the borough council has teamed up with the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Community Education Development Centre to focus on achieving community empowerment. Training, collaboration and increased access to local decision-making processes are empowering local people and groups to deal with quality-of-life issues that are identified locally.
  Plymouth's young person's Agenda 21 encourages the young people of Plymouth to make themselves heard in the local decision-making process. There are 32 members from 15 schools, aged from three to 15. The project builds leadership and communication skills, and enables members to be more proactive in their local environment.
  The Building Blocks project in Hackney, co-ordinated by Groundwork, aims to improve the well-being of people living in housing estates across Hackney. Partnerships with residents and tenants' associations have developed strategies for involving young people and improving housing estate environments.
  The Bradford business and environment support team is a widely acclaimed model, which shows how a local authority can reduce the cumulative environmental impact of the small business sector. It is promoting sound environmental management, making the small business community in that area much more sustainable.
  There are also community enterprises—which I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned—and initiatives such as local exchange and trading systems. People are doing something about organic food, cycling, recycling, self-build and energy projects, and there are pioneers such as the Centre for Alternative Technology. Those offer inspiring glimpses of a new path, in which the social and environmental strands of sustainability. far from being opposed to each other, each hold the key to the achievement of the other. There are other leaders in developing local strategies and indicators in Lancashire and west Devon.
  At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend called on the Government to respond to some specific issues. I am delighted to be able to continue in the collaborative and co-operative spirit that he set. We share his concern to promote active citizenship. Our proposals in the local democracy and community leadership consultation paper are aimed at producing precisely that reinvigoration of local democracy.
  The most successful Local Agenda 21 schemes are helping to achieve just that, by promoting discussion groups and other means of achieving dialogue with local
  484
  people, and encouraging collaborative projects with all sections of the community. We must certainly keep in mind the need to keep grant systems as simple as possible, while ensuring that public money is allocated fairly and properly, and that we spend resources in the most effective way. We welcome any suggestions for achieving that.
  Our proposals for improving local government are also designed to meet my hon. Friend's point about improving the delivery of public services. I cannot promise that the amount of legislation and the impetus for change will reduce, because, since we are a new Government, there are many things that we need to change—and our manifesto commits us to that. We recognise, however, the upheaval and work load that such change can bring, and are alive to the need to set up new frameworks and systems that help deliver our policies at national and local level in the most effective way.
  Best value aims to encourage local authorities to find ways in which to deliver services at the quality and cost that most effectively meet the aspirations of local people. I believe that Local Agenda 21 offers the means for councils to take a corporate and holistic approach to the delivery of services, and to encourage effective training and staff management programmes throughout the authority. That meets my hon. Friend's third call, for capacity building.
  As for my hon. Friend's final point about helping to develop a regional identity for Local Agenda 21, I am pleased that our Government offices for the regions are now getting much more involved than they were in the past. Sustainable development objectives are being built into their management strategies, and into the agreements they have with central Government on the services they provide. As I have already said, they are holding seminars over the next six months or so to offer practical guidance on producing and implementing effective Local Agenda 21 strategies.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, Britain will never be a modern, forward-looking country if it is a place whose beauty, character, air and rivers are polluted, defaced and contaminated. Building a modern Britain means seeking new solutions to new social, economic and environmental challenges—not just so that future generations have a planet that is still habitable, but so that all of us going about our lives today can improve our quality of life. That will include working with business to ensure that our companies and industries can take advantage of the huge opportunities that markets for new technologies offer.
  That is all about recognising that we will succeed only if we work together. Individuals, businesses, communities and central and local government must all act if we are to meet those significant new challenges. I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this important debate, and I wish him and the Local Agenda 21 strategy in Gloucester even more success in the future.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Twelve midnight.

DEFENCE

  Porton Down (Document)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter dated 22 February 1941 from the Experimental Station, Porton near Salisbury reference numbers S.B. 3288/R.D. Arm 6 and Ptn/1552 (R.2840) SS/PB. [43928]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 3 June 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question requesting a copy of a letter from the former Experimental Station at Porton Down to be placed in the House of Commons library.
  Staff at DERA's Chemical and Biological Defence sector (CBD) have been unable to trace the document in which you are interested. The reference you gave of S B 3288/RD Arm 6 dated 22 Feb 1941 is not recognised by the archivist at Porton Down. The Ptn/1552 reference is recognised as being part of a file series dated from 1936 to 1941. The files in this series were forwarded to the Public Record Office in 1992.
  I am sorry to have been unhelpful on this occasion. If you can let me have any additional details about the letter I will be happy to make further enquiries.

  Abandoned Ordnance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the outcome of the major incident co-ordinating group meeting held at the chemical and biological defence division of DERA at Porton Down on 1 May, in relation to unidentified buried ordnance at the defence nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner; who attended that meeting; and when the next meeting will be held. [43924]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA). I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 3 June 1998:
  I have been asked to reply to your question asking for details of the outcome of the major incident co-ordinating group meeting which took place at the Chemical and Biological Defence (CBD) Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), Porton Down on 1 May. In particular, you asked for information in relation to the discussion on the unidentified buried ordnance at the nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner.
  Firstly, I should explain that Headquarters Land Command, not CBD/DERA, is responsible for the Defence Nuclear Biological Chemical Centre (DNBCC) at Winterbourne Gunner. That said, CBD/DERA would expect to be involved in an advisory and support capacity in any plan to clear the land. The meeting on 1 May was a
  208
  routine meeting, the venue for which was provided by CBD/DERA. It was chaired by Wiltshire's Assistant Chief Constable and the minutes were taken by the County Emergency Planning Officer, Emergency Planning Unit, Wiltshire. He should be able to provide you with a record of the meeting and let you know the arrangements for future meetings.
  I am sorry that I am unable to be more helpful on this occasion.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when(a) Wiltshire Constabulary, (b) Wiltshire Fire Brigade and (c) the County Emergency Planning Officer for Wiltshire were consulted as part of Operation Abbott concerning expended and unexpended mortar bombs and shells; and what assessment he has made of how many contained mustard gas and phosgene. [43926]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Wiltshire Constabulary and the County Emergency Planning Officer (CEPO) for Wiltshire County Council, also acting on behalf of Wiltshire Fire Service, were advised in July last year of the possible need for an Army clearance operation in Winterbourne Gunner, to be called Operation Abbott. However, further consultation was postponed pending a detailed survey of the land in question, and subsequent discussion in my Department of the need for a clearance operation. The Wiltshire Fire Service and the CEPO, also acting on behalf of Wiltshire Constabulary, were then invited to a meeting on 18 May this year, to discuss my Department's current position regarding the clearance.

  My Department has made no assessment of how much ordnance expended at Winterbourne Gunner contained phosgene; however, on the evidence of ordnance that has emerged at Winterbourne Gunner in the past, we estimate that some 15% of ordnance fired there might have contained either chemical agents or harmless chemical simulants.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what abandoned ordnance was found at Home Farm, West Cottingworth, York, at RAF Escrick, at RAF Clifton, York and at Clifton Moor and Royde Mills, Huddersfield; if the ground has now been cleared; and at what cost. [43927]

  Mr. Spellar
  RAF Escrick, situated on Home Farm land at West Cottingworth, was cleared in 1995 in an exercise known as Operation Capsicum Jar. This clearance operation removed six live 61b ground bombs, 2 inert 61b ground bombs and some 4,600 flame floats. Costs of the clearance are not held centrally, and could now be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but we know 728 man-days were spent on the task. Assuming average pay rates this would equate to a rough order of manpower costs of some £30,000. There would have been further costs for plant hired during the clearance operation, but these are not available.

  We are unable to find any reference to clearance exercises at RAF Clifton.

  We believe that Royde Mills was an ICI establishment, which was sold to the local authority in 1991.

  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the chemical and biological defence division of DERA was first asked to prepare a plan for the clearance of ordnance and other metal objects from fields adjacent to the Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical Centre
  209
  at Winterbourne Gunner; what was their estimate of the cost; and what were the reasons he decided not to proceed. [43925]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chemical and Biological Defence, CBD, sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, DERA, has not been asked to prepare a plan for such a clearance. It has provided expert advice to Headquarters Land Command, which has the responsibility for preparing such a plan in this instance, and we would also expect CBD/DERA to provide technical advice and support in the disposal of any chemical weapons materials were a clearance operation to be mounted. No decision has been taken to mount or not to mount a clearance operation at this site.

  Hunting
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to issue licences for cub hunting on his Department's land; and what restrictions will be placed on these licences. [43862]

  Mr. Spellar
  Foxhunting with hounds takes place on the Defence Estate under licence and is conducted in accordance with the rules of the Master of Foxhounds Association and the additional restriction that the practices of digging out and holding up are not permitted.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the projected costs to the public purse of works associated with the construction of the Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [43285]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the concession agreement with Midland Expressway Limited (MEL) the costs and risks of constructing the Birmingham Northern Relief Road (BNRR) and its link roads are for MEL. There are, of course, certain non-works costs involved in promoting a private finance scheme that fall to the Government.

  Works associated with the BNRR include reconstruction of the existing M42 near Water Orton to enable its use by BNRR traffic. Under the agreement the major part of the costs of this work is to be met by MEL, but the Department is to contribute a share currently estimated at £20m. This provision reflects the fact that not all traffic on that section will use the BNRR.

  Further costs to the public purse could result from any changes imposed by the Department to the specifications included in the Concession Agreement, for example changes reflecting revised engineering standards. Where imposed changes involve extra costs to the Concessionaire the Department must meet the costs involved. At present the costs of identified changes seem unlikely to exceed £1.5m.

  Motorists
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many motorists there were on British roads in (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [43482]
  210
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Information on the number of 'active' driving licence holders (the nearest equivalent available data) is normally derived from the National Travel Survey; however, annual estimates cannot be made from this source. It is estimated that there were an average of 30.1 million full car licence holders for the years 1994–96.

  Yearly estimates of licensed vehicle stock in Great Britain are available on an annual basis and are detailed.

  At end of year

  All vehicles

  Of which motorcars

  1994

  25,231.3

  21,199.2

  1995

  25,369.4

  21,394.2

  1996

  26,301.9

  22,237.5

  1997

  26,973.8

  22,831.7

  Piracy
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what steps he is taking to enlist the support of(a) the United Nations and (b) the European Union for measures to protect British seafarers against piracy; and if he will make a statement; [44028]

  (2) when he expects to complete the revision of and re-issue the Piracy and Armed Robbery Merchant Shipping Notice (No. 1517); and if he will make a statement. [44027]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer on 8 April 1998,Official Report, column 285, and reiterate that the best and most sensible way to combat piracy and armed robbery at sea is through concerted international action through the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). The IMO is the United Nations special agency for dealing with maritime issues. We coordinate with EU partners on issues at IMO, including piracy; the European Union has observer status at IMO which enables it to keep abreast of discussions on the subject.

  In addition to playing an active role at the IMO as one UN Forum, the UK intends to raise its concerns about piracy and armed robbery at sea at the UN General Assembly this Autumn. At UNGA we coordinate with EU partners on maritime subjects. We expect therefore to raise piracy in a coordinated manner, through an EU joint statement.

  The UK voiced its support for action at the IMO Maritime Safety Committee meeting in London last month supporting, in particular, the planned missions and seminars for key piracy areas. The UK has already made a financial contribution to help fund these initiatives and hopes that they are successful.

  The revised piracy and armed robbery advice is now contained in a Marine Guidance Note (MGN 75) which will be distributed towards the end of June. Copies are being made available to the Chamber of Shipping and NUMAST, the mariner's union, for onward transmission to their members and it will, for the first time, be available on the internet.
  211

  Transport White Paper
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the basis of Mr. Mike Craven's involvement in the drafting of the Transport White Paper. [43692]

  Mr. Prescott
  I have taken advice on the content and drafting of the Transport White Paper from a variety of sources including officials here and in other Government Departments, my Panel of Advisers on the White Paper, environmental and transport user groups, academics, the public consultants, advisory groups and special and other advisers. Mr. Craven is one such source of advice. The White Paper is being drafted in the normal way by my Department.

  Fossil Fuel Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress his Department has made in implementing its long-term strategy for the reduction of fossil fuel emissions in terms of(a) encouraging greater energy efficiency, (b) encouraging the use of renewable energy and (c) introducing an integrated transport policy. [43301]

  Angela Eagle
  We are aiming to consult this summer on the policy options for delivering our climate change targets. This will largely focus on delivering our legally binding commitment from Kyoto, but will also consider how we might move towards our separate 20 per cent. domestic aim. The consultation paper will build on the outcomes of other reviews, including those on Integrated Transport Policy, Energy Policy, and Utility Regulation. We will then develop a balanced climate change programme under which all sectors of the economy will play their part.

  Carbon Monoxide Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the main contributors, in percentage terms, to total carbon monoxide emissions in the United Kingdom. [43302]

  Angela Eagle
  The latest figures available for United Kingdom carbon monoxide emissions are for 1996. Road transport account for 71 per cent. of such emissions, other transport for 17 per cent., industry for 7 per cent., power stations for 4 per cent., and 1 per cent. from waste treatment and disposal.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the role of the reduction of speed limits as a method of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. [43304]

  Angela Eagle
  We intend to publish this month our Integrated Transport White Paper which will address the whole issue of traffic management and set out our transport policy to help deliver many environmental, economic and social objectives.
  212
  The Government are aware that the way speed limits are set and enforced can affect emissions of greenhouse gases and local air pollutants. It is a complex relationship which merits further consideration.

  This summer we will launch an open and wide ranging consultation exercise on the sort of measures needed to meet our legally binding Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and move towards our domestic aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  South Gloucestershire (Electoral Review)
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to conclude the periodic electoral review of South Gloucestershire; and if the 1999 unitary election will be conducted on the basis of the new boundaries. [43748]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are currently considering the representations which we have received on the Commission's recommendations, and intend to announce our preliminary response to the recommendations shortly. Our present intention is for the new arrangements to be established in time for the 1999 elections.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those urban communities of greater than 30,000 population which are more than 60 minutes travel by public transport from the nearest magistrates' court administered by the magistrates' court committee of that county. [43025]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  In accordance with section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, decisions on the provision of magistrates' courts are for the relevant magistrates' courts committee to determine, after consultation with its local paying authority.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what will be the annual running cost of adopting the PFI proposal of Derbyshire Magistrates' Court Committee relative to maintaining the status quo; and how this cost is to be funded. [43027]

  Mr. Hoon
  Current property related running costs amount to c£637,000. No firm figures are currently available for the future cost of the PFI scheme as bids have not yet been invited but, based upon a Public Sector Comparator, the maximum estimate of the running cost element of the annual PFI charge will be c£720,000. Running costs will be paid from the Magistrates' Court Committee's revenue budget which is funded by 80 per cent. direct grant from the Lord Chancellor's Department and a 20 per cent. contribution from the local authority. The capital element of the annual PFI charge will be supported by PFI Credits which will entitle the paying authorities to additional revenue support grant.
  213
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what factors may be taken into account by sponsoring authorities when they consider proposals from county magistrates' court committees for reorganisation of courts. [43026]

  Mr. Hoon
  Section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that magistrates' courts committees must consult their paying authority and gives the paying authority sole right of appeal against a magistrates' courts committee's proposals.

  There are no restrictions on the factors taken into account by a paying authority when considering whether to appeal against a magistrates' courts committee's determination.

  Deaf Jurors
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 12 May 1998,Official Report, columns 69–70, on deaf jurors, for what reasons palantypists are not available for deaf jury members; and if his Department will permit deaf people carrying out jury service to be allowed a palantypist where this is their preferred means of communication support. [42909]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Crown Court must comply with the Court of Appeal decision that no one, other than a member of the jury, can sit with the jury when they are considering a case. This would make it impossible for a palantypist, or any other person supporting a deaf jury member, to assist during this part of the proceedings.

PRIME MINISTER

  Mr. Stephen Kock
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what information was provided to Foreign Office officials by civil servants as to the nature and occasions on which representatives or organisations funded by Government met Mr. Stephen Kock; [38546]

  (2) what sums of money were paid (a) by Her Majesty's Government and (b) by those acting on its behalf in salary and expenses to Mr. Stephen Kock between 1985 and 1992. [38552]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs F3.19 and F3.27 in Volume III of the Report of Sir Richard Scott's Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of the effect of the Social Exclusion Unit on rates of homelessness in Coventry; [41212]

  (2) what plans the Social Exclusion Unit has to reduce homelessness in the West Midlands Region. [43015]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 11 May and 1 June 1998]: The Social Exclusion Unit have been looking into the problem of rough sleeping as one of its first three priorities. I will announce the Government's decisions shortly. Any policy changes proposed will have
  214
  clear targets and evaluation plans. Policy on wider homelessness issues remain with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

  Housing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Prime Minister what research the Government have(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on links between poor housing and (i) educational under-achievement, (ii) ill-health and (iii) crime; and what priority will be given in future spending programmes to tackling housing disrepair and housing shortages. [43198]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are examining links between poor housing and a wide range of issues, including health, crime and education.

  Current research for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) by Bristol University is looking at the effects of poor housing in early life on factors such as poor health and educational attainment later on; Imperial College, London is undertaking a project sponsored by DETR and the Department of Health (DH) examining the links between winter mortality levels and poor housing; a joint DETR/DH research programme is studying the effects of air pollution and damp in the home.

  Research is also evaluating area based programmes designed to tackle high unemployment, high levels of crime and fear of crime, poor housing, poor environmental quality, poor educational achievement and poor health.

  The Comprehensive Spending Review was set up to ensure that Government spending is in line with current priorities. It is considering the need to spend on maintaining the existing housing stock and on the provision of new homes.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what cross-department fora have been established since 1 May 1997 concerning older people; what are their terms of reference; which departments are represented; and to whom they report; [43696]

  (2) what plans he has to establish Cabinet level co-ordination of Government policy for older people. [43697]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 1 June 1998]: Many Government departments are involved in work which affects older people. This work is being taken forward within existing Government machinery, including ad-hoc inter-departmental groups of officials.

  Ministerial colleagues and I are taking a close interest in these issues. We recognise that it is important that central Government work together in a co-ordinated way to improve the quality of life for all older people and are considering the best way to achieve this.

  We recognise that this co-ordination also needs to happen at a local level. On 5 June, we will be formally launching the Better Government for Older People programme. The programme will establish 28 pilots centred on local authorities but involving scores of other local partners to improve public services for older people by better meeting their needs, listening to their views, and encouraging and recognising their contribution.
  215

  Duty Free
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral answer of 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 315, relating to the abolition of duty free, on what factors he based his statement that there was evidence that other countries were prepared to support reversing the position on duty free trade. [43591]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: In my oral answer of 20 May I said that there is no evidence that other countries are prepared to support reversing the position on the abolition of infra-EU duty free sales. I made this statement on the basis of the previous day's discussions at the ECOFIN Council meeting.

  No. 10 Website
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government consulted non-Governmental organisations representing visually-impaired people prior to the design of the No. 10 Downing Street Website. [43553]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Since the launch of the No. 10 website on 16 April, we have been in contact with non-governmental experts in the field of site design for people with disabilities, including the visually impaired. We are currently considering options for making the site more accessible for these people.

  Anti-poverty Strategy
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will ensure that under his presidency the EU adopts the anti-poverty strategy targets set for 2005 and 2015 by the Development Assistance Committee. [43576]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: Yes. One of our top development priorities during the UK Presidency is to increase the EU's commitment to implementing the International Poverty Eradication Strategy, of which targets form an important part, and ensuring poverty eradication is at the heart of European development programmes.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development organised a high level seminar on 17 March for the Development Ministers from Member States, and representatives from the Commission and the European Parliament to discuss how to put the International Poverty Eradication Strategy into practice.

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the G8 representatives have adopted the five provisions of the Mauritius Mandate. [43841]

  The Prime Minister
  Agreement was reached at both the G8 foreign and finance ministers meeting on 9 May and at the Birmingham Summit itself on issues raised in the Mauritius Mandate. Both meetings agreed to the speedy and determined implementation of debt relief to more countries under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, and encouraged all eligible countries to have begun the process of securing debt relief by the year 2000. The meetings also urged all countries that had not already done so to forgive aid-related bilateral debt or to take comparable action for reforming poor countries, and 216
  to use export credits to countries eligible for debt relief under the HIPC initiative only for productive expenditure. These agreements follow directly from proposals originally made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Mauritius Mandate.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by his Ministers since 1 May 1997 to relieve the debt burden of the poorer Third World countries. [44015]

  The Prime Minister
  Since this Government came to office, they have taken an international lead in tackling the problem of debt relief for the world's most heavily indebted countries. In September my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched his Mauritius Mandate, which set out many proposals aimed at the speedy and determined implementation of debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. Many of my right hon. Friend's proposals were endorsed by the G8 at the recent Summit in Birmingham, at which debt was a major issue.

  Following another British initiative, launched by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the G8 foreign and finance ministers meeting on 9 May, agreement was also reached in Birmingham on the need to consider ways for debt relief mechanisms to be used to release more resources for essential rehabilitation in poor countries that have recently emerged from conflict, particularly where those countries have arrears to the International Financial Institutions.

  Amongst other actions that the British Government have undertaken on debt relief, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer held a seminar on the issue which church leaders and charity directors at Downing Street; the Government took an international lead in helping to solve the problems of financing debt relief for Mozambique by announcing that they would donate a further $10 million to Mozambique above the debt relief already provided through the Paris Club and other mechanisms; and the Department for International Development announced that they will cancel up to a further £132 million of old aid loans to poor Commonwealth countries committed to structural reform.

  The Government remain committed to the HIPC initiative, and will continue to strive to meet the targets for debt relief set out in the Mauritius Mandate.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  RUC
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to establish a commission to examine the future structure of and operational matters pertaining to the RUC; and if she will make a statement. [37381]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government have appointed a Chairman and seven Members to the independent Commission on Policing for Northern Ireland, which is one of the elements in the Belfast Agreement (Command 3883).
  217
  The Chairman is the right hon. Chris Patten, the former Governor of Hong Kong and Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. In addition, the seven Members each contributes different expertise, effectively under four headings. There are two representatives with policing expertise. One representative of either side of the community in Northern Ireland, but bringing with them a great deal more than this. Two leading academics and a senior, and significant business figure.

  The names are Sir John Smith, former Deputy Commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, who also has previous experience as one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary. Kathleen O'Toole, having begun her career in the Boston police, is now Secretary for Public Safety in Massachusetts and has vast experience in the law enforcement field. There is no questioning her knowledge of policing, and she has already worked with the RUC, for example on training.

  Peter Smith, a QC who has over 20 years' experience at the Bar, is widely regarded as one of the most acute legal practitioners here, and Dr. Maurice Hayes has his wide experience as a former senior civil servant and subsequently Ombudsman. He produced a well received review of the police complaints system in 1997 and has made contributions to policing issues over many years.

  Professor Clifford Shearing, who is the Director of the Centre of Criminology at the University of Toronto, has agreed to bring his academic expertise to bear. He has extensive knowledge of policing, having examined the subject in his native South Africa, Australia and Canada. Another expert in this area is Dr. Gerald Lynch, President of John Jay College, New York which has been judged to be the best criminal justice institute in the USA. He has done a great deal of work on policing worldwide, including developing a course on police and community relations for the United States Department of Justice.

  The seventh member is Lucy Woods, the very able Chief Executive of British Telecom in Northern Ireland, whose experience of management in a large organisation, delivering a service to a demanding public, will be very valuable.

  The entire membership is of the highest standing. Individually and collectively they have a considerable amount of expertise and ability to offer the Commission.

  The functions of the Commission are set out clearly in the terms of reference contained in the Good Friday Agreement. It will convene shortly to take this work forward. It will be expected to consult widely and to report by Summer 1999. The Government will publish the report, and consult on the recommendations, as set out in the Agreement.

  School Transport
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list(a) the average number of school children in Northern Ireland travelling by school transport each day and (b) the number of (i) fatalities and
  218
  (ii) injuries of school children involved in road accidents associated with school transport in each of the last five years. [42420]

  Mr. Worthington
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The average number of children in schools in Northern Ireland in receipt of assistance with home to school transport over the period 1992–93 to 1996–97 was 103,414.

  The number of road accident casualties in Northern Ireland who were school pupils going to or from school by bus or coach for each of the last five years is shown.

  School child casualties (aged 4–16) travelling to or from school by bus or coach in Northern Ireland

  School year (September—June)

  Fatalities

  Injured

  1992–93

  1

  32

  1993–94

  0

  10

  1994–95

  0

  62

  1995–96

  0

  67

  1996–97

  0

  158

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sportsmatch
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding his Department has provided to Sportsmatch in each year of its operation. [43575]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Sportsmatch scheme in England, which has been successful in attracting over £16.6 million in commercial sponsorship to grass roots sport since its inception, has received the following funding from my Department:

  £ million1

  1992–93

  0.9

  1993–94

  3.0

  1994–95

  3.3

  1995–96

  3.7

  1996–97

  3.2

  1997–98

  3.2

  1998–99

  3.2

  1 Sportsmatch was launched in November 1992

  Millennium Bank Holiday
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are for an additional bank holiday to mark the Millennium. [44557]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I am pleased to announce that the year 2000 will be heralded by a one-off additional Bank Holiday throughout the United Kingdom on Friday, 31 December 1999. A recent consultation exercise conducted by the Government has confirmed that this decision commands overwhelming support among the many organisations which responded, and I know that large numbers of people will welcome this opportunity to prepare for the festivities on New Year's Eve and New Year's Day 2000.
  219

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Youth Justice
  Mr. Rapson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Government have identified areas to pilot the new youth justice measures and the procedural changes to reduce delays in youth and adult cases contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords]. [44417]

  Mr. Michael
  We have identified nine areas in which, in principle, we would like to pilot the new youth justice measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill. These measures are the final warning scheme; the reparation order; action plan order; child safety order and parenting order; and youth offending teams.

  Four areas have been identified to pilot all of these measures. This will demonstrate how the new powers operate together and how the youth offending team structure can best deliver the associated intervention work. The four areas are the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster (jointly); Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight (jointly); Wolverhampton; and Sheffield.

  Five areas have been identified to pilot the child safety order and parenting order, together with youth offending teams. This will ensure that we have sufficient information to evaluate the operation of these two orders. The five areas are the London Borough of Lewisham; Luton and Bedfordshire (jointly); Devon; St. Helens; and Sunderland.

  We will be undertaking further detailed work in these nine areas with a view to establishing the pilot projects from October 1998. The pilots will operate for a period of 18 months. They will help develop good practice and allow us to assess the costs and savings which nation-wide implementation will involve. The pilots will inform decisions over the timing of full implementation of these measures.

  We are also considering how we might best support other areas, including those others which expressed interest in taking part in the pilots, in planning and developing their arrangements for youth offending teams and the other youth justice measures.

  In addition, six areas have been identified to pilot procedural changes recommended by the Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System, some of which are contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill. These are expected to reduce delays in youth and adult cases. The pilots are being organised under the auspices of the Trials Issues Group and they will also be used to inform the setting of statutory time limits in due course for both youth and adult cases. The six areas are Tyneside; Croydon; Blackburn and Burnley; Northamptonshire; North Staffordshire; and North Wales. Two of these areas—Blackburn and Northamptonshire—will also operate the final warning scheme and youth offending teams, since these arrangements will have an effect on speed through the system and procedures in young offender cases.
  220
  Sir Iain Glidewell's Review of the Crown Prosecution Service supports the changes which are to be piloted, and proposes some further changes which he recommends should be incorporated in the pilots. The Government will be considering how best to take this forward.

  These pilots reflect the Government's determination to test innovative and effective ways of delivering services and programmes across Government Departments and agencies. Experience from these pilots and other area-based initiatives will help to ensure new measures are implemented effectively at local level.

  Firearms
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date his Department held consultative meetings on the Review of the Firearms Forms and Rules with (i) the British Medical Association and other professional medical representative bodies, (ii) the National Farmers Union (England and Wales), (iii) the National Farmers Union (Scotland), (iv) the Country Landowners Association (England and Wales), (v) the Country Landowners Association (Scotland), (vi) firearms clubs and associations, (vii) the British Deer Society, and the Deer Commission for Scotland, and (viii) the British Sports Association for the Disabled; when he plans to conclude the review of Firearms Forms and Rules; when he plans to implement the proposed new Forms and Rules; for what reasons the Home Office Note of the main issues raised at the meeting on 19 February to discuss the forms, was not sent to all consultees when requesting further written submissions; and when he intends to meet consultees to discuss these matters. [44101]

  Mr. Michael
  The arrangements made for meeting representatives of shooting organisations to discuss the proposed new Firearms Rules and forms are as set out in my answer to the hon. Member of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 241. The new Rules and forms are planned to come into effect on 1 September 1998. The minutes of the working group meeting held on 19 February 1998 were intended solely as a record for those attending but were reflected in the draft forms subsequently sent out for comment. No further meetings are planned.

  Joint Enterprise Killings
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the law relating to killings described as joint enterprise killings in non-UK jurisdictions. [44055]

  Mr. Michael
  When the Law Commission drew up their proposals contained in their consultation paper (No. 131) entitled "Assisting and Encouraging Crime" in September 1993, they looked at how the law in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States of America deals with those who participate in a common criminal enterprise. An account of the law in each of these jurisdictions is set out in an Appendix to their consultation paper.

  The Law Commission expect to produce a report in due course and I understand that they will bear in mind the experience of these other jurisdictions. Once the report is received, the Government will consider whether the law in this area needs to be changed.
  221
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to revise the law relating to killings described as joint enterprise killings. [44057]

  Mr. Michael
  The doctrine of joint enterprise is under consideration by the Law Commission who discussed the issues as part of their consultation paper (No. 131) entitled "Assisting and Encouraging Crime", issued in September 1993. Although completion of the project has been delayed to take into account the implications of the House of Lords decision in Rv. Powell and another and R v. English, I understand that a report will be available in due course and that it will reflect the responses to the consultation paper and the development of the law, including any subsequent decisions and problems that have emerged. The Government will then consider whether the law in this area should be revised.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the law relating to killings described as joint enterprise killings. [44056]

  Mr. Michael
  Some 41 letters were received about the death of Sarah Adams, whose parents were convicted of cruelty, together with one other representation about joint enterprise, in the past six months. The Department does not keep records which would enable use to identify this topic with certainty: it may arise in the context of crimes other than murder, or on an appeal; such representations may be recorded in a way that does not identify a link to the doctrine of joint enterprise.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were being detained on 28 February who had sought asylum at some stage, broken down by(a) length of detention and (b) immigration status. [44039]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information, relating to 27 February 1998, is given in the table:

  Number of people recorded as being detained1,2 on 27 February 1998 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention3 and immigration status

  Length

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Subject to deportation action

  Total

  0–1 Month1

  69

  169

  4

  242

  1–2 Months

  46

  86

  1

  133

  2–6 Months

  148

  127

  11

  286

  6–12 Months

  21

  34

  15

  70

  12 Months+

  8

  6

  7

  21

  Total

  292

  422

  38

  752

  1 Persons detained solely under the powers contained in Schedule 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971

  2 These figures include people who have been in detention for less than a month. Because of the delay in recording receptions into, and releases from, detention and the large number of persons detained for a short period, the figures should be used with caution

  3 In some cases the date a person enters detention may be understated due to the method of recording.

  222
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 26 March 1998,Official Report, column 232, if he will list the criteria on the basis of which asylum seekers detained under the Immigration Acts are classified as Category A status. [44041]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Under an agreement with the Prison Service, a number of places are made available for immigration detainees in Prison Service establishments other than Haslar and Rochester. These prisons may also contain Category A accommodation as well as accommodation of other categories.

  Prison staff are required to identify those prisoners charged with certain serious offences which are listed in section 36 of Part C of the Prison Service Manual on Security. A copy of the Manual is available in the Library. The cases of those prisoners charged with such offences which meet any one or more of a list of specified criteria, also set out in the Security Manual, are reported to Prison Service Headquarters where it is decided whether the inmate should be placed in Category A.

  In the interests of public protection, the guidance and criteria set out in the Security Manual are also applied to administrative detainees, which includes persons detained under the Immigration Act 1971, who are believed to have been involved in the commission of serious offences abroad. The overriding consideration must be the safety of the public and the lack of potential dangerousness presented by the individual prisoner.

  Child Deaths
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases involving the death of a child there have been since 1993 where neither parent or carer has been charged with either murder or manslaughter because both parents or carers have denied responsibility, but no third party involvement is suspected. [44058]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not available.

  The police are not required to specify the reason why any person suspected of homicide is not charged for statistical purposes. Moreover, they have to supply details of a person initially suspected of a homicide only when that person is arrested or charged with the offence or if a suspect subsequently commits suicide.

  The table shows all currently recorded homicides of children (aged under 16) where no conviction had been recorded as at 1 August 1997. All suspects who committed suicide were parents.

  All offences currently recorded as homicide where the victim was aged under 16 and no conviction had been recorded as at 1 August 1997

  Number of offences

  Of which, suspect committed suicide

  1993

  9

  4

  1994

  23

  13

  1995

  26

  15

  1996

  33

  14

  223

  Prisoners
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total prison population expressed as a percentage of total prison capacity. [44010]

  Ms Quin
  The total prison population of England and Wales expressed as a percentage of the total prison capacity (operational capacity) was 95.8 per cent. for Friday, 29 May 1998.

  Road Policing
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was total spending on road policing by(a) police forces in England and Wales and (b) each individual police force in the latest year for which figures are available; what such spending was as a proportion of the total spending on policing in each case; and what guidance his Department gives to police authorities on the proportion of overall spending which should be allocated to road policing. [43995]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not collected centrally. The allocation of resources to particular functions and the deployment of officers are operational matters for individual chief constables. We have issued no guidance to police authorities on the allocation of resources to road policing.

  Road traffic offences and other crimes do not necessarily occur separately. A large part of traffic officers' time is spent dealing with ordinary crime or carrying out ordinary police duties. Conversely, officers on general beat duties are able to take prompt action against breaches of road traffic law.

  Alcohol (Young Persons)
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken to ensure the enforcement of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997. [44038]

  Mr. Michael
  Responsibility for the enforcement of the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 is an operational matter for chief officers of police. Guidance on the Act, which came into force on 1 August last year, has been issued to all chief officers. The Act is intended to allow the police to deal with situations where drinking by young people causes a nuisance to others or may lead to other bad behaviour. The guidance makes it clear that it was not Parliament's intention that the new powers should be used where young peoples' drinking is not perceived to be a problem. A copy of the guidance (Home Office Circular 38/1997) is in the Library.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list by Department the capital expenditure under the private finance initiative in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98, and estimates for 1998–99 (i) in real terms and (ii) in cash. [43920]
  224
  Mr. Darling
  The information required in cash terms for 1996–97 was given in an answer to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 10 December 1997,Official Report, columns 572–73. The information for subsequent years is contained in Table B15 at Annex B to the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HM Treasury, March 1998). The information required for the calculation of real terms figures is contained in Table B1.

  Taxation
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 331–34, if he will make it his policy to continue to publish the updated series for the tax burden until a new methodolgy for updating the tax burden can be introduced; by what date he expects to introduce improved statistics for the tax burden; and if he will make a statement. [42148]

  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action officials in his Department are taking to make information on the burden of indirect taxes on household types more meaningful and reliable; [43986]

  (2) when he expects to publish more meaningful and reliable information on the burden of indirect taxes on household types; [43979]

  (3) on what date he first instructed officials in his Department to consider ways in which information on the burden of indirect tax on household types could be made more meaningful and reliable. [43984]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answers 18 May and 1 June 1998]: I have nothing to add to my answer of 5 May 1998, Official Report, columns 331–34, to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce).

  Transsexuals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way he proposes to amend the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 following the out-of-court settlement with Alan Veale; and if he will review the Act to consider whether other amendments should be made to enable transsexuals to have their birth certificates amended. [44299]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In order to correct an error or fact or substance in a birth or death register the Birth and Deaths Registration Act 1953 requires two statutory declarations to be made. The declarations must set out the nature of the error and the true facts of the case. I propose to amend the legislation to allow a Court Order to be accepted in place of one of the statutory declarations. The same provisions apply to the correction of the sex of an individual where it was wrongly recorded at birth.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the total level of the local government financial settlement for 1999–2000. [43353]

  Mr. Darling
  Future plans for public spending, including provisions for local authorities, will be set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review, to be completed in the summer.
  225

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to write off the remaining debts owed by heavily indebted poor countries to the United Kingdom Government. [43469]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government remain fully committed to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, and continue to press for full debt relief to all eligible countries that are committed to economic and structural reforms, for example through the Chancellor's Mauritius Mandate and at the recent G8 Summit in Birmingham.

  Methadone Deaths
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total number of deaths in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland from methadone in each of the last four years; and if he will make a statement. [44011]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the total number of deaths in (a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland from Methadone for each of the last four years.
  The data requested are shown in the table below.

  Deaths involving methadone in England, Wales and Scotland 1994–1997

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997'

  England

  246

  273

  328

  286

  Wales

  8

  18

  16

  13

  Scotland

  55

  58

  101

  87

  Total

  309

  349

  445

  386

  1 1997 data are provisional

  Notes:

  Data for England and Wales represent the number of deaths occurring in each year

  Data for Scotland represent the number of deaths registered in each year, and were supplied by the General Register Office for Scotland

  The deaths included correspond to those with an underlying cause of death of drug dependence, nondependent abuse of drugs, accidental poisoning, suicidal poisoning or poisoning undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted and where methadone was mentioned on the death certificate.

  The figures include deaths attributed to methadone in combination with other drugs. In some cases, therefore, the death may not be directly or solely due to methadone.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union held on 19 May. [43749]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  I chaired the Economic and Finance Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 19 May. The Economic Secretary represented the UK.
  226
  The Council began with a presentation by Commissioner Liikanen of the Commission's Preliminary Draft Budget for 1999. The Council stressed the need for continued budgetary rigour.

  On Agenda 2000, the Council held a wide-ranging discussion on the economic and financial issues arising from the proposals published by the Commission on 18 March concerning future financing and the reform of the Community's main spending policies (the Common Agricultural Policy and the Structural and Cohesion Funds). The next ECOFIN will return to these issues, and consider ECOFIN's input to the Cardiff European Council.

  Commissioner Liikanen gave a progress report on the Sound and Efficient Management (SEM 2000) initiative. The Council agreed conclusions on the report.

  Commissioner Gradin presented the annual report on the fight against fraud and the future work programme. The Council adopted conclusions on the documents, including a call for the convention on the Protection of the Communities' Financial interests to be ratified as soon as possible.

  The Council unanimously supported conclusions endorsing the report of the High Level Group on alcohol and tobacco fraud, and welcoming the Commission's Communication.

  The Council approved the Commission's Recommendation on Greece's excessive deficit.

  Commissioner de Silguy presented the Commission's recommendations for this year's Broad Economic Guidelines. These will be discussed at the next ECOFIN.

  The Presidency's proposals on the procedure for surveillance of progress on economic reform were agreed. These include the presentation by Member States and the Commission of short annual progress reports on product and capital markets, which will complement the procedure already established on labour markets.

  There was a first discussion of National Employment Action Plans, substituted by all Member States. Employment will again be discussed at the next ECOFIN, which will contribute to the preparation of the Cardiff European Council.

  Under Any Other Business, Irish Finance Minister McCreevy presented a study on the impact on Ireland of the abolition of the duty free regime on 30 June 1999. The Commission agreed to produce a working document clarifying the existing instruments available to member States for addressing the adverse consequences of abolition. The decision to abolish duty free was taken in 1991 and there was no unanimous view to reopen this issue.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  BMARC
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if commissions were paid by BMARC to companies owned by or connected to Her Majesty's Government. [38898]
  227
  Mrs. Beckett
  Not to my knowledge. Any legitimate commissions for services rendered paid by BMARC to companies owned by or connected to Her Majesty's Government would have been a matter solely for BMARC or its parent company and the provider of the service. Evidence of any improper commissions paid to companies owned by or connected to Her Majesty's Government should be passed to the relevant authorities.

  Export Licences (Indonesia)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for licences for the export of(a) paramilitary, (b) security and (c) police equipment to Indonesia have been (i) granted, (ii) refused and (iii) revoked since 20 March; and what was the export licence category in each case. [42626]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The Export Control Organisation's computer databases have been interrogated and the results are as follows. Between 7 March and 10 May 1998 inclusive, 8 Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) and 7 Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) were issued to export to endusers or consignees in Indonesia goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order (the so-called "Military List"). In the same period no individual licences for such exports were revoked, and no applications for such licences were refused. This does not include Media OIELs, which are Open Individual Export Licences authorising the export to any destination of protective clothing, mainly for the protection of aid agency workers and journalists when working in areas of conflict.

  Individual licences issued between 7 March and 10 May 1998 covering the export to Indonesia of goods on the Military List

  Rating

  Number of SIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  Number of OIELs issued covering goods with this rating

  ML2

  2

  0

  ML3

  1

  0

  ML6

  1

  0

  ML9

  0

  1

  ML10

  0

  3

  ML11

  1

  3

  ML15

  1

  0

  PL5006

  2

  0

  This information should be considered in light of my answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on 30 October 1997, Official Report, columns 870–71.

  As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend of 8 April 1998, Official Report, columns 345–47, it is not possible to break down these data in the manner requested as the equipment covered by many entries in the Military List could be used by military, paramilitary or police end-users.

  Bulldog Trainer Aircraft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations she has received concerning the award of the contract to replace the Bulldog trainer aircraft; [43023]
  228
  (2) what assessment she has made of the potential benefits to United Kingdom industry of the contract for the replacement of the MOD's Bulldog trainer aircraft. [43024]

  Mr. Battle
  The President has received a variety of representations, mainly pressing for the selection of the Slingsby Firefly as the replacement for the Bulldog trainer aircraft. These have contributed to the continuing assessment being made by the Department of the potential impact on the UK aerospace industry of this procurement, which is being discussed with the Ministry of Defence.

  Truck Refrigeration Systems
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to subject auxiliary engines for refrigeration systems on trucks to noise limits; what assessment she has made of emissions from these units; and if she will make a statement. [43488]

  Mr. Battle
  I have no plans to subject such units to noise limits. However, the European Commission has recently proposed a directive on noise emissions by equipment used outdoors [COM(1998)46 final] which includes the proposal to subject this type of equipment to noise labelling only. The directive has yet to be agreed by the Member States. An Explanatory Memorandum (6363/98) was submitted to both Houses on 26 March 1998.

  The Department has not undertaken an assessment of noise emissions from these units.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will exempt renewables generated within the NFFO arrangement from the fossil fuel levy. [43736]

  Mr. Battle
  I have no plans to do so. Generators who generate electricity from renewable sources of energy under the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) arrangements receive financial support through the scheme which makes the electricity they generate competitive with other leviable forms of generation. I see no need to give such generators further special treatment.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals she has to provide incentives for(a) suppliers and (b) consumers to develop the renewable energy industry in the United Kingdom. [43668]

  Mr. Battle
  I expect to provide a further incentive to the development of the renewable energy industry in the United Kingdom when I make the fifth Order under the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) later this year. The NFFO places an obligation on the Public Electricity Suppliers in England and Wales to obtain a specified amount of electricity from renewable sources, providing a protected market in which the industry can grow. Similar arrangements operate in Scotland and Norther Ireland.

  More widely, this Government propose to undertake a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources in line with its manifesto commitment. To this end, DTI Ministers are reviewing policy, including considerations of what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK electricity needs from renewable sources by the year 2010 and how renewables can make

  229
  an effective contribution to meeting requirements for future greenhouse gas reduction commitments. The outcome of that review will be announced later this year.

  Money-lenders
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many money-lenders lost their licences in the last full year for which figures are available. [44037]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  During 1997 the Director-General of Fair Trading revoked 35 consumer credit licences.

  Information on individual cases is published each year in the Annual Report of the Director-General of Fair Trading, issues of which up to 1996 are in the Library. The Report for 1997 will be published shortly. Information is also published periodically in the OFT Journal "Fair Trading".

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what penalties are applied to unlicensed money-lenders. [44051]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  A trader who offers credit facilities to consumers must be licensed under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A trader who engages in a consumer credit business without obtaining the necessary licence from the Office of Fair Trading commits an offence punishable by a fine of up to £5,000, if he is prosecuted in a magistrates court, or by an unlimited fine or 2 years' imprisonment or both, if he is prosecuted in the Crown Court.

WALES

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Denzil. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the estimated £25 million allocated to the NHS in Wales is to be spent on reducing waiting lists; and on what projects the balance will be spent. [43665]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  £20 million will be spent on reducing waiting lists, £18 million of which has already been allocated to the NHS. £2 million has been held back for issues arising in-year.

  The balances is expected to be used mainly to fund costs arising from new variant CJD in blood products and to contribute to Welsh costs associated with the trust reconfiguration exercise and the production of a corporate strategy for NHS Wales.

  Further Education
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average funding per student in further education in Wales; and what assessment he has made of this level relative to that applying in(a) England and (b) Scotland. [42684]

  Mr. Hain
  The average funding per student in further education in Wales in the financial year ending 31 March 1998 was £2,993, compared to £2,842 in England for the same period. No assessment of the level applying in Scotland has been made.
  230

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Debt Reduction
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the steps to be taken in reducing the debt of poor countries, following the G8 meeting. [42496]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress she expects to be made in the reduction of debt among the poorest countries in the next 18 months. [42506]

  Clare Short
  At the G8 Summit in Birmingham on 15–17 May, we made useful progress in speeding up the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). The Communiqué set out the objective of getting all eligible countries, likely to be about 20 in number, into the process by 2000. This constitutes a significant step towards meeting the Government's Mauritius Mandate which aims for at least three quarters of eligible countries to have received debt relief within the next few years. And following a British initiative, the Summit also agreed on the need to look at ways of providing more and earlier debt relief, to help heavily indebted post-conflict countries. We will be pressing in all appropriate fora for the implementation of these targets.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the International Monetary Fund in respect of third world countries' indebtedness; and if she will make a statement. [42508]

  Clare Short
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I most recently discussed developing country debt with the Managing Director of the IMF in Washington in mid-April. Despite the progress that has been made in implementing the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, we agreed that more must be done, and that we should look at ways for speeding the process up.

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what progress is being made on expanding the scope of international debt reduction programmes. [42521]

  Clare Short
  At last month's G8 Summit in Birmingham, leaders agreed to support the speedy and determined extension of debt relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries' (HIPC) debt Initiative. Following a British proposal, leaders also agreed on the need to look at ways for providing more and earlier debt relief to help post-conflict countries. We shall be pressing for this work to be taken forward urgently. As a first step, at the donors' meeting in Stockholm earlier this week, we announced a significant contribution to the multi-donor Debt Trust Fund for Rwanda.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what further actions her Department intends to take to reduce the debt burden of the world's poorest and most indebted countries. [42522]

  Clare Short
  We shall continue to press for the speedy and determined implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries debt Initiative, and for the urgent consideration of ways to provide earlier and more debt relief for post conflict countries. As a first step, at the
  231
  donors' meeting in Stockholm earlier this week, we announced a significant contribution to the multi-donor Debt Trust Fund for Rwanda.

  Niger
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to assist the Government of Niger in combating disease among children. [42504]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Although Niger does not have close links with Britain, we provide support through our commitments to multilateral institutions, particularly the EC, the UN and the World Bank which provide significant levels of assistance to Niger. The EC, the World Health Organisation and UNICEF all have health programmes in Niger.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what percentage of British aid to Iraq since 1991 has been spent on administration costs; and if she has any conveniently available figures. [42509]

  Clare Short
  Published figures for UK humanitarian aid to Iraq do not include DFID administration costs, which come from a separate departmental budget and represent some 0.7 per cent. of this year's programme. NGOs and other agencies which we fund typically spend three to seven per cent. of project costs on headquarters administration.

  I am pleased to announce that my department has just approved a much needed £2 million project to improve water and sanitation in Baghdad-controlled Iraq. This is part of the £7 million aid package for the region which I announced on 12 March 1998, Official Report, column 297.

  Microfinance
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action she is taking to support the use of microfinance in developing countries. [42510]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We believe that microfinance—savings and credit—can be a powerful tool to support the livelihoods of large numbers of poor people in developing countries. For the past ten years, the UK has provided increasing support to projects and institutions engaged in microfinance. Our current commitments to date and projects in the pipeline amount to about £60 million and we anticipate increasing resources in this field.

  Emergency Relief
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the United Kingdom aid programme was devoted to emergency relief operations, and disaster preparedness and prevention programmes in 1997–98; and what provision she has made for 1998–99. [42511]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development (DFID) expenditure figures for the financial year 1997/98 are not finalised. However, we estimate that the proportion of the bilateral aid programme provided to 232
  disaster relief, emergency food aid, short-term refugee relief and disaster preparedness will be around 8 per cent. of total bilateral expenditure.

  Full statistical information for 1997/98 will be published later in the year as the British Aid Statistics and I will place copies in both Houses. Adequate provision has been built into 1998/99 planning for both foreseeable relief needs and unforeseeable emergencies.

  Bilateral Aid
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the top five recipients of United Kingdom bilateral aid, and the amounts paid to them in the year 1997–98. [42512]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development expenditure figures for the financial year 1997/98 are not finalised but the top five recipients will be India, Bangladesh, Uganda, Tanzania and Montserrat.

  Full statistical information for 1997/98 will be published later in the year as the British Aid Statistics and copies will be placed in the library of both Houses.

  Rwanda
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department is taking to support conflict prevention and peacebuilding in Rwanda. [42513]

  Clare Short
  The focus of the UK support programme for Rwanda has moved away from emergency interventions towards longer term rehabilitation efforts. In close collaboration with the Government, we are implementing a £25 million rehabilitation package targeted on key Government priorities. But we need to do more.

  Donors and Government of Rwanda are meeting in Stockholm on 3 June under the chairmanship of the World Bank, to discuss Rwanda's long-term external financing needs and initiatives to address debt. My Department is attending the meeting and will be advocating the need for flexible long-term support underpinned by a deeper, more transparent policy dialogue with Government on issues related to Governance and human rights. We will announce a new 3 year financial commitment for Rwanda at the Stockholm meeting.

  Security Sector Reform
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what actions her Department is taking to support security sector reform in developing countries. [42514]

  Clare Short
  Security sector reform is an important part of the work of my new Department. A security sector that is well tasked and managed can better serve the interests of all. But a military sector that is inappropriately tasked, badly managed and indisciplined can hinder development. We know from our surveys that for very poor people, decent law and order, and a safe and secure environment, are a top priority.
  233
  My Department has taken a number of important initiatives to address this problem. We are supporting an OECD initiative to incorporate greater transparency, civilian accountability and control of the security sector as part of development assistance.

  I have had discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on these issues. I gave evidence to the Defence Select Committee and am due to give evidence shortly to the Development Committee on this and related subjects.

  Last month my Department sponsored a major seminar on security sector reform with the research group, Saferworld, that brought together a range of leading experts in this area. This seminar will lead to a substantial report later this year, setting out a range of practical ways in which the British government can support security sector reform in developing countries, both bilaterally and through the multilateral institutions.

  Religious Freedoms
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with heads of state of developing countries regarding the use of development assistance to support religious freedoms. [42515]

  Clare Short
  I frequently meet senior members of the governments of developing countries; my discussions with them cover issues related to the establishment of practical partnerships to work for the elimination of poverty.

  All our work places a strong emphasis on human rights. Freedom of worship is a fundamental freedom. Persecution of people for their religious belief is a breach of international human rights conventions. Our human rights work for crises focuses on the human rights of poor and disadvantaged people this includes those who may be discriminated against because of their religion.

  Sudan
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps her Department has taken to provide humanitarian assistance to the people of Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [42516]

  Clare Short
  In February, we pledged £4 million to the United Nations 1998 Consolidated Appeal for Sudan. On 6 May this was increased to £5.23 million. This has been given to UN agencies and international NGOs in Sudan with the current crisis in Bahr El Ghazal region a key focus. I approved a further £5 million on 15 May which will be used over the coming months to meet urgent humanitarian needs in this region and wherever else they arise in Sudan.

  The war is the direct cause of the current crises. The problem in providing humanitarian relief is not a lack of resources but lack of access. The Government of Sudan have approved increased flights and is willing to offer a ceasefire—which is the best solution to the problem of access. The SPLA has refused to consider a ceasefire. Without peace, humanitarian crises will recur.
  234

  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress on the multilateral agreement on investment and its impact on developing countries. [42517]

  Clare Short
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Ministers, meeting at the end of April, reaffirmed their commitment to a successful and timely conclusion of the negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), and to seeking broad participation in it. The next meeting of the negotiating group will be in October 1998. Ministers also affirmed their commitment to pursuing an active dialogue with non-member countries, including on their development interests. The independent study on the development implications of the MAI commissioned by my Department earlier this year concluded that the MAI could have a positive developmental impact, if appropriate arrangements are made for developing countries to accede to the Agreement. The OECD Secretariat is now carrying out further analytical work on the MAI and development. Officials from my Department are in close touch with the OECD Secretariat, and will continue to contribute actively as this analytical work moves forward.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the ILO Conference on the international convention on child labour. [42518]

  Clare Short
  The committee on Child Labour will be meeting between 3 and 16 June. The Conference is likely to adopt the report of the committee on 18 June. I will place a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

  Jubilee 2000
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress made in relation to the Jubilee 2000 initiative. [42519]

  Clare Short
  Jubilee 2000 seeks the cancellation of the unpayable debt of developing countries by the year 2000. The campaign has been tremendously successful in raising public awareness of debt issues, helping to keep the international debate on debt alive. I was pleased to address some of their supporters who gathered in Birmingham at the time of the G8 Summit last month.

  The UK Government are pressing for speedy and flexible implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative, which also seeks the early remission of such countries' unpayable debt. One element of the Mauritius Mandate, launched last year by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, aims to ensure that by the year 2000 all eligible countries have embarked on the process which will lead to debt relief under the Initiative. I therefore welcome the agreement by leaders at the G8 Summit to encourage all eligible countries to take the policy measures needed to bring them into the HIPC process by then. But it is important to bear in mind that debt relief is not provided for its own sake, it must be linked to poverty reduction.
  235

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's policy on the use of development assistance for the preservation of the rain forests; and if she will make a statement. [42520]

  Clare Short
  My Department's aim is the elimination of poverty through the promotion of sustainable development, which requires conservation of the environment. Our approach towards the conservation of rain forests and the problem of deforestation is to support work to improve management of forest resources in ways that lead to a range of benefits to poor communities as well as helping to secure the global environmental benefits that forests offer.

  In the past year, DFID has also supported a number of important new initiatives, for example:
  a grant of £3 million to the Guyana Sustainable Human Development Project, which will benefit forest-dependent communities encircling the Iwokrama Rain Forest.
  a grant of £2 million to the UNDP's Global Programme on Forests: Forest Management to Support Sustainable Livelihoods Project, which will promote public and private sector partnerships for sustainable forest management.
  a grant of £400,000 to the Forest Resource Accounting (FRA) 2000 project—FAO's global assessment of the status and condition of forest resources.

  DFID has played an active part in the development and implementation of the Action Programme on Forests endorsed by Heads of Government at the G8 Birmingham Summit and all other international forestry initiatives.

  Details of my Department's forestry activities are set out in our publication: forests MATTER and our DFID Forestry Sector Projects, both of which are in the Libraries of the House and are available on request from DFID's Environment Policy Department.

  Indonesia
  Mr. White
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on what aid is being given to Indonesia(a) by her Department and (b) by non-governmental organisations to alleviate the current economic crisis. [42523]

  Clare Short
  The most important step is implementation of political and economic reforms in Indonesia. This is critical if the reduction of poverty in recent years is not to be reversed and if benefits are to be more widely shared. The UK supports the IMF economic reform programme and is also contributing £5 million to the Asia Europe Meeting (ASEM) Trust Fund which will underpin the efforts of Asian Governments, including Indonesia, to combat the social effects of the crisis and reform their financial sectors. We have provided £375,000 of assistance to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to help with nutrition, hygiene and medical needs for the people of Irian Jaya; and continue to monitor the food situation more widely.
  236
  We are also providing support to trade union education. We are currently exploring urgently any additional measures, through civil society, which might bring effective help to the most vulnerable people suffering the effects of the crisis.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current level of aid being provided to Sierra Leone by(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EU. [42524]

  Clare Short
  Since the return of President Kabbah's democratically elected government, we have provided £1 million to re-establish core functions and services, £1 million for NGOs delivering humanitarian and development assistance, and £1 million to the ICRC to continue its humanitarian aid and protection work. The EC is providing 2 million ecu for seeds and tools and 200,000 ecu to help refugees in Guinea to return home.

  We are looking at what more we can do to strengthen governance and bring immediate relief to the people. We hope in the future to be able to assist in demobilising and re-integrating ex-combatants.

  European Union Development Council
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the outcome of the European Union Development Council meeting on 18 May. [44496]

  Clare Short
  The Council discussed the development co-operation aspects of the EU's draft negotiating mandate for the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, which covers EC aid, trade and development relations with 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States and expires in the year 2000. The Council held a useful discussion, resolving most of the outstanding issues on the development aspects of the mandate. Trade aspects are still to be agreed but we are aiming to have the mandate adopted at the General Affairs Council in June.

  The Council agreed Conclusions on follow up to the 1993 Poverty Resolution and on follow up to the 1995 Gender Resolution. The Conclusions refer to experience in implementing the Resolutions and set out what more needs to be done to improve effectiveness in these key areas. Procedural Conclusions were also agreed on Microfinance, Indigenous Peoples, Evaluation, and Humanitarian Aid.

  Ministers also discussed Rwanda, Nigeria, the nuclear test in India, Cuba's request to become an observer in the negotiations on the future of ACP-EU relations, aid untying, the DAC Chairmanship, the successor to the current administrator of UNDP, and a proposal to set up an expert group on migration. They also agreed conclusions on the situation in Southern Sudan, noting with extreme concern the grave situation there and the plight of more than 350,000 people in Bahr el Ghazal. The Conclusions reflect the fact that the Council feels that the root of the problem there is the long-term conflict and commit the EU to continuing to provide flexible assistance, urging other donors to do the same.
  237

HEALTH

  Breast Screening
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to include women of 64 years of age in the breast screening programme; and if he will make a statement. [43116]

  Mr. Boateng
  The National Health Service breast screening programme invites all women aged 50–64 to be screened by mammography every three years. Breast screening for women aged 65 and over is available three-yearly on request, and this is widely publicised by the NHS breast screening programme and Age Concern.

  We are funding three pilot studies to evaluate the effectiveness of extending the breast screening programme to invite routinely women aged 65–69. These are due to end in 1999/2000. In view of the importance of this issue, we are now planning to ask the National Screening Committee, which advises Ministers on extensions to or modifications of existing screening programmes, to consider this matter in July. The Committee will assess the case for routinely inviting older women in the light of the evidence emerging from the pilot studies, and the workforce and other implications of extending the programme nationally.

  Midwives
  Mr. Alan Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to encourage health authorities and trusts to implement the National Health Service Executive recommendation of a minimum F grade for midwives on the clinical grading scale. [43153]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service Executive recommended in 1995 (Executive Letter (95)77) that an "F' or "G" grade, or equivalent, would normally be appropriate for posts in which a midwife, regardless of the route to registration, has a defined caseload of women to whom she/he gives the full range of midwifery care. The Review Body for Nursing Staff, Midwives, Health Visitors and Professions Allied to Medicine recommended in January 1998 (paragraph 77) that"where midwives' roles have changed in line with the criteria given in EL(95)77, their pay and grading should reflect the fact. We therefore recommend that the Health Departments ensure implementation of the agreement EL(95)77 at Trust level."

  The Advance Letter promulgating the nurses' pay increase this year, to be distributed on 4 June, will draw this recommendation to the attention of employing authorities and ask them to act upon it.

  NHS Trusts (Health and Safety)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if National Health Service commissioners are required to stipulate health and safety performance standards in their contracts with NHS trusts. [43737]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Health Service commissioners are not required specifically to stipulate health and safety performance standards in their contracts with NHS trusts. Guidance issued by the NHS Executive (Health Service Guidelines (97)6) commends the inclusion of health and safety performance in the contracting process.
  238

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to monitor(a) links between human TB and bovine TB and (b) the incidence of TB; and if he will make a statement. [43683]

  Ms Jowell
  There are established procedures for reporting, investigating and treating cases of tuberculosis, including the screening of contacts. Guidance on these matters is contained in the reports of the Interdepartmental Working Group on Tuberculosis, which were published in July 1996, copies of which are available in the Library, and in the publications of the British Thoracic Society and other specialist groups. Additionally, Veterinary Officers notify local authority environmental health officers when a restriction of movement order is imposed on a herd of cattle which has shown positive reactors, so that contact tracing can ensue.

  Cases due to M-bovis infection, the strain which infects badgers and cattle, are identified through culture of the infecting organism. Around 30 to 40 cases of human tuberculosis each year are confirmed to be due to M-bovis infection. These are mainly in older people who were exposed to bovine tuberculosis before sterilisation of milk and routine testing of herds for tuberculosis were introduced and are not thought to be due to recent transmission. However, as cases of bovine TB in cattle are increasing in the United Kingdom, this is something we are monitoring carefully.

  Tuberculosis is a notifiable disease. The incidence of cases is monitored nationally and by health authorities, and surveillance of laboratory confirmed cases is conducted on a routine basis by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS). There were 5,913 notifications of tuberculosis reported in England and Wales in 1997 (provisional figure).

  The PHLS has taken steps to improve surveillance of tuberculosis, including resistant strains, and local initiatives by health authorities have been undertaken to improve completeness of notifications. In addition, the Department is funding the PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre to conduct a further 5-yearly survey of notifications of tuberculosis during 1998 to provide a more detailed picture of the disease in England and Wales.

  Hospital Closures (Cornwall and Scilly)
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 265, what factors underlay the delays in considering proposals put forward by the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority. [43366]

  Mr. Milburn
  The proposals put forward by Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Health Authority remain under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The decision will reflect the best interests of the people of Cornwall and will be announced when all the relevant factors and information have been properly scrutinised.

  Emergency Contraception
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take steps to ensure that women at risk of unwanted pregnancy use emergency contraception. [43453]
  239
  Ms Jowell
  The Health Education Authority ran a major public awareness campaign on emergency contraception in 1995 and 1996. The campaign was coordinated by the Contraceptive Education Service (CES), which is funded by the Department. CES continues to promote awareness of emergency contraception and made this its focus during Contraceptive Awareness Week in February. Earlier this year CES launched a new pack containing leaflets, posters and "credit cards" giving key information, plus guidance for professionals providing an emergency contraceptive service.

  User Groups
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines the NHS Executive has issued concerning procedures for health authority and NHS trust consultations with user groups. [43817]

  Mr. Milburn
  Health authorities are required to consult on proposals for substantial variations in service. Guidance on these consultations was set out in Executive Letter (90)185 and EL(96)17, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance the NHS Executive has issued on procedures for users to chair health authority and NHS trust user groups. [43818]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has held with dentists to encourage them to undertake work on the NHS. [43487]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are in regular contact with dentists and their representatives on a wide range of issues.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Western Sahara
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the current state of voter identification being undertaken by the United Nations Mission for a Referendum in Western Sahara; and what plans he has to provide a UK military contingent or other logistical support to MINURSO. [41773]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are satisfied with progress made by MINURSO since the resumption of the Voter Identification Process in December 1997. The UN Secretary General reported on 13 April that 101,772 applicants have been identified, that fewer than 60,000 remain to be convoked, but the issue of the disputed tribes remains unresolved. We agree with the assessment of the UN Special Representative, Mr. Charles Dunbar, that delays mean it is possible that the Referendum will take place in 1999 rather than as originally scheduled on 7 December 1998.

  We have no current plans to contribute personnel or logistical support to MINURSO at the current time.
  240

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms are in place to monitor the end use of British-made military equipment in Indonesia, separately identifying those relating to water cannon. [41545]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 11 May 1998]: No formal mechanisms exist at present for systematically monitoring the use that has been made of British defence equipment once it has been exported. Our Embassy in Jakarta does however report on the use of British-supplied defence equipment in the light of any information that they obtain.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review his policy on arms sales to Indonesia. [43485]

  Mr. Fatchett
  All applications for defence sales to Indonesia, and to other countries, are considered case by case against the new criteria we introduced last year. In accordance with the criteria, we keep the situation in recipient countries under review.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the letters which his Department has received from Sandline's solicitors indicating in each case (i) the date, (ii) the date of the response, (iii) to whom it was sent and (iv) who replied to it. [41726]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 12 May 1998]: S. J. Berwin & Co, acting for Sandline International, wrote to me on 24 April. The Permanent Under-Secretary replied on 1 May. S. J. Berwin & Co also wrote to me on 8 May clarifying a reference in their letter of 24 April.

  S. J. Berwin & Co wrote to the Permanent Under-Secretary on 8 May to say that they were releasing their letter of 24 April to the press.

  I have also been sent a copy of a letter from S. J. Berwin & Co to the Chairman of Customs and Excise, and the Permanent Under-Secretary has been sent copies of letters to the editors of The Sunday Telegraph and The Observer.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards an agreed EU Code of Conduct on arms sales; and if he will make a statement. [43865]

  Mr. Fatchett
  On 25 May, the General Affairs Council reached agreement on the text of an EU Code of Conduct for Arms Exports, which will be formally adopted at a future meeting of the Council. The text is annexed to the Council Conclusions, a copy of which will be placed in the House Library.

  Agreement on the Code of Conduct is an important achievement, and fulfils the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my. hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms) on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29. The detailed elaboration

  241
  of the eight EU Common Criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992 is a major step towards the establishment of high common standards for arms exports from all Member States. In addition the mechanism that requires Member States to circulate information on licence refusals and to consult before undercutting another Member State's denial is the first of its kind ever applied by a group of states to their conventional arms exports. It will help to ensure the criteria are applied in a consistent fashion and to produce a level playing field for British companies.

  Our efforts to promote responsibility and transparency in conventional arms transfers will not end with agreement on the Code of Conduct. We will continue to take steps in support of these principles at both national and international level. Member States will have the opportunity to review the operation of the Code itself after a year and agree any necessary improvements.

  I will make a further statement on the national implementation of the provisions of the Code following its formal adoption by the General Affairs Council.

  Colombia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the recent trends in human rights violations in Colombia; and what representations he has made to the Colombian Government on this issue. [43948]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The recent upwards trend in violence in Colombia is of serious concern, as is the increasing number of attacks on human rights workers. We take every opportunity to express our concerns to the Colombian Government. Most recently, as EU Presidency, we made a demarche to the Colombian Government following the murders of two more human rights workers at the end of April. The new British Ambassador will take advantage of his introductory calls to raise again our human rights concerns with the Colombian Government.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on action being taken to implement the arrest warrants against Fidel and Carlos Castano Gil, in respect of the assassinations of two CINEP human rights workers on 19 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [43973]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received no representations with regard to the arrest warrants issued against Fidel and Carlos Castano Gil for their part in the murders of the CINEP human rights researchers. Britain, both as EU Presidency and bilaterally, has strongly urged the Colombian Government to pursue the arrest of these people with the utmost vigour.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the search of the Justice and Peace Office in Bogota on 13 May by the Colombian Army's Special Anti-Guerrilla Forces. [43946]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: We understand that the search of the offices of the human rights NGO, Justicia y Paz, was carried out under the supervision of the Colombian Fiscalia, the Prosecution Service. A local NGO has confirmed that the paperwork
  242
  for the search was in order and that the Fiscalia, a civilian body, stopped the search from progressing to eight other organisations named on the warrant. Officials at the British Embassy in Bogota are in close touch with a number of local NGOs about this issue.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures have been taken by the Colombian Government to implement the recommendations made in the report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights at the 54 Session of the UNCHR. [43947]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Colombian Government have taken a number of steps in pursuit of objectives outlined in the recommendations of the UNCHR 54th Session. These include measures to further the peace process, such as authorising a number of Departmental Governors to negotiate regional peace agreements with guerrillas. The armed forces Commander has sent written and verbal instructions to regional commanders to desist from any form of cooperation with paramilitary groups—another recommendation by the UNCHR. The 20th Intelligence Brigade, subject of numerous allegations of human rights violations, has also been disbanded. However, a number of other recommendations made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights are unlikely to be addressed until the new Colombian Government are installed in August. In the meantime, we shall continue to monitor the situation through our Embassy in Bogota and by other means.

  Nuclear Tests (South Asia)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on actions taken to reduce nuclear testing in South Asia following the Indian nuclear test. [43945]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement to the House on 1 June 1998, Official Report, columns 21–22, the UK nationally and through the G8, EU and UN Security Council has exerted and continues to exert strong diplomatic pressure on India to adhere to the CTBT and NPT without conditions, and enter into negotiations on a global treaty to end the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. We have called upon Pakistan to do the same and made it clear that the best way to reduce tension in the region is to cease nuclear testing.

  In addition to issuing EU Presidency statements immediately following the first Indian and Pakistani tests, we recalled our High Commissioners in New Delhi and Islamabad for consultations, and summoned the Indian and Pakistani High Commissioners here. Heads of EU Troika missions made demarches in New Delhi and Islamabad on 12 and 13 May respectively. The UN Security Council issued Presidential statements on 14 and 29 May, strongly deploring the Indian and Pakistani actions. The G8 Heads of Government issued a statement on 18 May condemning the Indian tests. In the wake of the subsequent Pakistani tests we have invited G8 Foreign Ministers to meet in London on 12 June.

  The GAC issued a declaration on 25 May calling on India to take a number of arms control and non-proliferation measures. In addition, Member States of

  243
  the EU have agreed to work for deferral of consideration of International Financial Institution loans to India and to consider further measures should India not accede to the relevant non-proliferation agreements. The UK has additionally suspended certain high-level military visits and is reviewing contacts in the defence field.

  We expect comparable measures to be agreed for Pakistan, following their tests.

  Palestinian Authority
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken during the United Kingdom presidency of the EU to increase the prosperity of the Palestinian people. [43833]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The EU remains the single largest donor of aid to the Palestinian Authority, contributing 444 million mecu (about £290 million) in financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority in the period 1993–1998. The UK Presidency is working to ensure that this commitment is maintained in future. At the instigation of the UK, the EU has engaged Israel in a dialogue on ways to improve the Palestinian economy. The Minister of State co-chaired a plenary session of the dialogue during his visit to the region in January.

  Dependent Territories
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to review the procedures whereby grant support to the Dependent Territories is administered. [43474]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We are establishing a new Overseas Territories Department within the FCO which will provide a single focus and a direct point of contact for all our Overseas Territories. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development also plans to establish an Overseas Territories Unit which will administer DFID assistance to Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos Islands and St. Helena. The Dependent Territories Regional Secretariat in Barbados will be closing later this year.

  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on support for the Turks and Caicos Islands to assist them in dealing with large-scale unauthorised immigration from Haiti; and what response he has made. [43424]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Following representations from the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Government, HMG contributed £200,000 towards a project managed by the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to regularise the immigration status of Haitians living in the TCI and to assist with the orderly repatriation of illegal immigrants. Under this project, which ended in April 1998 having achieved its objectives, 2,654 illegal migrants have been returned to Haiti since January 1997 and 973 others have had their immigration validated. Those returned to Haiti have been assisted with relocation expenses, skills training and small business grants. The TCI Department of Immigration has received assistance with training and a computerised migrant management system.
  244

  Congo
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the United Nations regarding the withdrawal of the United Nations investigation team from the Democratic Republic of Congo. [43727]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The UK and our European Partners fully endorsed the UN Secretary General's decision to withdraw the Investigative Team, although we did so with regret. We believe a thorough and impartial investigation into human rights violations could make a valuable contribution to the process of reconciliation, leading to long term stability, security and economic development in the Great Lakes region and as a whole.

  The investigative team has continued its inquiries outside the Democratic Republic of Congo, and is currently drafting a report for the UN Secretary General. On the strength of the report and the Secretary General's recommendations, we will consider what further action might be appropriate.

  Ponsonby Rule
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), of 13 February 1998,Official Report, column 406, on the Ponsonby rule, if he will provide the same information for those treaties laid before Parliament since 1 February. [43300]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 June 1998]: A total of 9 treaties subject to the Ponsonby Rule have been laid before Parliament since 1 February 1998. They are listed. The last day of the 21 day period is indicated on the list. These treaties have all been laid with an Explanatory Memorandum (EM) bringing to the attention of Parliament the main features of the treaty with which it is laid.
  Protocol to the agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of South Africa for the promotion and protection of investments.

  Publication reference—South Africa No. 1 (1998) Cm 3857

  EM No. 21

  Presented to Parliament—11 February 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—13 March 1998

  The European Charter of Local Self-Government

  Publication reference—Miscellaneous No. 1 (1998) Cm 3884

  EM No. 22

  Presented to Parliament—2 March 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—31 March 1998

  Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago concerning mutual assistance in relation to crime

  Publication reference—Trinidad and Tobago No. 1 (1998) Cm 3900

  EM No. 24

  Presented to Parliament—27 March 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—7 May 1998

  245
  Protocol to the agreement on cooperation and customs union between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino consequent upon the accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden to the European Union with Final Act

  Publication reference—European Communities No. 1 (1998) Cm 3899

  EM No. 23

  Presented to Parliament—3 April 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—14 May 1998

  Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Poland

  Publication reference—Miscellaneous No. 2 (1998) Cm 3929

  EM No. 25

  Presented to Parliament—7 April 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—18 May 1998

  Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Czech Republic

  Publication reference—Miscellaneous No. 3 (1998) Cm 3930

  EM No. 26

  Presented to Parliament—7 April 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—18 May 1998

  Protocol to the North Atlantic Treaty on the accession of the Republic of Hungary

  Publication reference—Miscellaneous No. 4 (1998) Cm 3931

  EM No. 27

  Presented to Parliament—7 April 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—18 May 1998

  Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium relating to the transmission of natural gas through a pipeline between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Kingdom of Belgium

  Publication reference—Belgium No. 1 (1998) Cm 3943

  EM No. 28

  Presented to Parliament—29 April 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—9 June 1998

  Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Japan for cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy

  Publication reference—Japan No. 1 (1998) Cm 3948

  EM No. 29

  Presented to Parliament—8 May 1998

  Last date of 21 day period—18 June 1998.

  Iran
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the export of arms to Iran. [44492]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There has not been any change to current policy, as set out in the answer given by the Minister for State, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. King) on 28 January 1998,Official Report, columns 273–74. We will not approve licences for any equipment where there is knowledge or reason to suspect that it would go to a military end-user to be used for military purposes.

  However, this department has recently approved the issue by the Department of Trade and Industry of a licence for the export of industrial gas turbine parts to Iran for civil end use. This particular industrial engine has been
  246
  developed from a military engine and is commonly used to drive pumps and electrical generators. The engine is not subject to export control when it is exported as a complete unit. However, when it is broken down into component form, a very small percentage of its parts are unchanged from their original form and, as military components, come within the scope of the UK' s arms embargo and are controlled under Part III of Schedule 1 to the Exports of Goods (Control) Order 1994. However, we are satisfied that Iran does not possess any aircraft powered by the original military engine, and that the risk of the components being diverted to use by the Iranian military is minimal. We have therefore approved the export.

  Hong Kong Elections
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment Her Majesty's Government have made of the Hong Kong legislative elections held on 24 May. [44493]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We welcome the fact that these elections have been held. The high turn-out demonstrates the determination of people in Hong Kong to play a full role in the democratic process. While we retain strong concerns about the framework for the elections, particularly the sharp reduction in the franchise for the functional constituencies, we believe that the conduct of the elections reflects well on the HKSAR Government and the independent Electoral Affairs Commission, which ensured strict adherence to the rules and fair treatment for all candidates.

  These elections are a step towards a legislature elected entirely through universal suffrage. We hope that the HKSAR Government will build on this achievement and work towards early realisation of this goal.

  Argentina
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new exceptions there have been to the arms embargo on Argentina. [44494]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We have recently granted two exceptions to the embargo, one in respect of the sale of two hunting rifle barrels to a private individual in Argentina, another in respect of the sale of twenty deactivated weapons to an Argentine importer. These represent exceptions but not changes to the embargo.

  China
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions apply with respect to arms sales to China other than those general criteria announced on 28 July 1997. [44495]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The EU introduced a ban on arms sales to China on 26 June 1989, but the scope of that ban has, in the absence of agreement on a common interpretation, been left for national interpretation. The UK interprets this ban to include:lethal weapons such as machine guns, large calibre weapons, bombs, torpedoes, rockets and missiles; specially designed components of the above, and ammunition;

  247
  military aircraft and helicopters, vessels of war, armoured fighting vehicles and other such weapons platforms;
  any equipment which might be used for internal repression.

  All applications are considered case by case in the light of these criteria as the overall criteria governing defence exports announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 28 July 1997, Official Report, columns 26–29.

  St. Helena
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to change the Governor of St. Helena. [44059]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We expect the next Governor of St. Helena to take up his or her appointment in 1999, when the present Governor's tour of duty is due to end.

  Ascension Island
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what terms and conditions(a) the BBC and (b) the United States of America operate on Ascension. [44060]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The BBC, which runs a World Service relay station on Ascension, and other organisations on Ascension operate there on the basis that they meet the costs of the Administration and the cost of providing common services. They do this by means of an annual contribution to the common services budget prepared by Ascension Islands Services JV, the main supplier of common services. The BBC is the joint owner, with Cable and Wireless, of Ascension Island Services.

  The terms and conditions covering the presence of the United States of America on Ascension are set out in a series of bilateral Agreements and Exchanges of Notes, between Her Majesty's government and the Government of the United States of America. Copies are available in the Libraries of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department plans to spend on research into the control of the varroa parasite in each of the next three years. [43398]

  Mr. Rooker
  Committed expenditure on research into the control of the varroa parasite over the next three years is as follows:

  1998–99: £215,109

  1999–2000: £240,118

  2000–01: £122,813.

  Requirements for further research will be considered as these projects near completion.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy are available to bee-keepers; and if he will make a statement; [43394]

  (2) how much money he received from the European Commission to support bee-keeping in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; [43400]
  248
  (3) what regulations cover the distribution of funds allocated by the European Commission to bee-keeping. [43402]

  Mr. Rooker
  Council Regulation 1221/97 to improve the production and marketing of honey provides for reimbursement of up to 50 per cent. of Member States' expenditure on certain measures including technical assistance to bee-keepers and control of varroa and related diseases. The main aim of the Regulation is to alleviate the burden on industry caused by varroa. Commission Regulation 2300/97 (as amended) lays down the detailed rules to implement 1221/97.

  The UK hopes to receive around 680,000 ecu (roughly £474,000) for 1997–98. This is the first year such funding has been available.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what the funding allocated by the European Commission in 1997 to support bee-keeping in the United Kingdom will be spent on; [43401]

  (2) how much of the funding allocated by the European Commission in 1997 to support bee-keeping in the United Kingdom has been distributed to bee-keepers in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) Scotland. [43403]

  Mr. Rooker
  Funds requested from the European Commission will be used partly to finance the Governments' bee health programme. In particular, this will cover inspection and testing arrangements for varroa, training and advice on bee husbandry and research and development. No funds have yet been received.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations his Department has received concerning the funding allocated by the European Commission in 1997 to support bee-keeping in the United Kingdom; [43395]

  (2) what representations his Department has received concerning the use of public funds to research the varroa parasite. [43396]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have received a number of representations on these issues.

  Animal Welfare
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is his policy to seek to ensure that EU member states can introduce restrictions on exports in order to protect the health and welfare of animals. [42985]

  Mr. Morley
  I see no scope at present for a new initiative on these lines. Such restrictions have already been tested in the courts.

  Chicken Imports
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls exist on the importation of chickens which have been fed on meat and bone meal. [43218]

  Mr. Rooker
  The UK is the only EC country to have prohibited the feeding of mammalian meat and bone meal (MBM) to all farmed livestock, including poultry. MBM produced to EC rendering standards can still be fed to non-ruminants in other Member States. All poultry must be imported into the UK in compliance with detailed
  249
  animal health rules. These rules do not include any provisions directly relating to the feed given to the poultry in the country of origin.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the maximum percentage of water allowed in chickens imported for sale. [43219]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 June 1998]: For frozen whole chickens the standards laid down in the EC Poultrymeat Market Standards Regulations must be met by both domestic production and imports. These require that levels do not exceed the minium amounts technically unavoidable for water absorption during processing. These values are dependent upon the method of chilling and which of the two methods of analyses laid down in the Regulations are used. For the drip test method up to 1.5% of the weight of an air chilled chicken may be water; 3.3% for air spray chilling; and 5.1% for immersion chilling. For the chemical test, the weights are 0.1% air chilling; 2.0% for air spray chilling; and 4.5% for immersion chilling. If these limits are exceeded, the chicken must be labelled 'Water content exceeds EEC limit'.

  Following the recent adoption of an amendment to the Council Regulation on poultrymeat marketing, the Commission is starting work on detailed rules on chicken cuts. Meanwhile the provisions of the Food Labelling Regulations apply which require that added water exceeding 5% of the finished product should be declared in the ingredients list.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the regulations that have been removed or amended to help small businesses since 1 May 1997. [42782]

  Mr. Morley
  Between 1 May 1997 and 30 April 1998 one Statutory Instrument, the Potatoes Originating in The Netherlands Regulations 1997, resulted in a lower cost than under the previous regulations and another Statutory Instrument, the Animals and Animal Products (Examination for Residues and Maximum Residue Limits) Regulations 1997, in part led to reduced costs, while the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997, inter alia, simplified the legislative framework by removing 15 Statutory Instruments. These instruments were not targeted on businesses of a particular size but many affected are small ones. In addition, administrative changes to scheme forms and procedures were introduced to reduce the burden of paperwork on farmers.

  Gluten-free Food
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to require that all gluten-free food products are so labelled. [43647]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 21 May 1998,Official Report, columns 509–10. The Government have no plans to make "gluten free" a compulsory statement on the labels of gluten free food products.
  250

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Vaccine Damage
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the total cost of making an interim payment of £100,000 to all the vaccine-damaged children who received an original payment of £10,000. [43287]

  Mr. Denham
  The maximum total cost of making a payment of £100,000 to all recipients of the original £10,000 would be £79.5 million.

  Income Support
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many applications for income support have been refused by reference to the habitual residence test in the last 12 months broken down by(a) ethnic background and (b) nationality. [43282]

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

  Number of income support claimants who failed the habitual residence test between May 1997 and April 1998

  Categories

  Number

  European economic area nationals

  933

  United Kingdom nationals

  2,891

  Other nationals

  973

  Total

  4,797

  Household income
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of households with children in Wales have a household income below the United Kingdom average. [43596]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  It is estimated that in 1995/96, just over seven in ten households with children in Wales had a household income below the Great Britain average.

  Notes:

  1. A child is defined as an individual aged under 16 or an unmarried 16 to 18 year old on a course up to and including 'A' level standard.

  2. The FRS does not include data for Northern Ireland and so the reply uses Great Britain average income and not the UK average income.

  3. This figure relates to both the before and after housing costs measures, regardless of whether or not the self-employed are included.

  Source:

  The data are taken from Households Below Average Income (HBAI) based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS). The 1995/96 financial year is the latest period for which data are available.

  Widowers
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Government will review the implications of the Human Rights Bill[Lords] for gender discrimination against widowers within the social security system; and if he will make a statement. [43847]
  251
  Mr. Denham
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) on 23 June 1997,Official Report, column 415.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently dependent on means-tested benefits; and how many were in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1979–80, (c) 1981–82, (d) 1982–83, (e) 1986–87, (f) 1987–88, (g) 1991–92, (h) 1992–93, (i) 1996–97 and (j) 1997–98. [43919]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such data as are available are set out in the tables.

  Beneficiaries of means tested benefits

  Year

  Supplementary Benefit1

  Family Income Supplement1

  1978–79

  4,598,000

  313,000

  1979–80

  4,370,000

  n/a

  1981–82

  6,121,000

  382,000

  1982–83

  7,070,000

  526,000

  1986–87

  8,291,000

  723,000

  1987–88

  8,205,000

  794,000

  1 Family Credit replaced Family Income Supplement in April 1988. Income Support replaced Supplementary Benefit in April 1988

  Beneficiaries of one or more means tested benefit

  Year

  Beneficiaries in benefit units with one or more means-tested benefit

  1991–92

  13,650,000

  1992–93

  14,550,000

  1996–97

  15,070,000

  Notes:

  1. Means tested benefits are Income Support, Income based Jobseeker's Allowance, Family Credit, Disability Working Allowance, Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

  2. Beneficiaries are defined as the claimant, their partner and any dependants.

  3. Figures for one or more means tested benefit are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. All other figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Figures on one or more means-tested benefit are for May of each year and refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple. Family Income Supplement data is given as at December 1978 for 1978–79, and April of each year thereafter. Figures are not held for 1979–80. Supplementary Benefit figures are for November in 1978–79 and 1979–80, December for 1981–82 and 1982–83, February 1986 for 1986–87, and May 1987 for 1987–88.

  5. Overlap between benefits has been taken into account.

  6. Adult dependants are defined as the partner of the claimant.

  7. Family Income Supplement figures include estimates. Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit figures include estimates due to the data collection procedures in Scotland.

  8. Disability Working Allowance was introduced in April 1992.

  9. Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance replaced Income Support for the unemployed from October 1996.

  10. Council Tax Benefit replaced Community Charge Benefit in April 1993.

  11. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit figures exclude cases where there is no entitlement because of non-dependant deductions.

  12. Council Tax Benefit cases do not include second adult rebate cases.

  13. Figures are not available on all means-tested benefits for 1997 therefore no figure is quoted for 1997–98.
  252
  14. Data on Housing Benefit and previous schemes providing financial assistance with domestic rent and rates cannot be broken down prior to 1988. Prior to 1983 financial assistance with rent and rates was provided under two separate schemes-Supplementary Benefit and the Local Authority rent rebate allowance schemes. Data on the Local Authority schemes are not available.

  15. Samples sizes:

  Supplementary Benefit: Supplementary pension cases 1 in 200;

  Supplementary Allowance cases 1 in 50;

  Income Support: 1 per cent. up to and including 1992, 5 per cent. thereafter;

  Family Income Supplement: 10 per cent.;

  Family Credit: 5 per cent.;

  Disability Working Allowance: 100 per cent.;

  Housing Benefit & Council Tax Benefit: 1 per cent.

  16. n/a denotes not available.

  Source:

  1. Supplementary Benefit Annual Statistical Inquiries, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1986 and 1987.

  2. Income Support Statistics Quarterly Inquiries, May 1991, May 1992 and May 1996.

  3. Family Credit Statistics Quarterly Inquiry, November 1997.

  4. Disability Working Allowance 100 per cent. count of claims.

  5. Housing Benefit Management Information Statistics, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries without Income Support taken at the end of May in each year given. Social Security Statistics, 1978, 1981, 1982, 1987 and 1988.

  War Pensioners
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to the granting of compensation to war pensioners suffering from hearing difficulties since October 1996; and what plans she has for further changes. [43917]

  Mr. Denham
  There have been no changes to war pensions legislation on hearing loss since January 1993. The approach to the assessment of service related noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss for war pensions purposes has, however, been changed to bring it in line with the current scientific understanding of the subject. This change in approach took place in December 1996 and was based on the current understanding that the combination of sensorineural hearing losses due to noise and age are not more than additive. Claims were previously assessed on the basis that losses due to noise were more than additive, which resulted in assessments for service related noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss being increased with time to reflect the supposed interaction with age related hearing loss.

  The current understanding has been confirmed by independent experts who reviewed the scientific evidence at the request of my noble Friend, the Baroness Hollis of Heigham. The review team also recommended that the matter be reviewed again in a year. My noble Friend has therefore asked the medical policy adviser to review the position and report to her in February 1999.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made to rent allowances for war pensioners since October 1996; and what plans she has for further changes. [43916]

  Mr. Denham
  No changes have been made to this allowance since October 1996 apart from the uprating in line with the annual increase in the retail price index from April 1997 and April 1998. There are no plans for any changes to this allowance.
  253
  Under the War Pensions Scheme, a rent allowance may be payable in respect of the death of a member of the armed forces to a widow, widower or unmarried dependant who lived as the spouse of the member.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will publish for each Great Britain local authority, a breakdown, for each of the last five years, of housing benefit overpayment, in terms of(a) numbers, (b) amounts for each category of claimant and fraudulent errors and (c) (b) expressed as a percentage of (a). [41653]

  Mr. Field
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average time taken to deal with claims for incapacity benefit submitted by people in receipt of the jobseekers' allowance in Warrington, North constituency in the latest period for which figures are available. [43386]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Helen Jones, dated 2 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking what is the average time taken to deal with claims for Incapacity Benefit (IB) submitted by people in receipt of jobseeker's allowance (JSA) in the Warrington North constituency.
  Information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available relates to the average time taken to process all claims for IB. We are unable to identify claims made by customers transferring from JSA.
  The following table compares the national average in days for actual clearance times for IB claims with that for the Benefits Agency's North Cheshire District, which includes the Warrington North parliamentary constituency, during the three month period ending March 1998.

  North Cheshire

  National

  January 1998

  10.0

  12.9

  February 1998

  12.1

  10.1

  March 1998

  9.0

  10.1

  Average

  10.4

  11.0

  Prior to January 1998, Districts were not obliged to hold details of average actual clearance times and many Districts, including North Cheshire, did not record this information.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Warrington, North in receipt of jobseeker's allowance have submitted claims for incapacity benefit over the past 12 months; and what percentage of those claims have been disallowed because the applicant had insufficient national insurance contributions. [43387]

  Mr. Denham
  The administration of Jobseeker's Allowance and Incapacity Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  254
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Helen Jones, dated 2 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people in Warrington North in receipt of Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA) have submitted claims for Incapacity Benefit (IB) over the past 12 months; and what percentage of those claims have been disallowed because the applicant had insufficient national insurance contributions.
  The information is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is provided in the following tables. Please note that the areas covered by the Employment Services and Benefits Agency in Warrington are not co-terminus.

  Table One: Flows from the Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claimant count to Incapacity Benefit (IB)

  September 96 to August 97

  Flow

  Great Britain

  254,500

  Warrington Employment Services

  760

  Notes:

  Flows from JSA to IB are defined as all claims where a claim for IB is made within 28 days of ending a spell of JSA. Claims are also counted as flows when spells of IB and JSA overlap by up to seven days. The Claimant Count data is taken from the joint unemployment and Vacancies On-line System (JUVOS) Cohort file IB Link, which is a database consisting of a 5% sample of computerised claims for unemployment related benefits based on the customers National Insurance number. This count excludes a small number of clerically processed cases.

  Table Two: IB claims allowed and disallowed (due to contribution conditions)

  September 96 to August 97

  Total Incapacity Benefit claims allowed (excluding Statutory Sick Pay cases)

  Total Incapacity Benefit claims disallowed at outset (excluding Statutory Sick Pay cases)

  Percentage of total claims disallowed due to insufficient National Insurance contribution (excluding Statutory Sick Pay cases)

  Great Britain

  418,920

  447,349

  52%

  Warrington Benefits Agency office

  3,573

  3,217

  47%

  Notes:

  Data source is the 100% scan of the Benefit Computer system and it therefore excludes a small number of clerically processed cases.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Pension Provision Group
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she will publish the report of the independent Pension Provision Group, chaired by Tom Ross. [44497]

  Ms Harman
  The Group's Report will be published tomorrow, Thursday 4 June. Copies will be placed in the library. A summary of the Report's findings will be issued to all hon. Members.

  The Pension Provision Group was set up last summer as part of the Government's wider Pensions Review, to provide an independent analysis of current and future patterns of pension provision. Their Report provides a clear and authoritative statement which will serve as an important background document for the pensions Green Paper which will be published later in the year.
  255
  I am grateful to all members of the Group for the time, commitment and expertise they provided and particularly to Tom Ross for his chairmanship.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Information
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if his Department operates a monitoring exercise of persistent inquirers for information. [42633]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: From April 1997 to March 1998 the DfEE's Public Inquiry Unit handled over 150,000 telephone inquiries and over 25,000 items of correspondence.

  The Department has no monitoring exercise of persistent inquiries for information. All requests for information are handled in line with the requirements of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: second edition (1997) and the 6 Whitehall Standards. Procedures in place are outlined in `Departmental Openness', DfEE's guidance on the Code. The guidance is comprehensive and is available to all staff. Some parts of the Department may have established named individuals as a first point of contact for frequent callers to facilitate an effective and efficient service.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people have had their benefits sanctioned under the New Deal for the Young Unemployed to date; what reasons have been given for the sanctioning; how many people his Department expects to sanction over the current financial year; and if he will make statement. [42569]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 20 May 1998]: Since the start of New Deal, around 170 cases have been referred to Independent Adjudication and approximately 35 sanctions have been applied. Main reasons for sanctions are failure to attend adviser interviews and leaving options early. New Deal is a client driven initiative and there are no estimates or targets for sanctions.

  Rural Schools (Closures)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment by what mechanisms his Department is informed of proposed closures of rural schools; if local education authorities are required to inform him of proposals to close such schools; what criteria he will use to assess the viability of such schools; and if he will make a statement. [43486]

  Mr. Byers
  If a local education authority proposes to close a school, it must publish a statutory proposal and send a copy of the published proposal to the Secretary of State. In the case of proposals to close a rural school, we announced in February that it was our policy to give notice to the local education authority that the proposals 256
  would need to be decided by the Secretary of State. In assessing the viability of the school, we will take into account the advice of Ofsted in relation to the standard of education provided at the school, and consider other relevant factors, including the capacity of the school and the projected demand for places. We shall, of course, take account of all relevant factors in reaching a decision but the presumption will be against closure, and proposals will therefore be approved only when we are convinced that this is the best option.

  Grammar Schools (Admissions)
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements will be made, under the School Standards and Framework Bill, for the conduct of parental ballots on the admission arrangements of grammar schools. [44431]

  Mr. Byers
  The Department has today issued draft regulations for consultation which detail how parents will be able to petition and ballot over the future of grammar schools' selective admission arrangements. We are issuing at the same time the associated draft order designating grammar schools. Copies of the draft regulations and order are being sent to all grammar schools, all local education authorities, and a number of representative national organisations, seeking comments by 31 July. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

  Student Loans
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the second competition to sell more of the student loan portfolio. [44432]

  Dr. Howells
  I have today announced the launch of a second competition to sell student loan debt. This is the continuation of a policy first announced in September 1996, and follows the successful completion of the first sale in March 1998 when NatWest Markets was the chosen bidder for a loan portfolio in the region of £1 billion.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his statement of 10 July 1997, Official Report, columns 607–08, that we would continue the policy of student loan debt sales, underlining our commitment to developing a wide range of public-private partnerships which involve a transfer of risk to the private sector. This sale transfers to the private sector much of the risk of loans defaulting. It also helps us to meet our pledge to work within the spending plans already announced for the first two years of our term.

  We have appointed the merchant bank N. M. Rothschild and Sons and the commercial lawyers Lovell White Durrant as advisers to the sale. It makes sense to do so as they also acted as advisers to the first debt sale and have extensive knowledge and experience of these types of transactions. They will assist us in running a vigorous competition and help ensure the participation of some of the world's most prestigious financial institutions so that we obtain the most competitive bid possible.

  We aim to sell loans of a similar value or greater than in the first sale. All the loans sold will have been made

  257
  under the current scheme. None of the new income contingent loans available from the beginning of the 1998–99 academic year will be involved.

  Playgroups
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support he plans to make available to playgroups in the current financial year. [43422]
  258
  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 12 May 1998, Official Report, column 86. In addition, pre-schools and playgroups have benefited from the extra £6 million for childcare places announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 6 May, and the Pre-School Learning Alliance will receive a grant of £1.6 million for training and other support for pre-schools.
  259

SCOTLAND

  Consultation Papers
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the consultation papers published since 1 May 1997 giving the date of publication, closing date for submissions and the number of respondents. [42253]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Scottish Office and Associated Departments have issued a total of 24 consultation papers since 1 Mary 1997, as summarised in the table.

  Number

  The Scottish Office

  Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department

  151

  Constitution Group

  1

  Department of Health

  6

  Development Department

  36

  Education and Industry Department

  17

  Finance Group

  1

  Home Department

  26

  Executive Agencies

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  1

  Student Awards Agency for Scotland

  2

  A comprehensive list has been deposited in the House Library.

  Prestwick Airport
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money from public funds has been allocated to Prestwick Airport since BAA sold it in 1992. [42853]

  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 19 May 1998]: The following amounts have been allocated to Prestwick Airport from public funds since 1992:

  Enterprise Ayrshire

  £974,000: environmental improvements to airport surrounds/car parks (includes money for works which were not of direct benefit to the operation of the airport itself);

  £426,000: contribution to link between railway station and airport; and

  £97,000: contribution to freight development activity including consultancy/market feasibility studies.

  Approval has also been given for funding of up to £1.5 million in relation to the development of airfreight facilities. No sum has yet been paid.

  Strathclyde Passenger Transport/Strathclyde Regional Council

  £500,000: contribution to railway station.

  European Regional Development Fund

  £367,033: contribution to railway station; and

  £63,260: contribution to airport approach radar.

  Regional Selective Assistance

  £240,000: contribution by October 1994 to acquisition and operation of Prestwick Airport.

  260

  Other assistance

  Other local authority assistance was provided in the form of loans/shares. These have all been repaid/redeemed for the same amount.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43331]

  Mr. Dewar
  There are currently three Special Advisers in my Department. In the last full year of the previous administration there were two.

  Smoking
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of teenage(a) boys and (b) girls in Scotland was smoking tobacco (i) in 1988 and (ii) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [44021]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is detailed in the table. The most recent year for which figures are available is 1996.

  Percentage of teenage smokers in Scotland by sex: 1988 and 1996

  Percentage

  1988

  1996

  Boys

  Regular smokers

  10

  14

  Occasional smokers

  4

  8

  Girls

  Regular smokers

  14

  14

  Occasional smokers

  6

  9

  Source:

  Social Survey Division of the Office for National Statistics

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the estimated gross cost of anti-smoking campaigns in Scotland aimed at children and young people has been since 1988; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the campaigns on teenage(a) boys and (b) girls. [44020]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Since its inception in 1991, the main responsibility for mounting national anti-smoking campaigns has rested with the Health Education Board for Scotland (HEBS)—information on expenditure prior to that is not held centrally. Details of expenditure in this area since 1991–92 are set out in the table, which shows the total amount spent on all anti-smoking activities and the proportion attributable to the teenage population (many of the campaigns are not targeted at any specific age group).

  Expenditure by HEBS on anti-smoking campaigns aimed at teenagers since its inception

  £

  Year

  Total expenditure on smoking (actual)

  Expenditure attributable to teenage smoking

  1991–92

  431,020

  Not available

  1992–93

  2,254,513

  993,000

  261

  Expenditure by HEBS on anti-smoking campaigns aimed at teenagers since its inception

  £

  Year

  Total expenditure on smoking (actual)

  Expenditure attributable to teenage smoking

  1993–94

  1,469,816

  883,000

  1994–95

  790,424

  432,000

  1995–96

  851,616

  341,000

  1996–97

  702,077

  270,000

  1997–98

  743,504

  330,000

  1998–99

  1708,000

  236,000

  1 Intended

  Activities and outputs by HEBS are subject to extensive developmental research and are implemented only if the approaches in question have been proven to be effective. Activities are also the subject of post-implementation evaluation to confirm that the message has been communicated successfully. The relatively high response rate to the HEBs Smokeline by teenagers suggests that the messages are being received and responded to. There has been no gender-based assessment by HEBS of the impact of its campaigns on teenagers.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the costs were in each year since 1990 of administering European Structural Fund programmes in Scotland. [43843]

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

  Expenditure £ million

  Financial year

  The Scottish Office1

  Programme Executives2

  Objective 3 Sector Managers3

  1990–91

  0.285

  nil

  nil

  1991–92

  40.409

  nil

  nil

  1992–93

  40.573

  0.134

  nil

  1993–94

  40.788

  0.233

  nil

  1994–95

  41.114

  0.541

  0.119

  1995–96

  1.045

  1.098

  0.486

  1996–97

  1.005

  1.449

  0.493

  1997–98

  0.965

  1.528

  0.328

  1 The Scottish Office: Implementing Authority responsibility and programme management for three 5b Programmes in Borders, North and West Grampian and Rural Stirling and Upland Tayside

  2 Programme Executives: Responsibility for implementation of Highlands and Islands Objective 1, Eastern and Western Scotland Objective 2, and Dumfries and Galloway Objective 5b Programmes

  3 Objective 3: Organisations contracted to undertake certain implementation activities for Objective 3 in Scotland (Scottish Enterprise; Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations; Further Education College Sector for Scotland; and Convention of Scottish Local Authorities)

  4 For these years the expenditure includes work carried out on general European issues. It is not possible to identify costs relating solely to Structural Funds activities.

  262

  Royal Deeside Partnership
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many requests he has received to meet the Royal Deeside Partnership; and if he will make a statement. [43210]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: None.

  Education Expenditure
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was his Department's budget for primary and secondary education (i) in cash terms and (ii) in real terms in 1998–99 prices and (iii) as percentage of Scottish gross domestic product in each year since 1978–79; and how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in Scotland in (1) cash terms and (2) real terms, in 1998–99 prices, in each of these years. [43391]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 2 June 1998]: Direct expenditure by The Scottish Office on the education of school pupils in public sector schools is limited to grants made available to Jordanhill School, a grant-aided school; and Dornoch Academy and St. Mary's Episcopal Primary School, which are both self-governing schools. The annual recurrent grant for these schools in financial year 1997–98 totalled £3.283 million.

  Details of actual expenditure per primary and secondary pupil in local authority schools in Scotland are given in the table. Financial year 1996–97 is the latest year for which information is currently available. The figures, which are derived from local authority financial returns, do not include the cost of home to school transport, school meals, education authority central administration costs and loan charges.

  Net current expenditure per pupil in Scotland

  £

  Outturn prices

  1998–99 prices

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  1978–79

  409

  698

  1,328

  2,267

  1979–80

  488

  811

  1,358

  2,256

  1980–81

  636

  1,021

  1,496

  2,401

  1981–82

  746

  1,165

  1,600

  2,498

  1982–83

  816

  1,266

  1,633

  2,534

  1983–84

  877

  1,366

  1,678

  2,613

  1984–85

  913

  1,466

  1,663

  2,670

  1985–86

  958

  1,562

  1,654

  2,697

  1986–87

  1,036

  1,764

  1,736

  2,957

  1987–88

  1,143

  1,996

  1,819

  3,176

  1988–89

  1,247

  2,263

  1,860

  3,375

  1989–90

  1,385

  2,496

  1,931

  3,480

  1990–91

  1,508

  2,683

  1,947

  3,463

  1991–92

  1,633

  2,834

  1,982

  3,439

  1992–93

  1,766

  2,914

  2,057

  3,393

  1993–94

  1,773

  2,846

  2,006

  3,221

  1994–95

  1,797

  2,874

  2,003

  3,204

  1995–96

  1,854

  2,942

  2,012

  3,192

  1996–971

  11,846

  12,937

  11.949

  13,101

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the standard spending assessment and (b) actual spending per pupil in (1) primary and (2) secondary education in (i) 1978–79, (ii) 1979–80, (iii) 1986–87, (iv) 1987–88, (v) 1996–97 and (vi) 1997–98 for Scotland as a whole and each local authority. [43900]
  263
  Mr. Dewar
  The term Standard Spending Assessment reflects arrangements in England. The equivalent in Scotland is the Grant Aided Expenditure Assessment. GAEs are available only from financial year 1986–87 but not all of the components of the Education GAE are in a form which identifies separately primary and secondary education. Information on each Scottish local authority's GAE assessment for all services, including all relevant Education sub-services, is published by The Scottish Office annually in "Grant-Aided Expenditure" (the Green Book).

  Table 1—net current expenditure per pupil

  £

  1978–79

  1979–80

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Region

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Primary

  Secondary

  Borders

  448

  601

  542

  726

  1,091

  1,601

  1,170

  1,777

  Central

  384

  676

  447

  776

  961

  1,644

  1,082

  1,894

  Dumfries and Galloway

  365

  682

  456

  798

  946

  1,712

  1,071

  1,971

  Fife

  412

  675

  486

  782

  1,017

  1,705

  1,136

  1,992

  Grampian

  407

  730

  508

  835

  1,021

  1,724

  1,101

  1,939

  Highland

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,029

  1,618

  1,169

  1,866

  Lothian

  421

  722

  507

  880

  1,030

  1,844

  1,109

  2,044

  Strathclyde

  413

  697

  487

  795

  1,059

  1,781

  1,163

  2,008

  Tayside

  374

  677

  450

  812

  981

  1,766

  1,100

  2,029

  Orkney

  565

  658

  731

  820

  1,249

  2,007

  1,565

  2,125

  Shetland

  407

  901

  543

  1,151

  1,391

  2,503

  1,551

  2,874

  Eilean Siar (Western Isles)

  486

  840

  570

  988

  1,079

  2,121

  1,402

  2,410

  Scotland

  409

  698

  488

  811

  1,036

  1,764

  1,143

  1,996

  Table 2—net current expenditure per pupil

  £

  1996–97 (provisional)

  Council

  Primary

  Secondary

  Aberdeen City

  1,805

  2,971

  Aberdeenshire

  1,857

  2,759

  Angus

  1,799

  2,835

  Argyll and Bute

  2,382

  3,003

  Clackmannanshire

  1,761

  2,932

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,766

  2,905

  Dundee City

  1,793

  3,142

  East Ayrshire

  1,820

  2,747

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,659

  2,599

  East Lothian

  1,764

  2,923

  East Renfrewshire

  1,571

  2,611

  Edinburgh City

  1,774

  3,011

  Falkirk

  1,755

  2,751

  Fife

  1,754

  2,674

  Glasgow City

  2,007

  3,322

  Highland

  1,966

  3,135

  Inverclyde

  1,780

  2,844

  Midlothian

  1,882

  2,880

  Moray

  1,513

  2,799

  North Ayrshire

  1,750

  2,776

  North Lanarkshire

  1,836

  2,854

  Perth and Kinross

  1,750

  2,751

  Renfrewshire

  1,785

  2,909

  Scottish Borders

  1,896

  3,039

  South Ayrshire

  1,723

  2,780

  South Lanarkshire

  1,893

  2,863

  Stirling

  1,947

  2,987

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,912

  2,833

  West Lothian

  1,830

  2,945

  Orkney

  2,711

  3,778

  Shetland

  2,497

  5,777

  Eilean Siar (Western Isles)

  2,531

  4,553

  Scotland

  1,846

  2,937

  264
  Details of actual expenditure for the years requested (except for 1997–98 which is not yet available) are given in the tables. Table 1 reflects the former local authority structure in Scotland, and table 2 the unitary structure which came into effect in 1996–97. The figures, which are derived from local authority financial returns, do not include the cost of home to school transport, school meals, education authority central administration costs, and loan charges.

  NHS Trusts (Expenditure)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the value of capital expenditure (i) in real terms, (ii) in cash terms and (iii) as a percentage of total NHS expenditure in Scotland undertaken by National Health Service trusts in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95, (e) 1995–96, (f) 1996–97 and (g) 1997–98. [43905]

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

  Real terms £000

  Cash terms £000

  Percentage of total NHS expenditure

  1991–92

  0

  0

  0

  1992–93

  15,429

  13,596

  0.3

  1993–94

  85,611

  77,632

  1.9

  1994–95

  166,678

  153,420

  3.6

  1995–96

  223,358

  211,296

  4.8

  1996–97

  167,091

  162,698

  3.7

  1997–98

  123,948

  123,948

  3.1

  Executive Search Agencies
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent in(a) real and (b) cash terms on executive search agencies for appointments to non-departmental bodies in each year since 1991–92, broken down by non-departmental body. [43914]
  265
  Mr. Dewar
  The information is as follows:

  £

  Expenditure

  Body

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1994–95

  Water Authorities

  38,590

  41,814

  1995–96

  Scottish Homes

  7,159

  7,548

  1996–97

  Crofters Commission

  6,462

  6,618

  Scottish Homes

  7,339

  7,516

  Royal Botanic Garden

  6,462

  6,618

  Macaulay Land Use Research Institute Scottish Crop Research Institute

  12,995

  13,309

  Caledonian MacBrayne

  6,462

  6,618

  1998–99

  Royal Botanic Garden

  7,352

  7,352

  There was no significant expenditure in the other years covered by the Question.

  Standard Grade Examinations
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many 16-year-olds gained five standard grades in each year since 1993. [43897]

  Mr. Dewar
  Information on presentations and awards at Standard Grade is held for school year cohorts and this does not always correspond with pupil age. The tables show how many pupils in S4 were presented for five or more Standard Grade examinations in each year since 1993 and how many S4 pupils gained five or more Standard Grade awards in each year since 1993 at levels 1–3.

  S4 Pupils presented for five or more Standard Grades

  1993: 54,897

  1994: 55,698

  1995: 60,483

  1996: 62,097

  1997: 60,871

  S4 Pupils who gained five or more Standard Grades at levels 1–3

  1993: 28,472

  1994: 30,665

  1995: 33,553

  1996: 34,884

  1997: 35,489.

  NHS Administration Costs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total costs associated with administration in the NHS in Scotland (1) in real terms, (2) in cash terms and (3) as a percentage of total NHS expenditure in Scotland in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1979–80, (c) 1982–83, (d) 1983–84, (e) 1986–87, (f) 1987–88, (g) 1991–92, (h) 1992–93, (i) 1993–94, (j) 1994–95, (k) 1995–96, (l) 1996–97 and (m) 1997–98. [43906]
  266
  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Real terms (£000)

  Cash terms (£000)

  Percentage of total NHS expenditure

  1978–79

  240,722

  78,266

  9.7

  1979–80

  182,601

  69,288

  7.3

  1982–83

  243,025

  128,191

  7.4

  1983–84

  238,283

  131,518

  7.1

  1986–87

  293,124

  184,639

  8.9

  1987–88

  287,049

  190,437

  8.4

  1991–92

  390,592

  339,839

  9.3

  1992–93

  390,469

  353,996

  9.1

  1993–94

  429,121

  400,344

  9.7

  1994–95

  493,781

  467,611

  10.8

  1995–96

  500,471

  486,964

  11.1

  1996–97

  490,077

  490,077

  11.2

  1997–98

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a=not available

  The introduction of capital charges in 1991–92, to reflect the costs of using capital resources, is reflected in that and subsequent years' expenditure.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid (i) in real terms, (ii) in cash terms and (iii) as a percentage of total NHS expenditure in Scotland to NHS trust chairs and non-executive directors in each year since 1991–92. [43912]

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

  Year

  Real terms (£000)

  Cash terms (£000)

  Percentage of total NHS expenditure

  1992–93

  Chairman

  38

  36

  0.001

  Non executive directors

  77

  70

  0.002

  1993–94

  Chairman

  330

  308

  0.008

  Non executive directors

  799

  745

  0.018

  1994–95

  Chairman

  754

  714

  0.017

  Non executive directors

  1,778

  1,684

  0.039

  1995–96

  Chairman

  879

  855

  0.020

  Non executive directors

  2,047

  1,992

  0.045

  1996–97

  Chairman

  854

  854

  0.020

  Non executive directors

  1,982

  1,982

  0.045

  Departmental Publicity
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure in(a) real and (b) cash terms of his Department and its agencies on publicity for (1) 1996–97 and (2) 1997–98; what estimate he has made of such expenditure for 1998–99; and if he will break these figures down to indicate expenditure on (i) advertising and (ii) press and public relations. [43931]
  267
  Mr. Dewar
  The details are:

  £ million

  Cash terms

  Real terms

  1996–97

  Advertising

  4.8

  5.0

  Press and public relations1

  1.8

  1.9

  Total

  6.6

  6.9

  1997–98

  Advertising

  3.7

  3.8

  Press and public relations1

  1.8

  1.9

  Total

  5.5

  5.7

  1 These figures are the running costs of The Scottish Office Information Directorate, the Press Office of Historic Scotland and the Communications Branch of the Scottish Prison Service

  Advertising budgets for 1998–99 have not been finalised. The total estimated running costs for The Scottish Office Information Directorate, Historic Scotland and the Scottish Prison Service for 1998–99 is £2m.

  Voucher redemption statistics for pilot year 1996–97

  Local authority

  No. of eligible children1 for whom application for vouchers was not received

  No. of eligible children attending LA centres5

  No. of eligible children attending private sector centres3

  No. of eligible children attending voluntary sector centres3

  No. of eligible children attending other centres4

  % share of voucher redemption within LA centres6

  % share of voucher redemption within private sector centres

  % share of voucher redemption within voluntary sector centres

  % share of voucher redemption within other centres

  Argyll & Bute

  +32(2)

  216

  48

  162

  0

  52

  11

  37

  0

  East Renfrewshire

  86

  650

  142

  207

  22

  64

  14

  20

  2

  Highland

  23

  319

  0

  121

  0

  73

  0

  27

  0

  North Ayrshire

  28

  986

  198

  504

  0

  58

  12

  30

  0

  Total

  105

  2,171

  388

  994

  22

  61

  11

  27

  1

  1 Eligible children were those born between 1 March 1993 and 28 February 1994 and those born between 1 September 1992 and 28 February 1993 whose entry to primary school had been deferred

  2 The estimated number of children was derived from an estimate (particularly in the part local authority areas of Argyll & Bute) by the pilot authorities—more applications were received from Argyll and Bute than estimated

  3 The split between the private and voluntary sectors is based on information provided by the centres about the sector to which they belong

  4 Other centres in the pilot areas were represented by one independent school

  5 Some children attended more than one centre in more than one sector

  6 The percentage share of redemption is based on the number of voucher parts redeemed by each sector

  Voucher redemption statistics for transitional year 1997–981

  Local authority

  No. of eligible children2 for whom application for vouchers was not received

  No. of children attending LA centres5

  No. of children attending private sector centres3

  No. of children attending voluntary sector centres3

  No. of children attending other centres4

  % share of voucher redemption within LA centres6

  % share of voucher redemption within private sector centres

  % share of voucher redemption within voluntary sector centres

  % share of voucher redemption within other centres

  Aberdeen City

  160

  2,001

  348

  50

  155

  80

  12

  2

  6

  Aberdeenshire

  151

  2,395

  696

  843

  54

  70

  14

  15

  1

  Angus

  65

  1,211

  95

  24

  0

  92

  7

  1

  0

  Argyll and Bute

  68

  539

  163

  340

  41

  55

  15

  25

  5

  Clackmannanshire

  17

  563

  50

  11

  0

  91

  7

  2

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  73

  1,692

  86

  85

  4

  94

  3

  3

  71

  Dundee City

  94

  1,528

  263

  14

  0

  85

  14

  71

  0

  East Ayrshire

  53

  1,296

  117

  113

  0

  87

  7

  6

  0

  East Dunbartonshire

  38

  664

  346

  221

  79

  54

  25

  14

  7

  East Lothian

  36

  1,109

  52

  19

  18

  94

  4

  1

  1

  East Renfrewshire

  26

  776

  148

  212

  20

  69

  12

  17

  2

  Edinburgh City

  242

  3,994

  652

  103

  367

  79

  12

  2

  7

  Falkirk

  36

  1,640

  61

  4

  0

  97

  3

  71

  0

  Fife

  168

  4,023

  91

  0

  29

  97

  2

  0

  71

  Glasgow City

  587

  5,811

  740

  245

  244

  84

  10

  3

  3

  Highland

  138

  1,943

  373

  563

  0

  74

  10

  16

  0

  Inverclyde

  42

  729

  165

  153

  20

  72

  12

  14

  2

  Midlothian

  36

  952

  41

  25

  0

  94

  4

  2

  0

  268

  Nursery Education
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many four-year olds were in(a) private, (b) voluntary and (c) local authority pre-school provision in each (i) pilot area of the nursery voucher scheme and (ii) local authority area in each year since 1995–96; [43892]

  (2) how many (a) parents and (b) eligible children in each (i) pilot nursery area of the nursery voucher scheme and (ii) local authority area have not taken up the entitlement to apply for a voucher in each year since 1995–96; [43893]

  (3) what proportion of nursery vouchers have been redeemed in (a) the public, (b) the private and (c) the voluntary sector in each year since 1995–96. [43894]

  Mr. Dewar
  Pre-school education vouchers were piloted in the school year 1996–97 and are operating on a simplified basis across Scotland for school year 1997–98 only. The voucher information requested is set out in the tables. Information on nursery places in 1995–96 is given in the answer to questions 43895 and 43898.
  269

  Voucher redemption statistics for transitional year 1997–981

  Local authority

  No. of eligible children2 for whom application for vouchers was not received

  No. of children attending LA centres5

  No. of children attending private sector centres3

  No. of children attending voluntary sector centres3

  No. of children attending other centres4

  % share of voucher redemption within LA centres6

  % share of voucher redemption within private sector centres

  % share of voucher redemption within voluntary sector centres

  % share of voucher redemption within other centres

  Moray

  63

  749

  89

  218

  47

  70

  8

  18

  4

  North Ayrshire

  52

  1,014

  432

  272

  0

  61

  21

  15

  0

  North Lanarkshire

  221

  2,830

  828

  250

  3

  75

  20

  5

  71

  Orkney Islands

  11

  235

  48

  41

  0

  82

  11

  7

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  71

  1,204

  285

  78

  54

  79

  15

  3

  3

  Renfrewshire

  67

  1,547

  288

  166

  2

  79

  13

  8

  71

  Scottish Borders

  45

  941

  132

  113

  3

  83

  9

  7

  71

  Shetland Islands

  16

  245

  0

  114

  0

  79

  0

  21

  0

  South Ayrshire

  52

  987

  145

  71

  31

  81

  11

  5

  3

  South Lanarkshire

  250

  2,032

  1,204

  671

  28

  58

  29

  13

  71

  Stirling

  28

  809

  108

  56

  47

  86

  8

  2

  4

  West Dumbartonshire

  47

  1,090

  65

  14

  0

  94

  5

  1

  0

  West Lothian

  56

  2,055

  117

  0

  0

  95

  5

  0

  0

  Western isles

  16

  24

  76

  200

  0

  10

  24

  66

  0

  Total

  3,025

  48,628

  8,304

  5,289

  1,246

  80

  12

  6

  2

  1 Information based on take up of vouchers for the spring term as at 1 May 1998

  2 Eligible children are those born between 1 March 1994 and 28 February 1995 and those born between 1 September 1993 and 28 February 1994 whose entry to primary school had been deferred

  3 The split between the private and voluntary sectors is based on information provided by the centres about the sector to which they belong

  4 Other centres include independent, grant aided special and self governing schools

  5 Some children attend more than one centre in more than one sector

  6 The percentage share of redemption is based on the number of voucher parts redeemed by each sector

  7 Less than

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many nursery places have been made available to(a) three and (b) four-year olds in (i) public, (ii) private and (iii) voluntary sectors in each local authority area in each year since 1995–96. [43896]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The latest available information is for November 1996 and is set out in the table. Details are not available on the ages of children using the

  Nursery places by local authority and sector at November 1996

  Sector

  Local authority

  Local authority Termtime places

  Private Termtime places

  Voluntary Termtime places

  Other/not known Termtime places

  Total Termtime places

  Aberdeen, City

  0

  33

  0

  1,286

  1,319

  Aberdeenshire

  0

  495

  0

  15

  510

  Angus

  0

  386

  44

  0

  430

  Argyll and Bute

  18

  109

  68

  0

  195

  Clackmannanshire

  110

  112

  0

  0

  222

  Dumfries and Galloway

  0

  142

  42

  0

  184

  Dundee, City

  0

  590

  104

  0

  694

  East Ayrshire

  134

  200

  0

  0

  334

  East Dunbartonshire

  0

  259

  0

  0

  259

  East Lothian

  0

  206

  69

  0

  275

  East Renfrewshire

  529

  0

  0

  271

  800

  Edinburgh, City of

  0

  2,705

  131

  0

  2,836

  Eilean Siar

  0

  10

  10

  0

  20

  Falkirk

  276

  388

  0

  0

  664

  Fife

  0

  425

  0

  0

  425

  Glasgow, City of

  1,080

  2,185

  365

  13

  3,643

  Highland

  0

  452

  40

  0

  492

  Inverclyde

  224

  233

  0

  112

  569

  Midlothian

  0

  206

  0

  0

  206

  Moray

  0

  124

  0

  0

  124

  North Ayrshire

  290

  612

  96

  0

  998

  North Lanarkshire

  363

  838

  133

  0

  1,334

  Orkney Islands

  0

  38

  0

  0

  38

  Perth and Kinross

  0

  634

  0

  24

  658

  Renfrewshire

  603

  413

  48

  37

  1,101

  Scottish Borders

  0

  298

  44

  0

  342

  270
  places, but a survey in 1994 showed that, of all children attending Day Nurseries, Private Nursery Schools, Nursery Centres and Community Nurseries, around 32 per cent. were aged 3 and 28 per cent. aged 4. At that time the average number of children attending was about 45 per cent. higher than the number of places, as some children attended part-time.
  271

  Nursery places by local authority and sector at November 1996

  Sector

  Local authority

  Local authority Termtime places

  Private Termtime places

  Voluntary Termtime places

  Other/not known Termtime places

  Total Termtime places

  Shetland Islands

  0

  24

  0

  0

  24

  South Ayrshire

  63

  378

  0

  0

  441

  South Lanarkshire

  893

  805

  97

  0

  1,795

  Stirling

  588

  303

  0

  0

  891

  West Dunbartonshire

  269

  235

  0

  0

  504

  West Lothian

  0

  433

  49

  0

  482

  Scotland

  5,440

  14,271

  1,340

  1,758

  22,809

  Note:

  This table does not include places in Children and Family Centres and other centres where the focus of the work is normally the provision of special support to children and parents

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many(a) three and (b) four-year olds were in receipt of pre-school education in each year since 1995–96; and how many have registered in each year since August 1996, broken down by (i) type of provision and (ii) unitary authority; [43895]

  (2) how many (a) three and (b) four-year olds there were in nursery schools and classes in each education authority in each year since 1991–92; what estimates he has made of the numbers in (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000; and what percentage each of these figures represent of all children in the authority area. [43898]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Government's target is to provide a place for every child in the pre-school year whose parents want one by this winter with staged targets for children

  Education authority and independent nursery schools and classes Total number of three and four year old pupils by EA1, 2

  1991–923

  1992–93

  1993–94

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  Scotland

  12,921

  20

  33,117

  50

  12,886

  20

  34,783

  53

  13,822

  21

  34,738

  54

  Aberdeen City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  653

  26

  1,832

  72

  644

  25

  1,826

  73

  Aberdeenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  157

  5

  1,550

  49

  203

  7

  1,636

  53

  Angus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  108

  8

  559

  42

  79

  6

  626

  47

  Argyll & Bute

  —

  —

  —

  —

  83

  8

  108

  10

  83

  8

  146

  14

  Clackmannanshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  178

  29

  472

  73

  199

  31

  427

  71

  Dumfries & Galloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  172

  10

  1,070

  59

  175

  10

  1,061

  60

  Dundee City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  720

  39

  1,382

  72

  744

  39

  1,431

  78

  East Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  517

  31

  1,128

  66

  493

  30

  1,104

  66

  East Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  91

  6

  186

  13

  83

  6

  162

  11

  East Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  317

  29

  868

  79

  360

  32

  829

  74

  East Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  165

  13

  469

  39

  199

  17

  447

  36

  Edinburgh, City of

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,696

  34

  3,571

  71

  1,739

  34

  3,664

  74

  Eilean Siar4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  323

  19

  1,170

  67

  366

  20

  1,216

  71

  Fife

  —

  —

  —

  —

  879

  20

  3,710

  81

  754

  17

  3,651

  81

  Glasgow City

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,299

  42

  5,430

  68

  3,526

  45

  5,496

  71

  Highland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  129

  5

  762

  29

  114

  4

  720

  27

  Inverclyde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  191

  16

  467

  39

  239

  21

  443

  38

  Midlothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  244

  23

  721

  65

  360

  34

  755

  72

  Moray

  —

  —

  —

  —

  67

  6

  667

  60

  95

  8

  559

  49

  North Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100

  6

  345

  18

  103

  6

  337

  19

  North Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  538

  13

  1,649

  38

  657

  15

  1,558

  37

  Orkney Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  49

  18

  143

  51

  37

  14

  172

  61

  Perth & Kinross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  235

  16

  577

  37

  248

  16

  673

  44

  Renfrewshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  374

  17

  1,122

  50

  373

  16

  994

  44

  Scottish Borders

  —

  —

  —

  —

  50

  4

  433

  35

  28

  2

  453

  37

  Shetland Islands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  94

  29

  161

  50

  84

  25

  180

  55

  South Ayrshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  105

  8

  506

  37

  152

  11

  463

  34

  South Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  258

  7

  820

  21

  287

  7

  752

  19

  Stirling

  —

  —

  —

  —

  171

  18

  544

  56

  167

  17

  624

  65

  West Dunbartonshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  419

  32

  932

  67

  523

  41

  927

  70

  West Lothian

  —

  —

  —

  —

  504

  25

  1,429

  69

  708

  35

  1,406

  68

  272
  in the ante-pre-school year thereafter. The information requested about the number of three and four year old children in nursery schools and classes in each local authority area since 1991–92 is set out in the table. Information on the pre-school year children who have received education from registered non-school providers since 1996–97 has been provided in response to questions 43892–94 which I have answered today. Projected participation rates for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 cannot be confirmed until authorities have finalised plans for the expansion of places through partnership with centres in the voluntary and private sectors. Preliminary returns from local authorities for 1998–99 however indicate that they expect to educate approaching 90% of grant eligible pre-school year children in their own registered centres. Information on the number of children who have registered for a place is not held centrally.
  273

  1994–95

  1995–96

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % Of all 4 year olds

  Scotland

  13,622

  20

  36,214

  56

  13,193

  20

  36,278

  54

  Aberdeen City

  539

  20

  1,873

  74

  580

  22

  1,826

  70

  Aberdeenshire

  155

  5

  1,667

  54

  144

  5

  1,763

  56

  Angus

  86

  6

  747

  55

  109

  8

  835

  59

  Argyll & Bute

  61

  6

  149

  14

  91

  9

  130

  12

  Clackmannanshire

  209

  32

  495

  79

  171

  25

  495

  76

  Dumfries & Galloway

  187

  10

  1,305

  72

  178

  10

  1,352

  74

  Dundee City

  795

  42

  1,392

  74

  721

  39

  1,426

  75

  East Ayrshire

  500

  29

  1,097

  67

  466

  28

  1,094

  65

  East Dunbartonshire

  133

  9

  173

  12

  115

  9

  195

  14

  East Lothian

  293

  24

  979

  86

  340

  28

  918

  75

  East Renfrewshire

  177

  15

  440

  37

  189

  16

  408

  35

  Edinburgh, City of

  1,711

  33

  3,711

  73

  1,727

  33

  3,642

  70

  Eilean Siar4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Falkirk

  342

  18

  1,292

  70

  344

  18

  1,324

  69

  Fife

  766

  17

  3,749

  83

  793

  18

  3,539

  79

  Glasgow City

  3,602

  44

  5,357

  69

  3,259

  40

  5,546

  68

  Highland

  125

  5

  779

  26

  130

  5

  705

  25

  Inverclyde

  206

  18

  471

  41

  183

  16

  445

  38

  Midlothian

  311

  28

  866

  82

  321

  31

  845

  76

  Moray

  91

  8

  642

  55

  53

  4

  687

  58

  North Ayrshire

  134

  7

  316

  18

  150

  8

  325

  17

  North Lanarkshire

  637

  14

  1,583

  37

  590

  14

  1,430

  32

  Orkney Islands

  45

  17

  178

  64

  41

  16

  160

  60

  Perth & Kinross

  278

  17

  845

  54

  279

  17

  915

  56

  Renfrewshire

  422

  18

  1,106

  47

  392

  16

  1,072

  44

  Scottish Borders

  31

  2

  450

  35

  39

  3

  530

  40

  Shetland Islands

  67

  19

  173

  50

  91

  26

  197

  55

  South Ayrshire

  112

  8

  465

  34

  152

  11

  483

  36

  South Lanarkshire

  478

  12

  773

  20

  355

  9

  848

  21

  Stirling

  157

  16

  629

  64

  212

  21

  661

  65

  West Dunbartonshire

  445

  34

  914

  72

  428

  33

  887

  69

  West Lothian

  527

  25

  1,598

  79

  550

  26

  1,595

  76

  1996–975

  1997–985

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  Scotland

  13,243

  21

  37,182

  57

  14,316

  23

  39,351

  62

  Aberdeen City

  553

  22

  1,948

  75

  628

  25

  1,822

  72

  Aberdeenshire

  147

  5

  1,991

  63

  273

  9

  2,084

  68

  Angus

  157

  11

  919

  65

  127

  10

  1,063

  77

  Argyll & Bute

  77

  8

  192

  19

  134

  14

  269

  27

  Clackmannanshire

  147

  22

  499

  73

  197

  31

  450

  69

  Dumfries & Galloway

  221

  12

  1,362

  75

  253

  15

  1,422

  79

  Dundee City

  757

  42

  1,424

  78

  691

  40

  1,312

  73

  East Ayrshire

  428

  27

  985

  60

  455

  30

  1,054

  67

  East Dunbartonshire

  92

  7

  168

  13

  344

  27

  615

  48

  East Lothian

  345

  30

  983

  81

  445

  40

  923

  80

  East Renfrewshire

  249

  22

  499

  43

  230

  21

  616

  54

  Edinburgh, City of

  1,540

  30

  3,676

  71

  1,627

  33

  3,506

  69

  Eilean Siar4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  25

  8

  Falkirk

  266

  15

  1,246

  66

  201

  11

  1,364

  75

  Fife

  781

  18

  3,555

  81

  782

  19

  3,520

  81

  Glasgow City

  3,357

  44

  5,151

  64

  3,104

  41

  4,814

  63

  Highland

  124

  5

  917

  34

  268

  11

  1,515

  57

  Inverclyde

  188

  18

  405

  36

  225

  21

  433

  41

  Midlothian

  281

  28

  842

  80

  287

  29

  783

  78

  Moray

  68

  6

  671

  56

  89

  8

  683

  59

  North Ayrshire

  151

  8

  685

  37

  172

  10

  798

  45

  North Lanarkshire

  638

  15

  1,330

  31

  875

  21

  1,706

  41

  Orkney Islands

  49

  20

  212

  83

  38

  16

  214

  89

  Perth & Kinross

  356

  23

  1,058

  66

  348

  24

  1,067

  69

  Renfrewshire

  376

  16

  1,115

  47

  319

  15

  1,079

  47

  Scottish Borders

  36

  3

  535

  41

  127

  10

  794

  63

  Shetland Islands

  85

  25

  208

  58

  63

  19

  197

  58

  South Ayrshire

  190

  14

  756

  55

  200

  16

  831

  63

  274 275

  1996–975

  1997–985

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  3 year olds

  % of all 3 year olds

  4 year olds

  % of all 4 year olds

  South Lanarkshire

  339

  9

  846

  20

  523

  14

  1,250

  31

  Stirling

  225

  23

  680

  67

  311

  33

  683

  70

  West Dunbartonshire

  453

  36

  756

  59

  504

  41

  787

  63

  West Lothian

  567

  27

  1,568

  74

  476

  23

  1,672

  80

  1 Source—schools census

  2 Information collected in September with age as at 31 December. It is intended that the information will, in future, be collected on the basis of the ante pre-school and pre-school year

  3 New education authority breakdowns unavailable

  4 Formerly known as Western Isles

  5 Account should also be taken of the pre-school year children who were receiving pre-school education at registered non-school providers

  Bees
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money he received from the European Commission to support bee-keeping in Scotland in each of the last five years. [43399]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today,Official Report, column 247.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department plans to spend on research into the control of the varroa parasite in each of the next three years. [43397]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Research and development on the control of varroasis is dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a UK basis.

  Student Loans
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has received in repaid student loans from SED grant-awarded students in each year since the inception of student loans in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms based on 1998–99 prices. [43901]

  Year

  Award holders (academic year) Awards

  Student awards Grant (actual) (financial year) £000

  Grant (1998–99 prices) (financial year) £000

  Number (academic year) loans

  Student loans Loan payments (actual) (financial year) £000

  (1998–99 prices) (financial year) £000

  1978–79

  53,150

  44,600

  145,224

  —

  —

  —

  1979–80

  53,600

  54,500

  152,053

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  54,925

  60,600

  142,894

  —

  —

  —

  1981–82

  56,986

  64,900

  139,537

  —

  —

  —

  1982–83

  57,465

  65,300

  131,059

  —

  —

  —

  1983–84

  58,460

  68,300

  131,004

  —

  —

  —

  1984–85

  58,196

  64,100

  117,067

  —

  —

  —

  1985–86

  58,555

  61,000

  105,617

  —

  —

  —

  1986–87

  58,220

  63,200

  106,221

  —

  —

  —

  1987–88

  59,041

  64,800

  103,404

  —

  —

  —

  1988–89

  61,531

  71,200

  106,492

  —

  —

  —

  1989–90

  65,872

  79,700

  111,422

  —

  —

  —

  1990–91

  70,742

  90,100

  116,630

  22,200

  8,134

  9,897

  1991–92

  80,535

  117,300

  142,728

  29,300

  13,861

  16,866

  1992–93

  89,618

  136,900

  159,863

  39,600

  22,182

  25,903

  1993–94

  99,181

  162,700

  184,626

  50,100

  34,787

  39,475

  276
  Mr. Dewar
  Receipts in respect of student loan repayments are aggregated on a UK-wide basis. The proportion representing repayments by Scottish domiciled students is set out in the table, on a financial year basis.

  Student Loan Repayments

  £000

  Financial Year

  Actual receipts

  Receipts at 1998–99 prices

  1991–92

  104

  127

  1992–93

  572

  665

  1993–94

  1,464

  1,661

  1995–96

  2,858

  3,195

  1996–97

  5,435

  5,912

  1997–98

  10,523

  11,120

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mandatory student awards were paid by his Department in each academic year since 1978–79; how many student loans were paid in each year since their inception; and what is the total value of those awards and loans in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms based on 1998–99 prices. [43899]

  Mr. Dewar
  It is not possible to provide the information in precisely the form requested. Statistics on student awards and loans offered are held on the basis of academic years, but aggregate information on actual payments is available only in financial years. Subject to that, the information requested is set out in the following table:
  277

  Year

  Award holders (academic year) Awards

  Student awards Grant (actual) (financial year) £000

  Grant (1998–99 prices) (financial year) £000

  Number (academic year) loans

  Student loans Loan payments (actual) (financial year) £000

  (1998–99 prices) (financial year) £000

  1994–95

  105,621

  170,900

  191,052

  58,600

  55,231

  61,744

  1995–96

  107,263

  163,200

  177,519

  66,900

  81,268

  88,398

  1996–97

  110,587

  152,300

  160,948

  73,000

  93,302

  98,600

  Notes:

  1. Student loan payments are aggregated on a UK-wide basis with the Scottish share representing a pre-determined proportion.

  2. From academic year 1991–92 the award holder figures include the extension of the scheme to include full-time Higher National Certificate courses.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the full loan per SED student in(a) 1998–99, (b) 1999–2000 and (c) 2000–2001, in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms based on 1998–99 prices. [43903]

  Mr. Dewar
  The maximum rates at which student loans are payable are determined annually and are the same for all home students, regardless of their domicile within the United Kingdom. The rates for academic year 1998–99 are set out in the table, those for subsequent years have yet to be determined. There are two separate groups of rates-one for students who entered higher education in or before academic year 1997–98 or fall to be treated as having done so, and another for new entrants in academic year 1998–99.

  Student loan rates for 1998–99

  £

  Continuing students

  Full year students living:

  at home

  1,325

  elsewhere

  1,735

  elsewhere1

  2,145

  PFI projects approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland

  Procuring agency

  Project description

  Date approved

  The Scottish Office

  The Skye Bridge

  1992

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Hospital Information Support System

  October 1995

  Falkirk College

  Stirling Further Education Centre

  July 1996

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  Integrated Healthcare Information System

  December 1996

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  Hospital Information Support System

  December 1996

  The Scottish Office

  M6 DBFO

  December 1996

  Grampian Health Board

  Stonehaven Community Hospital

  January 1997

  West Lothian College

  Livingston Further Education Centre

  June 1997

  Dundee City Council

  Baldovie Waste to Energy Plant

  July 1997

  Scottish Prison Service

  Bowhouse Prison

  July 1997

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  Hairmyres Hospital

  August 1997

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  August 1997

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  Cumnock Community Hospital

  August 1997

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  Law Hospital

  September 1997

  Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd.

  Inverness Airport

  February 1998

  Notes:

  1. All Health Board projects with a capital value above £500,000, NHS Trust Information Management and Technology projects over £1 million and NHS Trust non-IM&T projects with a capital value above £4 million require to be approved by the Management Executive for the NHS in Scotland on behalf of the Secretary of State. This list does not include those projects which are within Trust and Health Board delegated limits

  2. This list does not include water and sewerage projects which are not approved by the Secretary of State at project level
  278

  Student loan rates for 1998–99

  £

  Final year students living:

  at home

  970

  elsewhere

  1,265

  elsewhere1

  1,565

  New students

  Full year students living:

  at home

  2,325

  elsewhere

  2,735

  elsewhere1

  3,145

  Final year students living:

  at home

  1,970

  elsewhere

  2,265

  elsewhere1

  2,565

  1London

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what private finance initiative schemes his Department has approved in each year since their inception; and on what date each of these schemes were approved. [43921]

  Mr. Dewar
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  279

  Legal Aid
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the 20 firms earning most from(a) civil and (b) criminal legal aid in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98, the number of fee earners per firm and the fees per fee earner. [43909]

  Mr. Dewar
  The total earnings for the 20 solicitors' firms earning most from legal aid in 1996–97 is shown in the Scottish Legal Aid Board's Annual Report. The breakdown of these figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 is not available in the form requested. However, the Scottish Legal Aid Board have provided figures on the basis of sums due to solicitors' firms in 1996–97. These vary from the total figures in the Annual Report which show sums actually paid and include Advice and Assistance. The figures are shown in the tables. The figures for 1997–98 are not yet available.

  The Scottish Legal Aid Board does not hold information on the number of fee earners in a firm. This may well be larger than the number of practitioners registered with the Board for legal aid purposes. The figure shown for average fee per practitioner in the table is simply the total of fees earned by the firm divided by the number of practitioners listed with the Board. It is not a measure of the fees earned per practitioner in that firm.

  Firm

  No of practitioners1 listed with board who undertook civil legal aid

  Fees2 payable £

  Average fees per practitioner£

  Civil

  Drummond Miller

  24

  827,017

  34,459

  Ross Harper and Murphy

  32

  561,122

  17,535

  Balfour and Manson

  15

  474,333

  31,622

  Brodies

  17

  465,323

  27,372

  Caesar and Howie

  22

  317,607

  14,437

  Blair and Bryden

  27

  308,911

  11,441

  Unwin Rasmusen

  7

  258,407

  36,915

  Robert Carty

  15

  195,212

  13,014

  Livingstone Brown

  6

  176,281

  29,380

  Trainor Alston

  13

  154,722

  11,902

  Mckay and Norwell

  8

  133,027

  16,628

  Lockharts

  5

  126,372

  25,274

  Aberdein Considine

  8

  113,268

  14,159

  George Mathers and Co.

  8

  98,917

  12,365

  Ness Gallagher and Co.

  9

  88,947

  9,883

  The McKinstry Company

  5

  86,620

  17,324

  Hughes Dowdall

  7

  81,357

  11,622

  Fleming and Reid

  2

  80,252

  40,126

  W. G. Boyle

  5

  76,836

  15,367

  A. C. Miller and Mackay

  5

  72,913

  14,583

  Criminal

  Ross Harper and Murphy

  36

  2,101,828

  58,384

  More and Co.

  17

  1,513,436

  89,026

  Bruce Short and Co.

  8

  1,008,064

  126,008

  Gilfedder and McInnes

  15

  945,915

  63,061

  Adams

  10

  941,813

  94,181

  Ian McCarry

  28

  928,725

  33,169

  Sinclairs

  7

  831,764

  118,823

  Gallen and Co.

  9

  781,429

  86,825

  Robert Kerr

  5

  740,857

  148,171

  J. C. Hughes and Co.

  8

  733,353

  91,669

  McAfee

  3

  723,479

  241,160

  George Mathers and Co.

  15

  687,944

  45,863

  Milligan Telford and Morrow

  6

  676,217

  112,703

  Grady and Co.

  3

  661,300

  220,433

  Turnbull McCarron

  2

  617,749

  308,875

  280

  Firm

  No of practitioners1listed with board who undertook civil legal aid

  Fees2 payable£

  Average fees per practitioner£

  McCourts

  11

  616,063

  56,006

  Blair and Bryden

  23

  596,633

  25,941

  Beltrami and Co.

  6

  591,594

  98,599

  Guarino and Kirk

  4

  579,119

  144,780

  Ness Gallagher and Co.

  10

  573,975

  57,398

  Notes:

  1Where a firm wishes a qualified solicitor to act as a "nominated solicitor" for the firm, that solicitor must have his details recorded in the Board's Practitioner System, and payments to be made to that solicitor for legal aid work done can then be directed to the firm. The "number of practitioners" therefore represents the number of solicitors in the firm recorded in the Board's practitioner system. The Board is aware that not all solicitors who perform legal aid work are recorded with it as practitioners

  2Including VAT and excluding outlays

  Medical Negligence
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many outstanding medical negligence claims there are currently in each health board area; for what amount; and if he will make a statement. [43918]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The number of outstanding medical negligence claims for each health board area is set out in the table:

  Health Boards

  Number of cases

  Argyll & Clyde

  125

  Ayrshire & Arran

  76

  Borders

  12

  Dumfries & Galloway

  34

  Fife

  72

  Forth Valley

  70

  Grampian

  77

  Greater Glasgow

  404

  Highland

  62

  Lanarkshire

  136

  Lothian

  212

  Orkney

  3

  Shetland

  6

  Tayside

  129

  Western Isles

  7

  State Hospital

  1

  Common Services Agency

  15

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  2

  Total

  1,443

  It is not possible to predict the actual amounts as the level of settlement is generally not known until an agreement between the parties has been reached. It is for individual health authorities to determine the annual provision for claims likely to be settled against them in any one year. Details of that provision will be provided in Trusts and Health Board annual accounts. The accounts for 1997–98 are currently in the process of being completed and have yet to be submitted to the Department.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the average prison population of each Scottish
  281
  prison in (a) 1978–79, (b) 1979–80, (c) 1986–87,
  (d) 1987–88, (e) 1996–97 and (f) 1997–98; and what percentages of inmates were incarcerated for (i) violent and (ii) non-violent offences. [43910]

  Mr. McLeish
  Financial year information on prison population in the Scottish Prison Service estate is available only from 1983–84. Moreover, statistical information by offence was not collected historically in relation to the average daily prison population; details of main offence were previously recorded only in the reception information. However, an investigation of recent data suggests that an estimated 40–50% of sentenced prisoners have a main crime which would be defined as a 'violent' offence. For the purposes of this response 'violent' offences include, for example, homicide, serious assault, possession of an offensive weapon, robbery, threats and petty assault.

  The tables provide details of the available information.

  Table 1: Average daily prison population, Scotland,
  1986–87,1987–88,1996–97 and 1997–98

  Year

  Number

  1986–87

  5,566

  1987–88

  5,421

  1996–97

  5,992

  1997–98

  16,059

  1Provisional

  Table 2: Average daily prison population,in Scotland,penal establishment, 1986–87,1987–88,1996–97 and 1997–98 by establishment

  Establishment

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1996–97

  11997–98

  Aberdeen

  183

  178

  180

  201

  Barlinnie (incl. Unit)

  1,195

  1,036

  1,213

  1,208

  Castle Huntly

  103

  126

  105

  107

  Cornton Vale

  187

  177

  173

  166

  Dungavel

  136

  137

  93

  100

  Dumfries

  149

  130

  144

  147

  Edinburgh

  772

  638

  725

  728

  Friarton2

  64

  72

  71

  60

  Glenochil2

  506

  566

  563

  585

  Greenock

  192

  166

  250

  242

  Inverness

  105

  102

  126

  140

  Longriggend

  278

  259

  166

  151

  Low Moss

  351

  350

  357

  362

  Noranside

  73

  89

  127

  118

  Penninghame

  70

  69

  58

  60

  Perth

  575

  482

  452

  472

  Peterhead (incl. Unit)

  178

  141

  202

  221

  Polmont

  384

  415

  478

  473

  Shotts (incl. Unit)

  65

  286

  466

  471

  Shotts (National Induction Centre)

  —

  —

  43

  46

  Legalised police cells

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Total1

  5,566

  5,421

  5,992

  6,059

  1Figures for 1997–98 are provisional

  2Young offenders serving detention centre sentences are included in the figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88. Such sentences were abolished in Scotland on 1 November 1988

  3 Components may not add to totals due to rounding

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women were committed to the Scottish prison system in(a) 1978–79, (b) 1979–80, (c) 1986–87,
  (d) 1987–88, (e) 1996–97 and (f) 1997–98; and what percentages were incarcerated for (i) violent and (ii) non-violent offences. [43911]
  282
  Mr. McLeish
  The information provided in the table relates to female direct sentenced receptions to the Scottish prison system by category of main crime. For the purposes of this response 'violent' offences include, for example, homicide, serious assault, possession of an offensive weapon, robbery, threats and petty assault.

  Direct sentenced female receptions to Scottish prison system, 1978–79,1979–80,1986–87,1987–88,1996–97 and 1997–98,by main crime category

  year

  Total number of direct sentenced female receptions

  Percentage violent

  Percentage non-violent

  1978–79

  350

  15

  85

  1979–80

  364

  13

  87

  1986–87

  522

  8

  92

  1987–88

  593

  7

  93

  1996–97

  603

  17

  83

  1997–98

  566

  16

  84

  Class Sizes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what percentage of children were taught in classes of more than 31 pupils in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95, (e) 1995–96, (f) 1996–97 and (g) 1997–98; and if he will estimate how many will be taught in such classes in 1998–99. [43904]

  Mr. Dewar
  Statistics on class size in primary schools are collected biennially. The available information is given in the table. Schools have been allocated to their current Education Authority. Information on individual class sizes in secondary schools is not collected centrally. There are no estimates held centrally of class sizes for 1998–99.

  Education authority primary schools Number and percentage of pupils in primary mainstream classes with more than 31 pupils1

  Year

  Number of pupils in classes if more than 31 pupils

  Percentage of pupils in classes of more than 31 pupils

  1991–92

  44,617

  10.1

  1993–94

  47,203

  10.8

  1995–96

  51,204

  11.7

  1997–981

  58,141

  13.2

  I Includes a small number of classes with more than one teacher 2 Provisional

  Pupils
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the total number of pupils on school rolls and (b) the pupil-teacher ratio for (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools in each local authority area in Scotland for each academic year from 1978–79 to 1997–98. [43902]

  Mr. Dewar
  The available information for years in which the data were collected is set out in the tables.
  283

  Education authority secondary schools Number of pupils and pupil/teacher ratios by education authority

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  1993

  1992

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/ teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/ teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/ teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/ teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/ teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/ teacher ratio

  Scotland

  314,223

  13.2

  315,912

  13.1

  316,253

  12.9

  314,779

  12.9

  311,176

  12.8

  302,986

  12.6

  Standard Code for Education Authority

  Aberdeen City

  11,138

  12.9

  11,074

  12.9

  11,071

  13.0

  11,038

  12.6

  10,844

  12.5

  10,578

  12.0

  Aberdeenshire

  15,114

  13.6

  15,231

  13.8

  15,341

  14.0

  15,148

  13.5

  15,031

  13.7

  14,650

  13.4

  Angus

  7,262

  12.8

  7,287

  13.0

  7,208

  12.8

  7,127

  12.6

  7,089

  12.8

  6,925

  13.0

  Argyll and Bute

  5,614

  12.6

  5,639

  12.4

  5,730

  12.6

  5,687

  12.5

  5,605

  12.3

  5,511

  12.3

  Clackmannanshire

  2,951

  13.4

  2,927

  13.4

  2,944

  13.3

  2,934

  13.3

  2,904

  13.1

  2,979

  12.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,600

  12.1

  9,584

  12.7

  9,522

  11.9

  9,467

  12.2

  9,400

  12.3

  9,105

  12.0

  Dundee City

  8,983

  13.1

  8,978

  12.3

  8,842

  11.8

  8,811

  11.8

  8,649

  11.9

  8,457

  11.9

  East Ayrshire

  7,926

  13.5

  7,963

  13.5

  7,938

  13.0

  7,868

  13.3

  7,665

  13

  7,848

  12.6

  East Dunbartonshire

  8,664

  14.1

  8,754

  13.9

  8,794

  14.0

  8,756

  13.9

  8,585

  13.7

  8,442

  13.7

  East Lothian

  4,853

  13.5

  4,751

  13.4

  4,745

  13.1

  4,609

  13.2

  4,594

  13.0

  4,498

  13.1

  East Renfrewshire

  6,789

  14.0

  6,758

  14.1

  6,687

  13.9

  6,652

  14.0

  6,498

  13.8

  6,261

  13.7

  Edinburgh, City of

  18,714

  13.5

  18,706

  13.4

  18,350

  12.8

  18,209

  12.9

  18,031

  12.7

  17,528

  12.7

  Eilean Siar

  2,030

  9.3

  2,113

  9.5

  2,145

  9.5

  2,242

  9.8

  2,225

  9.6

  2,249

  9.9

  Falkirk

  8,619

  13.4

  8,667

  13.5

  8,701

  13.6

  8,736

  13.7

  8,635

  13.7

  8,409

  13.7

  Fife

  22,938

  13.4

  23,095

  13.4

  23,149

  13.4

  22,699

  13.4

  22,413

  13.5

  21,652

  13.3

  Glasgow City

  29,380

  13.5

  29,222

  12.4

  29,357

  12.3

  29,464

  12.1

  29,274

  12.0

  28,793

  11.7

  Highland

  14,743

  11.8

  14,960

  11.8

  15,253

  12.0

  15,154

  12.2

  14,916

  12.2

  14,446

  11.8

  Inverclyde

  5,906

  13.5

  5,948

  13.6

  6,018

  13.1

  6,032

  12.9

  6,045

  13.0

  5,956

  12.8

  Midlothian

  5,368

  13.2

  5,403

  13.6

  5,361

  13.3

  5,357

  13.3

  5,256

  13.2

  5,163

  12.7

  Moray

  5,700

  12.5

  5,664

  12.2

  5,659

  11.8

  5,635

  12.1

  5,511

  12.1

  5,382

  11.5

  North Ayrshire

  9,155

  13.6

  9,183

  13.4

  9,283

  13.4

  9,331

  13.2

  9,156

  13.3

  8,494

  13.0

  North Lanarkshire

  23,057

  13.5

  23,407

  13.4

  23,757

  13.3

  23,948

  13.2

  23,731

  13.2

  23,031

  13.3

  Orkney Islands

  1,425

  10.5

  1,440

  10.9

  1,459

  10.9

  1,439

  10.7

  1,448

  10.8

  1,412

  10.5

  Perth and Kinross

  7,507

  12.6

  7,627

  12.5

  7,497

  12.2

  7,405

  12.1

  7,248

  12.2

  6,998

  11.9

  Renfrewshire

  11,641

  13.9

  11,824

  13.7

  11,764

  13.3

  11,767

  13.2

  11,673

  13.4

  11,148

  13.0

  Scottish Borders

  6,494

  12.3

  6,454

  12.1

  6,436

  12.2

  6,296

  12.3

  6,182

  12.5

  5,989

  12.0

  Shetland Islands

  1,594

  7.6

  1,626

  8.1

  1,681

  8.5

  1,764

  8.6

  1,761

  9.0

  1,757

  9.2

  South Ayrshire

  7,875

  13.6

  7,994

  13.6

  7,983

  13.4

  7,829

  13.3

  7,801

  13.4

  7,513

  13.2

  South Lanarkshire

  20,705

  13.9

  21,200

  13.7

  21,310

  13.7

  21,149

  13.6

  20,931

  13.6

  20,205

  13.6

  Stirling

  5,598

  13.1

  5,623

  13.3

  5,688

  13.1

  5,615

  12.9

  5,673

  13.0

  5,629

  13.0

  West Dunbartonshire

  6,871

  14.4

  6,813

  13.9

  6,760

  13.3

  6,766

  13.0

  6,642

  12.8

  6,520

  12.9

  West Lothian

  10,009

  13.6

  9,997

  13.5

  9,920

  13.0

  9,845

  13.3

  9,760

  12.9

  9,458

  12.6

  1991

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  296,367

  12.4

  293,501

  12.2

  298,394

  12.4

  311,500

  12.7

  327,012

  13.0

  Standard Code for Education Authority

  Aberdeen City

  10,522

  12.6

  10,365

  12.6

  10,599

  12.4

  11,313

  12.6

  11,883

  12.8

  Aberdeenshire

  14,102

  13.5

  13,693

  13.3

  13,621

  13.4

  13,849

  13.5

  14,044

  13.5

  Angus

  6,865

  13.1

  6,780

  12.7

  6,839

  12.3

  7,164

  12.8

  7,481

  12.9

  Argyll and Bute

  5,487

  12.1

  5,379

  11.8

  5,530

  12.3

  5,778

  13.0

  5,974

  13.2

  Clackmannanshire

  3,017

  12.4

  2,969

  11.8

  3,073

  12.4

  3,261

  12.7

  3,496

  13.0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8,922

  11.7

  8,889

  11.4

  9,015

  11.6

  9,345

  11.5

  9,802

  12.0

  Dundee City

  8,393

  11.7

  8,439

  11.5

  8,683

  11.2

  8,901

  11.4

  9,233

  11.4

  East Ayrshire

  7,826

  12.4

  7,945

  12.1

  8,191

  12.4

  8,742

  13.2

  9,298

  13.5

  East Dunbartonshire

  8,141

  13.4

  8,093

  13.4

  8,188

  13.6

  8,242

  14.2

  8,203

  14.3

  East Lothian

  4,303

  12.7

  4,275

  12.7

  4,454

  12.9

  4,672

  13.4

  4,816

  13.4

  East Renfrewshire

  5,990

  13.3

  5,825

  13.1

  5,765

  13.3

  5,848

  13.7

  5,931

  13.5

  Edinburgh, City of

  17,290

  12.5

  17,353

  12.1

  18,071

  12.3

  18,921

  12.7

  19,913

  12.8

  Eilean Siar

  2,303

  9.9

  2,298

  9.9

  2,335

  9.9

  2,397

  10.1

  2,476

  10.2

  Falkirk

  8,107

  13.6

  8,017

  13.5

  8,117

  13.6

  8,501

  13.7

  8,865

  13.7

  Fife

  21,247

  13.2

  21,035

  13.0

  21,026

  12.9

  21,727

  13.2

  22,454

  13.4

  Glasgow City

  28,401

  11.2

  28,368

  11.0

  29,016

  11.2

  31,194

  11.2

  34,313

  11.9

  Highland

  13,937

  11.7

  13,572

  11.9

  13,604

  12.0

  13,980

  11.2

  14,304

  12.6

  Inverclyde

  5,780

  12.3

  5,737

  12.3

  5,907

  12.4

  6,207

  12.7

  6,558

  13.1

  Midlothian

  5,080

  12.9

  5,004

  12.6

  5,228

  12.8

  5,508

  13.2

  5,775

  13.5

  Moray

  5,364

  11.8

  5,344

  11.6

  5,369

  11.6

  5,669

  12.3

  5,863

  12.9

  North Ayrshire

  8,221

  12.8

  8,163

  12.7

  8,388

  12.9

  8,870

  13.8

  9,257

  14.1

  North Lanarkshire

  22,608

  13.0

  22,385

  12.7

  22,849

  13.0

  24,155

  13.7

  25,673

  14.0

  Orkney Islands

  1,386

  10.6

  1,329

  10.1

  1,332

  10.3

  1,281

  10.2

  1,338

  11.1

  Perth and Kinross

  6,787

  11.8

  6,743

  11.4

  6,750

  11.5

  6,920

  11.3

  7,287

  11.7

  Renfrewshire

  10,855

  12.5

  10,743

  12.3

  10,963

  12.2

  11,347

  12.4

  12,301

  13.0

  Scottish Borders

  5,905

  12.2

  5,814

  11.8

  5,846

  11.8

  5,990

  12.1

  6,326

  12.6

  Shetland Islands

  1,651

  9.2

  1,635

  9.2

  1,623

  9.2

  1,643

  9.5

  1,663

  9.9

  284 285

  1991

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  South Ayrshire

  7,283

  13

  7,223

  12.8

  7,236

  13.2

  7,392

  13.6

  7,627

  13.6

  South Lanarkshire

  19,548

  13.3

  19,182

  13.1

  19,412

  13.3

  20,257

  13.9

  21,296

  14.2

  Stirling

  5,575

  12.9

  5,551

  12.9

  5,627

  13.1

  5,879

  13.4

  6,018

  13.4

  West Dunbartonshire

  6,053

  12.5

  5,977

  12.1

  6,129

  12.2

  6,516

  13.0

  6,861

  13.0

  West Lothian

  9,418

  12.2

  9,356

  12.0

  9,608

  12.2

  10,031

  12.4

  10,683

  12.8

  1986

  1985

  1984

  1983

  1982

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  344,369

  13.2

  360,645

  13.5

  376,071

  13.7

  390,368

  14.0

  399,075

  14.3

  Borders

  6,684

  13.3

  6,907

  13.3

  7,140

  14

  7,417

  14.0

  7,501

  14.4

  Central

  19,300

  13.8

  20,120

  13.8

  20,866

  14

  21,479

  14.3

  21,910

  14.3

  Dumfries/Galloway

  10,204

  12.9

  10,747

  13.1

  11,181

  13

  11,569

  13.4

  11,814

  14.0

  Fife

  23,606

  13.6

  24,371

  14.0

  25,208

  14

  26,194

  14.4

  26,665

  14.7

  Grampian

  33,247

  13.5

  34,216

  13.6

  34,635

  14

  35,366

  13.8

  34,866

  13.8

  Highland

  14,853

  12.7

  15,183

  12.9

  15,629

  13

  15,958

  13.6

  16,021

  13.7

  Lothian

  43,328

  13.0

  45,415

  13.4

  47,685

  14

  48,981

  13.8

  50,240

  13.7

  Strathclyde

  162,258

  13.5

  171,505

  13.7

  180,499

  14

  189,219

  14.3

  195,428

  14.7

  Tayside

  25,221

  12.5

  26,388

  12.9

  27,293

  13

  28,131

  13.5

  28,667

  13.8

  Orkney

  1,376

  11.7

  1,414

  11.7

  1,443

  12

  1,464

  12.0

  1,496

  12.5

  Shetland

  1,709

  10.0

  1,740

  10.5

  1,760

  11

  1,797

  11.5

  1,715

  11.5

  Western Isles

  2,583

  10.4

  2,639

  10.7

  2,732

  11

  2,793

  11.3

  2,752

  11.6

  1981

  1980

  1979

  1978

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  404,575

  14.4

  407,844

  14.4

  410,242

  14.4

  410,378

  14.6

  Borders

  7,423

  14.1

  7,411

  14.2

  7,351

  14.2

  7,203

  14.1

  Central

  22,209

  14.4

  22,283

  14.4

  22,236

  14.2

  21,955

  14.5

  Dumfries/Galloway

  11,838

  14.1

  11,611

  14.3

  11,403

  14.2

  11,234

  14.2

  Fife

  26,847

  14.9

  26,792

  14.7

  26,624

  14.7

  26,622

  14.6

  Grampian

  34,603

  13.8

  34,444

  13.4

  34,471

  13.4

  34,183

  13.6

  Highland

  16,119

  13.7

  16,128

  13.9

  16,113

  14.0

  15,981

  14.5

  Lothian

  51,515

  13.4

  52,316

  13.3

  52,720

  13.5

  52,949

  13.9

  Strathclyde

  198,957

  15.0

  201,712

  15.0

  203,995

  15.0

  204,974

  15.1

  Tayside

  29,064

  13.9

  29,248

  14.0

  29,666

  14.0

  29,720

  14.0

  Orkney

  1,521

  12.9

  1,541

  13.2

  1,496

  13.0

  1,506

  12.8

  Shetland

  1,702

  12.5

  1,631

  12.5

  1,618

  13.2

  1,547

  12.9

  Westerm Isles

  2,777

  12.2

  2,727

  12.4

  2,549

  12.1

  2,504

  12.3

  Education authority primary schools Number of pupils and pupil/teacher ratios by education authority

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  1993

  1992

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  440,089

  19.9

  441,215

  19.6

  440,112

  19.5

  437,964

  19.5

  438,345

  19.5

  438,914

  19.3

  Standard Code for Education Authority

  Aberdeen City

  15,921

  20.0

  16,069

  19.9

  15,892

  19.7

  15,688

  20.2

  15,729

  20.2

  15,598

  20.0

  Aberdeenshire

  21,526

  19.1

  21,500

  18.6

  21,444

  18.7

  21,382

  18.7

  21,218

  18.6

  21,191

  18.3

  Angus

  9,381

  19.1

  9,433

  19.0

  9,446

  18.5

  9,468

  18.7

  9,476

  19.7

  9,389

  20.1

  Argyll and Bute

  7,792

  17.5

  7,809

  17.3

  7,780

  17.3

  7,734

  17.5

  7,754

  17.4

  7,756

  16.7

  Clackmannanshire

  4,542

  21.0

  4,498

  21.2

  4,402

  21.0

  4,377

  20.6

  4,437

  20.1

  4,406

  20.2

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,944

  19.1

  12,880

  18.9

  12,977

  18.8

  12,820

  18.6

  12,882

  18.6

  12,936

  18.6

  Dundee City

  12,360

  19.0

  12,573

  18.0

  12,697

  18.8

  12,824

  19.2

  12,794

  19.8

  12,962

  20.3

  East Ayrshire

  11,449

  21.3

  11,487

  21.0

  11,428

  20.8

  11,425

  20.6

  11,400

  20.5

  11,371

  20.0

  East Dunbartonshire

  10,653

  22.2

  10,505

  22.2

  10,374

  22.2

  10,271

  22.1

  10,168

  21.5

  10,184

  21.6

  East Lothian

  7,942

  19.9

  7,765

  20.6

  7,494

  20.0

  7,229

  19.9

  7,078

  20.4

  6,671

  19.6

  East Renfrewshire

  8,596

  22.4

  8,560

  22.3

  8,475

  22.4

  8,424

  23.1

  8,271

  22.3

  8,072

  22.4

  Edinburgh, City of

  30,590

  20.5

  30,642

  20.7

  30,288

  20.4

  29,479

  19.8

  29,148

  20.2

  28,510

  20.2

  286 287

  Education authority primary schools Number of pupils and pupil/teacher ratios by education authority

  1997

  1996

  1995

  1994

  1993

  1992

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Eilean Siar

  2,556

  13.0

  2,588

  13.0

  2,619

  13.3

  2,684

  13.4

  2,641

  14.2

  2,633

  13.8

  Falkirk

  12,334

  21.0

  12,287

  21.3

  12,219

  21.8

  12,078

  21.4

  12,219

  21.2

  12,306

  20.9

  Fife

  30,870

  19.0

  31,070

  19.1

  31,145

  19.0

  30,965

  19.3

  31,082

  19.3

  31,140

  19.3

  Glasgow City

  48,980

  20.1

  49,993

  19.2

  50,398

  19.0

  51,019

  18.8

  51,422

  18.8

  51,788

  18.6

  Highland

  19,149

  17.8

  19,194

  17.3

  19,111

  17.3

  19,001

  17.1

  19,152

  17.4

  19,369

  17.0

  Inverclyde

  7,826

  21.5

  7,945

  21.4

  8,004

  20.8

  8,071

  21.0

  8,038

  20.6

  8,130

  20.3

  Midlothian

  7,433

  19.7

  7,393

  19.9

  7,281

  19.8

  7,164

  19.7

  7,215

  19.4

  7,110

  19.4

  Moray

  8,078

  19.3

  8,036

  18.9

  7,970

  18.7

  7,936

  18.4

  7,848

  18.5

  7,777

  18.3

  North Ayrshire

  12,614

  21.2

  12,627

  21.1

  12,631

  21.0

  12,644

  20.8

  12,809

  20.6

  12,931

  20.0

  North Lanarkshire

  29,831

  20.3

  29,990

  20.2

  29,942

  20.2

  29,984

  20.3

  30,187

  20.4

  30,752

  20.0

  Orkney Islands

  1,846

  14.9

  1,848

  15.1

  1,879

  15.1

  1,841

  14.7

  1,821

  14.8

  1,832

  14.5

  Perth and Kinross

  10,776

  18.9

  10,668

  18.7

  10,554

  18.2

  10,554

  18.4

  10,414

  18.8

  10,307

  18.6

  Renfrewshire

  15,796

  22.1

  15,693

  22.0

  15,784

  21.7

  15,594

  21.9

  15,542

  21.6

  15,539

  21.4

  Scottish Borders

  8,969

  18.5

  8,963

  18.5

  8,838

  18.5

  8,610

  18.3

  8,613

  18.4

  8,551

  18.0

  Shetland Islands

  8,335

  12.7

  2,304

  12.6

  2,286

  12.8

  2,231

  12.7

  2,206

  12.4

  2,189

  12.3

  South Ayrshire

  9,490

  21.1

  9,530

  21.0

  9,611

  20.5

  90,598

  20.6

  9,562

  20.4

  9,711

  20.0

  South Lanarkshire

  26,846

  20.9

  26,922

  20.7

  27,026

  20.7

  27,057

  20.6

  27,236

  20.7

  27,487

  20.4

  Stirling

  6,851

  19.7

  6,697

  19.6

  6,613

  19.9

  6,599

  19.8

  6,537

  19.2

  6,616

  18.6

  West Dunbartonshire

  8,890

  20.9

  9,016

  20.3

  9,065

  20.5

  9,159

  20.2

  9,373

  20.1

  9,431

  20.2

  West Lothian

  14,923

  20.4

  14,730

  20.4

  14,439

  19.9

  14,134

  19.7

  14,073

  19.5

  14,069

  19.4

  1991

  1990

  1989

  1988

  1987

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  440,752

  19.5

  440,534

  19.5

  437,018

  19.7

  432,707

  20.3

  430,865

  20.4

  Standard Code for Education Authority

  Aberdeen City

  15,484

  20.0

  15,299

  20.2

  15,029

  19.9

  14,922

  20.0

  14,907

  20.2

  Aberdeenshire

  21,062

  18.4

  21,019

  18.8

  20,852

  18.6

  20,550

  18.6

  20,528

  18.8

  Angus

  9,353

  19.7

  9,288

  19.4

  9,075

  19.5

  9,108

  19.8

  9,023

  19.6

  Argyll and Bute

  8,116

  17.5

  8,280

  17.4

  8,233

  17.7

  8,201

  19.6

  8,224

  19.8

  Clackmannanshire

  4,374

  20.9

  4,379

  20.0

  4,379

  19.9

  4,276

  20.3

  4,304

  20.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  12,772

  18.5

  12,848

  18.6

  12,733

  19.2

  12,405

  19.3

  12,302

  19.1

  Dundee City

  12,923

  20.4

  12,807

  20.4

  12,584

  20.4

  12,391

  20.4

  12,382

  20.2

  East Ayrshire

  11,365

  20.3

  11,225

  20.1

  11,196

  20.3

  11,043

  21.3

  10,976

  21.6

  East Dunbartonshire

  10,383

  21.7

  10,511

  22.0

  10,503

  21.9

  10,533

  23.1

  10,554

  23.1

  East Lothian

  6,814

  19.6

  6,802

  19.1

  6,682

  20.1

  6,468

  19.8

  6,477

  20.0

  East Renfrewshire

  8,096

  21.8

  7,973

  22.0

  7,918

  21.9

  7,779

  22.9

  7,484

  23.0

  Edinburgh, City of

  28,172

  20.3

  27,851

  19.9

  27,300

  20.2

  26,940

  20.3

  26,767

  20.3

  Eilean Siar

  2,648

  14.0

  2,756

  14.6

  2,799

  15.0

  2,796

  15.4

  2,928

  15.6

  Falkirk

  12,394

  21.2

  12,546

  21.1

  12,474

  20.9

  12,499

  20.9

  12,383

  21.0

  Fife

  31,188

  19.3

  31,208

  19.3

  30,908

  19.6

  30,555

  20.0

  30,554

  20.3

  Glasgow City

  51,901

  18.7

  51,440

  18.6

  50,723

  19.2

  50,219

  20.7

  49,673

  20.5

  Highland

  19,653

  17.4

  19,549

  17.6

  19,527

  18.2

  19,331

  18.6

  19,278

  18.5

  Inverclyde

  8,262

  20.2

  8,332

  20.1

  8,308

  20.3

  8,285

  21.7

  8,314

  21.8

  Midlothian

  7,154

  19.5

  7,204

  19.3

  7,247

  19.6

  7,214

  19.9

  7,262

  19.9

  Moray

  7,857

  18.7

  7,580

  18.7

  7,493

  19.1

  7,513

  18.8

  7,606

  19.0

  North Ayrshire

  13,150

  20.7

  13,220

  20.3

  13,213

  20.9

  13,013

  21.5

  12,974

  21.8

  North Lanarkshire

  31,482

  20.2

  31,909

  20.6

  31,936

  20.7

  31,742

  21.5

  31,727

  21.7

  Orkney Islands

  1,801

  14.1

  1,787

  14.4

  1,783

  15.4

  1,827

  16.3

  1,787

  15.9

  Perth and Kinross

  10,191

  18.5

  10,217

  18.5

  10,110

  18.1

  9,876

  18.8

  9,703

  18.6

  Renfrewshire

  15,628

  21.3

  15,588

  21.2

  15,451

  21.0

  15,389

  22.4

  15,331

  22.2

  Scottish Borders

  6,520

  18.2

  8,525

  18.1

  8,411

  18.1

  8,327

  18.1

  8,164

  18.6

  Shetland Islands

  2,244

  12.7

  2,230

  12.8

  2,257

  12.9

  2,338

  13.6

  2,370

  13.7

  South Ayrshire

  9,748

  20.4

  9,726

  20.0

  9,684

  20.5

  9,577

  21.6

  9,491

  21.5

  South Lanarkshire

  27,977

  20.4

  28,254

  20.4

  28,198

  20.9

  27,788

  21.8

  27,646

  22.0

  Stirling

  6,604

  18.8

  6,727

  19.3

  6,775

  19.3

  6,692

  19.7

  6,775

  19.6

  West Dunbartonshire

  9,506

  20.4

  9,415

  20.5

  9,265

  20.6

  9,144

  21.4

  9,114

  21.5

  West Lothian

  14,130

  19.7

  14,041

  19.3

  13,972

  19.5

  13,966

  19.6

  13,857

  19.7

  288 289

  1986

  1985

  1984

  1983

  1982

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  Pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  433,459

  20.4

  435,454

  20.4

  437,538

  20.4

  448,009

  20.3

  467,971

  20.4

  Borders

  8,213

  18.2

  8,246

  17.7

  8,219

  18.2

  8,353

  17.9

  8,686

  18.2

  Central

  23,754

  20.4

  24,158

  19.3

  24,287

  18.9

  24,897

  18.7

  25,850

  18.6

  Dumfries/Galloway

  12,321

  19.1

  12,313

  19.3

  12,285

  19.1

  12,480

  19.1

  12,799

  19.4

  Fife

  30,602

  20.2

  31,105

  20.2

  31,005

  20.1

  31,388

  19.9

  32,257

  20.4

  Grampian

  42,941

  19.4

  43,156

  19.3

  43,274

  19.4

  43,827

  18.8

  45,767

  19.0

  Highland

  19,394

  18.8

  19,290

  18.7

  19,168

  18.8

  19,460

  18.9

  19,822

  19.0

  Lothian

  54,386

  20.1

  54,964

  20.2

  55,745

  20.1

  58,327

  19.9

  61,461

  19.8

  Strathclyde

  203,337

  21.6

  203,521

  21.6

  204,311

  21.6

  208,934

  21.6

  219,231

  21.6

  Tayside

  31,298

  20.0

  31,335

  20.2

  31,871

  20.3

  32,757

  20.5

  34,278

  20.6

  Orkney

  1,826

  15.8

  1,825

  15.9

  1,866

  16.0

  1,910

  16.7

  1,910

  17.2

  Shetland

  2,387

  13.7

  2,386

  14.4

  2,388

  14.0

  2,478

  14.4

  2,564

  14.3

  Western Isles

  3,000

  16.8

  3,155

  17.3

  3,119

  16.7

  3,198

  16.2

  3,346

  16.4

  1981

  1980

  1979

  1978

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Total primary pupils

  pupil/teacher ratio

  Scotland

  492,645

  20.3

  518,492

  20.3

  545,161

  20.3

  569,124

  21.4

  Borders

  9,156

  18.2

  9,643

  18.4

  10,135

  18.3

  10,460

  19.1

  Central

  27,258

  19.1

  28,559

  19.5

  29,737

  19.7

  30,843

  20.0

  Dumfries/Galloway

  13,457

  19.2

  14,223

  19.1

  15,069

  19.2

  15,831

  20.2

  Fife

  33,733

  20.6

  35,103

  20.7

  36,766

  21.0

  37,715

  21.7

  Grampian

  47,128

  18.9

  48,352

  18.9

  49,831

  19.0

  50,852

  19.7

  Highland

  20,568

  19.1

  21,275

  19.1

  22,000

  19.1

  22,673

  19.7

  Lothian

  64,688

  18.6

  68,112

  18.5

  71,816

  18.9

  74,798

  19.7

  Strathclyde

  232,691

  21.6

  247,143

  21.6

  261,721

  21.4

  276,110

  22.9

  Tayside

  35,164

  20.6

  37,925

  20.8

  39,694

  20.3

  41,408

  21.1

  Orkney

  1,886

  16.9

  1,923

  17.2

  2,000

  17.3

  2,026

  18.0

  Shetland

  2,681

  15.0

  2,705

  15.7

  2,711

  16.8

  2,646

  17.3

  Western Isles

  3,435

  16.7

  3,529

  16.5

  3,681

  17.1

  3,762

  17.7

  Knee and Hip Replacements
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the current average waiting time for each Scottish health board for(a) knee and (b) hip joint replacement operations; and if he will list the five hospitals which have the longest waiting times. [43913]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The mean waiting time for knee and hip joint replacement operations at 31 March 1998 for each Health Board in Scotland is provided in Table 1. The five hospitals in Scotland with the longest mean waiting time for knee and hip joint replacement operations at 31 March 1998 is provided in Table 2.

  Table 1: Knee and hip joint replacement operations carried out by the NHS in Scotland

  Mean waiting times by area of residence at 31 March 19981

  Area of residence

  Knee replacement days

  Hip joint replacement days

  Argyll & Clyde

  189

  144

  Ayrshire & Arran

  108

  113

  Borders

  90

  86

  Dumfries & Galloway

  204

  137

  Fife

  131

  115

  Forth Valley

  237

  175

  Grampian

  94

  82

  Greater Glasgow

  217

  181

  Highland

  182

  182

  Lanarkshire

  125

  116

  Lothian

  145

  133

  290

  Table 1: Knee and hip joint replacement operations carried out by the NHS in Scotland

  Mean waiting times by area of residence at 31 March 19981

  Area of residence

  Knee replacement days

  Hip joint replacement days

  Orkney

  74

  55

  Shetland

  109

  92

  Tayside

  141

  123

  Western Isles

  75

  59

  Other/Not Known

  106

  96

  Scotland

  155

  131

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  ISD Scotland

  Table 2: Knee and hip joint replacement operations carried out by the NHS in Scotland aerations

  Hospitals with the longest mean waiting times at 31 March 19981

  Knee operations days

  Hip joint operations days

  Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow

  307

  253

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  256

  193

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  215

  186

  Falkirk & District Royal Infirmary

  215

  180

  Dumfries & Galloway Royal Infirmary

  213

  168

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  ISD Scotland
  291

  Mortgage Repossession Orders Court
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of state for Scotland how many mortgage repossession orders there were to each court district in each quarter since the first quarter of 1995 to the first quarter of 1998. [43930]

  Mr. Dewar
  Figures in relation to repossession of property by mortgage lenders have been collected by the courts since a revised system of collected Civil Judicial Statistics was instituted on 1 January 1994. The figures since the first quarter of 1995 to the first quarter of 1998 are shown in the tables. Not all lenders who are granted decree actually enforce them.

  Court

  1Q 1995

  2Q 1995

  3Q 1995

  4Q 1995

  Total

  Aberdeen

  5

  5

  24

  56

  90

  Airdrie

  23

  26

  29

  28

  106

  Alloa

  8

  9

  9

  11

  37

  Arbroath

  0

  3

  4

  0

  7

  Ayr

  37

  26

  26

  17

  106

  Banff

  1

  5

  5

  6

  17

  Campeltown

  1

  3

  2

  6

  12

  Cupar

  11

  7

  8

  6

  32

  Dingwall

  4

  4

  5

  13

  26

  Dornoch

  1

  1

  1

  1

  4

  Dumbarton

  36

  26

  36

  27

  125

  Dumfries

  16

  16

  10

  16

  58

  Dundee

  28

  14

  17

  35

  94

  Dunfermline

  24

  26

  40

  34

  124

  Dunoon

  5

  8

  1

  0

  14

  Duns

  2

  1

  5

  2

  10

  Edinburgh

  111

  73

  126

  109

  419

  Elgin

  7

  9

  5

  9

  30

  Falkirk

  30

  32

  25

  25

  112

  Forfar

  2

  1

  0

  5

  8

  Fort William

  4

  0

  0

  0

  4

  Glasgow

  155

  179

  179

  176

  689

  Greenock

  0

  1

  1

  6

  8

  Haddington

  13

  6

  27

  18

  64

  Hamilton

  45

  60

  64

  67

  236

  Inverness

  14

  17

  14

  17

  62

  Jedburgh

  5

  6

  7

  3

  21

  Kilmarnock

  44

  43

  50

  57

  194

  Kirkcaldy

  28

  45

  28

  31

  132

  Kirkcudbright

  1

  2

  5

  3

  11

  Kirkwall

  0

  1

  3

  0

  4

  Lanark

  9

  14

  10

  16

  49

  Lerwick

  1

  0

  2

  1

  4

  Linlithgow

  45

  43

  52

  40

  180

  Lochmaddy

  0

  2

  0

  0

  2

  Oban

  2

  2

  3

  1

  8

  Paisley

  22

  37

  65

  79

  203

  Peebles

  2

  2

  1

  4

  9

  Perth

  8

  24

  25

  19

  76

  Peterhead

  4

  11

  9

  11

  35

  Portree

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Rothesay

  0

  2

  0

  3

  5

  Selkirk

  2

  5

  6

  3

  16

  Stirling

  8

  11

  11

  9

  39

  Stonehaven

  9

  5

  8

  10

  32

  Stornoway

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Stranraer

  3

  6

  7

  4

  20

  Tain

  2

  0

  3

  2

  7

  Wick

  0

  4

  6

  0

  10

  Grand Total

  778

  823

  966

  987

  3,554

  292

  Court

  1Q 1996

  2Q 1996

  3Q 1996

  4Q 1996

  Total

  Aberdeen

  54

  55

  47

  46

  202

  Airdrie

  36

  26

  38

  38

  138

  Alloa

  13

  5

  7

  6

  31

  Arbroath

  0

  0

  4

  10

  14

  Ayr

  27

  17

  25

  29

  98

  Banff

  5

  5

  4

  2

  16

  Campeltown

  1

  2

  1

  3

  7

  Cupar

  18

  12

  14

  8

  52

  Dingwall

  3

  10

  1

  0

  14

  Dornoch

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Dumbarton

  32

  33

  24

  16

  105

  Dumfries

  13

  23

  7

  11

  54

  Dundee

  33

  47

  42

  33

  165

  Dunfermline

  39

  31

  32

  30

  132

  Dunoon

  0

  0

  8

  5

  13

  Duns

  4

  5

  5

  2

  16

  Edinburgh

  136

  125

  139

  101

  501

  Elgin

  14

  17

  16

  11

  58

  Falkirk

  40

  27

  38

  37

  142

  Forfar

  8

  10

  5

  6

  29

  Fort William

  0

  2

  2

  2

  6

  Glasgow

  245

  215

  234

  178

  872

  Greenock

  16

  15

  14

  5

  50

  Haddington

  23

  24

  18

  17

  82

  Hamilton

  54

  81

  76

  42

  253

  Inverness

  21

  18

  15

  10

  64

  Jedburgh

  3

  9

  2

  7

  21

  Kilmarnock

  68

  60

  50

  38

  216

  Kirkcaldy

  42

  38

  36

  39

  155

  Kirkcudbright

  7

  5

  5

  2

  19

  Kirkwall

  6

  3

  4

  0

  13

  Lanark

  24

  10

  16

  8

  58

  Lerwick

  2

  0

  0

  1

  3

  Linlithgow

  72

  54

  39

  44

  209

  Lochmaddy

  1

  2

  1

  3

  7

  Oban

  8

  2

  2

  0

  12

  Paisley

  89

  46

  2

  39

  176

  Peebles

  3

  1

  4

  2

  10

  Perth

  34

  23

  29

  23

  109

  Peterhead

  17

  22

  15

  11

  65

  Portree

  3

  2

  1

  2

  8

  Rothesay

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Selkirk

  3

  5

  5

  4

  17

  Stirling

  12

  10

  8

  4

  34

  Stonehaven

  15

  13

  9

  5

  42

  Stornoway

  9

  2

  1

  1

  13

  Stranraer

  2

  8

  5

  5

  20

  Tain

  4

  4

  4

  1

  13

  Wick

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Grand Total

  1,269

  1,125

  1,056

  889

  4,339

  Court

  1Q 1997

  2Q 1997

  3Q 1997

  4Q 1997

  Total

  Aberdeen

  62

  37

  39

  48

  186

  Airdrie

  49

  46

  47

  58

  200

  Alloa

  6

  11

  12

  7

  36

  Arbroath

  16

  11

  5

  5

  37

  Ayr

  36

  31

  40

  35

  142

  Banff

  5

  1

  6

  3

  15

  Campeltown

  1

  2

  1

  3

  7

  293

  Court

  1Q 1997

  2Q 1997

  3Q 1997

  4Q 1997

  Total

  Cupar

  10

  11

  13

  10

  44

  Dingwall

  5

  1

  9

  2

  17

  Dornoch

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Dumbarton

  32

  32

  26

  16

  106

  Dumfries

  10

  6

  14

  12

  42

  Dundee

  38

  41

  43

  27

  149

  Dunfermline

  51

  32

  31

  43

  157

  Dunoon

  2

  5

  6

  5

  18

  Duns

  3

  2

  3

  3

  11

  Edinburgh

  112

  140

  155

  129

  536

  Elgin

  12

  6

  8

  9

  35

  Falkirk

  14

  27

  35

  42

  118

  Forfar

  5

  6

  3

  5

  19

  Fort William

  0

  0

  3

  1

  4

  Glasgow

  184

  252

  204

  229

  869

  Greenock

  9

  7

  8

  22

  46

  Haddington

  20

  16

  28

  24

  88

  Hamilton

  72

  52

  35

  12

  171

  Inverness

  10

  28

  14

  28

  80

  Jedburgh

  8

  0

  7

  7

  22

  Kilmarnock

  55

  20

  77

  69

  221

  Kirkcaldy

  47

  54

  35

  40

  176

  Kirkcudbright

  6

  3

  6

  1

  16

  Kirkwall

  2

  0

  1

  1

  4

  Lanark

  15

  15

  12

  10

  52

  Lerwick

  0

  0

  2

  0

  2

  Linlithgow

  32

  42

  32

  54

  160

  Lochmaddy

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Oban

  5

  3

  2

  2

  12

  Paisley

  3

  49

  81

  65

  198

  Peebles

  2

  2

  1

  2

  7

  Perth

  23

  19

  25

  17

  84

  Peterhead

  13

  15

  12

  13

  53

  Portree

  0

  0

  1

  3

  4

  Rothesay

  2

  2

  1

  2

  7

  Selkirk

  5

  10

  5

  4

  24

  Stirling

  13

  14

  12

  8

  47

  Stonehaven

  10

  12

  13

  5

  40

  Stornoway

  0

  4

  0

  1

  5

  Stranraer

  6

  5

  7

  3

  21

  Tain

  0

  4

  8

  3

  15

  Wick

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Grand Total

  1,012

  1,077

  1,128

  1,088

  4,305

  294

  Court

  1Q 1998

  Aberdeen

  56

  Airdrie

  50

  Alloa

  11

  Arbroath

  14

  Ayr

  31

  Banff

  2

  Campeltown

  4

  Cupar

  8

  Dingwall

  4

  Dornoch

  1

  Dumbarton

  53

  Dumfries

  10

  Dundee

  32

  Dunfermline

  45

  Dunoon

  8

  Duns

  4

  Edinburgh

  142

  Elgin

  9

  Falkirk

  26

  Forfar

  7

  Fort William

  1

  Glasgow

  208

  Greenock

  17

  Haddington

  17

  Hamilton

  10

  Inverness

  27

  Jedburgh

  4

  Kilmarnock

  66

  Kirkcaldy

  41

  Kirkcudbright

  0

  Kirkwall

  1

  Lanark

  12

  Lerwick

  4

  Linlithgow

  49

  Lochmaddy

  2

  Oban

  2

  Paisley

  101

  Peebles

  2

  Perth

  29

  Peterhead

  22

  Portree

  1

  Rothesay

  3

  Selkirk

  11

  Stirling

  13

  Stonehaven

  6

  Stornoway

  4

  Stranraer

  4

  Tain

  3

  Wick

  0

  Grand Total

  1,177

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.

In-hospital Infections
Baroness Young Baroness Young asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many patients in the last year have picked up infections in hospital which cause them either to remain longer in hospital or to return to hospital, and what is the cost.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, data in the form referred to in the Question posed by the noble Baroness are not available. It is inherently difficult to collect data in this form because of the many factors that can affect the outcome of a person's stay in hospital. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness and the House that the Government take very seriously the subject of infections picked up in hospitals. The Department of Health has issued guidance to the NHS about in-hospital infections, monitors hospital practice and is developing systems to improve the quality of data in this field. The Government particularly welcome the contribution of the recent report of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on resistance to antibiotics and other microbial agents. We are studying the recommendations carefully and expect to make a response to Parliament during this Session.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, but does she accept it is disappointing that the Government do not have any detailed information on this very important issue? Further, is the noble Baroness aware that there is considerable anecdotal evidence about people going into hospital, picking up infections and having to return to hospital or receive treatment subsequently at home? Does the Minister accept that that adds enormously to the cost? Will she ensure that much greater effort is made to collect this information and, following the report of your Lordships' House, consider the dangers of the overprescribing of antibiotics as a counter-measure against problems many of which arise from lack of proper training in elementary hygiene?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much reinforce the final point made by the noble Baroness. It is estimated that about one patient in 10 in hospital acquires an infection subsequent to his or her admission. I entirely accept her point that this is a serious problem. However, the Question put by the noble Baroness is concerned with the extent of readmissions caused primarily by that factor.
334
That is more difficult to ascertain. However, we are working with the Public Health Laboratory Service to establish a new system for surveillance of hospital-acquired infection which we hope will produce results quickly. The Department of Health has recently commissioned new clinical guidelines from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee to report on standards of infection control in hospitals. We expect that to be available in July.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is better to spend money on patients than on the collection of too much information and administration?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I always emphasise the importance of spending NHS resources primarily on patient care but, as I hope was clear from my original Answer, the Government take this issue of patient care very seriously. Therefore, we believe that money spent on collecting the appropriate data helps us to look after people better.
Lord Renton: My Lords, can the Minister inform the House what proportion of the one in 10 cases referred to earlier arises from surgeons and anaesthetists passing on infections from which they suffer?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot provide that statistic. I suspect that, like the previous question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that breakdown of the figures is not available at national level, although such information is probably held by individual hospital trusts. The noble Lord is right to suggest that sometimes new forms of surgical intervention cause infections in respect of which people might not otherwise have been at risk. On the other hand, that must be balanced against the very good results which on the whole come from new forms of surgical intervention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend is taking note of the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology on the development of resistance to antibiotics chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Soulsby. I was privileged to serve on that committee. Is my noble friend aware that the committee made a number of recommendations with regard to the control of hospital infections? It is true that a reduction in the total level of infections will reduce the rate of development of resistant infections. In particular, is my noble friend aware of the statement in paragraph 11.26 that investment in good infection control
"will pay for itself quite quickly"?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's very important contribution to the work of that committee and repeat the comments of the Secretary of State for Health, in welcoming the report, that the Government see it as a valuable, constructive and timely contribution to the current national and international debate. As to the specific

335
question of infection control, I repeat what I said in response to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Of course, primary infection control is very much dependent upon primary methods of hygiene which probably have not changed over many years.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over the years there has been complacency among hospital managers about infection control, which is not always very expensive? Given the pressure on hospital beds and the number of agency nurses, there is growing concern about such matters as the failure of staff to wash their hands and infections passed by doctors' ties, pencils, stethoscopes and basic things like that, in going from patient to patient?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I hope I made clear in answer to previous questions, basic rules of everyday hygiene must be considered and applied even more carefully in a hospital setting. There can be very disastrous effects if these problems arise in places where people are already vulnerable, perhaps because of their own originating illness. All hospitals have specialist infection control teams whose specific function is to advise on the precautions necessary to prevent the spread of infection both in the more complicated ways that may arise from invasive surgery and in the everyday ways that the noble Baroness mentioned.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there must be some concern about a situation which affects 10 per cent. of patients? I think she implied that the statistics are collected at hospital level but not at national level. If I have that wrong, I apologise. But if that is the case, would not the collection of those statistics be valuable to assist in analysing why it is worse in some places than others?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my original response was obviously not clear. The Public Health Laboratory Service is trying to develop a national surveillance approach along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness. I am sure that that would be helpful. In my original response, I was trying to say that the detailed point rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the figures relating to the relationship between in-hospital infection and delayed discharge were much more difficult to collect.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, we have four Questions to answer in 30 minutes. We have had eight minutes on the first. I think that we should move on.

Heathrow: Minimum Fuel Requirements
2.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to ensure that planes landing at Heathrow comply with the Civil Aviation Authority's minimum fuel requirements.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the CAA recently reissued its aeronautical information circular giving advice on fuel levels to aircraft which are inbound to UK airports. Such advice is updated regularly as a matter of routine. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a problem with planes arriving at Heathrow Airport with inadequate fuel levels.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Is she aware that over the past six months five aircraft about to land at Heathrow sent out mayday or distress calls, saying that they had run out of fuel and asking to have priority landing? That is a major safety issue. What action can the Government or the CAA take about aircraft which continue to flout the basic rule of having enough fuel to go on to another airport?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the low-fuel incidents at Heathrow Airport to which my noble friend referred include a combination of pilot-notified concern as well as mayday calls. They are investigated as they occur. With regard to concern about aircraft which offend persistently, the statistics show that incidents of aircraft arriving at their destinations with fuel levels approaching the minimum reserve are rare. There are no persistent offenders. If it appeared that aircraft operated by a UK airline were arriving with insufficient fuel, the CAA would require the airline to improve its fuel management policy. In the case of foreign operators, we would expect their national aviation authorities to take similar action.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that too many aircraft are landing at Heathrow in any event, and that a percentage of them should be required to land elsewhere?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend taxes my natural commitment to Manchester International Airport as being my regional airport. We of course take seriously the question of safety. I must stress that any incident causing concern or indicating potential concern is rare. There were just three events out of some 220,000 landings at Heathrow last year.
Baroness Gardner of Parks: My Lords, how many of the incidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred have been instances where the aircraft have been held in a waiting pattern at Heathrow? Is it a common problem that aircraft arriving are asked to fly around until there is an opportunity to land?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the standards require that the amount of fuel carried allows not just for stand-by and circling, but enables such aircraft to go to an alternative airport should that prove necessary. Of the five incidents referred to, two—one in March 1996 and one in December 1997—were following long hold. In the case of the incident on 15th December 1997, priority approach was given, the aircraft landed, but the fuel reserve was still above the minimum level required.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, may I say—
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, I am getting into bad habits, I am sorry. Those figures for mayday and other emergency calls are small, but one serious crash through lack of fuel could be a major disaster. Would my noble friend kindly look into the advice given in the circulars to see whether it is sufficiently strong? Further, does she feel that there should be tough monitoring, bearing in mind that we have had reports of serious problems when it comes to landing aircraft safely at Heathrow?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend is right. This is a serious matter. Because of that, it is a matter of routine that the CAA reviews all aeronautical information circulars every five years. We take the issue seriously. I refer my noble friend to the figures: in Heathrow there were just three incidents out of some 220,000 landings.
As I said in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, the incidents where concern was expressed by the pilot in the event did not lead to aircraft landing with below the minimum level of fuel available.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are significant gains for companies operating aircraft on or below minimum fuel levels?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am aware of that, and so is the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Any question of aircraft travelling with below the minimum standard would be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny. If any serious offenders were identified, the ultimate sanction would be prosecution for breaches of air navigation orders.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, the Minister referred to priority landings. How many were maydays and how many had declared a PAN call?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, of the low fuel incidents, I recollect that two were PAN calls and three were maydays over the period of time. I shall check the figures. If I find that that is inaccurate, I shall notify my noble friend.

Severn Bridges: Tolls
2.51 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether there has been any recent assessment of the toll charges on the Severn bridges and their effect on inward investment into Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, while no such assessment has been made recently by the Government, the Severn bridges provide a major high quality link in the transport networks linking South Wales with the remainder of the United Kingdom and Europe. They are a major factor in encouraging new industries to locate in Wales and tolls and private finance were integral to the provision of the new Severn crossing.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that over generations Wales has been plagued by unemployment, and that there are still many black spots? Yet to enter Wales through its main access point, a lorry pays a toll charge of £12.10, a light van pays £8.10 and a car £4. Is there any wonder that a recent survey of economic development officers by the CBI and the AA demonstrates clearly that the tolls are an impediment to investment by existing companies and new companies considering relocating there? Is it not time for the Government to give some thought to how the problems can be tackled?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am well aware of my noble friend's concern about these matters. He stated the concern expressed in the Western Mail as regards the AA/CBI report to which he referred. I have seen that report. It dealt with the need for investment in transport infrastructure in the whole of the United Kingdom. That was one comment among many in one small section of the report. The evidence indicates that in 1996–97 Wales secured 22 per cent. of all new jobs promised for the UK by foreign direct investment. That is with a population of 5 per cent. of the UK. So there is not a great deal of evidence that tolling acts as a disincentive to investment, although in view of the unemployment concerns to which the noble Lord referred, it is a matter that the Government will keep under review.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the charge of £4 for a motor car to cross one of the busiest and most prosperous parts of Wales and England is cheap compared with the charges in Skye, one of the poorest parts of Scotland?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to report to the House that in response to a manifesto commitment to review the impact of tolls on low income island communities, frequent users of the Skye Bridge now pay £2.60 for a round trip. Therefore those concerns were addressed.

339
I know to my cost that issues of comparative prices on tolls are controversial, but I believe that the balance is right.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we wish that high level of investment under the Conservative Government to continue under the present Government? Anything that can be done to alleviate the toll situation over the Severn bridges would be most welcome.
Although there have been complaints over the years about the toll on the Severn Bridge (now the Severn bridges) is it not a fact that the previous Labour government did not abolish tolls? Is it, or is it not, the intention of the present Government to abolish tolls over the Severn bridges? They may not wish to do so because the cost would be prohibitive.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we do not propose to legislate to change the current toll structure under the Severn Bridges Act 1992. That is because we recognise, as I said earlier, that there is not a disincentive to investment in Wales by the tolling. Since the new crossing has opened, heavy goods traffic has increased by 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. compared with 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. growth in car traffic, which suggests that the economic traffic is still travelling there.
As regards records of comparative governments, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced last month plans for a new £15 million European rail freight terminal in Cardiff which will open in 1999. It will provide much needed infrastructure to encourage further development in the Principality, an aim which was notably absent from the programme of the previous government.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the tolls over the Severn are so much higher than those over, for example, the Forth and Clyde? Surely one would expect that the high usage should render the toll lower since the overheads can be regained over a larger number of vehicles.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the tolling regime on different crossings are related to the financial costs of the infrastructure and to the concession agreements granted in relation to them. The Severn River Crossing plc elected to charge tolls in one direction. That decision was reflected in the provisions of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 and its concession agreement.
As I said earlier, it is invidious to make comparisons between individual pieces of infrastructure, each of which has separate concession agreements relating to them.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that under a Labour Government only a minimum toll charge applied? Under the new regime, the charges have escalated significantly.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, I refer to the Severn bridges regime. Does the Minister further appreciate that there is now a renewed threat of VAT charges on top of those tolls?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government are concerned about the threat from the European Commission of VAT being charged on tolls. In common with France, Greece, the Netherlands and Ireland, this country fails to charge VAT on tolls and does not believe that tolls should be subject to VAT. Hearings are scheduled later this year at the European Court of Justice, with a final decision by the Court towards the end of 1999. We shall certainly defend our position in relation to ECJ infraction proceedings.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I should, first, declare an interest as I am the chairman of Severn River Crossing plc—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Hooson: Is the Minister aware that, despite the tolls, the increase in investment on both sides of the estuary has been very great during the past two or three years because the transport facility is so much better than it was before? Do the Government appreciate that when the two bridges are returned to them, free of all charges and in pristine condition within the time allowed by the Act of Parliament, they will be in a position to abolish all tolls, as will be the case with the Dartford bridge? However, do the Government intend to do so?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the concession will continue for a maximum of 30 years and the prediction is that it will end after 22 years in the year 2014, it would be a foolish Minister who committed a future government to detailed policy at this point.

European Union: Abolition of Duty-free Allowances
3 p.m.
Lord Greenway Lord Greenway asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy towards the abolition of duty-free allowances within the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, intra-EU duty free sales will end after 30th June 1999, unless there is a proposal from the Commission to retain them and the unanimous agreement of all 15 member states. The Government have always said that they would not oppose a study into the impact of abolition if there were consensus for such a study. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as chairman of ECOFIN, facilitated a discussion on 19th May from which it emerged that a clear majority of member states were against re-opening the decision and that there was no consensus for an impact study.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Following on from the ECOFIN meeting,

341
does it not seem somewhat ludicrous that we are looking at abolishing a profitable industry employing about 120,000 people in the EU by way of a rather fudged system of compensation which may well cost taxpayers something like £6 billion over the next five years? Further, in addition to the well-voiced concerns of the aviation and ferry industries, is the Minister aware that the cruise industry is also extremely concerned about the matter? Indeed, that industry is one of the fastest growing areas of the holiday business in Europe and the uncertainty, coupled with the possibility of having to deal with a number of different tax regimes within the EU before harmonisation, may well place a vastly increased workload on those companies which could result in the deflection of some of this lucrative business away from EU ports.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to a confused situation. The extension to the 30th June 1999 was a six-and-a-half-year extension to enable those affected to make alternative plans. Some of the estimates which have been made of job losses and of damage to the travel industry have been based on the assumption that there would be no replacement for duty-free sales. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that Commission officials are looking at the possibilities of duty-paid sales both at the ports and, indeed, on vessels.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, apart from job losses, would the Minister care to comment on the possibility of an increase in fares arising due to the lack of money going to the airport authorities from duty-free sales?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if there is any loss of revenue, it is up to the ferry companies and the airlines to decide what action they should take as to whether or not they increase fares. I repeat: the estimates of job losses and fare increases in studies carried out for the operators differ greatly from those of the authoritative study carried out for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that many people are quite bewildered by the abandonment or the withdrawal of duty-free sales? Indeed, they have always been under the impression that taxation and the imposition of duty, or the non-imposition of duty, were matters for Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, does not my noble friend agree that they will be very annoyed—I feel sure they will be—because they are now having a privilege taken away from them by people outside this Parliament and outside the Government of this country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as my noble friend must surely know, the original decision was taken by unanimous vote in 1991 when Mr. Norman Lamont was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Therefore, Parliament did have a say in the removal of this concession. It is not taxation policy by the Commission; it is the removal of a concession which, if it did not exist, I do not believe anyone would deliberately invent now.
Lord Rees: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that at the last ECOFIN meeting the Commission offered a paper on the implications of the abolition of duty-free sales? Further, if duty-free sales are indeed to be phased out in June of next year, can the noble Lord say when we are to have an indication of the new duty regime which is to be introduced?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, as I have already said, the Commission is working on the implications of duty-paid arrangements to replace those for duty-free sales. However, some of them could not be stopped; for example, duty-free sales in international waters. However, the issue is how to avoid the confusion which might arise if vessels were charging different rates during different parts of the voyage.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Channel Tunnel rail link. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion to the Standing Orders indicates that discussion on a Statement, after the end of the Minister's initial reply to the Opposition spokesmen, should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. I should also like to point out that noble Lords who speak at length will do so at the expense of others.

Government of Wales Bill
3.6 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 47 [Regulation of procedure]:
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 47 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may draw attention to three matters in Clause 47, the first two of which are purely drafting points. First, subsection (2) starts with the word "but". That is a fairly recent technique in drafting and is very much to be commended because it takes the place of the older subsection (1) notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (2), and so on. In other words, subsection (2) applies, notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1). The "but" technique is very much an advantage. I note that the Minister has tabled an amendment to that effect regarding a later clause.

343
My second point relates to subsection (3) of the clause which says:
"The standing orders may make different provision for different circumstances".
That is computer nonsense from the draftsman's office which turns up whenever orders are in question. Of course, orders may make provision for different circumstances. That sort of provision is entirely unnecessary and I venture to suggest that it should be omitted in future.
The third matter concerns subsection (6) where at least two-thirds of the assembly members need to support a motion for change for it to be adopted. That kind of threshold was much debated when we discussed the referendum Bills. It bears out again the wisdom of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that all those kind of things ought to have been discussed before we ever established the referenda. It certainly seems reasonable to require a two-thirds majority for this change, or indeed any other change, because what is sought to be changed will often have been the result of accumulated wisdom and the reasons for having adopted it may well have been forgotten.
Chesterton described tradition in that sense as the democracy of the dead. I venture to think that this provision is valuable. We could well bear it in mind on other occasions when change—particularly violent constitutional change—from a state of affairs which has been long respected is sought.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I would not have spoken on this matter but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, makes a telling point which I cannot resist following up; that is, that the assembly will need the assent of a controlled majority of two-thirds before it changes standing orders. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, rightly pointed out, that is in great contrast to the Government's total inability to accept even the concept that there may be some qualified majority in the referendums we have had. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, does the Chamber a great service in bringing to our attention the need for vigilance as regards the majorities required for implementing great change.
The Bill before us was approved by the Welsh people on a narrow majority on a low poll. However, it was a huge poll in comparison with what happened subsequently in London. This Chamber and those in the other place will have to turn our attention to the whole question of majorities and turnouts in referendums. The noble and learned Lord has done us a service by pointing out that as regards the assembly we are discussing the Government accept the need for a qualified majority to change standing orders. I look forward to hearing the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he aware that more people voted in the Welsh referendum than in the Northern Ireland referendum recently?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord makes my point for me as regards the need for qualified majorities and turnouts.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, commended the Government in respect of subsection (2). I am glad to join in that commendation. In respect of his further point, it is worth pondering. He said that subsection (3) comprises a useless, computer generated nonsense. I take his point about the two-thirds majority. However, circumstances differ. At the moment I cannot remember how many persons voted in the election for the present Leader of the Opposition.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Equal treatment of English and Welsh languages]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 112A:
Page 26, line 36, leave out ("of the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 112A and 247B are drafting amendments designed to secure consistency of language throughout the Bill in the references to the assembly's standing orders. At one part they are described as,
"standing orders of the assembly",
and elsewhere simply as "standing orders". We seek consistency. I am sure the Committee will endorse and applaud that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [The Commissioners]:
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Presiding officer and deputy]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 28, line 5, at end insert—("( ) The presiding officer and deputy presiding officer shall have a duty to provide members of the Assembly with such information as they may from time to time require in accordance with standing orders.").
The noble Lord said: In the early hours of this morning we debated the whole issue of how assembly information is to be made available to all its members. The amendment seeks to lay a duty on the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer to provide information. I tabled the amendment because of the concern expressed in our earlier debates that there should not be a division between the newly created Cabinet, which we shall discuss later—the executive,

345
the government of Wales as set out in the Bill—and the other members of the assembly. My strongly held view may not be echoed by all Members of this Chamber or the other place, but I believe that we should not replicate the worst habits of Westminster in Cardiff Bay. We should adopt some of the better practices of this Chamber in terms of scrutiny in debate, but we should not adopt some of the practices of secrecy and lack of information and the frustration that is generated among Members not so much in this Chamber but certainly in another place who try to raise issues and obtain information but have difficulty in doing so.
The amendment to Clause 53 would lay a duty upon the presiding officer and deputy presiding officer to make relevant information available. Such a duty would be related to the standing orders. The standing orders would act as a guarantee that members would be able to participate actively in debate and in the flow of information. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble Lord is quite right in his recollection of what occurred rather earlier this morning. This amendment is similar to the ones I moved on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, although it lays greater stress on the objective of providing information for members of the assembly. Even so, it is clear that a division of staff will inevitably be required. We made that point earlier today.
The amendment lays the duty of the provision of information on the presiding officer, whereas our amendments proposed that the division should occur along staffing lines and that it should be decided by the permanent secretary of staff. Some staff would owe their first loyalty to the executive whereas other staff would owe their first loyalty to the assembly and its members. But we come back to the basic point that some division of staff is necessary. I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's amendment; namely, that there must be a duty defined in standing orders to ensure that assemblymen are provided with a proper flow of information.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Like the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, I am in agreement with the thrust of what has been said. We are not entirely clear as to what the drafting of this amendment is intended to achieve. I understand perfectly the point of substance behind the amendment. I take it to be the concern that all members of the assembly, not just members of the executive committee, should have proper support to enable them to do their work properly—and by definition, they need ready and efficient access to information. Noble Lords may have noted that the advisory group attaches a good deal of importance to that question in paragraphs 5.6 to 5.13 of its consultation paper. It refers in particular to effective central library facilities, information gained through use of information technology, and members' own support staff where appropriate.
There is a particular view in the consultation paper that
"there should be regular factual briefings by senior officials of the assembly conducted under agreed arrangements".
346
I believe that takes up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. If that suggestion comes forward as a recommendation, I do not believe that the Secretary of State will have any difficulty with it. We want an inclusive assembly, with everyone prepared to make a positive contribution—that is, on the basis of a full understanding and full information. Therefore, the provision of information and other means of support for members is being carefully considered now. I hope that the noble Lord finds that a sufficient response for his present purpose. As I said, the amendment is not perfect; however, the noble Lord's point is a very sound one.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out my imperfections but also my spiritual intentions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Assembly First Secretary and Assembly Secretaries]:
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): In calling Amendment No. 114A, I should point out to the Committee that, if it is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 115.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 28, line 7, leave out from ("Assembly") to end of line and insert ("Premier or Y Pen Weinidog.").
The noble Lord said: The amendments in this series all hang together. They are designed to convert the executive into a Cabinet, with a premier at its head instead of a First Secretary; to change Secretaries into Ministers; and to convert the subject committees into Select Committees. On the face of it, those are all titular changes; however, I believe that they also carry further the change of style implicit in the change from local authority to Cabinet-style government. We pressed for that change, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, acknowledged more than once, in order to ensure decisive, effective and accountable government, which would not have emerged from an all-party subject committee system as originally proposed.
The Government have accepted the validity of that argument in Wales, as they appear to have done in Scotland from the start. I am sure they are right to have done so. I say that with some 15 years' experience behind me as a Minister in the Welsh Office. We are appreciative of the change that the Government have made.
Our first amendment, Amendment No. 114A, concerning the First Secretary, proposes that he be called "Premier" or, in Welsh, "Pen Weinidog". As Welsh speakers in the Chamber will readily acknowledge, that differentiates him or her from a Prif Weinidog, which is the title reserved for the Prime Minister. The title "Premier" is currently in use in the Canadian provincial legislatures and also in the Australian provincial legislatures. It therefore seems to us reasonable that it should be the title in use in the assembly. I hope that that proves generally acceptable to the Government, as I am sure it will to Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers alike.
The Government, having accepted the change of style to a Cabinet system, cannot well argue that should not be recognised in a change of title for the executive—except that the ultimate decision is for the assembly itself. Unlike the Scotland Bill, which transfers power to the executive, this Bill transfers power to the assembly. So I recognise the difficulty that the Government face. I believe that the Secretary of State ought to have said—
Lord Geraint: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one question. Would it not be better for the people of Wales to have a Prime Minister, a Prif Weinidog? Can he explain why he is not in favour of that proposal?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Simply because I do not want there to be any confusion. "Premier" is a totally different title from that of Prime Minister. The noble Lord will know that there could be some difficulty with the translation of both pieces of nomenclature. We translate "Prime Minister" as "Prif Weinidog". I suggest that we translate a "Premier" as a "Pen Weinidog". Therefore there is a difference in the terminology which I hope is found to be acceptable.
Lord Hooson: I wonder whether the noble Lord has contemplated the fact that the Premier of Wales might be known as "Pen-Wen"!
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I doubt it. It is certainly not an abbreviation that occurs to me. He might be know as a "Pen", which means "chief", and is a possible abbreviation. However, I doubt that he would be known by any other title.
I dare say that the Committee would like to consider these proposals, as would others outside this House. Certainly they are acceptable to me, and I hope acceptable to others too.
I believe that the Secretary of State for Wales has said that he will approve only standing orders which establish a Cabinet-style system, and that the assembly will not therefore have much choice in the matter—initially at any rate, until it is perhaps able to change standing orders with a two-thirds majority.
The change of titles that we propose might be helpful to the Secretary of State in establishing his Cabinet-style government. I do not intend to argue at any length as to why assembly Secretaries should be called Ministers, except to say simply that they replace Ministers in the United Kingdom Government. At present there are three Ministers in the Welsh Office: the Secretary of State and two Under-Secretaries of State. At least their functions are being transferred to the assembly, and I see no reason why at least their ministerial titles should not go along as well. They are currently called Secretaries of State of various kinds. But a ministerial title is commonly in use and commonly applies to different kinds of Ministers. Therefore I think that the ministerial title is more appropriate to cabinet government and the nomenclature proposed has a coherence and familiarity which should make it both understandable and acceptable to the majority of people.
348
There is no doubt that the changed, Cabinet-style government will affect the role of the subject committees. Our view is that they will be small enough to adopt the approach of a Select Committee rather than a Standing Committee, where set speeches are the order of the day. Most of us who have had experience of both kinds of committee would generally prefer the Select Committee as the more workmanlike and effective option. The main function of the assembly committees is to hold Ministers and others to account. Therefore, again, I think it will be agreed that the Select Committee mode of procedure is to be preferred.
3.30 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees: I should point out that, as Amendment No. 115A is also being spoken to, if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 116.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, for raising the interesting issue of nomenclature, on which I am sure we shall not agree among ourselves in this Committee. Our view from these Benches is that it should be for the assembly to decide in due course what to call their Ministers. The assembly, the Welsh press and the Welsh people may well come up with different names for the person who holds that position. We have an official in the Westminster Parliament who is known officially as the First Lord of the Treasury. He is customarily called the Prime Minister, the press call him the PM and the people call him by a variety of names, depending upon who is the holder of the office at any particular time.
This is not a matter which we believe should be incorporated in primary legislation, fixed and immutable, as is proposed by the amendment. We hope that the Government will give an assurance that, whatever there may be in the Bill, the people of Wales and the members of the assembly will be able to call the chief executive or prime minister whatever they think is fitting and suitable. We would prefer a single Welsh name which would become identified with the holder of that office, just as the Taoiseach has become identified with the holder of the office of Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland. When the word "Taoiseach" is used, there is no need to describe which country he comes from. We would hope that a term such as that would become common usage, part of the accepted vocabulary throughout the United Kingdom, so that no more need be said on that topic.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have not intervened before on this Bill, but I am listening to this discussion with great interest because I think it also relates to the Scotland Bill, which we shall be discussing shortly and in which I shall take particular interest.
I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench is a mistake. There are many things which the Welsh assembly should be left to decide for itself, as should the Scots parliament. But anything which might lead people into misunderstanding the relationship of the Welsh assembly or the Scots parliament with the Westminster

349
Parliament would be a great mistake. This question should be sorted out at Westminster before the Bill becomes law.
I like the idea promulgated in the amendment. I think that the word "premier" could become very acceptable in both countries. It would mean that there would be no confusion between Westminster and the subsidiary parliaments. At the same time, it sounds a bit less un-British than "First Secretary", which is a rather strange concept to introduce into our constitution. The name should come naturally but should make a differentiation between the subsidiary parliaments and the Westminster Parliament. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or at least look at it. It is very interesting and could make a big difference to the feel that there will be about these two parliaments among the peoples on behalf of whom they will operate.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I do not want to get into a linguistic argument in the Committee, but I think that I might. I understand the motivation behind these amendments, but I believe it will lead to a linguistic and political morass. Here I beg to differ—if that is permitted—with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. One tywysog in Wales is enough, and that person is a Member of this House, the Prince of Wales. Members of the Committee who are skilled in the Celtic languages will know that "taoiseach" is cognate with "tywysog", and that is the Prince, and therefore "tywysog" would not be an appropriate translation.
I have just taken a short leave of absence to check the Welsh Academy dictionary in the Library and I find that my former academic colleagues, Dr. Bruce Griffiths and Dr. Dafydd Glyn Jones, both translate "premier" as "prif weinidog". There is no mention of pen weinidog, pen bandit or any other pen in that dictionary. I am sorry, that is a bilingual joke. Pen bandit is the head bandit. I could go on. There is a public house not far from where I live occasionally in Caernarfon at Groeslon called Pen Nionyn, which could be roughly translated as "Onionhead". The possibilities are endless for the great Welsh public to construe a pen weinidog in all kinds of ways.
I should also like to speak against the notion, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that we should have names only in the Welsh language. I keep stressing this point, and it is becoming an obsession, as it was very early this morning. This is a bilingual institution. Everyone in Wales should have two names. Why should we have one when we can have two? I believe it is important that there should be a direct translation of each title, for each job, for each position, for each role, as there should be a clear, concise and direct translation between Welsh and English and English and Welsh of every other term that will be used in the work of the assembly.
I notice that in their advice the national advisory group has proposed the name trefnydd for the business manager, and I regret that that is a complete confusion. A trefnydd is clearly an organiser.
That brings me to the use of the word "ysgrifennydd/secretary". Ysgrifennydd/secretary has a long tradition in Wales in both languages. It is a very
350
honourable and honorary role to play. It has certain connotations, of which the noble Baroness reminded us, with regimes in central and eastern Europe which are no longer with us. Therefore, following the collapse of so-called, actually existing, socialism, why should we not accept titles and reinvigorate them with democratic meaning? The "secretary" in Wales has been the secretary of the chapel and the secretary of the eisteddfod. I see in his place the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, the greatest secretary of a local eisteddfod who ever sat in this Chamber or anywhere else. What is wrong with that title? It reverberates with democracy, consensus and understanding. I know that the title "secretary" emerged from the initial idea of a committee, which would then have a committee secretary.
That brings me to my final point, which relates to the structure of the committees. These are not select committees, neither are they subject committees. They are a combination of both and something else; they are a pwyllgor, a special kind of committee which will combine the roles of scrutiny, of legislating in certain aspects, of ensuring accountability, which we shall come to later in the Bill, as part of the duty laid upon secretaries to be accountable to the first secretary and to the assembly. I rejoice in these titles of ysgrifennydd and secretary as they stand in the Bill and strongly urge the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to resist any other linguistic arguments which may appear, from whatever quarter of the Chamber, to prevent us celebrating our bilingualism in "secretary/ysgrifennydd".
Lord Beloff: Without going into the linguistic intricacies of a language that I do not know, I would point out that there is some danger in the use of the word "premier", in the sense that the analogies which have been called to our attention with Canadian provinces or Australian states refer to the chief executive in bodies which have a legislative capacity. Those are bodies which pass primary legislation. As I understand it, the Welsh assembly is not a body of that kind. If a chief executive were to be called "premier", it might cause confusion even beyond the confusion that already exists.
Lord Prys-Davies: I suggest that we should not pretend that we can change the character of an institution by changing nomenclature.
It seems rather ironic to me that, while the official Opposition have been keen to weaken, fetter or restrict the powers of the assembly, they are keen this afternoon to use terminology which seems to have a higher order of significance than what is used in the Bill. But why stop at "Minister"? Why not "Prime Minister"? Why not "Speaker"? Or indeed why not "Officer" or "Governor" to represent the ceremonial aspects of the Crown in Wales?
The National Assembly of Wales will be a completely new institution. It is described in the White Paper as being a "unique" institution; a "forum" for the Welsh nation. I suggest that we should have the self-confidence of hunan-barch, to use the terms which are new and

351
which are appropriate to the new institution. I hope that the Government will think long and hard before they accept these beguiling amendments.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I hesitate to rise, particularly since I have a marginal difference of opinion with my noble friend sitting in front of me. As a mere Englishman I find it passing strange that we should wish to adopt a French word for the English title of a Welsh office.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, on his perfect pronunciation of Y Pen Weinidog. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that the possibilities are endless. I thought that myself at one o'clock this morning! Certainly the debate was endless, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, points out.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, did not profess a knowledge of the Welsh language because I had always thought he came from a very old Welsh family—the ap Beloffs. Plainly I was wrong.
Various titles have been offered. When the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, offered "trefnydd", I thought that might be disagreeably translated as "dictator", but he would not have that. It is suggested that "First Minister" is too redolent of our dear former friends in the Kremlin. Floating into my mind—I felt I should not say it—was "Lord Protector". Now that I have said it, perhaps the Secretary of State will want to be Lord Protector.
One must pause to wonder about the importance of specific titles. In Clause 57 of the Bill we have said that there shall be a first secretary to chair the assembly and assembly secretaries. We set out in Clause 58 subject committees which, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, points out, are not to be subject select committees. When it comes to an "assembly cabinet", we have left it to the assembly, by standing orders, to come to its own conclusion about nomenclature.
"Premier" is a foreign word. If I remember rightly, it came into popular being in this country after the last war when Mr. Churchill—later Sir Winston—commonly referred to himself as that and was popularly referred to as that. But there is not to be a premier or prime minister in the constitutional arrangements proposed for Wales. I believe the noble Baroness is right in saying that one wants to avoid titles which may bring about confusion.
We feel that the titles we have proposed in the Bill and the latitude that we rightly offered to the assembly by virtue of standing orders strike about the right balance. I endorse what my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies said. If the assembly wishes to develop an "assembly cabinet" system, we hope that it will work. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, again very generously, said that we listened to the arguments, which we thought powerful, put forward by the noble Lord and his colleagues and allowed the assembly to go its own way.
If the assembly wants to alter the name of the cabinet or the system, it will be able to do so on the basis that a two-thirds majority of the members voting on the
352
motion to support the amendments will be required. We believe that we have the right balance—which will never be perfect—between stability of arrangements and a degree of decent flexibility to respond to new circumstances in a creature which, after all, has never existed, nor anything like it, in the constitutional arrangements of our country.
This amendment is grouped with a large number of other amendments, but the principle is the same and I do not propose to pre-reply to what may be said in every case. We want the arrangements to work. We have new titles for new arrangements. It would be misleading. It is true that one can do a panoramic sweep of provincial legislatures, state legislatures and national legislatures throughout the world and pluck titles from Canada, New Zealand, Scandinavia or from the Länder in Germany. I am not sure that that is anything other than an added exercise.
I respectfully suggest to the Committee that we have the balance about right. If that is so, it may be helpful to move on to matters of rather more substance and worth, recognising, as I do, that the possibilities, alas, are endless.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the great variety of comments that we had from different parts of the Chamber. One thing is clear. There are titles in the Bill. We cannot simply leave it to the assembly because those titles are already in the Bill. It may be that the assembly will wish to change them in due course and then it will express its views.
Our main aim in bringing forward these amendments was to follow through the Government's conversion to the Cabinet-style system. It seemed to us appropriate that, following that conversion, we should resort to Cabinet-style titling so that no one would be unfamiliar with the members of the cabinet executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made a point which occurred to me; that is, that the difference between the assembly and Canadian or Australian counterparts is that for the most part those are legislative assemblies whereas the Welsh assembly is simply a body with secondary legislative powers.
I was not intending to beguile the Committee in any way by introducing the amendments. With all due respect, our debate has been valuable in that it has cleared the air and shown that there is a degree of satisfaction with the current titles employed in the Bill. I was not aware of that until now. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chairman of Committees: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 119 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 11 9A:
Page 28, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly First Secretary, and each of the Assembly Secretaries, is a Crown servant for the purposes of the Official Secrets Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 119A is grouped with Amendment No. 254A. Amendment No. 119A adds a new subsection to Clause 54, making it plain that members of the executive committee should be regarded as Crown servants for the purpose of the Official Secrets Act 1989. If the Committee was prepared to accept that amendment, then in due time I would invite the Committee to conclude that Clause 81 should not stand part of the Bill.
In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendment No. 254A, which includes within the definition of "government contractor", for the purposes of the 1989 Act, someone who provides goods and services to the assembly. There has been a good deal of debate, in another place and publicly, about how the Official Secrets Act ought to relate to the work of the assembly. We undertook to give further consideration to what were serious issues. Amendment No. 119A comes as the child of that further consideration.
We thought originally that all members of the assembly, as we see in what is presently Clause 81, ought to be covered by the Official Secrets Act 1989. The underlying reason for that was that there will be a transfer of ministerial functions from the Secretary of State to the assembly, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, rightly said. The Secretary of State is presently covered by the 1989 Act and we thought at that stage that so too should members of the assembly.
We have listened carefully to the arguments which were deployed at some persuasive length in another place. It was a valid point that if we adhered to our first position there might have been constraints on debate in the assembly in a way which was wrong. Some members of the assembly need to be covered by the Act, otherwise civil servants lawfully in possession of protected information would be able to make it available to assembly members only by imposing explicit conditions of confidentiality. That would not chime in with the relationship between civil servants and leading political figures.
Having thought about it, we consider the original proposal went too far; it was too draconian. The criticisms made by various public figures and in another place were properly based criticisms. This amendment is brought forward to strike a better balance between the proper maintenance of respectable confidentiality and free debate in the assembly.
We are assisted in this work by virtue of the shift that we have come to towards a Cabinet or quasi-Cabinet system, which I mentioned yesterday and which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, today. We are adjusting the applicability of the Official Secrets Act to those in the assembly who will exercise what I crudely call the Front Bench functions. If the Committee accepts this amendment it will improve the Bill.
The nature of the devolved functions and the categories of information protected by the Act of 1989—security, intelligence, defence, international relations, crime, special investigation powers—means in practice that very few official secrets issues are likely to arise in the working context of the assembly. We believe that leading members of the assembly should be covered by the Act to permit a proper flow of information between civil servants and those with executive responsibilities.
Amendment No. 254A is perhaps of lesser importance. The effect of the amendment would be simple. Under the 1989 Act government contractors are placed under obligations analogous with those of Crown servants; that is, that they must not make unauthorised disclosure of information in protected categories. The definition of "government contractor" is broadly someone who supplies goods and services for the purpose of a Minister. Amendment No. 254A places contractors who provide goods and services to the assembly in the same position as those providing goods and services to a Minister; that is, protected information may not be revealed. I hope that explanation commends itself to the Committee.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We, as the official Opposition, welcome these amendments. It seemed to us almost unbelievable that every member of the assembly, even members of the opposition—and I trust there will be an opposition and that it will not actually be like a new-born Supreme Soviet where everybody will be consensually on the Government's side—would be bound by the Official Secrets Act. That would be a really amazing position. I can just imagine that suggestion being made to some Members in the other place—even some on the Government's own side. They would be horrified to find themselves, the moment they became Members of Parliament, bound by the Official Secrets Act. The poor old members of the Welsh assembly would have been in a worse position than some Members of your Lordships' House and Members of the other place who are government Ministers. There may be some who are still, collectively and for life, bound by the Official Secrets Act.
This is a sensible amendment but in some ways it links back to the series of amendments we have just had about names and, more importantly, to the amendments we discussed yesterday evening about the concordats and who the concordats were between. One of the two fundamental differences between the Welsh Bill and the Scotland Bill is that the power in this Bill is devolved to the assembly as a collective whereas the power in the Scotland Bill has been devolved to the executive of the Scottish Parliament. That is an enormous difference and serious consequences flow from that. I do not want to rehearse the argument about concordats but it is a similar, parallel argument to the one about the Official Secrets Act. The powers of the Secretary of State are devolved to the assembly and agreements which would normally be between governments or ministers have to be between the Government here, departments of state here at Westminster, and the assembly.

355
Equally, that led the Government to the view that all members of the assembly should sign up to the Official Secrets Act. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the arguments of my colleagues in another place that this was a ridiculous proposition that could not be defended in public. I therefore welcome the amendment.
I hope that the Government will start to think through some of the consequences of the principle which underlies this; namely, that the Secretary of State's powers have gone to the assembly. It would be a much clearer transfer of powers if they were to go to the executive of the assembly. Then things like concordats and names would be very much simpler. Having said that, one swallow in this case does make a little bit of a summer and I welcome the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: With very great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I was somewhat surprised that with this amendment he did not also deal with Clause 81. I am very satisfied with the explanation that Clause 81 goes far too far, but could I ask the noble Minister what is the position of a presiding officer in, for example, Clause 76?
Also, while I am on my feet, I should add to my question of last night on the Motion that Clause 36 stand part of the Bill as regards inquiries. There is the provision for a person to be required to take an oath under Clause 76 when required to attend proceedings of the assembly. However, Clause 36 deals with an inquiry, which I imagine could be held anywhere in Wales, as such inquiries can be held anywhere in Scotland. In England I think such inquiries are always held in this Palace of Westminster.
Going back to Amendments Nos. 119A and 254A, including, perhaps, Clause 81, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to pass on to his Scottish colleagues that there is at present no such provision about secrets in the Scottish Bill. I hope he agrees with me in that I think there should be.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may deal with those latter points first. I told the noble Earl yesterday that his questions on Clause 76 would be researched and I undertook to write to him as soon as possible. I indicated that it would be unlikely that the detailed answers would be available for him today.
I take the noble Earl's point on the Scottish question and I am able to tell him that if amendments to the Scotland Bill on Report in the Commons are accepted, members of the Scottish executive will be covered by the Official Secrets Act. I think he has correctly identified a gap which it is the Government's present intention to fill.
I was very pleased with the generous response of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that we have listened carefully, as I am always advised to do by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and have demonstrated the flexibility which is the hallmark of the Government in your Lordships' House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Haskel: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link
4 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"Madam Speaker, mindful of your recent request, I shall keep this Statement short, as far as is possible for such a complicated subject of such importance to this House. To assist honourable Members, I shall make arrangements for a memorandum to be placed in the Library of the House.
"In March 1996 the development agreement to build the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was awarded to London and Continental Railways, known as LCR. LCR also took control of the Eurostar service. Its plan was to commence construction in late 1997. The agreement provided for a taxpayer contribution worth £1.8 billion. When I had the chance to examine the details of the deal put in place by the previous government, I was appalled. They took the cheapest bid based on over-optimistic forecasts of Eurostar revenue, without even commissioning their own independent forecasts, a failing we have now put right.
"The Government were seriously exposed because of the small financial commitment made by the private sector. Furthermore, as a consequence of the previous government's intention to conceal public subsidy of the Channel Tunnel, Eurostar was hampered by the requirement to pay Eurotunnel for train paths it was not using. Even this week I was asked to find £100 million to pay for specially designed sleeper trains which do not work, have never been used, and are now lying idle in a field.
"The kindest thing I can say about this whole agreement is that it was flawed from the start. In January of this year it almost collapsed. The company could not fulfil its contract. At that point I was faced with a clear choice. I could have abandoned the present contract with LCR and invited new tenders. But that would have meant two years or more of delay, with all the blight and uncertainty that would have caused. The equivalent of two-thirds of the grant would have been spent on Eurostar's debts and continuing losses with nothing to show for it. Alternatively, I could ask it to reconsider the financing of the project, and come forward with proposals to meet all its original obligations. That was the path I chose.

357
"I explained that LCR had requested an additional £1.2 billion of taxpayers' money, on top of the £1.8 billion already committed. That was unacceptable. I gave LCR one month to come up with new proposals, and subsequently extended that period ultimately to this week. At the end of March LCR made an improved proposal, but still failed to meet the Government's requirements.
"I am very aware of the importance which honourable Members on both sides of this House attach to this project which had an approved passage through the House. I have always believed that Britain should have a high speed passenger and freight link to Europe, equal to those on the other side of the Channel. This is an important project, comparable to any which this Government are promoting. It is a key part of our integrated transport policy. It is a national asset which will bring benefits not just to the south-east, but to all parts of Britain. It is clear this country wants this railway built. All parties supported the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, which passed its Second and Third Readings unopposed.
"This project offers immense benefits: economic, transport, and environmental; improved speed, reliability and capacity for international and domestic services—for both passengers and freight; and it will also play a major part in regenerating north Kent and the East Thames corridor including Stratford and King's Cross.
"The Government want to see this project proceed. But, as I have made clear, not at any price. My firm view was that LCR could carry on if it was able to deliver the whole project from the Tunnel to St. Pancras according to the contract. I made clear that in addition the Government required: a further reduction in the proposed additional cost to the taxpayer; a robust financing plan, based on realistic forecasts for Eurostar; a balance of incentives which would ensure the construction of the whole of the rail link; and an increased risk transfer to the private sector.
"For the past four months we have been involved in intensive negotiations, and I can now inform the House of the outcome. The call on public finances represents good value for the taxpayer. There is a robust financing plan. It is based on a proper assessment of future Eurostar revenue. The incentives to complete the whole link are in place. The private sector will take a greater share of risk. In short there will be a high speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link.
"Today I signed with LCR and Railtrack a statement of principles which meet all these requirements and fulfil the contract agreed by the previous Secretary of State, the right honourable Member for Hampshire, North West. Under this public private partnership, LCR has been strengthened. There is a new management team in place, and LCR has agreed to raise more equity to support the project. Railtrack has agreed to take a key role in building the link. It will manage the
358
construction for the railway up to north Kent, and will commit to purchase it upon completion. It will have an option to build and buy the remainder of the link.
"LCR has secured a strong partner to operate Eurostar. It considered two very strong bids, one from Virgin, the other from a consortium comprising British Airways, National Express, and the national railways of France and Belgium. It has today agreed to award that contract to the consortium. LCR has the same obligations to build the entire 68 miles of railway from the Channel Tunnel to St. Pancras in London via Ebbsfleet and Stratford, entirely in accordance with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act, endorsed by this House. It will be built to the same route and the same specification, to the same high standards, and with the same environmental and heritage safeguards, undertakings and assurances given during the passage of that legislation.
"Construction will begin towards the end of this year. The stretch from the Channel Tunnel to the turn-off to Waterloo in Kent is due to be completed by 2003. At this stage services from Waterloo will benefit from the new high speed line. Construction beyond this point is expected to commence in 2001 with the line through Ebbsfleet and Stratford to St. Pancras finished by 2007. This will include the proposed new Thameslink station at St. Pancras. There will be no change of route under this agreement. It will be exactly as in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act. The Eurostar consortium will operate the trains from Waterloo to Paris and Brussels, and in due course services from St. Pancras.
"I recognise that many honourable Members wish to see an early start to regional services. I can assure the House that LCR remains under an obligation to provide the infrastructure for regional Eurostar services. The trains for those services are currently lying idle. I have therefore asked the consortium to review urgently the feasibility of such services, and put proposals to me before the end of the year. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review in due course.
"In addition, the consortium has a vision of Heathrow as a gateway to Europe for services from across the country. The consortium proposes to establish from as early as 2001 a service from Heathrow Airport to Paris. Heathrow is the world's busiest international airport. It is already Britain's biggest bus station, connected to the largest underground network in the world. This new service should in time establish Heathrow as an integrated transport interchange of international importance, connecting long haul air services directly into the European high speed rail network.
"I have always made clear that the Government required a significant degree of risk transfer to the private sector and this deal achieves that. If construction costs overrun, Railtrack will carry the full cost. If Eurostar revenues are less than forecast, Railtrack and the consortium will share the burden along with the Government. I have made clear that there must be a strong incentive to complete the

359
whole link from the Tunnel to St. Pancras and this deal achieves that. The Act requires the whole link to be built. The contract obliges LCR to build the entire link.
"I have always made clear that the Government required a fair deal for the taxpayer, consistent with the Government's existing obligations under the contract and this deal most certainly achieves that. The basic grant will remain at £1.8 billion and there will be no requirement for additional Government support before the year 2010. Moreover, following intensive negotiations, the extent of the Government's additional contribution, will not be the £1.2 billion requested in January, not even the £700 million which may have been read in the press this week, but £140 million and with the probability that after the year 2020, our share in the benefits will more than compensate for this extra grant.
"All the parties have contributed to this improvement—LCR, Railtrack, the consortium and the Government. Recognising the unique features of this project, and our commitment to strengthen international rail transport links, we have agreed that the Government's credit will stand behind £3.7 billion of bonds issued by LCR privately in the City to fund the project. The debt will be repaid out of the proceeds of the sale of the completed link. The risk of the Government incurring liability under the guarantees is therefore remote. The Government will support the financing package which will allow this project to proceed now, and at the minimum financing cost. The alternative would have been considerable delay and increased costs.
"But this Government do not intend to offer taxpayers' support without something in return. This Government believe that in a real public-private partnership, not only the costs are shared, but also the benefits. The Government are sharing the risk, so it is only right that the taxpayer should share in the benefits. I have therefore agreed with the parties that the Government will take a public stakeholder share in LCR yielding a 35 per cent. share of the company's pre-tax surplus after 2020. The Government will also have a 5 per cent. stake in the Eurostar management company. This will be a public-private partnership with strong public accountability. Moreover, if LCR decide to sell the business, the taxpayer will share at least 35 per cent. of the proceeds. As I said earlier, these extra benefits should not simply balance the additional £140 million of public subsidy. This deal should provide that taken over the long-term LCR pays a premium to the Government.
"Under the original plan the concession was for 999 years. Eurostar was privatised forever. The parties have now agreed to reduce the concession to only 90 years. In 2086 this railway and the Eurostar service will revert to public ownership, along with the Channel Tunnel itself. I look forward to appearing before the House on that occasion to announce that event.
360
"There is one more point. I have negotiated a share for the Government in any savings of construction cost. I have also negotiated a mechanism to prevent any of the parties involved enjoying excessive windfall gains at the taxpayers' expense. In this way we aim to avoid any repeat of the fiascos which have marked railway privatisation.
"There is still much work to be done. Regulatory bodies must be satisfied. There will be many more months of negotiation on the detail. This is an agreement snatched from the ashes of LCR's collapse. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link will be built all the way to St. Pancras. Construction will begin this year. We will join the fast track to Europe. This is a deal which is good for integrated transport, good for the environment and good for the taxpayer. And it is good enough for me to commend it to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.14 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating this over-spun and well-leaked Statement made in another place by her right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is complex and the memorandum even more so.
As the Minister said, the project and the original CTRL Bill and its principles enjoyed cross-party support in both Houses. The project is indeed very important for the country and for the population of London where total unemployment still compares to that of Scotland and Wales combined. So Stage two is vital to London as well as to the rest of the country.
At what point does the Minister expect Waterloo International station to become saturated? Does she expect that to happen before or after the completion of Stage two? What guarantees can she give that Stage two will actually be built whatever the CTRL Act says? The Statement appears to criticise the previous government's assessment of the LCR bid. On what basis have the passenger projections now been calculated and will the Minister make that information public in due course?
Does the Minister agree that government exposure will not be the £140 million alluded to in the Statement; not £700 million, and not £1,200 million, but that the grand total of grant and guarantees will be £5.4 billion? How does that equate with the statement that this private sector will take a greater share of the risk? How is this commitment to be treated? If it is described as PFI, is it to be classified as public expenditure and will it appear in the Red Book?
Will not the "strong public accountability" in the Statement also incur increased responsibility, management and ultimately interference with the project? Can the Minister assure the House that neither LCR nor Railtrack will have any pretext to come back to the Government to ask for more public money in the future and if they do, will it be refused?
The Minister was kind enough to refer to the success of Heathrow, so well run by the privatised BAA. She referred to Britain's biggest bus station at Heathrow, serviced by Britain's privatised bus industry. Finally,

361
can the Minister say how much of Eurostar's new management company will be controlled by the state-owned French and Belgian railways?
In conclusion, we support the completion of the CTRL, but we shall have to look much more closely at the financial arrangements in order to determine their nature.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by congratulating not so much the Minister as the Labour Administration on their exceptionally successful media management in the run-up to this announcement. We were led to believe that something not very satisfactory was going to happen, but we are now told that something rather satisfactory is going to happen. It is probably a case of 10 out of 10 for that.
I am delighted to support the good news which is contained in the Statement. I am glad that the noble Baroness was able to repeat the Statement in this House so soon after it was made in another place. We share the Government's assessment of the importance of this project, not just for people who live in the South-East; not just for the ability to get passengers across to the Continent, but also because of its importance to freight and to the regeneration of the East Thames corridor. The scheme is important, therefore, on both environmental and economic grounds and well beyond the confines of the South-East itself. I hope that the assurances in the Statement that progress will be made in extending Eurostar's services beyond the South-East are well founded, and that the Minister can say a little more about that.
I am glad that the conditions of the original deal and Act with regard to completion of the entire project have been retained. I am particularly glad to welcome the fact that the Government have obtained, as it were, a stake in the company in return for the investment that is being made in the asset which is being created. This seems an extremely sensible example of public/private co-operation and very much in line with our own thinking on these matters.
Naturally, however, I have some questions. I think I am right in saying that the timing of the second stage into St. Pancras in effect amounts to a delay of some four years on the original estimate. That means that there will be quite a long period when Eurostar is competing for track space on the congested lines from north and east Kent into London. Can the Minister tell us anything about the operating schedules and whether they will be affected? I refer both to commuter traffic—those lines are already crowded at rush hour—and to the operation of Eurostar during that period of congestion. On that subject, have the recommended engineering reports on the feasibility of moving the terminal from Kings Cross to St. Pancras been undertaken?
I have another question on timing. I refer to the timing of the payments of the government contribution to the project. It is not clear to me from the Statement how the payment of the major contribution of £1.8 billion will be staged. I should be grateful for some details on that.
362
Finally, there is another problem to which reference has already been made. I refer to the balance of cost and benefit to the taxpayer of a share in the eventual success of LCR as opposed to the risk of backing a £3.7 billion bond issue. Can the Minister assure us that there is not now over-confidence in the eventual success of this project? I hope that that is not the case.
Having said all that, our first reaction is one of satisfaction that from the ashes of failure the Government have managed to construct something which looks as though it will be successful.
4.22 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, for ending on such a constructive note and for her welcome of a deal which has been produced after enormous effort by many people and which reflects a partnership in which the House and the country can have confidence.
I must advise the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that he is absolutely right that there was criticism implicit in the Statement of the scrutiny by the last government of the contract into which they entered. I suggest that that criticism was well based, given the collapse that we have seen and what has had to be rescued over the past few months.
It is rather churlish to criticise this as an over-spun and over-leaked announcement. What I was listening to and reading this morning was not the Statement that I made to the House this afternoon. One does not have complete control over the press getting things wrong, but it is a little unfair to be blamed for the fact that they speculate.
I shall try to answer most of the specific points put to me and I undertake to write on any that I have missed. I was asked about what guarantees there are about the second phase of construction. That interrelates with the question of the timing of the payment of public subsidy, which was raised by the noble Baroness. The two are interrelated because it is in the incentives as regards the timing of the payments of public subsidy that we believe lies the strength of the incentive for the completion of the whole project through to St. Pancras. Approximately one-third of the public subsidy will he payable on completion of the first phase to Fawkham Junction. None of that money will be payable until two-thirds of that construction work is completed. That means that two-thirds of the public subsidy of £1.8 billion will not be payable until we have two-thirds of the construction of the next phase to St. Pancras. The House will understand that those are strong financial incentives. There are also strong financial incentives for Railtrack in having a complete link as soon as possible in terms of its return on its capital.
The noble Earl asked me about capacity at Waterloo. My understanding is that we are confident that there will be sufficient capacity at Waterloo for the foreseeable future. We do not believe that, even on the most optimistic forecasts, there will be any capacity constraints before the development into St. Pancras is completed.

363
In an analogous question, the noble Baroness asked about the pressure that will be put on commuter lines into Waterloo. Once the Fawkham Junction section is complete, there will obviously be additional traffic on some of the lines into Waterloo, but I understand that Railtrack has undertaken to ensure that there are some improvements on that stretch of the line in the interim period before the complete link into St. Pancras is finished.
I was also asked about the forecasts of Eurostar business and passenger traffic, which are obviously key to this issue. As I said, those forecasts have been prepared for the Government by independent consultants in contradistinction to the previous government's acceptance of the over-optimistic projections provided by Eurostar. The Government's central case, on which the funding is based, forecasts for every year to 2010 10 per cent. less traffic than was implicit in LCR's forecast. Even on those lower passenger forecasts, this deal still stacks up financially. The House can be reassured that there is not the over-optimism that got us into this position in the first place.
The noble Earl suggested that the project would receive large amounts in public subsidy over and above the £1.8 billion and the possibility of an extra £140 million in subsidy which I have already explained with regard to Eurostar. In fact, the guarantees have been classified independently by the Office for National Statistics and vetted by the European equivalent agency. The Office for National Statistics has deemed that the possibility of the Government's guarantees as regards the bonds being called in is so remote that they do not score as public expenditure.
In view of the unique importance of this project, we have managed to provide a financing system which means that the project can be built at the least cost to the taxpayer rather than involving the taxpayer, as we were being asked to do originally, in £1.2 billion of extra expenditure simply to enable LCR to raise its money on the open market. I would have thought that the creation of a safe but innovative method to ensure that the link was built at the cheapest possible cost and the least demand on taxpayers' money would be something on which the Deputy Prime Minister and the negotiating team should be congratulated.
I described the consortium that would run Eurostar. A stake will be held by both the Belgian and French national railways. Those details are still being negotiated. I cannot say exactly what stake they will each hold, but I have made clear that the British Government will also have a stake and therefore public participation will be ensured. I hope that I have covered most of the points that have been raised, but I shall read Hansard and undertake to write to noble Lords if I have not covered particular points.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ampthill: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement but hope that she will forgive my disappointment about some of its
364
contents. The Bill received Royal Assent 18 months ago. The intervening period has not been totally wasted inasmuch as the detailed plans have been completed. A start on construction could have been made 10 weeks ago but the money was not there. We are now faced with a completion date of 2007—four years later than contemplated and would have been achievable. The first phase is to stop at Ebbsfleet. Who other than those of us involved in this matter knows where Ebbsfleet is? The answer is that it is to be found in the top right-hand corner of Kent near the Thames. It is a wasteland and no one will wish to go there.
The proposed first phase appears to achieve a saving of a quarter of an hour in the Eurostar journey time from Paris and Brussels but virtually nothing else. The original concept had many more objectives: a saving of half-an-hour for Eurostar and, more importantly, the opening up of decent rail services for the people of Kent, using the new line, which would more than halve the journey time for commuters and others wishing to travel to London and beyond. It would also get Eurostar off the old, decrepit and clogged south-east network. A further benefit would be the provision of a gateway at Stratford East for the whole of the United Kingdom north of the Thames to gain rail access to Europe, whether it be people or goods.
I believe that there is little benefit in phase one on its own and a great deal of unpleasantness for those who live near the spur line from Southfleet to Waterloo—the people of Swanley, Bexley, Bromley and Beckenham—who were told by the Select Committee of this House that while there could be a brief period when the spur line might be overused because of the greater construction difficulties north of the Thames they would not have to put up with it for too long. They have been badly let down.
One suspects the dead hand of the Treasury in this unhappy compromise despite the kind observations in the Statement. Recently, there have been welcome signs that the Treasury has discovered the difference between capital and current expenditure. A huge infrastructure project such as this will never get done without heavy state help. PFI can go only so far. However, it is at last going to happen. Can the noble Baroness give the House some encouragement that her department will exert greater pressure to make a start on construction and urge a great deal more rapid completion?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Ampthill, raises a number of extremely well informed points, as the House would expect given his chairmanship of the committee which considered the Channel Tunnel Bill. Both I and the whole House share his concern that the project has been delayed. However, there was no point in trying to proceed with a project that was basically unsound and did not have a strong, solid foundation to ensure completion. That was very much the consideration which we faced in January in deciding whether we could make the deal work—it took four months of very intense negotiation, and further negotiation will be required to get the details right—or we should run the risk of having to start from scratch, adding at least two years' further uncertainty and blight,

365
with no guarantee as to the outcome, by re-tendering the whole project. We have taken another path that we believe has been successful.
The noble Lord has referred to the dead hand of the Treasury. I describe it as the imaginative and innovative support of the Government in financing a deal that makes this project work. I recognise the noble Lord's concern that there will be different completion dates for different phases, although given the nature of a project of this length it was always going to be built bit by bit. I point out to the noble Lord—it is one of the dangers of believing what is said on the radio and leaked in the papers—that the first phase to which Railtrack is committed in procuring the building and buying of the track at the end of it will not go as far as Ebbsfleet. It will go to Fawkham Junction and the spur into Waterloo. I understand that there will be concerns at both Ebbsfleet and further into London because of the very real additional benefits to which the noble Lord has referred: the regeneration possibilities at Stratford, at Ebbsfleet and in the whole Thames corridor. We shall have to wait a little longer for those benefits, but we have a robust framework in terms of both the management and financing of the project, which means that the complete link will be built.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I welcome the completion of this project, but can the Minister inform the House what plans are now being made to increase the capacity of King's Cross Underground Station? Once the project is completed there will be a vast influx of people who wish to use the Underground network from King's Cross. At the moment King's Cross is almost running at capacity and without further major works to accommodate the extra passengers there is a possibility that it will become dangerously overloaded. Are there plans to undertake large-scale development at King's Cross? Further, can the Minister inform the House about any engineering studies that have been undertaken at St. Pancras? Those who sat on the Select Committee dealing with the King's Cross inquiry a few years ago were told quite categorically that it was very unlikely that St. Pancras would be able to accommodate an international terminal without major works. What studies have been undertaken of the financial problems that will arise from that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to point out that the implications for both St. Pancras and King's Cross must be carefully evaluated in terms of the links with the Underground and other transport systems. That integration between forms of transport is also one of the reasons why the potential links around Heathrow are particularly attractive as they would provide a variety of interchanges available to travellers and a number of ways in which they could gain access to the high speed link.
Another issue is Thameslink 2000 and the possibilities that that offers for commuter traffic at King's Cross and St. Pancras. Construction of the Thameslink 2000 station is included in the second phase
366
of construction. Both LCR and Railtrack will be discussing the full implications of that project with the department. I am sure that there will be further discussions with London Underground about the implications for Underground services at King's Cross.
Lord Biffen: My Lords, the Minister has very properly spoken of sacrifice in this major financial project. Will she confirm that part of the private sector contribution will be in terms of fixed finance? What is the assumed rate of inflation that will be absorbed in the arrangement?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in all honesty, I do not think that I can answer that at this moment. I undertake to write to the noble Lord and give him that information.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I congratulate my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister on the creative and hard negotiations that he has been through. In my simple calculation, he started off with £700 million of possible cancellation charges, about which we did not know from the previous government until a few months ago when we raised the matter in the House. He has got that down to £140 million to keep it going. He deserves every congratulation. I have two questions for my noble friend. First I should declare that I am chairman of the Rail Freight Group. Obviously rail freight welcomes the link, not just for rail freight in particular but because more capacity will be opened up between London and the Channel Tunnel, and that is essential. I leave that to one side.
My main concern, like that of so many other noble Lords, is that the link should be completed to King's Cross. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure the House that if it is possible to construct the link from the junction next to Ebbsfleet as far as Stratford that would not be bad. It is a stage and a half. Stratford is at least on the London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, and so forth. It may take until 2007 to reach St. Pancras with all the opportunities for regional services that that will bring.
In many debates in this House we have raised the question of frontier controls on these trains. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to look, with her colleagues in Customs and Immigration, to see whether there could be a more simplified procedure which does not involve segregated platforms at Stratford and St. Pancras for international and domestic trains. That is something that seems to be unnecessary in the rest of Europe. Finally, is my noble friend satisfied that there will not be undue market dominance on the London to Paris axis in the air, by coach and on the railway by BA and National Express? What action will she be taking to ensure that that does not occur?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. On his last point, I believe I made it clear in the Statement that there are regulatory issues in this country and at a European level which will be subject to scrutiny. That is part of the detailed work that will have to go on during the next

367
weeks and months. Although he did not raise rail freight as a major point, it is important to stress that the link and the services will have direct and indirect benefits for rail freight, which are important at an international level. He mentioned security for passengers and security checks. That has always been an issue so far as concerns regional services and interchanges. I shall bear in mind his comments in what I am sure will be ongoing discussions on that subject.
My noble friend talked about the extension of the project at least to Stratford. I should make it clear once again that the contract remains unchanged and as it was under the Act; that is, a through route into St. Pancras. Lastly, he was right to make the point about the cancellation costs, which were not well understood at the time of the original agreement. He and my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington drew attention to them in this House recently. My noble friend Lord Berkeley said that we could have been left with a bill of £700 million with nothing to show for it and that we would then be back to stage one in the negotiations. The only thing that he was wrong about is that the bill could have been nearer to £1 billion.
The Earl of Carnarvon: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that today, as chairman of SERPLAN, I published the strategic plan for the south-east, affecting 18 million people. I was at the press conference this morning. I found that the acting chairman of LPAC, Councillor Kallar, was extremely worried about the possibility of delays in development in the East End corridor and the connection with Stratford. That affects not just the people of London and the unemployed people of London to whom the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, referred; it affects everyone in the south-east. I suppose that housing in the south-east is probably the hottest potato that the Government have to handle. It is important for everyone concerned that the Government give local authorities throughout the south-east, particularly in the East End of London, confidence that there will be a connection to Stratford. I accept of course the Minister's remarks today, but I feel that her department should ensure that, with all the publishing that will go on in relation to the sustainable strategy for the south-east, that that point be endorsed and underlined.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his comments. I recognise his long-standing concern over planning in the south-east. I acknowledge that there will be disappointment at the extended length of time for completion of the links into Stratford and St. Pancras. However, I believe that it is in the interests of all those people in London and the south-east who are looking for the regeneration benefits that will come from the Channel Tunnel rail link that we have in place a robust and secure managerial and financing arrangement that will in time produce the whole link, rather than an agreement which on paper,
368
would produce it sooner but which was, in fact, so unrobust that it was in danger of total collapse in January of this year.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that it is necessary for the well-being of north-west England that the west coast main line should be physically directly linked to the Channel Tunnel link. Will the Minister explain what, if anything, today's announcement does to bring that objective forward?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, the obligation in the development agreement for the provision of the infrastructure for direct regional services is the same as it has always been. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister recognises the importance attached by Members of this House and another place to putting regional services in place. That is why he has asked the consortium, which was chosen only today to operate Eurostar, to report to him by the end of the year on the viability of regional services.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I commend the innovative way in which the financing of £3.5 billion of bonds issued by LCR has been handled, but could I ask for a clarification from my noble friend? What happens to the risk on those bonds if LCR goes out of business or is bought up? Do the Government face any extra risk on that?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am always nervous when I reply to economists' questions, whether they are from behind me or in front of me. I think I made it clear that if LCR were to be bought the taxpayer would have 35 per cent. of the proceeds. I made it clear also that the assessment of the Office of National Statistics is that the risk of the bonds being called in is so low that they do not count as public expenditure. Even on the lowest, most pessimistic forecasts—not the median forecast upon which the Government are operating—for Eurostar passenger traffic, there is still enough income to repay the bonds. With regard to the bond for the completion by Railtrack, the cost of that bond is covered because there is an undertaking by Railtrack to purchase the completed section as soon as it is built.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on securing a better deal than that trailed in the press in recent days, although, as pointed out by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—a point not totally dispelled by the noble Baroness's answer to the noble Lord, Lord Desai—there are still risks to the taxpayer should anything go wrong.
Perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness which is germane to the Statement, although it may not appear so at first sight. I ask out of pure curiosity and certainly not to capitalise upon the awful tragedy which took place near Celle today. Which is statistically safer per mile travelled within western Europe—plane travel or train travel?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I can find that information for the noble Lord. There is always a

369
difficulty in comparisons between accident and fatality rates of different modes of travel when one compares aircraft with rail or car travel by per mile or kilometre travelled rather than per hour travelled. Off the top of my head, I should not like to give those statistics.
I think that the whole House would like to record the concern I am sure we all feel about the tragic accident in Germany today.

Government of Wales Bill
4.52 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 119B:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause—

FUNCTIONS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF ASSEMBLY SECRETARIES
(" .—(1) The executive functions of the Assembly shall be carried out by the Assembly Secretaries and by officials acting on their behalf.
(2) In the discharge of all such functions and otherwise, Assembly Secretaries shall be accountable to the Assembly for their actions and those of officials acting on their behalf.
(3) The Assembly may by resolution of no confidence at any time require any Assembly Secretary or Secretaries to resign.
(4) The standing orders of the Assembly shall provide for any motion of no confidence to take precedence over all other business and shall specify a reasonable minimum period of debate on such a motion.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause is inspired by the somewhat bare bones character of the preceding Clause 54. The purpose of the new clause is to clarify the functioning and accountability of the assembly secretaries.
Subsection (2) makes clear that they are accountable to the assembly. Subsection (3) gives the assembly power to pass a resolution of no confidence, and requires an assembly secretary's resignation. Subsection (4) of the new clause requires that such a Motion of no confidence be given precedence over all other business. This proposed procedure is not dissimilar to what happens in another place. Ministers, not infrequently in my experience, face critical Motions reducing their salaries by an insignificant amount, although devastating so far as concerns their reputations as ministers if the Motions are passed.
There is no doubt about the assembly's power over the executive. The first secretary has the power to dismiss as well as appoint assembly secretaries under Clause 54. The new clause gives the assembly a clear opportunity to vent its criticism of an assembly secretary who has transgressed. It overrides any protection that may be given to such a secretary by the first secretary who appointed him, or by the executive. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I have already indicated to the Committee that we wish the assembly to begin with a Cabinet system, but do not consider it appropriate for that system to be entrenched forever and a day, as the new clause provides. I do not think that I can add
370
further to what I said earlier; namely, that we expect to see most of the executive functions carried out on the assembly's behalf by the secretaries. But we do not think that one needs something set in stone.
There is a novel point which has not previously been discussed by the Committee. That is the question of votes of confidence. I have to say at once that on this we agree with the noble Lord who proposed the new clause: it is a matter of some importance. That is why the advisory group has been considering it. It is making detailed recommendations to the Secretary of State about the provisions which should be made in standing orders rather than on the face of the Bill to allow Motions of no confidence to be put down and debated. We shall be looking to those recommendations to provide advice on the issue raised by subsection (4). I believe that the noble Lord identifies an important point: the Motion of no confidence taking precedence over other business, and, I dare say, to be debated in plenary session. But we believe that these are proper matters for standing orders. The timing of debates would also need to be reflected in standing orders.
We anticipate that the recommendations will take careful account of the fact that unlike the House of Commons the assembly is elected for a fixed four-year period without the possibility of recourse to the electorate if the vote of no confidence in the first secretary, or any other secretary, were to be passed. I imagine again that the advisory group would be giving advice to the Secretary of State, should there be a successful vote of no confidence in the first secretary, as to when there should be a new assembly election for a replacement first secretary.
I can assure the Committee that the points made by the noble Lord, in particular the new point about votes of no confidence, are much in our mind. We expect the recommendations of the group to be available in the summer. Provision will be made in standing orders to deal with the questions which have been identified by the noble Lord.
I viewed his questions as inquiring and probing and have replied in that way.
Lord Rees: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to ask one question. The most difficult question is to be addressed in due course. I refer to a vote of confidence in what for shorthand I call the administration of the assembly—the majority party's ruling group, however it is described. What would happen—as is, I think, a convention in this House or another place—if there were a measure to reduce the salary of one of those ministers in the assembly; in other words, if there were a vote of no confidence in a particular member of the administration? I do not expect an immediate answer. However, when the noble Lord deals with the wider question of a vote of confidence in the whole administration, perhaps he will address his mind to that question too.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We await the recommendations of the advisory group. I believe that the noble Lord's question is well founded. I anticipate this possible outcome: that the vote for reduction of

371
salary in the conventional way, if directed against the first secretary or any subordinate secretary, would be treated as a vote of no confidence. It would then be for standing orders to prescribe exactly what should happen in terms of precedence of business, re-election, reselection and so forth. That is, I believe, the answer that I can presently give to the noble Lord.
5 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. My first reaction is that we are leaving a great deal to standing orders. I am sure that he and the Committee are becoming increasingly aware of that. I make that as a general point rather than as a specific point related to the amendment.
I am pleased that the Minister appreciates the point that we have made in the new clause about the possibility of the assembly being critical of an assembly secretary and having at least the opportunity to declare its criticism by a motion of no confidence. It is a valuable suggestion because it has a resemblance to proceedings in the other place which are of value.
I conclude by pointing out that as the Bill stands the first secretary has the power to appoint and dismiss. However, it is conceivable that circumstances could arise where an assembly secretary is rightly under severe criticism but is protected by the first secretary or by the executive as a whole. In those circumstances, it is clear that we would wish the assembly to have the opportunity to be critical and to vent its criticism openly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the noble Lord sits down, that would be the kind of circumstance envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Rees. If there were a censure motion against the secretary in terms of a reduction in salary which was not then acted upon by the first secretary, it seems to me that standing orders could reasonably allow for a second stage; in other words, an impugnment of the first secretary on the basis that he had not followed the assembly's guidance expressed on the conduct of one of his colleagues. It seems to me that there is not an insuperable difficulty there.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I do not believe that there is a difficulty. I am sure that the Minister appreciates that I am simply anxious to explore the point and to have it on the record for others to consider in due course. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 [Committees]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Executive committee]:
[Amendments Nos. 121 to 139 not moved.]
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Subject committees]:
[Amendments Nos. 140 to 148 not moved.]
Viscount St. Davids Viscount St. Davids moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 30, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly First Secretary shall give one of the subject committees responsibility for common land in Wales with a remit to issue guidance, which may be revised from time to time, to local authorities, landowners and glaziers on the proper management of the land, with particular reference to enhancing its agricultural potential and natural beauty (including flora and fauna).").
The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 148A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 271A. The management of rural land in England and Wales has for some time been a matter of great controversy. Admittedly, it is a difficult problem since various interests are involved. I refer to the owners of the land who have mineral and shooting rights which they wish to protect; graziers who have grazing rights which they, too, wish to protect; and members of the general public who believe that open access for all or any activity is legitimate since the land is "common".
The Registration of Commons Act 1965 registered the ownership and the grazing rights, but it failed to address the management of the land. The Conservative manifesto of 1987 promised legislation on management based on the findings of the Common Land Forum. That forum recommended a management system for rural common land based on a committee for each parcel of land consisting of representatives of all interested parties. The legislation never appeared.
Common land is extensive throughout mid and north Wales. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds estimates that some 36 per cent. of rough grazing in Wales is on common land. It also estimates that about one-third of common land lies within SSSIs and large areas lie within the national parks and ESAs. In the late 1980s, 57 per cent. of all commons in Wales had only one right or no rights registered, leaving them to be subject to deregistration. Furthermore, the owners of common land have no economic interest in their proper management.
As I have no personal interest in common land, it may be helpful to your Lordships if I relate the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, who cannot be with us at the moment because he has a meeting in another part of the building. The noble Lord lives on the edge of Gilwern Common in Radnorshire, an area of some 800 acres. He is also a grazier, although he does not exercise those limited rights. The land is owned by the Glanusk Estate, which is a trust of the Legge-Bourke family run, as he has found out, from the office of Knight, Frank & Rutley in Hungerford.
I do not wish to imply any criticism of the trust, its owners or the agents because they are managing the lands subject to the provisions of the law as it now stands. Since the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has lived there for the last 18 years there has been no management of the land at all. Motorbikes and 4x4s seem to be able to roam around on the land at will. Fly-tipping is general, as is overgrazing. Land which used to support curlews and lapwings is now bereft of either. Even though Radnor is an ESA, no mechanism is available to require the owners to manage their land properly.
The amendment has two purposes: first, to ensure that one of the subject committees of the National Assembly of Wales addresses the whole matter with a remit to give guidance of an authoritative nature to local authorities, landowners and graziers on how common land should be properly managed. Secondly, in doing so, to ensure that previous neglect of wildlife on Welsh common land is rectified and made up. I beg to move.
Lord Hardy of Wath: I echo the comments of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, and support the views of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. The matter is serious and deserves attention. The noble Viscount reminded the Committee that the 1965 Act did not meet the obvious need, the crying need, for the proper management of common land. It is a great pity that that promise was not fulfilled because common lands and many other public open spaces have suffered seriously over the past decade.
The result of that failure has been similar in the extensive areas of common land in Wales and in many similar areas in England. The noble Viscount referred to the experience of my noble friend Lord Williams as regards the illegal use of motor vehicles. Last summer, during my brief retirement between leaving the House of Commons and joining this House, I spent a good deal of time observing the illicit use of motorcycles on public open spaces. I saw vehicles which were unlicensed, unregistered and ridden by riders who had probably not passed their test or in some cases were not old enough to take it. I watched them ride over newly-planted saplings, shrubs and flowers, inflicting thousands of pounds worth of damage.
I became accustomed to waiting for police helicopters, which paid a number of visits, to depart and to see five minutes later half a dozen young motorcyclists appear. They were all committing an average of at least five offences because, to get on to the public space or common land, they quite often use public roads. Then there are those affluent people in society who buy 4x4 vehicles and do untold and perhaps greater damage by the use of those larger machines.
It really is quite outrageous that there should be such appalling damage. We have to understand that this is not limited to those commons which abut conurbations and populated areas; indeed, the reach of destruction is spreading far more widely and remorselessly. Action really does need to be taken. I am, therefore, delighted to be able to support the noble Viscount in this amendment. I hope that the Government will ensure that it has a fair wind and that the Welsh assembly understands that, if it takes the necessary action with the degree of urgency which is certainly deserved, that action and its example will be rapidly followed in England. We must have regard for the retention of the ecological interest and for the safeguard of the national advantage. We must ensure that the attractive areas of our country are not subject to the ruinous experience of the past decade.
Lord Rees: In rising to speak to this amendment I should, first, declare a slight interest in common land not, I should say, in mid or north Wales but in south
374
Wales where we have the same problems. Of course I recognise some of the problems which have been identified so eloquently by the noble Lord who has just spoken and, indeed, by the noble Viscount. However, we must stand back a little from the question and ask ourselves whether the various issues which have been raised are covered by the functions set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
We may have to face the fact that, because they are so complex, such issues are really more a matter for central government rather than the Welsh assembly. I am not advancing any particular view, but that fact must be considered with some care. I do not believe that it would be right for us to identify problems close to our heart in the Principality and throw them to the new assembly or to any Select Committee without stopping to think about how they fit into the broad framework which we are considering as a constitutional question.
Therefore, I sympathise with the points raised, especially as regards motor cyclists and others who, with no permission, no rights and perhaps no licences, are despoiling the countryside. I am entirely in sympathy with the views expressed in that respect. However, there are also wider issues. It is not right to assume that the owners of common land, limited though their ownership may be by comparison with normal agricultural land, do not have some care and responsibility in this regard. Indeed, if such matters are not considered with considerable care in advance from all points of view, they might be saddled with public and economic responsibilities which I do not believe should be the case.
While I sympathise with the concerns that led my noble friend Lord St. Davids and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, to table the amendment—and we are very sad that the latter could not be present today to tell us about his personal experience in such matters—I hope, having made the general point, that we can leave the matter to be considered in a slightly wider context at a later stage.
The Earl of Courtown: I rise to express my support for my noble friend Lord St. Davids. My noble friend Lord Rees is quite correct to say that this is a highly complex area. As far as concerns common land, there is, as my noble friend said, great misunderstanding on the part of the public as regards access to such land. I have one point to make regarding the agents for the area of land to which reference has been made where the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, lives. Yes, indeed, Knight, Frank and Rutley do manage the land. The agent in question is both a professional and a personal friend of mine and does in fact live very close to the area. I am intensely interested to hear what the Minister has to say as regards giving assurances to my noble friend and the noble Lord on this matter.
Lord Hooson: Many years ago I was appointed as an assistant commissioner of commons to consider the enclosure of land in an urban common where different considerations applied. Such matters are very complex. People think of "common land" as meaning common access. But that is not so: common land means that there

375
are common rights of grazing or other common rights, which I need not outline at present. They may be supplemented by public rights of way established by prescription.
One of the concerns that has been expressed today is if in fact motor cyclists, and so on, have uninterrupted access for the period of years which is required to establish a prescriptive right, prescriptive rights of access could be established for motor vehicles. Therefore, management in this respect is most important. It is an extremely complex matter. I am sure that the Welsh assembly would want one of its committees to look into the matter at some time, but it could be dealt with only on a national basis with representations being made by the Welsh assembly.
The matter is far too complex for us to think that guidance can be given, for example, to local authorities when the latter may have no control at all. I understand that the piece of land referred to in Gilwern is privately owned. There must be rights of common in that respect—that is, rights of grazing in common. Indeed, there may be other rights in common; but, as far as we know, there may be no rights of public access. However, from the description that has been given, it is possible that public rights of access have been established by prescription, but I very much doubt that the assembly could give overall guidance on the matter. I believe that it is a matter which should perhaps be transferred gradually and over a period of time from, as it were, parliamentary consideration to assembly consideration. But I do not believe that the time is now ripe for such action.
Lord Prys-Davies: I believe that the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, to the Committee is very sound. I have had some dealings with common land in Wales. The phrase "open space" has been used this afternoon when it is an open space, but when it is not in law an open space. Clause 34 says:
"The Assembly may consider, and make appropriate representations about, any matter affecting Wales".
But, as has been said, we are discussing a highly complex matter. It has occurred to me that this is an issue which might possibly interest a law commission as regards considering how the law in this particular area can be improved.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The advice given by the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Rees, as well as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies is right; we are indeed discussing a complex matter. It is possible that the first secretary may wish to give responsibility for matters relating to common land to one of the subject committees. It would be a moot question as to whether it should be the agriculture committee, over which there could be some argument, or whether it should be a subject committee which deals with the environment, planning and related matters.
I do not believe it appropriate for such a provision to be on the face of the Bill. However, I have two points to make. First, the Government are extremely
376
sympathetic to the thrust of the argument put forward by the noble Viscount. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel was courteous enough to give me prior notice of what was likely to be said this afternoon. So we do view the matter with some seriousness.
By a felicitous coincidence, a comprehensive research project has been commissioned by DETR. The Welsh Office was represented on the steering group which looked into all aspects of common land. It published this very month a good practice guide on the management of common land. As I said, that is, I hope, a happy coincidence, although the noble Earl may be about to tell me that the document is completely valueless. However, I should like to reassure Members of the Committee that we treat such matters with seriousness. We expect the assembly to be interested in such matters, but we do not believe it should be prescribed on the face of the Bill.
The Earl of Courtown: Can the Minister say whether the report gives an indication of the amount of common land that exists in Wales?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I do not know the answer to that. I focused particularly on the good practice guide on the management of common land because it seemed to me that answered the point made by the noble Viscount; namely, that there should be guidance for local authorities on this matter.
Viscount St. Davids: I thank the noble Lord for his encouraging reply. I had hoped he might go a little further as no doubt he would not have missed the irony of my asking him to fulfil an election manifesto of the previous administration made 11 years ago. But we should let that pass. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 149 to 154 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 154A:
Page 30, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Each subject committee shall be responsible for monitoring the performance of the non-departmental public bodies within the fields covered by that subject committee.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment draws attention to the need for a creative relationship between the subject committees and the non-departmental public bodies operating in fields covered by the subject committees. I again declare an interest as the chair of a non-departmental public body. It is the smallest, most perfectly formed and most bilingual non-departmental public body! During the years in which I have had the honour to hold that post I have valued the link between the Welsh Language Board and the relevant government department at the Welsh Office and its cultural and education department with which we deal.
It is important that much of the loose talk that went on in the country prior to the referendum should now be laid to rest. I have been a victim in the street and occasionally in a public house—although never, to my knowledge, in the Gresford rugby club, which is so

377
frequented by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, according to his speeches—of what might be called "quango bashing". There was a kind of fever abroad prompted by Mr. Rhodri Morgan, MP, another potential candidate for the national assembly. That fever consisted of attacking all non-departmental public bodies, their members and their staff for being Conservatives. That was patently untrue in many cases. It was implied that with the establishment of the great national assembly, quangos would be swept away. It was implied that non-departmental public bodies would no longer he necessary and that their functions would somehow be taken over by the 2,000-odd officials and the 60 elected members of the assembly. That always appeared to me to be a piece of false optimism or a piece of propaganda because traditionally there have been functions which non-departmental public bodies have carried out at arm's length on behalf of government. That is why they were created and that is why they are described as non-departmental government bodies.
My amendment seeks to explore the relationship between remaining NDPBs, which may or may not be re-organised by the assembly, and the assembly itself. We have already debated some of the schedules to the Bill and I shall not discuss them now. There is reference to bodies which may lose or gain functions and bodies which may lose functions or gain functions with consent. Later we shall discuss other bodies which may be called to account by the assembly, although they are not directly under its jurisdiction, as it were. How will the Welsh Office and the Government look more dispassionately at the role of non-departmental public bodies than was the case during the referendum campaign and consider how they may relate to the assembly? What kind of creative relationships may be established?
I am not making out a case for myself here. I have been accused of putting job applications on the face of the Bill, as it were. However, there are cases where members of public bodies may remain in post while being members of the assembly. That could create a creative relationship between those bodies. In other cases it may be considered preferable that such bodies—for example, the development agency, which we shall discuss later—should remain very much at arm's length from the assembly and there should not be a mix of the membership. It cannot be beyond the wit of our great democratic nation to look for ways of managing public bodies and making them accountable which does not follow necessarily the inherited model. In other words, there is a case for mixing the membership of various bodies without damaging the integrity of those bodies or the need for artistic freedom of judgment in such areas as the arts and culture.
I hope the Minister can indicate that he foresees the assembly having a creative relationship with NDPBs in Wales and that there will be effective monitoring of that. One of the most successful developments in the whole area of public administration and the management of public services has been the establishment of targets, strategies, schemes, business plans and other such things and the monitoring of performance vis-à-vis such targets
378
and strategies. I hope that the assembly will pursue rigorously the need to monitor all our public bodies in Wales but will do so in a spirit of creative development rather than the negative quango bashing which occurred during the referendum campaign. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is an interesting amendment which enables us to reflect on the relationship between quango members and the new assembly. The following phrase comes to mind; namely, "There is nothing like a quango basher come to repentance". Last year we were told there would be a great bonfire of quangos. It is a good job it was not a cold winter because I do not think any Members of the Committee would have been warmed by the bonfire of quangos. Indeed, far from having a bonfire of quangos the party opposite has established a considerable number of additional quangos. Some quango members have been replaced. I say, charitably, that some members of my party who were on quangos have been replaced by more independent minded people. Uncharitably, I might say that members of my party have been replaced on a number of quangos by members of the Government's party. It is interesting to note that there has not been much of a bonfire. Indeed our monetary policy is now governed by the biggest quango of all; namely, the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. That is a non-departmental public body if anything is, and one that wields huge power over the economic life of our country. But that is another issue. I am not sure that the Welsh Language Board, of which the noble Lord. Lord Elis-Thomas, is the distinguished chairman, wields anything like the power of the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. Nevertheless, the Welsh Language Board plays an important role. It has certainly played an important role in this Committee so far as we have heard much about it.
The noble Lord posed some interesting questions about the relationship between the non-departmental public bodies in Wales and the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has already made it clear that he is a candidate for the assembly. Yesterday he appeared to attempt a little electioneering, although I do not suppose there are many voters from his constituency in this Chamber. Today he appears to be trying to ensure that he can keep his chairmanship of a quango and be elected to the Welsh assembly. I see no problem in that. When I joined this Chamber I was for a little while the chairman of a quango, the Sea Fish Industry Authority. I was perfectly able to be a Member of this Chamber and to chair the quango. All I had to do was obey some rules laid down, known as the Addison Rules, which meant that I could not answer for my quango; the Minister had to do that. Fortunately, we never got into enough trouble for the Minister to have to come to the Dispatch Box and answer for us. Equally, I took the view that I could not in all justice speak on the issues over which my quango held some sway. Therefore I did not take part in any of the fisheries debates in this House. I thought that that was possibly taking the Addison Rules a little too far, but it seemed the right and proper thing to do considering that I was the government-appointed chairman of the body.

379
I shall not even attempt to suggest that there might be a Welsh language equivalent of Addison. The noble Lord may wish to advise me on that point. I am sure that the Addison Rules could easily be applied to members of the Welsh assembly who sit on quangos. That would be a perfectly reasonable way for the assembly to proceed. I hope the Minister might be able to give some indication of the Government's thinking on that matter. It would seem to me unfortunate if walls had to be drawn between members of non-departmental public bodies and members of the Welsh assembly. I simply do not see the need for that.
The point of the noble Lord's amendment, in relation to which he raised the discussion on quango membership and the assembly, is that the non-departmental public bodies which operate within the fields covered by the assembly should have their performance monitored by the assembly. I cannot see that there is anything in the Bill to prevent the assembly discussing the issues for which the bodies are responsible. Indeed, I think that they would clearly be well within their rights to do so. I think they would also be within their rights to discuss issues surrounding quangos whose responsibilities were not directly under the Welsh assembly umbrella. One clause makes it clear that the assembly can debate almost any matter, whether it is within its bailiwick or not. It therefore seems obvious that, so far as the responsibilities of any non-departmental public body are concerned, the Welsh assembly will be able to discuss the issues.
The next step is: can the assembly monitor those matters? Can it ask the chairman and others to come before it? Certainly this House can do that. In my capacity as chairman of the Sea Fish Industry Authority I appeared before the European Committee dealing with fisheries in this House. So it is perfectly possible. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the noble Lord that the Welsh assembly will be able to do that. Without in any way disparaging the work of the assembly, it will not in fact have a terrific amount to do when one considers the burdens placed on it in comparison with Members of the other place or Members of this House. It would seem perfectly sensible that tasks such as that mentioned in the noble Lord's amendment could reasonably be added to the assembly's workload. Many of the public bodies will deal with matters of great importance to people in Wales and Welsh life. It is right and proper that there should be some monitoring arrangements between the assembly and those bodies. If it helps the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, on its way, I give it a fair wind. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the points we have made about the bodies.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: It seems to me that it is an essential duty of the assembly to monitor the work of non-departmental public bodies—with a view, I hope, to abolishing a number of them. One of the purposes of setting up the assembly was to deal with the question of quangos. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, adverted to the fact that the workload of the assembly, though it will be
380
considerable, will not be overbearing. We are a country of fewer than 3 million people. We shall have 60 elected or indirectly elected representatives. We shall have a large Civil Service in Cardiff—probably 2,000 people. Why should not much of the work presently conducted by quangos be conducted by the assembly?
I am a great believer in delegating executive power to people and, if they do not discharge that power correctly, getting rid of them. The assembly can do that. It can surely summon before it chairmen, managers and so on of non-departmental public bodies and question them. Surely that will be one of its functions. I understand, as the Minister will be able to confirm, that there is a power in the Bill for the assembly, with proper due consideration to the functions carried out by those bodies, to decide that some of them are not necessary. Certainly, some will be necessary. However, I am saying that one of the duties of the assembly will be to examine this whole question. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, should be too sanguine about the future of some of the quangos.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: In response to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, he probably has in mind Clause 29 of the Bill indicating the powers to which he refers.
There are two distinct questions here. One is: can there be overlapping membership of the assembly and the non-departmental public bodies? We propose to consult on that matter in the context of the use of the Order in Council power under Clause 12 of the Bill. It is important to bear in mind that not all non-departmental bodies are the same. At the one end of the spectrum, for example, is a body that is extremely well run in public scrutiny, admirably opened up by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas; namely, the Welsh Language Board. But at the other end of the spectrum one has a wholly dissimilar body, the National Library, which is again admirably run but operates in quite a different context. So the question of overlapping membership is important.
It is also important to bear in mind a concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, on earlier occasions—namely, what measures should be considered in relation to abatement of salaries—so that one could not simply have an acquisition of salaries by being a member of the assembly and many other quangos or NDPBs. That matter certainly needs to be considered.
The advisory commission has given a good deal of thought to this matter. Noble Lords will see some useful suggestions for consultation at paragraphs 6.8 to 6.11. It suggests not the outcome proposed in this amendment, but a division of responsibilities between the assembly secretary and the subject committee to ensure proper accountability. That matter is out to consultation by NAAG. Noble Lords may think it better to await its views. The outcome will be recommendations which I dare say will be reflected in the assembly's standing orders.
Whatever the standing orders provisions are in detail, they will of course be designed to achieve democratic accountability, which has been lacking in some

381
aspects—not all—of some, but not all, of the quangos. It is important to bear in mind that there is a diversity of them in Wales.
It therefore seems to me that we share a common purpose; namely, openness, accountability and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, indicated, good-quality representation on the quangos. That is very important. It seems to me that the assembly would have the power to question and monitor, and that it ought to do so in a co-operative and discrete way. That is essentially a matter for NAAG's eventual recommendations and for the assembly's conclusion on the standing order powers.
I frequently say that matters are for standing orders. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said that this is leaving rather a lot to standing orders. But the enormous bulk of arrangements in another place depends entirely upon the standing orders, which have developed organically over the years to meet changing circumstances and changing requirements. Your Lordships' practice is not dissimilar—though, being infinitely more civilised, we do not need anyone to order us. But we have our ways, which are not set down in statute, and are much the better for that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has introduced an interesting discussion on subject committees. Although Clause 58 sets up the subject committees, it does not attempt to set our their responsibilities; nor does it set out their relationship with the cabinet system that is now to be put in place. As we understand it, the executive committee of the assembly secretaries—that is, the cabinet—will be the body that will be responsible for formulating policy, taking decisions and, through the civil servants in their various areas, carrying out those decisions. It seems to me that the role of the subject committees is an advisory one. The committees do not appear to share the executive responsibility of the cabinet that is to be formed in the Welsh assembly. It is interesting that the working group suggested that assembly secretaries should not be members of the subject committees at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas has highlighted the fact that one function to be performed by the subject committees is to monitor the way in which the non-departmental public bodies carry out their role. But that is only one of many roles. They will presumably be concerned to meet together to discuss the various proposals that are put to them by the executive. They will be there to advise and have input into policy but will not be responsible for it or for its being carried out. As I understand it, that is the essential distinction to be drawn between the cabinet system that the Government are adopting now in response to representations, pressure and general feeling from all sides of this Chamber and from another place. The cabinet system alters completely the role of the subject committees. Initially the committees were seen as being rather like council committees, carrying out executive tasks. That
382
will no longer be the position. The noble Lord has introduced an interesting topic, to which we shall no doubt return.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for taking on my argument. This is an important issue. The Minister referred to the advisory group report. That group seems to be going for a separation of powers, with an executive structure, which might reduce the subject committees to mini-assemblies in which there is a government in opposition, as it were, rather than more participative, and democratic bodies.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am always grateful for the support of my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. We need to explore this issue. The national advisory group's initial recommendations have been referred to. I am a little concerned. I feel that important public bodies such as NDPBs should respond not just to the secretaries and officials but also to the subject committee as a whole. They are public bodies created by, and accountable to, the whole of the assembly as a body corporate. I do not want the notion of the body corporate to be lost. It is cynulleidfaol. It is the whole congregation, as it were, the cynull gathered together. That is what the cynulliad is. Therefore it is a congregation in that sense, and I do not want to see that lost. I do not want to see the Scottish model of ministers and Crown in parliament imposed upon a democratic people such as the Welsh. We need to create models of public administration that are more in line with our tradition. I hope that we can continue this debate and flag the matter for the assembly itself.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I can perhaps help the noble Lord. Clause 75 states:
"The Assembly may require any person to whom subsection (2) applies—

(a) to attend proceedings of the Assembly for the purpose of giving evidence, or

(b) to produce … documents".

The bodies to which subsection (2) applies are listed in Schedules 3 and 4. Unless Wales has a plethora of quangos of which I know not, the list seems to me to cover every possible non-departmental body which exists, both inside Wales alone and in the wider UK, including Wales—including the Sea Fish Industry Authority, which I mentioned earlier. Perhaps, whatever happens and whatever way the assembly decides to organise itself, the power exists in Clause 75.
Lord Prys-Davies: Before the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, responds to that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as I see it, the critical issue raised by Amendment No. 154A is whether the subject committee itself will be responsible for monitoring the performance of the non-departmental public bodies. When the White Paper was published, it was a general

383
understanding that these subject committees would themselves exercise executive authority. That idea seems to have gone. We are therefore entitled to ask what will be the role of a subject committee and to what extent it will enable the members of the assembly to participate fully in the work of the assembly. If that is the point which is being made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I have great sympathy with it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I thank the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Mackay. The question is precisely as both noble Lords have said. The fact of accountability in one form or another is not disputed by the clause to which the noble Lord referred. It is the form of accountability and how that is to happen and the nature of the relationship that concerns us. I believe I have said enough to indicate that it is my intention to withdraw the amendment, but we may well wish to return to the matter at a later stage, perhaps in a more comprehensive form, and look at the role of subject committees in the light of whatever further advice emerges from the national advisory group. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Subordinate legislation scrutiny committee]:
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 155A.
Page 30. line 43, leave out from second ("made") to ("and") in line 46 and insert ("in exercise of a function in relation to the exercise of which by the Assembly any relevant Parliamentary procedural provision has effect.").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 59, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may ask some questions about this clause, which I confess I find extremely difficult to understand. First, as Members of the Committee put up earlier with a technical drafting point, perhaps I may make another. In subsection (3), paragraph (a) ends with the word "and", and paragraph (b) follows straight on. That is perfectly easy to follow. One realises immediately that they are conjunctive. Similarly, in subsection (4), one realises immediately that the two paragraphs are disjunctive. However, when one looks at subsection (6), we have to read six lines before we find that they are conjunctive when the word "and" appears.
That is not the only example in this Bill, but it is a clear one because it compares with the two other subsections. It would be much easier to understand—
384
say in the case of subsection (6)—if paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) ended with the word "and".
I know that a long-established drafting method is used in that clause and in this Bill. Indeed, it follows the general, though not universal, literary conventions. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is in his place and will correct me if I am wrong about that. Certainly in a statute it would be much easier to understand if each sub-paragraph either ended conjunctively or disjunctively. That is purely a drafting point.
I find it difficult to understand exactly what subsections (3), (4) and (6) are intended to do and how they work. Subsection (3)(a) deals with power to consider—a duty to consider—assembly general subordinate legislation. That is defined in subsection (6) as,
"required to be made by statutory instrument … made or proposed to be made by the Assembly … not made or proposed to be made jointly with a Minister",
and in paragraph (d), "not local in nature". Perhaps I can pause there and ask what that is intended to cover. Presumably the Welsh assembly is not to be charged with the consideration of private Acts of a local nature which come to Westminster so far as they arise in Wales. Or is it? If not, what do the words, "not local in nature" mean?
That relates to assembly general subordinate legislation. But what is "relevant Welsh subordinate legislation"? It is defined in subsection (7), in which paragraph (a) is common to subsection (6); in other words, assembly general subordinate legislation. Paragraph (b) is a specific exception which relates only to Forestry Commission orders. What is the relationship?
When I raised the question of subordinate legislation the Minister helpfully and courteously said that he would write to me to explain and would also consider what is absolutely necessary; that is, that the matter should be properly defined in Clause 20. I understood that all secondary legislation which extends to Wales—in so far as it does extend to Wales—would be within the cognisance of the assembly and would be considered by it. I asked whether there was any other species of subordinate legislation which was not at the moment the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The Minister said that he would consider that too and write to me about it.
I thank the noble Lord once again for his usual courtesy and helpfulness. But it may be advisable for him to place a copy of his letter in the Library; it is probably a matter of general concern. Those are the questions I wish to ask. I really wish to have the whole section explained to me. If the Minister says that I must be patient and await his letter, I shall try to be patient.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I can intervene for a moment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raises some important issues. If the noble and learned Lord has trouble reading statutes because he cannot decide whether they are conjunctive or

385
disjunctive, he can imagine what difficulty the rest of us have who are not lawyers. He makes a good point which never occurred to me.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Minister is not only a lawyer, but has the supreme accolade of his colleagues in having been elected to be chairman of the Bar Council. I have no doubt therefore that he understands it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure, but the noble and learned Lord may be telling me that I am the meat between the sandwich or something like that. However, he makes a good point.
The more important point to which the noble and learned Lord drew my attention relates to subsection (6)(c). Apparently, subordinate legislation may be made jointly with a Minister of the Crown and in those circumstances the Welsh assembly will not deal with it, if I read it correctly. My understanding was that the legislative role of the Welsh assembly was limited, but that it was to deal with secondary legislation. I am a little surprised to have my attention drawn to circumstances in which secondary legislation for Wales will be dealt with jointly with a Minister here, but will not need to go before the assembly.
Perhaps the Minister can give me an example. I sometimes find it easier to understand a concrete example than theory in these matters. In the example that I am sure the Minister will give me, will the Secretary of State for Wales be involved? It is a difficult concept, as the poor old Secretary of State for Wales does not have much in the way of ministerial responsibility left over after power is devolved.
I am in some difficulty when I read the clause. We will come to secondary legislation in a moment, but the whole question of secondary legislation is extremely difficult. I see the noble Earl, Lord Russell, poised in his seat and I know that he is a great hawk when it comes to watching secondary legislation. I worry that in cases falling within paragraph (c) the Welsh assembly may be blocked out and Ministers may find it convenient in the future to find ways to block it out. Perhaps the Minister can explain exactly what is covered in that regard.
6 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: I should be grateful if my noble friend would clarify the point that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I understood from the memorandum which the Leader of the Commons sent to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments that some of the orders that will be made jointly will have to be submitted to the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee of the Welsh assembly and also to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments here at Westminster. My worry about that is what the position will be if the terms of reference of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee of the Welsh assembly are not analogous to the terms of the
386
reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I look forward to my noble friend's response to the points that have been raised.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As will presently become apparent, knowledge of the law is not a necessary prerequisite for being elected chairman of the Bar.
Quite detailed questions have been raised, some of which I can readily answer; others need a little more research. I doubt that the answer that I shall give will be sufficiently comprehensive to do justice to the questions which have been put. I will take up the courteous offer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to write immediately to him. I will make it a rule that all letters which are sent on similar topics are put in the Library for the reason that he mentioned.
As to the question of disjunctives and conjunctives, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this has been the usual pattern of parliamentary draftsmanship in the past. It is something I shall listen to. It is not enormously difficult to follow because of the position of the "and" or the "or"; it is the substantive wording itself which is more difficult. However, I take the noble and learned Lord's point.
The noble and learned Lord asked for an example of a piece of legislation which was not local in nature. Local in nature apparently is an accepted definition and would include, for instance, a traffic regulation order relating to a particular road.
Devolving from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, asked what was the distinction essentially between general subordinate legislation and joint legislation, and he asked me to give examples. The examples which have immediately sprung to hand and mind are that there might well be agricultural legislation in conjunction with MAFF or transport orders jointly with DETR. The essential difference—and I recognise that this is a simplistic answer which needs development in the way that the noble and learned Lord asked—is that general subordinate legislation is to come under the assembly's scrutiny committee. If there is joint legislation—two examples of which I have given—that will be scrutinised by the joint scrutiny committee in Parliament. That is a fairly limited answer to subtle questions. If it requires expansion, as I think it will, I undertake to give it within seven days of today.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I would not wish to hold the noble Lord, who has responsibilities not only for this Bill but for a number of matters which are now current, to a seven-day agreement. I shall be quite content to have an answer before Report stage.
As to paragraph (d), the noble Lord's answer indicated that it was not intended to cover what would be the subject matter of a private Bill of a local nature. I wonder whether it should not be? Why should a local Bill promoted by, say, Swansea have to come to London rather than be considered locally by a body which is much more cognisant of the local situation?

387
As for the rest, the noble Lord said he would consider it with the draftsman and I am obliged for that. I am still very puzzled about this clause and I am grateful for the further consideration.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Will the Minister, when he deposits the letter in the Library, kindly address one to me? I live rather a long way away sometimes.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I try to be reasonably selective in sending out letters to noble Lords who have perhaps spoken on a distinct topic in a limited debate or who have expressed general interest on Second Reading. I try to circulate letters as widely as possible. I shall make sure that the noble Lord has a copy of this letter. It would be appropriate if I ensure that the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Prys-Davies, also receive a copy as they have raised the same detailed questions. I automatically send them to the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord sits down finally, I am grateful to him for the answers that he gave. I understand that in the time available his answers were pretty broad brush about agriculture and transport. We discussed agriculture late last night and it will be discussed again in a little while. Because of the European input, secondary legislation statutory instruments on issues with a European connection will inevitably have to be the same in England and Wales—and probably in Scotland as well, but that is a different matter—and if the Welsh assembly is to be a devolved body responsible for agriculture, it seems odd that it will not be allowed to discuss or even nod through those statutory instruments. The procedure will be entirely based here.
If the noble Lord can be helpful in any letter about this I would be grateful. I may have to study this and return to it. At the risk of sounding as if I have clothed myself in the devolutionary mantle, it seems that we are giving to agriculture on the one hand and clawing back bits of it with the other. I do not think I am wrong about this and I may have to look at it again. I would be grateful if the Minister could also look at it to see whether there is any problem with powers over agriculture and other devolved issues.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is a perfectly fair question. I will respond as fully as I can in the same letter.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—

SCRUTINY OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION
(" . The Assembly shall establish a committee with responsibility relating to the scrutiny of European Community legislation and communications from the European Commission in accordance with standing orders.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I am tempted to say that we are all devolutionists now. In that case, he is very welcome to join the club. His noble friend has been there for a long time.
Amendment No. 156 relates to something that we debated last night around midnight. I see that the Chief Whip has joined us and I would obviously not wish to repeat anything that we said last night. It was a useful debate. As often happens in these matters, important issues are discussed at unfortunate hours. I hope that that will not happen in the assembly. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the assembly establishes a committee to scrutinise European Community legislation and communications from the European Commission. It is based on the positive work of both Houses of Parliament in their own European Select Committees and scrutiny committees.
I have been privileged to be a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee, under the strong chairpersonship of the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, which considers all aspects of Community legislation in the area of the environment, public health and consumer protection. The European Communities Committee of this House has a very good reputation throughout the European Union. I am always pleasantly surprised to see the extent to which our reports are read throughout the European Union. Indeed, they are almost obligatoire in the Commission in terms of our analysis of the implementation of Community policy.
I hope that the national assembly in Cardiff can make a similar contribution within its area of devolved powers and that it will become a serious European partner in the scrutiny of legislation, in the understanding of communications from the Commission and in the expressing of views. That links up to something at which perhaps we did not look in enough detail last night. I refer to the position of the assembly in relation to the successor body of the Wales European Centre in Brussels and in relation to having close links with MEPs within the European Parliament and with the Committee of the Regions. All those networks to which the assembly will relate should come together in the activities of the scrutiny committee of European Community legislation.
I suspect that the Minister will tell me that it is not necessary to have this provision on the face of the Bill. I think it would be helpful to have it on the face of the Bill in order to indicate clearly that the scrutiny of European legislation is regarded as one of the major functions of this new body. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: At the risk of embarrassing the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, perhaps I may say that I think he has a point. That seems to be my role this afternoon—coming in after the noble Lord and saying that I think that some of his arguments have validity.
As the noble Lord said, this debate is not unrelated to the one we had late last night, in which specifically I was looking at agriculture and fisheries because of

389
their importance in Wales and because of the fact that they are two of the most common policies on the European scene. Here we are dealing with the relationship between the Welsh assembly and the material that flows out of the European Community—very considerable amounts of material these days!
I presume—and I am going to go on this assumption—that the noble Lord's new clause relates to those parts of European legislation which would come inside the competence of the Welsh assembly. That therefore raises matters of considerable importance for the assembly. The difficulty I see is that devolved Welsh affairs will no longer be the concern of this Parliament. That is the whole point of devolution. So, for example, if some documents come and they are examined by the European Communities committees of your Lordships' House, what role will your Lordships' committees be able to play in scrutinising European legislation concerning Wales? Will your Lordships' committees have to pass by the Welsh parts, or will your Lordships be able to look into matters and to call witnesses on the Welsh parts of any legislation or on the Welsh impact of any legislation?
I am sure that happens at the moment. It certainly did when I served on one of the sub-committees of the European Communities Committee. Would it still be within the powers of this House to discuss devolved Welsh issues in the context of European issues? Similarly, if Members of another place were looking at a piece of draft legislation coming from Europe, would they be allowed to explore the consequences for Wales? If they were not, clearly no elected person from Wales would be scrutinising it unless the assembly did. If they were allowed to scrutinise it, that would be fine; but equally I do not see why the assembly members should somehow be blocked out. I hope that they will have an important part to play.
I suspect that the Minister will say that standing orders will allow the assembly to set up such a committee if it so wishes. I am sure it will. The trouble with being a Minister for some time is that you begin to know what the answers are before you have been asked the question. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, makes an important point. We would be signalling to the assembly that these matters are hugely important and that far too many of the parliaments of Europe do not pay nearly enough attention to the proposals coming from Brussels.
It is often said that of all the parliamentary bodies in Europe, your Lordships' House does more on the scrutiny of European matters. That is to the credit of your Lordships' House but it is not to the credit of the other bodies. I therefore think that the Welsh assembly should have an important role in scrutinising legislation coming from Brussels in order to see how it affects the Welsh position and then to make its observations known. I am not sure to whom it would make its observations known. That opens up the whole debate of last night. I presume that the assembly makes its observations known to the UK Government; or does it make them known to Brussels; or does it make them known to both? It certainly will have to make them
390
known to the UK Government because they are the only people who will actually be able to do anything in the Council of Ministers about these matters.
This is an important issue. Even if the Minister tells us that the amendment is not necessary and that he is sure that the assembly will set up such a committee, I hope he will give an indication that in the Government's view such a committee ought to be set up, even if such a provision is not on the face of the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has introduced the amendment. Five years ago I had the privilege of listening to Jordoi Pujol of Catalonia discussing the relations between Catalonia and the EU. The relations of the EU with the separate nationalities that make up the states of Europe is an extremely interesting field of development which I hope will continue in Wales.
There is just one word in the amendment which gives me cause for concern—that is the word "shall"—for reasons outlined by the Minister on Amendment No. 154A. This is essentially a matter of the assembly's own procedure and regulation of its own business. Any representative assembly should be in charge of settling its own proceedings. It is not good to have those proceedings settled by rules imposed by another place. Nor indeed is it good to have them laid down in statute in tablets of stone.
Some of us may remember, for example, the clause in the Defamation Bill in the previous Parliament which caused considerable confusion by attempting to regulate procedure by statute. It really is not wise. Even in dealing with the pre-Union parliament of Ireland, which was a parliament regarded on this side of the water as somewhat subordinate, attempts were not made by Westminster to regulate the proceedings of that parliament by statute.
The assembly may well wish to set up such a committee. It may wish, in the light of the limited number of people to staff committees, to address the same objective by another route. It would be a failure in respect for the Welsh assembly for us to lay down in statute in this House how the assembly shall conduct its own proceedings. So if the noble Lord wishes to return to this matter at another stage, I hope he may employ the word "may" instead of the word "shall".
Lord Beloff: It gives me enormous pleasure to be able to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I do so from a state of ignorance since for many years, for reasons which will be obvious to your Lordships' House, I have been kept off all the scrutiny committees of the House. So I am not fully acquainted with the current state of the documents that come. But my understanding is that the bulk of European legislation, if I may call it that, is of a general character. It says that all sheep shall have five legs, or whatever it may be. Normally, as I understand it, there is no distinction made between one country and another so one would not expect even a reference to the United Kingdom to figure in a regulation or a directive from

391
the Commission, still less a reference to a part of it; namely, Wales. At present the documents themselves obviously come to the United Kingdom Government. We do not yet have devolution in either England or Scotland.
How are those documents to come before the Welsh assembly? Will it be the responsibility of the relevant ministry in Whitehall to make sure that a copy is sent by pigeon post or other form of communication, directly to the Welsh assembly and for it to be put before the committee? As I understand it, the documents do not lend themselves to consideration by subordinate bodies. It would be perfectly proper and natural, for the reasons that have been given, for the Welsh assembly to want to look at documents which concern Wales, but they will not be about Wales. For that reason, there seems to be a problem. However, that certainly does not prevent me from supporting the amendment because if Wales is to have an assembly it should confront the trouble from Europe along with the rest of us.
Lord Kenyon: I, too, welcome this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I remind the Committee of the existence of the Committee of the Regions. That body deals with regional matters. I was a member of that committee for four years when it was set up under the Maastricht Treaty. As a member of a local authority only in Wales, I found that there was very little consultation. There was a little bit of informal consultation between the Association of Welsh Councils and the Council of Welsh Districts.
But when local government in Wales was reorganised the unitary authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association decided that they did not wish to consult with the members of the Committee of the Regions, so each member of that committee was out on his own. I am delighted to see that under this Bill the membership of the Committee of the Regions will be selected by the assembly. I sincerely hope that it will discuss the opinions that come from the Committee of the Regions. I can assure the Committee that an awful lot of bumpf comes from that organisation and, I presume, also from the Economic and Social Committee to which appointments will also be made. There will be the opportunity to discuss these matters in much greater detail than we have had until now.
Lord Prys-Davies: Before my noble friend replies to the debate, I would like to take further the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is important that there is a duty on the lead department in London to provide the Welsh executive with prompt information as regards such Community obligations which the United Kingdom is contemplating making or approving and which have a direct or indirect effect on the devolved functions of the Welsh assembly. It is important also that it consults the executive on such obligations and provides it with the opportunity to take part in the negotiations. Otherwise, when the order or directive arrives it is then
392
late in the day for the Welsh assembly to influence the contents of a directive. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord has raised an important issue.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is indeed an important issue. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, indicated, there is no doubt at all that the assembly, in the way that it chooses, will be obliged to give careful scrutiny to draft legislation and proposals for policy development. But that is the important proviso: the way in which it decides.
I take up a particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I say quite firmly that the Government would anticipate, with every confidence, that careful scrutiny would be given. It might be that the assembly would want to establish a committee with specific responsibility for European matters. Perfectly sensibly, it might take an alternative view that each of the subject areas, for which assembly secretaries will be responsible, would wish subject committees to look at the legislation and policy developments in that particular area. That is an issue for the assembly to decide as matters develop.
I am grateful if the purpose of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is to flag up a point because it is well received. There is nothing at all to stop scrutiny on a UK-wide basis by parliamentary committees at Westminster. The assembly is to enable a separate process of Welsh scrutiny to take place as a supplementary and distinct process. It will be for the Foreign Office, as at present—which receives the appropriate documentation to which the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred—to distribute it to those who have an appropriate interest. We anticipate that there will be no difficulty at all about that happening to the Welsh assembly in the future. It will not necessarily be every piece of European policy development in every context or every piece of draft European legislation that is of interest to the assembly or appropriate for scrutiny.
But that is the point of devolution. People are given the powers and opportunities to carry out the scrutiny processes in two ways. The first is what kind of mechanism is used and, secondly, what sort of policy and draft European legislation do they wish to scrutinise. I am most grateful to the noble Lord who indicated that perhaps in the past there has been insufficient opportunity for scrutiny and that this is the opportunity for the Welsh assembly in the future to play its full part.
It seems to me that there are no real difficulties here. Parliament at Westminster can continue the scrutiny as it thinks appropriate and the Welsh assembly, in whatever mechanism it chooses, can also carry out the scrutiny. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this question. It is useful to have it ventilated but we do not believe that this over-rigid prescription is suitable for the way ahead.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I have been accused of many things. Now I am an over-rigid prescriber. I am very pleased at the cross-party support which this amendment has received. In particular I would like to thank the noble

393
Lord, Lord Kenyon, for giving us the benefit of his experience on the Committee of the Regions. That reminds us that that committee itself by treaty is a consultee within the procedures of the European Union. Therefore, if for any reason documentation is lost between the FCO and the assembly, I am certain that the electronic copy of the Committee of the Regions can appear instantaneously in Cardiff Bay. All kinds of networks operate.
As we have done this evening, it is important to flag up the assembly to take up seriously European responsibilities. I was pleased also to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, although I believe that it tended to peter out towards the end of his speech, if I followed him correctly. However, I do not criticise him for that.
I do not understand the distinction between European matters which are about Wales and those which concern Wales. Clearly, all European Union matters, particularly in the field so beloved by the noble Lord opposite and myself—namely, agriculture, fisheries and the environment—are of deep concern to Wales as an environmental landmass with agricultural problems. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and particularly for mentioning a mutual friend of many of us in this House, Jordoi Pujol. I may return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 [Members of scrutiny committee etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): We now come to Amendment No. 160. I call the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Hear, hear!
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 31, line 20, at beginning insert ("But").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should quit while I am ahead! This amendment seeks to insert the word "But"—
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Is it a conjunctive or a disjunctive "But"?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that I shall be entitled to an epitaph on my tombstone saying that I was a man who introduced an amendment containing only the word "But".
This is a drafting amendment to clarify a possible ambiguity. As I say those words, I feel a chill upon my heart because I know that one Member of this Committee will say that, far from providing clarification, the amendment introduces such constitutional problems as to render the whole of the Bill unworkable. The possible ambiguity is as to the relationship between subsections (5) and (6) of Clause
394
60. The amendment is intended to make it clear that subsection (6) provides an exception to the general principle in subsection (5), which is that the scrutiny committee may not delegate its function of making reports to the assembly on draft assembly orders. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I can think of no one more appropriate to introduce an amendment containing only the word "But" or to have that mentioned on his tombstone than the noble Lord who lived and practised for so long in Swansea where that word has a particular meaning. Indeed, quite a large number of people may gather around the tombstone and think that he was their "but".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 60, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps I may make two points on this Clause. The first relates to subsection (7) which defines,
"the largest party in the Assembly"
as,
"the party (if any) which is represented by more Assembly members than any other single party".
What else could it be? This is what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, once described as Gertrude Stein drafting: the largest party is the largest party is the largest party. If there is to be such a definition, should it not at least contemplate the fact that there might be two large parties, equally numbered? Should not that be cleared up?
My other point is general to this Bill. It relates to subsection (5) which deals with delegation. In fact, a whole clause of the Bill, Clause 63, deals with delegation and other references to it are scattered throughout the Bill. Certain matters may be delegated while certain matters may not be; certain bodies may delegate while certain bodies may not. I surmise that what is in the draftsman's mind is the legal rule of general application, and extending to statutes, that a delegate may not sub-delegate without being given the responsibility and power to do so.
Many of the provisions in this Bill as to delegation do not fit into that pattern. They seem frequently to be quite unnecessary. My question is: for the purpose of this Bill, is the assembly itself regarded as the delegate? It is true that it deals with delegated legislation and perhaps we shall be told in due course that it deals primarily (although I think not exclusively) with delegated legislation. However, I do not think that that is sufficient to make the assembly a delegate. If it is not, it has the full power of delegation.
As to the other instances, I think that they need to be considered in the light of the rule which I have suggested. If I have suggested wrongly, the Minister will correct me. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could deal with those two matters.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: On the noble and learned Lord's last point, it seems to me that Clause 60(7) points

395
to the possibility of a practical outcome which the noble and learned Lord himself recognised; namely, that there may be no single party with more assembly members than any other single party. One might have two parties each with 30 members; three parties each with 20 members; or four parties each with 15 members. It is perfectly plain that the largest party is that party, if any, which has a majority over any other single party.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. How does that fit in with subsection (4), which states that
"a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it"?
If a number of parties have equal support, how does subsection (7) answer the question raised by subsection (4)?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Because there is no question in subsection (4). That subsection states that
"a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it".
If there is no such largest party in the assembly, as defined in subsection (7)—
Lord Hooson: He can be in the chair.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, as the noble Lord. Lord Hooson, says, he can be in the chair. Although I hesitate to say this when dealing with any Bill, this is perfectly simple and plain.
Again, it seems to me that subsection (5) is perfectly plain. It contains the injunction that the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee is not lawfully enabled to delegate that function under Clause 59(3). For my own part, subject to any further persuasion and any correspondence in which the noble and learned Lord and I may engage, I cannot see the difficulty.
Lord Mishcon: The Minister needs no help from me, but is it not clear that subsection (7) covers with clarity the situation where the Bill might have provided that the largest party is the party which has a majority over all other parties? The subsection makes it perfectly clear that the definition of "the largest party" is the party with a majority over any single party.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I simply do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, manages to think that the largest party means the party with a majority over all the rest. The largest party is the largest party. That is all there is to it.
Lord Mishcon: I hear the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may intervene as a referee. I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has the argument. I understand what is meant by "the largest party", but thanks to the noble and learned Lord asking questions about it, I think that the point of subsection (4) is to
396
prevent the party which provides the executive from occupying the chair of the committee. I imagine that that is the intention.
However, what happens if the largest party is not a member of the executive because a number of other parties have got together in a coalition? It seems to me that the party in opposition—if I may so describe it—will not be allowed to occupy the chair of the committee whereas I believe that the clause is designed to try to ensure that the largest party does not run the executive and chair committees. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that I have created a scenario in which the largest party may not be running the executive and will not be allowed to chair the committees either. I suspect that that is not what the noble Lord intends should happen. One wonders whether it is an unintended consequence to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has drawn the attention of the Committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: No. Clause 60(3) plainly provides that the assembly first secretary and an assembly secretary are both disqualified from being members of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, posits the question whether one wants a member of the executive on the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee. The answer is plainly not. These individuals are disqualified by virtue of subsection (3). One then considers subsection (4) which provides:
"The Assembly shall elect one of the members of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee",
the first secretary and assembly secretary already having been excluded by subsection (3),
"to chair the committee but a member who represents the largest party in the Assembly may not chair it".
That leads us happily to subsection (7) where the largest party is defined. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, interjected sotto voce, if there is no "largest party" there will be no consequent disqualification. All is plain, all is pure, all is light.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not believe that all is plain, pure and light. I was not bothered about whether the assembly first secretary or an assembly secretary would be the chairman of the committee but whether a member of his or her party would be able to be chairman in those circumstances. If it was not the majority party and therefore not excluded from the chair those individuals could be in the governing party or the party whose members formed the executive and they could chair it. I believe that a distinction should be drawn, which is very clear in my mind. If I do not express it very well I apologise. I can see a circumstance in which a party which is the majority party is locked out of being part of the executive and is then locked out from having any of its members as chairmen of these committees. Equally, a party that is in the executive—perhaps the party holding all of the executive seats—may have members sitting as chairmen because they are not from the largest party. Perhaps the noble Lord

397
should look at this matter. I do not believe that in certain scenarios this provision would fulfil the Government's sensible and enlightened intention under this clause.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is confusing "executive". I take it that by that he means the first secretary or an assembly secretary whom he describes, according to his second thoughts, as "of the executive party". Let us assume that the largest single party is the Labour Party. There may well be some Labour Party members who will be the first secretary or an assembly secretary. By virtue of holding office as first secretary or assembly secretary, not by virtue of being the majority party, they will automatically be disqualified from membership of the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee, because that is plain from Clause 60(3). The scenario put forward by the noble Lord does not derive anything by way of prohibition or injunction that is in Clause 60. I shall consider this matter again but I am pretty certain that the noble Lord has got it wrong. Perhaps I have got it wrong, in which case I shall write to the noble Lord and to others and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is one question that the noble Lord has not dealt with which arises on Clause 63. This is fundamental to all the provisions about delegation. Is the Welsh assembly a delegate? If it is a delegate it cannot sub-delegate without authority; if it is not a delegate it can do so. In the background that I suggested there is the puzzling situation that it deals primarily, although I gather not exclusively, with delegated legislation. That is the background. I would be very grateful if the noble Lord would consider it further.
Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 61 [Audit Committee]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 160A:
Page 31. line 31, at end insert ("or Pwyllgor Archwilio").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 160A seeks to insert the words "or Pwyllgor Archwilio". That is the Welsh translation for Audit Committee. As the Bill presently stands this committee is the only body or person that has the misfortune of not having its name in both languages. Therefore, I beg to move this amendment which will provide consistency in this respect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 161 to 163 not moved.]
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 163A
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—

ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
(" . The Assembly shall designate one of its committees to be responsible for the environmental auditing of the Assembly's work.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will be rejected by the Minister and the Liberal Democrat Benches because it includes the word "shall". As the Committee
398
will have discovered by now, that word is intended in these amendments to flag up issues of concern to the assembly and its structure. The proposal is quite simple and I do not need to spend much time upon it. The issue of sustainable development will be debated again in the context of this Bill. I do not believe that it is possible to have sustainable development without a mechanism to deliver it. There is a mechanism in another place in the Westminster Parliament; namely, the Environmental Audit Committee. That includes among its members one of my party colleagues Mr. Cynog Dafis, the Member for Ceredigion, and a potential colleague in the national assembly, Mr. Gareth Thomas, the Member for Clwyd West, who I understand hopes to be elected on behalf of the other party of Wales—the bigger party, to revert to the earlier debate—to the assembly. The work of that committee is to consider the extent to which policies and programmes of government departments and non-departmental public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development, to audit their performance against such targets as may be set for them by Ministers and report to the House. I believe that that would be an ideal committee to be established in Cardiff. It could be the main mechanism for delivering the sustainable development objectives to be placed upon the assembly as a duty. We shall debate this later. I beg to move.
Lord Rees: I do not know whether it is entirely appropriate for me to make the following point. I thought that we rushed through this rather too quickly. I was about to get to my feet when Amendments Nos. 162 and 163 were called. Those are the responsibility of my noble friends Lord Roberts and Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. The point that we have just debated arises also under subsection (4) of this clause. It may well be that a minority party forms the administration. It would not normally be the case but it would be possible for a Minister or one of the executive to be appointed chairman of the audit committee and not be disqualified from being so appointed because he would not be the first secretary or an assembly secretary and he would not be a member of the majority party. I do not know whether my fears are fanciful but perhaps the Minister can reassure the Committee that no executive person, who obviously is not a member of the majority party, can be appointed chairman of the audit committee.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think that the noble Lord is reverting to Clause 31.
Lord Rees: No.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That deals with membership of the audit committee, which was the point that the noble Lord was making.
Lord Rees: Could the Minister reassure me that there is no possibility that a person with executive responsibility in the assembly could be a chairman of the audit committee?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: According to Clause 31(4) neither the assembly first secretary nor an

399
assembly secretary may be a member of the audit committee. The first secretary and the assembly secretaries together comprise what has been called the executive. Therefore if neither the first secretary nor an assembly secretary—that is, the executive—may be a member of the audit committee, it seems to me that neither could be chairman of the audit committee.
Lord Rees: I apologise for taking up time.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Not at all.
Lord Hooson: Does not the present phrasing of the Bill represent the reality of the political situation in Wales? The clause is designed to ensure that the dominant party in Wales—the Labour Party—does not have the chairmanship of this committee. That is the proposal. The Minister might look at the drafting to see whether it can be changed to meet the theoretical situation—in his view, I am sure—that might occur in the future.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall consider that suggestion. Perhaps I may now turn my attention to replying to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I take his point entirely that this is an extremely important aspect. I was going to mention to the Committee, but he has done that already, that another place has set up a similar body. I am sure that it will do useful work. The noble Lord said two things: first, this will flag up the importance of the issue—I entirely agree—and, secondly, it seems to be an ideal mechanism—I entirely agree—but the ultimate decision should be for the assembly.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister, and because we both sustain each other in these matters, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 [Regional committees]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 32, line 3, leave out from ("establish") to end of line 11 and insert ("five regional select committees to hold the executive committee accountable for the exercise of its functions in that region.
(2) Each regional select committee shall be responsible for an electoral region in effect at the last ordinary election.").
The noble Lord said: This is an important amendment. No one doubts the importance of Clause 62, which provides for the establishment of regional committees in Wales. There are distinctive regions within Wales, with their own special interests. It is important to the success of the national assembly that people feel at regional level that their interests are being considered and safeguarded. Some may regard the clause as perpetuating divisions, but I do not share that view. Neither do I think that the Secretary of State shares that view, because some Members of the
400
Committee will remember that the Secretary of State, in commenting in the Welsh Grand Committee on the referendum, on 18th November last year, said:
"The referendum results showed a marked difference in the views between North Wales and South Wales and between East Wales and West Wales. I am conscious that we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together. We must address the genuine concerns, and I acknowledge the fact that we must listen and continue to listen".
One of the ways in which the Bill proposes to deal with that problem is by setting up these regional advisory committees under Clause 62. Unfortunately, the clause refers only to North Wales. That is not even geographically defined. The "other regions" are without number or geographical definition. We know that the committees proposed, when established, will advise the assembly and will consist of elected assembly members for each area. The first problem is to define the regions geographically. The advisory group set up by the Secretary of State which examined the issue, but came to no firm conclusion, recognised that this is an issue on which there will be many different viewpoints and that none of the possible options would be perfect.
The advisory group mentioned two such options, the first being the four regions proposed by the Welsh Office for the recast Welsh Development Agency and the second being a seven-region model based on rurality and socio-economic indicators. I am told by the noble Lord, Lord Geraint, that there is also in circulation yet another new model which divides Wales into two.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The sheep and goats.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The first four-region option described by the advisory group in its consultative document entitled A National Assembly for Wales as option A is not far removed from the five-region proposal based on the assembly's own electoral region pattern, which in turn is based on the five European parliamentary constituencies.
I would be the first to admit that, although those electoral regions, as they are referred to in the Bill, are not ideal in physical geographical terms, they are acceptable because an attempt has been made to secure constituencies of roughly comparable size in population terms—around the 400,000 mark. It is population and people who matter most in electoral representation. That has meant creating a mid-Wales electoral region which reaches from Llanelli to Llanrwst—an absurdity by most people's standards, but not immutably so. I think adjustments should be possible over time. The electoral regions as defined in the Bill which are to be used for the purpose of electing assembly members on a proportional basis would seem to be a good starting point.
I would argue that there is much to be said for establishing the five regional committees under Clause 62, based on the electoral regions used in the assembly elections and comprising the assembly members elected for those regions. Why adopt a different regional arrangement from the one used for elections to the assembly? If there are infelicities they can surely be put right in time by the Boundary Commission.

401
It has been suggested that the assembly's regional committees should be coterminous with other bodies' regional groupings—the WDA or the local authorities. But there is no suggestion in this clause that the membership of those committees should be extended beyond assembly members to other persons belonging to different bodies.
If our proposal is adopted, each committee would have a sizeable membership, I calculate of about 12. I have no quarrel with the advisory group's analysis of the role of regional committees in:
"ensuring that the Assembly has close links with the regions, liaising with regional economic fora, unitary authorities, town and community councils and other local groups",
and drawing the assembly's attention to issues of concern to the regions. Some will feel, in the regions in particular, that this is inadequate. The electors of the regions may not be satisfied that their needs will be attended to. We therefore propose that each regional committee shall have the power to censure the executive committee, and that the executive committee should resign unless the assembly passes a vote of confidence in it within 28 days.
Members of the Committee may well think that that is taking matters somewhat far and that the more moderate line taken by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley in his amendment is preferable. But Cardiff can be very remote to some of the Welsh regions, and the right to censure and to call for the executive's resignation would give the regional committees teeth which they currently lack. They would have a powerful means of drawing attention to their complaint and their censure could clearly not be ignored. The executive, too, would be put on its mettle to ensure fairness of treatment between the regions, and the fear that the assembly will be dominated by South Wales interests to the detriment of the remainder may be overcome.
I hope that I have set out a fairly reasonable case for the amendment. There is much concern in different parts of Wales, and a fear that they may be ignored. I do not think we are as yet in a position to command a national spirit behind the assembly. After all, politics is about interests, and the regions in Wales have different interests which they want safeguarded.
I shall listen with interest to the debate on the amendment, and to the Government's views. Whatever they are, I hope that the regional subdivision of Wales will not be yet another matter left to the determination of the assembly. Frankly, it is a problem best resolved here. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Viscount of Oxfuird): I have to advise the Committee that should this amendment be agreed to, I am unable to call Amendments Nos. 165 to 167 due to pre-emption.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: I hope that the Minister will agree with my noble friend that I am moderate. Amendments Nos. 165 to 167 are grouped with the amendment. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 165 and
402
166 is to ensure that the assembly will take account of the economic and social well-being of local communities in rural areas.
In case the Government have not yet got the message, there is a real crisis in Welsh agriculture at present, and being a pessimistic farmer I see too clearly the similarity between today's problems and those that occurred after the repeal of the Corn Laws. I believe that there is every chance of Welsh agriculture suffering a 50 to 60 year depression unless we, the Government, in conjunction with farmers, accept the problem and try to solve it, which I am sure is possible.
My fear, however, which the amendment addresses, is that our urban societies, which outnumber the rural ones, will not understand, or if they do will not heed, the rural communities' problems. It is a point I sought to make last night at some unearthly hour. However, the Minister rebuked me for being so suspicious and untrusting. I am sure that these problems will be aired in the regional committees. However, my fear is that the assembly will take this line of argument. I am sure all noble Lords have said at times to their wives, "What do you want to do today?" and before she has time to reply, they say, "This is what we shall do". That is the problem about which I am worried.
Relevant to the problem that I seek to resolve in the amendment is the issue of geography. I hope that I shall receive full support from the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. If we are to have the quality of person serving on the assembly, it is important that it is made possible and easy for such people to attend the assembly at Cardiff when they live in North Wales, and Anglesey in particular. At present the reliability of service, rolling stock and regularity of trains is bad to very bad. Do the Government have any plans to improve that? Without an improvement, they will not attract the right quality of person from North Wales to sit on the assembly, in particular as I hope that that person has another worthwhile job. I think of a potential Labour candidate who has just turned down the offer to become a candidate for the assembly for those reasons.
I suspect that the Minister will reply that the problem is not the Government's and is in the hands of the train operators. But no train operator can afford to improve the service for one assembly member. It is a real problem. I hope that the noble Minister will not reply, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when we discussed this matter previously, by saying, "The noble Lord knows better than anyone how to get from Holyhead to Cardiff'. I did not know then, and I still do not know.
Amendment No. 167 ensures that regional committees are established for Mid Wales and West Wales as well as North Wales to ensure that the problems that I have enumerated on Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 are addressed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I regret to say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, although I congratulate him on bringing this important issue before us for discussion. I do not think that this is the place to decide where the regional committees are

403
to be established, and the boundaries. It is a difficult issue. I have promised my noble friends a free vote on it because I am not sure that we all agree about the boundaries of North Wales, Mid Wales or West Wales. One can divide Wales by many barriers: mountains, language, river valleys, economic interests, and so on. I believe that the assembly will have to discuss such matters at considerable length before reaching a final conclusion as to where regional committees should be established. In particular, it will need to define the advice required from the regional committees. How is that advice to be put together, and in what form is it to be delivered to the subject committees, the cabinet, or civil servants? What is the nature of the advice to be given?
The clause contains the wise provision for a specific committee for North Wales, however one defines North Wales. I am sure that that provision is included because there is, and always has been, considerable disquiet that North Wales would be dominated by the south. Ironically, in the south there has always been considerable concern that it would be dominated by the north. It is one of the ironies of Wales that so many of the people who hold the levers of power and influence in our capital city come from North and West Wales because they have the facility of being bilingual. That is a matter of considerable importance in the administration of business and government, in the media, and so on.
One has only to consider the problems which are thrown up by trying to define the various regions of Wales in order to say immediately that this House, despite its expertise and knowledge, is not the place for us to reach a final conclusion. Nor is the other place because the way in which such issues can be discussed is not suitable for the type of debates which take place. I would leave the clause as it stands and put the responsibility on the assembly as its first task to decide what is the function of the regional committees, what advice they are supposed to give and to whom and where the boundaries should run.
Lord Elis-Thomas: It is about time that we were honest about the issue of regionalism in Wales. We all know why the provision was included in the Bill. It appeared in the White Paper for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend indicated; because the so-called North/South divide was an issue in the previous referendum. An attempt was made by the governing party—and all credit to it—in its referendum campaign to ensure that that did not happen.
After consideration, my view is that we make too much in our political structure, and we are making too much in this Bill, of the whole issue of regionalism in Wales. That is not to deny the importance of regional identity, regional differentiation, regional representation and so forth. In my view, we are about to construct a new form of national unity and diversity and we must therefore see the regions not as challenging or competing bases of political representation but as serious partners.
404
I warn the Government and the proposers of the amendments that they are pandering to the worst form of regionalism. There is a danger, in particular if one constructs a regional basis for a political constituency according to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord opposite, that we may create two tiers of members in the assembly. There will be the first-past-the-post members who are elected according to the ancient political placing of a cross on a piece of paper. There will be the members elected by regional franchise on the basis of the d'Hondt system and all those wonderful formulae which we discussed on the first day of the Committee. But those members will be equal. The danger is that if one creates a regional committee structure which is coterminous with the franchise for the regional elections, one is instituting a two-tier assembly with a national and a regional level. One is also instituting a two-tier membership; the regional members and the constituency members.
I believe that we must have a more radical approach to these matters. Although I do not agree with either of the proposals put forward in the report of the National Advisory Group, I am attracted by the Western model because it is applicable in terms of regional development. I am attracted also by the WDA regions—the TECH regional model—which brings me to the whole point of my speech. This is not a matter for this House—and here I disagree with myself in previous speeches. This is definitely a matter for the assembly by consultation and process. I would not put it as the first duty of the assembly; I would put it as an emerging duty. However, I would warn the assembly members not to pay too much attention to the issue of regional division. Politicians in Wales, including those in my own party, have played about with the issue of the regional division of Wales. My own party is guilty of that. We are creating a new national unity in which the diversity of the wonderful Marches, the border land and the west is just as important as the artificial creations called north, mid, south-west and east Wales. I am opposing the amendments and supporting the clause, but I issue dire warnings to the regionalists because in my book the regionalists are even worse than the nationalists.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: It is always a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. As he completed his speech I could not help wondering how many times he has disagreed with himself. From my knowledge of him over many years, I suspect quite a number. I agreed with a great deal of what he said in the earlier part of his address, but he did not do justice to his cause in the latter part of his speech.
It is very important that the assembly is generally accepted. The Labour Party will almost certainly have a large majority in the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, may shake his head and disagree with himself about this, too, but the reality is that only six parliamentary seats in Wales are held other than by the Labour Party. Let us look at the reality of what will happen.

405
From the Government's point of view, it is important that the assembly is generally accepted. Therefore, it is important that proper account is taken of regional susceptibilities. I represented an area in Montgomeryshire which deeply resented being included with Brecon and Radnor in an artificial creation called Powys which covers a quarter of the land surface of Wales. It is contrary to their history. The Tudors had it right because they paid regard to communications and to where the rivers flowed. Where the rivers flowed so market towns and the means of communication were developed. In an area which can be described as the Marches area, which included the old Montgomeryshire, there were many contacts across to Shropshire as well as west to Cardiganshire, to Merioneth and so on.
The regional susceptibility which exists must be carefully dealt with. If the assembly were to develop into a body dominated by what might be described as the old Labour attitudes in some of the area of South Wales it would ruin it for the Government and everyone. If there is anything which would upset the Labour control of Wales it would be making a mess of the assembly. Therefore, the Government must tread carefully on this issue.
I agree that we in this House should not try to define the regions. Most people in Montgomeryshire, for example, would prefer to be with North Wales if it were divided into a North Wales region and others. As I and people in the Welsh Office know, a number of representations have been made from Breconshire. It does not like to be part of Powys either and believes itself to be part of South Wales. The same probably applies to Radnorshire. But it should be left to the assembly to decide wisely in what way it will have regional committees. There is strength in the argument for a mid-Wales region because it has many similar problems. The Rural Development Board as it developed included Merioneth, Montgomery and so on and in many ways it was an actual region. The assembly might seek to go along those lines and define North Wales more narrowly.
It is important that within the assembly there is a sense that the affairs of a given area will be properly safeguarded. The dominant force will be from the industrial areas and there will generally be felt to be a need for strong protective regional committees able to influence the assembly generally. All in all, we must leave the matter to the good judgment and leadership of the assembly. I know that the present Secretary of State—I feel his presence—is most anxious to lead the assembly. He is very well aware of such problems. I am sure that he is totally dedicated to the idea of making the assembly a success and that he appreciates the importance of a sensitive solution to what may be described basically as the "regional problem".
Lord Davies of Coity: Although I have not lived in Wales for some years, I do not see any evidence that regionalism does not still exist. Clause 62 has the position just about right in terms of allowing the assembly to define precisely what the regions will be. We still hear terms—and they are expressed in the
406
proposed amendments—about North Wales, Mid Wales, South Wales and West Wales. Of course, regionalism exists in reality.
I certainly support the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that the assembly is designed to create a unity in Wales. But that unity must evolve and has to do so with confidence, strength and belief. It cannot do it overnight. There is an undoubted requirement for these regional advisory committees to represent respective and specific interests in the areas of Mid Wales, West Wales, North Wales and South Wales—indeed, wherever it happens to be—so that the assembly can take the decisions which will ensure that all the people of Wales are able to have confidence in the work of the assembly. All those interests must be represented.
I suggest to the Committee that Clause 62, as presently framed, should be supported. We should allow the assembly to define the lines of regionalism in Wales for, perhaps, the interim period. They may not need to exist forever and a day, but, when the assembly starts its work, such definition certainly needs to be there. Indeed, only the assembly can define those regions after a great deal of thought and consultation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I apologise to Members of the Committee for not being present at the beginning of this discussion; indeed, I had not intended to intervene in it. As an Englishman, I find myself in the peculiar position, once again, of being on my feet, but in this instance perhaps with a word of warning. This is a debate about devolution. It is about devolution to a country with a long and proud history, which existed as a proper country a long time ago.
Devolution is an infectious disease if it is taken to its illogical extreme. There is a danger with devolution if we start to divide Wales into separate regions. A colleague of mine, who is not present in the Chamber this evening, described the country of Wales as a number of separate kingdoms and he is someone with a deep knowledge of Welsh history. The danger is that the devolution bug will be catching. If a part of Wales at some subsequent time feels that it is disadvantaged, it may begin to exert pressure on the national assembly for devolution from it.
I believe that it would be wholly regrettable if that were to happen. Although that example may seem a little like science fiction or, indeed, a little far fetched, some of the regional pressures and regional organisations that we see in Europe seem to press in that sort of a direction. Therefore, the concept of a regional sub-structure below Wales is not inconceivable. If it is conceivable, I believe that it is something about which we should be most concerned. There is great merit in the structure that is being proposed; but if we put in place the possibility of a sub-structure, I am not sure that we will not in fact undermine the foundations upon which this particular Bill is laid.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said in his opening remarks, these amendments deal with different aspects of regional committees. I take most seriously the points made by

407
the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, especially his justified concern about current rural problems, which I fully recognise, as well as the question of difficult transport links from some parts of North Wales to an assembly building in Cardiff. Undoubtedly those transport problems are notorious. I am afraid that I speak with recent familiarity having journeyed to Aberystwyth for an honorary degree ceremony only last week. It does indeed take rather a long time to do so, particularly when, as in my case, there is always a man with a Morris Minor and a caravan immediately ahead on the road.
One way to deal with the matter is to be as flexible as the Secretary of State has indicated on various occasions; in other words, one does not have to have all the assembly business conducted in Cardiff on every occasion. That is an important point. Indeed, subject to the assembly's views, there is no reason at all why some committees should not sit outside Cardiff. Without wanting to be intrusive into the assembly's position, I believe that there is much virtue in that suggestion. It is perfectly simple these days to conduct business on video links. Much of the business of the Welsh Office is carried out in that way as indeed is that of the University of Wales. Sometimes it is just not possible or indeed necessary to have people gathered together in the same inconvenient location.
It is intended that this should be a modern building with use of IT and video links. In particular, the Secretary of State has made it perfectly plain that he wants an inclusive assembly so that those with disabilities or those who have to look after young children will not be disadvantaged as regards standing for the assembly. Therefore, we should not always have imprinted upon our minds the thought that Westminster is the only available model; indeed, it is not.
Amendments Nos. 164 to 169 fall into a slightly different category than that of Amendment No. 170. The first amendments look to three things. First, they define the boundaries of the regional committees as those of the five European constituency areas. Then they require the assembly to have regard to a regional committee's advice when making decisions affecting a region. Thirdly, there is the empowerment to censure with the consequence that the executive committee must resign unless the full assembly passes a motion of confidence.
The Government have problems with the first two propositions and we do not think that the third is necessary. We have not yet reached any decision on what the boundaries might be, but the one thing that we are clear about is what they should not be; namely, coterminous with the boundaries of the electoral regions.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Why?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble and learned Lord has helpfully asked why. Indeed, I was just about to give the answer. Those boundaries are predominantly determined by electoral arithmetic. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said, the five regions must, as far as possible, have about the same number of electors. That
408
may well be perfectly appropriate for the regional component of the assembly electorate, but they do not purport to be identifiable communities of interest—indeed, I do not believe that anyone with any knowledge of Wales believes that they are.
The noble Lord gave the example of the distance, which is more than geographic, between Llanelli and Llanrwst. They are a world apart in many ways. I suggest to Members of the Committee that it would be very odd if the assembly wanted a regional committee which was giving advice on matters affecting the Vale of Glamorgan but excluding Bridgend. One only has to look at the details involved to realise that there are difficulties about what Amendments Nos. 164 and 168 would require.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, the advisory group is consulting and has produced two maps each of which has some merit. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee supported one version, but the other also has its advocates. We should, perhaps, wait and see what the advisory committee recommends. As the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hooson, pointed out, there is great virtue in letting the assembly decide what it best knows about.
I turn to Amendment No. 169. Members of the Committee opposite having pressed on the Government the merits of individual ministerial responsibility and the cabinet system, now propose that if the members of a regional committee are displeased by the performance of a member of an executive committee, they will be able to table a motion of no confidence and have it debated. That is not required because provisions on motions of censure are already available. We discussed those earlier. This measure is otiose. Any member of a regional committee by definition will be a member of the assembly. Any member of the assembly by definition—subject to standing orders about whether a quorum is needed to sustain the hearing of a censure motion—is entitled to table such a motion. I repeat that the measure is unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 require the assembly to have regard to regional committees' advice. I understand the sentiments behind the amendments, but if the assembly does not have regard to regional committees' advice there is no point in having regional committees at all. I suggest that the scheme of the Bill makes the matter perfectly plain.
Amendment No. 170 requires that the regional committees should have regard to the effect which their proposals might have on local communities in rural areas. I do not think I can stress my next point strongly enough. I have sympathy with the deep concern that the noble Lord has expressed on this matter on a number of occasions, not only in the context of this Bill. One of the maps proposed by the advisory group would produce a regional committee which would have no rural committees to consider.
I do not resist the amendment on that ground, but I point out that any regional committee of any worth is bound to take account of the impact of any of its proposals on its local communities. After all, some rural communities have been badly hit, but one has only to

409
travel half an hour from Cardiff to Merthyr, for instance, to appreciate that there is substantially more social deprivation and hardship on some of the estates in Merthyr than in some rural communities in the rest of Wales. I believe that is a perfectly objective observation. We are trying to produce an assembly which is capable of work. If it is to be capable of work, it must be trusted to reach its own conclusions about these matters. I believe that the present structure of the Bill is better than the alternatives that have been proposed.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. The general feeling expressed by a number of Members of the Committee is that this is a matter best left to the assembly. Of course one respects that view, but we are dealing with a difficult problem as the Government are aware. The advisory group has told us that this is a difficult issue to resolve. It is a matter on which there are many different points of view. None of the possible options is perfect. I believe we would do the assembly, the Secretary of State and everyone a good service if we could complete Clause 62, as it were, and provide the divisions that are anticipated in that clause.
As regards the need for a committee system, there are two poles of opinion. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is totally devoted to the concept of national unity and a national approach. He wishes us to underplay the regional issue. I thought that the noble Lords, Lord Hooson and Lord Davies of Coity, were nearer the mark, especially when the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, said that unity would not be achieved overnight. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, talked of the need to respond to the regional aspirations that exist in different parts of Wales. The Government are absolutely right to think that there is a real need for these committees to express the views of different parts of Wales. I am assured by the Minister that it lies within the power of members of the assembly to initiate motions of censure which, by their very nature, will have to be attended to. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said that we would create two tiers of members, as it were, through the electoral regions. However, the two tier membership already exists by the very nature of the composition of the assembly—the 40 constituency members and the 20 who will be elected by PR from the electoral regions.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I hope that the noble Lord is considering carefully what he is saying. He quite rightly said that I am inordinately devoted to national unity. I am also inordinately devoted to ensuring that the working practices of the assembly will ensure that all members are seen as equal. It is not a two tier membership; it is merely election for an area by a different form of franchise as part of a PR system.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I think the noble Lord will have to recognise that the areas to which members are elected differ. There is a considerable difference between the parliamentary constituency, and the electoral region. There will not be the close attachment between the electoral regional member and his area that exists between the constituency member and his area as he is clearly identified with the constituency he serves.
410
I am grateful for this debate. I also paid attention to what my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said. It is indeed possible that if one encourages regionalism too much, it may seek its own form of devolution. We certainly do not want to handicap the assembly in Wales by regional pressures of that kind. We may well return to this subject of regional committees because in spite of the view expressed that it is a matter best left to the assembly, I am sure in my mind that if we as a Parliament were able to provide a solution to this problem, we would do ourselves, the assembly, the people of Wales and the Government a service.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have felt all along an interloper in these debates. I was encouraged by my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas who said that I was fortuitously qualified. I have listened to this debate with great admiration and benefit. It is obviously closely balanced. As the matter is to be further considered, I make a suggestion that may constitute a way of reconciling the various differences, and that is to do what we have done as regards the standing orders. In other words, the regions, like the standing orders, would be extraneously laid down, but with power to the assembly to alter them at its discretion when it comes to consider them more closely. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, and the Minister might, if the matter is left at large, consider that possibility.
Lord Davies of Coity: I am slightly concerned in relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, regarding the question of establishing advisory committees in regions, which might produce a regionalism which furthers devolution in the regions. My understanding is that this clause would ensure that a regional advisory structure exists to prevent aggravation and ensure that people in the regions have a voice and that their interests are represented. The structure itself will not provide a forum for a greater degree of devolution. What will provide that greater degree of devolution, if the matter arises, is not having representation by an advisory region.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am sure that noble Lords are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, for his suggestion. I hope the Government will consider the matter. I certainly take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Committee Stage begin again not before 8.43 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

A.66: Upgrading
7.42 p.m.
Lord Hothfield Lord Hothfield rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider as a priority in the trunk road programme the completion of the conversion to a dual carriageway of the A.66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Question seeks to find out whether the outcome of the Government's current Roads Review will fully reflect the importance of the A.66 trans-Pennine route and its existing unsatisfactory condition. At present, the only part of that route which is included in the programme is the Temple Sowerby bypass, which is marked with a nasty little star, meaning, "schemes likely to be put on hold".
The A.66 is well known to long distance travellers as a key cross-country road, linking north-west and north-east England. It also offers the most direct route from western Scotland and Northern Ireland to eastern England and mainland Europe via the North Sea ports. The road attracts traffic flows averaging 12,000 vehicles a day throughout the year, rising to 17,000 in the summer holiday season. There is a highly dangerous mix of traffic on the road, from farm tractors on the one hand to trans-continental heavy commercial vehicles on the other. The 34 per cent. proportion of heavy commercial vehicles is greater than on the M.62, and two and a half times that on the A.69.
The 80 km long section of the road between the M.6 at Penrith in Cumbria and the A.1 at Scotch Corner in North Yorkshire has over the past 30 years been partially upgraded to dual carriageway standard through a number of isolated schemes. At present, approximately half of the road has been upgraded, but in such a way that there are currently 11 changes of standard between dual and single carriageway. The undulating and twisting alignment and sub-standard junctions of the single carriageway are little changed from the days before motor vehicles started to use the road. The mixture of dual and single carriageway leads to racing, bunching, rash overtaking, confusion and, inevitably, accidents.
The Roads Review consultation document has set out five assessment criteria—integration; accessibility; safety; economy; and environmental impact. The trans-Pennine A.66 more than adequately fulfils these criteria, as I shall attempt to show.
I think everyone would agree that in the foreseeable future, roads will continue to have a role to play in an integrated transport strategy—none more so than rural roads such as the A.66, moving freight on routes where there is no practical alternative. However, the A.66 also contributes to an integrated strategy in serving a number of sea and air ports. Sea ports are situated at the terminal points of the road at both east and west coasts. Teesport and Workington both have general cargo and bulk handling facilities, with Teesport having the additional capacity to serve the chemical industry. Teesside airport is also developing its freight handling potential.
The trans-Pennine section of the road has increased international importance, forming a crucial link in the route between west coast ports for Ireland (surely set to become busier) and the major east coast ports, Channel ports, and the Channel Tunnel.
The A.66 clearly has a major role in promoting accessibility. It gives access for the peripheral areas of north-west England, Scotland and Ireland to east coast ports and hence European markets. At a more regional level, at its west end, it serves as the principal access for a population of 130,000 in west Cumbria, an unemployment blackspot, where over 5,000 are currently seeking employment. In the east, industrialists on Teesside regard the route as an essential part of their hinterland. The route provides readily available access across the Pennines, particularly now that winter reliability has been improved with the completion of dualling through the upland area.
On safety grounds, we have a very strong case too. The road's accident record shows a stark contrast between single and dual carriageway. During the nine-year period 1989 to 1997, 63 people were killed; 59 of those were killed on single carriageway, and remember the lengths of single and dual carriageway are roughly equal. Altogether, out of 1,204 casualties, 944 were on single carriageway. The effect of dualling was dramatically demonstrated after completion of the 6 km Stainmore to Banksgate improvement in 1994. During the three years prior to construction, there had been 85 casualties, including seven fatalities. During the three years since completion, four people have incurred minor injuries on the new dual carriageways.
On economic grounds, the A.66 contributes at every level. The composition of its traffic reflects that this road is foremost a trade route, carrying up to 4,000 heavy goods vehicles each day. The Department of Transport's own Trans-Pennine Study (Strategy Report 1992), highlighted large flows of very long distance, strategic traffic of which a high proportion was commercial. The average trip length, 254 kilometres, was far greater than any other of the eight trans-Pennine trunk roads studied. It was nearly double the next longest, 137 kilometres, on the M.62. This average trip length is undoubtedly boosted by international trips such as those undertaken by lorries crossing the "landbridge" between such ports as Stranraer and Hull.
However, the road contributes equally to the regional economy. In 1996, the northern region of the CBI said in its report Improving Regional Competitiveness that the A.66 gave northern business the greatest cause for concern. It stated:
"in its present form the road is unsuitable to the important strategic role it has to play in serving the industrial areas and ports of the North East and Cumbria".
A further illustration of economic benefit comes from the Road Haulage Association, which has calculated that its members can save some 25 kilometres per journey by using the A.66 in preference to the M.62.
The final criterion of the Roads Review, environmental impact, is another strong one for the A.66. For the majority of the route, upgrading can be achieved by on-line widening. That keeps to a minimum the use of agricultural land. Throughout the route there is very little roadside development to require diversions from existing alignment.
Comments by local branches of the Council for the Protection of Rural England indicate the acceptance by environmental interest groups of improvements to the A.66. In North Yorkshire, the county branch offered spontaneous support for dualling on safety grounds. In commenting on proposals for Temple Sowerby, the Friends of the Lake District have accepted the need for a bypass. On a different tack, my sister-in-law, a noted roads protester, has given this scheme her blessing. The Minister should be encouraged by that. I certainly am.
That covers the extremely strong case based on the criteria. I should now like to spend a moment on the Temple Sowerby bypass. Temple Sowerby and Kirkby Thore are the only two villages through which the A.66 runs. The Temple Sowerby bypass was first planned in the 1960s, and has been championed by the local doctor, Gavin Young. It has progressed to the stage of having a preferred route announced, which has been selected to avoid an SSSI. The existing road runs alongside the notable village green and bisects a community which has been described as the Queen of Westmorland villages. The Church, the school, a pub and most houses are on one side; the village shop, garage, hotel, doctors' surgery and other houses are on the other side. The village has experienced more than its share of accidents, including in recent years a collision between two heavy goods vehicles, in which one driver was killed. On another occasion a young boy resident was knocked from his bicycle by an articulated lorry and so severely injured that he will require lifelong medical care. By a quirk of fate, that boy was Dr. Gavin Young's son. Can your Lordships imagine what a fillip it would be for this family if the Minister were able to give some indication that this scheme, which has been on the drawing board for thirty years, is actually to be built?
There is immense support for A.66 improvements, both locally and from further afield. Both Tony Blair and William Hague are supporters. The European Transport Commissioner, Neil Kinnock, visited the road and spoke of it as,
"a dangerous and blocked artery".
I was pleased to see that in his recent Question in this house on road building, my noble friend Lord Vinson singled out the A.66.
I thank the other speakers tonight and the Minister for listening. If nothing is done, deaths will continue. This road has over double the fatality rate for rural trunk roads nationally. We are only half-way through 1998, but already a further eight people have been killed in five separate crashes, all on single carriageway.
In conclusion, I shall quote from the Department of Transport's Trans-Pennine Study Strategy Report, to which I referred earlier.
414
"There is a good case for improvements to the A.66, which could be justified in their own right. A dual carriageway widening throughout, between the A.1 at Scotch Corner and the M.6 at Penrith would accommodate future traffic demands, reduce journey times, and improve the reliability of road travel in poor weather conditions. It would enhance the important strategic connection of Cumbria and North Lancashire with the North East of England. While the route passes through an area of outstanding natural beauty, the environmental impact of improvements could be minimised by on line widening".
Will the Minister now accept that there is a strong case, based on the criteria, that the completion of dualling of this route, and in particular of the Temple Sowerby bypass, should be programmed as a priority? Previous governments have nibbled at it. What is now required is a full mouthful.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I intervene briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield. If I may say so without embarrassing him, I think he put the case better than I have heard it put by anyone in the last 40 years—and I have heard it put many times.
I intervene because I was born, and lived my early life, in the village of Warcop, which is a quarter of a mile from this road. That village was the only omission from the speech of the noble Lord. There is in the village of Warcop a very large Army training camp. The troop accommodation and headquarters are on one side of the A.66 and the training facilities are on the hills on the other side. This is bound to be a considerable complication to the traffic on that part of the A.66.
When I was a boy, I spent many hours sitting by this road taking motor car numbers. Why I took them I cannot imagine—there were very few cars in those days—but I filled many exercise books with them. Nowadays it is almost impossible to walk across the road. One takes one's life in one's hands if one tries to do so.
One of the most ancient horse fairs in the country was held on this road. I remember well that the gypsies used to gallop their horses up and down the road all day long. Nowadays one cannot walk across the road because of the traffic.
This is one of the ancient routes in Britain from the north-east to the north-west. It has been a route for 2,000 years, the road having been built upon a Roman road. The medieval kings passed along the road many times—Edward I more often than anyone else, I believe.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, said, the road links up the great industrial complex of Tyne, Wear and Tees in the east with West Cumberland in the west. As the noble Lord also said, it is also a bridge road between ports such as Stranraer in the west and Teesport in the east. There are two routes across the Pennines from the north-east to the north-west. The A.66 is one and the A.69 the other. I travel on the A.69 every week. Neither road has double carriageway for the whole length; both have many miles of single carriageway. It is dreadful to travel along those roads and be stuck behind a cluster of heavy goods vehicles. Twelve thousand vehicles a day use these roads—4,000 of them heavy goods vehicles—17,000 in the summer months.

415
If these two roads were in the south-east of England, they would have been made double carriageway long ago. They are up there below the Scottish Border and I do not believe that London cares much about them. Temple Sowerby is a case in point, about which I feel so angry. It is one of the most beautiful villages I know. It has many delightful houses built of red sandstone. The villagers have to go backwards and forwards across the A.66, dodging the heavy goods vehicles, to go about ordinary village business, to the church, the pub, the doctor's surgery. This is scandal which cannot be allowed to continue.
I saw the Minister come into the Chamber with the brief under her arm and I felt a great dread that it would be the same old brief that we have heard over and over again under Labour and Tory Governments. I hope that it is not. The noble Baroness is one of our most sympathetic Ministers; she listens carefully and always tries to help. I urge her to follow the advice given to Macbeth:
"Be bloody, bold and resolute".
Throw the brief away. Tell us that you are going to build a bypass at Temple Sowerby and a double carriageway. If you do that, you will make a name for yourself for ever more. Please do not read out the old stuff that we have heard so often. I have great pleasure in supporting the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, that this road should have double carriageway for its whole length and that Temple Sowerby should have its bypass.
7.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I am pleased to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, on raising this important matter. Unfortunately, he has already said all that could and should be said, with admirable brevity and clarity. I detected one omission, but the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, spotted it and mentioned the village of Warcop, so most of the ground has been cut from under me. I shall try not to be tediously repetitious, but there are one or two points to make which will add a little colour to the subject under discussion.
Perhaps a Bishop of Carlisle ought to declare an interest in the A.66. It is, after all, the ancient route to the metropolitan see city of York. One of my predecessors, Bishop Percy, who was appointed in 1828 and stayed there until 1859, was a notable horseman. He used to declare his favourite pursuit as being to drive himself to London in a carriage and four to attend your Lordships' House. His route would certainly have lain across what we now call the A.66 to what was then probably called the Great North Road.
Those noble Lords who know Cumbria, and indeed north Lancashire, will know that the routes from west to east, north of the M.62, are at best inadequate and at worst very dangerous, given the volume of traffic. I shall be returning to Cumbria tomorrow morning and in the late afternoon I shall be going to the village of Beckermet at the gates of Calder Hall—better known as Sellafield—several miles from the western end of the A.66. From that village it takes around one hour and
416
10 minutes to reach the M.6, much of it along the less safe parts of the A.66. It is another 40 miles from there to Scotch Corner on a road that is a good deal more dangerous than the first part of the A.66.
That is important not just for commercial purposes, as the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, underlined, but it is important also to ordinary travellers—if I may call them that. Successive attempts to establish a viable airport at Carlisle failed and the nearest airport of any kind is that at Teesside. If one wants to return from London reasonably late in the evening after attending your Lordships' House, the only way to do so is to go on the east coast main line to Darlington and then there is a long drive across the A.66. In a very real sense therefore it is a lifeline not just to the communities on or near the A.66 but to a great deal of central Cumbria.
Too many of our small and remote communities in and around the Lakes are already suffering from the economic pressures experienced by small and medium-sized farmers. That increases the desirability for an upsurge in the tourism industry. There is already a holiday village oasis just off the A.66 to the east of Penrith, which now has a regular residential population of 3,000 people a day. A major new tourist centre is being built just to the west of the M.6 by the turn to Ullswater in order to draw tourists into the eastern part of the Lake District. That again will add to the volume of traffic on this road.
The fact that it is a lifeline to industry has already been mentioned. We are talking about high quality stainless steel railway lines manufactured in Workington and exported all around the world and chemicals from Allbright and Wilson at Whitehaven that need the Teesport facilities because they are a substantial part of our urban fringe in Cumbria—more than one-third of the population in the county lives on the west coast.
I want to underline the fact also that it is a lifeline in an important literal and slightly macabre sense. The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, reminded the House of the number of fatalities that occur on a single carriageway part of the A.66. I can perhaps add a little detail to the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, of Warcop. There will be a steady stream of military convoys up the A.1 and across the A.66 all through the summer—regular and Territorial Army and Army cadets. As we speak, though the gypsies will not be racing their horses on the A.66, there will be an extraordinary Steptoe-like convoy moving across that road in both directions for the Appleby Fair which is taking place this week and next. As noble Lords can imagine, on the "un-dualledpart of the A.66 it is a horrendous and dangerous prospect.
In the Old Testament the prophets expressed the Lord's concern for generations yet unborn. My immediate, more basic human concern is for those not yet dead on the A.66.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Jopling: My Lords, I am extremely glad to be able to congratulate, as others have, my noble friend Lord Hothfield on introducing this debate. I endorse all that he said so admirably and eloquently.

417
For 35 years I was, and continue to be, a regular user of the A.66 between my home, which is south of Scotch Corner, and my old constituency in the historic county of Westmorland and the stretch of the A.66 from Stainmore Summit to a mile or so outside of Penrith—also my old constituency. This evening I should like to add a few comments to what my noble friend Lord Hothfield and others have said.
First, having been a regular user of this road for many years, I have seen some of the most horrible accidents on the road and observed countless near misses. I cannot over-stress to the Minister the danger of this road and its casualty rate. It is something which ought to make us all feel ashamed. The road really must take priority.
Something which occurs to me is that a road with intermittent stretches of dual carriageway, as the A.66 has now, is inherently extremely dangerous, especially when there are so many slow-moving vehicles on it. It provides for commercial vehicles all the year round, and in the summer season slow-moving cars tow caravans, and there are straw lorries when the straw is taken from the eastern counties over to the western counties. Again, there are also the military vehicles to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
On many occasions I have seen and been in slow-moving traffic on that road. One then comes to a short stretch of dual carriageway when everyone makes a rush to overtake the slow-moving lead vehicles. On the short stretch near Greta Bridge, on many occasions I have seen slow-moving traffic, impossible to overtake, approach that short stretch of dual carriageway. Everyone makes a dash to overtake and some find that they cannot make it before the end. I have seen them doing lunatic things in order to overtake before the further stretch of single carriageway arises opposite Barnard Castle. Those stretches of intermittent dual carriageway are inherently extremely dangerous.
My next point is that, in making plans over the next few years for the A.66, I hope that the Government will not allow themselves to be bullied by the Treasury into some of their typically blinkered and brainless candle-end compromises, spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar. For example, in the late 1960s a stretch of the road to the west of Appleby, at Crackenthorpe, was bypassed. There was a great ballyhoo about bypassing Crackenthorpe, which had a rather nasty narrow and twisty bit. What happened was that, owing to the ludicrous cheeseparing, that bypass was constructed in such a way that nearly all the stretch of road had double white lines. It seems to me to be absolutely absurd to spend all that money building a new road and then to build it so that people are not able to overtake.
In a specific sense I want to draw attention to the need for a bypass at Temple Sowerby. I believe my noble friend Lord Hothfield said that it has been ongoing for 30 years. I can first remember making public pronouncements about the need for a bypass at Temple Sowerby 35 years ago. At that time the whole thing was bedevilled because people could not decide on which side of the village the bypass should be built.
418
That undoubtedly delayed the project. That has now been agreed, but still nothing is being done and it is essential that something is done.
Finally, I shall make a few general remarks. All governments have been guilty of ignoring the need for proper east-west communications north of the Yorkshire and Lancashire industrial belt. West Cumberland particularly is crying out for better communications. Barrow—that poor city which has been maimed by the end of the cold war and the collapse of the demand for nuclear submarines and weapons of war—is scandalously ignored by the lack of improvements to the A.590 road. At one point that road goes through a farmyard. The construction of the High and Low Newton bypass is essential.
Likewise, the most direct road link from the north-east of England to Lancashire and the Midlands, and Barrow in particular, is to take the A.66 as far as Brough and then to move over to the M.6 motorway at Tebay via Kirkby Stephen. There is an urgent need for a bypass because lorries clog up that beautiful old market town in the most appalling way. The Kirkby Stephen bypass has been put off, although it was quite recently very much at the head of the priorities of road building in Cumbria. This is all linked in with the need to improve the A.66.
This has been a most useful opportunity to draw attention to one of the most urgent strategic projects necessary in the north of England at this time.
8.11 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, so far no noble Lord has mentioned the fact that we have the great good fortune of having the Minister for roads to answer our debate. It is seldom that we have such a privilege and we are all doing our best to make what we say suitable for her ears. I think she will throw away her brief, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, told her to.
I too wish to say how admirable was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield. It was beautifully constructed and contained all the arguments, as the right reverend Prelate said, so it is very difficult to think of anything else to say. So far everyone has managed to add to what the noble Lord said and the case for the dualling of the carriageway of the A.66 is absolutely beyond argument. I hope that that will penetrate the mind of the noble Baroness the Minister for roads.
I also wish to talk about Warcop. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, mentioned Warcop as he is its most distinguished ornament. Warcop is an absolute paradigm of what not to do. I am talking about the road, not the village. The village is entirely charming but the road is quite disgusting. Can one possibly imagine a sillier thing than to build a magnificent new bypass at Brough and a magnificent bypass at Appleby and to ignore the few miles in between? That is not just criminal folly; it ought to be visited with disdain and disgust. It has killed so many people.
Can you imagine the ordinary traffic, which, as we have heard, is so vital, so variable, from these huge lorries down to farm carts? We have been told that this season, the Appleby Fair season, gypsies are travelling

419
along this monstrous road. How can you expect heavy goods vehicles to slow down into the dip that takes them into Warcop and up again the other side before reaching Appleby? They do not slow down and the result is these horrific accidents.
The mish-mash of this kind of road is quite lethal, as has been said by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jopling. Something must be done to remedy these disasters from the past. The two miles or so between the Brough bypass and the Appleby bypass should not have been left. They must have been designed by two people with totally different thoughts, one building the Appleby bypass and the other building the Brough bypass, and nobody thought of linking the two—at very minimal cost. That is the kind of thing that has gone on all along this vital road, causing great loss of life. That must be impressed upon the Minister as one of the reasons why we are insisting on the remedying of this dire situation.
I remember very well the campaign of a doctor from Temple Sowerby and the tragedy which followed soon after his campaign had been shelved. His own son suffered a horrible accident as a result of a collision when he was on a bicycle and met a heavy lorry. That has engraved itself on my mind. I am sure that all other people who know the area will believe that this was a terrible sacrifice that had to be made through the impotence or lack of push on the part of the Minister for Transport. We hope for better from our Front Bench spokesman today than the miserable answers that we have received on numerous occasions in the past.
Local people know well how to avoid this important highway. They know the back ways to avoid the murderous traffic. I am quite sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle, when he is coming our way, avoids the main road by going the back way, which he can do for many a mile. I am sure that is to his great relief. In a similar way those who live near Brough can go by back ways, not just to Appleby but to Penrith. Indeed, there is a very good back way all the way to Carlisle.
If the local residents are forced to take this action to avoid the calamities of the highway, surely that speaks for something to be done without further delay.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I know I speak for all the other participants in the debate thus far—and, indeed, for all Cumbrians—in thanking my noble friend Lord Hothfield for tabling the Question we are now debating. I, like every other speaker, am a Cumbrian. I would point out to the noble Baroness that we have not got all the Cumbrians in your Lordships' House speaking today. There are more that we can reel out on another occasion, and a number of them will be behind her.
I know this road very well because it has played a part in my life from my birth. We lived at one end near Penrith and my grandmother lived at the other end not far from Barnard Castle. I have known it for the past 46 years. During that time I have crashed a car on it,
420
just outside Warcop Army camp, very much along the lines as described by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. I was caught in a snowdrift on the top of Bowes Moor and spent a night stranded in the Bowes Moor Hotel, not far from the spot where Erik Bloodaxe, King of York, was assassinated in the first half of the 10th century. My aunt and uncle have a house in Temple Sowerby.
When I had the privilege of being a Member of the European Parliament for Cumbria and Lancashire, North, I raised in the European Parliament the question of this road. What I said then, and what I still believe now, is that it should be part of the trans-European road network. It is, as has been described by a number of noble Lords in the debate, an important link across country, linking Scotland, Ireland and parts of West Cumbria to the east coast of Britain. I should particularly like to underscore the points made by my noble friend Lord Jopling about the inadequacy of the links between the main roads in Cumbria and the west and the Furness areas.
In the context of the trans-European road network, I believe that the road is complementary to and not an alternative to the A.69, which was given a TERN allocation because it was pointed out that the flows of traffic at its east end between Hexham and Newcastle were greater than those on the A.66. That is hardly surprising because people around Hexham commute into Newcastle, which can hardly be described as part of a wider European-wide traffic flow.
The point was put succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, and it cannot be emphasised too much, that this road is part of our nation's essential transport infrastructure.
As has already been mentioned, it has a number of unusual characteristics, the first of which perhaps is the fact that it has a high proportion of heavy vehicles. Around 34 per cent of all the vehicles travelling along it are heavy vehicles. That is higher than for the M.62. Perhaps equally interesting, given its length, is the fact that the traffic flow along the length of the road is relatively constant. It is true that it is marginally higher in the middle section, between Brough and Bowes. At Brough there are links south through Kirkby Stephen and down to the M.6 and Kendall; and from Bowes, where there are links north to Barnard Castle and Bishop Auckland.
I shall just go through the names of the places on that road. They are important places that resonate in the north of England but are not known widely. They are not centres of population. They are Penrith, Temple Sowerby, Kirkby Thore, Appleby, Warcop, Brough, Stainmore, Bowes Moor, Greta Bridge and Scotch Corner. These communities will not generate much traffic going on and off this important national road.
I fear, because it is inevitably the way, that the noble Baroness will feel that she cannot follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara. There was a time, I dare say, when no member of the party opposite would have dared not to follow the advice of the noble Lord. I hope it is a case of plus ca change, plus c'est la même chose, but one never knows. But what the Minister can

421
do, I believe, bearing in mind there is a risk that if she gives us what we all want the trunk road review will be pre-empted, is to give us an indication of when she will be able to tell us that the Government intend to dual the road for the rest of its outstanding single carriageway sections.
I dare say that the noble Baroness may be tempted to say that it will be expensive and that resources are tight. I merely remind your Lordships that in the Statement this afternoon another £140 million of public money was found for changes to the proposals for the Channel Tunnel link. It was said earlier in the debate that the Government seem to be much keener on spending money nearer London than they do in the north of England.
The noble Baroness may be tempted to say to me and to my noble friends Lord Hothfield and Lord Jopling, but not, needless to say, to the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, or the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, "Well, when you were in government you did not build these roads". I think that the right reverend Prelate would agree with me that a sinner saved causes much more rejoicing than the just man going into the Kingdom of Heaven. And, of course, she did not always agree with everything that the previous administration did. So I do not think that is a good argument to advance against us.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, before the noble Lord was born I made a speech in the other House, when Dr. Beeching was closing the railways, advocating the dualling of the A.66. I have advocated this all the time I have been here. That is a very long time.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is a great friend to North Westmorland, and all of us who know him and know the area know that.
What the noble Baroness cannot deny is that when we were in government we started the job. I am sure the whole House will agree that we should not leave the job half completed. The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, pointed out the five tests that are being used to determine priorities for the trunk road review. I do not want to reiterate them. As I have already mentioned, it is an unusual stretch of road because it is essentially a single homogenous length of road. If it is right to dual it in part, it is right to dual the whole thing, because what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
What we currently have is a long length of road, sections of which are dualled and sections of which are singled in an apparently arbitrary manner. If one is travelling along the section Winderwath, Temple Sowerby, Kirkby Thore, Crackenthorpe, or Sandford, Warcop or Flitholme, or again in that section in Richmondshire, one is statistically at least three times more likely to be killed in a car crash than one is on some of the other sections, such as the Appleby bypass, or the area around Brough and up on to Stainmore, or outside Penrith up to the Countess's Pillar. It cannot be right that it should be government policy to acquiesce in this curious capricious form of risk that drivers and users of this road are going through day on day.
422
I agree with Mrs. Ann Glendining. She said:
"It is essential that the lobbying campaign continues in order to impress on the decision-makers in Government the benefits to be gained and the strength of support for improvement".
I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with Mrs. Glendining, who is the Labour chairman of the Cumbria County Council Economy and Environment Committee.
As far as improvements to the road are concerned, the job has been started. Let us finish it off properly and let us stop beating about the bush.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the temptations that have been offered to me in tonight's debate have been myriad and varied. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, as other speakers have done, perhaps most of all for giving me the opportunity to speak on a subject of which I have some knowledge and have some personal responsibility in departmental terms. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, was kind enough to say that the House was lucky to have me here as I am Minister with responsibility for roads. I feel quite lucky to be answering at the Dispatch Box on a subject for which I have some responsibility, which is not always my experience in this House.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I do not know the road well from having driven along it. I do not think I have ever been along it in my life. But I have to say that I feel as if I know it quite well not only from this evening's debate and from the contributions made by noble Lords who are the cognoscenti as far as the road is concerned but also from the experience I have had in looking at the schemes on the A.66 that are included in the roads programme which we are currently reviewing; in particular, the Temple Sowerby bypass and Winderwath improvement. The review has been an open exercise. It has involved regional consultation. I have offered meetings to every single MP in England on a regional basis to present to them the results from the Government Office and the Highways Agency as regards the roads review consultation as well as on the integrated transport policy consultation. I also heard the views of local Members of Parliament. I have also been in correspondence with Dr. Young and heard of his own personal tragedy, as well as of the long-standing campaign which he has been involved in for the bypass.
So I do feel as though I know well the scheme and the problems of this particular route. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, and others who made the point about piecemeal improvements that it is important that we try to look strategically at routes and that in future we do not make some of the mistakes of the past by doing things in a piecemeal fashion. That has implications and often consequences that are not foreseen.
Having said that, I shall now revert to the well-trained Minister mode that my noble friend believes that I should abjure. I cannot give an undertaking for the wholesale dualling of the route. Even in the most grandiose road-building programmes of the previous government, that has not been put forward before as a

423
wholesale scheme. I cannot anticipate the results of the roads review. We are looking very carefully at each of the 147 schemes that are in the roads review at the moment. The integrated transport White Paper will be published later this month. After that I hope that we can give some answers and conclusions on the schemes within the roads review.
It would be wrong for me to anticipate individual scheme decisions in tonight's debate. I recognise that problems can be caused—and that has been illustrated tonight—by a change in quality and standard between single and dual carriageways on a particular stretch of road. There is also the provision of short stretches of dualling on a single stretch of carriageway. That can be extremely effective. It used to be called "anti-frustration dualling" because of the accident rate on long stretches of single carriageway where there were no opportunities whatsoever for overtaking. The accident rate was extremely bad. We have seen, particularly from experience on the A.1, that that kind of dualling can be effective. We also looked at situations where villages and communities need, for their safety and their environment, a bypass when they are bisected by a trunk road route. So I do not believe that we should say that the only answer is dualling every single stretch of single carriageway on every trunk road in the country. That is not possible, and not only on economic grounds.
Tonight it has sounded as though it would be a very easy task to be a roads Minister if only one had the money to give everyone what they wanted. It would not be an easy task because there are other considerations. We cannot simply build our way out of our problems. We know of the problems of increasing traffic, congestion and pollution. They cannot be kept pace with simply by the provision of extra road space.
In addition, we have to look at schemes in the round. The noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, said that I should be reassured because his sister-in-law, who normally protested about roads, had not protested about this one. I would not wish to sound cynical, but having had a year and a bit as roads Minister, I have discovered that there are a number of people who find it possible to be against the roads programme in general and to make an exception for the individual scheme about which they have knowledge and to which they are deeply committed. I would not say to the right reverend Prelate that it is rather like St. Augustine and chastity. Such people tend to feel that the roads programme should have no further investment after their bypass has been produced.
There are balances even in the scheme about which noble Lords have shown so much concern tonight. The correspondence that I have received has not been wholly in favour of dualling the whole route. Environmental concerns have been raised.
I now return to the safety issues, which are the closest to my heart as I am Minister for road safety as well as Minister for roads. That means that I see letters from bereaved families and from Members of Parliament concerned at the accident rate on a particular stretch of road. I receive letters from coroners pointing out the danger of individual stretches of road. I have no doubt
424
about the importance of making sure that safety is a high and valued criterion for investment in the trunk road network in the future. I hope that we shall be able to refocus our investment programme in that way.
But the answers to safety problems are not only in terms of large-scale improvements or bypasses. The A.66 is an area of great concern. It has been pointed out by many noble Lords that the accident figures for that road are very worrying. Although the rate of accidents on the single carriageway is only slightly higher than the national average, the severity of those accidents is much higher than on comparable roads. There have been 70 fatal accidents since 1993, the most recent being on Monday of this week on a single carriageway in Cumbria. So I am very conscious of the need to make improvements.
The Highways Agency has already undertaken a number of improvements at accident blackspots; for example, by providing new signs and lines and using red-surfacing. They are techniques that have been shown to be extremely effective. It is important that we make sure that we bring in all possible measures. They are not necessarily very expensive or very high-tech. This month the agency is introducing signs advising motorists on the safety record of the A.66 on a trial basis and the results will be monitored.
At the Warcop and Sandford junctions arrangements have been made for a series of small safety schemes, including the provision of new studs and marker posts. This work is to be carried out shortly. I can also tell the House that later this month the Highways Agency will be announcing the preferred routes for two short stretches of proposed dualling from Greta Bridge to Dyson Lane and from Scotch Corner to Melsonbury crossroads. We are at the point of putting forward preferred routes and there are statutory processes that have to be gone through. These areas have been highlighted as causing particular problems. I hope that we can make some progress.
By providing sections of dual carriageway at locations where there are particular accident problems and by clear signing and lining on the remaining sections of single carriageway, we can improve the overall safety of the route. That is what we are aiming to do.
As I have said, the roads review is considering two proposals for major infrastructure work on sections of the A.66, the Temple Sowerby dual carriageway bypass and the Stainburn and Great Clifton bypass, which is in Cumbria and is not part of the section of road that we are considering tonight. I hope that we shall be able to make announcements on those bypasses when we make the roads review announcement later this year.
Safety on the A.66 emerged as one of the major regional concerns in our consultation, just as it emerged as the major concern of your Lordships. Our objective is to produce from the roads review a targeted improvement programme which supports our integrated transport strategy and delivers clear benefits against the five criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Hothfield, referred. We also envisage setting in hand work to develop strategies to address other priority problems on

425
the network and to look at routes and particular issues so that we are not confined simply to the schemes already proposed under the programme.
As I said earlier, decisions on road investment are never easy and, sooner or later, choices have to be made about relative priorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, I have not heard from all the Cumbrian Peers available tonight, but I do know that other schemes in other areas of the country have as strong and passionate support as the schemes that would improve the A.66. I know from the consultation process that there is a wide spectrum of views about almost every single scheme in the programme and about the relative priorities of investing in roads as against in other forms of transport, let alone in other forms of public expenditure. These are not simple decisions.
In my experience, every road scheme has its detractors as well as its supporters, but we are determined that the investment programme on which we eventually decide should reflect the importance that this Government attach to safety. In my consideration, and that of my colleagues, of the proposals that we are reviewing at the moment, the strong feelings expressed tonight about the A.66 will be fully weighed.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.43 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.42 to 8.43 p.m.]

Government of Wales Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 62.
[Amendments Nos. 165 to 170 not moved.]
Clause 62 agreed to.
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 170A:
After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(" .—(1) The Assembly may establish a committee to provide advice to the Assembly about matters affecting young people in Wales.
(2) A committee established under this section shall be known by such title as the standing orders may provide (but is referred to in this Act as the Youth Advisory Committee).
(3) The members of the Youth Advisory Committee shall be—

(a) all members of the Assembly under the age of 26 at the time of their election to the Assembly, and

(b) persons selected by the Assembly from outside the membership of the Assembly.

(4) The standing orders of the Assembly shall provide for the selection of the members referred to in subsection (3)(b).
(5) The Youth Advisory Committee shall elect one of the members of the committee to chair it.").
The noble Lord said: In the previous debate on regional committees, it was emphasised that that was somehow the most important issue facing the assembly in terms of its structure. In my view—I still adhere to this view even after a good dinner with my noble friend
426
Lord Hooson—that is pandering to the old allegiances of Wales. My amendment is an attempt to create a different kind of citizenship. The reason why I propose the establishment of a youth advisory committee for the assembly and why I flag it up at the top of the flagpole is because I believe that there are now opportunities to transform the nature of participatory democracy within our society through the enhancing and deepening of a notion of citizenship, particularly among the younger citizens of the country.
I propose that a youth advisory committee should be established. It would build on the existing work of our tremendous young people's movement in Wales. I shall not try to list all the bodies concerned, but I have personal experience of the activity of the Boys and Girls Clubs, and of the Urdd, the Welsh League of Youth, the activity of which was evidenced so dramatically last week in Pwllheli at the annual eisteddfod. I refer also to the activity of the young farmers' clubs, which will be demonstrated yet again soon at the Royal Welsh Show at Llanelwedd. There are many other youth organisations.
Young people's culture in Wales is now becoming internationally recognised as a force for change. It is of deep cultural interest. It is a great joy to me that two young men from the Conwy Valley, part of the Catatonia Band, with their CD "International Velvet", were recently, and still are, at the top of the charts and that the Super Furry Animals shot up to No. 12 with "Ice Hockey Hair" only last week. I speak of these things because I am privileged in my own family to have younger men than myself, of that generation, who are involved in the media and in music.
That generation of young people has passed through many of the conflicts about the old kinds of Welshness which still seem to bedevil some of your Lordships in our debates. There is a notion of a post-modern, recreated sense of Wales and a sense of a new Welsh citizenship. We need to recognise that in a practical and participatory way by recognising the contribution of those young people to the remaking of Wales and by involving them actively in our processes.
I suggest that the Welsh youth advisory committee to the assembly should meet in the assembly building, in the chamber when the assembly is not sitting—or perhaps even when it is sitting, but not on sitting days—and that it should contribute actively a critique of the activities of the assembly.
This is not middle-aged paternalism on my part. I move this amendment because I believe that the creation of a new citizenship is an appropriate mission for the assembly. That citizenship must reverberate in another context which we discussed very late last night. I was very pleased with the response of the Solicitor-General on the question of the involvement of all the minority communities in Wales of whatever ethnic background. (I hate the word "ethnic", but it is a word in regular parlance to describe differences in culture and background.) I want that involvement to be

427
part of the celebration of a diverse citizenship. This amendment more than any other gives us the opportunity to do that. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support this amendment probably for the same reason as that advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. In discussion with young people in Wales I do not detect political concern about the future so much as a concern that they should be involved in reforming the institutions of our society. I am not so sure that this is a new development. When I read the life history of Aneurin Bevan and James Griffiths I find the same impulse driving them forward. I should like to think that this is not just a modern development but is part of the history of Wales. It may well be that there are no members of the assembly under the age of 26 at the time of the election. Nevertheless, I believe that this amendment is very important. The critical words here are "may establish". I am sure that this should be drawn to the attention of the advisory committee and in due course the assembly.
Lord Davies of Coity: I believe that there must be a voice and expression for youth. I hope that some members of the assembly will be under the age of 26. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, referred to a number of organisations who represented young people in Wales in various fora. I wonder whether this is sufficient to draw to the attention of the assembly, by way of representations through those organisations, the advice that this clause suggests should be provided to the assembly. The provision is not mandatory; it refers to "may" rather than "shall" or "must". Therefore, there is an option as to whether the assembly establishes it or not. One wonders whether it is necessary to have this further tier of advice for the assembly through this kind of forum when there will be many other organisations representing young people in Wales who will be putting advice both to the assembly and presumably the regional advisory committees in any event.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has this evening tabled a number of amendments which suggest additional committees in the assembly. I suspect that he has become rather worried because I have been sympathetic to his point of view and have understood his argument. On one occasion I tried to give his amendment a fair wind as it moved towards the Minister. On this amendment I shall redeem his reputation. I cannot support it. I fully appreciate the importance of involving young people in politics and the government of our country. But when I read an amendment like this it smacks of tokenism. I could shift youth and put down pensioners who are also a major group in our society; or I could put down women (if that were possible) or the disabled or ethnic minorities. There is a big danger here. Once one goes down this road people want more and more committees representing different groups.
As an outsider, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made an impassioned plea against the regionalisation of Wales, setting one region against another by having
428
regional committees. I believe that his argument carried some logic. I fear that that logic has been set aside during the dinner hour and we have reached an illogical position. If it is of any assistance to the Minister, he will have my support if he decides to reject this amendment.
Lord Hooson: I am sure that the Committee agrees that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, should not disturb or upset the early election campaign of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas in this way. All noble Lords agree that youth should be encouraged to stand for the assembly in all parties. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He will remember the time when he was a wild young politician in Aberystwyth and I was an equally wild young politician on the other side. We did not need to be encouraged to go into politics; we had the instinct to do so. All of us would like to see young people stand for the assembly and become members of it.
But I believe that it is a little mean of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas—who has admitted for the first time, as I recollect, that he is middle-aged—to adopt a cut-off point of 26. The amendment provides that the members of the youth advisory committee should all be members of the assembly under the age of 26 at the time of their election to the assembly. One would have thought that 30 was a reasonable age, but there we are. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, always has his own agenda and 26 must be a magical figure in his mind. But I do not believe that we need statutory young people, as it were; we need young people who are impelled to go into politics. No doubt they can be leavened by some wise and experienced heads in the assembly, like that of the middle-aged gentleman, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. But I do not believe that it is necessary to lay down what the assembly should and should not do by way of committees.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As my noble friend Lord Davies of Coity indicated, this is not a necessary amendment. Clause 55(1)(b) already allows the assembly to establish whatever committees it sees fit. Subsection (2)(b) removes the requirement for party balance if the committee or sub-committee is solely advisory. One could have a youth advisory committee composed of all members under 26. I believe that it would he a committee with either a vestigial or non-existent membership, if past experience is any indication.
I intended to resist this amendment vigorously until I heard the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He gave me cause for caution. It was suggested that one could have an assembly of pensioners. I did not say, "Look around". This is one of those wizard schemes, but it is no more than that. Certainly, we do not agree with the co-option of outside members. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, pointed out—he did not complain—that there would be a two-tier membership—although he repudiated that description when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, put it to him—namely, regional members and constituency members. Now he wants a third tier which is not elected at all. Goodness me! He must have been polluted by the House of Lords.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The reason for the cut-off age of 26 is that that is the age adopted by many of the youth

429
organisations that we have discussed. As to the notion of involving young people who are not directly elected, it is important that the assembly should have advisory committees that do not necessarily restrict themselves to assembly members. There is therefore a relationship established between the assembly and outside bodies.
I am particularly concerned that we do not appreciate the extent to which there is serious disaffection about political processes not just among the younger generation but throughout the population. We must find new ways to do so, and not just by having a massive Welsh Office budget to promote the assembly by television advertising, however well it may do it. I have a high regard for the information division of the Welsh Office. I am sure that it will do it very well. In the budget that may be made available for the presentation of the opportunity that the assembly will provide, and the necessary excitement that should be created before the elections, I hope that the Welsh Office will have in mind the need to consult youth organisations to ensure that the youth vote is maximised, and that there will be a high level of participation.
We all referred to the legitimacy of the low poll in its referendum and the small majority. If we have such a low poll in the assembly elections themselves, we do not have legitimacy. Therefore we have to ensure that all sections of the population are involved, particularly those that have a vested interest in the creation and the future of the institutions.
That is not part of any election campaign; it is a serious reflection, unlike the aspersions on my integrity in these matters of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, which I am sure he will soon withdraw. My concern is the involvement of the young people of Wales in the building of the new kind of post-modern Wales which we are desperately trying to construct. It is not on the old terms of bro' against bro' in which people indulged in the previous debate. Wales is to be a post-modern nation. Within that nation there is a distinction between diversity of gender, diversity of youth, diversity of age, and diversity of life cycle rather than this over-arching notion of community and region which seems to obsess people.
The young people of Wales do not have that view. They form an outward looking internationalist generation. We need to involve them in the construction of the assembly. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we may well return to this issue, even in this ageist assembly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9 p.m.
Clause 63 [Delegation of functions]:
[Amendments Nos. 171 to 189 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 33, line 9, at end insert ("; and in delegating a function under subsection (5) the Assembly First Secretary may limit or prohibit its further delegation under section 64.").
The noble Lord said: Within this group are my Amendment No. 190 and Amendment No. 190A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. My Amendment No. 190 is a drafting amendment. It rectifies an unintended omission in the Bill.
Clause 63 authorises the assembly itself, its committees and its first secretary to delegate functions. Clause 64 permits delegation of functions to staff. In the case of the assembly or a committee, any exercise of the power to delegate can attach to it a condition of no further delegation to staff; in the case of the assembly first secretary no such ability to restrict onward delegation presently exists. The purpose of the amendment is to place the first secretary in the same position as the assembly or a committee when delegating a function. In other words, if he wishes he can attach a condition of no further delegation to staff. I beg to move.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My concern about this amendment relates again to the issue of where powers reside in relation to the structure of the assembly and its committees, particularly its powers to appoint. We referred to these issues late the other night in terms of the delegation of powers of appointment. My concern is that the powers of appointment may reside with secretaries and may not be for the assembly as a whole as regards public appointments. I hope that the Minister can respond to those issues.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not sure whether the noble Lord was speaking to his Amendment No. 190A.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I was.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sorry, I was not clear in my own mind. His Amendment No. 190A puts specific constraints on the powers to delegate. It would exclude delegating powers under Clause 31. In fact the assembly is given no powers to delegate in Clause 31. That clause allows Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to specify public posts in the filling of which the assembly will need to be involved. I take it that the noble Lord intends that when those posts are specified, the assembly should not be permitted to delegate its entitlement to be consulted before a Minister of the Crown makes the appointment. We are back to our old friend: why do we not trust the assembly to exercise its own functions and powers?
The Order in Council might specify appointments to S4C as ones upon which the assembly should be consulted before the appropriate Secretary of State reaches his decision. Surely the assembly might come to a conclusion that it should deal in plenary session, or it might come to the conclusion that it should be delegated to the assembly secretary and subject committee responsible for Welsh language matters. There may be some appointments which rightly should be considered in private. Some matters—relatively few, and the bias should be against privacy—need to be considered privately otherwise good candidates may well not put themselves forward.
The unintended consequence of the noble Lord's amendment would prevent that delegation. I think that my Amendment No. 190 should be supported because it is a tidying up amendment. We do not see the necessity for the constraint that Amendment No. 190A would

431
impose upon the assembly's powers to set up committees. I invite the noble Lord to support my amendment and to withdraw his.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 190A not moved.]
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 [Exercise of functions by Assembly staff]:
[Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 33, line 22, after ("functions") insert ("of its or his (to such extent as it or he may determine)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No.193 not moved.]
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 194:
After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

SCRUTINY BY HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE
(".—(1) The subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for ensuring that, before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is—

(a) submitted to a committee consisting of all Members of the House of Commons representing constituencies in Wales, and

(b) approved by that committee.

(2) When any draft is submitted to the committee referred to in subsection ( 1) above, the committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft.").
The noble Lord said: This new clause enables us to have a debate about the role of the two legislatures, as they will be in the future: the Parliament of the United Kingdom which will deal with primary legislation; and the assembly in Wales which will deal with secondary legislation.
Since I tabled the amendment, we have teased out quite a lot of information. Earlier today we teased out the fact that some pieces of secondary legislation will be joint legislation and will be dealt with by this place without the assembly having any part in them. I shall look at that because it seems to run counter to what I think are the general principles of devolution.
Lord Prys-Davies: Is that agreed? Where an order is made jointly by the assembly and Westminster, will the assembly not be asked to approve the order?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Thanks to the vigilance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we considered Clause 59. The noble Lord will see that Clause 59(6)(c) refers to any subordinate legislation which is,
"not made or proposed to be made jointly with a Minister of the Crown",
432
and so on. I understand that such measures will not go to the assembly. It is part of the discussion we had earlier.
Lord Prys-Davies: I recall that discussion. It was my understanding—I may well be wrong—that we were awaiting clarification or confirmation of the position.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is what I was saying. We had teased out an unusual situation, thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. In the circumstances of Clause 59, the assembly would not be playing a part in the secondary legislation. There is a reasonable debate to be had about the role of the assembly and of its place in secondary legislation.
The new clause acknowledges the role of Welsh Members of Parliament in the creation of legislation for Wales. Those Members of Parliament will be involved in the primary legislation. If that piece of primary legislation is very Welsh in nature then, as is the nature of the House of Commons, those Members will be pretty well on their own when they consider the Welsh parts of a Bill. They will be involved in primary legislation. That will be retained here. That will be their responsibility. However, as is increasingly the case, where primary legislation calls for secondary legislation, the limitations placed by government Ministers from the Dispatch Box in another place and here should be taken into account when considering the framing of the assembly's secondary legislation.
One of my concerns is that secondary legislation is very much the creature of primary legislation. Noble Lords are particularly vigilant as regards secondary legislation or delegated powers. As I mentioned previously, I have been both gamekeeper and poacher. I was a founder member of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. As a Minister, I was the recipient of some pretty crisp reports from it, upon which I acted in almost every case. In the one case when I did not act on it, the Bill was changed sufficiently to allow me to claim that I never actually refused to take cognisance of what the committee said.
Some noble Lords are particularly keen to probe what Ministers mean when they ask for powers of secondary legislation. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is particularly vigilant on this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and, in the case of the portfolio I held, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, were all particularly keen to get on the record what was in my mind when I asked for powers to make orders. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, had a clever way of asking whether such and such was in the Bill. I would say, "No". Before one knew where one was, one was narrowing down what could be dealt with in the orders.
Undoubtedly, Members of Parliament and your Lordships in the primary legislation will tie in the boundaries of that secondary legislation. Therefore, the relationship between the primary legislation and the secondary legislation is considerable. In my view, if the Government and Parliament wish to tie down the Welsh assembly on secondary legislation, it will be easy for them to do so either directly on the face of the Bill

433
or by ministerial explanations from the Dispatch Box, which these days carry considerable weight thanks to Pepper v. Hart and the like.
The Welsh assembly may find that the powers we are giving to it on secondary legislation can be tightly constrained by the primary legislation of this House. Therefore, although I understand it, there is a certain amount of illogicality in the position where responsibilities are split. I do not want to see a Welsh assembly create an entirely separate Welsh legal system with primary legislative powers. I do not think anyone does except, perhaps, the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. Nor do I want the Government to go back on their referendum case that the Welsh assembly should deal with the secondary legislation. That has passed and I accept it entirely. However, I am suggesting that some people who had all the say in the creation of the primary legislation should have a little say in the creation of the secondary legislation. Therefore, there should be provision for scrutiny if necessary, including, if they wish, Welsh Members of another place, of secondary legislation.
My argument has been slightly strengthened by the exploration of Clause 59(6)(c). It is clear that in certain joint aspects only this place will scrutinise. In some ways, I am not happy about that and I shall think about it. However, as regards the proposed new clause, I wonder whether there is a case for sharing the scrutiny so that the assembly can perhaps undertake more than the Bill envisages—that is a matter we should consider on Report—but, more importantly, that Welsh Members of the other place can share the responsibility for the secondary legislation whose primary parent they helped to create.
I have made my point clear and I look forward to hearing the Minister's view of the new clause which would bring into play the Welsh Members of another place. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I hope that the Government will reject the proposed new clause out of hand. I suspect that its object and its effect is to undermine the whole process of devolution. The new clause proposes a supervisory body made up of Members of Parliament in the other place. Imagine what would happen if Members of the House of Commons approved a draft of the subordinate legislation and then the assembly took a different view. There would be an immediate clash between the assembly and the elected Members of the House of Commons in Wales. We have had this debate time and again on the Bill. The Opposition are trying by every means to ensure that the true process of devolution is not realised.
Lord Prys-Davies: In view of the earlier debate today and out of respect for the Opposition, I draw a distinction between the subordinate legislation power, which has been split, and the power which still remains to be jointly exercised.
As regards the power that has been split, surely the Conservative Front Bench cannot be saying that it has to be subject to the approval of the Members of
434
Parliament from Welsh constituencies in another place. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, who, in the circumstances of a Welsh order, will answer for the order in the Commons? Who will defend the order against its critics in the Commons?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I imagine that as the Secretary of State will still have a role to play, he will have to explain the orders. I can see that the noble Lord does not approve of that, but there it is.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Perhaps I am naïve, but I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I see as a real problem primary legislation being put through this Parliament and secondary legislation being undertaken in Cardiff. I have one simple question to ask the Minister. Will remarks made by a Minister at the Dispatch Box carry the same weight in the assembly as they do in England, or is the assembly subject to sovereignty? As my noble friend pointed out, unfortunately, a remark made by the Minister carries considerable weight. I am sure that he would prefer that not to be the case, but I wish to know whether it will carry the same weight in the assembly.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Unless the Minister wishes to respond immediately to the noble Lord's question, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 196, and also to Amendment No. 196A which is tabled in my name. As Members of the Committee will be aware, these are a part of a series of amendments which seek to protect the rights of all assembly members to have full participation in the work of the assembly. My amendment is aimed to ensure that draft statutory instruments produced within the assembly may be laid by any member or any committee. In other words, we are referring back to the theme that we developed previously: it is not just the executive that should be initiating delegated legislation; indeed, it should be open to initiation by other members or by the committee structure.
There is a general concern which I have, and it is one to which we may need to return, about the relationship among the body corporate of the Welsh Assembly, its new cabinet structure and the rest of the membership. There is also my strong desire that we do not create an artificial Crown in parliament within what is already a body corporate, so that there is an executive which somehow has overreaching power and there is no opportunity for the general membership of the assembly to participate in the delegated legislation process which will exist within the assembly.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This group includes Amendments Nos. 194, 196, 196A, 199 and 201. Perhaps I may deal immediately with the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. Pepper v. Hart is sometimes a misconstrued and perhaps over-weighted doctrine. It is not everything that Ministers say at the Dispatch Box which necessarily binds Her Majesty's judges. That is perhaps just as well for both parties concerned. There are special

435
circumstances involved. The rule in Pepper v. Hart, with which I shall not trouble the Committee at too great tedium, is to do with the construction of legislation passed in this Parliament. Therefore, it is not a question of what I say on these occasions which might or might not fall within that doctrine. Indeed, that would not be relevant if a court had to construe subordinate legislation passed by the assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, has said that he will be a candidate, I feel that I should confirm that I shall not be. Therefore, there is no prospect in any circumstance of anything I say being held against someone, not least myself, if the judges have to construe secondary legislation passed by the assembly.
However, perhaps I may turn to this clutch of amendments. I am rather surprised by Amendment No. 194. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, it would impose a new procedure for Welsh subordinate legislation which would apply to no other part of the UK. The vast bulk of subordinate legislation is made without the need for preliminary consideration by any parliamentary committee. Further, upon this occasion of devolution—glad, confident devolution I had thought it to be—subordinate legislation passed by the Welsh assembly would have to be submitted to the equivalent of the Welsh Grand Committee in the other place. That does not really sound like devolution to me; indeed, it sounds like the failed attempt of a double-glazing salesman on a rather poor Wednesday afternoon, or perhaps Thursday afternoon, if the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, objects.
Such a suggestion is really not consistent. It would mean that every draft order proposed by the assembly, regardless of whether the assembly had decided that it did not merit detailed scrutiny, would have to go to the Welsh Grand Committee. That would be quite an extraordinary procedure. Many of the orders would be highly technical. If they are not highly technical, the assembly's own procedures will ensure full public scrutiny. There is a rather odd assumption behind all this—and I put this quite gently—that when one is devolving powers one is, at the same time, saying to the assembly, "You can't be trusted to make your own orders without the supervision of Members of the other place". We reject that; indeed, levity apart, it represents a fundamental difference of approach. The assembly will be a democratically accountable elected body and will exercise its order-making powers in the full view of the public eye. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will not persist with his amendment.
Amendment No. 196A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would allow assembly members or any committee to put forward draft statutory instruments. This is a question of legislative initiative. Who should be able to initiate the process whereby the assembly decides to make an order? The answer given in this amendment is that any member or committee should be able to lay draft orders before the assembly. An analogy might be drawn with the ability of Members of Parliament to promote Private Members' Bills. We do not want to prevent individual assembly members from coming forward with proposals for orders.
436
At the end of the day we are back at the same hymn sheet. It is, and must be, fundamentally a matter for the assembly to decide. I suggest once more that it is not a provision that should be included on the face of the Bill. This matter concerns the working arrangements for the management of the assembly's day-to-day affairs. Amendments Nos. 196, 199 and 201 standing in my name are not controversial. They are drafting amendments to secure consistency throughout the Bill in the terminology used.
The Earl of Northesk: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wish to refer to a matter which may almost appear to be a red herring. I should be intrigued to know whether it is the Government's wish that the Salisbury Convention should apply to the assembly as regards any delegated powers—for example, to set class size limits for five, six and seven year-olds.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not entirely certain of the point of that question. Is the noble Earl referring to the Salisbury Convention with regard to manifesto commitments in this Chamber, or is he referring to a sub-Salisbury Convention, a Cranborne Convention, as regards the attitude that opposition parties should adopt to manifesto commitments in the case of a majority party being in power—if one exists—as defined in the interesting way that we discussed earlier this evening? I am not sure to which position the noble Earl attaches his question.
The Earl of Northesk: I have a slight difficulty as regards the electoral procedures for the assembly. We could end up with a democratic mandated assembly—almost parliament—which potentially could have a different manifesto to that of the UK Parliament. I am interested in the inter-relationship between the two. Would skeletal Bills passed by this Parliament permit an assembly to fly in the face of the UK-wide democratic mandate?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: With great respect that has nothing at all to do with the Marquess of Salisbury or his convention. The Marquess of Salisbury's convention can bite only if there is a bicameral legislature; in other words, can the upper Chamber overrule manifesto commitments made by those who are elected to the lower Chamber? However, there is only one chamber in the Welsh assembly. I do not see that the noble Earl's question bites on the Welsh assembly at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Committee for the points that have been made. I am sorry the Committee takes such a dismissive view of the poor old Welsh MPs at the other end of the building. I was trying to find a meaningful role for them, but I have been brushed aside. I did not consider them as some kind of supervisory body from another planet. I thought they were from the planet Wales. But be that as it may.
I wish to question the Minister a little further as regards my concerns about the constraints which primary legislation passed by the Welsh MPs might

437
place on the Welsh assembly. As I know from my experience, if someone feels that secondary legislation goes beyond what is consistent with primary legislation, or indeed with the explanations given by the Minister when the primary legislation was enacted, that person can take the matter to court. He or she can claim that the Government are exceeding their powers. Indeed, organisations are quite vigorous in that regard, especially in regard to social security. What I am trying to tease out is that this would be the same, as I assume it would, for the Welsh assembly, despite the fact that the primary legislation and the commitments were made in this Parliament, either in this Chamber or in the other place. If some organisation thought that the Welsh assembly was going beyond the powers granted in primary legislation, could it take a court action and prevent secondary legislation going ahead? I believe that to be the case. Perhaps the noble Lord will give his view. We are grateful to have his legal views for free, which must annoy him somewhat.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is not annoying to give legal advice free; it is deeply distressing—particularly for someone from North Wales.
When the noble Lord referred to primary legislation passed by Welsh MPs, I think he meant by Parliament, and I understand that. If primary legislation gives powers to a Welsh assembly to introduce what by definition would be secondary legislation, should there be a question of vires the matter would be justiciable. If it is justiciable in some circumstances, not all, then the ruling in Pepper v. Hart would apply. I do not think therefore that we are in disagreement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for that very clear reply. If the amendment has done nothing else, it has provided me with an opportunity to tease out that point. Having been reprimanded by other noble Lords for wanting to double-guess the Welsh assembly, I have to say to the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hooson, that, on Report, if I put forward an amendment to Clause 59(6)(c) to give the Welsh assembly some more bite in these joint matters, I shall look forward to their support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Regulatory appraisals]:
[Amendments Nos. 194A to 194D not moved.]
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Making of Assembly general subordinate legislation]:
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 34, line 19, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 196A to 197 not moved.]
Clause 67, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 197A:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—

APPRAISAL OF PROPOSFD GUIDANCE TO LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES
(". Where the Assembly proposes to make relevant Welsh subordinate legislation other than Assembly general subordinate legislation in the form of guidance to local planning authorities, the subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for securing that an appraisal is carried out comparing the proposed guidance with any similar guidance in force or proposed for England, and for the appraisal to be published before the Assembly makes a decision whether to issue the guidance.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment returns to the thorny problem of subordinate legislation. The Bill makes provision for the handling by the assembly of assembly general subordinate legislation; that is to say, legislation required to be made by statutory instrument.
However, the Bill makes no minimum requirements for other subordinate legislation, such as circulars, guidance or directions. Thus, it would be possible, for example, for the assembly to go against the drafting of planning circulars to the relevant assembly secretaries. Town and country planning legislation operates in such a way that that guidance for Ministers has been very important in creating the conditions in which the law operates. Welsh farmers must not be disadvantaged by planning guidance which, for example, would make it more difficult for them to obtain consent for diversified farm enterprises as compared with their counterparts in England. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an appraisal is carried out comparing proposed planning guidance for Wales with any similar guidance in force or proposed for England, such appraisal to be published before the assembly proceeds to issue the guidance.
Perhaps this amendment should have been grouped with my Amendment No. 64, which dealt with the problem of who should adjudicate in planning appeals, to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, replied that such a job will be transferred to the assembly and said:
"I dare say in due time the assembly will wish to give careful attention".—[Official Report, 2/6/98; col. 225.]
I suspect that the Minister will reply in a similar manner to Amendment No. 197A. That gives rise to the question as to whether the Committee can make any suggestions as to how to improve the Bill by making it more definitive. I hope that the Minister and the Committee might be a little more definitive on this matter. After all, guidelines for planning appeals, and so on, have an overall UK significance. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is a difficult subject. Planning appeals, in particular, are highly contentious. Much of the material for planning appeals revolves around the guidance and how it is interpreted by the local planning authority, and so on. I think I know what the answer will be because the amendment is similar to amendments moved earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, in an attempt to ensure that nothing should be done in Wales which disadvantaged

439
Welsh business against English business. This amendment could be said to be similar, relating to a position where someone in Wales who wants to undertake some business venture finds it more difficult to obtain planning permission than does his competitor just over the border in England under the same primary legislative planning laws.
If the primary legislation is the same, are we sure that it will be "safe" from legal challenge if it ends up, having gone through the Welsh assembly and come out as guidance, different in some degree from what has gone through the UK Parliament and has come out as English guidance? Will there be some tracking back up one tree and down another by the clever lawyers who make their living out of planning inquiries? They are a pretty astute bunch, it has to be said. The Minister, who is equally astute, will have to be absolutely certain that in the future people will not be able to play planning guidelines on one side of the border against planning guidelines on the other side of the border, when both derive from the same primary legislation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Those last points are well considered and are well taken. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said. The primary legislation will remain common to both jurisdictions. The assembly will not have the capacity to amend it. However, within that framework the assembly needs proper room for manoeuvre in adjusting planning policies to Welsh circumstances. We do not believe that a formal requirement of the type envisaged by the proposed new clause would assist that process.
The position is not the same in Wales and in England at present. Unlike the position in England, planning policy guidance to Welsh authorities is embodied in two self-standing documents which are supplemented by a series of technical advice notes. In England the system is different, where there is a series of planning policy guidance notes, which some of us happily recognise as having sustained us over the past years as PPGs.
The Welsh documents cover much of the same ground as the English documents. But they are not the same and are differently presented. I therefore recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, said and the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley. However, the primary legislation remains the same. There is no opportunity for amendment of the legislation. There is the same area of manoeuvre as is generally available to the Secretary of State at the moment. Of course it is the Secretary of State's functions which are devolved to the assembly.
I have taken a little trouble to tease out the situation. At the end of the day there is not much difference between the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and myself on the general approach.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: It was not just planning that I had in mind; I was thinking also of other guidance notes. It is late in the evening, but I am surprised that the planning guidance lines are different in Wales from England. The few odd guidance lines that I have come
440
across—one particularly, needless to say, was in relation to wind farms—were the same in the two countries. However, I shall look at the matter again.
My noble friend Lord Mackay raises a real problem. I shall consider what the Minister said, because there may still be an issue in this regard. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 [Disapplication of procedural requirements]:
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 [Financial initiative]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 35, line 38, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 35, line 42, leave out ("standing orders") and insert ("subordinate legislation procedures").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 [Preservation of order]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201A:
Page 36, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("( ) In particular, standing orders made for preserving order in such proceedings must include provision for—

(a) preventing conduct which would constitute a criminal offence, and

(b) a sub judice rule, and may include").

The noble Lord said: Within this group of amendments are an important number of matters. Essentially, they relate to the conduct of the assembly's public proceedings in plenary session or in committee.
Amendment No. 201A brings this Bill into line on this point with the Scotland Bill by requiring, rather than permitting, the assembly's standing orders to include provision preventing criminal acts in the course of proceedings, and also requiring the assembly to adopt a sub judice rule in respect of its debates. Standing orders could then, if the assembly wished, also include provision for excluding members from proceedings and for withdrawing their rights and privileges. Amendments Nos. 201B, 202B and 202C are then designed to secure consistency of language in reference to the proceedings of the assembly or its committees.
The amendments proposed to Clause 73—Amendments Nos. 202D to 202J—are mainly to improve the drafting. But Members of the Committee should particularly note Amendment No. 202F. As drafted, the clause is concerned with preventing or

441
restricting a member's participation in assembly plenary or committee proceedings if he or she has a registrable interest. Amendment No. 202F, however, adds a new element: standing orders may include provisions preventing or restricting a member of the executive committee from exercising a function if he or she has a registrable interest in any matter to which the function relates. This reflects the fact that, following adoption of the amendments to permit a cabinet system to operate, decisions will frequently be taken by individual assembly secretaries rather than by committees. Standing orders may make similar provision in respect of the chairman or other authorised person who is permitted to act for the subordinate legislation scrutiny committee under subsection (6) of Clause 60.
Amendments Nos. 202K and 203A seek to make drafting improvements, but Amendment No. 204A is a little more important. This amendment has been tabled following an undertaking given to Opposition Conservative spokesmen in another place that we would seek to clarify the scope of absolute privilege afforded to assembly members in assembly proceedings. The amplification provided by proposed new subsection (2) to Clause 78 is entirely modelled on the provisions in the Defamation Act 1996. In particular paragraph (2)(e) allows absolute privilege to be claimed in respect of a statement and any communication about registration of interests. That is taken from the 1996 Act. It is important to ensure that individuals who are concerned that assembly members have not followed the rules about registration of interests should be able to communicate that to the proper persons without fear of incurring liability and defamation.
Amendment No. 204B is a drafting amendment designed to secure consistency of language in references to assembly, plenary or committee proceedings—in this case in relation to liability for contempt of court. Amendment No. 212B is simply a consequential amendment flowing from the changes proposed to Clause 78.
In a sense this is a technical set of amendments, but they are important to facilitate proper standards of integrity on the part of members of the executive committee and to protect freedom of speech in the assembly through the changes to Clause 78. At this stage, therefore, I beg to move Amendment No. 201 A.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I thank the Minister for taking us through these very important amendments, which we welcome. They help to allay concerns that were expressed earlier about actions or failures on the part of the assembly, assembly members and its officials. We respect the fact that they are intended to maintain high levels of integrity and, at the same time, safeguard freedom of speech.
Lord Hooson: We regard these amendments as essential for the good working of the assembly. It is
442
difficult to see them slightly out of context, but we think that they meet the requirements. If we have any reservations we can come back with them on Report.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: If any of your Lordships have reservations, and you felt able to communicate them to me, then if there were any difficulties in drafting I would be more than happy to meet those matters.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 71 [Openness]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 201B:
Page 36, line 33, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 35 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee) which have taken place, or are to take place,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 36, line 38, leave out ("alleging maladministration by the Assembly") and insert ("about actions or failures on the part of the Assembly and for dealing with reports by the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and the Health Service Commissioner for Wales of investigations pursuant to complaints relating to the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: This is a new group of amendments starting at Amendment No. 202 and ending eventually at Amendment No. 273. Amendment No. 202 relates to Clause 71 by inserting references to the new office of Welsh administration ombudsman and the existing office of Health Service Commissioner for Wales. I said earlier that we have listened with some care to observations put forward in another place about whether or not we should have a Welsh administration ombudsman, and I think that this new view has been generally welcomed. In speaking to Amendment No. 202, I shall, with the Committee's leave, speak to the new schedules, which it is proposed should be inserted into the Bill, relating to both these offices and also to consequential amendments.
In the White Paper we indicated that we wanted to extend the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to cover the work of the assembly. At that time we were going to follow the precedent of the Wales Act 1978. However, the parliamentary commissioner himself suggested a different approach; that is, the creation of a new office of Welsh administration ombudsman. We gave that very careful thought. Having done that, it involved a quite significant change of direction as far as concerns the drafting of the Bill. If any of your Lordships chide me that there is a good deal of re-amendment to be done, I accept that charge. But I plead guilty on the basis that the cause is worthy. It is only now that we can come forward with the extensive amendments necessary. We are persuaded that the parliamentary commissioner's approach is right.
The principal considerations leading us to that conclusion were the inappropriateness of an officer of Parliament, as the commissioner is treated, having dealings with, and reporting to, members of another

443
elected body; and difficulties connected with the remedial process where maladministration was found, given that no Minister would be accountable to Parliament for the assembly's performance of its functions and any remedies offered.
The detail is set out in Part I of the first new schedule. Appointments, remuneration and so forth are closely modelled on the 1967 Act which established the parliamentary commissioner. On remuneration, your Lordships may wish to look at paragraph 4(2) of the schedule. That provides for no remuneration to be payable if the Welsh ombudsman is simultaneously the parliamentary commissioner. It is possible for the two offices to be held simultaneously by the same person. That refers back to the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about abatements of salary if two posts are held.
The expenses of the Welsh ombudsman will be met by the assembly, to which he will report. Presently, the parliamentary commissioner's costs come from a Cabinet Office Vote. Discussions are proceeding for an element of that Vote, representing the Welsh component of the parliamentary commissioner's costs, to be transferred to the Welsh block to enable the assembly to meet the Welsh ombudsman's costs.
The new ombudsman's jurisdiction is set out in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the first new schedule. It goes beyond that of the assembly itself. At the moment the parliamentary commissioner has jurisdiction over the Welsh Office and a number of Welsh non-departmental public bodies. But it is not always clear, certainly to me, why some bodies are inside the jurisdiction and others are not. The Development Board for Rural Wales is within the jurisdiction but the WDA is not. We are dealing specifically with that by making the new WDA subject to the new ombudsman's jurisdiction. We also propose that the assembly be given power to revise the list of bodies subject to that jurisdiction. That power would be limited. The assembly could only add a public body to the list if it had functions exercisable in Wales in a field in which the assembly itself has functions. So it would offer scope in due course for rationalisation of jurisdiction, which is a very important matter, particularly when domestic politics in Wales have been plagued either by corruption, or allegations of corruption, or, often just as mischievous, suspicions of corruption.
On re-viewing matters we have come to the conclusion that the definition of a body which may be added to the list was drawn rather wider than intended. If your Lordships are content to accept the amendments as they stand, we shall need to bring back some further amendments at Report to make clear that the bodies which can be added to the list cannot include government departments, as paragraph 14(5) envisages. The ombudsman can investigate allegations of maladministration by any of the bodies subject to his jurisdiction.
Paragraph 16(4) of the new schedule is of interest because it requires a complainant to exhaust any internal remedies provided by the body complained against before the ombudsman can take up the case. However,
444
the ombudsman has discretion to waive that requirement if he does not feel it reasonable in the particular circumstances for that to have happened. That is an important balance. One ought to exhaust internal remedies in the same way as one has to on judicial review. But there is the exception available in the ombudsman's discretion if he believes that it is not appropriate. This is a more flexible mechanism than the usual judicial review.
Paragraph 17 of the new schedule deals with complaint-making. Again, we are taking up a suggestion made by the parliamentary commissioner. It was pressed on us by CBI Wales. It will be open for an individual to go directly to the ombudsman without the need for such complaints to go via the complainant's assembly member. That is different from the Westminster situation, but it is consistent with the current arrangements for the Health Service Commissioner and the local government ombudsman. We believe that that is the right way for the new office. It will certainly make it more readily accessible to individual complainants.
I draw the attention of the Committee to paragraphs 21 and 22 of the new schedule. They deal with reports and action taken. If the ombudsman investigates and finds maladministration, the body responsible, which includes the assembly, will be given three months to decide how to respond. If it fails within that time or its proposed form of action was not satisfactory, a further report would be issued setting out the action which the ombudsman considered necessary to meet the case. If the assembly itself had been guilty of maladministration, the assembly's first secretary would be required to move that the assembly approved the ombudsman's recommendations as to the form of redress. These are novel provisions and they are intended to be such. They have been the subject of discussion with the parliamentary commissioner. I can tell the Committee that they have his warm support.
These are important matters and I deal more briefly perhaps with other amendments. The amendments relating to the Health Service Commissioner look to three objectives: first, to amend the commissioner's jurisdiction to enable him to investigate complaints about the performance of health service bodies, including performance by the assembly itself in the exercise of an assembly health service function. That may be the sort of function that the Secretary of State performs now in relation to the health service, but it might, if the assembly exercises the power given to it by Clause 28 of the Bill, also be concerned with service provision. Secondly, they make provision parallel to that proposed for the Welsh administration ombudsman in relation to reports of investigations and action taken in response. That is in paragraph 11 of the new schedule proposed for the Health Service Commissioner. Again, there is a time limit of three months.
Thirdly, the opportunity is taken to put the Health Service Commissioner on the same formal basis as the Welsh administration ombudsman. The expenses of the office will be met by the assembly following the appropriate transfer, as may be, from a Cabinet Office Vote. There is no bar to the same person holding at the same time the office of Health Service Commissioner

445
for Wales and the Welsh administration ombudsman as well as parliamentary commissioner, but only one salary would be payable.
The remaining set of amendments are consequential. I believe that all I need to say is that the bodies subject to investigation by the Welsh administration ombudsman would not generally be subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner. Various ombudsmen or women are enjoined to consult and co-operate one with another to ensure that complainants obtain effective and efficient handling of their complaints.
These are important amendments. They took a lot of thinking through and we have not got the final, perfect and definitive form. But I believe I reflect a good deal of feeling in Wales that sometimes in the past there has been a tendency for obscurantist, defensive responses to proper complaints from the public. We believe that it is very important to have this defined, disciplined scheme whereby a particular time limit is set so that a report must be made and, failing that, sanctions will follow. I believe that in some ways this new regime might be a model for other parliamentary institutions. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: We welcome the new schedule as a major improvement to the Bill. If we as a revising Chamber have been able to do nothing at all other than include this new schedule in the Bill, we shall have performed a very useful service.
As the schedule is based largely on the 1967 Act, we are fairly certain that the Government have got it right. However, there are extensions to, and developments of, the replicated provisions of that Act because not only do we have a Welsh ombudsman who will be responsible for answering complaints of maladministration in the area of responsibility of the assembly, but we also have an extension of that responsibility to the Health Service Commissioner. I am sure that direct approaches on the part of consumers of services to the Welsh ombudsman and the Health Service Commissioner will be very much welcomed, just as the services of the parliamentary commissioner have always been welcomed in Wales. Just as the development of that service has been welcomed—so that there can be a direct approach on the part of electors where permissable—I am sure that this development will be welcomed also.
We shall, of course, study the schedule between now and Report stage. If we can in any way help to improve it, we shall certainly put forward amendments for consideration, as the Minister suggested.
Lord Hooson: I am sure that the Minister will extend to this matter his invitation with regard to previous matters. I know that my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford will want to study the provision and that he may return to the Minister with points of detail. Generally, however, we very much appreciate, and approve of, what has been done. The Minister is correct to suggest that this provides a model which may be
446
copied elsewhere. Based on experience of what at times have been ineffective procedures, this provision seeks to tighten the complaints procedures and those for responding to complaints. That is most acceptable.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We want the best that we can possibly get, not least by way of drafting. I am more than happy to accept proposals put to me either in correspondence or in personal meetings with officials.
The Earl of Balfour: I welcome this opportunity to ask one or two questions. Perhaps I may ask your Lordships to look at today's Marshalled List and particularly at Amendment No. 245, which introduces the new schedule. I refer particularly to page 28 of the Marshalled List and to paragraph 15(2), which states:
"A body falls within this sub-paragraph if"
and to sub-paragraph (b) which then states:
"at least half of its expenditure on the exercise of functions in relation to Wales … is met directly from payments made by the Assembly".
As the assembly, as I understand it, will not have its own fund-raising powers, I wonder whether the schedule is not being rather restrictive in asking the assembly to provide 50 per cent. of the funds. I should have thought that one-third would be quite satisfactory in this case.
My next question arises in relation to page 36. In paragraph 24(1)(b) one sees the words,
"for the purposes of any proceedings for … an offence under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989".
I believe that there is an inconsistency here between this group of amendments and Amendments Nos. 119A and 254A which we discussed almost at the beginning of the proceedings. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I believe his earlier amendments are correct and that reference should be made to the Official Secrets Act 1989. If I remember correctly, that Act covers all the enactments between 1911 and 1989. I believe that there is an inconsistency here and it is worth raising a question upon it at this stage.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am not aware of any inconsistency but I shall research the matter and respond in the usual way to the noble Earl's question. As to his question as regards page 28, the assembly itself has no tax-raising power but it will be in receipt of significant funds—the overwhelming part of the £7 billion that is presently under the control of the Secretary of State. We believe that to take a half rather than a third is perfectly reasonable, but we shall similarly reflect on the noble Earl's point. Referring to the Official Secrets Act, I believe that this new provision is correct. However, I shall look at it again. As to funding, a number of examples can be given.
The Earl of Balfour: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not intend to criticise the drafting. I believe that the provisions are perfectly correct. I merely refer to the difference in wording between the

447
amendments moved earlier today and the amendment now being moved with reference to the Official Secrets Act.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I shall check and check again and write to the noble Earl.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 202A not moved.]
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Accountability]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202B:
Page 36, line 44, leave out ("meetings") and insert ("proceedings").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202C:
Page 37, line 3, leave out from ("any") to first ("to") in line 5 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee) which have taken place, or are to take place,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Integrity]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 202CA:
Page 37, leave out lines 15 to 17.
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment. Its purpose is to remove the requirement to declare a non-financial interest. No one can object to the requirement to declare financial interests, which obviously should include the financial interests of family and friends. Although the latter obligation may result in a few borderline cases, on the whole the financial interest requirement is straightforward and free from ambiguities and grey areas.
The same cannot be said of non-financial interests. Even the word "interest" in a non-financial context is peculiar when one comes to think about it. For example, there are some who take the view that if one's third cousin twice removed was mugged five years previously one should declare that fact before speaking in support of a Bill, in this place or another place, the aim of which is to increase maximum sentences for crimes of violence. There are others—the majority, I would hope—who contend that that is being preposterously pernickety and way over the top.
The trouble is that no one is sure where the line should be drawn where non-financial interests are concerned. If someone misjudges the precise location of that line in this place or the other place, nothing remotely serious is likely to occur. Indeed, in nearly all cases nothing is likely to occur. But things will be very different where the Welsh assembly is concerned. Clause 73(5) permits the total exclusion from the assembly, and any of its committees, and sub-committees, of anyone who fails to declare a non-financial interest, plus the withdrawal of all rights and privileges for the time being.
Clause 73(6) goes even further, and allows for the prosecution of such an individual, which can result in a fine of up to £5,000 being imposed upon him or her. For a minor transgression which involves not a whiff of financial corruption those penalties seem ridiculously disproportionate. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It seems to me that the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, are directed at two matters. The first is whether there should be an offence relating to non-financial interests; and the second is what should be the consequences by way of sanction.
It is important to recognise that many interests of significance need not necessarily be financial. Indeed, yesterday, we spent what was not the happy hour, but certainly a happy hour, with a number of us declaring various interests to do with the University of Wales, none of which, I am happy to say, had anything to do with financial interests of any sort. We were dealing, for instance, with the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, about HEFCW and the funding of the university. He, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and others all declared interests in the fact that they are connected with the university or, in some cases, had been. That is the proper thing to do, not because our own judgment or our own vote would be affected but because there might be the thought outside that it could have been.
There are other interests which are non-financial. They should be declared and properly registered on these occasions. If there is a trivial oversight, which is likely to happen to all of us, because we may have forgotten that 10 years ago we were the trustee of a society for which we had no remuneration, it is open to the assembly to take its own sensible course. It might be to take no action; it might be to reprimand: it might be in a gross case that a prosecution would be instituted. The sanction range is there. It would be used with discretion. Particularly these days, when there are significant suspicions about what motivates men and women in public life, to limit the requirement to financial matter would be too restrictive. The range of sanctions is there to be used discreetly.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am sorry that more Members of the Committee did not join in, because I think that it is an important topic. I seem to have drawn the short straw again in the timing of my amendment, but there it is. The noble Lord summed up accurately the aims of the amendment. The trouble is that there is a philosophical gulf here. I have always taken the view that unless there is positive corruption it is a waste of time and effort declaring a non-financial interest. The idea, for example, that someone declares that he is secretary of a bridge club before speaking on a proposal to encourage the teaching of bridge among sixth-formers is preposterous. However, I acknowledge that other people feel differently about it. I appear to be a minority at present. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 202D to 202J:
Page 37, line 21, leave out ("Standing orders made in pursuance of subsection (1) or (2)") and insert ("The standing orders").
Page 37, line 25, leave out ("with") and insert ("if he has").
Page 37, line 26, at end insert (", and
(b) for preventing or restricting the exercise of a function by a member of the executive committee, or the exercise of a function by an Assembly member by virtue of section 60(6), if he has a registrable interest, or an interest mentioned in subsection (2), in any matter to which the function relates").
Page 37, line 27, at beginning insert ("The").
Page 37, line 36, at beginning insert ("The").
Page 38, line 2, leave out ("subsections (1) to (3),") and insert ("subsection (1), (2) or (3)(a).
( ) exercises any function in contravention of any provision included in the standing orders in pursuance of subsection (3)(b),").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 74 [Publication]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 202K:
Page 38, line I after ("remakes") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Bodies and offices covered by section 75]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 202L:
Page 83, line 17, at end insert—
(" . The British Council.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to add to the list of bodies in Schedule 4, with reference to Section 75 which deals with the power to require attendance and production of documents. Yesterday, at col. 210 of the Official Report, the Minister indicated some progress on Schedule 2 whereby it was intended that the assembly should be involved in the nomination processes for members of the CRE, the National Disability Council and the Equal Opportunities Commission.
We are moving closer towards relationships between nominated bodies and NDPBs—which were creatures of the Welsh Office under the previous system—and those UK bodies which have a strong impact on the population within Wales. The reason that various bodies are added will be clear to those with an involvement.
I shall not go through the list at this time of night. As it is at the top of the list, I acknowledge the importance of the partnership that now exists between various bodies in Wales and the British Council, in particular in recent years where reorganisation of that council has led
450
to a more proactive partnership role in the promotion internationally of Welsh cultures and language through the British Council's activities.
I mention also the importance of the research councils. Those bodies expend substantial public money. When one refers to the need to develop the level of research at higher education institutions within Wales, the role of the research councils seems crucial. I should like an indication from the Minister of the rationale about the number of bodies listed in Schedule 4 to which Section 75 powers relate and the possibility of extending that list at a later date. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord asks two questions: first, what is the rationale; and, secondly, what is the basis for further additions to the list of bodies which could be summonsed. The assembly is free to invite any public body to give evidence. We have limited the power of summons. We thought that the principal point of difference was to specify public bodies only where they are working in areas where the assembly has its own responsibilities. In Schedule 4 there are references to many agricultural bodies and health bodies, both subject areas where the assembly has statutory functions.
The 17 additional public bodies have activities which cannot be directly related to the range of functions which the assembly would have. For instance, there is no functional remit on equal opportunities or race relations and therefore we do not see that the assembly ought to be able to summon the EOC or the CRE. For the same reason, we have left out industry regulators.
I turn to the second point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because it is important for the future. Clause 76(5) allows the Secretary of State to add bodies to the list in Schedule 4. The Secretary of State has said many times that devolution is a process not an event. Certainly, subsection (5) is specifically included. I hope to deal with the kind of questions about the future and future relationships to which the noble Lord referred and I hope that that explanation is of assistance.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the Minister. After putting up the flag and taking it down, and with a view to putting it up again at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 202M to 202AC not moved.]
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 76 [Witnesses and documents: supplementary]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 202AD:
Page 39, line 37, leave out from ("scale") to end of line 38.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is to remove the power to imprison for up to three months any officer or employee of a public body who fails to turn up at the assembly when bidden to do so or fails to produce documents when bidden to do so. No doubt such disobedience if it occurs would cause considerable inconvenience and perhaps a level 5 fine—in other words, up to £5,000 is accordingly justified. However, I very much doubt whether the

451
75 per cent. of the Welsh electorate who failed to vote for the assembly believe the offence to be so heinous as to merit imprisonment for any period. Furthermore, I doubt whether the majority of the 25 per cent. who voted for the assembly believe so either.
Although their functions are not strictly comparable, the GLC, which was responsible for almost three times as many people as the Welsh assembly will be, did not have such powers. Theoretically, the House of Commons Select Committees have the power to send recalcitrant or disobedient witnesses to the Tower, but they are wary of ever doing so. They know that as a result of the imposition of disproportionate sentences—disproportionate in the eyes of the public—martyrdom can be created. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Clause 75 allows the assembly to summon employees or members of a public body to give evidence or, just as important or more so in many cases, to produce documents. Clause 76 makes it a criminal offence to refuse to give evidence or to falsify or destroy documents. The falsification or destruction of documents strikes at the very heart of any proper inquiry that could be made into wrongdoing.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is right in saying that Clause 76(3) gives a maximum penalty of up to three months. He made an analogy with the GLC and I offer another. The provision is replicated for the Scottish parliament in the Scotland Bill with exactly the same terms. Indeed, the power of imprisonment is a kind of statutory parallel to the House of Commons' power to imprison for contempt. I take his example to bolster my argument. He said that it is virtually theoretical and rarely if ever used. That is right, but it is a useful power which the assembly ought to have in order to make it plain to anyone who refuses to give evidence on a lawful occasion, or who tries to pervert the course of justice by the falsification or destruction of documents, that this is a criminal offence of some seriousness.
Lord Monson: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I agree with him that the destruction of documents is a serious matter and that perhaps it is right that imprisonment should be available for that particular offence. But as regards imprisonment for simply failing to turn up, I simply cannot agree that that is justified. Indeed, I would not have thought that the vast majority of the public would think so. If it ever were to be imposed, I believe that it would be highly counterproductive. However, in the absence of any further support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Role of Secretary of State for Wales]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 40, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly may require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend any proceedings of the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: The wording which appears alongside this clause in the margin of the Bill is quite extraordinary. It simply refers to the,
"Role of Secretary of State for Wales".
Here we are dealing with the Government of Wales Bill and one would have thought that there might be set out there something for the Secretary of State to do. In fact, all that he can do is,
"attend or participate in the proceedings … of the Assembly",
so long as he does not vote and does not attend or participate in the proceedings of a committee of the assembly or, indeed, any sub-committee. Apart from that, the only other role for the Secretary of State for Wales under this Government of Wales Bill is to receive certain documents at the same time as members of the assembly.
I suggest that the Government take another look at the wording that appears alongside that clause in the Bill. It does not in any sense encompass the role of the Secretary of State in his functions regarding operating, as I said last night, as the channel of communication between the Welsh assembly and the Westminster Parliament.
Amendment No. 203 says:
"The Assembly may require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend any proceedings of the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly".
No sanction is suggested; indeed, we are not interested in fines or in imprisonment because, obviously, if the Secretary of State, as the Minister of the Crown, is required to attend the assembly, he will go. However, we believe that the assembly should be able to require the Secretary of State to appear before it so as to explain the current position of the Government, of the Cabinet, as regards the policies that the Government propose to include in future primary legislation; and to discuss with the assembly, or with a committee of the assembly, their concerns, their proposals for secondary legislation and how that all fits in within the scheme of things.
It has been a recurring theme of discussions on this Bill that there should be proper channels of communication so as to smooth over any difficulties which may arise between, for example, a government at Westminster of one colour and an assembly in Cardiff of an entirely different colour. One of the objections which might be raised to the proposed amendment is that it in some way makes the Secretary of State accountable to the Welsh assembly. I do not flinch from that; indeed, I see no reason why the Secretary of State should not be accountable for his role as a communicator to the assembly. Moreover, I see no reason why he should not be called upon to explain the positions that he has taken in Cabinet and explain how he is presenting to the Westminster Parliament the concerns of the Welsh assembly. We believe that he should be accountable in that sense.
We are entering into an entirely new constitutional settlement so far as concerns Wales. If that means that the Secretary of State is accountable in a way which we have not known in the past, so be it. It is a new institution. It will require new machinery and it is

453
machinery of this particular sort that we consider to be absolutely essential if the arrangements are to work smoothly.
This in a sense follows on from the amendments that we moved last night and to which we shall return. We hope that this amendment is acceptable to the Government. We hope that they will rethink their position. We hope that they will define a serious role for the Secretary of State. In the course of our discussions a number of people have asked what responsibilities the Secretary of State will have. People have commented that his role will be light. Here is a function that he should exercise. We commend this amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Amendment No. 204, which stands in my name, is grouped with this amendment. We have discussed the role of the Secretary of State, the role of Members of both Chambers of the UK Parliament and the role of Members of the European Parliament. I do not wish to go over all that ground again but it is important that we consider new ways of developing collaboration between the national assembly in Cardiff Bay, these Chambers of Parliament and the structures of the European Parliament and the European Union, because whether some Members of the Committee opposite like it or not we are now moving into a quasi-federal relationship within the United Kingdom. That requires subtle ways of operating as between the different levels of elected bodies. It requires some creative thinking about the best way to deliver these relationships.
I mention the European dimension because, as I mentioned earlier tonight, I am a member of Sub-Committee C of the European Communities Committee of this Chamber. I have therefore had the opportunity to meet many members of other member states' parliaments, of the European Parliament and of other regional or subordinate assemblies within the European Union. One of the criticisms that is constantly heard involves the lack of a satisfactory relationship between the different levels of elected bodies within that structure; that is, the lack of a good relationship between this Chamber, another place and the European Parliament; and the lack of a good relationship between the regional assemblies in other member states and their national assemblies and the European Parliament. There is a continual drive to try to develop these relationships.
My amendment suggests that we should be innovative in the national assembly. We should seek a formal arrangement whereby MPs and Members of this Chamber who have an interest in, or who represent constituencies in Wales, and MEPs should be involved in discussions in the assembly. I have not perhaps assisted the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in trying to find a role for the Secretary of State.
The trouble with constitutional debates is that we tend to talk about structures. I shall illustrate what I mean by giving the Committee a scenario. Let us consider the agricultural crisis, which is a theme that has run through our debates. Within that context what better forum is
454
there for a proper and serious discussion of the issues than that of MPs, Members of this Chamber, MEPs and members of the national assembly being together in Cardiff Bay or Westminster—Cardiff Bay would be a more appropriate location—to discuss these issues? I do not refer to the kind of debate that we had in the Welsh Grand Committee of another place in Carmarthen a few weeks ago, which was truncated because of various circumstances—not a second-hand debate on the issues, but one in which all those with an interest and responsibility could be present. That could include—I say this for the entertainment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay—Members of the UK Parliament, not necessarily representing Welsh constituencies, who had an interest in the subject. Fisheries, forestry, agriculture, sheepmeat and all the issues that we discussed overnight are all relevant here. They are good examples of what such a creative, constructive forum could take on board.
There are models from different kinds of parliaments. The Bundesrat and the Bundestag in the German Federal Republic, the Austrian federal structure and the Danish structure have different ways of ensuring that their representatives within the European structure are mandated, or subject to scrutiny or recall, in different ways in relation to their obligations. We are presented here with an exciting opportunity. All I ask from my noble friend the Minister is an assurance that what I crave is not impossible. Not that it should have to happen, as of course I flag up with my "shall" flag, but that it might happen. I therefore look forward to his response.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, explained, Amendment No. 203 allows the assembly to require the Secretary of State for Wales to attend proceedings of the assembly or a committee. He already has an entitlement to attend and participate in assembly proceedings, but not proceedings of a committee or sub-committee. I should be grateful if the Minister could explain the thinking behind subsections (1) and (2) of this clause. It seems odd to debar the Secretary of State from committees. Can we be certain now that he will never be required to attend a committee?
The amendment would seem to fill a gap, by enabling the assembly to require the Secretary of State's attendance at proceedings of the assembly or its committees. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said at the beginning of his remarks, it is a permissive amendment through and through. The Secretary of State is not bound to respond positively to an assembly requirement to attend any of its proceedings any more than a Minister in the United Kingdom Government is bound to attend a Select Committee. He can send a civil servant in his place, although it might be very unwise to do so and might result in heavy criticism of the Minister concerned.
One cannot help wondering what the situation might be if the Secretary of State for Wales were also a member of the assembly, and possibly first secretary of the assembly. In that case these problems would presumably not arise.

455
The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, extends the entitlement of the Secretary of State to attend and participate in assembly proceedings to other MPs and MEPs generally, and to assembly committees as well, but makes the exercise of the entitlement conditional upon the request of the assembly or its presiding officer or his deputy.
As we have heard, the assembly has extensive powers under Clause 75 to require the attendance of a great number of people to give evidence to it. I appreciate that MPs and MEPs are in a very different category in that they are not beholden to the assembly in any way.
I am certainly excited by the prospect held out by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, of MPs and MEPs contributing to assembly discussions. But, although I see some validity in the arguments and the potential value of contributions by MPs and MEPs to the assembly's deliberations in certain circumstances, I am bound to point out that there are some dangers, too. I should hate to think that the noble Lord might find that the invitees whom we are talking about might be supporters of the dominant party only; or that they might be asked to attend for party political reasons, so that they can have a home platform, perhaps, for their views at a critical time, possibly before an election. For once, I ask that standing orders should guard against abuses of that kind.
I am very much in sympathy with the thrust of the noble Lord's amendments and I appreciate the kind of synthesis and innovative ideas that can come from a new combination, a new meeting of minds. That, I am sure, would be to the benefit of Wales and all who might come to Wales, from Europe and elsewhere. But we may well be told that it is not necessary to write this on the face of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We do not believe that the assembly ought to be able to summon the Secretary of State. I respectfully disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The Secretary of State is not accountable to the assembly; he is accountable to Parliament at Westminster. That is an important point. I echo his view, which I think was shared by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one wants collaboration between the Secretary of State and the assembly, and I was pleased to have the warm endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, of the prospect of the present Secretary of State perhaps becoming first secretary or assembly secretary in due time, for the convenient ordering of business, if I understood his drift correctly.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, asked specifically why there was the limited reference in Clause 77. We thought it was appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to attend plenaries as of right. He can, of course, attend committees by invitation. We thought that that was the right balance. That is the reason that we came to that judgment.
With regard to Amendment No. 204, we do not think it right that others should participate in assembly meetings, apparently influencing its actions by speaking, although I appreciate that it is proposed that they
456
should not vote. It may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, would receive benefit from a number of situations. For instance, Clause 41, which is quite extensive, might be of interest to him. I simply put that down as a marker for him. That clause gives quite a wide power.
One reason for allowing MPs and MEPs to be members simultaneously of the assembly, if they can persuade their electorates that they should be, is that it provides collaboration and cross-fertilisation. We would certainly expect Welsh MEPs to work closely with the relevant committees by giving evidence and by providing information and documents on European developments in particular fields of policy. We believe that that is the way to do it rather than by their appearing to join in as non-voting members of the assembly. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that one wants the closest possible collaboration with MPs and MEPs, but we believe that it should be by giving evidence and providing information rather than by attending meetings of the assembly in their own right.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Hooson: Perhaps I can intervene to say a word on Amendment No. 203. The noble Lord said that the view of the Government was that the assembly should have no right to summon the Secretary of State. Let us forget the scenario in which the Secretary of State is also the first secretary of the assembly and take it for granted that the Secretary of State is somebody separate from the first secretary. He is surely going to be a link man between the Government and the assembly. It seems very odd that he has a right at any time to attend a plenary session of the assembly, and yet the assembly has no right to ask him or require him to attend the assembly.
It may well be—let us forget the present political persuasion of the Government—that the Secretary of State is of a different political complexion from the complexion of the assembly. Surely it is right, if the Secretary of State for Wales is the link person between the Government and the assembly, that the assembly must have the right to require him to attend.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Fundamentally, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament in Westminster; he is not accountable in that sense to the assembly. He is there as an important channel of communication but it does not require him to be summonsed to an assembly. His accountability and fundamental duty lies in Westminster.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am extremely disappointed at the response of the Government to this amendment. As my noble friend said yesterday—or it may have been this morning—the Bill has certain assumptions built into it. One is that the Labour Party is dominant in Wales and therefore for the rest of time will be the dominant party. However, I remind the Committee that the Liberal Party won every seat in Wales in 1905 or 1906—I stand corrected. The second assumption is that the Secretary of State is of the same

457
party and that therefore he can wander into the assembly if he thinks fit. He has the power to go in and make his views known.
If we remember what we were discussing yesterday, the Secretary of State may choose to discuss such part of the Government's programme at Westminster as he thinks is fit and suitable for the assembly to consider. As the Bill is drafted at the moment, that is entirely within his discretion. We are trying to look at other possibilities where there are different parties in power. It may be the Labour Party at Westminster and the Liberal Democrats in Cardiff; it could be a combination of parties in Cardiff or it could be the Conservative Party in Westminster and so forth—we do not expect to see them in Cardiff, obviously.
All sorts of possibilities arise and one ought to look at the legislation not from a single point of view, as it is framed at the moment. That is the reason why we are urging—as we urged yesterday—that there should be a requirement for the Secretary of State to explain himself. We should not go back into outdated constitutional theory that the Secretary of State for Wales is accountable only in Parliament. Why should not he be accountable in the sense of having to explain what he is doing to the Welsh assembly? After all, in this Bill the Secretary of State has a right to go into the assembly if he chooses and to speak. If he has a right to go in and to speak at his own discretion, why cannot the assembly question him? Why cannot it require him to go there when there is something of real importance afoot?
I urge the Government to go back and rethink their position on the role of the Secretary of State: give him a meaningful task to carry out. I promise the Minister that we will be back to see how far he has got in his thinking and perhaps to expand upon our own thinking at a later stage of the Bill. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 203A:
Page 40, line 18, leave out from ("any") to ("and") in line 19 and insert ("proceedings of the Assembly itself which have taken place or are to take place,").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Defamation]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204A:
Page 40, line 25, leave out from ("in") to (""statement"") in line 29 and insert (", for the purposes of or for purposes incidental to proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee), and

(b) the publication by or under the authority of the Assembly of a report of such proceedings,

is absolutely privileged.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) applies, in particular, to any statement made in—

(a) evidence given before the Assembly, a committee of the Assembly or a sub-committee of such a committee,

(b) a document laid before the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee,

(c) a document prepared for the purposes of, or for purposes incidental to, the transaction of business by the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee,

(d) a document (other than a report to which subsection (1)(b) applies) formulated, made or published by or under the authority of the Assembly or such a committee or sub-committee, or

(e) any communication with any person having functions in connection with the registration of interests of Assembly members.

(2A) In subsections (1) and (2)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 78, as amended, shall be agreed to?
Lord Monson: Parliamentary privilege and quasi-parliamentary privilege is exactly that—privilege. Albeit with the best of intentions, it gives certain powers to one small group of people at the possible—and I stress the word "possible"—expense of one or more of a very much larger group of people. For that reason alone it should be doled out very sparingly.
The question arises of why a non-legislative body should be given such privileges at all. As I said earlier, the GLC was responsible for three times as many people as the Welsh assembly will be, and it did not enjoy them as far as I am aware. Neither the Birmingham Unitary Authority, nor Essex County Council, nor Kent County Council, all with populations of well over 1 million, have them either. Nor, as far as I am aware—and the noble Lord will undoubtedly correct me if I am wrong—will the new Greater London authority.
Moreover, the privileged statements that assembly persons will be entitled to make need not be confined to assertions about people in Wales or matters affecting Wales. It is perfectly true that privileged comments in either House of Parliament in Westminster need not be restricted to matters concerning British subjects or UK matters. However, should somebody in either House of Parliament in this country unfairly attack an individual in France, Switzerland, the United States or Japan, it is highly unlikely that the attack will be reported in the victim's own country unless the accusation was extremely serious, for example if the individual concerned had been a war criminal and responsible for many hundreds of deaths.
How very different the situation will be in Wales. I am sure no one would do so deliberately, but an assembly man or assembly woman could accidently defame individuals—not only in Swansea but in Southampton, Sudbury, Stockton-on-Tees or Stirling. Unlike France, Germany and Italy, where people read different newspapers according to the region of the

459
particular country they happen to live in, here in our small, overcrowded, centralised country we all tend to read a few high-circulation newspapers and watch the same few TV channels. So any inadvertent libel or slander gets massive, nigh universal, coverage throughout the United Kingdom. Exactly the same argument will apply to the Scottish parliament of course, but at least the Scottish parliament will be a legislative body.
In the vain hope that this time round there may be some contribution from one or both of the Opposition Benches, I beg to oppose the Question that Clause 79 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We agreed earlier that Clause 78 should be amended and the amendments were very significantly a response to concerns expressed by the leading spokesman for the Conservative Party in another place. We believe that protection from actions in defamation is a necessary protection for members of the assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to it as privilege. Yes, it is a privilege for members to be able to speak fearlessly in defence of the interests of their constituents, whether or not they have primary legislative powers.
The privilege is there not to protect members alone but to protect the public interest in its wider, fuller sense. One wants to have free, fearless discussion, debates and exchanges of opinion in an assembly of this sort. The assembly will be important. If members are constantly looking over their shoulders waiting for the writ, they will not be able to discharge their functions properly. That is why we took on board the concerns expressed in another place and brought forward the amendments. I respectfully and fundamentally disagree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said.
Lord Monson: First, I apologise for referring to Clause 79. I should have said Clause 78. Before I decide what to do, perhaps I may ask the noble Lord two questions. Is it the case that when the Bill was originally drafted it did not include the possibility of privilege? I infer that that is the case from what the noble Lord has just said. Secondly, can he say why other important bodies which have no legislative functions—I refer to the late GLC and the future Greater London authority—do not have similar privileges?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: They did not have those privileges because Parliament decided differently. It is not right to say that the Welsh assembly has no legislative functions. It will have some legislative powers. But apart from that, it is to be the assembly for the whole nation. It is a very important body. If members are not able to speak freely, protected by the privilege which we have in this House, unelected as we are, they will not be able to do their work consonant with the wider public interest. As to whether Clause 78 was in precisely this form when
460
the Bill was first drafted all those many months ago, I presently cannot remember. But whether it was or it was not, the question is what its form should be when it leaves your Lordships' House. I urge your Lordships to the conclusion I have put forward. This is a necessary protection. It is useful for the public that frank debate should go on without the fear of defamation proceedings.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We support this clause as it is drafted and as amended in the course of our discussions. Parliament exists not simply to legislate but also to redress grievances. It would be an anomaly, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if he reflects upon the matter, will appreciate, that matters which are to be devolved to Wales, such as issues of housing, education and so on, could be spoken of freely in this place and in another place but not so freely in the assembly. Surely the same standard has to apply—the same ability to speak fearlessly on these topics, to expose grievances on issues that are being devolved to Wales, as on those which will remain with the Parliament at Westminster.
Lord Monson: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that Parliament exists to redress grievances. I agree. But of course the Welsh assembly is not a parliament. It is not described as such. It does not have the functions of a parliament with full legislative powers. He also talked about protecting the people of Wales. That is an admirable objective. But as I hope I explained, the assembly persons will not have to restrict their comments purely to Welsh matters. They ought to perhaps, but they need not. That is one of the aspects of this which worries me and I dare say would worry other people if they knew about it. I am not sure that many people are aware that this privilege is going to be granted to the assembly. However, it is late at night. For the time being, therefore, I withdraw my objection to this clause.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Contempt of court]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 204B:
Page 41, line 3, leave out from first ("in") to first (—the") in line 6 and insert (", for the purposes of or for purposes incidental to proceedings of the Assembly (including proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or of a sub-committee of such a committee), or
(b) to the extent that it consists of a report of such proceedings made by or under the authority of the Assembly.
(2) Paragraph (a) of subsection (1) applies, in particular, to any publication made in any evidence, document or communication such as is specified in section 78(2)(a) to (e); and in that subsection").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 80 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 81 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I did indicate earlier that when I moved the amendment to Clause 54 it would be necessary, if the Committee so agreed, to omit Clause 81 from the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may briefly intervene. This is the second time that the noble Lord has taken one of his own clauses out of the Bill. Would that it actually shortened the Bill, but it has not. The one line and a little bit has been replaced by three lines and a little bit. At this time
462
of night it is worth noting that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has carried the load of the Government Front Bench on this Bill in Committee throughout today. I congratulate him and I am happy to agree to the Question on this clause.
Clause 81 negatived.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at one minute past eleven o'clock.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Resuscitation Training Models: VAT
  Resuscitation Training Models: VAT
  Tenant and Landlord Service Charge Disputes
  Tenant and Landlord Service Charge Disputes
  Index of Local Deprivation
  Index of Local Deprivation
  Termite Infestation, Saunton, North Devon
  Termite Infestation, Saunton, North Devon
  Reservoirs Act 1975: Proposed Amendments
  Reservoirs Act 1975: Proposed Amendments
  Gibraltar: Airport Charges
  Gibraltar: Airport Charges
  Cycle Parking at Government Departments
  Cycle Parking at Government Departments
  Greater Manchester: New Deal for Communities
  Greater Manchester: New Deal for Communities
  Development in Conservation Areas
  Development in Conservation Areas
  Motorway Fencing
  Motorway Fencing
  Youth Justice Measures: Pilot Schemes
  Youth Justice Measures: Pilot Schemes
  Who Decides?: Consultation Response
  Who Decides?: Consultation Response
  Grammar School Admission: Ballot Arrangements
  Grammar School Admission: Ballot Arrangements
  EU Nationals: Medical Treatment in Other Member States
  EU Nationals: Medical Treatment in Other Member States
  HIV/AIDS: Advice to Government
  HIV/AIDS: Advice to Government
  Gamete and Embryo Import and Export: Licences
  Gamete and Embryo Import and Export: Licences
  Euthanasia and Cessation of Treatment
  Euthanasia and Cessation of Treatment
  Artificial Limb Provision
  Artificial Limb Provision
  Magilligan Prison: Detainees
  Magilligan Prison: Detainees
  Baton Round Development
  Baton Round Development
  Refugee Women in Europe: Report
  Refugee Women in Europe: Report
  Major General Pabawo Subianto
  Major General Pabawo Subianto
  Mr. Derek Jones
  Mr. Derek Jones
  Arms Exports to China
  Arms Exports to China
  Arms Exports to Iran
  Arms Exports to Iran
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Argentina: Arms Embargo
  Hong Kong Legislature: Elections
  Hong Kong Legislature: Elections