Sitting of 9 June 1998

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

    Water Prices
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What plans he has to ensure that environmental considerations are included in the periodic review of water prices. [43225]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): As part of his price review, the Director General of Water Services has requested guidance on the environmental obligations that water companies will be expected to meet. We have invited views on the issue and will publish our guidance in the summer.
    Dr. Cable: Does the Minister accept that, hitherto, water regulation has given too much comfort to shareholders at the expense of both the consumer and the environment? When he gives guidance, will he take account of public opinion as reflected in independent surveys, which suggest an overwhelming preference for environmental improvement and reduced leakage, rather than for reduced prices in the next review?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the previous price review was, in retrospect, unreasonably generous to the water companies and their shareholders—I think that that lesson has now been learned. I take note of the suggestion of the chair of the Environment Agency that cost efficiencies achieved since the most recent periodic review, and further cost reductions in future could fund a £10 billion improvement in environmental goals without any real-terms increase in bills. The Government are considering those matters.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: On the Government's consultation paper on water charging in England and Wales, does the Minister recognise that circumstances in Wales may be different from those in many parts of England? In Wales, we have a plentiful supply of water, so water metering may not be appropriate in encouraging sustainable attitudes. Does he agree that the matter should be left to the National Assembly for Wales, which will be
    856
    up and running in June next year, so that we can adopt in Wales an approach that is appropriate to the social and environmental realities of Wales?
    Mr. Meacher: We certainly want Wales to adopt a system that is appropriate to the different water conditions that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, exist in Wales. As I am sure he knows, the Government are clear in their view that, over and above the new houses that are being built, water metering should not be extended unless people want a meter. If individual householders apply to the water company for a meter, that is fine, but the Government do not believe that there should be universal compulsory metering, as we have made clear in our document.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister explain why the rate of investment in the water industry has doubled since the 1980s? Is that, perhaps, one of the achievements of new Labour?
    Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman is, as always, very selective. He has failed to recognise that the price of water has increased in real terms by between 35 and 40 per cent. since privatisation, which is faster than any other commodity.

    Environment Agency
    Mr. Eric Martlew: What was the cost of the Environment Agency's new headquarters in Cumbria. [43226]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): The Environment Agency estimated that the annual rent and rates for its new area office in Cumbria would be £297,000 initially, rising to £402,000 by the 10th year of the lease.
    Mr. Martlew: That seems a lot of money to pay, given that the Environment Agency could have expanded on its existing site in Carlisle. Instead, it moved to a green-field site on the edge of the Lake district, which hardly seems a good idea for the Environment Agency. Planning permission was given in secret by Eden district council, whose reputation in planning is currently very low. Is the Minister aware that the National Audit Office is considering the matter? If it finds, as I think it will, that money has been wasted, will she consider renting out the new property and relocating the agency headquarters back to my constituency of Carlisle, from where the staff did not want to move in the first instance?
    Angela Eagle: I am aware that my hon. Friend has raised these issues with the National Audit Office. Clearly, we await the results of the inquiry that it is conducting, and he would not expect me to commit myself to any action until I have seen the report. He must also recognise that the Environment Agency was founded from the old National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, which had a lot of surplus office space that they had to rationalise. We await the NAO survey to find out whether they did so and got the best value for money.

    Local Authority Capping
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What proposals he has for removing the cap on local authority budgets. [43227]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Our proposals are set out in the consultation document "Modernising Local Government—Improving Local Financial Accountability".
    Mr. Hughes: That is helpful. When the Minister has considered the responses, will the Government hold firm to the principle that one cannot have proper local democracy unless local councils can raise the money that they think fit for the services that they are obliged to carry out'? Does she accept that, unless boroughs such as Southwark, the one in which she lives when she is in London and which I represent, can do that, the social services, housing and other needs of a community with deprivation such as ours just will not be met—unless the Government give them the money if they cannot raise it themselves?
    Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman seems to be putting forward contradictory arguments. In the beginning, he argued that local government should be able to raise the money that it wished and in the second part of his question, he suggested that it was up to central Government to ensure that it got sufficient, which could then be supplemented locally. The consultation on local government finance is precisely about how we get a fair proportion from central and from local taxation. We have received good representations from a wide variety of bodies on that matter, and I shall look at the initial responses with the working group from the Local Government Association tomorrow.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Can I add my voice to those that are calling for an end to the capping mechanism? Does the Minister, with whom we have been dealing about Derbyshire county council's capping experiment, accept that one of the sad features about that settlement, which cannot be ignored—I lay the blame at the door of the Chancellor of the Exchequer rather than the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but I will not take that any further—is that we have to pay about £500,000 in re-billing? Can I make a plea that when Derbyshire's settlement is arrived at for the forthcoming year, and we have this bright new dawn with no capping, that extra £500,000 will be taken into account?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Government's commitment to getting rid of crude and universal capping. We have said that this is the last year that that will take place. It is part of our commitment, through the local government finance review, to find our way forward into a new regime, in which local and central Government can be clear about what their responsibilities are and we can work together in partnership to ensure that we get the most efficient and effective response to local people's expectations and needs.
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I note that the Minister used a phrase about capping that she used when in opposition, saying that she would abolish
    858
    this "crude and universal" mechanism. Could she perhaps share with the House a little more of her thinking on the timetable for that abolition?
    Ms Armstrong: I have told the House that the current year's settlement will be the last to include the crude and universal capping introduced by the previous Administration. We will pursue a different route next year, and we are discussing that in the light of responses to our consultation document.
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Will she guarantee that she will not use changes in the capping mechanism as the excuse to shift millions of pounds away from shire areas for the second year running? Does she accept that that shift of funding, which was the idea of her Government, not of the previous one, has imposed an average 10 per cent. rise in council tax in shires, a rise entirely of her Government's making?
    Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Lady chooses her statistics selectively. The amount going to shire areas has not decreased by anything like that amount. Her predecessor used to complain that we had removed money from London. The difference between council taxes in London and in shire counties was remarkable, but the real difference was that London faced the electorate this year, whereas the shires did not.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for working to help local government. When she is reducing the cap on local government, will she have regard to the tremendous problems of local government, which the Treasury must do a great deal to ease? The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), referred to a 10 per cent. increase in shire counties, but my authority, Wakefield, had an 11 per cent. increase, showing that there has not been a transfer of resources to our district from the shires. We are suffering in many ways because of 18 years of Tory Government attacks on local government. Will my hon. Friend speed the reduction of pressure on local government finance, which is doing injury to our services?
    Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend knows that we are determined to get a fair settlement for all authorities in the United Kingdom. There must be a balance between central and local government funding. One of the problems is that the previous Administration dug themselves into the deep hole that we all called the poll tax. Getting out of that hole has been damaging to local government, and we are still trying to deal with the consequences. Our local government finance review will take us to the next stage, but it will still take time to achieve real fairness in the system after the appalling damage done by the previous Government.

    Brown-field Sites
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: What estimate his Department has made of the potential for siting new housing development in brown-field sites. [43228]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): My

    859
    Department has made estimates based on past performance. We also encourage local authorities and the regional planning conferences to conduct appropriate surveys. In addition, we have started to develop a national land use database, and we have set up the urban task force led by Lord Rogers to examine how authorities can best use previously used land.
    Mrs. Spelman: What assurance does that give to those who live in the vulnerable green belt in my constituency that the Secretary of State is not simply shrugging off to the regions the responsibility for enforcement of a higher percentage of new builds on brown-field sites?
    Mr. Prescott: I do not think that this Administration can be accused of shrugging off our responsibilities. In our first 12 months, we have published "Planning for the Communities of the Future", and we were the first Government to establish that 60 per cent. of future building should be done on brown-field sites. That is a clear commitment, and we have reiterated it constantly. We are completely satisfied with it, and Lord Rogers's urban task force will identify brown-field sites and begin to prioritise them for the building of houses.
    Dr. Ian Gibson: When does my right hon. Friend expect to issue guidelines on soil that will determine the levels of polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—organic chemicals, dioxins and radon gas on brown-field sites? That will be important to ensuring that the health of home owners and others who inhabit the sites will not be adversely affected.
    Mr. Prescott: As my hon. Friend knows, the contaminated land study was published last December. I think that I could give a fuller answer, but I cannot at the moment. I will write to him.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: It is now some months since Ministers announced the abandonment of predict and provide. Many people in rural counties are concerned about the new-build housing allocations that are required of them. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give examples of reductions resulting from the Government's new position?
    Mr. Prescott: One of the consequences of our policy since last May is that an additional 30,000 hectares of land will be added to the green belt. That shows the priority that we give the matter. We have left it, in the main, to the individual authorities and panels assessing housing to make the decisions. We have confirmed most of them, and one or two are before the courts. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on those.
    Mr. David Drew: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is getting a working definition of brown-field or, more particularly, recyclable land? Will he urge the urban task force led by Lord Rogers to produce one as soon as possible and say how it applies to rural areas, which also have recyclable land for use?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That point is in the terms of reference of Lord Rogers's urban task force. We await its report of the end of this year to make such judgments.
    Mr. Tim Yeo: Will the Secretary of State explain why, four months after his announcement in
    860
    the House of a higher target for the proportion of houses to be built on brown-field sites, his Department is still engaged in legal action to force on West Sussex 12,000 more houses than any of the three political parties on the county council wants? Why has Hampshire not been allowed to cut the number of houses being forced on it? Is not this yet another example of Ministers taking the decisions at the centre against the wishes of local people and their elected representatives?
    Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman served in the previous Administration. They could not make up their mind what proportion of houses should be built on brown-field sites. They started with 50 per cent., went up to 60 per cent. and then to 75 per cent., before reducing it back to 66 per cent. Whether in government or in opposition, the Conservatives are not clear about what needs to be implemented. We are satisfied that we have got the target right, and we will implement it.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend knows that I share his enthusiasm for bringing brown-field sites back into use. He will agree that, whenever a brown-field site is used for any purpose, pressure is taken off green-field sites. Will he use his characteristic charm and diplomacy on the Treasury, and on the Chancellor in particular, to ensure that we have the mechanisms to make brown-field sites competitive with green-field sites, because many of us believe that some tax help is needed to raise their competitiveness?
    Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend knows that final decisions on taxation are left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that is normal in all Governments. We are discussing other measures in respect of taxation and planning controls that are important to achieve the overall objective. They are under active discussion and we will report to the House at the appropriate time.

    Boundary Commission Recommendations
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What progress his Department has made in considering the recent recommendations of the boundary commission. [43229]
    The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): We are considering the representations received on the Local Government Commission's latest recommendations relating to Cumbria, Hertfordshire, Cheshire and the former Avon. We intend to announce our preliminary decision on them shortly. The commission recently completed consultation on draft recommendations for Surrey, and we expect to receive its final recommendations in September.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: There is growing concern in Surrey that, despite the fact that the Government will receive the representations in September, they will not implement them in time for the local elections next May. That means that the recommendations will be five years out of date by the next round of elections. Will the Minister give a commitment to make an effort to implement the recommendations in time for next May's elections, or does his Government' s commitment to fair votes extend only to situations that suit their party advantage?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from correspondence that has passed between our

    861
    Department and the chief executive of Guildford, that a period of 14 weeks must elapse between the presentation by the Local Government Commission of its recommendations and the first date on which an order can come into effect. I am afraid that that takes us considerably beyond the October date for the compiling of the electoral register, which is the register on which next April's elections will be fought. That is a normal procedure; it has been followed by previous Governments and is being followed by this Government, and there is no political element in it whatsoever.

    Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the standard spending assessment formulae for shire counties. [43230]
    The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The standard spending assessment formulae for shire counties are the same as for all other classes of authority that provide the same services.
    Mr. Fabricant: The hon. Lady will be aware that, during the election, candidates for the Labour party addressed the fact that the standard spending assessment for education in Staffordshire was about half the shire average. They said that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would ensure that problem was rectified in a matter of months. We have had a Labour Government for more than a year, but all we hear is the same old song: we are reviewing the situation.
    Ms Armstrong: The review of SSAs we had last year and the additional money that the Government have given to education mean that the hon. Gentleman's local authority of Staffordshire received an extra £17.58 million for education this year.
    Mr. George Stevenson: When my hon. Friend looks at the formula for shire counties and other authorities, will she address the chronic injustice of the area cost adjustment? I know that the matter is under review, but can she give an assurance that the area cost adjustment and its unfairness will play a prominent role in that review?
    Ms Armstrong: The area cost adjustment is one of the issues that is being discussed with the Local Government Association this year in the SSA working party. There are differing views throughout local government on what would be a fair system, and one of my concerns, which I urge my hon. Friend to take hold of, is that, although he may perceive injustices in the current system, some of the proposals tabled would result in what he would perceive as even greater injustices. The reality is that we have had a period of severe inequality and injustice in the way in which local government has been dealt its hand; we want to redress the serious injustices, but there is no easy way forward in respect of the area cost adjustment.

    Greater London Assembly
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on the proposed powers of the assembly and mayor of London. [43232]
    Mr. Raynsford: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House on
    862
    Wednesday 25 March, when we published our White Paper setting out our proposals for a mayor and assembly for London. The White Paper included the proposed powers of the mayor and of the assembly.
    Mr. Winterton: I have a great deal of respect and regard for the Minister, but does he accept that, both at home and abroad, the Lord Mayor and corporation of the City of London do an immense amount of good for this country, and that that benefit should not be undermined? Will he indicate that there needs to be a close and sensitive arrangement between the new mayor and assembly for London and the Lord Mayor and the City of London? I speak as one who holds the office of Upper Bailiff of the Worshipful Company of Weavers, which is the oldest City livery company and which seeks to do good, not only in the City, but throughout the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell the House how an assembly in which each assembly representative will represent 500,000 people will bring local government closer to the people of London?
    Mr. Raynsford: The position relating to the Lord Mayor and the court of common council of the City of London has been discussed on several occasions by me and representatives of the City. We have agreed a clear and sensible way forward which will allow amicable and constructive working relationships between the Lord Mayor of the City of London and the new mayor of London, recognising the contributions that each can make to representing London internationally, which is our main objective.
    We believe that it is right that the assembly, like the mayor, should focus on strategic issues that are of Londonwide significance, leaving local administration as the prerogative of the individual London boroughs. In that context, it is sensible to have the larger constituencies, which—if I may correct the hon. Gentleman—consist of about 350,000 electors for each assembly member.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the new structure, it will be important for the assembly to maintain a check on the mayor, and that it should have sufficient powers to do so? Will he consider how assembly members can be given the resources and, most importantly, the time to devote to that job without being financially disadvantaged?
    Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. We set out in the White Paper the important role that the assembly will perform in scrutinising the actions of the mayor and keeping the mayor in a proper framework of accountability. To enable that to happen, we have recommended that assembly members should be salaried so that they can concentrate full-time on that important task, providing effective scrutiny as well as good government in London.
    Sir Paul Beresford: The mayor, the new assembly and the development agency are three new tiers between the boroughs and the Government office for London. All those tiers will have a greater or lesser role in planning, and all of them will interfere, which is a natural local government tendency, to justify their existence. How does the Minister propose to curb the tendency for economic planning blight in London?
    Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the opinion of the vast majority of Londoners, who

    863
    recognise the terrible mistake made by the previous Government when they abolished London's democratic citywide government. We are putting right that deficit, and we are doing so with the wholehearted support of the business community in London. If the hon. Gentleman had attended the London First reception in the House last night, he would have heard the business community's clear endorsement of the Government's agenda.

    Moss Roads
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: What representations he has received on the condition of the moss roads in the Wyre district of Lancashire. [43233]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): My Department has received 51 letters about Lancashire's moss roads. Lancashire county council bid for support for moss road reconstruction work in its transport policies and programmes submission last year.
    Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have grievous problems in the Wyre district, where the moss road infrastructure is crumbling? The moss roads are vital to rural community life, but they are unsafe and present threats to anyone who uses them. My constituents desperately need the investment necessary to reconstruct those roads.
    Ms Jackson: As my hon. Friend knows, funding for the maintenance of such roads arrives via the revenue support grant. It is for Lancashire county council to decide how to prioritise those funds for the roads for which it is responsible.

    Heathrow Airport
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: If he will make a statement on progress relating to the public inquiry into Heathrow airport's proposed terminal 5. [43234]
    The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): The public inquiry into the proposed terminal 5 at Heathrow airport began in May 1995 and is currently expected to end in November 1998. The timing and conduct of the inquiry is a matter for the inspector.
    Mr. Howarth: Does the Minister agree that it is a national scandal that an inquiry begun three years ago and unlikely to lead to a decision for another two years is still proceeding? Is he aware of the damage that the delay is causing to British Airways and to the British Airports Authority? Does he agree that the quality of the eventual decision will not be improved by dragging the process out? Has not the time come for a timetable for inquiries into issues of great national importance?
    Mr. Caborn: I cannot comment on that particular project, but I can say that the procedures for dealing with issues such as terminal 5 were set up by the previous Administration. On 15 January, I presented to the House plans for modernising the planning system so that issues of national importance such as terminal 5 can be dealt with differently.
    864
    I add that, like the inspector, I hope that the local authorities will give their summing-up evidence to the inquiry. Their decision to withdraw is regrettable, and I hope that they will try to make sure that their views are represented at the inquiry.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Is the Minister aware that the line put forward by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) is also being peddled by the applicants, who have taken up 30 per cent. of the public inquiry's time? Another 6 per cent. of its time has been taken up by British Airways, and individual objectors—the small men and women—have had only 41 per cent. of the inquiry's time. [Interruption.] Yes, 41 per cent. It is important that the ordinary, simple objectors have their day in court to resist the big battalions of BAA and British Airways.
    Mr. Caborn: It is right that everybody gets the opportunity to object to a planning application. Three, possibly four, years is far too long for any planning application to take. We are revising the system from top to bottom. We shall deal not with the symptoms but with the cause—the planning system. We shall revise and modernise the system when we have completed the consultation, which I hope will be by the end of the year.

    Railways (Disabled Access)
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What proposals he has to improve railway accessibility for people with disabilities. [43255]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): We have recently published draft regulations to require all new trains and trams coming into service after 31 December to be fully accessible to disabled people, including wheelchair users.
    Mr. McNulty: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's welcome proposals will work only if the privatised railway companies take note of them and implement them in full? Can he tell the House what penalties might be used against the privatised railway industry if it does not implement in full our regulations and make the public railway system completely accessible to disabled people?
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend is right, and we shall not hesitate to take action. We propose that the regulations be enforced by Her Majesty's railway inspectorate, which will carry out inspections of the new rolling stock at various stages of construction to make sure that all the technical requirements are met. The Department will issue guidance on their operation.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that disabled people, more than any other sector of society, are dependent on public transport? Is he aware that RMT's decision to hold a series of strikes will keep thousands of disabled people prisoner in their homes? Will he condemn that action unreservedly on behalf of those disabled people? Does he agree that it does little to enhance rail as part of an integrated transport policy?
    Dr. Strang: All hon. Members want strike action to be avoided and early agreement to be reached between the

    865
    employers and the trade union. However, the Government's responsibility is to move as quickly as possible to give disabled access to the railways and London Underground, where it is badly needed.

    Birmingham Northern Relief Road
    Dr. Tony Wright: If he will make a statement on the refusal of MEL to agree to the publication of the contract terms for the Birmingham northern relief road. [43256]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): This matter is currently under consideration by the courts. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment.
    Dr. Wright: My right hon. Friend will know that there is great concern about many aspects of this private motorway. What are people to think when a Minister of the Crown has to go to the concessionnaire and ask permission to publish the terms of the contract for that road, and has that permission refused? What are people to think when the construction of a privately funded road turns out to involve over £20 million-worth of public money? Does not the whole sorry saga of the BNRR provide an object lesson in how not to make transport policy?
    Dr. Strang: On the latter point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we are committed to spending £20 million to help meet the cost of that new junction on the M42. That is partly because much of the traffic on that junction will not be on the BNRR; it is also the result of the agreement entered into by the previous Administration. My hon. Friend's earlier point is the very point that is before the court at present, and I am sure that he would not expect me to comment.
    Mr. Tom Brake: Does the Minister agree that it is regrettable that the deceit perpetrated by the previous Government in claiming that the initiative was privately financed has been matched by that of the Labour party, which claimed in opposition that it opposed the BNRR but which now supports it in government? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to abandon that environmentally damaging project?
    Dr. Strang: No. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we set out our position clearly following the receipt of the inspector's report and when we announced our decisions on the accelerated roads review. We do see the need for a new strategic through route, to benefit the west midlands, the north-west and Scotland. Moreover, we very much hope that the new rail terminal at Hams Hall will encourage more freight on to the railway.

    School Journeys
    Mr Lawrie Quinn:
    866
    What plans he has to encourage more children to walk, cycle and use public transport for their journey to school. [43257]
    Mr. Brian White: What measures he proposes to reduce the number of car journeys to school and term-time peak-hour traffic congestion. [43264]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): We will shortly publish a White Paper following the comprehensive spending review, which will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution. An important objective will be to reduce car use on journeys to school.
    Mr. Quinn: You, Madam Speaker, will know that this week is national bike week. May I commend to you all those people who joined me this morning on the cycle ride to the House? Let me ask my right hon. Friend a very serious question: do not many parents find it difficult to allow their children to progress to school outside the confines of the motor car, because they fear for their safety? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating local authorities such as Scarborough borough council, which is introducing a cycling strategy especially for children, to allow them to go to school safely?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes. That is a very important matter. I welcome national bike week, which is this week. The responses to our consultation about the use of the cycle will be embodied in our forthcoming integrated transport White Paper. We believe that we should make it easier for people to cycle and walk, and that will be a key element in our White Paper.
    The question of how we encourage people to cycle or walk to school is important. Between 1975 and 1994, the use of cars taking youngsters to school more or less doubled, from 12 per cent. to 27 per cent. We look to local authorities to think of imaginative schemes to improve that situation. I congratulate Warwickshire county council on the improvements that it has made regarding Myton school. The council built a bridge over the River Avon, which has enabled the number of people going to school on foot or by bicycle to increase—to more than 700 walking and more than 400 cycling each morning.
    Mr. White: Many Labour authorities have introduced innovative schemes. In Leicester, 20-mph schemes, among others, have reduced accidents by about two thirds. Many of us hope that, following publication of the White Paper, such schemes will be promoted throughout the country, not left to one or two authorities.
    Mr. Prescott: We certainly see that as an important issue. It is one reason why we should like to decentralise some decision making, to allow local authorities more resources and powers to encourage such developments.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: We were sorry not to see the Secretary of State on the bike ride this morning, although we were delighted to see the Minister for the Environment bicycling to work for a change.

    867
    When does the Secretary of State expect to publish the White Paper? There have been very encouraging noises, with which most hon. Members would agree, but we have yet to see the substance; it seems to have been delayed—according to newspaper reports—by another month.
    On peak-hour congestion, will the Secretary of State encourage fellow Ministers to use public transport, bicycle and walk, as question No. 29 suggests?
    Mr. Prescott: Yes, I would certainly like to encourage that. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London is very much involved in achieving such objectives. I flew in from New York this morning—and I do not think that anyone has considered cycling from there yet. As I said in my first reply, the White Paper dealing with integrated transport issues will be published after the comprehensive spending review.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that cycling from New York will shortly be Liberal Democrat policy.
    May I press the Secretary of State on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)? We are more than a year into the life of this Government and there is still no comprehensive transport policy. Why are we still waiting for the Government's White Paper, and when did the Secretary of State first learn from the Treasury that he would not be allowed to publish a White Paper until his whole Department had been vetted by the Treasury?
    Mr. Prescott: I suppose that I should offer my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on appearing at the Dispatch Box for the first time in his new capacity. He should not believe everything that he reads in the press. We are conducting a proper and intelligent discussion and we shall publish the White Paper after the comprehensive spending review, which will determine expenditure for the next three years.
    Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman has never said that before.
    Mr. Prescott: Whether or not I have said it before, it is a proper decision. I do not know when the comprehensive spending review will be concluded or when it will come before the House. Governments make judgments about such matters. The hon. Gentleman should not criticise us for not producing a White Paper after only 12 months in government. I spent an awful lot of time undoing the mess that I inherited from the previous Administration, trying to find the £5 billion that is needed for the underground and a similar amount for the channel tunnel rail link. The previous Administration did nothing about those messes, and I have spent considerable time securing a more successful conclusion involving a public-private partnership that is now offering a tremendous amount of investment in our public infrastructure.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Those of us who took part in the parliamentary cycle ride this morning appreciated the fact that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment joined us on the ride and that the Minister for Transport in London was here to greet us when we arrived at the House of Commons. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that a great gift to cyclists would
    868
    be a reduction in the number of motorised vehicles and the separation of those vehicles from pedestrian and cycle lanes. Can he confirm that the White Paper will encourage local authorities to put in place such schemes in order to make cycling less hazardous?
    Mr. Prescott: I assure my hon. Friend that we are already encouraging local authorities to do that. When they see our White Paper, they will realise that it is an important part of achieving an integrated transport system and a better environment.

    Drink Driving
    Mr. Robert Syms: If he will make a statement about his plans to reform drink-driving laws. [43258]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): We recently consulted on a range of proposals further to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries caused by drink driving, and will make a statement in due course.
    Mr. Syms: As the key to reducing the number of deaths on our roads is a crackdown on hard-core drink drivers and the tough and rigorous enforcement of existing laws and limits, do the Government intend to reduce the blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg—especially as Downing street has made its concerns known?
    Dr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we certainly need to crack down on hard-core drivers who continue to drink heavily before operating a motor vehicle. In our consultation document—the consultation has concluded—we propose a range of measures that we believe will reduce the death toll on our roads as a result of drink driving. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that we need an effective package of measures that will drive down further the number of people who are killed as a result of drink driving.
    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many drivers would prefer not to have alcoholic drinks if cheaper soft drinks and non-alcoholic beers and lagers were available? The 400 per cent. mark-up on non-alcoholic lager is an outrageous rip-off and an absolute disgrace. We should consider making representations to breweries on reducing the price of such drinks. That would save us having to investigate this issue, although many of us think that it is high time that it was sent to the Office of Fair Trading.
    Dr. Strang: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and I shall draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs. There are still far too many people who are not complying with existing legislation, so it is vital that we achieve more compliance.

    Jubilee Line Extension
    Mr. John M. Taylor: If he will make a statement on progress on the Jubilee line extension. [43259]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott):

    869
    Tunnelling and track laying for the Jubilee line extension are complete; 58 of the 59 new trainsets have been built, and the last is under manufacture. Work on station fit-out and electrical and mechanical equipment is well under way. On-site testing of the signalling and communications software has begun. London Transport has undertaken a thorough review of the programme, and plans to open the entire line in spring 1999.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State accept from me that the Jubilee line extension is extremely important—almost as important as the Birmingham northern relief road—but will come as poor deliverance to travellers unless he can sort out industrial relations on the London underground?
    Mr. Prescott: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman considers the Birmingham northern relief road alongside the Jubilee line. That road was delayed for well over 10 years owing to the previous Administration's failure to make any decision whatever on the matter. I agree that the Jubilee line extension is an important first new underground line for this generation. It will provide many interchanges, and will be an important part of the integration of London's transport system, and absolutely essential for the millennium.
    Mr. John Austin: Having visited the Jubilee line, does my right hon. Friend share my view that it is a shining example of civil engineering excellence that has brought much-needed regeneration to an area of London which has probably suffered more job losses than any other part of the country? Does he agree that, if the Conservatives had not abolished the Greater London council, the Jubilee line would probably be up and running, alongside the Woolwich rail tunnel and metro, which are well on target for opening in the new millennium?
    Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the Jubilee line is a good piece of engineering. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will be sad that it was delayed for 12 months, although, to be fair to the people involved, one delay was caused by the failure of a tunnel at Heathrow, which had implications for construction for six months, and the other was caused because the signalling system was not as modern as we had hoped. That cannot reflect on the management of the Jubilee line—I am satisfied that the management is doing well and that the line will be opened in the time that I have mentioned.
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the concept of the Jubilee line was one of the great achievements of the previous Government, and that it is in danger of being ruined by this Government's incompetence? Will he repeat the confirmation that he has just given, or will he accept that there is serious danger that it will not be running at full capacity by the millennium? Will he attempt to remedy that by increasing work on the line from 16 to 24 hours a day? Will he deny reports that contingency plans have been drawn up for bringing in visitors to the dome by coach, through the Blackwall tunnel, because the Jubilee line will not be able to cope with the volume of traffic? In short, will he stop messing up a good Tory project?
    Mr. Prescott: As is so often the case, the hon. Gentleman's remarks are not consistent with the truth. He
    870
    should consider what has happened on the Jubilee line and the reasons for the delay, which I have mentioned. The extension will be completed: it was started by a publicly owned enterprise and it will be finished by a publicly owned enterprise. The previous Government decided to invest in private entrepreneurial business such as the channel tunnel link, which failed totally. We have had to reorganise it, so he has been a bit unfair in his ideological comments.
    The hon. Gentleman should examine the amount of traffic that is expected to be carried to the dome by the underground—which is about 40 per cent., so it makes sense to consider alternative transport. Not everyone will travel by the underground. People will go by bus, by train and by other means of transport, including a river service, which we have brought back and which the previous Administration could not maintain. We are not doing too badly after all.

    Rema
    Yvette Cooper: If he will make a statement on the sinking of the Rema merchant shipping vessel. [43260]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The marine accident investigation branch will be investigating the loss of the Rema. It is intended that a report detailing its findings will be published in due course.
    Yvette Cooper: I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. She will be aware that men from Castleford went down on the Rema, and that this week some of their relatives have been out to the spot where the ship sank to pay tribute to them. Will she ensure that the forthcoming consultation paper on fishing vehicles accidents is widened to include evidence on marine vessel accidents, such as that of the Rema? I also urge her to consider improving support for the relatives of those involved in fatal accidents, who may be in great distress, unable to have an inquest and bury their loved ones, and unsure of where to turn to find out what happened.
    Ms Jackson: The consultation document to which my hon. Friend referred will exclusively look into the appalling record of tragedies in the British fishing fleet. If it were expanded to include merchant vessels, the Rema would be excluded because she was sailing under a foreign flag. However, it will address the issue of flag-state implementation and the Government's commitment to working with the International Maritime Organisation and the European Commission to ensure that substandard ships are taken from the oceans of the world, because they carry with them the risk of appalling loss of life and pose a threat of pollution.
    My hon. Friend referred to those who suffered a grievous loss in that accident. The Government will certainly consider all the issues that she raises. I feel sure that the entire House would wish to extend their condolences and their sympathy to her constituents.

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: What discussions he has had with vehicle manufacturers about the steps they are taking to reduce emissions. [43261]
    The Minister of Transport (Dr. Gavin Strang): My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and I have held discussions with manufacturers and their suppliers. We have established a cleaner vehicle task force to advance work in this area.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer. The Government of the United States are working with approximately 300 manufacturers of cars and car components on the programme for a new generation of vehicles. The Americans and the Japanese seem to be more advanced than we are with the development of alternative fuel vehicles. Has the Minister had any discussions with those Governments? If so, has that advanced our position?
    Dr. Strang: Yes, the Government are active in this area. The cleaner vehicles task force has been involved in all these matters. Indeed, the foresight vehicle programme of the Department of Trade and Industry supports the research to which the hon. Gentleman referred. These are important matters, and we want to encourage alternative fuels. Technology has the potential for great advances in this area.
    Mr. Paul Burstow: Given that the Government are keen to promote low and nil-emission vehicles, will they take a leaf out of local government's book and draw some lessons from the experience of a consortium of United Kingdom local authorities through the Zeus project? They are funding the procurement of some low and nil-emission vehicles in concert with other European cities, which, by working together, have been able to lever into place a market for such vehicles. Will the Government use their market power in the procurement of vehicles to make a real difference by buying those vehicles in numbers, so that the prices will come down and the technology will advance?
    Dr. Strang: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister launched the ALTER project at Chester only a few weeks ago. It is aimed at encouraging a number of European cities to exclude vehicles that emit such pollutants. We are also doing a great deal at home. As the hon. Gentleman said, many local authorities are making good progress. The Government often prime those developments with grants from the Energy Saving Trust.

    Rail Passenger Safety
    Ms Claire Ward: If he will make a statement on his policies to improve rail passenger safety. [43262]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): Railways are already one of the safest forms of transport but we cannot be complacent. We look to the Health and Safety Commission and Executive, as the safety regulators for the railways, to use their advisory and enforcement powers as appropriate to see that rail safety standards are maintained and improved where necessary.
    Ms Ward: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that one of the most important lessons that we must learn from the tragic accidents on the railways in recent years, including the accident in Watford in 1996, is that we should put in place a system that prevents trains from going through red danger signals? Does she agree that the safety of passengers must be paramount and that they must have confidence in the recommendations resulting from any inquiries. Will this Government—unlike the previous Administration—translate those lessons into law?
    Ms Jackson: My hon. Friend will be aware that, on 21 May, the Health and Safety Commission launched a consultation on a draft regulation that would require train protection systems to be fitted to all trains and at all key junctions by 1 January 2004. The consultation period ends on 21 August. My hon. Friend also referred to the crash that took place in her constituency. The findings of that inquiry will be furnished to the inspector who will be holding the Southall inquiry. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that safety is of prime importance, not only to passengers' sense of security, but to the Government.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the Minister confirm that she and her officials will be in touch with the German authorities to find out whether there are any lessons to be learned from last week's tragedy, in case there are implications for the operation of our railway system?
    Ms Jackson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Health and Safety Executive has already made contact with its German counterpart and will be kept informed of everything that is discovered from that appalling accident. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport sent his condolences to the German Minister, which I am sure the House and the country would endorse.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This morning, in evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, Sir John Kerr, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office said that Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, junior Minister at the Foreign Office was briefed on the investigation into Sandline International before she answered questions in the House of Lords on 10 March. Baroness Symons did not refer to the investigation on 10 March, and when on 15 May she was asked when she knew of the investigation, she again failed to refer to that briefing. Moreover, on 6 May the Foreign Secretary gave the House the clear impression that no Minister had been briefed about the investigation until April.
As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, the matter is of fundamental importance. Everyone in the House wants the Government to play an effective part in the world. We cannot be confident that they are doing so unless they account fully, openly and honestly to the House. This morning's evidence to the Select Committee—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am very tolerant and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian, but I now seek to know what the point of order is for me.
Mr. Howard: The relevance is this. In view of the gravity of the matter, as indicated by the proceedings before the Select Committee this morning, have you had
874
any intimation at all that the Foreign Secretary, or any of his Ministers, intend to make an urgent statement to the House, as I believe they should?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall respond to that point of order, which indeed was not a point of order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is fully aware that I certainly cannot comment on exchanges that took place in a Select Committee. The House must wait for the report of the inquiry of that Select Committee and that is the answer.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the publication this morning of a consultative paper by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on waste disposal in the domestic sector. As it was widely reviewed in the media this morning, I attempted to obtain a copy from the Vote Office. I have been notified that it will not be available to hon. Members until Thursday. My concern increased at lunchtime when I met the chairman and chief executive of the Local Government Association and discovered that they had been supplied with copies of the document and have been free to comment on it since this morning. Will you use your good offices to have it made available in the Vote Office without further delay?
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have made inquiries, and I understand that a copy of the consultation paper has been sent individually to every Member of Parliament—he might check with the Post Office—and that, at any rate, the document can be seen in the Library. Although, as he says, further copies will be available in the Vote Office on Thursday, my latest information is that every individual Member has been sent a copy of the document.

Youth Parliament
3.34 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a parliament of young people in the United Kingdom; to make provisions for the powers and functions of that parliament; and for connected purposes.
The argument for my Bill starts from three main premises. First, law making in a democracy expects that those affected by the laws should be consulted about them. For young people, that is still almost unheard of. Some schools run excellent school councils on which pupils have a chance to shape the regime of the school and influence the staff, but that is still comparatively rare. Some local authorities have established youth councils, but by the time that young people work their way through all the adult rules and procedures, it is scarcely surprising that very few feel inclined to take an enduring share in the enterprise. The problem is exacerbated because very few councils make resources available to back the suggestions of the young.
Secondly, since the young will inherit the mess that we leave behind, they have a right to play some part in defining the shape of that mess. Moreover, many young people are perfectly capable of both inventing sensible projects and of carrying them through with a little help from people who are old enough to have met some of the problems before. My experience with InterAction many years ago, and with Community Service Volunteers to this day, has shown me just how effective, responsible and imaginative young people can be if they are encouraged to be so.
Thirdly, our democracy is threatened by many pressures, but that of voter apathy is certainly important. In the 18 to 24-year-old age group, 32 per cent. are judged not to have voted at the last election. The British Youth Council survey in December 1997 found that 84 per cent. of young people believed that politicians do not listen to their concerns. A huge 81 per cent. said that they did not learn enough about politics at school, and asked for it to be included in the national curriculum.
Just before the general election, I chaired a gathering in Coventry cathedral, entitled "Heirs to the Millennium", which was attended by 750 people, including more than 200 young people. Those young people crafted a youth manifesto, which we presented to the main political parties. One of the most articulate of the young people said:
"The organisers"
of the event
"deserve to be congratulated but I don't believe anything will change. In 20 years' time, our successors will be standing here still saying that nobody pays any attention to what we say."
I do not want to be part of that cynicism. I believe that we can and should change the situation.
I draw some encouragement from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, who made clear to the all-party children group yesterday that the Government have begun to realise that the opinions and ideas of young people leaving care are at least as valuable as those of the adults who have made such a mess of looking after them. I understand that about 40 pieces of legislation affecting
876
young people have either been passed already or are in the pipeline. I wonder how much consultation there has been with the beneficiaries of such energetic law making.
If we want to find out how to deal with truants, playground bullies or the spreading drug culture, we should talk to those who are in the thick of it: the victims and, perhaps, even the perpetrators. I have seen enough successful peer-group teaching about sex, drugs, racism and bullying to know just how responsible 17-year-olds are when entrusted with the task of educating their juniors. Even more important, I know how much better they are at it than even young teachers.
It is true that we have a Minister who is responsible for youth affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells). The only problem is that he is also responsible for information technology, constitutional reform, legal issues, green issues and public-private partnerships. What sort of message does that send our young people about the priority that they command in government?
We live in a vastly different world from that in which I grew up. For almost half the young population, full-time employment does not begin until well into their 20s, yet we treat most students as if they had no role to play in the running of their country. We neither consult them nor give them tasks to perform. A handful show what they can do by running student unions with huge budgets or by taking a year out to challenge themselves with responsibilities far greater than they can hope to shoulder at home.
There are plenty of reports to back me up. The Advisory Centre for Education has published "Children's Voices in School Matters" and the Gulbenkian Foundation's inquiry into "Effective Government Structures for Children" made a powerful case for a more effective mechanism for gathering young people's views and doing something about them. Bernard Crick's committee on education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy is about its task as I speak, but children and young people have no direct political power, and play no direct part in the political process. Even when report after report shows the value of participation, nothing is done. The cost of that exclusion is recognisably high and will get higher.
I am calling for a national youth parliament, composed of representatives from local youth forums or councils registered by a certain date. I realise that that will exclude many, but we have to start somewhere. If we wait until we find the perfect inclusive mechanism, we shall wait for ever. I suggest that a representative could sit until the day before their 19th birthday. That is an arbitrary cut-off, but at least those over 18 are allowed to vote, even if they are not allowed to stand for Parliament. I hope that the local representatives will include a wide range of young people and will not be confined to school pupils. One group that could usefully be represented is that which includes those who have been in local authority care.
I have drawn heavily on the proposals put to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children—of which I am a trustee—by Kate Parish, whose report is an excellent starting point. The Parliament should sit only once a year to start with. I propose that, subject to your approval, Madam Speaker, it might sit here during a recess. It would set its own agenda, centred

877
on what the young wanted to discuss, not issues foisted on them by an older generation. Ministers would be required to respond in proper form to the proposals emanating from the parliament. Whether they should do so from the Dispatch Box or in writing is a matter for consideration.
In common with the youth parliament structures already existing in areas such as British Columbia and Tasmania, I propose that the objectives of our youth parliament should be: to provide a forum for young people to express their views on issues of relevance to them; to produce a UK youth manifesto that would raise concerns to be acted on by the Government and taken into account in party manifestos; to produce local manifestos to develop an interest in the parliamentary system by combining it with practical experience; to assist in the development of the skills and self-esteem of individual participants; and to give youth concerns more visibility.
I am not alone in my ambition. Among the forces ranged on my side are the NSPCC, the National Childrens Bureau, Save the Children Fund, the Citizenship Foundation, the British Youth Council and the YMCA. Setting up such a parliament would meet several objectives. First, we would give a considerable boost to local youth councils, which would see that their voices could truly be heard in Westminster. Secondly, we would create a mechanism that would allow Government proposals to be discussed by those whom they affected. Thirdly, we would create an opportunity for young people to break out of the disenchantment with the political process that will one day put the whole of our democracy at risk.
I am not allowed to discuss finance in such a Bill. I merely observe that, unless proposals have a real budget, they seldom get anywhere. The record of local authorities around the country is not so wonderful that they can properly refuse to risk the relatively tiny sums that local youth councils need. There are many councils that make me feel safer with a 17-year-old in charge of the finances than with the present Treasury team. I hope that the Government will take the Bill seriously and allow it to progress.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Peter Luff, Mr. Giles Radice and Mr. Anthony Steen.

YOUTH PARLIAMENT
Mr. Andrew Rowe accordingly presented a Bill to establish a parliament of young people in the United Kingdom; to make provisions for the powers and functions of that parliament; 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 199].
Orders of the Day

  Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  Teaching and Higher Education Bill [Lords]
    Clause 2

      FUNCTIONS OF THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND
      3.45 pm
      Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, leave out lines 15 to 26 and insert—
      '(2) Those matters are:

      (a) the standards of professional conduct of teachers;

      (b) the standards of medical fitness required to teach;

      (c) the powers which it needs to perform its functions under section 2 of this Act;

      (d) recruitment to the teaching profession;

      (e) the training and career development of teachers;

      (f) methods of teaching;

      (g) methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers; and

      (h) methods of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching.'.

      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 115, in page 3, leave out lines 35 and 36.
      Government amendments Nos. 82, 83 and 11.
      Mrs. May: Amendments Nos. 120 and 115, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and myself, go to the heart of chapter I of the Bill, which deals with setting up General Teaching Councils. The amendments concern the powers that such a council should have, its responsibilities and its ultimate functions.
      The issue has been the subject of much debate both in another place and at the various stages of the Bill. The Government have moved slightly, and clause 2(2) as it now stands is different from the provision in the original Bill. An amendment was made in another place, and although the Government defeated it in Committee in this House, they chose to take part of the recommendation in the amendment tabled in another place into subsection (2).
      The Government have moved a little way, but they need to move further. Amendments Nos. 120 and 115 probe them further about exactly what they believe the General Teaching Council is being set up to do. We are probing for clarification, especially about the advice that it will give the Secretary of State—such as whether it should be general and what its nature should be.
      The General Teaching Council should be the body that protects the professional status of the teaching profession. I believe that, if it established, enhanced, maintained and improved teachers' professional standing, teachers would

      879
      welcome it. However, I fear that the body proposed in the Bill will not be a General Teaching Council that will fulfil those functions.
      The Government are missing a golden opportunity to reinstate the professional status of teachers and to bring about the recognition of that status. That is important, because we have a growing crisis in our schools—a crisis of teacher supply and recruitment. Any hon. Member who visits schools in his or her constituency, as I have been doing since I was elected, will hear head teachers talk about the difficulty of finding teachers with particular educational qualifications, especially in certain subjects. Science is a good example. I was in a school in my constituency last Friday, and concern was expressed about the difficulty of obtaining a qualified physics teacher.
      There is also concern about the fact that when any post, especially a senior post such as that of head teacher, is advertised, a limited number of people come forward. The Government could help to address that problem through the General Teaching Council that they are to set up. Sadly, however, the GTC that they propose in the Bill will not meet that requirement.
      Some might say that to refer to a crisis in our schools is rather too emotive, but that is not my description. The report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment on teacher recruitment, published last autumn, said:
      "Many of the submissions to our inquiry, and to that of the previous Committee, argued that there was a 'recruitment crisis' in initial teacher training. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals … stated that 'the recruitment crisis in initial teacher training continues to escalate', while Mr Nigel Gates, until recently the admissions tutor for a university ITT course, referred to 'a rapidly deepening and very real crisis'. A similar phrase was used by the Secondary Heads Association. The NUT argued that, as 'every single indicator measures in a negative way', there was a 'crisis' in teacher supply."
      The Select Committee itself came to the conclusion that its inquiry
      "leads us to believe that the situation has deteriorated and that the Government must act to prevent serious shortages worsening."
      Some might ask why the establishment of a General Teaching Council can play a role in helping with the developing crisis in our schools. The answer is best given by my experience in talking to some student teachers in the school in my constituency that I visited last Friday. I asked what had brought them into the teaching profession. One student was rare, in that he was a maths graduate coming into teaching. Maths graduates are really needed—there is a paucity of them. I asked why they thought that people were put off coming into teaching. Pay was discussed, but some said it was not just about pay—it was about the image of teaching, how teachers were recognised and whether or not they had professional status.
      In introducing the General Teaching Council, the Government could have created a body which would truly have nurtured the professional status of teachers and would have helped to overcome the image problems that the student teachers identified as one of the real reasons why people are not coming into the profession and why we have this growing crisis in our schools.
      880
      At first sight, it seemed that the Government were going to fulfil that demand. In a debate in another place, the noble Baroness Blackstone said:
      "Teachers are our greatest educational resource. Teachers, in particular, head teachers, are at the heart of our drive to raise standards."
      She went on to say that the Government
      "are determined to restore pride and professionalism to the teaching profession. There has long been agreement that a key element in this is the establishment of a general teaching council … An effective GTC will be an engine for change and a driving force in our new deal for teachers."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 December 1997; Vol. 584, c. 253–55.]
      Sadly, the Bill—and clause 2 in particular, on the functions of the General Teaching Council—shows that the Government have failed to follow even their own words of expectation about what the General Teaching Council should do to provide for the professional status of teachers. They have not delivered on the early promise. That is why we are probing the Government with amendments Nos. 120 and 115.
      The concerns have not been raised only by the Opposition. Information has been sent to me by a number of outside organisations—for example, the Local Government Association, which, in a paper that it sent to a number of hon. Members, said that it
      "has a concern that the GTC operates, and is seen to operate, independently."
      As we know from the clause—and from the Bill in general—the GTC will be a body which primarily advises the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State will very much oversee the work of the GTC. It will be far from independent, as the LGA requires.
      The LGA went on to say that, if the GTC was to be successful in giving teachers "a clear professional voice"—what the Minister for School Standards himself has said the GTC should provide—
      "the Secretary of State, and other stakeholders … will have to demonstrate their trust in the profession by giving, and being seen to give, real powers to the GTC."
      I suggest that a power merely to give the Secretary of State general advice is not the sort of power that the LGA was thinking of in terms of developing the General Teaching Council to maintain and protect the professionalism of the teaching profession.
      The Association of Teachers and Lecturers said:
      "From … concern for the quality of education for all learners comes our commitment that a General Teaching Council should establish agreed professional standards."
      It said that it wanted the public to be
      "assured that these standards and that advice are genuinely independent of any constraints to quality that may for pragmatic, economic or political reasons be proposed by Government and gain the professional respect to act as a single voice for the teaching profession."
      Similarly, the Association of University Teachers said that it
      "would like to see the GTC provided with executive powers rather than advisory powers".
      Sadly, the clause will not achieve those results.
      The Government have shown yet again that the reality of their proposals does not live up to the rhetoric. The Minister for School Standards can say all that he wants about the need to establish a clear professional voice for

      881
      teachers and to restore morale for teachers, who for too long have had too little say in determining the shape and future of their profession—
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): Hear, hear.
      Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." I suggest that he thinks about the Government's proposals very carefully, as they will not restore morale by providing teachers with a clear professional voice. The body that the Government are proposing will largely be a talking shop to maintain the register of teachers; it will be subservient to the Secretary of State.
      Like so many of the Government's education policies, the proposals for the General Teaching Council will not give powers to people who are involved in education—they will not give teachers powers over their profession—but will ensure that powers are vested at the centre in the Secretary of State. The Government are missing an opportunity to create what is gravely needed—an independent council with real powers to maintain and enhance standards in the teaching profession.
      Amendment No. 115 would delete clause 2(6), which states:
      "Any advice given by the Council … shall be advice of a general nature."
      I hope that our concerns about the council will be echoed by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who said in Committee:
      "Matters such as standards of teaching, the conduct of teachers and medical fitness to teach are crucial. We do not want the GTC to give general advice on those, but specific and detailed advice … If the GTC is to play its role in raising standards, its advice needs to be clear and specific."
      In response, the Minister for School Standards said that, if the clause did not refer to general advice,
      "there would be a danger that the general teaching council's comments would refer to individual teachers."
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) pointed out:
      "The Minister is arguing for such comments to be anonymous; I am not sure why he is arguing that they must be general."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 2 April 1998; c. 44–47.]
      There is a very real difference. I hope that the Government will confirm today not that, as the Minister suggested in Committee, it will be open to the council to provide specific—rather than merely general—advice, but that they expect the council to give such advice.
      I suggest that the Minister thinks about that carefully. If he wants the General Teaching Council to be able to help the teaching profession to regain its status and to improve its image, and if he is to find a way in which to encourage young people—and others, perhaps later in their careers—to enter the teaching profession, he must ensure that teaching is regarded as a proper profession. In establishing the council, the Government have the opportunity to ensure that that happens.
      Sadly, the Government are missing that opportunity—they are simply setting up a body with the name of General Teaching Council so that they can say, "We did it. We promised that we would set up a general teaching
      882
      council and we have. So there is no problem, is there? The teaching profession is okay, professional status is assured and the GTC is in place."
      The reality is that, by establishing a body that will be seen not to have any teeth and not to be having the effect that they proclaimed it would have, the Government could be setting back the necessary work to re-establish the professional status of teachers in everyone's eyes. One concern is that the Government may well say, "It's all very well talking about the GTC in its early stages; we see it as an evolutionary body that might in due course take on other powers," but it will require primary legislation to change the body set up in the Bill, as has become clear in a number of the Minister's answers. So, far from being merely an evolutionary way forward, the Government are establishing what they believe to be appropriate for the GTC.
      4 pm
      Amendment No. 120 would introduce within the list of matters on which the GTC can advise the Secretary of State, in addition to the standards of professional conduct of teachers, the standards of medical fitness required and recruitment to the profession, methods of teaching and methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers. Assessment of performance is becoming increasingly important and it is a matter about which there is concern within the profession—genuine concern about how appraisal systems are operating and, in particular, how appraisals undertaken through the medium of the inspection of any school are being undertaken. A number of teachers have raised that issue with me.
      If the General Teaching Council is truly to be a body for and of the profession, it should have the opportunity to look into methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers and making recommendations. It is more important for it to be an independent body that establishes those methods and the professional standing of the teaching profession, but sadly the Government are not going down that route. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the possibility of at least including within the GTC's remit the recommendation that it should study methods of assessing the performance of individual teachers.
      The amendment would also introduce the power for the GTC to advise on methods of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching. That is an area about which there is always much dispute between those who favour particular teaching methods. To suggest that the GTC has nothing to say on that issue, as appears to be the case judging by the original proposals in the Bill, is to miss the opportunity that setting up such a body offers to support the teaching profession. In his reply, I hope that the Minister will deal with those issues and say why the Government have so far not been willing to take them on board within the powers of the GTC.
      As I said, that body, as it is being set up, will not fulfil the requirement out there in the education system and the education sector—the real feeling among teachers that they need to be treated as a profession and that the GTC could be the answer to that problem. I know that from talking with teachers about the GTC. Yet again, the Government have, sadly, failed to deliver. In this, as in so many other areas, the reality of their proposals does not match their rhetoric.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not one Scot was involved in the Standing Committee, which was no one's fault—it was the fault neither of the Whips nor of the Selection Select Committee, but merely the way things happened. It does entitle me to ask succinctly a question that I believe to be relevant to the Bill, because we are still one country, are we not? I have given notice of the question to the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, who was in his place a moment ago.
      What is the latest estimate of the shortage of teachers of physics, to a lesser extent of chemistry, and certainly of maths, in Scotland? Manpower advance prognostication is difficult at the best of times, and a few years ago it was generally thought that there was a surplus of teachers. I understand that the surplus may, over a year or two, have turned suddenly into a deficit. I am asking only for the facts, which are not very different from those in England.
      Mr. John Hayes: It is perhaps a truism to say that teachers feel undervalued, but that truism bears some relation to the fact that the status of teachers has declined socially and culturally over a generation or so. That may be due to many things, some of which the amendments address. It may be that what was once perceived as a vocation is now seen as a job. It may be because of a general challenge to authority figures, or it may be partly the result of the changing nature of teaching and learning, and the changing role of the teacher.
      It is certainly true that teachers need to have their value recognised once again. Their professional standards must be high, and must be recognised as such by society. To achieve that, the General Teaching Council should be independent and professional and able to deliver judgments on the competence of individual teachers and on the quality of teaching per se. Unfortunately, the Government's proposals do not satisfy those criteria.
      The GTC will be a creature of the Government rather than a genuinely independent professional body able to make objective assessments both of teachers and on more general teaching issues. In that sense, the proposals are a missed opportunity, and they will be seen to be so by teachers and by history. We had a real opportunity to have a renaissance in the social and professional status of teachers. I would have welcomed that, as teachers are vital.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) said, it is time that people in positions of authority recognised, and stated, that teachers make a vital contribution to our children, our nation and our future. I am unashamed to make such a comment; too often, we forget our teachers, who are genuine heroes. Duty and self-sacrifice, the hallmarks of good teachers, are unfashionable values; perhaps we place more emphasis on starry glamour, although I will say no more about that, and do not intend to point a finger in any particular direction.
      The GTC offers an opportunity to re-evaluate the role of teachers, to restate the importance of teaching and to raise professional standards. Our amendments would make that happen by increasing the GTC's independence from Government, because it must not be seen as a creature of the Government. I hope that the House will
      884
      support the amendments if they care as much as my colleagues and I do about teaching, learning and the teaching profession.
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I had the opportunity to speak on the General Teaching Council on Second Reading, and it does not seem nearly three months since then. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for taking us through what occurred in Standing Committee; I have read the proceedings, but I did not immediately understand them, and I was not a member of that Committee, so I am catching up. From what she said on Second Reading and in Committee, I understand the motivation for the amendment that she moved so well.
      On Second Reading, I and others, not least Labour Members, made the point, powerfully reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), that the creation of the General Teaching Council was an opportunity to give recognition and status to the teaching profession, with the council perceived not simply as a creature of the Government but, to some extent, as a creature of the teaching profession. I qualify that by noting that it is important that, although most of the council's membership should be drawn from the teaching profession, it should include people with an interest in the quality of teaching, such as parents and employers.
      In Committee, it was sensibly noted that those who teach in further or higher education should be able to see that the General Teaching Council, through the school system, is delivering young adults capable of benefiting to the greatest possible extent as they move into further or higher education. That is not the subject of these amendments, so I will not dwell on it, but the Government could have done more to achieve that through the council's composition.
      The Government could have done more to seek to use the General Teaching Council as a body responsible for, and capable of, promoting teaching as a profession. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made those points in Standing Committee, and may do so again. As the Government have not done those things, our amendments would help to reinforce and expand the council's role by giving it some responsibility for giving advice, which would help the teaching profession to regard it as a body that enjoys the status it demands of the council. The Local Government Association, of which I have the honour to be a vice-president, has sought such a role for the council.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead said, matters such as methods of teaching, assessment of the performance of teachers and the vexed question of assessing the effectiveness of different methods of teaching are important issues that go to the heart of the quality of teaching and of our school system. As the General Teaching Council has no specific responsibility to act on those issues, many in the teaching profession and outside will regard it as an essentially bureaucratic body exercising a bureaucratic function, perhaps usefully in respect of medical fitness and related matters concerning the conduct and dismissal of teachers. It will not be regarded as acting positively and proactively in the system to help to deliver higher-quality teaching and to raise the status and competence of the profession.

      885
      I say that advisedly, because I do not regard that exclusively as the role of the council, even if the amendments are passed. Whatever happens, there are separate roles. First, the General Teaching Council is a statutory body for giving advice to the Secretary of State and others as necessary in bringing together teachers and those with interests in the teaching profession and the school system. Secondly, it is important to recognise that there should be a self-regulatory body in the teaching profession responsible for self-promotion to try to improve the quality of teaching.
      On Second Reading, I asked the Government to endorse—I again ask for positive comment—the initiation of a college of teachers whose aims would be to promote the teaching profession, to give its members a network of support, to forge relations with other learned professions and to advise the Government from an independent stance on professional issues.
      I know that, in Standing Committee, reference was made to the desirability of not, at this stage, drawing exact parallels between the GTC and the General Medical Council, or between the college of teachers and the royal colleges in the medical profession, with which I am a little more familiar than with the teaching profession. Even so, the structure of institutions created within the medical profession over a far longer period has merit, and, even if this is not a case of moving at one leap to a structure for the teaching profession that has exactly the same characteristics, there is every reason to give oneself the flexibility to move in that direction.
      I was sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead had to chastise the Government for their fixed sense, at this stage, of what the responsibilities of the GTC should be and for not building in flexibility. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to try, through the amendment, to expand the GTC's role and increase the flexibility available to it. In time, both that body, with an expanded role, and a college of teachers, with an independent, teacher-led role, might give the teaching profession the greater status that it richly deserves.
      Madam Speaker: Mr.—
      Mr. Graham Brady: Brady.
      Madam Speaker: Mr. Brady.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Brady: I am clearly not speaking often enough in the Chamber. I shall endeavour to put that right, with your help, support and encouragement, Madam Speaker.
      My hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) wisely referred to the importance of building in a degree of flexibility to enable the GTC to evolve over time and allow it to assume the role and functions that Opposition Members and, I suspect, Ministers want.
      The Minister for School Standards will recall that, in another Standing Committee of which we were both members, one of his colleagues said that I had appeared to be painting a picture of Altrincham and Sale, West as
      886
      a sort of educational nirvana. I plead guilty to that charge, because we are in many ways as close to that stage as can be achieved. My constituency contains some extremely good schools, and, partly because of their local standing and the results that they achieve, there is higher morale among the members of the teaching profession in my constituency than in many other areas.
      On Monday, I had an interesting discussion on the subject of the GTC with teachers at a school in my constituency. I have to report to the Minister that their view—an unfortunate one, which highlights the Bill's failure—is that the proposed GTC is a completely wasteful bureaucracy and an empty shell, which offers them nothing and which might load on extra bureaucracy and burdens. That is not to mention the fact that it might load extra costs on teachers by levying a compulsory registration fee on those becoming members of the GTC, which would have to be paid alongside their teaching union membership fees.
      I suspect that the reason why so little has been made of the GTC during the Bill's passage lies in some of the tensions in respect of the teaching unions and the question of how the teaching profession should redefine itself—whether it should move in the direction of the medical profession and become a proper self-regulating profession which would not take strike action and in which the role of trade unions would diminish as the role of the GTC and other self-regulatory bodies increased. The direction that the Bill appears to set may be laudable, but I fear that the Minister for School Standards has suffered a loss of courage in drafting the specific provisions in the Bill.
      Dr. Howells: Impossible.
      Mr. Brady: The Bill does not make proper provision for the GTC to assume the role of a genuine self-regulatory body. I have the highest regard for the Minister of State, but he occasionally marches in a slightly different direction from that taken by other Labour Members, so it is understandable that he is sometimes less than entirely open about his ultimate objectives.
      The movement away from some of the LEA powers that have caused so much damage to many schools throughout the country has been whole-heartedly welcomed in many schools and by many teachers. The Minister should take heart from that. [Interruption.]
      The Under-Secretary mutters about the impossibility of a failure of courage on the part of his hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, but the Minister should take heart from the proposal, which represents an opportunity for the Government to do something of value for the teaching profession and to enhance the standing of the profession. The opportunity is sadly missed in the detail of the General Teaching Council in the Bill.
      The Minister for School Standards (Mr. Stephen Byers): Taking my courage into my hands, I shall deal first with the three Government amendments, which are technical, and then with the meat of the debate—the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May).
      Amendment No. 11 is a simple amendment which will allow the costs incurred as a result of a teacher being a member of a General Teaching Council to be borne in

      887
      exceptional circumstances by the General Teaching Council. We are confident that, in most cases, the costs of an individual teacher and the time necessary for the teacher to attend the GTC can be met from the school's budget. Indeed, many schools would see it as a benefit if a member of their teaching staff served on the GTC. The teacher would gain a depth of experience as a result of exchanging views with other professionals, and benefits would accrue not only to the teacher, but to the school.
      However, amendment No. 11 recognises that the burden of those costs may be too great for some schools—for example, a small rural primary school with perhaps only two or three members of staff would have to provide supply cover if one of the teachers was away attending meetings of the GTC. We would not want to place that burden on the relatively small budget of such a school. The amendment would allow those costs to be met by the GTC, which we consider an appropriate way forward.
      Amendment No. 82 closes one of the loopholes which we have identified. If a teacher is ineligible to register as a teacher—for example, in Scotland or Northern Ireland, having been disqualified because of activities or conduct in one of those countries—he or she should be disqualified from registering as a teacher under the General Teaching Council for England or for Wales. Amendment No. 82 achieves that objective.
      Amendment No. 83 is a purely technical amendment which brings clause 3 into line with clause 19. As those three Government amendments are uncontroversial, I hope that they will meet with the approval of the House.
      Like the hon. Member for Maidenhead, I visit many schools. Indeed, I had the pleasure of visiting a school in her constituency as a guest at its prize-giving evening—a very good school it was, and I was pleased to discharge that responsibility.
      Many teachers are doing a good job, often in difficult circumstances. That was not said often enough by the previous Government, but I am glad to acknowledge it on behalf of the Government. One of our reasons for establishing a General Teaching Council is to give the profession a unified voice. The GTC will be a body independent of the Government, but will work with them to raise standards in our schools.
      That is the teachers' objective and the Government's goal. Opposition Members speak about the roads down which the Government are travelling. The Government are united in their desire to raise standards in our schools—not just in a few schools, but in all our schools, for all our children. That will require a sea change in thinking about our school system. At present, far too many schools are not offering the quality of education that our children deserve. It is the Government's responsibility to do what we can to raise standards, and we shall do precisely that.
      One of the key ways in which we can raise standards in our schools is to ensure that the quality of teaching is improved. We can achieve that by establishing a General Teaching Council, which will raise teachers' morale and give them a voice. That is why we are keen that most of the council's members should have teaching experience and should only recently have left classroom teaching.
      The two Opposition amendments would not add much to the Bill, and one—No. 115—is potentially damaging. Amendment No. 120 would change the functions that the General Teaching Council will carry out by adding to the
      888
      list in clause 2(2) two new functions: the assessment of performance of individual teachers and the assessment of the effectiveness of different methods of teaching.
      It may help the hon. Member for Maidenhead to know that our legal advice is that the assessment of the performance of individual teachers is covered by the references to standards of teaching in clause 2(2)(a) and to the training, career development and performance management of teachers in clause 2(2)(d). Our legal advisers' view is that the assessment of the effectiveness of different methods of teaching is also covered by the reference to standards of teaching in clause 2(2)(a). We have therefore dealt with the concerns expressed by the hon. Lady in moving the amendment on behalf of the Opposition.
      On amendment No. 115, it is simply untrue to say that the Bill does not give powers to the General Teaching Council. As we said yesterday, we shall give the council a power of regulation over individuals who go on the register as qualified teachers. The council will have the power to strike off that register people who are professionally incompetent or who have been involved in serious professional misconduct. However, it is important to draw a line between that responsibility and the council's need to advise the Secretary of State on how certain functions should be discharged.
      We are drawing a clear distinction between the General Teaching Council's power of regulation over the register and its advisory role in addressing broader teaching issues of how standards are to be raised in our schools. We do not want the council to be drawn into disputes involving individual teachers, which is why it is important to retain clause 2(6), which provides that the advice given by the council should be of a general nature. That will allow the council to use case studies and individual examples to demonstrate practical ways in which the Secretary of State may want to pursue policy objectives. We believe that the present wording will do that, and will not create the confusion that amendment No. 115 would.
      I listened with interest—as I did on Second Reading—to the argument by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) in favour of founding a college of teachers. There is a danger of duplication. We are about to establish a General Teaching Council. If a college of teachers came on the scene, how would that complement the work undertaken by the Teacher Training Agency, which is responsible for recruitment, the promotion of teaching as a profession and the provision of teacher training courses? How would a college of teachers link with the General Teaching Council? There is a danger that, at this time, a college of teachers would not be helpful in developing a clear and coherent vision of the progress that we want.
      4.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Maidenhead spoke about the crisis in the supply of teachers. There is indeed a crisis, but it was not created in the past 13 months. The Government are tackling the genuine problems in teacher recruitment, which were created by year after year of indifference and complacency by soft Governments, representing the party to which the hon. Lady belongs.
      The previous Government's incompetent handling of the teachers' pension fund helped to cause the crisis in teacher numbers. Last year, there was a massive exodus

      889
      of teachers, often with considerable experience—good teachers, who did not want to leave the profession, but who were forced out of because the guillotine came down in terms of pension arrangements. Thousands of good teachers were lost to the profession, and to our children.
      Today, we hear Conservative plaudits about a General Teaching Council, but when the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Education, Sir Malcolm Thornton, introduced a private Member's Bill to establish a general teaching council, supported by hon. Members now in government and by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the Conservative Government Whips—one of whom was the present shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts)—killed it off. They did so not 10 years ago, not 18 years ago, but in the past three years. When Conservative Members say that the General Teaching Council will play an important role in establishing and re-creating the teaching profession as something that should be valued, people should bear in mind their record, which has condemned teachers to lacking a voice to speak on their behalf.
      The Government are taking action. Within months of taking office, we made the establishment of a General Teaching Council a commitment in our White Paper. It appeared in the Bill, and we are now introducing legislation to put it into effect.
      The present Government do value teaching as a profession.
      Mr. Dalyell: May I ask the Minister about the teachers who left prematurely, often against their will, because of the pension arrangements? Is there any chance of re-entry, even for three to five years, in the present situation, for those who realise that it may have been a mistake to leave—they may have been forced to leave, incidentally—because of the pension arrangements? Is there any possibility of arrangements being made for them to return, even for a short time, as some of them would wish to do, having been away from teaching for a year, and having found that there is no other work for those of their age?
      Mr. Byers: As always, my hon. Friend raises a consideration that is important and relevant to the debate. We must consider how to encourage people to return to the teaching profession. The Government are mindful of the fact that, currently, the number of qualified teachers who are not teaching—more than 400,000—exceeds the number of those teaching. That number has increased in the past 12 months because of the exodus of teachers as a result of pension fund changes. My hon. Friend raises an important issue, and I shall consider whether there are ways of attracting people back into the teaching profession. There may be difficulties concerning individual pension arrangements, but the matter certainly deserves detailed consideration.
      The Government value teachers and recognise that they play a vital role in offering our children the best quality education. The General Teaching Council will fulfil the important role of speaking on behalf of the teaching profession. That view is fragmented at present, and the General Teaching Council will put the interests of the profession first and raise standards.
      890
      The most disappointing aspect of the speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead is that it reflected only producer interests. The hon. Lady quoted time and again teacher unions and associations, and prayed in aid the Local Government Association, but she did not mention children and parents. It is a fine state of affairs when the Conservative spokesperson refers not to children and parents and to raising education standards, but to producer interests. That comes as no surprise. The Government recognise that we must put standards first, but the Opposition have not learnt the lessons of defeat. They are concerned about structures and producer interests, and they have lost the plot in education.
      This Bill, coupled with the School Standards and Framework Bill, will raise standards and ensure that we provide children with the quality education that they deserve. We are turning our backs on past discussions about structures and the interests of the few. We are putting our children first and improving standards throughout the education system so that they may have the best possible start in life—good-quality education. We intend to deliver on that commitment, which is why I shall invite the House to reject amendments Nos. 120 and 115, and will push the three Government amendments.
      Mrs. May: It is the Government who have lost the plot when it comes to education. They cannot raise standards in our schools if we do not have teachers in the classroom. The Government have failed to address that problem: they barely recognise the crisis in teacher recruitment and supply.
      Mr. Vernon Coaker: I have some figures regarding teacher recruitment. According to the figures for secondary initial teacher training targets and intake, there was a teacher deficit of 477 in 1993–94. In 1994–95, there was a deficit of 1,090; in 1995–96, the deficit was 1,774; and in 1996–97—the last year of the previous Government—there was a deficit of 2,920. Why did the previous Government fail to address that problem?
      Mrs. May: This Government will make the problem worse, because they have done absolutely nothing to improve the situation. The Government are facing a problem with their class size pledge. That was identified by the Coopers and Lybrand report, which was commissioned by the Local Government Association—an organisation that is Labour-controlled, not Conservative-dominated. The report, which was published last week, clearly shows the problems facing the Government in terms of implementing their class size pledge—which they are failing completely to do at present.
      One of their problems is that, if they are to reduce class sizes, they will have to increase the number of teachers standing up in front of children. Furthermore, if they are not to force children into schools that their parents do not want them to go to, which would deny parents their choice, they will have to increase the number of classes.
      Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady knows that the class size pledge relates to primary school pupils and to infant classes in particular. Can she confirm—perhaps I shall be informing her—that primary initial teacher training targets for this year are over-subscribed, as they are for next year?
      Mr. Don Foster: They have been for years.
      Mrs. May: The Minister will have heard the sedentary intervention of hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to whom I shall give way.
      Mr. Foster: Is the hon. Lady aware that, over approximately the past 10 years, there have always been four times the number of applicants than places at that level? Is she also aware of leaks suggesting that the number of applicants for primary teacher training over the past 12 months is likely to be down by about 15 per cent?
      Mrs. May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out those figures, and he is absolutely right about the normal over-subscription of such places. I have not seen the leaks, as he describes them, about a reduction in the latest primary school figure, but I look forward to the Minister giving the figure from the Dispatch Box.
      Mr. Byers: I shall give the figure now, although it has not yet been published. The 1998–99 courses have been over-subscribed, which means that we are in excess of the targets. In respect of the recruitment of the additional 1,500 teachers for this September to deliver our class size pledge, it might help the hon. Lady if she knew that the 65 authorities have met no problem whatever in recruiting those additional teachers to begin the process of cutting infant class sizes to meet our pledge.
      Mrs. May: I suggest that, in future, the Minister listens to the comments made by those on the Conservative Front Bench and on the Liberal Democrat Benches. He referred to the over-subscription of courses but, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, that is not the point. The Minister will have to do better when he next comes to the Dispatch Box—but, as we know, he has problems with figures.
      We have heard thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who apologises for having had to leave the Chamber before the close of debate on the amendments, and from my hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) and for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), but it is noticeable that the only contribution from the Government Back Benches was that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who raised a particular issue relating to the position of certain teachers with certain qualifications in Scotland. It was also noticeable that the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, had been in the Chamber before the hon. Member for Linlithgow made his speech, but was absent during it. He has subsequently returned.
      Mr. Damian Green: The Minister scuttled off.
      Mrs. May: As my hon. Friend says, the Minister scuttled off.
      The Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I assure the hon. Lady that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is my old friend, has access to me at all times. If I had had any idea that he would make a speech, I should have been impelled to stay in the Chamber to hang on his every word.
      Mrs. May: I look forward to the hon. Member for Linlithgow receiving an answer to his question.
      892
      Despite the number of former teachers on the Labour Benches, we have heard no contribution other than that of the hon. Member for Linlithgow on the nature of the General Teaching Council and its importance in establishing the professional status of the teaching profession. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, we must recognise the contribution that teachers make. I am happy to echo the Minister's comment that many teachers in our schools do an excellent job, sometimes in difficult circumstances, but they often think that their contributions are not fully valued. I have mentioned the problem of restoring the image of the teaching profession so that teachers' contributions can be fully recognised and valued. That is what the debate is about, but the Government have missed the opportunity to deal with the issue, which is sad.
      4.45 pm
      We should be encouraging more people—be they young graduates, young people or older people who have had a career in industry, commerce or business and want to give something back and impart knowledge to young people—to go into schools and into the teaching profession. The Government are doing nothing to encourage that. So far, a working party, chaired by Lord Puttnam, has been set up—it is no surprise that one of its main contributions has been a cinema advertisement. As a student teacher said to me recently, that is not good enough, and it will not bring people into the teaching profession.
      We need something more. The General Teaching Council was and still is an opportunity for the Government to ensure that we show teachers that they are truly valued. The Minister referred to the setting up of a single voice for the teaching profession. It is interesting that he emphasised that aspect: what positions does he think that the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers will take after the setting up of the GTC, and are all Labour Back Benchers as clear about his intentions for it as they might be? My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West said that the Minister's thinking is not always entirely in line with that of other Labour Members, although, as we see time and again during statements and debates on education, he is generally out of line with his boss, the Secretary of State.
      It is important that we value teachers, and for precisely that reason we want a GTC that will be of the profession and for the profession—a truly independent body that will establish standards for teaching and take them forward. The Minister said that we made no reference to standards in the classroom, but standards of teaching relate to standards in the classroom. We want to ensure that every child receives the appropriate education and that the standard of education is high. To achieve that, we must ensure that we have teachers of high calibre standing up in front of our children and delivering quality education.
      Our proposals about the different powers of the GTC, especially in amendment No. 120, would have gone a long way to achieving that, although I note the Minister's comments about the Government's legal advice on it. In respect of amendment No. 115, I was sorry to hear him make the same argument on whether the GTC should give general advice. Yet again, he referred purely to individual teachers. We are not suggesting that advice given by the GTC to the Secretary of State would be about individual

      893
      teachers, but there is a difference between the GTC being able to provide specific advice and expecting it to provide specific advice.
      My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire compared a college of teachers to the royal colleges in the medical profession, but I prefer to consider the GTC in relation to the royal colleges. The Government's proposals will not allow the body of the profession—the teachers themselves—to decide the professional standing and standards that teachers should use in the classroom in imparting knowledge to children. That is the end of the chain.
      Mr. Wilson: Is that the end of the hon. Lady's speech?
      Mrs. May: No, it is not quite the end of my speech, but almost. The hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a couple of minutes.
      The quality of teachers is paramount in ensuring the quality of education that children in our schools receive. The Government have missed a real opportunity with the General Teaching Council. They could have established a body that played an important part in ensuring the continued professionalism of teachers and in enhancing professional standards. It is with some sadness that we view the Government's proposals but, having heard the Minister's response, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      REGISTRATION OF TEACHERS
      Amendments made: No. 82, in page 4, line 14, at end insert
      ',or
      (d) (subject to such exceptions as may be prescribed by, or determined by the Secretary of State under, regulations) ineligible for registration as a teacher, or disqualified from being a teacher in any school, by virtue of any prescribed provision of the law of Scotland or of Northern Ireland.'.
      No. 83, in page 4, line 15, after '(4)' insert
      'Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed,'.—[Mr. Byers.]

    Clause 8

      THE GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR WALES
      Mr. Byers: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 38, at end insert—
      '(5) Subject to subsection (6), stamp duty shall not be chargeable in respect of any transfer to the General Teaching Council for Wales effected by virtue of subsection (3).
      (6) No instrument (other than a statutory instrument) made or executed in pursuance of subsection (3) shall be treated as duly stamped unless—
      894
      (a) it is stamped with the duty to which it would, but for this section be liable, or
      yy(b) it has, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Stamp Act 1891, been stamped with a particular stamp denoting that it is not chargeable with any duty or that it has been duly stamped.'.
      I am tempted to speak for 50 minutes on stamp duty and the Welsh General Teaching Council. However, I shall say only that this is a technical amendment. We intend to establish a General Teaching Council for Wales and a General Teaching Council for England at the same time. The need to do so was a view overwhelmingly expressed in the consultation exercise carried out by the Welsh Office. However, amendment No. 10 is a safety measure in case that does not occur. It will allow an orderly transfer of the responsibilities and duties of a General Teaching Council if such a council needs to be established for Wales and for England. If they are to be separated at a later date, the amendment would allow that to happen as easily as possible.
      I hope that, with that brief explanation, the House will agree to Government amendment No. 10.
      Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1

    GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND
    Amendment made: No. 11, in page 37, line 7, at end insert—
    '(4) The Council may pay to the employer of a person who is a member of the Council (or a member of any of their committees but not a member of the Council) such compensation in respect of the loss of that person's services as the Secretary of State may determine.'.—[Mr. Byers.]

  New clause 4

    SCOTTISH FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL: "RELEVANT BODY" FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 19(5) OF THE DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1995
    '.In section 19(6) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (meaning of "relevant body" for the purposes of section 19(5)), after paragraph (f) there shall be inserted—
    "(ff) the Scottish Further Education Funding Council established by an order under section 7(1) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;".'.—[Mr. Wilson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 60 and 64.
    Mr. Wilson: I trust that my brief cameo appearance will be equally non-controversial. The new clause amends the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and arises from the intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to establish, with effect from 1 January 1999, a Scottish Further Education Funding Council, as recommended by the Garrick committee, which was the Scottish committee of the Dearing committee.

    895
    At present, the 43 incorporated FE colleges in Scotland are exempt from certain anti-discrimination provisions in sections 19 to 21 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, by virtue of the fact that they are currently funded by my right hon. Friend. Educational institutions funded by a "relevant body" are also exempt. Unless the Scottish Further Education Funding Council is listed in section 19(6) of the 1995 Act as a "relevant body", those colleges will cease to be exempt.
    New Clause 4 designates the Scottish Further Education Funding Council as a "relevant body" for the purposes of section 19(5) of the 1995 Act. The existing Further and Higher Education Funding Councils in England and Wales and the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council are listed as relevant bodies in section 19(5), so adding the Scottish Further Education Funding Council to that list will ensure that the Scottish colleges remain exempt and are treated in the same way as other colleges and HE institutes elsewhere.
    The amendments to clause 39 and the long title of the Bill are consequential to the insertion of new clause 4. I commend the new clause to the House.
    Mrs. May: I do not intend to speak for any length of time on this issue. I note that the new clause would bring the proposed Scottish Further Education Funding Council into line with other similar bodies in the rest of the country. Clause 19(5) is in part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Government have today announced the timetable for introducing part III of the 1995 Act. That has been a long time coming, and many disability organisations have been concerned about how long it has taken the Government to make that announcement. I welcome the fact that it has finally been made today.
    Mr. Wilson: I appreciate the hon. Lady's welcome for what has been done. However, I remind her that the Government have been in office for 13 months. Although she was not in the House previously—otherwise I am sure that all those measures would have been taken—the Tories were in power for 19 years.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 7

    UNAUTHORISED USE OF "UNIVERSITY" IN TITLE OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ETC.
    '.—(1) A relevant institution in England or Wales shall not, when making available (or offering to make available) educational services, do so under a name which includes the word "university" unless the inclusion of that word in that name is—

    (a) authorised by or by virtue of any Act or Royal Charter, or

    (b) approved by the Privy Council for the purposes of this section.

    (2) A person carrying on such an institution shall not, when making available (or offering to make available) educational services through the institution, use with reference either to himself or the institution a name which includes the word "university" unless the inclusion of that word in that name is authorised or approved as mentioned in subsection (1).
    (3) Subsection (1) or (2) applies where the educational services are made available, or (as the case may be) the offer to make such services available is made, in any part of the United Kingdom.
    (4) For the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) the inclusion of the word "university" in any name shall not be taken to be authorised by or by virtue of a Royal Charter relating to a university by reason of any provision of the Charter with respect to—

    (a) the affiliation or association of other institutions to the university, or

    (b) the accreditation by the university of educational services provided by other institutions.

    (5) In approving the inclusion of the word "university" in any name for the purposes of this section the Privy Council shall have regard to the need to avoid names which are or may be confusing.
    (6) The Privy Council's power of approval under subsection (1) or (2) shall not be exercisable in a case where the inclusion of the word "university" in the name in question may be authorised by virtue of any other Act or any Royal Charter.
    (7) In this section—
    "relevant institution" means an institution within the further education sector or the higher education sector as defined by section 91(3) or (5) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
    "university", in the context of the reference in subsection (4) to a Royal Charter relating to a university, has the meaning given by section 90(3) of that Act.'.—[Dr. Howells.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 9—University college, etc., not to be treated as university.
    Government amendments Nos. 74 and 81.
    Dr. Howells: The new clauses and amendments implement recommendations of the Dearing report on higher education. The Dearing committee recommended that the names and titles used by higher education institutions should be clear and consistent. At present, too many institutions are using unofficial titles that have not been properly authorised and have no clear meaning, which can be confusing to students and others. There is currently no clear statutory control over such unofficial titles.
    The Dearing committee also believed that there was a place for a new category of "university college" for higher education institutions that fall short of full university status but have the power to award their own degrees. The Government accepted that recommendation, but there are some technical obstacles to implementing it under the present legislation in England and Wales.
    We have decided to tackle both those problems by the new clauses and amendments. New clause 7 proposes a statutory duty on institutions in the further and higher education sectors in England and Wales not to supply or offer educational services under a name including the word "university" unless that name has been properly authorised. For that purpose, a name can be authorised by, or under, any statute or royal charter. Existing properly authorised names will not be affected.
    To cover any cases to which the existing powers of authorisation do not apply, the Privy Council will, under the new clause, have an additional power of approval. For the avoidance of any dispute on that point, a name will not be regarded as authorised by, or under, a royal charter just because the charter allows a university to make

    897
    arrangements for affiliation, association or accreditation of other institutions. In our view, that does not, in itself, entitle a university to authorise other institutions to change the names under which they present themselves to the public to include the word "university".
    The amendments create a statutory prohibition but not a criminal offence. Injunction proceedings may be brought in the courts to enforce the prohibition.
    New clause 9 deals with a technical obstacle to the approval of the proposed new "university college" title in England and Wales. It does not affect the position of University college, Oxford or University college, London. The provisions cover institutions in England and Wales only, because that is where the problems exist. However, institutions in England and Wales invite applications from students throughout the United Kingdom, so the statutory prohibition of unauthorised names applies to the offer of educational services throughout the UK.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that a few institutions in England have been awarding their own degrees and higher degrees without using the title "university" or "university college". I draw to his attention the Bolton institute of higher education, which has been seeking university status since 1991. I understand that a decision will be made in the next few weeks after a long campaign that has been particularly active recently. I remind my hon. Friend that we are looking forward to a positive decision, and if we receive one, the town of Bolton will go wild.
    5 pm
    Dr. Howells: The thought of Bolton going wild is almost too much. I congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on their sterling work on behalf of the Bolton institute of higher education. They have lobbied long and hard, and with good reason. As my hon. Friend has just told us, the matter is currently under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, who will inform the institute of his conclusion soon.
    We intend that the provisions that facilitate the approval of university college titles will be brought into operation quickly. The statutory prohibition on using unauthorised titles will be brought into operation after a reasonable interval to allow institutions to take it into account.
    The new clauses and amendments will provide a clarification of the names and status of higher education institutions which has been needed for some time, and I commend them to the House.
    Mr. Phil Willis: I read the new clauses and amendments with interest, particularly the proposal that institutions that use the title "university" without proper authorisation will be outlawed. The university for industry is one of the Government's innovations. How do they propose to get around that—or are we to assume that the university for industry will be no more?
    Dr. Howells: The university for industry essentially does not exist, except as a pilot in Sunderland, where
    898
    some superb work has been done by a combination of partners, including Sunderland university, Gateshead further education college and Sunderland training and enterprise council. They have used that as a working title. The university for industry is under consideration and has a pathfinder prospectus, but it has no legal standing. We shall examine its status in due course, but at the moment it is not a problem.
    Mr. Green: The Opposition welcome the move to clear up any confusion in the exact status of our universities, as that could cause great damage both to students who may be misinformed and to reputable institutions. I am delighted that the Government are following the recommendations of the Dearing committee. Would that they had done so in other parts of the Bill.
    Mr. Dalyell: Some years ago, I had a constituency case involving a person from Singapore who felt deceived in respect of the quality and standing of a particular educational establishment in Britain. Is the new clause really about fraudulent presentations, or presentations that are not quite what they are made out to be, affecting foreign nationals?
    Dr. Howells: The intention is not to give the impression that the sector is run through with fraudulent claims about the quality of courses delivered. There is a great deal of confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) has just mentioned one excellent institute, and there are many others. Since the incorporation of higher education institutions and the intensification of competition for students, there is a great temptation for higher education institutions to assume that they can throw the cloak of a university across their shoulders. There has to be a guarantee of the quality of education offered by those institutions, and that is the primary reason for the new clause. However, where there are fraudulent claims, the Government clearly have a role to investigate them thoroughly and to ensure that justice is done.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 9

    UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, ETC., NOT TO BE TREATED AS UNIVERSITY
    '. At the end of section 77(4) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (use of "university" in title of institution), there shall be added ", unless in that name that word is immediately followed by the word "college" or "collegiate"." '.— [Dr. Howells.]
    Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 10

    CHARITABLE STATUS OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATIONS
    '.—(1) After section 125 of the Education Reform Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
    "Charitable status of a higher education corporation
    125A.—(1) A higher education corporation shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.

    899
    (2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—

    (a) is administered by or on behalf of any higher education corporation, and

    (b) is established for the general purposes of, or for any special purpose of or in connection with, that corporation,

    shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
    (3) In this section "charity" and "institution" have the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993."
    (2) After section 22 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 there shall be inserted—
    "Charitable status of a further education corporation
    22A.—(1) A further education corporation shall be a charity which is an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
    (2) So far as it is a charity, any institution which—

    (a) is administered by or on behalf of any further education corporation, and

    (b) is established for the general purposes of, or for any special purpose of or in connection with, that corporation,

    shall also be an exempt charity for the purposes of the Charities Act 1993.
    (3) In this section "charity" and "institution" have the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993." '.—[Dr. Howells.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Dr. Howells: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 78 to 80.
    Dr. Howells: The new clause relates to the charitable status of further and higher education corporations. It confirms that they are exempt charities.
    Provision to confer exempt charitable status on higher education corporations was first introduced by the previous Government in the Education Reform Act 1988. The same arrangements were made for further education corporations in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. The status gives certain financial advantages, for example in respect of rate relief and VAT.
    The new clause re-enacts existing provisions about the charitable status of further and higher education corporations on a consistent basis with comparable provisions in the Schools Standards and Framework Bill. It is essentially for avoidance of doubt that further and higher education corporations have exempt charitable status. It does not seek to do other than maintain the status quo, and I commend it to the House.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 11

    COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYERS
    '.—The Secretary of State may compensate employers for costs arising from the provisions in Part 3 of this Act.'.—[Mr. Green.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 106, in clause 29, page 28, line 26, at end insert
    'subject to no employee being entitled automatically to more than eight hours of study or training leading to a relevant qualification.'.
    No. 101, in page 28, line 30, at end insert
    'but regulations made for the purpose of subsection (1)(c) may not provide for a standard of achievement higher than NVQ Level 2'.
    Mr. Green: The proposals stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). We have heard much during our debates about the benefits of higher and further education being spread fairly among the individuals who pursue them; the firms that benefit from those individuals' efforts; and society as a whole. The costs, too, should be spread fairly. The purpose of new clause 11 is to achieve such a spread under part III of the Bill, which would otherwise place an onerous and damaging cost on businesses, particularly small businesses.
    I should make it clear at the outset that, in moving the new clause and the amendments, we are not in any way being anti-training. We believe strongly that 16 and 17-year-olds should be fully trained to the level of which they are capable, to allow them to take a full place in the work force and play a full part in society, both for their own benefit and for the benefit of society.
    The problem in this instance is that the Government's good intentions will have ill effects. In that respect, the proposals differ slightly from others in the Bill, where the Government seem to have started off with malevolent intentions. I do not accuse them of that in this case, but their proposals will have unintended ill consequences.
    My text comes from the Minister for School Standards, who is regrettably no longer in his place, speaking at a conference in Germany, snappily entitled "Die Bekämpfung von Arbeitslosigkeit in Zeiten der Globalisierung", which I think means, "The problems of unemployment in times of globalisation". The Minister made several cogent points in that speech, telling his audience, safely many miles away from his colleagues in this country, that we must address the issue of non-wage costs; that the cost of over-regulation can be high; and that, in Germany, as I have often heard my right hon. and hon. Friends say—indeed, I have made the point myself—for every £100 spent on wages, an employer must add £31 in non-wage costs, whereas in Britain things are better, since non-wage costs are only £15. That is all entirely valid stuff.
    The Minister went on to say:
    "We can no longer bury our head in the sand over this issue. Costs do matter. Over-regulation and high non-wage costs put European firms at a competitive disadvantage, and that costs jobs."
    He is absolutely right. I therefore find it rather strange that he is putting his name to a Bill that will achieve precisely the ill effects of which he warns us.
    If the Government will not accept our new clause and amendments, the problems that part III will bring about will be particularly acute for small businesses. The costs of the measure are estimated to be £130 million in a full year. Research from the Library shows that between 80,000 and 130,000 businesses could be affected by entitlement for time off for study or training. Of those businesses, 80 per cent. are likely to be employing fewer than 25 people.

    901
    Further research has shown that the £130 million, to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred as the measure's likely cost, will be incurred if only 50 per cent. of eligible 16 or 17-year-olds decide to take up the opportunities. Therefore, costs could be much higher, and would fall disproportionately on the businesses that are less likely to be able to afford them.
    If I may, I shall anticipate the response of the Under-Secretary. I dare say that he will produce a letter from the Confederation of British Industry.
    Dr. Howells: I was not going to.
    Mr. Green: Oh, well, I shall do the hon. Gentleman a favour, then. The CBI says that it accepts the need for something along the lines of the Government's proposal—indeed, that the cost will certainly be affordable for big businesses. Further down the scale, however, they may not be so.
    The unreasonableness of the burden falling on small businesses is the reason for amendments Nos. 106 and 101, which try to inject some certainty into the level of obligation that small businesses will be letting themselves in for. How big a commitment are they meant to make? The Bill uses the potentially weasel word "reasonable" to decide the level of commitment. What may seem reasonable in the calm recesses of the Department for Education and Employment may not seem reasonable to a small firm employing one or two people which is struggling or which wishes to expand to employ more youngsters but which will find it more difficult to do so under the Bill.
    The effect on small businesses could be serious; more serious still, however, is the potential effect on the very 16 and 17-year-olds whom part III is meant to help. We must ask ourselves what options a potential employer of 16 and 17-year-olds will have. The first option is to take on a long-term liability—giving employees the chance to take time off to study, which may not be practical in many businesses.
    The second option is to reduce wages to make up the costs that the business will incur. That must be unpalatable to the Under-Secretary; he would not want the measure to be used as a weapon to drive down wages for 16 and 17-year-olds, although that could be one of the unintended consequences to which I referred.
    The third option is even worse: no jobs will be offered at all to young people, who will find it increasingly difficult to get work. We all know that many new jobs are created in the small business sector, and anything that makes that more difficult seems actively counter-productive.
    The real fear about the third option concerns its interaction with the Government's new deal. I pay tribute to Baroness Blackstone for devising an extremely good example to illustrate how interaction between the two policies could be deadly for the employment prospects of many 16 and 17-year-olds. She gives the example of three young people. The first is aged 17, and has five GCSEs and one national vocational qualification at level 2. The second is aged 18 and on the new deal welfare-to-work scheme. The third is aged 17 and has only one GCSE.
    902
    The first young person could be employed full time at a cost to the employer merely of a salary. The second comes to the employer with a weekly bounty paid for by the Government of £60, plus £700 up-front costs to cover training. The third—the one who is meant to be helped by the measure—comes to the employer at the cost of a full salary and with the right to have regular time off for education and training at the employer's expense, which could last for more than a year. What is any rational employer likely to do? He will not employ the person whom part III is meant to help. Under the two policies, the Government are effectively saying that it is fine for 18 or 19-year-olds to receive welfare-to-work subsidies, but it is not fine for 17-year-olds to do so. They will be less likely to be employed.
    5.15 pm
    Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is doing the reputation of small businesses no good. Many small businesses—he will know some of them; I certainly know many of them—are already investing a great deal in their young work force because they understand that, if they are to increase their competitiveness, they must explore that group's potential and quality. We are talking about 115,000 or 120,000 young people who very often go to what I am afraid to describe as dead-end jobs in firms that have no will to train them or help them to improve themselves—and so, indirectly, improve the firms. Surely progress must be made on that. That is what the Government are trying to do. Why does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that?
    Mr. Green: I accept what the Government are trying to do; why does the Under-Secretary not recognise that they are failing? They are making it more difficult to employ such youngsters. I refer the Under-Secretary to the words of Baroness Blackstone, who has recognised the difficulty. She, as we know, has one of the finest minds on the Government Front Bench of either House, and has pointed out, with tremendous delicacy,
    "a potential issue here concerning the interaction of two important commitments".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 1998; Vol. 91, c. 33.]
    Translated from the higher Mandarin that Baroness Blackstone is capable of speaking, that means, "There are two flatly contradictory commitments here, boys, but let us hope that nobody notices."
    Unfortunately, people have noticed. More seriously, small businesses will notice. Precisely the small businesses to which the Under-Secretary referred, which may want to provide training for their employees, will find it more advantageous to provide such training under the new deal for those aged 18 or over than they will for 16 and 17-year-olds. Given the interaction between the two policies, any rational small business—even one deeply committed to training its work force, for all the good reasons that the Under-Secretary gave—will at best be less inclined than they would have been a year or two ago to take on 16 or 17-year-olds.
    I hope that this is an unintended consequence and that the Government are merely guilty of incompetence. Anything worse would be impossible to contemplate. Our new clause tries to rescue the Government; it is generous of us to do so. It attempts to deal with the problems of costs affecting small businesses. It would not necessarily

    903
    mean an imposition on public spending because it is permissive—it allows the Secretary of State to spend money if he wishes to alleviate the costs for the businesses affected.
    That does not need to be all the costs or at all times. At different phases of the economic cycle, small businesses will be more or less likely to want to take on new employees or be able to bear the costs of their taking time off. During an economic downturn, fewer jobs will be available, and small businesses will be more pressed and therefore less inclined to give young workers time off for training. At the margin, they will be less likely to take them on.
    The Bill will make it doubly unlikely that 16 and 17-year-olds will gain access to the labour market during an economic downturn. That would be a tragedy. We all know that young workers tend to be the last in during times of growth and the first out when there is a downturn. The Government's measures would accelerate that undesirable process.
    We want a proper spread of the costs among all those who benefit from training. We are not anti-training. We all recognise that it is vital for young people who are not in full-time education to receive training. However, the Bill will do the opposite of what the Government intend, which is why we have tabled the new clause and the amendments.
    Mr. Andrew Reed: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), because I want to dismiss most of what he has said. His speech was a sad reflection on the Conservatives and a slur on the many small companies that play a vital role in training young people. That is particularly disappointing, because training benefits not just the companies concerned, but the country, giving us a better-educated work force.
    Companies have spent £10.6 billion on training in the past year, but many small companies do nothing. They are sponging off the others. Why should the taxpayer yet again pick up the tab for the worst companies? We have had the same debate on the minimum wage. The taxpayer always seems to have to subsidise the worst companies—those that do the least training, those that provide the worst health and safety conditions and those that pay the worst wages. That is the spiral of inefficiency of small companies that do not want to invest in their work force. Every 16 and 17-year-old has the right to training.
    The hon. Member for Ashford referred to the CBI briefing note. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that he will not refer to it, but I shall. It said that the CBI fully supported the idea of the right to study, and accepted the obligations that that placed on employers. That is right. There is a genuine partnership between the Government, employers and individuals. The Conservatives use words such as "compensation", "onerous", "dangerous" and "liability". Given that we are talking about one of the most positive measures in the Bill, such words are a sad reflection on the Conservative party.
    The arguments about a possible conflict with the new deal fly in the face of all the evidence, as some of the training and enterprise council research shows, because the schemes relate to different groups of employees. We are talking about 115,000 or 120,000 young people who leave school and enter the work force with the opportunity to gain experience of work and continue their education.
    904
    Fewer than half the 16-year-olds who leave school and go into work have GNVQs or level 2 NVQs. For 19-year-olds, the figure is only 70 per cent.
    The hon. Member for Ashford attempted to quote in German from a speech made some time ago by my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. In Germany, there is a genuine understanding of the need for a firm to work in partnership with the individual and the Government to increase its productivity. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has spoken at recent seminars and conferences about the decline of British productivity relative to that of our European counterparts.
    We need a genuine cultural shift to recognise that training—for young people in particular—is positive for the nation and for the companies concerned. Until we make that change, our productivity and our economy will suffer. Only when we can compete with the Germans and other European countries on the basis of the skills and productivity of the work force will we benefit.
    I have worked in employment training on several Anglo-German schemes. On average, our 19-year-olds were at a level equivalent to that of 16 and 17-year-old Germans. We are two to three years behind in skills even at that stage, and we are falling ever further behind by not giving our 16 and 17-year-olds the right training.
    I would like to make many other points, but I do not have much time. The measure that we are considering is positive. We want a highly skilled, high-wage, high-tech economy, not one that competes on low skills and low wages. That is one reason why the Conservatives lost the general election. Using words such as "onerous", "dangerous" and "liability" about one of the most positive measures in the Bill is a sad reflection on the Conservative party.
    Mrs. Caroline Spelman: I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the new clause and amendments. I am frustrated, because we spoke at length in Committee about the impact on business, and put a strong case to the Government, explaining why we wanted to help them to ensure that there were no unintended casualties of the Bill. I remain unconvinced by some of the arguments that I have heard. We are talking about compulsory paid training being imposed on business, which causes difficulties.
    We have theorised about the impact of the Government's measures during the debate. The Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) that the impact of the new deal had not started yet. I am particularly keen to participate in the debate, because one of the pilot schemes for the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds is being run in my constituency. I have kept in close contact with the private company that has been selected to deliver the new deal in my area. Many hon. Members might think of Solihull as an affluent area, but it has pockets of serious deprivation and high unemployment among young people. Applying the new deal tests some of the theories that we have been discussing.
    The impact on business, small or large, is not neutral. If an employee asks an employer to be allowed to go to a local college to obtain qualifications, there is an effect on company productivity. A replacement has to be found. There are recruitment costs and two staff appear, from the point of view of productivity, to be doing a job that was formerly done by one.

    905
    From my conversations with Capita, which is responsible for delivering the new deal for 18 to 24-year-olds in Solihull, it is clear that there will be an impact on 16 and 17-year-olds. Capita is actively going out to local employers marketing the benefits of the new deal—the benefits of taking on the 18-to-24 age group for the job vacancies that arise. The 18 to 24-year-old will come with a £60 a week job subsidy and a £750 training golden handshake.
    In contrast, the 16 to 17-year-old school leaver will walk in at the door looking for a job with less maturity and less job experience, if any. So it is not unrealistic for Capita to point out to me, as the local Member of Parliament, that it, too, sees the problem that the 16 to 17-year-olds will lose out.
    One can theorise about the impact on 16 to 17-year-olds, but I strongly urge the Minister to examine the areas where the pilot schemes are in place, and find out what their impact is today. Businesses are in business to make money, to be profitable, to invest, to grow and to contribute to the local economy. Is the Bill asking them to pick up the tab for the failures of the education system?
    5.30 pm
    Subsection (c) of the new section 63A that clause 29 would insert into the Employment Rights Act 1996 mentions the need to provide educational opportunities for someone who
    "has not attained such standard"
    within the statutory education system. We know that that reflects the facts of life, and that some 16 to 17-year-olds—I have many in my constituency—become disenchanted and under-achieve in the education system. For them, school seems to have lost its meaning.
    None the less, are we right, through the Bill, to ask businesses to turn round and pick up the cost for providing training at a basic level of attainment that we would otherwise have expected young people to achieve through the education system? I suggest that we are asking too much of businesses.
    I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said about the economic cycle. The new deal is being launched in relatively good economic times. The new Government have a golden economic legacy, and thus a period in which to launch the initiative, the aims of which we share, to encourage young people off welfare and into work.
    However, these are the good times. What will happen to such initiatives in the bad times, when the recessionary cycle bites? In my constituency and the surrounding areas, west midlands manufacturing is already in the bad times. The recession is already biting in manufacturing, making it even less likely that businesses large or small will take on young, relatively inexperienced employees.
    It is not unreasonable to suggest compensating business for the impact of our asking it to take on the burden of the failures of the education system. It may surprise Labour Members to hear Conservatives asking for that, but we share—
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: May I try to penetrate the cloud of gloom that the hon. Lady has
    906
    brought into the Chamber concerning what I regard as an inspiring initiative? Would she care to tell us about some of the benefits for business of the new deal, of employing young people and of giving opportunities to young people who may have been failed by the education system but who thrive in a work environment, given the proper support of a business sector which I would say has a greater commitment to the new deal than the hon. Lady has?
    Mrs. Spelman: I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just joined us. We are talking not about the new deal but about its bearing on 16 to 17-year-olds' right to study. The point that we are making is about the impact of the introduction of the new deal on that group. I am not trying to be gloomy; I am trying to be practical.
    The fact is that manufacturing is in recession, and it is looking hard at recruitment—
    Mr. Reed: When manufacturing came out of recession in the early 1980s and in the early 1990s, was not one of the problems that the sector found a massive skills shortage, because the first thing that companies had done in the recession was to stop training? Is that not evidence of the need to continue training? Other European countries could pick themselves up out of recession more quickly because they continued to train during periods of recession.
    Mrs. Spelman: The hon. Gentleman's intervention allows me to return to a point that he touched on in his speech. There are fundamental differences between the practical training available in this country and training in Germany for 16 to 17-year-olds, which he cited. In this country we do not have the equivalent of the Handelschule. Being a student of such matters, the hon. Gentleman will know that that is a clearly designated school of training for applied skills, of which there is no equivalent in the British educational tradition—although perhaps the Minister should consider the idea.
    In Germany such schools remain within the education system. We are not looking at the German example and replicating their successful schools of practical training if we ask business to do the job for us. The hon. Gentleman should know that it is important to make a distinction between the British and the German education systems. Otherwise one could go away with the impression that German business was doing all that. As for our competitiveness, I remind the hon. Gentleman to look closely at unemployment rates among our young people and among those in countries such as Germany and France, because they are revealing.
    I wholly endorse the new clause, which seeks to compensate business for bearing an unfair burden. Amendment No. 106, reasonably, imposes a time limit. Why should the requirement from business be open-ended? Our amendment comes close to the old concept of "one-day" day release—the idea of eight hours of study, for which the employer pays. For the requirement to be open-ended would be unreasonable.
    Mrs. Diana Organ: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Spelman: I am just about to finish my speech.

    907
    In Committee we tried to help the Government by warning them—people can call it gloomy if they like, but I consider it realistic—that the 16 to 17-year-olds are a group of people in British society whom, probably unwittingly, they would disadvantage under this part of the Bill. The Prime Minister used the term "the Loaded generation" to define a group disaffected from statutory education. That is the group that is likely to suffer if the Bill is passed unamended. That is why I support the new clause and the amendments.
    Valerie Davey: Yesterday, concern was expressed from all parts of the House that more young people from low-income families should be entering higher education, so I am disappointed that all those Members are not here this evening to celebrate this part of the Bill.
    We are genuinely concerned to ensure that young people aged from 16 to 18 are encouraged into education and training. Rather than relating that subject to the new deal, I encourage Members to read the Select Committee report on further education published last week. If the Government take that on board, more young people will be encouraged and enabled to stay on at school between 16 and 18, and therefore to enter higher education.
    However, that will not happen immediately, so young people going into work deserve that level of training, encouraged by the Government—
    Mr. Hayes: Does the hon. Lady believe that society has an ethical responsibility to fund that, or should it be funded at random—by businesses and individuals, for example?
    Valerie Davey: We certainly recommend that all corners of society should contribute. The hon. Gentleman may say that education is expensive, but I am sure that business and industry, and our community, would agree that lack of education is even more expensive. We need to encourage business to make its contribution, and I think that the Opposition have underestimated the contribution that that sector is already making, and the good will involved.
    I shall now talk briefly about the two amendments. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) talked about eight hours, but the amendment does not say whether that means eight hours a week, a month or a year. The amendment is sloppily worded and should have been refined before being brought to the House.
    Young people who, for whatever reason, do not stay on at school deserve to reach their potential at some level. Initially, we need to encourage those young people who have not reached GNVQ level 2 but, in the longer term, young people who are out of education but who are able to reach higher levels must be encouraged. Otherwise, there will be a discouragement to employing such people.
    The amendments need to be rejected out of hand and we should support the original wording of the Bill, which is to be celebrated and not detracted from in any measure by this House.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Throughout the debates on the Bill, I have attacked the Government. This time, I wish to support them, and for exactly the same reason—the value of education. The Conservatives' amendments
    908
    show that they know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The value of education is crucial if we are to build a modern and prosperous economy.
    The problem for small businesses has always been one of time. If a small business employs somebody, it needs that person to do the work. As a former senior lecturer in further education, I know that it was up to the colleges and the providers of education to make sure that provision was there as and when the businesses needed it. Therefore, it is up to the providers of education to fit in with the needs of small businesses and to make sure that their requirements are met. The problems can be easily overcome.
    The official Opposition may be worried about the effect on small businesses, but it would be worse to have untrained and unqualified staff. Added value is required to build a prosperous and modern economy, and that must mean the added value of an educated and trained work force. If we want quality and raised standards, they must be paid for and planned.
    The Conservatives' amendments offer nothing positive. They seek to lower the time available for study and the qualifications gained. Their aim is negative and off-target. In this case, the Government have got it right, and I certainly support them.
    Dr. Howells: The speech by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) epitomises the dilemma faced by the Conservative party. The party remains in chronic denial, clinging to a miserable reactionary position—a worm-ridden lifebelt. In 1968, we used to refer to people like the Tories as Poujadists. What a horrible bunch they are when they act like that.
    The Conservatives want to deny young people in society the opportunity to take time off from work to enhance their own employability, to acquire new skills and—indirectly—to enable firms to become more profitable, so that their region can become more competitive and the country can benefit. All the Conservatives can do is to defend a miserable minority of reactionaries who always cry "injustice" whenever anybody asks them to put up some money on behalf of their employees and the country.
    We will not wear it. There will be a right for young people aged 16 and 17 to take time off to study. It will benefit them, and all of us, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ashford will see fit to withdraw this reactionary nonsense.
    Mr. Green: The speeches from Labour Members—epitomised by the that of Minister—combined economic illiteracy and soft-headed good thoughts in about equal measure. The Government are happy to make pious speeches on the importance of training, but they are not happy to put their own assets where their mouth is. As long as somebody else is paying the bill, it does not matter.
    The Government are happy to make moral speeches about how important it is to introduce training, but they do not have the guts to do as previous Labour Governments would have done—to increase taxes. They have decided that the way forward is to have hidden taxes on business. In this case, they think that small businesses do not matter, so they can impose the burden on them. To describe the small business sector of this country as "miserable reactionaries"—as the Minister just did—

    909
    epitomises what Labour really thinks. Underneath the gloss of new Labour is the hatred of small business and enterprise—
    Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Green: Not at this stage. The Minister's speech epitomised his party's attitude, which has no intellectual—
    It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the Bill, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [19 May] and the Resolution [8 June], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
    Question put and negatived.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

  Clause 34

    JOINT EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS OF FUNDING COUNCILS IN SCOTLAND
    Amendments made: No. 55, in page 33, line 3, leave out 'Treasury' and insert
    'Minister for the Civil Service'.
    No. 56, in page 33, line 4, leave out from first 'as' to 'may' and insert 'he'.
    No. 57, in page 33, line 4, leave out from second 'as' to 'may' in line 5 and insert 'he'. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Clause 36

    GENERAL INTERPRETATION
    Amendments made: No. 73, in page 34, line 8, at end insert—
    ' "functions" includes powers and duties;
    "modifications" includes additions, alterations and omissions, and "modify" shall be construed accordingly;'.
    No. 99, in page 34, line 13, at end insert—
    '(2) In the following provisions of this Act, namely—
    (a) sections 12, 15 and 19, and
    (b) Schedule 2,
    "employer", in relation to a teacher, includes a local education authority, governing body or other person who engage (or make arrangements for the engagement of) that person to provide his services as a teacher otherwise than under a contract of employment, and "employed", "employment" and any expressions relating to the termination of employment shall be construed accordingly.'. — [Mr. Jamieson.]

  Clause 38

    NORTHERN IRELAND
    Amendment made: No. 75, in page 34, line 21, leave out 'to 24' and insert
    ', (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support), (Supply of information in connection with student loans), 23 and 24'. —[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Clause 39

    SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
    Amendments made: No. 58, in page 35, line 1, after 'Scotland' insert 'only'.
    No. 59, in page 35, line 4, leave out '30' and insert
    '(Supply of information in connection with student loans:
    Scotland), except that subsections (3) and (10A) of section 73A, and section 73AA so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of those subsections, of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (which are inserted by section 27) shall also extend to England and Wales and Northern Ireland,'.
    No. 60, in page 35, line 5, leave out from '34' to end of line 6 and insert

    ' and (Scottish Further Education Funding Council: "relevant body" for purposes of section 19(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995)'.
    No. 61, in page 35, line 6, at end insert—
    '(6A) The following provisions also extend to Scotland—
    section 22 so far as relating to the making of any provision authorised by subsection (2)(a), (c), (j) or (k), (3)(e) or (5) of that section,
    section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of any provision so authorised,
    sections 29 and 30,
    section (Unauthorised use of "university" in title of educational institution, etc. ),
    section 35, and
    this section.'.
    No. 68, in page 35, line 7, at end insert—
    'section 22 so far as relating to the making of any provision authorised by subsection (2)(a), (c), (j) or (k), (3)(e) or (5) of that section,
    section (Transfer or delegation of functions relating to student support) so far as relating to any function exercisable by virtue of any provision so authorised,'.
    No. 74, in page 35, line 7, at end insert—
    'section (Unauthorised use of "university" in title of
    educational institution, etc. ),'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Schedule 3

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 62, in page 42, line 30, leave out '73(1)(f)' and insert '73(f)'.
    No. 63, in page 42, line 36, leave out '73(1)(f)' and insert '73(f)'.
    No. 78, in page 43, line 3, at end insert—
    'Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c.13)
    . In section 17 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 ("further education corporation" and "operative date"), at the end of subsection (1) add "or which has become a further education corporation by virtue of section 47 of this Act".
    . In section 90(3) of that Act (interpretation), after ""university'"' insert "(except where the context otherwise requires)".'.
    No. 79, in page 43, line 3, at end insert—
    'Charities Act 1993 (c.10)
    . In section 3 of the Charities Act 1993 (the register of charities), after subsection (5) insert—
    "(5A) In subsection (5) above, paragraph (a) shall be read as referring also to—

    911
    (a) any higher education corporation within the meaning of the Education Reform Act 1988, and
    (b) any further education corporation within the meaning of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992." '.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Schedule 4

    REPEALS
    Amendment made: No. 80, in page 44, line 18, at end nsert—

    '1993 c. 10

    Charities Act 1993

    In Schedule 2, paragraphs (h) and (j).'

    —[Mr. Jamieson.]

  Title
  Amendments made: No. 81, in line 6, leave out from 'them' to 'to' in line 9 and insert
  '; to make provision with respect to the funding of higher education institutions and certain further education, and other matters relating to further and higher education institutions;'.
  No. 64, in line 15, after '1973;' insert
  'to provide that the Scottish Further Education Funding Council shall be a relevant body for the purposes of section 19(5) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
  Order for Third Reading read.
  5.45 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  With this Bill and the School Standards and Framework Bill, we will enhance the standards of education in our country and ensure that opportunity is opened up. We will modernise the education service through schools and higher education for the 21st century.
  We will ensure that the legislative framework exists to enable us to provide a teaching profession that can be proud of its professionalism. The General Teaching Council, which will control entry and exit from the profession, is part of that, ensuring that—for the first time—the profession itself has a body that can speak for, and on behalf of, those who serve in it. I am pleased that we appear to have universal agreement on delivering the GTC, which has bedevilled the debate in the education service for some years.
  I am pleased also that we appear to have agreement on the introduction of a proper induction year for teachers. We all recall the failure properly to implement the previous arrangements, and we all know of the real difficulties faced by young teachers in that crucial first year. It is not simply induction that is important; the amount of time made available for preparation is also important. All of us who have been in teaching will never forget the burden of preparation and finding one's feet during the long hours of that first year. Therefore, an induction period with a relaxation of contact time for teachers will make a difference.
  In addition, support will be available for teachers, and—linked to the advanced skills teacher post—it will be possible to give the supervision and help that are required. I hope also that the arrangements will reduce the drop-out rate. The number of young people who undertake teacher training but do not take a position or drop out
  912
  after the first year is extremely worrying. Were we to be able to reverse that trend, many of the recruitment problems, and the gaps in terms of vacancies, would be eased. The measures will help also to lift the morale and status of the profession generally.
  Leadership in teaching is one of the most important issues that we can address. The national professional qualification for headship is a vital step toward ensuring that we have that leadership, and proper training for those who are crucial to the development of the standards agenda. Therefore, it is encouraging that the 3,000 people who have gone into NPQH training have found it to be of use and of value. We must monitor what is happening to make sure that it is meeting the needs of heads of the future. We also need to extend the Headlamp scheme to cover those who are already head teachers, so that we can develop the profile of the job and the training that is needed for the future.
  We are mindful of the importance of ensuring that initial teacher training is right. As hon. Members know, we have introduced the curriculum for teacher training; the inspection of teacher training institutions is critical if we are to ensure that standards are maintained and that best practice is followed in all our teaching institutions. With the assistance of the Teacher Training Agency, we can not only assess what is happening at the moment, but get it right for the future.
  When the guillotine came down, we were debating the right to study. I believe that it is incumbent on this country to prepare its young people for the future. We need to ask whether we really want a high-tech, added-value economy, in which young people can learn the skills that they need to enhance their opportunities and those of the companies for which they work, or whether we are prepared to put up with being an offshore island that ticks along as a branch-plant economy, looking on as the rest of the world—north America, the developing world in south-east Asia and, increasingly, Europe—equips itself for a modern, 21st-century economy.
  We have to face a global economy in which we must invest in human capital and create a knowledge-based society. We have a choice: either we invest in those hands-on skills that are crucial to the viability and survival of companies, big or small, or we abandon young people to the vagaries of the labour market and say that it does not really matter. I think that there is consensus among the political parties—with the exception, perhaps, of the Conservative party—about how we can get things right for the future. Giving people the right to study is not much to ask—I benefited from it when I went on day-release courses and, in my own time, to evening classes to obtain the necessary qualifications, both vocational and academic, to get into university.
  We are talking about the difference between those who treat people as mere commodities and those who want to invest in them as the economic and social future of our country. I believe that people respond to the way in which they are treated—if they are given rights and they take those rights, they accept the responsibilities that go with them.
  The car industry provides good examples of young people being given day release or adequate in-house training—Ford and Rover have shown how in-house training can work. In associated industries and in modern electronics and telecommunications—Unipart and

  913
  Motorola are good examples—considerable steps have been taken, and investment in training is superb. Companies that invest in training gain the rewards—they are at the cutting edge; they are one step ahead and they can compete with the rest of the world—whereas those that do not can expect to tick along for a year or two exploiting human and fixed capital before they go bust, and no one gains from that.
  I was dispirited to hear the Conservative party's contribution to the debate. All these matters are linked: high-quality education; the ability to ensure that standards are maintained; leadership; the development of education and training associated with work; the development of education for those who are not in work; and the ability to expand access to the best of education, including higher education, which costs us most, but which rewards us most, and to which, in the new arrangements that we debated last night, we have asked people to contribute.
  I do not intend to go through all that again. In fact, I hope that I never have to go through it all again in quite the same way—I did not come into politics to be a masochist. However, in the debates on the Bill, we have been encapsulating the efforts that we are making in education from the early years right the way through to the cutting edge of a knowledge-based economy—higher education is absolutely vital to whether that will be a success.
  Mr. Dalyell: As I explained to the House earlier, the fact that there was no Scot on the Standing Committee was not the fault of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I ask him to reconsider the position whereby Scottish universities are asked to discriminate financially between students solely on the basis of which part of the United Kingdom they are from. Financial discrimination on the basis of geographical residence cannot be sustained.
  I have a constructive suggestion. Will either a Minister or senior officials talk to Stewart Sutherland, the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university and former vice-chancellor of London university, whom they know well, and to other Scottish principals, to see whether something can be done about a situation that, as long as Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, cannot continue?
  Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend will realise that I do not intend, on Third Reading, to reopen yesterday's debate. Of course my Scottish Office colleagues and I would be happy to talk to the vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university and to other vice-chancellors to establish how best we can develop the programme for the future and to assess what difficulties, if any, arise from the decisions that have been taken. I gave such an assurance yesterday on the position of mature students, and I am happy to give my hon. Friend a similar assurance today.
  We are embarking on a new road, and we need to ensure that assessment clarifies how the new arrangements are working and monitors their success or otherwise—that is common sense. I genuinely want to build a consensus that will provide stability and continuity in investing for the future, in opening up access and in providing real opportunity where it did not exist before.
  914
  I thank all my hon. Friends for their work—
  Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I want to say a word of thanks—I shall give way afterwards.
  I thank my hon. Friends, especially those who served on the Standing Committee and those who supported the Government through difficult times yesterday—I want to tell them how much that was appreciated, given the difficult task we faced in trying to get these issues right. I also applaud those Opposition Members—especially the Liberal Democrats—who, despite disagreements on some parts of the Bill, supported us on the vast majority of the issues. I also applaud those Conservative Members who, on Second Reading and before, bravely demonstrated their support for the measures that we are taking.
  Mr. Brady: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. May I press him on the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? The Secretary of State properly and generously agreed to reconsider whether the policy was working in practice—I take that to mean whether the number of English students at Scottish universities has fallen or increased—but will he go further and tell the House whether he believes that such discrimination, whereby English students will have to pay more than students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, is defensible in principle?
  Mr. Blunkett: I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman was not here last night; if he had been, he would have noticed that, at least once, a Labour Member made an inappropriate intervention at a particularly crucial part of my speech—I thought that his intervention was at an equally inappropriate moment.
  I shall not reopen that debate on Third Reading; the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to speak yesterday, but he was not here. We have made it clear that the decision taken by our Scottish Office colleagues is defended and supported both in principle and in practice. As part of the development of future continuity, we are perfectly willing to monitor the measures that we have taken. That is reasonable, and it is certainly the way in which we in this Department would wish to proceed on a range of measures that are considered by the House.
  I am proud of what we are doing, both in this Bill and in the School Standards and Framework Bill. I hope that our opponents in the Lords will not prevent that critical measure from reaching the statute book as fast as possible to protect the interests and the opportunities of children and I hope that, from tonight, we can go forward with this Bill to ensure that we open up that equality of opportunity in a way that has not been present in the past.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. David Willetts: Debates on the Bill have been most interesting, and the Standing Committee was the most interesting on which I have served since my days as a junior Whip, when the Labour Whip opposite me was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), now Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment. We worked on the sensible basis that neither of us would try to catch out the other in any way, and managed to steer the Bill through on that basis.

  915
  I am afraid that this Bill led to a serious debate in Committee about important educational issues, and the surprisingly downbeat and low-key summary that we have just heard from the Secretary of State does not convey the energy with which a variety of important educational matters have been debated during its passage.
  I must pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), who led the opposition to the Bill throughout most of our debates on it. As Ministers were kind enough to say, he provided a model of effective, quizzical examination of the Government's proposals. I also appreciated the contributions by other Opposition Members, who made important points. We have since had the pleasure of being joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and for Ashford (Mr. Green), who have spoken effectively in the debate today.
  The Bill contains measures on four crucial areas. The first is on the General Teaching Council, which we have already debated today and about which I will say only that the model that my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood had in mind was that of the General Medical Council, with which he was familiar from his time as Secretary of State for Health. The trouble with the proposal before us is that it is neither one thing nor the other, and it does not have the prospect of growing into the sort of professional body that the GMC is. One of our frustrations with the Bill is that it is so restrictive. It stipulates so precisely what the GTC can do that, although Ministers have tried to placate their critics with many soft warm words about how it could expand and develop its role, it is difficult to see how that is possible.
  Secondly, I do not believe that the Secretary of State referred in his rather cautious summary to the measures on head teachers and the professional headship qualification. Again, we are perfectly happy for head teachers to secure professional headship qualifications and, indeed, would encourage them to do so; the question is whether the proposals in the Bill, which require that as a precondition for practising as a head teacher, are the right way forward.
  Mr. Blunkett: Yesterday, I had to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to amendment No. 77 and now I must draw his attention to the fact that I have spoken at some length about the national professional qualification for headship and the development of the Headlamp scheme. I also said that 3,000 had entered it and that we would need to monitor how it was going and how it could be improved. I wanted to point that out in case the hon. Gentleman had slipped out for a moment and missed what I said.
  Mr. Willetts: I was happy to subscribe to that amendment, as we tabled it—the Secretary of State appeared to be unaware of that point when we debated it yesterday. However, I accept that he did cover the qualifications for head teachers.
  Our concern is that, if it is made a statutory requirement, instead of steady, organic growth for the professional headship qualification, we will see the simple and rigid application of a regulation, which will not meet the objectives that the Government have set out—raising professional standards among head teachers. We will see the development of paper qualifications, which will be a precondition for working as a head teacher, not the longer,
  916
  harder and ultimately more rewarding process of developing consensus in the teaching profession about what is necessary as a qualification to practise as a head teacher.
  Thirdly, the Bill contains proposals on the right to study for 16 and 17-year-olds, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford touched earlier. The point is simple. Ministers cannot celebrate the flexibility of the British economy without thinking about how it is to be earned and preserved. Preserving the gains of flexibility that we secured in the past 18 years involves ensuring that burdens are not imposed on business that will deter it from doing the very things that we all want. We do not think that it is desirable to have a low-paid, unskilled work force, which is the myth that the Labour party tries to propagate. However, we do not believe that the way forward is simply to pass laws about it. The Government do not understand that the way to improve economic performance is not simply by burdening business with ever more regulation.
  The most important measures in the Bill are on higher education, and it was perhaps those that the Secretary of State had in mind when he referred to the need to "build a consensus". That might have to begin with the 31 Labour Members who did not appear to be a part of the consensus on the subject last night—it is no wonder that they were not, as they were invited to support measures that clearly contradict undertakings given before the general election campaign.[Interruption.]
  I see Labour Members shaking their heads. If any Labour Members can explain how the present Prime Minister could have fought the election campaign on the basis of having no plans to introduce tuition fees and then promptly introduced a measure that imposed such fees without clearly being in breach of an election promise, I will be happy to hear from them. The Secretary of State could not carry 31 of his colleagues through the Lobby last night, because what they were invited to vote on was not the prospectus that was put before the electorate at the election. [Interruption.]
  I hear Labour Members muttering, "Manifesto." They cannot have it both ways on the manifesto—they cannot claim, as we heard last night, that the abolition of the maintenance grant must get through because it was a manifesto pledge, without accepting, on the same line of argument, that the imposition of tuition fees should not get through because it was clearly contrary to pre-election assurances given by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now the Prime Minister.
  The Government could have seized an historic opportunity. On 1 May 1997, the world of higher education had enormous good will toward the incoming Government. Many people in that world hoped for great things from this Government. They had all been successfully seduced by a variety of Labour spokesmen over the years, and hoped for great things. There was not merely good will for the new Ministers, but the prospect of a serious piece of work arriving on their desks—the Dearing report, which would set out the way forward for them. The Government had the combination of good will and the most serious investigation of higher education for a generation, which provided them with the opportunity to develop a policy agenda for higher education that took us a stage beyond the one that we had reached with the enormous expansion of that sector, in which every Conservative Member can take pride.

  917
  We recognised that things could not carry on indefinitely as they had been, and that is why we set up the Dearing investigation. Everyone in the higher education world was saying that and we received and understood that message. However, the Government have missed that opportunity. In 13 months, they have alienated just about every serious group within the world of higher education. I do not know whether Ministers visit that world much, but, if they heard what is said about them now compared with what was said a year ago, they would realise that the loss of good will, hope and confidence in this Government in the first 12 months on higher education has been extraordinary. That is because Education Ministers have presided over a catalogue of disasters which are embodied in the Bill.
  First, Ministers made the elementary tactical mistake of giving away their hand on higher education finances before they had concluded negotiations with the Treasury on the fundamental spending review. We are getting all the pain, but no gain. We are getting tuition fees, but no assurance that the money will go to higher education. All we had from Ministers in Committee was the accountancy truism that the money would be collected by the universities. We want to know that there will be no offsetting reduction in grants to the universities, and Ministers have not been able to give that assurance.
  We are left to rely on the Secretary of State's being able to secure from the fundamental spending review some of the measures that Dearing envisaged. He would have to be even more incompetent than he has been so far if he were not at least to get resource accounting from his discussions with the Treasury. If he cannot get that, he will be in very serious difficulty. It is manifest from the basis on which we introduced resource accounting that loans would have to be differently treated under such a regime than they have been.
  It is not only those who run the universities and who are concerned about their finances who are cross with the Government's ministerial team. Students have been double-crossed. Students represented by the National Union of Students and other bodies thought that they had an understanding with the Labour party: if they supported abolition of the maintenance grant, there would be no tuition fees. That was the basis on which the NUS signed up to Labour policy before the general election.
  There has been a striking absence of Scottish Labour Members from debate, but there has been a similarly striking absence of those new Labour Members who once served as presidents of the NUS. One was rolled out desperately when the Secretary of State was in serious trouble last night, but those Labour Members have been invisible; they did not serve on the Committee, they did not speak on Second Reading. I suspect that they were all told to take constituency leave in case they were confronted in the Chamber with the pledges that they gave when they served as presidents of the NUS.
  Mr. Bill Rammell: The hon. Gentleman has made much of tuition fees, but will he confirm that his
  918
  party favours fees, and also favours top-up fees, which would drive a coach and horses through access to higher education?
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman did not serve on the Committee. If he had, and had studied our amendments—
  Mr. Rammell: With the greatest of respect to the hon. Gentleman, I was on the Committee and was there through every sitting.
  Mr. Willetts: The hon. Gentleman did not say anything.
  We accept the principle of tuition fees, but tabled an amendment specifying that tuition fees should be 25 per cent. of the cost of a university education, and making it difficult for Ministers to do anything other than raise fees by the rate of the retail prices index. We know of anxiety in the world of higher education that the Government will go down the Australian route, so that what begins as a quarter will gradually be nudged up.
  Our position is clear: if we accept Dearing, we must accept the £1,000 tuition fee which it proposed. However, we were trying—the Secretary of State would have had rather less difficulty last night if he had accepted the amendment—to make it clear to everyone in the world of higher education that it would not be possible for the Government to smuggle through real increases in tuition fees on top of that figure.
  Mr. Rammell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I have given way twice to the hon. Gentleman; if he wants to seek to speak in the short time available for Third Reading, he is free to do so.
  The financial settlement is unsatisfactory. Students have been double-crossed. People in universities will now be micro-managed.
  Miss Melanie Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willetts: I am sorry, but I have already overrun my time and do not wish to take any more interventions.
  We have heard from the Secretary of State that he did not wish to preside over a "branch-plant economy". However, that is what he is making of the world of higher education. His taste for regulations and directives means that people who are supposed to be in charge of sophisticated institutions that are not part of the public sector will find themselves micro-managed by his Department. It is no vision for the future of education to believe that an organisation should enter the 21st century having to run to the Department for Education and Employment to get clearance through statutory instruments and regulations for matters that would, in any modern organisation, be within the discretion of a junior manager.
  The Secretary of State cannot run higher education, although I think that he believes he can. I think that he thinks that he is the chief executive of the British higher education industry. He is not. If he thinks that he is, the alienation of higher education that we have already seen during the Government's first year will carry on apace

  919
  during their remaining years in office. Instead of a settlement for a generation, Ministers will be lucky if the measures in the Bill last until the next general election.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Dalyell: I was not on the Standing Committee, but I am unrepentantly one of the 31. It may be much better to have representatives of the awkward squad on, rather than off, the Committee.
  I want to ask two questions. First, given the Government's proposals, is it not necessary to take measures to make certain that students at university have some understanding that the money that they are paying will lead to the improvement of their own institution? I am told that there will be great dissent and difficulty in the universities if it cannot be shown that improvements are the direct result of so many of the students paying fees. In what way is it possible to link in the minds of undergraduates and other students the feeling that the money that they will pay will to lead to better libraries, better tuition, more facilities and some gain to them?
  My second point explains why some of us were sorry not to be on the Committee, where we could have asked questions. When, 15 or 20 years from now, I am kicking up the daisies and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in some very distinguished position, he should bear in mind the difficulties that will have accrued by 2010 or 2020 in actually collecting money from the students of the 1990s. One can imagine what a field day it will be for lawyers.
  I have read many of the reports of the Committee's debates, but I have seen nothing about the mechanics of collection. I understand that in both Australia and America there have been enormous difficulties and that lawyers have started cases that resemble Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. I predict that a lot of the money that may be earmarked for public funds will never in fact accumulate to the Treasury. What is to be done about the sheer difficulty of collection?
  6.18 pm
  Mr. Willis: I thank my "team" on the Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I also thank the Secretary of State and his Ministers for the courteous way in which they dealt with me during my first time dealing with a Bill in Committee and in the House.
  The Government should have seen that passing the Bill would not be easy. Even with a huge Commons majority, the range of principles involved was such that debate was likely to be fierce and focused. Some Members—I am one of them—were naive enough to expect that the principles involved in the Bill would be debated on the Floor of the House. When Lord Glenamara said in another place that it was the worst Bill that he had seen in 47 years, I sensed a slight exaggeration from one who had seen some of the worst Bills ever, but his comments have been largely vindicated by the events of the past few months.
  The Bill was deeply flawed when it started its passage through the Lords, and it will leave us tonight deeply flawed. My experience is limited, but a Bill that has required eight Government new clauses, a Government new schedule and 98 Government amendments in Committee, and then seven Government new clauses and 83 Government amendments on Report—197 Government
  920
  changes since its introduction—is by any test a flawed Bill. The question is whether it is a better Bill as a result of the 197 Government-led changes.
  My party is pleased about the improvements in the General Teaching Council and disappointed that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) made light of some of the changes. The council is a significantly different beast from that prepared in the Lords. It started off as a registration document but now has an opportunity to mirror other professional bodies such as the General Medical Council. We are grateful to the Government, and wish the GTC well.
  We also welcome the introduction of mandatory qualifications for head teachers and the commitment to continuous professional development. The emphasis on professional development from when students enter teacher training establishments until they complete their induction years is good news for the individual, for schools and their pupils and for the teaching profession.
  Notwithstanding the criticisms of the official Opposition, we are pleased that the Government are implementing their manifesto pledge to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to time off for study. Like others, we were disappointed that the official Opposition's vision of small business is of penny-pinching, mean employers who are not committed to their work forces. That is not how I find them to be in my constituency. Many of them will welcome the new opportunities for 16 and 17-year-olds, some 140,000 of whom do not have qualifications up to NVQ level 2 and who will become a huge drain on society if they are not employed. Giving them skills in employment is a move forward that we support. It is important to recognise that it is unacceptable to allow young people to fail, and it would be wrong to ignore their failure.
  We support the proposals to introduce income-contingent loans for students. That has been ignored in much of the debate, but it is a significant move forward from the mortgage-style repayment loans that existed under the previous Government's regime. Had the Bill stopped there, we would have congratulated the Secretary of State, marched into the Lobby with the Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath would have opened a bottle of champagne after Third Reading. Sadly, he will not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Perhaps a bottle of Bath beer.
  Part II is so badly flawed that the Liberal Democrats cannot and will not vote for the Bill. Furthermore, we will urge our noble Friends in another place to amend it again and return it to the House for further scrutiny. Part II has been bulldozed through the House with an arrogant disregard for debate on principled objections in a manner last seen when Baroness Thatcher was singing the praises of the poll tax.
  The Government have orchestrated a symphony of abuse of their Back Benchers who have remained wedded to principles of social justice and equality. Few could have been unmoved by the sincerity and decency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) when he spoke about student maintenance last night. Somehow, principled debate has no place with a Government who need Back-Bench adulation like an addict needs drugs.
  Mr. Coaker: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his remarks? I respect what my hon. Friend the hon. Member

  921
  for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said and his principled stand. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who support the Government line also do so from a position of principle, to pursue social justice? There is a difference about the way to pursue it.
  Mr. Willis: If the hon. Gentleman says that, I believe him because hon. Members never tell untruths or try to deceive the House. Few Opposition Members witnessed the abuse of rebels who tried to speak up for what they believe without finding it shameful.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: I do not feel that I have been abused in any way.
  Mr. Willis: Hon. Members will speak for themselves.
  The most significant proposal in the Bill is the introduction of tuition fees for full-time undergraduates, yet hon. Members have been denied an opportunity to discuss that single issue on the Floor of the House and vote on it. For Liberal Democrats, the principle of a state investing in its people is an overriding principle. We fundamentally oppose a tax on learning. We accept that many students in higher and further education already contribute to their fees, but the proposition that because some students are disadvantaged we should disadvantage all students is ridiculous. The Government rightly go to great lengths to emphasise the levelling up of opportunity and the importance of standards in our education system, but in higher education they argue the opposite.
  Valerie Davey: Given the ability of those entering higher education, is not the hon. Gentleman espousing the principle that to those that have shall more be given?
  Mr. Willis: No. We believe strongly that the army of part-time students in further and higher education who currently do not get help towards their fees or access to loans are being disregarded, and they are disregarded by the Bill. That is an injustice and inequity that should have been addressed by the Bill, but it has not been.
  The Secretary of State says that there is little evidence of fees deterring students from applying to university, but his information is selective. My information is that the number of 18 to 20-year-olds applying to university next year has indeed risen by 1.1 per cent. More telling is the 11.5 per cent. drop in applications from students aged 21 to 24, and the staggering 15.1 per cent. reduction in applications from students aged over 25. That was not mentioned yesterday, but it should be mentioned. It should have been part of the debate on tuition fees. Does the Secretary of State feel that such students have been affected by the introduction of tuition fees?
  Dr. Howells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: Perhaps the Secretary of State—or the Minister, if he wishes to intervene—will say whether they feel that the 15 per cent. reduction in recruitment to teacher training for BEd courses this year is the result of
  922
  tuition fees. Is the reduction of more than 10 per cent. in the number of postgraduates going into teaching another such result, or is there some other reason?
  Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman knows that those figures from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service are not to be released until the end of the week, and were faxed to him in confidence. That is why the Secretary of State did not announce them.
  Will he acknowledge that he knows full well that older students always apply later to university? The success of our policy on encouraging people to go to university under the new regime relates to the fact that the easiest potential students to reach are those in sixth forms, further education colleges and sixth-form colleges, while the most difficult to reach are the older students. Where we have managed to get information across, students have agreed that it is a good deal. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, if he stops using those tactics, when we get information through to older students, they too will want to go to university, because it is a good deal for them as well.
  Mr. Willis: The Minister's confidence about there being more mature students is welcome, but I have to remind him that in yesterday's debate he and his colleagues made points about students going to Scottish institutions as a direct result of the UCAS figures being given to them, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to use the same figures in support of my arguments.
  Mr. Willetts: We have just heard some extraordinary charges being levelled; can we have some clarification? Is it true that, yesterday, when the House debated the proposals in the Bill regarding access to higher education, both Ministers and the Liberal Democrat spokesmen had in their possession the latest UCAS figures on university applications, but neither Ministers nor the Liberal Democrats felt that those figures were relevant to yesterday's debate?
  Mr. Willis: The Government had the figures yesterday—they were made available to them and were used in yesterday's debate, in particular in respect of the Scottish question. We did not have access to the figures, but, as a result of the figures being given in yesterday's debate, I sought out the figures today because they are pertinent to today's debate, just as they were to yesterday's debate.
  Sir Ronald Dearing proposed charging students tuition fees because, in the absence of additional Government resources, he saw student fees as the only way to increase funding for universities. Neither Dearing nor vice-chancellors supported the introduction of tuition fees as an alternative to increased Government funding, yet that is precisely how the Government envisage their use.
  The Dearing committee of inquiry made clear that universities need ££65 million this year to avoid disastrous cuts, yet they were given only ££65 million. Dearing also said that universities need ££50 million next year, but, so far, they have been promised absolutely nothing. Dearing said that, by 2000, universities would need ££ billion in extra income.
  Fees would produce £00 million, if universities were allowed to retain the additional income, but there is no commitment to ring-fence tuition fees as additional

  923
  income, and no commitment to meet from the Exchequer the additional requirements that Dearing identified. That is why, both here and in another place, the Government have steadfastly refused to accept amendments from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and the Liberal Democrats to ring-fence or hypothecate fees from students for universities.
  How can any hon. Member support a proposal to tax student learning without there being a guarantee of some advantage? That is what we being asked to do. The Bill is not about helping students or universities, nor is it about a vision for higher education and funding; it is a Bill that will be remembered as short-changing both universities and students. That is why we shall vote against it tonight.
  6.32 pm
  Caroline Flint: I have only two points to make. On the issue of access to training for 16 and 17-year-olds in work, I was disappointed by the comments of Opposition Members. In the past year, I have spoken to many small business people in Don Valley, and their remarks on training have been interesting. They are active through the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC and through the Dearne Valley partnership, and they tell me that many young people they take on at 16 are those with whom they have been working through the trident scheme in schools. They are investing in those young people's education, and they are disappointed in those of their colleagues in the small business sector who refuse to make that sort of investment but later try to poach those young people from firms that have invested in them.
  The small business people to whom I spoke want a level playing field that encourages opportunity for young people. They feel strongly about it because many small business people, unlike some larger firms, have stakes in their local community that go back generations. They see their sons and daughters leaving schools in areas where employment prospects are difficult. They want investment in the community, not only in jobs, but in law and order and in tackling other social problems that are created by lack of work, training and education.
  My second point is about access to higher education. Last night, many hon. Members spoke about how they had benefited from access to higher education through maintenance grants. I, too, was one of those people. I finished my higher education 1983. Many hon. Members finished theirs well before then, but one feeling that my generation and previous generations in higher education share is that we were exceptions to the rule. Nothing has changed since then in terms of increasing opportunities for people from low-income, low-skill backgrounds who might be the first members of their family to enter higher education.
  The Bill gives us a chance for radical change—not to increase access in single figure percentage terms, but dramatically to expand the opportunities for our young people in higher education and, as important, in further education. That is why I shall support the Bill tonight.
  6.35 pm
  Mrs. Spelman: I would not want the debate to end without trying to reinforce some of the warnings that we have given in a spirit of constructive opposition. There are some unsatisfactory outcomes from the Bill which, to
  924
  our regret, have not been addressed. We have tried to warn the Government about the impact of the abolition of the maintenance grant on poorer communities.
  I am a member of the Science and Technology Committee, which carefully reviewed the Dearing report's aim to provide more finance for higher education, in recognition of the success—extraordinarily denied by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint)—in enabling many more people to gain access to higher education. The proportion has increased from one in eight of the population when I was in higher education to one in three today, and it was achieved under a system of means-tested grants.
  Caroline Flint: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Spelman: In view of the time, it is fair for me to continue.
  Dearing warned against the option that the Government have chosen and said that it
  "would produce unacceptable burdens on graduates and on families of modest means."
  It is extraordinary that a Labour Government have chosen to do that and ignore our warnings.
  On the Scottish anomaly, I concur entirely with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). If only there had been a Scottish Member on the Standing Committee. That was an option open to the Government; the mistake could have been avoided. Last night, we heard extraordinary rationalisations of the anomaly, ranging from relativism—it is not the worst anomaly—to an argument that the arrangement would make more room for domestic applications from Scotland. The point is ignored that some higher education courses need to be of different lengths and the system should be sufficiently flexible to take account of that; also ignored is the long-term impact on Scottish universities.
  Today, we have debated the burden imposed on business. I am disappointed by the Government's failure to heed our warning that 16 and 17-year-olds will be disadvantaged in relation to other Government initiatives by the amendment that gives them the right to study, financed by business. Not only have the Government ignored our warning, but they have not heeded Baroness Blackstone's carefully calculated assessment of the impact of the advantage for the 18-to-24 age group versus the disadvantage for 16 and 17-year-olds.
  Those shortcomings have been wrapped up in pious language and a high moral tone that overlooks our efforts constructively to oppose and to encourage the Government to improve their own legislation. How ours can be described as a reactionary stance defeats me.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Rammell: I am conscious of the time, but I want to pursue a crucial issue in response to the answer that I received from the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). I refer to the Conservative party's stance on top-up fees. I, with the Government, oppose the principle of top-up fees, because there will be no exemption for the poorest students and no loans for them: we run the risk of creating a two-tier ivy league syndrome from which thousands of our young people will be excluded.

  925
  It was clear from what the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) said in Committee that the Conservative party favours top-up fees. Specifically, he said that they were not ruled out and, in line with Dearing, he would support the principle of top-up fees. However, the hon. Member for Havant this evening denied that, dodged the question and spoke about the uprating mechanism. Before the debate ends, I should like a clear and principled answer from the Opposition. Do they support top-up fees, or not? Hundreds of thousands of students want an answer to that question.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Green: It is appropriate to treat the Bill with a judicious mixture of sorrow and anger. My hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said that the Secretary of State was uncharacteristically downbeat in his moving Third Reading. I assume that he has been chastened by the events of last night, when Labour Members who stuck to their principles voted against him. He said that he wanted to build consensus about the Bill, but he has failed to build a consensus even in his own party.
  I found some of the speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) extraordinary. He praised the courage and principle of those who came into the Lobby with us to vote against the abolition of maintenance grants, but led his party to vote with the Government whom he purported to criticise today. His stance is incomprehensible.
  The Bill has many bad features. The General Teaching Council is a great opportunity missed. The Government have been too prescriptive, and left the council unable to expand. On head teachers, they have again been too interfering and prescriptive. They are in danger of setting up a paper qualification that will leave no room for the naturals, who have made so many of the great head teachers from whom many of us have benefited.
  On the right to study, Labour Members have been full of piety, with no back-up. They will destroy some of the flexibility that the previous Government introduced into the British economy, and will pile costs on small business.
  The central flaw in the Bill is its treatment of higher education. Having torn up the Dearing report on the day they received it, and having refused to implement one of its central recommendations, the Government have been in chaos ever since about how to cope with the funding of higher education. They are damaging the right to study, especially for those from less well-off homes. Their decision to abolish the maintenance grant, against the specific recommendation of Dearing, is an act of vandalism for which they will suffer.
  The Government have betrayed a clear election pledge from the Prime Minister that they would not introduce tuition fees. On top of that, they cannot guarantee that the money that they will raise from tuition fees will go back into higher education—and they have decided to treat students going to Scottish universities as second-class citizens.
  This is a bad Bill. We will vote against it, and I invite hon. Members who care about the future of higher education and who want it to be properly funded and available to all to join us in the Lobby.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Blunkett: Utter cant. Even the former shadow Secretary of State had to leave during the speech of the current shadow Secretary of State.
  During the night, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) might reflect on the fact that he criticised us for tabling too many amendments, and then praised us for accepting the amendments that he tabled. He cannot have it both ways.
  UCAS faxed the latest figures across at 4.30 pm this afternoon and, for reasons of its own, also faxed them to the Liberal Democrats. The figures used yesterday were from 15 May.
  The Bill looks to the future. We ask all Labour Members to vote for the Bill's Third Reading, because it is the only option for Britain in the 21st century.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 307, Noes 174.

  Division No. 297]

  [6.43 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, lain

  Banks, Tony

  Colman, Tony

  Barron, Kevin

  Connarty, Michael

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cooper, Yvette

  Beard, Nigel

  Corbett, Robin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Cox, Tom

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Crausby, David

  Benton, Joe

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Berry, Roger

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Betts, Clive

  Cummings, John

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Boateng, Paul

  Dalyell, Tam

  Borrow, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Denham, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Browne, Desmond

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Burgon, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Dowd, Jim

  Byers, Stephen

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Edwards, Huw

  Caplin, Ivor

  Efford, Clive

  Casale, Roger

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Chaytor, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Clark, Dr Lynda

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  927

  Flint, Caroline

  Livingstone, Ken

  Flynn, Paul

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Follett, Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Foster, Fit Hon Derek

  McAllion, John

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Fyfe, Maria

  McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

  Gapes, Mike

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gardiner, Barry

  McDonnell, John

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  McFall, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McLeish, Henry

  Godsiff, Roger

  McNamara, Kevin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McNulty, Tony

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  MacShane, Denis

  Grant, Bernie

  McWalter, Tony

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McWilliam, John

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mallaber, Judy

  Grogan, John

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gunnell, John

  Marek, Dr John

  Hain, Peter

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Martlew, Eric

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Maxton, John

  Hanson, David

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Meale, Alan

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Michael, Alun

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Milburn, Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hoey, Kate

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Home Robertson, John

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mudie, George

  Hope, Phil

  Mullin, Chris

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Norris, Dan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hurst, Alan

  Olner, Bill

  Hutton, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pearson, Ian

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kemp, Fraser

  Purchase, Ken

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Khabra, Piara S

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Rammell, Bill

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Rapson, Syd

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Laxton, Bob

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lepper, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooker, Jeff

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooney, Terry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Rowlands, Ted

  Linton, Martin

  Roy, Frank

  928

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Salter, Martin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Sawford, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Touhig, Don

  Sheerman, Barry

  Trickett, Jon

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Truswell, Paul

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

  Snape, Peter

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wood, Mike

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Woolas, Phil

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stringer, Graham

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Mr. David Jamieson and Mr. David Clelland.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cran, James

  Allan, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dafis, Cynog

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Baker, Norman

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Baldry, Tony

  Day, Stephen

  Ballard, Jackie

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Beggs, Roy

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Duncan, Alan

  Bercow, John

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Blunt, Crispin

  Evans, Nigel

  Body, Sir Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Flight, Howard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Brazier, Julian

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Breed, Colin

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Burnett, John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burns, Simon

  Gibb, Nick

  Burstow, Paul

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Cash, William

  Gray, James

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Green, Damian

  Greenway, John

  Chidgey, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chope, Christopher

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hammond, Philip

  Collins, Tim

  Hancock, Mike

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Cotter, Brian

  Harvey, Nick

  929

  Hawkins, Nick

  Pickles, Eric

  Hayes, John

  Prior, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Rendel, David

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Horam, John

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruffley, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson Smith,

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

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

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Key, Robert

  Stunell, Andrew

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Swinney, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Syms, Robert

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Livsey, Richard

  Townend, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Wardle, Charles

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wells, Bowen

  Mates, Michael

  Welsh, Andrew

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Whittingdale, John

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wilkinson, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Willetts, David

  Moore, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Wilshire, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Woodward, Shaun

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Yeo, Tim

  Norman, Archie

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Oaten, Mark

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Page, Richard

  Sir David Madel and Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Paice, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill [Allocation of Time]
6.59 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 17th December 1997 be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendment
1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Order.
(2) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (and any other Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings).

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendment
2.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings.

Reasons Committee
3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Miscellaneous
4.—(1) In the case of proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendment, on any further Message from the Lords or on a Motion relating to a Committee to draw up Reasons—

(a) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply,

(b) the proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House,

(c) no dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown (in which case the Question on the Motion shall be put forthwith),

(d) if the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period allowed for the interrupted proceedings, and

(e) if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the proceedings are concluded, no notice shall be required of a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Today we shall, I hope, conclude the House's consideration of the treaty of Amsterdam. The European Communities (Amendment) Bill has had detailed scrutiny here and in another place. We have had a grand total of 15 days' debate on those issues, not to mention the numerous other instances of reports and ministerial appearances before Select Committees of both Houses. On the Floor of the House, 31 hours, over six days, have been spent debating the Amsterdam treaty. In another place, some 53 hours and 44 minutes were spent in detailed scrutiny of the Amsterdam treaty, over a full nine days.
Throughout our debates, the overwhelming support for the Bill both here and in another place has become apparent: majorities in favour of the Bill in this House of 230 and 225, on Second Reading and Third Reading respectively, and a clear majority supporting the Bill in another place.
Mr. John Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Henderson: Not at the moment.
The Bill has been subjected to exhaustive consideration, and has won support from all quarters. So great was the all-party support for the Bill that all but one of the Opposition's attempts to amend it failed—almost all, but not all, for today we have before us an amendment from another place, which seeks to delay the passage of a Bill that commands the support of both Houses. Without the votes of 76 Tory hereditary peers, that amendment would have been stopped in its tracks by a Government majority of 12.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am listening sympathetically to what the Minister is saying about the support for the Bill. Is he in a position to say how many referendums concerning the treaty have been held in other member states? Of those, in how many did the people vote in favour of the treaty?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are in danger of straying into the next business. The
932
motion before us is the allocation of time motion, so we should discuss only the allocation of time at this stage. When we discuss the next business, it will be perfectly in order to widen the matter before us.
Mr. Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the subject of timing by mentioning that, in both Denmark and Ireland, time was found in their political scrutiny systems to allow a referendum, which, in both cases, was carried overwhelmingly.
I return to the business of our Parliament. It is important that, in due course, we examine the specifics of the amendment. I believe that the proposed allocation for this stage of the Bill will allow the House the necessary time to discuss the specific issue before us. I say that to the House in the knowledge and in the context that the substance of the issue has been discussed in other forums in the House.
The Government have sought to limit the debate to the specific issue before us, and to allow the necessary time for that issue to be debated. Tonight is not the time to re-run the arguments, which the Opposition have fought and lost, on the Bill in general. We shall discuss a specific issue, and I look forward to debating it with colleagues in the House when we move from the timetable motion, which I hope that the House will accept.
7.3 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: This lamentable Bill is ending its life in Parliament under a squalid guillotine. Unjustifiably, the Government introduced a guillotine very early in its proceedings—a classic example of their contempt for Parliament. However, in view of the large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to take part in the debate, I do not wish, in debating the guillotine, to take further time out of the time that should be available to them. Let us get on to the substance of the matter.
Question put and agreed to.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill
Lords amendment considered.
European Communities (Amendment) Bill

  New clause
  Lords amendment: after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—Quota-hopping—
  (". This Act shall come into force only when each House of Parliament has come to a resolution on a motion tabled by a Minister of the Crown considering the legal protection for British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping.")
  7.4 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Doug Henderson): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  The amendment would prevent the United Kingdom from ratifying the treaty of Amsterdam until such time as both Houses of Parliament had come to a resolution on a motion concerning the Amsterdam treaty and quota hopping. The Government cannot accept that amendment.
  The House will recognise that, if the amendment were passed, it would delay ratification of the treaty of Amsterdam by the United Kingdom. Indeed, in the light of the Opposition's apparent willingness to rely on the voting rights of hereditary peers, it might delay it much longer than the House might initially suppose.
  The House will also recognise that such delay would prevent British citizens from getting the benefits of the Amsterdam treaty provisions. It would prevent confirmation of the distinctive United Kingdom arrangements for border controls, now included in the treaty. It would prevent the important new provisions on foreign and defence policy from coming into being, which are highly advantageous to the United Kingdom; we believe that international co-operation on foreign policy is important, founded on a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence capability. It would prevent important progress on environmental protection. It would prevent important progress on tackling unemployment through the European Union. Even if the amendment were passed, it would do nothing to help us to find a solution to the problems of the fishing industry.
  Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in fact, the House of Lords has been extremely temperate—in my view, far too temperate—in its treatment of the Bill? It is a little on the thin side for us to have only one amendment as a result of all the consideration of the Bill in the House of Lords. Had the accusations that have been made against the House of Lords been justified, I should have expected—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—many more amendments. I regret the fact that there are not more.
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Gentleman is free to regret what he wishes in the House, and if he wishes to regret the inactivity of another place, that is up to him. I do not think that there has been inactivity. I think that the Members of another place have considered the issues surrounding the Bill and, in most cases, have reached a considered view, which would be acceptable to the vast
  934

  majority of Members of this House and of the people of the United Kingdom. One must commend them on that. There is a difference of view on whether a deal on quota hopping should be a reason to delay the Bill; we can now debate that. In general, however, the other place has dealt with these matters in a reasonable way.
  Mr. John Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not antagonistic to the European Union, so I do not think it unreasonable to ask him the following question. Is it not true that most of the problem concerning the amendment arises because of the direct promises made by the Prime Minister on what he was going to gain in the discussions that led to the Amsterdam treaty? This is not something that should divide pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans; it is a fact that the Prime Minister promised that he would deliver something, and he has not delivered it. The amendment suggests only that, until he delivers what he promised, we should not deliver what he said he would not sign up to until he had delivered it. That is the issue before the House; the recital of stuff about the environment has nothing to do with it.
  Mr. Henderson: The Prime Minister committed the British Government to tackling the important and serious problem of quota hopping, and he has done so in a practical and realistic way. I shall return specifically to the points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. If I happen to omit some of them, I know that he can intervene again.
  The Government share the genuine concerns of the fishing industry in relation to the issue of quota hopping. That, I believe, will be demonstrated in the comments that I am about to make.
  The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that, rather than talk and harangue about the fishing industry, we have been prepared to act firmly in defence of British fishing interests. The Conservatives claim that they would not have signed the Amsterdam treaty unless they had secured a deal on the quota hopping protocol, which they tabled. They have made much of that protocol—in fact, its signing increasingly became the centrepiece of the Conservative position on the European Union in the build-up to the general election.
  The protocol was tabled in autumn 1996. If the previous Government considered the protocol to be so important and so central to their approach to the European Union—and particularly the treaty of Amsterdam—why did the German Government not know about it? When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Germany about a week after the general election, we raised the matter with Klaus Kinkel, the German Foreign Minister. He was unaware not only of the contents of the protocol but of its existence. If the Conservative Government of the day had had any hope of progressing the matter, they would have needed the support and understanding of the German Foreign Minister.
  The Conservatives were winding up their efforts in the spring of 1997, but the problems with quota hopping did not begin then—as every fisherman in the United Kingdom knows. On 2 April 1985, during the debate on

  935
  the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Union, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, told the House:
  "There will be no detriment to our fishing industry, no reductions in the important quotas available to British fishermen and no new access for Spanish fishing boats to the North Sea fishing grounds."—[Official Report, 2 April 1985; Vol. 76, c. 1061.]
  The Government of the day believed that they had secured sufficient protection for the British fishing industry, and that quota hopping would not be a problem. However, the European courts told the Conservative Government in 1991 that there was a problem. Why did they wait another six years—until 1997—before beginning to tackle the issue seriously? In the absence of any cogent argument in support of the delay, it appears that the Conservative position was an empty gesture—a panic attack by a demoralised and directionless Government—and was not deliverable. I put it to the Opposition that they knew 12 months ago that the protocol was not deliverable.
  We have faced the issue realistically and put a firm and practical case for the British fishing industry and British fishing communities.
  Mr. John Townend: How much extra fish will be produced for British fishing boats as a result of the Government's negotiations at Amsterdam?
  Mr. Henderson: That is an interesting speculation, and it would be dishonest of me to say that I know the answer. We are in the process of concluding the agreement, which must obviously be tested before any fisherman in Britain can say whether the deal has had a beneficial result. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to ask more serious questions in future.
  7.15 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: My hon. Friend referred to the incompetence of the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, in her dealings with European Union member states on the fishing industry issue. I remind him that her predecessor used the United Kingdom fishing industry as a bargaining counter in his negotiations with the then European Economic Community. That is where the root of the problem lies: in his desperate efforts to get into Europe, he sacrificed our fishing communities to the demands of the utterly disgraceful common fisheries policy.
  Mr. Henderson: I am aware of my hon. Friend's keen interest in and knowledge of the fishing industry, and I am guided by him on the history of the issue. I assure him that the Government are determined to negotiate seriously and competently, to secure a good deal for the British fishing industry.
  We began the process last June with an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, setting out the practical way forward. The exchange records the Commission's interpretation of how a member state may, within the rules of the single market, require an economic link between fishing activity and fishing communities. Since Amsterdam, we have taken that process forward systematically. We issued a consultation document last July, and, on 4 July, Government officials met representatives of the United
  936
  Kingdom industry to discuss implementation. Following that meeting, fishermen's organisations submitted detailed written comments on the discussion paper. The National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations and other fishermen's organisations have been fully involved throughout the process of preparing the economic link licence conditions.
  After several other meetings between officials and industry representatives, we submitted draft proposals to the European Commission incorporating contributions from the United Kingdom fishing industry. Those draft proposals were copied to all United Kingdom industry representatives. Following revision of the draft proposals, a new version of the United Kingdom proposals was submitted to the Commission in April. A copy of the proposals was placed in the Library on 12 May 1998 and sent to all United Kingdom industry representatives.
  The proposals require all vessels to comply with one of the following criteria. First, vessels must land 50 per cent. of their catch of quota species in the United Kingdom; secondly, 50 per cent. of the crew must be resident in United Kingdom coastal areas; thirdly, there must be a certain level of operational expenditure in United Kingdom coastal areas; or, fourthly, they must demonstrate that other measures will provide sufficient economic benefit to populations in the United Kingdom that are dependent on fishing and related industries. The last condition implies a mixture of the first three.
  Mrs. Angela Browning: How many quota hoppers have been removed from the British register?
  Mr. Henderson: The hon. Lady will understand that there are continual changes. However, changes have not been made to this agreement, because it is not yet concluded. I tried to explain to the House that, following the issue of draft proposals, there was extensive consultation with fishing interests, particularly fishermen. Therefore, the Government were well aware of the perceived implications of the proposals for the fishing industry, and fishermen had the opportunity to put their comments to Commission officials. It is not possible now to see how effective the proposals have been, because they are not yet in place.
  Mr. David Curry: What does the Minister mean by the phrase "a certain level of operational expenditure"? What has happened to the visiting condition?
  Mr. Henderson: There are many ways of classifying operational expenditure. They are included in the consultative document that was given to the fishing interests, which have responded in great detail. Refitting boats and dealing with equipment, which is one way of demonstrating an economic link to British fishing communities, is covered. The industry was satisfied that that was effective. It is not content, however, with everything that is being said, and there is still a certain amount of to-ing and fro-ing, but it is behind the mandate that the British Government now have and on which we are negotiating with Commission officials. This substantial package of measures will be effective and compatible with the treaty.

  937
  The process of putting substance into the exchange of letters between ourselves and the Commission is important. Apart from meetings with the fishing industry, many meetings have been held with Commission officials. Since last June, Government officials and officials from Brussels have held formal consultations with the Commission on seven occasions. Only last week, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discussed progress with Commissioner Bonino. The Commission has said that it will soon be in a position to respond.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Henderson: I have been very generous in giving way, but I am tempted yet again.
  Mr. Nicholls: The Minister may regret that, but we shall see.
  The Minister mentioned the Government's proposals, which are being considered by the Commission. If a deal is done, and another exchange of correspondence takes place, can he guarantee—I stress that word—that they will not be successfully challenged before the European Court?
  Mr. Henderson: I am glad that I gave way, because I can remind the hon. Gentleman that I have already said that we believe that our proposals will be practical and effective, which means that they will be consistent with European law. That is how real progress can be achieved.
  Those measures will ensure that real economic links exist between the United Kingdom's fishing fleet and our coastal communities, that there is a significant improvement on the current situation, when many vessels bring little or no benefit to the United Kingdom, and that vessels that fail to maintain an economic link with the United Kingdom will be unable to fish United Kingdom quota species until they are able to demonstrate that satisfactory economic links have been established.
  We shall continue to press the case for our fishing industry and our fishing communities, until a fair and acceptable agreement is reached. That is how real progress can be made, which is why we ask the House to reject the Lords amendment.
  Mr. Michael Howard: The debate affords hon. Members their only opportunity to reconsider the Bill giving effect to the treaty of Amsterdam. The fact that there will be only one such opportunity speaks volumes for the restraint shown by the other place in its consideration of the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said.
  Furthermore, the fact that the only such opportunity relates to quota hopping—with which the Government failed to deal at Amsterdam—reflects, first, the importance that we attach to the fishing industry and the contribution that it makes to our national life, and, secondly, the damage done to the industry by the Government's failure to defend it at Amsterdam and the extent to which that failure represents a breach of promises made by Ministers, from the Prime Minister
  938
  down, before the election. On that subject, as on so many others, the gap between pre-election promises and post-election performance amounts to a large fracture of the trust to which the Prime Minister used to refer so frequently.
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Given the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks about trust, does he still advocate a referendum on the Amsterdam treaty?
  Mr. Howard: As we have consistently made clear, the problem of the referendum is for the Government, not for the Opposition. The Government have offered referendums on everything under the sun—a mayor for London, devolution for Wales and for Scotland and regional bodies in England. If the Government are to offer referendums on those things, they certainly should do so on the treaty.
  To keep my speech within manageable proportions, I promise not refer to a single promise made by a Labour party spokesman more than a year before the election. I begin with promises made to a Standing Committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am astonished that he is not present but, on reflection and given the extent to which he went on the record before the election and the extremity of the embarrassment he would suffer if he were in the Chamber, perhaps his absence is not such a surprise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who is, of course, in his place, mentioned those promises in the fishing debate of 9 July 1997, so they should not be unfamiliar to Labour Members, even though the Parliamentary Secretary is too embarrassed to attend th debate because he might be reminded of them. Referring to the common resource aspect of the common fisheries policy, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "We must deal with that issue and remove that term from the CFP … We believe that the CFP should be radically reformed to allow us far greater autonomy and national control of fishing waters within our country's limits."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 23 July 1996; c. 24–25.]
  Those words were uttered less than a year before he assumed his responsibilities for making good those pledges, and less than a year before the intergovernmental conference which provided the opportunity for making them good—yet, as we know, nothing was done.
  The Parliamentary Secretary was by no means the only offender. The Foreign Secretary referred specifically to quota hopping at a meeting that he held with fishing interests in Inverness in March 1997, only weeks before the election and the IGC. His remarks were quoted in Fishing News and drawn to the House's attention in the July fishing debate by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), so they, too, will be familiar to Ministers.
  The Foreign Secretary said:
  "A Labour Government would have more chance of getting the treaty changes at the intergovernmental conference to end quota hopping than would the present Government, because it has a better relationship with the European Union and fewer disputes to resolve."
  That may represent one of the first examples of the fantasies to which the Foreign Secretary has since become increasingly prone, but we were never able to discover

  939
  what chance the Government had of getting those treaty changes, because, despite the brave and bold words of the Prime Minister, they never even tried.
  The Prime Minister said:
  "We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest … where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are."
  That was days before the election, yet, far from holding up IGC business to get the right changes, he made no effort whatever to get them. Why? In his own words,
  "there was not a single member state that supported the … treaty protocol".—[Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 320.]
  That treaty protocol was proposed by the previous Government.
  Mr. Gummer: Whatever side one may be on in those discussions, is it not a remarkable failure of the Prime Minister to claim that he could do that, but then not even attempt to do it? Many of us suspected that he could not have done it in the first place. Before the election, he was going to do it, but he has not even tried after the election.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has an awful habit of making a meal of it when he intervenes. He cannot do that.
  Mr. Howard: I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is a very appetising meal.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend: it is remarkable for the Prime Minister to make those promises and then do nothing to fulfil them, but that is entirely characteristic of him. Like so many other promises that the Prime Minister made before the election, it was a promise for the voting, not for the keeping. The loser from the Prime Minister's attitude has been Britain's fishing industry.
  The common fisheries policy was expressly designed to ensure that national fishing fleets would be given fair access to Europe's fish stocks. Quota hopping, which now accounts for more than 20 per cent. of the tonnage of Britain's offshore fleet, is clearly frustrating that purpose. The previous Government were committed to a successful future for the British fishing fleet, and were determined to address this issue at the intergovernmental conference.
  Dr. George Turner: I have listened with interest, because I was not in the House during the previous Parliament. What improvements were made between 1991 and 1997? As I understand it, the problem was clearly identified in 1991. What progress was made in those six years that can be contrasted with that made in the past 13 months?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Howard: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happened. The problem was apparent much earlier than 1991: it became apparent in the 1980s. The Government of the time passed the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which was specifically and expressly designed to deal with the problem. In 1991, the European Court of Justice ruled in the Factortame judgment that the 1988 Act was inconsistent with the treaty. The then Government did what any sensible Government would do: they put the matter on the agenda of the next intergovernmental conference. To put right that judgment of the European
  940
  Court of Justice, it was necessary to raise the matter at the intergovernmental conference and to change the treaty.
  It is no good Labour Members suggesting that we should not have done that. Just before the election, they were saying that they supported the previous Government's view in their press release and their proposals to the IGC. They even said that they would have made those proposals somewhat stronger. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) or other Labour Members to criticise the actions of the previous Government. They would have gone even further in the proposals to the IGC.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: It is strange that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not even able to say, in response to that point, that, at all the various Council meetings between 1991 and 1997, the Conservative Government were not able to raise the issue of quota hopping. Why did they not introduce a decommissioning scheme during those six years as an alternative way for fishing owners in difficulty to deal with the issue, rather than selling their quota to foreign owners?
  Mr. Howard: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is in some difficulty, deserted as he is by the Minister responsible for fisheries. It is not surprising that he puts such questions to me. The answer is simple: we did introduce a decommissioning scheme. We spent £53 million on a decommissioning scheme. I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for not knowing that: he should not have been left alone by the Minister to deal with these questions. There it is: he has my sympathy, although it may not be enough on this occasion.
  In July 1996, we tabled a protocol—[Interruption.] Ah, relief is at hand. A hasty telephone call from the Whip, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture arrives. I fear that it is too late for me to remind him of all those embarrassing remarks and promises that he made before the election, but perhaps some of my right hon. and hon. Friends will make good that deficiency as we proceed.
  Dr. Godman: As an Opposition MP at the time, I supported the Merchant Shipping Bill as it went through the House, even though I predicted that it was highly probable that it would be challenged at the European Court of Justice. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that the Conservative Government who were put out of office in May 1997 were bedevilled for years by their failure to meet the requirements of the European Union's multi-annual guidance programme?
  Mr. Howard: Any difficulties that may have arisen on that programme were not specifically to do with that Government. Any British Government in power at that time would have had to deal with those difficulties. The solution to those problems and to the difficulties that we have previously discussed—this is, after all, a debate about quota hopping—was to be found in the 10-point package that the previous Government proposed. Quota hopping was only part of the package, the aims of which were: to insist that the six and 12-mile limits were not negotiable; to give fishermen more say in policy; to give a further £12 million to decommissioning—the issue that the Minister so ill-advisedly raised—to exempt small

  941
  vessels from regulations; to press technical conservation measures; to give agency status to MAFF fisheries laboratories; and to reject the idea of a single European fleet managed and policed from Brussels.
  The previous Government were clear about the priority that we attached to those issues, in particular to the quota-hopping protocol. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) said:
  "The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily."
  That was our approach. By contrast, the present Government did not even try. Instead of a treaty amendment, the Prime Minister settled for a letter that has no binding legal effect whatever. The Prime Minister must have known that it has no legal effect. Indeed, it does not claim to do more than clarify the existing legal position.
  The Spanish Government have made it clear—this is an interesting point in view of the intervention from the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—that, if they feel that their rights are being weakened in any way by action based on that letter, they will turn again to the European Court of Justice. One year on from this celebrated exchange of correspondence, it has yet to lead to any result. What we saw on this issue at Amsterdam was nothing short of surrender.
  The Prime Minister broke his promises, tossed aside his pledges and failed to fight for Britain's fishermen. That is why I invite the House to reject the Government motion and to agree with the Lords in their amendment to the Bill.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: That was an interesting exercise in exculpation from the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—an apologia for a Government who, for 18 years, did little for fishing except stand by and watch it be restructured by bankruptcy and liquidation. To hear an ex-Minister say that, if the previous Government had not got what they wanted in Amsterdam they would have wrecked the entire conference—
  Mr. Howard: No.
  Mr. Mitchell: That was the implication to be drawn from what was said.
  Mr. Howard: We are not producing a new statement. The then Prime Minister made it absolutely clear before the intergovernmental conference. This is not a new invention: it is consistent with what we were saying at the time.
  Mr. Mitchell: It is a fairy story to suggest that the Conservative Government, had they been lucky enough to retain office after the election, would have gone to such lengths as wrecking the conference to get anything done about quota hopping. It is fantasy, and we all know it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insults the intelligence of the House by bleating on about that.
  Mr. Howard: If it is fantasy, why did the present Prime Minister say, just days before the election, that he intended to do precisely the same thing?
  Mr. Mitchell: He did not say that. The statement came from the former Prime Minister, who had always gone
  942
  to European Councils bleating on about what he and his Government were going to do, how they were going to fight for Britain—
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should let me finish my sentence before he interrupts.
  The Conservative Government bleated about what they were going to do, but they came back with their tail between their legs because they had done nothing.
  Mr. Howard: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's stream of invective, but he must get his facts right. Just days before the election, the present Prime Minister said:
  "We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interests … Where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are."
  The present Prime Minister said that just before the election, when he was trying to persuade people to vote for him, and that there was absolutely no difference whatever between his party's position on the issue and that of the then Government.
  Mr. Mitchell: "We have not ruled it out" does not mean "We have ruled it in". There was no unequivocal statement from Labour at that stage to the effect that we would wreck the conference in the way that the then Prime Minister argued he would. Those are the facts, and it is no use arguing about it now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I both know what happened.
  Later in my speech I shall deal with the position in which we ended up. We were let down by the conference and, in my view, we were not firm enough, but there was no commitment, of the kind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman implies, to wreck the conference—and it would have had to be that way for us to get anywhere on this issue. That apologia for 18 years of Tory failure in fishing policy will not hold water. It is simply incredible, even in relation to the arguments about the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which came eight years too late.
  For eight years, Members representing fishing constituencies had been warning that there was a growing problem—that quota hoppers were taking over the British fleet. Owners of British vessels who were going bankrupt and unable to make a return were being forced to sell their licences, and the Europeans were buying them. The Government did nothing while the cancer grew on the fishing industry until it became ineradicable. To say now that the previous Government tried to do something about it is just another of the incredible claims in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: We have just listened to a panoply of excuses as to why the Government, now they have the power to do so, are not prepared to cut out the cancer. The hon. Gentleman should be asking the Government why they now suffer from inertia.
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady and I rarely disagree, and I take no pleasure in disagreeing with her now, but nothing can be done about the problem until we can close

  943
  the door. We cannot close the door without changing the treaty of Rome and the condition that businesses can be established in any European country. Until something is done about that, it will be impossible to tackle the basic issue.
  I agree that the measures that we are proposing are not adequate. I agree that they are fig leaves, and I shall continue to say so in the course of my speech—although I would rather do so on my terms than on the hon. Lady's. However, that does not affect the basic issue. We could not have made that basic change without putting a spanner in the works of the conference, which no new incoming Government would do. Indeed, the outgoing Government would not have done so, either.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: No. I must move on.
  The British fishing industry has suffered for years from the exchange of party political point scoring, which has done nothing for it. Each side of the House has said, "We are tougher than you are on Europe," and has then given way to Europe. Each side has done nothing for the fishing industry and has let it decline, always sacrificing it to other interests and issues that are considered more important at the time. Fishing Ministers have been pathetic. It is not their fault, but that of the Government, who always have other priorities and do not regard fishing as important. That is the real problem.
  The Lords amendment states:
  "This Act shall come into force only when … the legal protection of British fishermen afforded by the Treaty of Amsterdam on the issue of quota-hopping"
  is considered. That is easily dealt with. There is no legal protection against quota hopping in the treaty of Amsterdam. It is a half-baked amendment. It was the only one that the Lords could get through, and, frankly, it is useless. What is the use of asking us to consider the protection offered by a treaty against quota hopping, when the treaty makes no mention of quota hopping or any protection? There was an exchange of letters and that was all. Frankly, it is a pathetic amendment, and we are wasting the time of the House discussing it.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: Whether the previous Government were useless or the present Government are useless—I am not experienced enough to judge that—does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the only effective way of achieving anything on this vital issue is to say that the treaty does not go through until something is done? Although it is not mentioned in the treaty, the hon. Gentleman knows that that can be achieved in other Councils. Does he agree that, if he wants to get something done—as he clearly does—no matter which Government are in power, the right thing to do is to follow the course of action preferred by the Lords and say that the treaty cannot come into force until something is done about fishing?
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Mitchell: I wish that we had the power to say that. It is a footling, pointless treaty, and it was the outcome of a footling, pointless summit that achieved no agreement. Brave hopes were held out as to what it would achieve,
  944
  and in the end they came to nothing except a half-baked compromise. It is a pathetic, lame, limping treaty, but we have passed it. I did not vote for it and I do not support it, but it has been passed and the Government will accept it whatever we say. Theoretically, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct, but for practical purposes he is wrong, and that is about all I can say.
  The amendment raises two issues. The first is the effect of the treaty, and of other treaties—I tried to include them in the debate by tabling an amendment—on the common fisheries policy. The common fisheries policy is based on the principle of equal access to a common resource in which we have national quotas, but only as an interim measure.
  The treaty of Corfu, which we also have to take into account, says, in relation to the accession of Finland and Sweden:
  "the arrangements for access laid down … shall apply only during a transitional period, the end of which shall be marked by the date of implementation of the Community fishing permit system".
  In other words, the treaty of Corfu presupposes the end of the common fisheries policy and the advent of what must be a European fleet—a Community fishing permit system. It is there in the treaty.
  My understanding is that the Spanish managed to secure a comparatively small wording change to the treaty that was not noticed by the Foreign Office. We are committed by that treaty to a scheme which I have never heard of and know nothing about but which is due to come in from 2003, providing for a Community fishing permit system. The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis), said:
  "The Finnish and Swedish accessions do not in any way prejudice the outcome of the eventual revision of the CFP basic regulation."
  However, that is not what the Corfu treaty says.
  I want to know from my hon. Friend the Minister who is right on the issue. What are we to make of the treaty of Corfu? What does it mean? My hon. Friend has written to me and I am grateful for his explanation, as I find the issues difficult to follow. He is a good friend, and in a sense a good educator, on these matters, which are extremely complex. In his letter to Fishing News on 1 May 1998, my hon. Friend writes:
  "There is no proposal to create a single European fishing fleet administered from Brussels. If there were to be one, this Government would oppose it."
  He is absolutely right; so would I.
  The letter continues:
  "The system of quotas on relative stability will be reviewed by the end of 2002. But it does not expire then and will continue unaltered unless the Council decides otherwise."
  However, the treaty of Corfu says not, so who is correct? Can the derogations that we have be superior to a treaty that we have also signed saying that there will be a fishing permit system? That is the nature of the question.
  I am therefore asking my hon. Friend what will happen on the issue. I hope that he will turn his attention to it in his reply. The question hanging over fishing, on which my he may leap to his feet to put me right, has been much discussed in Fishing News, which is a major part of my reading. I do not like The Guardian very much any more, so I compensate by reading Fishing News obsessively—and very educational and good reading it is, too. I need the alternative view to be put.

  945
  I turn, finally, to the problem of quota hoppers and access. The principle of equal access to a common resource was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, given away by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, with no regard to the interests of British fishing industry. It is practically impossible to push the Sisyphean stone back up the hill, because we are tied by that principle. We cannot manage or control our own fishery grounds, because everyone has equal access to a common resource. Even Luxembourg and Austria can set up their own fishing fleets and have equal access to a common resource.
  The problem is that of stopping quota hoppers. If we cannot—if there is no power legally to do so—we will not be able to close the door to any more. The British fishing industry is encountering more difficulty. English fishing particularly is very difficult. English fishermen are not making adequate returns; prices have not risen to support increased costs; and fishermen are handicapped by small quotas and the weight of restriction that is growing around their necks. That means that they will be in financial difficulty, that there will be more temptation to sell, and that quota hoppers will play an increasing part in most ports.
  The industry will be wondering what it can do, and will perhaps conclude that it should keep the quota hoppers because at least they bring some economic activity to the ports. It will say that, since there are no Grimsby or Lowestoft vessels, it will have to have quota hoppers. If we can close the door, we can do something about the problem. If we cannot, we will be cutting off our nose to spite our face.
  The Amsterdam exchange of letters did not achieve very much. It was just a fairly typical Euro-con. Proposals that had been hanging around and discussed for many months were taken up. They sounded as though they would achieve something, and were given to a new Prime Minister—who I think was not well briefed by the Foreign Office, since it does not have any expertise on such issues and lets us down perpetually. Neither side of the argument would have disrupted the conference—certainly not an incoming Government—to get their way on quota hopping, so the Prime Minister seized on the proposals as a way out. He arrived at Northolt airport holding a piece of paper, which said something like "No quota hoppers in our time"—and nothing happened.
  That is a fairly typical Euro-con: a paper is presented, giving hope, but nothing happens and the issue is forgotten. Lord Whitty, Labour's Front-Bench spokesman on the issue in another place, gave a very honest view when he said that not much was achieved, that we could not achieve very much, that the situation was impossible, and that the Prime Minister was offered a deal that was rehashed from an earlier scheme.
  The situation is a mess, but it is no use trying to deal with it by tabling an amendment such as that before us. That is pathetic. Nor is it adequate to try to deal with it through the restrictions that we are introducing. I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend the Minister is trying to do, which is to require 50 per cent. of the landings in UK ports or 50 per cent. of crews to be of British origin.
  946
  I notice that advertisements are already appearing in the newspapers—certainly in Lowestoft—so that Dutch-owned vessels can have a 50 per cent. British crew and be exempt from the regulations. Other factors have been mentioned, such as operational spending in UK coastal areas and benefits to areas dependent on fishing.
  We must decide—I know that my hon. Friend will consult the industry closely on the matter, because he has to—whether it is worth pursuing such measures, or whether they will create more difficulties for the remaining British vessels than they will for the quota hoppers whom they are meant to threaten. Life may be made marginally more difficult for quota hoppers at the expense of making life very much more difficult for British vessels.
  There are certainly worries in Grimsby. Vessels from there are accustomed to landing where prices are high. It is a matter of routine to land in places such as Holland and Denmark. If such vessels are to be restricted, and their activities shackled, perhaps the game is not worth the candle. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that very seriously.
  One cannot talk to all fishermen. A Member of Parliament is like a cushion: he bears the impression of whoever last sat on him. Fishermen are accustomed to putting their case in strong language. They have said to me, "It's over. We have fought the fight; we have not got anywhere. We have done our best. We required something more basic than we have been able to achieve. Let's give up, gi'over and stop trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted." That is perhaps a typical British approach to the European Union. We always play the game, and we always lose. It is a question of inevitability.
  The only way out is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy altogether. It has been a disaster; it has done the country no good; it has been ruinous for the industry. If the Government say that we cannot do that because we must be nice to Europe and cannot rock the boat because it would harm our relationship with the EU, it is incumbent on them to do more for fishing. Fishing cannot be the sacrificial victim to any Government's superior loyalty to Europe.
  I do not want the fishing industry to be in such a position. It is incumbent on the Government to stop the imposition of charges that is being considered; to stop the petty harassment; and to stop deluging the industry with new policies and new requirements with which it cannot keep up. The fishing industry is now a small-boat industry, run by people who are at sea and who do not have the professional backing and support in order to cope.
  The producers' organisations should be given the finance and the power to buy and manage their own quotas, and we should ensure that the measures imposed are applied in Europe as well as to British vessels. A level playing field—perhaps a level fishing ground is a more appropriate expression—would be acceptable. Requirements cannot be imposed unilaterally on the British fleet. Catches cannot be vigorously inspected, and efforts to deal with black fish cannot be made in this country if nothing happens in Europe.
  A skipper landing in Boulogne, for instance, said that he had great difficulty finding anyone to accept his log sheets. In Britain, they grab them from him and rush away

  947
  to check them with a view to initiating a prosecution if any dereliction of duty is discovered. In France and Holland, nobody is interested; controls are not enforced. Until there is equal enforcement, the fishing industry cannot and will not put up with the mass of requirements.
  I know that my hon. Friend will fight for fishing and for the national management regime that the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations and the Scottish Fishermens Federation have put to him. But he must fight for, help and support the industry more vigorously if fishing will otherwise be sacrificed to the Government's overall European aspirations.
  Mr. Gummer: I declare an interest as the voluntary chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council and as the Member for a constituency with 74 miles of coastline and a large number of fishermen.
  I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), not least because, when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I spent a great deal of time trying to persuade him to fight against the dock labour scheme, which was one of the two great factors destroying the port of Grimsby. He complains about the previous Government not standing up for anything and mewling and puking, but he let his fishermen down every day because he never broke the party line on the dock labour scheme. He could have made a huge difference to the fishing industry when he was given the challenge. I find it difficult to accept his complaints about the current Government or the previous one when I remember how hard I tried to get him on my side to help to bring about a change that really mattered.
  Mr. Mitchell rose—
  8 pm
  Mr. Gummer: I shall be pleased to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want to finish my point so that he can be even ruder to me.
  There was a chance of securing a joint operation to exempt the fishing ports from the dock labour scheme before the system was abolished, but I never received any support from the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Mitchell: That is wishful thinking, not an accurate representation of the facts. The ending of the dock labour scheme was not proposed while the right hon. Gentleman was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The proposal came out of the blue. I am subject to his correction, but I do not remember him even mentioning it to me as a cause of Grimsby's problems.
  Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman may read Fishing News, but he has not read the statements that I made in his constituency about the need to change the dock labour scheme, even if only for the fishing industry. The hon. Gentleman is an assiduous constituency Member and I know why he made no comment on the issue—he knew that his general management committee and the Labour party would not have supported him. I find his comments about how tough he would be difficult to take.
  The debate is not about our views on the fishing industry or our attitude to the European Union; it is about what the Government promised and what they delivered. I hope that my hon. Friends will keep the battle on that
  948
  issue. It does not matter what industry we are talking about—it could be the baking industry or the leather industry. The fishing industry was led to believe one thing before the election and got a wholly different policy after the election.
  The Prime Minister was particularly keen on talking about trust. Trust is about not just not saying the wrong thing, but not giving the wrong impression. In a famous interview and subsequently, he made it clear in the most charming and reassuring way that he would be tougher in the intergovernmental conference than my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The argument went on and on. When he got there, he was not even as tough as my right hon. Friend. He did not raise the matter as he had said he would. The problem was not that he raised the matter and failed; he did not raise it. Regardless of whether we are pro or anti-Europe, keen on fishing or not, that was a betrayal of a clear promise.
  We are talking not about a Euro-con, but a Prime Minister con—a Blair con. I notice that Ministers are being very quiet, because they know that what I am saying is true. It was a con in two ways: first in what the Prime Minister and other current Ministers said before the election, given what happened afterwards; and, secondly, in the Prime Minister's suggestion of what the letter meant.
  We all know about letters in such circumstances. I am not as rude about them as some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Often, the Commission can make it easier to sort out a difficult point. However, the fisheries problem could not be sorted out in that way. It is an issue of considerable difficulty, because there is a conflict between the basic principles of the common fisheries policy, which shared out the fishing opportunities by countries, and the basic principle of the treaty of Rome, which talks about common resources, which are not shared out in that way—and rightly so, because we need a single market, which the Conservatives, particularly my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, so strongly promoted. That means that we cannot have a protectionist system that gives particular access to certain nationalities.
  That conflict cannot be removed in the Council of Ministers; it has to be dealt with at an IGC. The Minister who opened the debate asked why the previous Government did not raise such matters in Council meetings. That shows that he has not got the point. We could have raised the issue in Council meetings until we were blue in the face and had all 15 member states on our side, but the problem lies at the heart of the treaties to which we have all adhered, and is difficult to solve. It cannot be solved outside an IGC. The Government were wrong to say before the general election that they would solve it at the IGC, then tamely going along after the election with a piece of paper.
  Dr. George Turner: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman carefully, and would like to understand. I appreciate that an event may happen only once every six years or so, but presumably the preparation starts much earlier. A Government arrive at the conference knowing that they have a task in hand, with a certain number of countries backing them and others still to persuade. How many countries were going to support the previous Government at the IGC?
  Mr. Gummer: As a former Prime Minister said, even when one is on one's own, one fights for that which is in

  949
  Britain's interests. The present Prime Minister said that he would do the same. We can bandy words about who should say this, who did that and whether we or the current Government could have done more, but the fundamental issue of the amendment is that the Government promised to do something that they have not done. That is wrong and should be highlighted. That is why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who said that the amendment was of no use. It is of considerable use, because it has enabled us to discuss this key issue in the House. The Government promised to do something. Not only did they not deliver that, but they pretended that they had delivered it, hoping that people would be conned. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby knows that calling the issue a Euro-con merely diverts attention from the terminological inexactitude of his Prime Minister.
  Mr. Cash: My right hon. Friend will know that I never object to strictures—certainly not from right hon. Gentlemen; we have got used to those. I do not disagree with his fundamental point that the Prime Minister has let down the fishing industry and his party by failing to carry out his promises. My concern was that the amendment was insubstantial and that, given its majority, the House of Lords could have passed many other amendments on other issues.
  Mr. Gummer: I am glad my hon. Friend and I agree on at least one interpretation of the matter, which is that it gives us the opportunity to have this discussion. We ought to concentrate it on the area in which we have an important point, because we are asked to complete the agreement on the Amsterdam treaty.
  As hon. Members will know, I am in favour of the treaty. I am happy with it. It is a good treaty. I do not object to it in any way—
  Mr. Cash: Why did you vote against it, then?
  Mr. Gummer: Because we were given to understand that the treaty would have more in it, and I can tell my hon. Friend what those two things were.
  First, the treaty was supposed to provide the basis for the adhesion of new countries to the European Union. In fact, it did not face up to any of those issues. It made none of the decisions that it was supposed to make. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has made that point again and again.
  Secondly, the treaty did nothing about the fisheries problem, although the Government had promised that it would. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby suggests that the Government knew all along that they could do nothing about that, and in doing so he is telling us what we always believed—that, before the election, people were prepared to promise anything, even that which they knew they could not carry through.
  It is the hon. Member for Great Grimsby who is making the really deep attack on his own Prime Minister. He is saying that, when the question was put to him, the Prime Minister should not have said:
  "We certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest",
  950
  as he did on "The World at One" on 14 April 1997. Instead, the right hon. Gentleman should have said, "We know there is no point holding that out as a hope to the fishing industry, because we have no intention of doing it." He must have known that he had no intention of doing it, because immediately after the election he did not do it.
  Not only did the Prime Minister not try to do that, but he gave no sign of having mastered the brief or understood what it really meant. Therefore, the first reason why I want the House to pass the amendment is that I want it to stand as a permanent memorial to the fact that the Prime Minister says what is convenient to him at the time, rather than what is true.
  From a Prime Minister who claimed to believe in trust, that was one of the first examples of what has now become a regular activity—giving the impression of one thing while meaning precisely the opposite. As my mother always said, to give such an impression is the same as telling a lie. Just because someone has left an impression, without actually saying the word that he can be caught out on, that does not mean that he is any less guilty, especially if he claims to be a man in whom trust may properly be reposed.
  The second issue that the amendment brings forward is the problem of the fishing industry as a whole. As the voluntary chairman of the Marine Stewardship Council, I can say that the real problem about quota hopping, or any other argument about fish stocks and the like, is that we do not have enough fish.
  If we read accounts from the 19th century, we realise that there was a huge harvest of fish out there then. A good example is to be found in the autobiography of a man who became an archbishop, who had earlier sailed as a cabin boy on a big boat that went to the Baltic. Apparently the boat had to stay in port for three days there, because so thick were the shoals of fish that it could not get out.
  That was common in a world in which the fishermen had none of the modern techniques. They had no directional finders to tell them exactly where the boat was, nor did they have the kind of radar that showed them where the fish were. Fishing was a much more haphazard activity then. Nowadays, we often know so much that the fish do not have a hope.
  That is true of all the fishing industries in Europe—and not only there. To those of my hon. Friends who do not want to me talk about Europe, I can say that it applies elsewhere in the world, too. All over the world, from the South China seas to the Falkland Islands, we are in severe danger of losing all our fish stocks.
  8.15 pm
  Sir Crispin Tickell is the chairman of the Government panel on sustainable development, and in his first report to the previous Government, among other things that one would expect him to put in a list of priorities, he put a surprising item. He pointed out that the most imminent ecological disaster is the loss of our fish stocks. That applies not only to Europe but to the whole world.
  One of the problems is that every fisherman is concerned to get his share, irrespective of other people's share. One understands that; every fisherman needs his own future, and is sometimes less concerned about the future of his children and grandchildren. Overfishing is a real problem, to which we need to find an answer not only in Europe but throughout the world.

  951
  It seems to me that we do not solve that problem by constantly suggesting "solutions" such as those put forward by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. The truth is that we have too few fish and too many fishermen after them, both in Europe and in the rest of the world. We need to return to a more sustainable fishing system, and in Europe that has to be done through the Community and the Council of Ministers. However, it cannot be done there effectively unless changes have first been made to create an atmosphere in which it can be done. The Government's failure to do that means that they are very much in error.
  The third issue is that of quota hoppers. I have always thought that "quota hopping" is a rather nice phrase. Using it is rather like using the word "foetus" instead of the word "baby". If we want people to believe that it is all right to destroy babies, we can call them foetuses and get rid of them. That is how that sort of terminology operates. Similarly, using the term "quota hoppers" seems to suggest that nobody bought the quotas.
  People put forward all sorts of arguments about why the quotas were sold, but one of our big problems is the fact that quotas—in large part, if not entirely—were bought by somebody. To say that quota hoppers can easily be stopped is to make the whole issue much less complicated than it really is.
  Fishermen sold their quotas and received money for them. Those who paid for them—rightly in terms of the law, but wrongly in terms of the share-out that we had expected to take place—expect to be able to carry them through. I hope that, when we talk about quota hopping, we realise that the issue is more complicated than it seems.
  That is why the only place in which it can be dealt with is the intergovernmental conference. The present Government should not have misled this country if they had no intention of doing what they said they would. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby said that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, would not have held up the IGC. My reply is simply that I cannot point to one occasion during his period as Prime Minister when my right hon. Friend promised to do something and did not carry it out; yet, in one year of the present Prime Minister, hardly a week has passed without something happening that is the exact opposite of what was promised.
  Mr. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gummer: I ought to be coming to an end.
  It is necessary to have a common fisheries policy. The complaint about the fisheries policy is that the policy is wrong, not that it is common. Fisheries policy has always been common; even the 12-mile limit was shared with some of our neighbours over a long period. Fish do not come along with flags on their fins. Fish and fisheries have to be organised on a common basis. Where that has not happened, stocks are fished out because people think, "If I don't get the fish, my neighbour will." The system must be common. The common fisheries policy is wrong because the policy is wrong, but the commonality is right.
  I always remember that, when I was a Minister responsible for fisheries, the fishermen used to tell me, "Don't ever renegotiate the common fisheries policy," because my late lamented right hon. Friend, the Scottish
  952
  Minister Alick Buchanan-Smith, had negotiated not only the fair sharing out of the fish stocks, but an extra amount for us because we were no longer allowed to fish off Iceland. It was heralded at the time as a great deal. Every time we were negotiating, the one thing the fisheries industry said was that we should not renegotiate the deal because we would never get the same proportion again.
  If we are to solve the problems, we must first be honest with the fishing industry. That means that we must find a way of restricting effort across Europe until fishing stocks recover. We must become more sustainable. We must realise that the policy must be a common fisheries policy, but we must recognise also that the present policy does not work. It must be revised fundamentally without reducing the shares—not least our share in the UK.
  Some of us are in favour of the EU, enthusiastic about the concept of solving the problems on a common basis, and—above all—concerned about the environment. We have come here to debate the amendment—useless as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone thinks it to be—because, without question, it puts its finger on the fact that the Government, the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and the Prime Minister appear to have fundamentally changed their position since before the election.
  When it was a question of getting votes, Labour Members said that they would stand up for change at the IGC and would hold it up. Today, we are asked to pass the results of the IGC, and to hope for the best on fishing. That is not what the Government promised, and they know it. That is why the Minister they put up to argue the case has no record or form on the issue, and why the Minister responsible for fisheries did not move the motion. If he had done so, he would have had to explain why his position before the election was much tougher than now. If the Minister is to wind up, he might explain his rudeness to the House in not being here when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe started his speech and made some good comments. It would be good for the House to know why the Minister was not here.
  The Government are running away from the fact that they told us before the general election something that they changed entirely afterwards—once they had the fishing votes in their pockets.
  Dr. Godman: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). He is a fair-minded fellow, so I am sure that he will forgive me if I remind the House that, when he was Fisheries Minister, he presided over a massive cock-up over the decommissioning scheme for which the Public Accounts Committee criticised his Department—using more elegant language. Fishermen from the smaller fishing communities say that the Humberside trawler companies ripped off the scheme that the right hon. Gentleman so badly managed with his inept colleagues and officials.
  I share the anger and cynicism of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). I have been around the industry all my life. I was born and raised in a fishing community. My brother Leslie is the skipper of a freezer trawler which is fishing up in the Arctic at this very moment. My mother was a fishergirl and my father was a fisherman, so I know something of the industry.

  953
  The Government of which the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal was a member betrayed the fishing communities, so much so that the Scottish secessionists—who, characteristically, are absent from such an important debate—are now telling fishing communities in Scotland that the way forward is an independent Scotland and a renegotiation of the common fisheries policy for Scotland. They are leading the fishing communities up a blind alley—we know that—but they are not here to defend themselves against these charges. In their way, what they say is characterised by the same smugness and hypocrisy that we have heard from the Conservatives today.
  During my life in and around the industry, successive Administrations have betrayed the interests of our fishing industry. One or two hon. Members in the Chamber at present know that. The United Kingdom-Icelandic fisheries dispute—popularly known as the cod wars—is an example. In the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, Conservative Governments and Labour Governments betrayed our fishermen. I recall the negotiations offered to us by the Icelandic Government. A Labour Foreign Minister—now the noble Lord Hattersley—did not do our fishermen any good in the negotiations. In that regard, he was as inept as negotiators representing Tory Governments and the Ministry.
  A Tory Prime Minister used our fishing communities as a bargaining counter—a pawn—to gain access to the then European Economic Community. On the basis of what happened to my brother, cousins, uncles and others, I can say that the industry was betrayed by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. I am trying to be fair-minded, and Labour Governments do not have a much better record.
  Let us have honesty from both sides of the House. We are talking about the treatment of the industry and our communities—whether it is Hull, Grimsby, Lowestoft, Yarmouth or any of the communities closer to my constituency. I am the honorary chairman of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, a small fishing vessel owners' association. Those people are struggling to make a living.
  As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, quota hopping is a complicated problem. He was right to say that there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish, and he was right also to say that we cannot leave the management of fishing to the fishermen. It is a disaster to leave it to the bureaucrats in Brussels.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby is right to say that the kernel of the serious problem bedevilling our fishing industry and communities is the common fisheries policy. How do we change that? Do we go down the secessionist road in Scotland and kid people that we can renegotiate the CFP on the basis of an independent Scotland? That is rubbish.
  We must ensure that, from now on, we negotiate in a tough-minded way on behalf of our communities. I say to Ministers—I have said this to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that there can be no enlargement of the EU without reform of the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. Some of the applicant nations are maritime nations. If there is no reform of the CFP, they will be allowed to fish in our waters.
  954
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby described the fish as a common resource. I would say that a reformed CFP must take cognisance of the interests of local fishermen, and privilege must be given to locally based fishermen against the interests of the big boys—the nomadic fishermen from Holland, Spain or, dare I say it, the north-east of Scotland. We recently argued that we should not allow the purse seine trawlers and others to fish off the west coast of Scotland with their twin prawn trawls. We must protect local communities. The common fisheries policy must be radically reformed before enlargement can take place.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I say how much I support what the hon. Gentleman has said about the fate of the smaller fishing vessels, in particular those based in village fishing communities, of which there are a number in my constituency? Whatever happens, the pressure is finally taken out on those at the bottom of the chain of effort. As he rightly said, something must be done to protect those communities, many of which have no economic basis other than fishing.
  8.30 pm
  Dr. Godman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. We have only to think of Anstruther—I think that it is known locally as Anster—Pittenweem and St. Monans. We are talking not only about fishermen and their families, but about fishing boat builders, who have largely disappeared from the hon. and learned Gentleman's constituency. They were superb builders of wooden fishing boats—I speak as a shipwright, so I know what I am talking about. Millers of St. Monans has gone, for example. Like the fishermen, those engaged in the ancillary activities are also deprived of a decent livelihood because of the rotten common fisheries policy.
  It is one thing to talk about equality of access, but we have to start to talk in terms of regional preference and regional—not necessarily national—management schemes, to take account of the needs of the more remote communities where there are few economic alternatives, such as the communities in Shetland, Orkney, on the west coast of Scotland and, indeed, in the south-west and other areas of England. Ministers have to do much better than their predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, whose record left a lot to be desired.
  How will the measures that were outlined be policed? How can we ensure that 50 per cent. of the catch of so-called quota hoppers will be landed in Scarborough, Hull, Grimsby, Lowestoft or Aberdeen?
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: Or Anstruther.
  Dr. Godman: The quota hoppers would not get into Anstruther; unfortunately, they are too big.
  The Minister talks about expenditure, but are we to expect from what he says that some of the vessels will undergo annual refits in our shipyards rather than in shipyards in their own countries? Somehow I doubt that they will, although I would love to see it. Refits are an essential and integral element of the annual expenditure incurred by trawler owners.
  The key question is the power of the fisheries policemen—I should say policewomen, too. Again, our record is not great. We could learn from the Norwegians,

  955
  for example, who police their fisheries very powerfully—it is a reckless skipper who sails to Norway from Scotland or England without having all his papers in order. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby talks about the toughness of our inspectors, but he should take a trip on a British vessel fishing in Norwegian waters—people dare not break the law there, because, if they are caught, they are never allowed back into those waters. That is the toughness I want.
  Tough policing will be needed if the Minister is to convince our deeply disillusioned fishing communities that, unlike previous Administrations, the Government mean business and will both protect and promote the interests of our sadly neglected fishing communities. Nothing less will do.
  Mr. Townend: In these debates, I respect hon. Members on both sides of the House who speak for the fishing industry and their constituents. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said. He was right to say that the common fisheries policy has been a disaster, particularly for British fishermen, including those in my constituency. I tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) that, if the common fisheries policy had worked, there would not be a shortage of fish. The whole purpose of quotas was to conserve fish so that each year the stocks, and therefore the quotas, would increase.
  Britain has done particularly badly. I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was responsible for that, but responsibility also lay with the late Lord Wilson, who missed a great opportunity—when he renegotiated Britain's terms of membership of the European Community after the referendum, he ignored fishing. The fishing industry has not been well treated by any Government. I will not be popular among my hon. Friends for saying that, but we should be honest.
  Britain suffered particularly because our waters provide 60 per cent. of the European Union's fish—the industry sometimes says 80 per cent.—yet the common fisheries policy gives us a quota of only 31 per cent. Even that deal, which in no circumstances could be considered good for this country, is being extensively undermined by quota hopping. If no action is taken, the national quota will, each year, diminish progressively as more and more foreigners buy our boats.
  By 1997—the most up-to-date figures I could get-46 per cent. of hake, 44 per cent. of plaice, 29 per cent. of monkfish and 20 per cent. of sole was taken by quota hoppers. That is a significant amount of fish. Quota hopping is undermining the principle of relative stability that was established in 1983, when the intention was that quotas were for the fishermen of the individual countries.
  Some of the criticism of the previous Government has been unfair. Baroness Thatcher introduced the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, which some Labour Members supported, to protect the British fishing industry. The House passed that Act but, regrettably, the will of the House was overruled by the European Court. That decision stopped the House passing legislation to protect our fishermen, which, more than anything else, made me realise how much independence we had surrendered to Brussels and how, if we did not start to pull power back, the House would become nothing more than a glorified county council or provincial assembly.
  956
  The previous Government realised that, because of the court's decision, the industry could not be protected without a treaty change. The former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), made a commitment before and at the general election last year that he would refrain from signing the Amsterdam treaty unless a change was incorporated to deal with the problem of quota hopping.
  At the election, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the current Prime Minister followed whatever the Conservatives said—on spending, tax, a referendum for Europe, or fishing. He was so frightened that he would not win that he followed us in all things—we have heard this evening what he said at the time. However, not only the Prime Minister but Labour candidates throughout the country, including those in fishing constituencies, said, "You will be safe with Labour. Labour will protect your interests. We won't accept the Amsterdam treaty without looking after you." As a result, the Conservatives lost nearly every major fishing port, apart from Brixham and Bridlington, which is in my constituency.
  Sir Richard Body: And Boston.
  Mr. Townend: I do not want to argue with my hon. Friend about the definition of "major".
  When it came to decision time, what did the Government do? They forgot all about the comments made by Fisheries Ministers and the Prime Minister, and signed the Amsterdam treaty without achieving anything concrete for our fishermen. As is usual in Europe, it was fudge and weasel words, and nothing was delivered. After one year in power, new Labour has betrayed British fishermen.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): Don't be daft.
  Mr. Townend: I asked the hon. Gentleman how much fish we will get if he is successful in the negotiations. He said that he did not know, but read out the various options. None of them would give an extra tonne of fish to British fishing boats. That proves another thing. Before the election, Labour Members were keen to say that, if they were elected they would be able to get a better deal out of Europe. They said: "We're more pro-European. We'll cosy up to them and get satisfaction through co-operation." What did all that cosying up, co-operation, giving in and signing the Amsterdam treaty without any conditions achieve for British fishermen? Nothing.
  The only way in which any Government will get satisfaction on quota hoppers is at a treaty negotiation. The only way they will get it is to play it like the French do. Not only have the Government got to threaten to use the veto; if necessary, they have got to use it where an overwhelmingly important national interest is at stake.
  I have represented Bridlington for many years, and I believe that fishing is an overwhelming national interest. I also believe that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, the former Prime Minister, said that he would veto Amsterdam if he had to, he would have been

  957
  prepared to do so. Once the other states knew that he was prepared to use it, they would have been prepared to do a deal.
  We have only to look at the way in which the French work. It was 13 to one over the appointment of the governor of the new European central bank, but the French exercised their veto and got an agreement that after four years their man would be in. Whether our Government are Conservative or Labour, they should be prepared to fight just as strongly and just as fiercely for British interests and for the interests of British fishermen.
  Mr. Morley: It is difficult to criticise the hon. Gentleman when he is being so honest about the failings of past Conservative Governments, but he knows as well as I do that the Conservative Government could have used their veto on the accession of Finland, Austria and Sweden when the Spanish threatened to use their veto and, indeed, got accelerated full fishing access to Community waters through doing so. Will he remind the House what that Government did at that time?
  Mr. Townend: We get this time and again. I agree that we could have vetoed many things, but the simple fact is that that is not the question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal is right—you are the Government and you are responsible for the fishing industry today. It does not matter what we should have done or might have done: you have failed in the past year.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is speaking through the Chair—and I have no responsibility for these matters.
  Mr. Townend: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister and the Labour Government are responsible, but time after time and in Question Time after Question Time as we hold the Executive to account, they never answer our questions. They seem to think that they can refuse to be held to account by harking back to what happened under the previous Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, this debate is about the commitment that the present Minister and Prime Minister gave at the election.
  Most people do not realise the extent of quota hopping—I sometimes wonder whether the Minister realises, although he must. I understand that 26 per cent. of fishing tonnage on the United Kingdom register is now owned by quota hoppers, and that £100 million of fish landings are being lost every year. By and large, quota hoppers do not take advantage of the decommissioning schemes, so the proportion of our fish taken by quota hoppers is increasing all the time.
  I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby—I nearly called him my hon. Friend because I agree with him so much as a neighbouring fishing Member—and, like him, I am afraid that I am pessimistic. Unless the Government change their attitude, the outlook for British fishing is very bleak, as I think the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde would agree.
  In the early years of the next century there will be no British fishing industry; it will be a European industry with permits issued from Brussels and boats fishing up to
  958
  the beaches. What a terrible end that will be to tradition in a maritime country—in our islands, surrounded by sea—whose history and prosperity have been linked with the sea; what a terrible end it will be given the faith that we and the British people have had in the men who go to sea in small boats to fish. It is a terrible prospect, and the Government should start thinking about their responsibilities to the fishing industry. They should forget what has gone on before and think about their responsibilities to ensure that in 2003 and 2004 we still have a viable, large British fishing industry.
  8.45 pm
  Dr. George Turner: I have been told that, in time, hon. Members become like their constituents. Listening to the passion with which those who represent fishing communities speak in the House, I recognise the fisherman I have had to deal with more recently in King's Lynn. Fishing is an industry and an occupation that has suffered much in past decades.
  I ask the House to look a little more dispassionately at what is on our agenda. As one who has come into contact with Members of the other place in Joint Committees, I looked with interest to see why the amendment was before us. The role of the other House is under question, so I assumed that the amendment was the result of the more learned Members of that place discovering something about the consequences of Amsterdam of which this House has been ignorant for some months.
  My inquiries and the information provided in the debate tonight seem to show that there is no such reason, and that we are discussing what was reported to the House as the outcome of the Amsterdam discussions several months ago. I conclude that Members of the other place have been airing their party political prejudices rather than their learnedness about the treaty. It is regrettable that the unelected Members of the other House are behaving in what way, particularly at a rather sensitive time in their history.
  As a new Member, I am always sensitive to whether I am defending the party manifesto on which I was elected. I have, however, become accustomed to the fact that, when the Opposition cannot find us at fault because of our manifesto, they selectively quote what might or might not have been said in whatever time period they want to go back to. Of course, if parties do not adjust their positions as they approach the electorate and make clear promises, something is wrong with our political process.
  There would be something wrong indeed if, by quoting selectively, it were not possible to show some inconsistencies. Parties have to develop policies. I see the role of opposition as we study Bills, and I see Opposition parties shifting their role even within the time that it takes a Bill to go through a Standing Committee.
  Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the confusion, I accept absolutely the important points that the hon. Gentleman makes. Can he give us some indication of the impression that fishermen in his constituency had of our likely position on the issue in Amsterdam? While he and I may not have understood, what did his fishermen think? I think that he knows pretty well.
  Dr. Turner: I was coming to that very point. My hon. Friend the Minister visited my constituency when he was

  959
  still in opposition and got what was described to me as a warm reception because he would not promise the fishermen what they wanted. However, his reputation since the election is that he has done more in his period in office than the last Government did in a decade. Fishermen are not satisfied—I do not believe that they ever will be, given what has happened to them over the past decade—but that is what has occurred in my constituency.
  I should be interested to know whether I should be reading our manifesto to ensure that no commitment has been broken, but the words that have been cited seem at the very least ambiguous. Apparently we said that we had not ruled something out. That is an interesting pledge to be accused of breaking. We said that we were prepared to be tough at international discussions. Conservative Members have told us that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), would have been really tough, but when I was a member of the public rather than a Member of the House, I saw that Prime Minister barely in control of his Cabinet and certainly not in control of his party; yet he is the man who would have been the tough man of Europe at the intergovernmental conference. Frankly, I do not believe a word of it.
  Mr. Blunt: The hon. Gentleman's predecessor and I worked in the Foreign Office for, respectively, the former Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). The language used about the intergovernmental conference and the need for a deal on quota hopping was absolute. It left no room for manoeuvre. On the issue of qualified majority voting, for example, Sir Malcolm Rifkind made it quite clear that he would not prejudice the entire treaty if QMV was extended in one area, although he could not foresee that happening. That was a bolt hole. There was no such bolt hole for the Government's position on quota hopping. The treaty would not have happened without a deal on quota hopping under a Conservative Government.
  Dr. Turner: I wonder which Conservative Government that would have been, Deputy Speaker. Two Conservative parties fought the last election, and it is not clear which of them would have been in control if the electorate had unfortunately re-elected the Conservatives.
  There is a long-standing tradition when it comes to international debate or defending the country internationally; Opposition parties support the Government wherever possible. The Prime Minister's words—he did not rule things out, and he was prepared to defend what the former Prime Minister said in the interests of our fishing industry—were rather carefully chosen and entirely appropriate to that circumstance.
  Earlier, in interventions, Deputy Speaker, I asked exactly what preparation had been made. I have had to take over negotiations from others, both in my own job and in union matters. Before taking on a job, people do not sell themselves out or say even before they have arrived that they will give in. They have to assess the hand they have been given, just as any Prime Minister—or a Cabinet Minister assessing his Department—must realistically assess the hand that he has been given with which to negotiate with an IGC that has been waiting for the best part of a decade to raise the issue.
  960
  This evening, however, Deputy Speaker, what have I been told about that hand?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I do not want to be pernickety, but the form of address for which he is searching is "Mr. Deputy Speaker".
  Dr. Turner: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The hand that the Government inherited meant that no other member state was prepared to vote with us or support us. Clearly, the national interest should predominate. I understand why people talk emotionally about the overwhelming national interest or the importance to their constituency, but the quota issue is biological. Fish do not come with national labels on them. We cannot look to national interest alone to solve an international problem. International agreement was desirable.
  In considering what the Prime Minister brought back for the House to debate, I thought that there was much to be gained if the arrangements he described were brought into force. There would be economic gain for the fishing communities under the economic licensing conditions of options A, B, C and D, which have been referred to and which I shall not repeat. In the modest time I have been here, I have found myself regularly frustrated about the time it takes to develop matters.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: Realising that the common fisheries policy is collective might help the hon. Gentleman to understand the difficulties of agreeing anything practical in the European Community. It contrasts with the experience of, shall we say, Norway, which determines its own fishing policy, or of the south Atlantic, in which the Government of the Falkland Islands determine their own policy. Both are extremely successful fisheries, and they are in sharp contrast with what happens with the collective, which cannot reach a proper decision.
  Dr. Turner: I read a Library research paper on the history of this matter with considerable interest. I gained the clear impression that we need to proceed with an element of agreement, rather than by assuming that we can simply assert national or constituency interest. Strong economic links were of benefit. I understand that fishermen are disappointed, but that is because of what happened before the Government were elected. I have read that paper, and I have looked back to the failure in the 1980s of the then Government to enact a law that stood the test of European law. The catalogue of disasters falls nowhere short of failure and neglect. The Opposition came naked into the Chamber this evening to try to bury their past neglect, raise false accusations and pretend that life is simple when it is not.
  Local fishermen have asked me how long the process will take. I have been told that quota hopping accounts for 25 per cent. of tonnage. I should like clarification on that point, because I have also been told that it accounts for only 10 per cent. of the catch. Other figures have been used. What is the figure, and what is happening about it? When will we get a conclusion to what have been described as fairly protracted discussions?
  Mr. David Heath: It is a privilege to speak after so many hon. Members with

  961
  greater knowledge of the fishing industry than I have. I was particularly taken by the contributions of the hon. Members for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Neither is now here. Presumably they have gone for a fish-and-chip supper, but no doubt they will appear later.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby properly exposed the great paradox of the debate. The problems of the fishing industry and quota hopping are real issues that should detain the House, and are proper matters for debate. However, this debate is on the pretext of an entirely bogus Lords amendment. It is bogus because of its implications for the Amsterdam Bill. It has been bogus in respect of the positions of the Government and of the official Opposition.
  The amendment cannot achieve the changes to the common fisheries policy that many of us would like, if for no other reason than the fact that the Amsterdam treaty does not deal with fishing policy. It is outside the scope of the treaty signed in Amsterdam. Perhaps it should not have been, but it was. To their credit, hon. Members have not attempted to talk to the Lords amendment but have given their views about the CFP and what happened in the negotiations. The only effect of accepting the amendment would be to delay ratification of the Amsterdam treaty.
  9 pm
  There have been arguments about the Amsterdam treaty. We have had endless discussions about what the Amsterdam Bill might imply for our country. Most suggestions from both sides of the argument rather overstated the case. It is a modest Bill that achieves modest results, but what it does achieve is largely benign, in my view and in that of the majority of the House, as has been tested. To delay ratification by spurious argument about what can be achieved is bogus.
  Mr. Gummer: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument and am not at all antagonistic to the Amsterdam treaty. It is not that we are seeking to hold up the treaty, but that the Prime Minister said that he would not sign it unless he had at least tried—
  Mr. Morley: He did not say that.
  Mr. Gummer: If the Minister means that the Prime Minister was going to sign it without even trying, he has made an even more fundamental attack on the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister gave the country the impression that he would fight for the fishermen at the time of the treaty. He did not. How else can we bring that home to him?
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was trying to make in my own way. There needs to be an argument about the CFP and the Government's negotiating position, but the Lords amendment does not achieve that objective except through the process of having this debate. I think that that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. If so, he is in agreement with my point that the amendment will not secure the changes that we seek in the CFP, but is an opportunity for the House to debate the matter once more. We are taking advantage of that.
  962
  The problem with the Government's position largely concerns the position that they adopted on return from Amsterdam. They claimed a great victory and said that they had solved all the world's problems at a stroke. They overplayed the roles played by the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary.
  Mr. Howard: It was an overblown hoo-hah.
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that a bit of hoo-hah was involved. There was an awful lot of hoo-hah. Hoo-hah, overblown, tarantara, call it what one will, that is what we got on the return from Amsterdam.
  In fact, there was nothing like that sort of success—it was a modest negotiation with modest results. On fishing, all the Prime Minister brought back was a piece of paper—a fig leaf to cover his embarrassment about his lack of progress on an important negotiating issue.
  Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that part of the tarantara and the hoo-hah was the Foreign Secretary having to come to the House and admit that the Government had been completely outflanked in the negotiations by the Spanish, which led to a leader in The Times and a great deal of adverse comment from hon. Members on both sides of the House?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman will remember, from the hours of debate that we shared, several areas in which the Government's performance was less impressive than the advance publicity had suggested—Gibraltar comes to mind as an example.
  However, the Government brought back the piece of paper. I do not believe that it has any legally binding consequences. Although it might have elucidated the legal position to an extent, it will be of value only if it is not successfully challenged by the Spanish or by any other nation's fishing fleet. If that is true, we want to know what the Government have done over the past 12 months and what they are doing now to put into practice the principles encompassed by that piece of paper.
  I see little sign of progress, but perhaps the Minister will be able to advise me of the progress that has been made over the past 12 months. Many of us who have examined the proposals see advantages in the scheme promoted, but we also see that it is full of loopholes; it is capable of considerable abuse, and might not be successful in achieving its objectives.
  The question is: will the so-called economic linkage mean anything in practice? I do not represent a fishing constituency—my constituents catch nothing larger than elvers—but I am not remotely surprised that those who do represent fishing communities and who know what fishermen think of the proposals are extremely disappointed with the results of the negotiations. It is characteristic of the Government to over-hype and over-spin their achievements, which might be why, a couple of weeks ago, the European Parliament was not prepared to congratulate the Government on their exercise of the European Union presidency—MEPs recognise when they are being sold a pup in terms of media spin.
  Hyperbole is not the sole province of the Government—the Conservative position is equally suspect. We heard the Conservatives' pre-election claims

  963
  for what they were going to do in the intergovernmental conference; they were equally extravagant, yet there was no real preparation other than the preparation of the protocol, and there was no assembling of the essential coalition needed to achieve anything. The previous Government's sole negotiating position was apparently that they would walk away if they did not get their way. We had seen that many times before—a swing from puerile petulance to supine acquiescence when they did not get their own way. No hill was ever reached by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that he did not march his army halfway up and then march it down again.
  If we want to see the results of the previous Government's policy in action, we need only look at the progress on the lifting of the beef ban. Nothing was achieved, simply because their only tactic was a spoiling tactic of not negotiating, but making things difficult for the people whose support we actually required. There is nothing more struthious in character than the Conservatives facing a problem in Europe—their position is to hide their heads in the sand and hope that the problem will go away; but it will not go away. What is needed is negotiation, which requires active engagement.
  Sensible Conservative Members know that some of the demands expressed before the election were impossible. We heard the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) virtually admit that he had not expected any better a result from the IGC than that which was achieved by the current Government.
  The previous Government failed the fishing industry in every possible way for many years, and the present Government are perhaps doing marginally better, but that is to damn with faint praise. No wonder that fishermen despair of all politicians who promised them a new deal for the fishing industry. All Governments since the late 1960s or early 1970s have failed the industry.
  We return to the proposition before us and the possibility of delaying or wrecking the Amsterdam treaty. I believe that the treaty is a modest enough vehicle. We have rehearsed the arguments time and again. The treaty makes little progress on the key areas of reform needed in the European Union—on the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, the structural funds and so on. It edges us marginally in the right direction on subsidiarity, openness, transparency and accountability.
  Those are modest but necessary objectives. It would be foolish for the House to reject that modest progress by accepting the Lords amendment. The tragedy is that, if the amendment were accepted, it would not bring about the fundamental reform of the common fisheries policy that we believe is necessary. By 2002, we must be able to renegotiate not just the terms of the intergovernmental conference, but the treaties on which the common fisheries policy is based and move towards a system of regional management that will benefit the fishermen in Scotland, Cornwall and East Anglia. If we do not do that, we shall have signally failed the fishing industry yet again.
  We shall not achieve our objectives by making things difficult for others who are trying to achieve the same reforms in the EU. We must have constructive engagement with our partner nations in the EU. I therefore
  964
  urge the House to reject the Lords amendment and to proceed with ratification of the Amsterdam treaty at the earliest opportunity.
  Sir Richard Body: If that was the official speech of the Liberal Democrat party, I hope that copies of it will be made available to every fisherman. I know what fishermen will then think of the Liberal Democrat party.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) used the word "bogus" four times with reference to the debate and the Opposition. There is nothing bogus about our views. Does he not realise that British fishermen are deeply disillusioned? In this debate, we speak on their behalf and articulate their fears about the future. It is important that we should highlight how appallingly they have been let down by the Amsterdam treaty. I have good reason to know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, decided to insert the condition that, if there were no changes in relation to quota hopping, he would veto the treaty. That is what he promised me, my colleagues, the fishing industry and the country.
  We know that that undertaking was outbid by the present Prime Minister, and that nothing has been achieved. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome should know that fishermen's disillusionment is extremely serious, and that the fishing industry is a fraction of the size that it was 20 years ago.
  Mr. David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Richard Body: I shall give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I am trying to be brief.
  The industry passes from father to son. Every one of the fishermen in my constituency has a son who is a fisherman and most of them have grandsons and great-grandsons who are fishermen, but fishermen's sons are not coming into the industry now. They feel that there is no hope for it. That is a great tragedy, because, once we lose their expertise, the industry will disappear, quite apart from the fish.
  Mr. Heath: There was nothing whatever in what I said that could be construed in any way other than expressing disappointment that the fishing industry finds itself in the parlous state it does and stating the need for change, to give people in the industry a future.
  Sir Richard Body: We do not want to deal too much with the Liberal Democrat view on the matter. At any time, including at the general election, Liberal Democrats have been the worst offenders—they have been the strongest defenders of the common fisheries policy.
  Mr. Heath: No, never.
  Sir Richard Body: Yes, they have. They are not among those of us who believe that the common fisheries policy is so fundamentally flawed that we should dispense with it altogether. If the hon. Gentleman believes that a communal policy is necessary, he should talk to the fishermen of Iceland or Norway. If he spoke to Norwegian fishermen, he would be assured that fishing was one of the reasons why every one of them voted in the referendum against entry into the European Union.

  965
  9.15 pm
  As the hon. Member for Greenock and lnverclyde (Dr. Godman) pointed out, if any ship from any part of the European Union fishes in the waters of Norway, it never dares to do so again because of what happens to it. That is the only policy that will replenish our fishing stocks, which are falling day by day.
  One purpose—although calling it a purpose is pushing things a little too far—of the debate is to urge the Government to take action at the next intergovernmental conference, which may not be very far ahead because we must make constitutional changes to enable the Community to be enlarged. When the Community is enlarged, there will be more fishing fleets. Fleets from the Baltic states will have the same rights to come into our waters as those from Spain, which will be untenable.
  We have every good reason now to press for a fundamental change in the common fisheries policy—if not to end it, which may be asking too much, then certainly to end the principle of equal access. It may be difficult for the Government to make that change, because, after all, it was an earlier Labour Administration who gave way on equal access in 1976. However, that is history, and I shall not go into that. We must now consider the future, which for our fishing industry will be nil unless there is a fundamental change to the common fisheries policy. The fishermen of this country expect the Government to do something about that policy and to redeem the promises that they so dismally failed to keep a year ago.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I have always considered myself to be a fisherman's friend, so I support the Lords amendment. I consider it a major defect of the treaty of Amsterdam that quota hopping was not addressed, and that alone is a reason to delay the treaty taking effect until the provisions in the amendment have been fulfilled.
  The problem before us is that, while British fishermen have felt that it is in their economic interests to sell their quota, quota hopping works against British fishing interests. The problem of quota hopping can be resolved only by an amendment to the original treaty of Rome, and I understand that some countries achieved that through the treaty of Maastricht. In the run-up to the general election last year, the Prime Minister promised to consider
  "holding up the IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest."
  He failed to fulfil that promise and stand up for British fishing interests.
  I do not want to appear presumptuous, but perhaps I could give Ministers friendly advice on how to negotiate a fisheries protocol and how to win friends and influence people in the European Union. The British presidency this year and Britain's negotiations in the IGC last year have been marked by a failure to stand up for British interests.
  I give just two examples. By signing the social chapter, the Government have damaged our flexible labour market, to the specific detriment of small and medium businesses in this country. By failing to negotiate the fisheries protocol to protect our vital national fishing interests, they have let down one of the country's strategic industries.
  I emphasise that, in my view, withdrawal from the common fisheries policy is not an option. We need a common European fisheries policy. Fish are a vital
  966
  commodity and resource but, regrettably, do not swim around wearing a Union Jack. They cross frontiers—they do not respect national boundaries—so we need a common fisheries policy.
  However, we need a fisheries policy that is better enforced in other member states. If anything, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this country is over-enthusiastic in enforcing the common fisheries policy. I ask the Government tonight: is that true of other member states? Until recently, Spain did not even have fisheries inspectors to inspect catches. I shall not mention the issue of under-sized catches being landed in Spain and other countries.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, we need a sustainable, properly policed fisheries policy, and to protect future fish stocks there should be no over-fishing anywhere in the European Union.
  In negotiations, we should take a leaf out of the Spanish book. Spain would not rely on an exchange of letters between its Prime Minister and the President of the Commission, Jacques Santer. I seek an assurance from Ministers that the deal that the Minister of State described, which is set out in an exchange of letters, amounts to a legal agreement which would stand up to scrutiny before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. In my view, it does not. The provisions set out in that exchange of letters relate to percentages, and in my view a link with nationality would be open to legal challenge before the European Court of Justice, exactly as the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was. In other words, it would be open to legal challenge on grounds of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, under article 6 of the treaty; on the right of establishment, under article 52 of the treaty; and on the right to participate in companies, under article 221 of the treaty.
  In any event, the so-called deal does nothing to prevent overseas fishermen from buying British quota, and it does not remove the quota hoppers from the United Kingdom register. In my view, British fishermen cannot rely on it.
  In conclusion, I reject the negotiating tactic employed by the present Government, and I commend the Lords amendment to the House.
  Mr. Gill: The Minister who opened the debate said that the Prime Minister was committed to the Government tackling the problems of quota hopping, and that they had faced up to those problems in a positive way. The Conservative case tonight is that the Prime Minister did not tackle that problem; more to the point, he squandered the only practical opportunity to do so that has been available to the Westminster Parliament for a long time.
  Mr. Morley indicated dissent.
  Mr. Gill: The Minister is nodding—
  Mr. Morley: I am shaking my head.
  Mr. Gill: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Shortly, I shall make some remarks about some of the things that he has said.
  The Prime Minister missed that opportunity, and those of us who study the machinations of the European Community appreciate that only in limited windows of

  967
  opportunity can one get any satisfaction on such major issues. As some hon. Members have been at pains to point out, sometimes very strong-arm tactics must be used—indeed, have been used by other countries—to get satisfaction on issues that concern us. Conservative Members' complaint tonight is that the Prime Minister has failed to use any form of strength.
  It was rather galling to hear the Minister say that the Conservative solutions to the quota hopping problem were not deliverable. We have no means of knowing whether the Government's proposals—if they had any—were deliverable, because they did not press them. In another place, the noble Lord Whitty said:
  "This is a record of failure to tell the truth to the fishing communities and the public …It is time we stopped posturing on this and told the truth to the fishing communities."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 May 1998; Vol. 589, c. 1189.]
  I agree entirely with that message. I agree whole-heartedly with Lord Whitty when he says that we should tell the truth. The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), who has just re-entered the Chamber, also appealed for honesty.
  I departed from Lord Whitty's comments when he ascribed all the ills of the British fishing industry to the previous Administration. In truth, the problems have not arisen simply in the past 18 years: they have existed ever since we joined the European Community. To this day, Ministers refuse to acknowledge that the basic tenet of the common fisheries policy is equal access to the common resource without discrimination. By dint of the accession treaties signed in Corfu, that is now part of the acquis communautaire.
  How did the Fisheries Minister respond? In a letter to Fishing News on 1 May 1998, the Minister said:
  "The present restrictions on access within the six and 12 mile limits expire on 31 December 2002."
  I must give credit where it is due: we have managed to convert the Minister to that view and he is correct in that belief. He goes on to say:
  "We are confident of their renewal".
  Perhaps the Minister will tell us by what token he believes that that derogation will be renewed. The same letter to Fishing News records:
  "The system of quotas and relative stability will be reviewed by the end of 2002. But it does not expire then and will continue unaltered unless the Council decides otherwise."
  There is clearly great confusion in the minds of Ministers if they do not understand that derogations run out in 2002—of that there is no doubt.
  To demonstrate conclusively that the Minister does not understand that point, I remind him of an answer that he gave me at Question Time earlier in the year, when he said:
  "the principle of relative stability takes precedence over the issue of common access."—[Official Report, 30 April 1993; Vol. 311, c. 440.]
  How can that be? Will the Minister explain tonight why he believes that a derogation is superior to a treaty commitment? Who has advised the Minister that that is the case? What motive lies behind the Minister's interpretation? More to the point, what evidence can he produce to substantiate his claim? Right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to know the answer to that question, and British fishermen will also be very interested in that answer.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend displays great perceptiveness and his usual intimate
  968
  knowledge of the subject. Does not the House need to know what trades the Minister is prepared to make in order to extend the derogation?
  Mr. Gill: My hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. In the world of horse trading—that is what goes on in Brussels—something must be given in order to obtain a benefit. That is another question that the Minister might answer when he sums up this evening. What will he trade to ensure that the six and 12-mile limit derogation is extended, and to ensure the continuation of relative stability?
  Mr. Nicholls: We have had an interesting and, in some ways, sombre debate. There have been 11 speeches, nine from Back Benchers: most were extremely impressive; some—especially that of the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), which I shall not for a moment try to match—were made from the basis of knowledge of the fishing industry; one, to which I shall refer in a moment, was positively odd, but even a serious debate deserves its lighter moments.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was right to say that the key point is not how we feel about Europe—on one level, it is not even how we feel about fish. The key point is how people feel about their politicians and would-be leaders who say one thing—unequivocally, unambiguously and straightforwardly—and then do not simply fail in their objectives, which is a common lot of politicians in a fallen world, but do not even attempt to deliver.
  9.30 pm
  This is a sorry business, and wholly typical of the Prime Minister. He believes that he discharges the functions of his office by smiling his way around the capitals of Europe, and that such a performance amounts to statesmanship. He is aided and abetted by the Foreign Secretary, a man who is so lamentably unfit for his job that the only task that he performs for the Government is to make the Prime Minister look good by comparison. When people with that attitude are in charge of the nation's destiny, it is necessary to hold a debate such as this.
  We have heard the usual criticism that the amendment may not be particularly well drafted. That does not matter. The amendment is perfectly straightforward: it has enabled the House to shine the harshest possible light on what the Prime Minister did, and to have this debate. People who take an interest in those matters can look at Hansard next week, next year and in perpetuity and understand what has been done. The amendment has performed a most valuable function, because, as I shall show in a moment, the way in which the Prime Minister handled the negotiations and set out his stall violated all the norms of intellectual honesty. There are other ways of describing that sort of behaviour outside the House, but that will do for my purposes this evening.
  We have heard much about the common fisheries policy, and hon. Members will have their views about what an ideal CFP would be. Where nations share the seas, there has to be a fisheries policy. A working title might be the CFP, but it is not our job to debate what the contents of an ideal CFP might be. It is sufficient for our purposes to say that, over the years, the CFP has not done

  969
  British fishermen any good. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, it has not done much good for the fish, either.
  If time permitted, we could debate the CFP, but that is not the point. The one thing that should be common ground between hon. Members is that quota hopping cannot possibly be right, whatever our views on Europe, fish or the CFP. Foreign-owned and foreign-crewed ships take catches out of the United Kingdom allocation and land them abroad—behaving in that way is simply untenable. It was noticeable that hon. Members on both sides of the House have not said a good word about the Government in practice, but one can say that quota hopping is simply unacceptable.
  What are the facts? They are clear, and profoundly uncomfortable for Labour. Any Government can be accused retrospectively of not spotting difficulties, but that is too easy. People do not expect a Government to spot every devious turn of events that could bring about a certain situation, but they expect them to react properly when a problem is perceived. The idea that the previous Government did not react properly, quickly and decisively to quota hopping is completely at variance with the facts. The facts are that we said that we would act, and we did. The Labour Opposition said that they would act, and they did not. They did not fail—which is what we would have expected—because they did not even try.
  The previous Government's record on quota hopping was honourable. First, we tried to impose on owners licence conditions on the loading and crewing of their ships. Secondly, through the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, we tried to limit the ownership of vessels to British nationals and British companies. That was the right thing to do, and my recollection is that it was so obviously the right thing to do that the House did not even divide on Second Reading. Labour Members have suggested that it was a dreadful Act: not a bit of it. The House was not even divided.
  In due course, we had the indignity of legislation passed by this sovereign House of Parliament being struck down by the foreign European court. That is what happened in the Factortame judgment, and the indignity did not end there. In 1996, a further judgment of the European Court of Justice required United Kingdom domestic courts to assess the compensation that must be paid to Spanish fishermen for the money that they were done out of by not being able to pillage our fishing grounds when the 1988 Act was in force.
  That is the measure of the problem. Faced with the Act being struck down, there is nothing to suggest that the previous Government did not react properly. They tried to see what could be negotiated, and they came to the conclusion pretty quickly that, if anything were to be done, it would have to be by an alteration to the treaty. That was our position throughout, and why we acted as we did.
  The suggestion by the Minister of State that our European friends and partners did not realise that we wanted the treaty to be altered is lamentable and laughable. We made it clear throughout: my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) could not have made it more clear. He said:
  "The IGC won't come to a successful conclusion until we are satisfied that among our other objectives the problem of quota hopping is resolved satisfactorily."
  970
  The previous year, Lady Trumpington said in the other place:
  "we have notified the IGC, the Commission and other member states that we shall be tabling proposals to deal with the problem of quota hopping… they will take the form of a protocol to the treaty".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 June 1996; Vol. 573, c. 82.]
  We went ahead and tabled those proposals. The Minister of State thinks that it backs up his argument to say that a German Minister may not have done his homework properly. At least he can smile: I give him credit for that.
  Mr. Doug Henderson: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that the starting point of a negotiation is that the other side understands what one is trying to do. How could the previous Government get an agreement with Klaus Kinkel if he had not heard of the protocol and did not know what they wanted to negotiate in the first place?
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman repeats the point that was put to him because it was thought to be a relatively simple one that he could wrestle with on the Floor of the House. The idea that we sprung this protocol on our partners at the last minute and that they did not know what was afoot is quite frankly wrong.
  The Minister also argued that it was not feasible for us to put our foot down at Amsterdam and say, "We shall not shift until this matter is dealt with." Was that really not feasible? It was not only the Conservative Government who thought that it was feasible: the Opposition also thought so.
  I accept that this confusion is not the fault of the Fisheries Minister: he is merely a Parliamentary Secretary, and he does not lay down policy. He does what he is told and, if he forgets what he is told, it appears on his messenger. He has previously said that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry)—who was in charge of negotiations at that time—had said that quota hopping would be "pursued vigorously" at the IGC, and that Labour supported that approach. The then Leader of the Opposition thought that it was feasible. He said:
  "we certainly have not ruled out holding up IGC business in order to get the right changes to fishing policy in the British interest… where Britain's interests are at stake, we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are."
  That is what the Prime Minister said.
  Every debate should have some light relief, and the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said that the Prime Minister did not really mean what he said and that in fact he meant the precise opposite, but he wanted to be nice to the Prime Minister of the day. That is a fair precis of the position. The then Leader of the Opposition said emphatically, "We will back the Government on this. It is a feasible policy and if we go to Amsterdam, let there be no doubt. We will be every bit as tough."
  So what did tough-talking Tony manage to achieve when he got there? Did he put his foot down and say, "No. I am sorry. I said it, and my word is my bond"? When the Prime Minister offers that, one should always take his bond.
  What actually happened was that there was an exchange of correspondence. In the new, friendly, communautaire arrangements, a "Dear Tony" and "Dear Jacques" exchange of correspondence was produced triumphantly in June last

  971
  year, although the Prime Minister had made it absolutely clear that there would be a seamless thread between his desire and that of the Conservative party to stand up for British interests. Basically, that exchange of correspondence does no more than state what people already understood the position to be.
  Just in case there should be any doubt that it should be legally binding—this is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and the substance of my question to the Minister of State—and just to make sure that the Prime Minister's humiliation was complete, Jacques Santer pointed out in the exchange of correspondence that it was not binding. He said that he agreed with the proposition about the economic link, adding, however:
  "On the other hand, any requirement of an economic link which exceeds those limits cannot be justified by the system of national quotas."
  He went on to make that point, too. Even at that time, flaccid, useless and impotent though that exchange of correspondence was, the Spanish were still serving notice that, if anything were done to build on that agreement, it would be open to challenge.
  Where are we now? We have been told that some new proposals have been worked out, so where are they? Aficionados of such matters will have to find an obscure parliamentary question of 12 May saying in effect, "These things are in the pipeline. We are waiting for Europe to tell us whether we can do what we want."
  The Spaniards have already said what they think about that. They have raised "grave reservations and doubts" about the revised version of the United Kingdom proposals. They are concerned that visits to ports have been dropped from the range of options for providing an economic link with a fishing area. They have criticised the "disproportionate" way in which landings and residency have been set out, and in a host of other ways they have made it abundantly clear that there is not the slightest doubt that, when they are in a position to do so, they will refer the matter to the European Court of Justice.
  One does not have to be a very good lawyer—which is why even the Prime Minister should realise it—to know that anything that safeguards the British position must be to the detriment of somebody else, and the only way in which that detriment or fairness to British interests—whichever way one looks at it—can be enshrined in a way that ensures that it cannot be subject to legal challenge is through a protocol to the treaty.
  So where are we tonight? The Prime Minister set out a position clearly and unequivocally, and he has gone back on it. The only point we need to know—I accept that it is of academic interest only—is whether the Prime Minister always intended to break his word or whether it was an idea that he had afterwards. Was it that, in the end, he simply did not have the courage to go to Europe and be a little Britainer? Was it that, despite everything he said, he simply could not contemplate the idea of having to walk across a European stage safe in the knowledge that the only people who were on his side were his own fishermen and the people in his own country? In other words, did he always intend to break his word, or was it something that he decided to do because he thought that the fishermen simply were not worth the candle?
  Tonight, we are witnessing a depressing display from the Government, who have taken one position and are now saying something entirely different. We are about to
  972
  see the Minister—whom I like and get on with—stand at the Dispatch Box and disown his own words or distinguish them in such a way that will make him look knavish or foolish or both. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) pointed out that we have not even begun to address what will happen in 2002 when the derogations come to an end. What we have seen tonight and what we shall hear from the Government is shabby and squalid—and they should be ashamed of themselves.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Morley: First, may I apologise to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? I assure him and the House that I meant no discourtesy in not being present to hear his opening comments. I was involved in interviews for the chairs of the new Regional Development Agencies in order to ensure a rural dimension to the appointments. I was very grateful to be asked by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning to participate in that exercise. I had hoped to be present for the beginning of the debate, and I apologise for the fact that my timing was slightly wrong.
  In this debate, we have heard nothing but a rewrite of the history of the fishing industry and a verbal airbrushing of what has happened. This Government inherited a complete and utter shambles of a fishing industry after 18 years of the Conservative party's stewardship. Claims that the protocol proposed by the previous Government would have solved the issue of quota hopping have been nothing but ludicrous. To suggest in any way that Labour in opposition made false claims is both fatuous and insulting. I shall deal with those points in due course.
  I turn to some of the excellent speeches in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), who has more experience of fishing than many in the House, spoke with great authority on the subject.
  Mr. Mitchell: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Morley: I am pleased to have my hon. Friend's support on that if on nothing else.
  My hon. Friend was absolutely right to say that the amendment is meaningless and totally pointless. He asked questions on several points. As an avid reader of Fishing News, he will know that I have set out some of the answers in correspondence. I should like to reassure him on the Corfu agreement and European Union fishing permits. EU fishing permits already exist in some fisheries; there is nothing new about that. I assure him that fishing permits would not replace member states' roles in licensing their national fishing fleets. That would occur only if a majority voted to introduce a permit scheme.
  There is no proposal to introduce such a permit scheme, and the United Kingdom Government would not support any such proposal. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that equal enforcement and control is essential in the European Union. He will know that, under our presidency, we brought forward a paper on enforcement and control, which was unanimously supported as a basis for improving enforcement and control across all European member states. That is going ahead.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was very imaginative in finding a new reason for the previous Government's failures in the

  973
  fishing industry. It appears that all the fishing industry's problems were due to the dock labour scheme—a most interesting concept.
  I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman's points about sustainability. He made very serious points, particularly given his role on the Marine Stewardship Council. None the less, he is not in a position to lecture this Government on sustainability when the Government of whom he was a member failed to make any progress whatever in reducing fleet over-capacity against targets set by the EU.
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said that there was not one example of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, making a promise and not delivering on it. I thought that that was a quite incredible statement. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems to have forgotten that his Administration promised that their policy of non-co-operation with the EU would bring about an end to the beef ban. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon told the House that the period of non-co-operation had been a huge success, a great victory, and that the beef ban would be lifted in November 1996. Given their success in the campaign of non-co-operation, what on earth makes Conservative Members think that they would have been more successful in a campaign to try to amend the agreement reached at the intergovernmental conference, which would have required the support of all member states, as each had a veto in that negotiation?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) also has great knowledge and experience of the fishing industry. He humiliated the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal by pointing out his mishandling of the decommissioning scheme. That money should have helped the whole industry to restructure, but instead it went to a small number of trawler companies. I accept his case for common fisheries policy reform when the European Union is enlarged. No new member state that does not have quota or an historical track record of fishing in our waters will get access to any of our quota-controlled stocks. I also accept his point about the need for the regional dimension to be strengthened.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his compliment. The fishing industries of the Irish republic and the United Kingdom are still suffering terribly from the disgraceful conduct of Spanish trawler owners and skippers, who sweep the seas clean and will try any kind of fiddle to dodge their obligations.
  Mr. Morley: I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not tolerate the rules being broken. We have made that clear several times. We recently conducted prosecutions in the cases of 14 Spanish-owned UK vessels, which resulted in fines totalling £1 million for transgressions.
  The hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) was honest in his comments about the failures of previous Conservative Administrations. I know of his longstanding interest in fisheries. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) is a new Member, but he already has a proud record of standing up for his fishing communities. 1 noted the support that his inshore fishermen gave him in the recent debate about razor
  974
  clams. He was right about quota hoppers. I assure him that we are in the final stages of producing a document about quota hopping and economic links. I shall say more about that in a moment.
  The only issue on which I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is that the amendment is bogus. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) spoke about his inshore fleet. He knows of my support for the inshore industry and his fishermen. He is wrong to say that the amendment is not bogus.
  The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh)— a Conservative Member—gave advice on how the Government could win friends and influence the European Union, which I found incredible. The rift between Tory Members of the European Parliament and the rest of the Conservative party must be even greater than I had thought.
  The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) is a regular contributor to these debates. I cannot go into detail about all his points in the time available. As another avid reader of Fishing News, he will know that I have spelt out the Government's position on six and 12-mile limits and relative stability, and that the Commission has supported that and written letters making the same points as I have made.
  I welcome the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) in his first Front-Bench outing in a debate, but I was disappointed by his attempt to cover his lack of knowledge of the fishing industry with personal abuse of the Prime Minister. The House deserves better than that.
  The Conservatives were slow to react in government in the early 1980s to the emergence of quota hopping, with foreign-owned vessels registering in the UK and fishing our quota. They introduced an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, but Labour Members pointed out that the amendment was contrary to the Single European Act that the Conservatives had introduced. Indeed, in the Factortame case the European Court overruled it.
  The Conservatives had several opportunities to deal with quota hopping. They could have dealt with it during the negotiations on Spanish and Portuguese accession in 1985, but the then Government did not even mention it at that time. They could also have raised it on the occasion of Swedish, Finnish and Austrian accession—but again, while Spain threatened to use its veto to get advantages for its fishing industry, the Conservatives did nothing, apart from agreeing to the Spanish demands as they were made.
  After 18 years, the Conservatives' answer was to introduce a protocol at the IGC. Everyone who had followed the debate, whether inside or outside the fishing industry, knew that that was an utterly bogus suggestion. First, even if the protocol had been carried, it would not have removed one quota hopper from the list; it would not have made the slightest difference. Secondly, not one of the 14 other member states supported the then Government's position, and every one of those 14 had a veto. Yet the Conservatives seem to think that they could have made progress on that basis.

  975
  It is true that at that time, in opposition, we were following the debate about the IGC and the protocol, and we made it clear that we did not rule out a future Labour Government's withholding their support at the IGC if we felt that we could make progress on that basis. However, in government it did not take us long to realise that that route was a complete dead end, and that there was no point in wasting time on something that could not be achieved.
  Mr. Howard: If that was such an obvious dead end, why did the Prime Minister say, days before the election:
  "we are perfectly prepared to be isolated. Of course we are"?
  Mr. Morley: I have made it clear that that was said in opposition. It would have been wrong then to rule out any option. I repeat that when, in government, we had a chance to see what the situation was, it was clear that there was no possibility of achieving support for the protocol. In the letter, we promised that the Labour Government would deal with quota hopping as a high priority. We have delivered on that promise—so much so that France and Belgium are already modelling an economic link for licence conditions based on our proposals. The matter is in its final stage, and we shall make the details public in the near future.

  The Tory Administration were a failure in their attempts to deal with those issues. They failed in their original fisheries policy, and they failed to modify it when they had the opportunity, with Spanish and Portuguese accession. They failed to ensure that the economic circumstances of the United Kingdom fishing industry made it profitable and secure for our fishermen to hold on to their quotas.
  It was the Conservative Government who encouraged fishermen to sell their licences, because no decommissioning scheme was available. They also ignored repeated requests by Labour Members to introduce one. The Conservatives—not the Labour Government and not the Labour party—must take responsibility for the fact that there are quota hoppers on the register now.
  The Conservatives also failed to recognise that the United Kingdom regulations would be challenged before the European Court of Justice. They left government with a potential 30 per cent. cut across the board in prospect for every fishing boat in this country. We have managed to resolve that situation and bring some stability to the fishing industry, as the previous Government failed to do. The last word on the Tory Government's record is the fact that the fishing industry voted out just about every Tory Member who represented a fishing port—and their record is no better now than it was then.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 134.

  Division No. 298]

  [9.58 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Ainger, Nick

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Ashton, Joe

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allan, Richard

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Allen, Graham

  Austin, John

  976

  Baker, Norman

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ballard, Jackie

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Banks, Tony

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Barron, Kevin

  Doran, Frank

  Battle, John

  Drew, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Beard, Nigel

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Edwards, Huw

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Efford, Clive

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Etherington, Bill

  Benton, Joe

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Berry, Roger

  Fisher, Mark

  Betts, Clive

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Flint, Caroline

  Boateng, Paul

  Flynn, Paul

  Borrow, David

  Follett, Barbara

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Brake, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Browne, Desmond

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burnett, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burstow, Paul

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Byers, Stephen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Goggins, Paul

  Cabom, Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Grant, Bernie

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gunnell, John

  Chaytor, David

  Hain, Peter

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hancock, Mike

  Hanson, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cohen, Harry

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Colman, Tony

  Hill, Keith

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cotter, Brian

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cox, Tom

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Home Robertson, John

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Darvill, Keith

  Hurst, Alan

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hutton, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jamieson, David

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  977

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pound, Stephen

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kemp, Fraser

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Rapson, Syd

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Kumar, DrAshok

  Rendel, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Rogers, Allan

  Laxton, Bob

  Rooney, Terry

  Lepper, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Ruane, Chris

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruddock, Ms Joan

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Linton, Martin

  Salter, Martin

  Livingstone, Ken

  Sanders, Adrian

  Livsey, Richard

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Love, Andrew

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McAllion, John

  Sheerman, Barry

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Singh, Marsha

  McCartney, Robert (N Down)

  Skinner, Dennis

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  McDonnell, John

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

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

  MacShane, Denis

  Snape, Peter

  McWalter, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  McWilliam, John

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Spellar, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mandelson, Peter

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Marek, Dr John

  Stevenson, George

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Meale, Alan

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Merron, Gillian

  Stott, Roger

  Michael, Alun

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Stringer, Graham

  Milburn, Alan

  Stunell, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Moffatt, Laura

  Swinney, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Morley, Elliot

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don

  Norris, Dan

  Trickett, Jon

  Oaten, Mark

  Truswell, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Olner, Bill

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Tyler, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Vaz, Keith

  Pearson, Ian

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Wallace, James

  Pickthall, Colin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pike, Peter L

  Watts, David

  978

  White, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wood, Mike

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Willis, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wills, Michael

  Mr. Jim Dowd and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Kevin Hughes.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Amess, David

  Horam, John

  Arbuthnot, James

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Blunt, Crispin

  Key, Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Boswell, Tim

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Brady, Graham

  Lansley, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Leigh, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Bums, Simon

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Butterfill, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Cash, William

  Luff, Peter

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Chope, Christopher

  MacKay, Andrew

  Clappison, James

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Maples, John

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Mates, Michael

  Collins, Tim

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Colvin, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Cran, James

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Norman, Archie

  Day, Stephen

  Page, Richard

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Paice, James

  Duncan, Alan

  Paterson, Owen

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Pickles, Eric

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Prior, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Randall, John

  Faber, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fallon, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Flight, Howard

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Ruffley, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gale, Roger

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gill, Christopher

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, James

  Swayne, Desmond

  Green, Damian

  Syms, Robert

  Greenway, John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Townend, John

  Hammond, Philip

  Tredinnick, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Hayes, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Walter, Robert

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Wardle, Charles

  979

  Waterson, Nigel

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wells, Bowen

  Yeo, Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Wilkinson, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willetts, David

  Sir David Madel and

  Wilshire, David

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment disagreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment to the Bill: Mr. Doug Henderson, Mr. Denis MacShane, Sir David Madel, Mr. Patrick Nicholls and Mr. Greg Pope; Mr. Doug Henderson to be Chairman of the Committee; and Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords amendment reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES (LONDON) BILL
  The Order of the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Bill on Friday 3 July having been read and discharged—
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee.—[Jane Kennedy.]

  Gas Industry
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
  10.13 pm
  Mr. Barry Gardiner: It would be a foolish Member of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who presumed to test your patience by standing here at the end of a long parliamentary day in a vain attempt to suggest that the fate of the gas connections industry is a matter of vexation to most of his or her constituents. The gas connections industry is simply not a sexy topic. At the risk of testing not your patience, but perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister's sense of humour, I venture to suggest that gas connection is no Dounreay. Be that as it may, bullying and lies, discrimination and overcharging will, I trust, never fail to be of interest to the House, and it is on that basis that I beg leave to detain hon. Members this evening.
  The Gas Act 1995 introduced competition to the business of connecting premises to the mains gas network. Previously, the market had been under the monopoly control of British Gas Transco. In January 1997, my constituent, Mr. Andrew Duffield, who had been a senior manager at Transco, left to set up a specialist gas connection company—Exoteric Gas Solutions—to compete against Transco. EGS not only increased choice, but brought considerable savings to customers.
  I am here not to praise EGS, however, but to expose Transco. As with any former monopoly, Transco enjoys a pre-eminent market position, but it is also charged with custodianship of the existing network. All competing connection companies are compelled to apply to Transco for certain information and services relating to the existing network. Final connection to the mains can be performed only by Transco itself, and competitors such as EGS must obtain a quotation from Transco for that final aspect of any new pipe laying scheme before they can submit an accurate quotation for the whole scheme to their customers.
  Transco has a statutory duty to provide such information and services to my constituent's company and other competitors. Transco is licensed by the Office of Gas Supply under the 1995 Act, and is required to treat all participants in the connections market without discrimination. It cannot gain an unfair advantage by delaying a quotation for final connection to its competitor so that its own connections team can provide a more timely quotation. By the same token, it cannot quote an exaggerated cost for such work by a competitor in order to raise the cost of the competitor's quote to the end customer.
  I have no intention of misleading the House. I have said that Transco cannot do those things; I should have said that, under the legislation, it may not do so. Evidence in my possession suggests not only that Transco can operate in an illegitimate and anti-competitive manner, but that it does so repeatedly and systematically. I spoke in my introduction not only of discrimination and overcharging, but of bullying and lies. Those are serious allegations, and I must justify them.
  In March and April 1997, EGS was competing against Transco and other connection companies for a contract to design and build the new mains and services required

  981
  to supply an additional gas load at Chilterns crematorium in Amersham. On 3 April, my constituent received the following faxed letter:
  "Dear Mr. Duffield
  A formal complaint has been received from Ofgas about the activities of Exoteric Gas Solutions. The basis of the complaint is that you have been seeking to exploit commercially confidential information gained during the course of your employment with Transco.
  The matter specifically referred to is Chilterns Crematorium, Whielden Lane, Amersham.
  As you can imagine, Transco takes this complaint very seriously indeed.
  Accordingly, I should be obliged if you would let me have your observations on this matter as soon as possible. I would wish to have these before taking any further steps.
  Ofgas have specifically requested that the client, in the case referred to, does not wish to have any further involvement. I would ask you to respect that request."
  That letter was signed by Transco's legal services manager.
  Mr. Duffield immediately contacted Ofgas to ask whether any such complaint had been received about EGS, and whether Ofgas had requested that EGS should have no further involvement with any client. He received a quite astonishing answer on 8 April. It read:
  "Dear Mr. Duffield
  CHILTERNS CREMATORIUM, WHIELDEN LANE, AMERSHAM
  Further to both our telephone conversation and your fax of 7 April to the Director General, I am writing in order to clarify the situation regarding the above site.
  I would first of all like to reiterate that the complaint did not concern the activities of Exoteric Gas Solutions. It related to an alleged breach of Transco's licence conditions. As a result of the complaint, Ofgas has asked the Head of Compliance at BG plc to ascertain whether or not such a breach in fact occurred.
  May I also point out that the complaint did not come from Ofgas. Ofgas has simply requested that the Compliance Officer look into a complaint that was made to Ofgas.
  Moreover, Ofgas has at no stage requested that Exoteric Gas Solutions have no further contact with its clients.
  I appreciate the concern that you have about this matter and trust you feel reassured that it is the conduct of Transco that is being investigated, not that of Exoteric Gas Solutions."
  It was signed "Yours sincerely" by the regulation and business affairs manager.
  That is pretty conclusive, not to say a damaging reflection on the interpretation of events provided by Ofgas's legal services manager in his original letter to EGS. None the less, it could have been an end of the matter but for the fact that rumours began to circulate in the industry to the effect that EGS was the subject of an official investigation by Ofgas and that perhaps one should not do business with it.
  At this point, Ofgas, EGS and Transco were in possession of the facts. EGS could have little reason to spread such a rumour against itself. Ofgas wrote to it again on 9 July, stating:
  "We are concerned that rumours detrimental to your company would seem to be circulating and we intend to discuss with BG plc how this issue has been handled."
  BG plc is of course the parent company of Transco.
  982
  For its part, BG plc's general counsel responded as follows in a letter to EGS dated 25 June 1997:
  "I can only reiterate that I have no knowledge of allegations of a formal complaint being spread throughout the Gas Industry."
  I have a copy of a memo dated 27 March 1997. It is an internal memo headed "BG plc Transco Memorandum from the Area Directors to all the Managers of District Operations". It specifically notes:
  "To be circulated to other Level 3s."
  I contend that it illegally denies EGS the statutory rights owed to it by Transco under the Gas Act. I will read it in full. It states:
  "E.G.S.
  We are dealing with a high level complaint concerning this company and the alleged misuse of Transco information. Could you ensure that you and your staff have no dealings with this company or with its principal (Andrew Duffield) until further notice."
  Not three months later, the chief legal officer of BG plc could state in a letter dated 25 June 1997 that he had
  "no knowledge of allegations of a formal complaint being spread through the Gas Industry."
  It is said that the difference between a lawyer and a supermarket trolley is that one can get more food into a lawyer, but that it is more difficult to keep the lawyer going in a straight line. However, the charge that I must level tonight does not remain focused on the legal officers of Transco, be they ever so exalted.
  On 27 March, when the memo was circulated, it was circulated from the "area directors". The area director of the east area was Mr. Phil Nolan. He is now the managing director of Transco as a whole. On 1 September 1997, he wrote to Mr. Duffield specifically to confirm whether he had ever issued information to Transco's employees not to deal with EGS. He responded:
  "I can confirm that I have issued no such instruction and there are no such instructions to that effect in place."
  If Mr. Nolan has lied, it is the duty of Ofgas to examine whether he is a fit and proper person to hold the position of managing director of the country's largest gas transportation company.
  In November last year, I met representatives of Ofgas, and the question of its powers as regulator was discussed. In particular, it transpired that, where there has been a breach of section 42 of the Gas Act, it is open to it to take action under section 28. Such action may include the imposition of a financial penalty, and may extend to the recommendation of compensation to any adversely affected third party.
  I believe that there may be a loophole in the Act, such that, where a company in violation of its statutory obligations has put in place revised procedures that make future violations less likely and has done so at the behest of Ofgas, and where a further breach is subsequently discovered to have taken place before that procedure was rectified, that breach is no longer subject to remedy by Ofgas under section 28 action. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to examine that problem to see whether any amendments need to be made to the legislation.
  I have spent much time elaborating on this matter because the charges that I have made are extremely serious in their own right—I trust that my hon. Friend will ensure that they are fully investigated. More than that, I have dwelt on the matter because it provides important

  983
  background for understanding the other issues of discrimination and overcharging that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech and to which I now turn.
  Last year, on 22 December, I was grateful to the Minister for agreeing to meet Mr. Duffield and me. At that meeting, we left with my hon. Friend an extensive dossier detailing cases in which Transco had acted in what we considered was an anti-competitive manner, in spite of its statutory duty to treat all participants in the connections market without discrimination. After that meeting, the Minister communicated his own concerns about those matters to Ofgas—indeed, it appeared that, after his prompting, Ofgas had pursued its investigation with renewed vigour and that a resolution might be possible. Unfortunately, I have to report that that hope proved unduly optimistic.
  My hon. Friend will recall the case of Saxon business park, where Transco quoted EGS a figure of £5,650.97 for a final connection to the Transco main, only to reduce it to £800 after the quotation was persistently challenged. I am able to provide many further cases where Transco has acted in a discriminatory manner by quoting an unreasonably high cost to EGS. For Brook Street business park, on 13 February 1998, a final connection was originally quoted by Transco at £1,133; after challenge, it was reduced to £578.25—it had been a 100 per cent. overcharge. The list is growing by the day. A quote of £44,328 was made for a connection which, had it complied with condition 5 of Transco's own public gas transporter's licence, would have cost no more than £14,000—an overcharge of almost 300 per cent. At St. Andrew's school in Watford, a quote of £1,137 was made which, when properly calculated, amounts to £440.25.
  The House will appreciate that such wildly inaccurate initial quotations by Transco discriminate against EGS, not only on the basis of cost, but by delaying EGS's ability to provide a prompt and accurate quotation to its own end customers. It is impossible for a small company such as EGS to compete effectively in its chosen markets when faced with such behaviour from the dominant player—the monopoly as was, Transco. I urge my hon. Friend to make full investigations into these matters. I am happy to provide him with further information, and I trust that he will be in correspondence with Ofgas to pursue the matter with all due vigour.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) for the terms in which he has presented his case tonight. He is fast earning a reputation in the House as a most conscientious champion of his constituents. The assiduous detail with which he has backed up his strong assertions has resulted in a strong case. Strong words have been used, and the case demands detailed investigation. I shall try to respond in general to my hon. Friend's points. I shall also say a few words about the Government' s overall approach to the regulation of the gas industry.
  Let me say from the outset that I am well aware of the subject of the complaint made to Ofgas by a company—Exoteric Gas Solutions—based in my hon. Friend's constituency about certain aspects of the arrangements for new connections. As my hon. Friend said, we met on 22 December last year, but the matter has still not been sorted out. Since then, Ofgas has received certain
  984
  allegations—I stress that they are allegations—from other companies, as well as from my hon. Friend's constituent, that Transco is acting in an anti-competitive way in relation to the provision of connections and systems extensions.
  Under the regulatory framework, the duty to investigate such complaints lies not with the Department of Trade and Industry, but with Ofgas. Section 31 of the Gas Act 1986 states:
  "It shall be the duty of the Director"—
  the Director General of Gas Supply—
  "to investigate any matter … which … is the subject of a representation (other than one appearing to the Director to be frivolous) made to the Director by… a person appearing to the Director to have an interest in that matter".
  My hon. Friend referred to previous Gas Acts. The Gas Act 1986 provided for the privatisation of British Gas and competition in supplies to certain large contract customers. It also set up the office of the Director General of Gas Supply as the independent regulator of the gas industry. Since then, there have been a number of Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiries into the gas market, as well as a review by the Office of Fair Trading, which have brought significant changes to the industry and its structure.
  The 1993 Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry led to British Gas separating its trading and transportation functions and the Administration of the day's decision to introduce competition for domestic consumers. The way for that was prepared by the Gas Act 1995, which amended the 1986 Act to provide for the introduction of competition to all gas consumers.
  The 1995 Act introduced significant changes into the structure of the industry, and brought to an end the supply and transportation of gas by a single integrated company. It introduced the concept of three separate licensed entities: the gas supplier, the gas shipper and the public gas transporter, all of which are subject to a licensing system operated and policed by the Director General of Gas Supply. That separation is important, and I shall return in a moment to the role of the public gas transporter.
  As I have emphasised, the regulator has statutory responsibility for the licensing of transportation, shipping and supply of gas in Great Britain, and other duties in relation to gas metering and the investigation of complaints. The Director General of Gas Supply is under a general duty to secure that, so far as it is economical to meet them, all reasonable demands in Great Britain for gas conveyed through pipes are met; to ensure that licence holders are able to finance their licensed activities; to secure effective competition in the shipping and supply of gas; and to protect the interests of consumers in respect of prices, continuity and quality of supply, and rights of entry to their premises.
  The Director General of Gas Supply has various other duties governing the exercise of those functions. I stress in particular the duty to protect the public from dangers arising from the conveyance of gas through pipes and from the use of gas conveyed through pipes, and the duty to secure effective competition in relation to the conveyance of gas through pipes to pipeline systems and to areas to which gas has not previously been conveyed. That relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend.

  985
  An essential feature of the regulatory framework is the division of function between the Government and the Director General of Gas Supply as the sectoral regulator. Broadly, the Government set the framework and the director general is responsible for regulating the industry within the framework set out by Ministers. I emphasise that distinction.
  At the heart of the gas industry is the national transmission system—the national gas grid—which was set up as a result of connecting the North sea terminals. It comprises some 160,000 miles of mains pipeline and is owned and operated by Transco, one of the old British Gas's two successor companies, which is required to have a public gas transporter's licence.
  The national transmission system is a natural monopoly. It is hardly conceivable that competitors should construct their own pipeline grid. The regulation of the monopoly is therefore crucial. Although the national transmission system is a monopoly asset, there is scope for competition in connections and systems extensions—in connecting new premises and extending the gas network to areas that previously have not been supplied with gas. That was spelled out when competition was opened up.
  Competition in those areas arises in two ways: through the scope for other public gas transporters directly to compete with Transco in providing connections and system extensions, and through the scope for self-laying, where consumers purchase and lay the pipes. In addition to Transco, there are now six licensed public gas transporters to which consumers can turn.
  As I said, the director general has a duty to exercise her relevant functions in relation to public gas transporter licences to secure effective competition in the conveyance of gas through pipeline systems and in the supplying and laying of service pipes. Each public gas transporter has a duty under the Gas Acts in relation to each of its authorised areas to develop and maintain an efficient and economical pipeline system for the conveyance of gas and, in so far as it is economical to do so, to comply with any reasonable request to connect that system and use it to convey gas. Under the Gas (Connection Charges) Regulations 1986, a public gas transporter is entitled to recover the full costs of any mains extension project.
  Against that background, it is important to emphasise that, if competition is not to be thwarted, the dominant player's charges for connections and system extensions should not be above or below cost, with hidden cross-subsidies from other parts of its business. In short, it is important that there should be cost-reflectivity and that Transco should not discriminate in the prices or service standards it provides to competitors.
  986
  Ofgas has recently been addressing that issue through public consultation documents. In August 1996, it published a document entitled "British Gas TransCo: connection and system extensions—regulating for competition". Responses to that document were published in February last year.
  Ofgas set up the Ofgas connections steering group, which is considering how best to promote competition in gas connections and pipe laying throughout Great Britain. As a direct result of that work, Transco has made proposals to eliminate what might be seen as discriminatory behaviour on its part. Transco has been developing arrangements for unbundling charges for connections and system extensions, and that process is continuing. Meanwhile, Ofgas has been investigating potential barriers to competition.
  I have discussed Exoteric Gas Solutions with the Director General of Gas Supply. I make it absolutely plain to my hon. Friend that we and Ofgas take his complaints very seriously. Ofgas recognises the importance of the matter to my hon. Friend's constituents and the business concerned, which is a start-up business. The size of Transco compared with that of the business makes this a serious matter. Ofgas continues to investigate the allegations.
  I understand that Ofgas wrote in March to the independent public gas transporters and the self-lay companies that it was able to identify to ask them for historical information about Transco's performance in providing connections and services since 1 April 1997. Ofgas gave 12 examples of the sort of dispute that it regards as relevant to the allegations that it had received and on which it was seeking comments. Some companies have responded. Ofgas acts only on the basis of information provided to it, but I am assured that the director general is using her powers to explore and investigate the matter thoroughly, and will ensure that, if allegations are substantiated, enforcement action will be taken to eliminate anti-competitive behaviour.
  If my hon. Friend thinks that it would be useful, I would be more than willing to meet him again, perhaps in my office at the Department, with the Director General of Gas Supply or her senior representatives, so that we can go over the ground more fully and in more detail in the light of the information that my hon. Friend has brought to the House. 1 thank him for raising the matter and for the way in which he has done so. He has made strong allegations, but he has backed them up with solid research that ought to be precisely the purpose of Adjournment debates. The matter will not lie at the Dispatch Box—I shall take it further.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the costs were in each year since 1990 of administering European Structural Fund programmes in Northern Ireland. [43842]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Departments is as follows:

  Year

  £000

  1990–91

  3,484

  1991–92

  3,831

  1992–93

  3,999

  1993–94

  4,007

  1994–95

  4,169

  1995–96

  4,731

  1996–97

  5,332

  1997–98

  5,528

  Notes:

  1. The figures relate to the salary costs of staff who are directly involved in administering the EU Structural Fund Programmes.

  2. Information for the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Health and Social Services was not readily available and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  3. The figure for 1990–91 is not consistent with the following years as some records were not available in that year.

  Belfast Agreement
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of the Belfast Agreement were printed in(a) the English and (b) the Irish language; what was the cost of producing each version (i) in total and (ii) per copy; and what is the sale price. [44094]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  A total of 835,000 copies of the Agreement were printed in English and 10,000 in Irish. the production cost of the English version was £563,750 and the Irish version cost £6,550. The English version cost 67.5p per copy and the Irish version 65.5p. The document was made available free of charge to the public.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the inter-departmental review of the Treatment of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses announced on 13 June 1997 has now been completed; and if he proposes to publish its findings. [45260]
  482
  Mr. Straw
  The review of the Treatment of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses has now been completed and copies of the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group, which is being published for consultation purposes, will be placed in the Library tomorrow.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters dated 18 February, 18 March and 30 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. R. H. Malik, of 15 The Avenue. [45097]

  Mr. Straw
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 8 June.

  Community Sentence Orders
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of(a) the number of warrants issued by magistrates' courts in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available in respect of breaches of community sentence orders and (b) the number of such warrants which remained unexecuted after six months from date of issue. [44123]

  Ms Quin
  I regret that this information is not available centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his most recent estimate of the period he intends to set as a time limit between arrest and first appearance in court for a person under 18 years under section 22A(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 as amended by section 41 of the Crime and Disorder Bill. [44348]

  Mr. Michael
  A decision on the level at which the statutory time limits should be set will be taken after piloting and once we have assessed the impact of new measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill[Lords] on time taken through the criminal justice system. Our plans for introducing a statutory time limit between arrest and first appearance in court, and for introducing statutory time limits for other stages in proceedings for a person under 18 years, are set out in chapter 10 of the White Paper `No More Excuses—A New Approach To Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales' (CM3809: November 1997). We intend first to pilot certain of the procedural changes introduced by the Crime and Disorder Bill, in particular provisions in section 46 (powers of magistrates' courts exercisable by single justice) and section 47 (early administrative hearings). Sites for these 'Narey' pilot areas were announced in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 3 June 1998, Official Report, column 219. 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. We aim to begin the pilots in October this year to run for six months. These will be followed by pilots of statutory time limits which we aim to begin in autumn 1999 and run for 12 months. A decision on the level at which time limits should be set, including the time limit

  483
  from arrest and the date of first appearance in court, will be made for pilot purposes in the light of the initial 'Narey' pilots and for national rollout in the light of the statutory time limit pilots.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles have been held overnight on remand in police custody in police stations in England and Wales, broken down by(a) police authority and (b) charges, during the last six months. [44671]

  Mr. Michael
  Information on the remand of juveniles in police custody in police stations is not collected centrally.

  Section 38(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 requires arrested juveniles under the age of 17 who are detained by the police to be moved to local authority accommodation unless:

  (i) the custody officer certifies that, by reason of such circumstances as are specified in the certificate, it is impractical to move the youth; or

  (ii) in the case of a juvenile who has attained the age of 12, no local authority security accommodation is available and holding the juvenile in other local authority accommodation would be inadequate to protect the public from serious harm from him.

  Police Complaints and Discipline
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to bring forward proposals to change the internal police complaints and discipline process; and if he will make a statement. [44502]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend announced the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee report into police disciplinary and complaints procedures in England and Wales on 23 March 1998,Official Report, columns 21–37. New arrangements will be brought into effect on 1 April 1999 which will make significant changes to the current arrangements for dealing with misconduct by police officers, as well as providing, for the first time, formal provisions for tackling poor performance by individual officers. As far as complaints by members of the public are concerned, a number of Committee recommendations which have been accepted will require primary legislation. These will be made when suitable opportunities arise, whilst other measures will be taken forward in consultation with interested parties. New discipline arrangements applying to senior officers will be introduced as soon as possible after 1 April 1999 and will mirror, as far as possible, those which will apply to the rest of the police service.

  Cardiff and Parc Prisons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the running costs in the past two years, and what are the forecast running costs over the next four years, of(a) Cardiff Prison and (b) Parc Prison, Bridgend. [44009]

  Ms Quin
  The running costs of Cardiff prison were £10.97m in 1996/97 and £11.079m in 1997/98. In 1998/99 the figure is forecast to be £11.09m. The budget for the following three years will not be set until the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review is known.
  484
  Parc prison opened on 15 November 1997. From then until 30 April 1998, payments of nearly £7m plus value added tax were made to the managing contractor. This figure relates to the provision of the whole custodial service, including prison capital and financing costs, and cannot be compared with the running costs of an existing directly managed prison.

  Prison Site, Middleton Sands
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of conversion of the former holiday camp at Middleton Sands, Morecambe, to a temporary prison, separately identifying costs of improvements to the access road and environmental improvements to the site. [43658]

  Ms Quin
  As at December 1997, the estimated costs for converting the camp to a prison for a three-year period varied between £18.7 million to £25.7 million, the variation depending on the number of prisoners to be held and the level of facilities to be provided.

  The estimated costs for works to the access road, £150,000, and for permanent environmental improvements, £815,000, are included in the overall costs.

  Figures are subject to inflation and additional costs due to deterioration of the existing buildings since the Prison Service's feasibility study was carried out in December 1997.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Cottage Industries
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make it his policy to issue guidance to local authorities to ensure that rules and regulations affecting the operation of cottage industries are enforced at the least burdensome level possible. [44918]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 692–94, announcing the publication of the Enforcement Concordat. I wrote to all local authorities in England on 5 March 1998 to commend the Concordat to them and encourage its adoption.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistracy (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, what percentage of magistrates are from an ethnic minority; and what percentage of magistrates appointed in the last five years are from an ethnic minority. [45159]

  Mr. Hoon
  A recent survey (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) showed that, of the 94 per cent. of magistrates who responded, 4.1 per cent. were from an ethnic
  485
  minority. The percentage of magistrates appointed in the last five years (excluding the Duchy of Lancaster) who were from an ethnic minority is:

  1993: 5.7 per cent.

  1994: 5 per cent.

  1995: 6 per cent.

  1996: 6.5 per cent.

  1997: 6.5 per cent.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to give a substantive reply to the letter of 22 December 1997 from the hon. Member for Eastbourne relating to Judge Hasan. [45025]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor has today given a substantive letter to the hon. Member.

  Fines (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for each magistrates court in Greater Manchester for the last available 12 month period(a) the total amount of fines imposed, (b) the percentage of that money collected, (c) the amount of fines written off as uncollectible and (d) the criteria used for writing that money off; and if he will list for Stockport and Tameside courts (i) the number of attachment of earnings orders issued by each court to collect (1) fines and (2) reparation orders and (ii) the number of orders made by each court to deduct fines and other money from social security payments. [44113]

  Mr. Hoon
  (a) and (c): available figures with explanations are shown in the table. (b): the table shows amounts collected. The percentage figure requested has not been calculated because the amounts collected do not relate directly to the amounts imposed. (d): write off is authorised only when all realistic steps to enforce the sums due have been taken without success, and the circumstances fall within one of those listed in note (d) to the table.

  (i) attachment of earnings orders issued by Stockport and Tameside are recorded for combinations of fines, compensation orders and costs, and fines cannot be given separately. In Tameside, there were 18 attachment of earnings orders, one of which is for reparation only. In stockport, there were 79 combination orders. (ii) there were 107 deductions from social security payments orders made in Stockport. Tameside do not have a record of deductions from benefit for the financial year, but currently have 264 orders.

  Fine enforcement in Greater Manchester, financial year ended 31 March 1998

  £

  (a) Fines imposed April 1997– March 1998

  (b) Amounted collected April 1997– March 1998

  (c) Written off April 1997–March 1998

  Bolton

  1,801,383

  1,483,528

  309,804

  Bury

  1,537,487

  1,735,555

  209,364

  Wigan

  3,353,711

  1,931,838

  969,962

  City of Salford

  1,967,127

  1,451,724

  515,082

  Rochdale

  1,700,999

  1,422,680

  165,240

  486

  Fine enforcement in Greater Manchester, financial year ended 31 March 1998

  £

  (a) Fines imposed April 1997– March 1998

  (b) Amounted collected April 1997– March 1998

  (c) Written off April 1997–March 1998

  Manchester

  5,379,016

  2,651,005

  3,213,474

  Oldham

  1,728,821

  1,120,522

  663,025

  Stockport

  1,488,313

  1,230,576

  446,333

  Tameside

  1,740,336

  1,699,110

  355,742

  Trafford

  1,583,768

  895,112

  798,673

  Grand Total

  22,281,961

  15,621,650

  7,646,699

  Notes:

  (a) Fines imposed includes fines, costs, compensation awards and contributions to Legal Aid. Also included are fines etc. imposed at other courts which have been transferred to this court for enforcement. Fines etc. imposed locally but transferred out to other courts for enforcement have been excluded

  (b) Amount collected includes payments against amounts imposed in previous years as well as the current year, and amounts remitted by the courts, but exclude amounts written off

  (c) Amounts written off may have been imposed in previous years as well as the current year

  (d) Criteria for write off

  The defendant's/defaulter's whereabouts are unknown and cannot be traced

  The defendant/defaulter is known to have emigrated or gone abroad and there is very little real prospect of return or recovery of the sum The defendant/defaulter has died. However if a fine was involved and the fine itself was particularly high, the justices clerk may wish to consider whether the estate has benefited from the crime. Only if it is clear that it has, should consideration be given to lodging a claim against the estate and any subsequent request to write off should show this has been done and the outcome of the action

  The defendant has been sent to a mental health institution for a period of 12 months or more

  The court has despatched a notice to a defendant who was not present in court informing him in error of a lesser fine, contribution to costs order that the court imposed—in such cases the balance would be considered for write off

  The sum outstanding is less than £5 and is considered to be not worth pursuing

  As a result of subsequent proceedings the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 months more

  The sum was imposed or awarded against a limited company which has subsequently been wound up or, where there are no goods on which to levy distress, the company has ceased trading and it is not considered financially worthwhile for the court to initiate

  A serviceman has been sentenced to a period of military corrective training

  The defendant has moved permanently to Scotland

  Other, where circumstances for write off are not covered by any of the above criteria, and grounds for write off are provided in a separate note

  Source:

  Magistrates' Courts Management Information System 1997–98.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what facilities for representation and consular services on behalf of Her Majesty's Government operate in Conakry, in Guinea; and if staff or premises were made available to Britain's High Commissioner to Sierra Leone during his evacuation to Conakry. [43691]
  487
  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Ambassador accredited to Guinea is resident in Senegal. Her Majesty's Government have an Honorary Consul in Conakry, who provided assistance during the evacuation from Sierra Leone. In the absence of official accommodation in Conakry, the British High Commissioner to Sierra Leone operated from a hotel room while in Conakry.

  Indonesia
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support is being provided to Indonesia in 1998–99 under the Assistance to Support Stability with In-Service Training scheme; and at what cost. [44333]

  Mr. Fatchett
  No expenditure has been authorised so far.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 21 May 1998,Official Report, columns 520–22, on support for police and military forces, if he will provide a breakdown of the 1997–98 expenditure under the United Kingdom Military Training Assistance Scheme in support of the military in Indonesia; and if he will list the training establishments involved and the nature of the training. [44336]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Half of the £225,000 funding for Indonesia military training for 1997–98 represented carry-over costs from 1996–97.

  The remainder represented English language training in Indonesia and the following courses in the UK:
  Army: 1 student on a Disaster Management Course (RCMS Shrivenham); I student on a Command and Staff Course (Joint Service Command and Staff-College, Bracknell); 2 students on English language training (Defence School of Languages, Beaconsfield).
  Navy: 1 Student on an International Anti-Submarine Warfare Course (HMS Dryad); 1 student on an International Navigation Officers Course (HMS Dryad).

  Ethnic Minority Employees
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 7 May 1998,Official Report, columns 487–88, if he will place in the Library a copy of the strategy document, "Bridges into the Future"; what organisations and individuals were consulted in its preparation; and what databases he is using under his initiative to inform minority ethnic communities and prospective applicants about the role and activities of the Foreign Office. [44201]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is delighted to place in the Library a copy of the strategy document "Bridges into the Future".

  This document was drawn up by Linbert Spencer, an expert in race and community relations, in consultation with those in the FCO concerned with equal opportunities, recruitment and staff development.

  The FCO informs minority ethnic communities and prospective applicants about its role and activities through its website and through contact with all UK University careers advisers and cultural societies, as well as though its database of contacts supplied by Hobsons Publishing,
  488
  The Windsor Fellowship, Project Fullemploy, the African and Caribbean Finance Forum and the Race Equality Councils.

  Ottawa Treaty
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government expect to ratify the Ottawa Treaty. [44800]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We intend to ratify the Ottawa Convention as soon as the Parliamentary schedule allows for the legislation necessary to enable us to meet all our commitments under the Convention.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with his European Union counterparts a strengthening of the European Code of Conduct on arms exports. [44430]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports was formally adopted by the General Affairs Council on 8 June. It would be premature to discuss changes to the Code at such an early stage. The Code provides for an annual meeting within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy to review the operation of the Code and identify any improvements which need to be made.

DEFENCE

  Pay and Personnel Agency
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Pay and Personnel Agency for 1998–99. [45261]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of the Pay and Personnel Agency (PPA) is responsible for providing pay and personnel services for the Ministry of Defence as defined in the Agency Framework Document. During 1998–99, the PPA will be set the following challenging key performance targets:

  1. (a) while making 100 per cent. of payments of pay by the due date, the number of errors not to exceed 12 per 1,000 payments of weekly industrial pay;

  (b) while making 100 per cent. of payments of pay by the due date, the number of errors not to exceed 6 per 1,000 payments of monthly non-industrial pay;
  (c) while authorising 100 per cent. of awards of pensions by the due date, the number of errors not to exceed 20 per 1,000 awards;
  (d) while making 100 per cent. payments of expenses within 10 days of receipt, the numbers of errors not to exceed 15 per 1,000 payments;
  (e) to pay 100 per cent. of claims for fees and personal payments within 9 working days of receipt.

  2. By 31 March 1999, to adopt the use of the Business Excellence Model as a means of benchmarking the Agency.

  3. By 31 March 1999, to achieve efficiency savings to meet the Departmental target of 2 per cent. efficiency savings of annual operating costs.

  4. By 31 December 1998, to ensure that all IT systems are millennium compliant.

  5. To gain IIP accreditation before 31 March 1999.
  489

  Arms Tactical Training Centre
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of the new arms tactical training centre in Germany. [45030]

  Dr. Reid
  The role of the Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (CATT) simulation system is primarily to assist in the training of an armoured Battle Group (BG). It will allow a BG to practice both its tactical and command procedures without having to deploy onto a training area. CATT will realistically simulate a warfighting environment with its inherent friction. All training will be closely monitored, thus allowing mistakes to be immediately rectified and thereby more fully preparing the BG for the culmination of its training at BATUS in Canada and in Poland. Additionally, like all simulation systems, CATT should reduce the costs of BG deployments as a result of reduced track mileage and equipment support, whilst alleviating environmental pressure on training areas. Due to the flexibility of the system, as well as current main equipments being simulated, there is scope for equipments such as helicopters and future equipments such as the Multi-Roled Armoured Vehicle to be incorporated into the system. Ultimately, with the ability to network with CATT UK, there will also be the opportunity for an armoured brigade HQ to train two BGs simultaneously, thus practising another level of command.

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the TA infantry units which were committed to a role in Germany prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall; and if he will state the Field Force, Brigade or Division of 1 BR Corps to which they were assigned. [44839]

  Cost of territorial army infantry battalions 1997–98

  £million

  Unit

  1997–98

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  0.994

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding)

  1.06

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  1.091

  4/5th Battalion The Green Howards (Alexandra Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment) (Yorkshire Volunteer)

  0.796

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  1.393

  6th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment

  0.992

  6th Northumberland Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  1.207

  7th Battalion The (Durham) Light Infantry

  0.976

  7th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment

  0.991

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  2.301

  6th Battalion the Light Infantry (Volunteer)

  2.435

  2nd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Gloucester Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  1.43

  5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  1.793

  5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  1.82

  6/7th (Volunteer) Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  2.087

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  2.027

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  2.078

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Kings Own Border Regiment

  1.213

  5/8th (Volunteer) Battalion the King's Regiment

  2.225

  5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  2.003

  5th Battalion The Light Infantry (Volunteer)

  2.126

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  1.992

  2nd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales

  2.208

  490
  Dr. Reid
  The Territorial Army infantry units committed to a role in Germany in 1989, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall, are shown in the table.

  Territorial Army Infantry Unit

  Formation

  4RGJ

  1 Armd Div (7 Armd Bde)

  4 Para

  1 Armd Div (Div tps)

  10 Para

  1 Armd Div (Div tps)

  15 Para

  1 Armd Div (Div tps)

  1/51 Highland

  4 Armd Div (11 Armd Bde)

  2/51 Highland (Milan Pln)

  4 Armd Div (11 Armd Bde)

  1/52 Lowland (Milan Pln)

  4 Armd Div (11 Armd Bde)

  5 Queens

  4 Armd Div (20 Armd Bde)

  5/8 Kings (Milan Pln)

  4 Armd Div (20 Armd Bde)

  3 RRW (Milan Pln)

  4 Armd Div (20 Armd Bde)

  6 RRF

  2 Inf Div (15 Inf Bde)

  1 Y&C

  2 Inf Div (15 Inf Bde)

  2 Yorks

  2 Inf Div (15 Inf Bde)

  7 Li

  2 Inf Div (15 Inf Bde)

  8 Li

  2 Inf Div (15 Inf Bde)

  5 R Anglian

  2 Inf Div (49 Inf Bde)

  7 R Anglian

  2 Inf Div (49 Inf Bde)

  3 Staffords

  2 Inf Div (49 Inf Bde)

  5 Li

  2 Inf Div (49 Inf Bde)

  5 RRF

  2 Inf Div (49 Inf Bde)

  5 RGJ

  2 Inf Div tps/Corps tps

  4 R Irish (Milan Pln)

  2 Inf Div tps

  5 R Irish (Milan Pln)

  2 Inf Div tps

  4QLR

  2 Inf Div tps/Corps tps

  4 WFR

  Corps tps

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of each Territorial Army battalion in 1997–98. [43643]

  Dr. Reid
  The 33 Territorial Army infantry battalions are set out in the following list, together with their identifiable costs for the year 1997–98. The figures given are manpower costs only, and include the costs of TA, Regular and Civilian staff employed at the units; other costs incurred are not separated from wider Army financial provision and cannot therefore be directly attributed to particular TA units.
  491

  Cost of territorial army infantry battalions 1997–98

  £ million

  Unit

  1997–98

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  2.044

  4th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  2.067

  10th (Volunteer) Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  2.206

  The London Regiment

  2.143

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Highlanders (Seaforths Gordons and Camerons)

  2.173

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  2.053

  3rd (Volunteer) Battalion The Black Watch Regiment (The Royal Highland Regiment)

  1.851

  7/8th (Volunteer) Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princes Louise's)

  2.034

  The Lowland Volunteers

  2.148

  4/5th (Volunteer) Battalion The Royal Irish Rangers

  2.504

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of the role assigned to TA infantry units operating alongside regular units in the BAOR prior to the collapse of the Berlin Wall. [44840]

  Dr. Reid
  The Strategic Defence Review has examined the current and future strategic situation, seeking to identify our future defence tasks and the necessary force mix of both Regular and Reserve Armed Forces to meet those tasks. It would be of only limited value to review a historical allocation of roles and units within a setting which is no longer relevant.

  Armed Service Personnel (Germany)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British armed service personnel are currently stationed in Germany. [44118]

  Dr. Reid
  As at 31 May 1998, some 28,100 posts were directly administered or associated with the garrison in Germany. This excludes the various NATO headquarters and other posts distinct from the garrison itself but includes those troops who are based in Germany and deployed elsewhere, for example, in the Former Yugoslavia.

  Land Disposal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the disposal of land at RAF 14MU. [44893]

  Mr. Spellar
  The disposal of the core sites of 14MU RAF Carlisle jointly to Cumbria and Carlisle is ongoing. While land quality issues remain a sensitive matter, it is our aim to conclude contract terms shortly.

  A separate marketing campaign for the open market sale of the four outlying sites is to be initiated this month.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation he has made of the current (i) use, (ii) deployment and (iii) role of reserve infantry forces amongst the United Kingdom's NATO allies. [44896]

  Dr. Reid
  We are in regular contact with our NATO Allies on Reserve issues. Most NATO nations rely on conscript Reserves or are undergoing a period of change in their Reserve force structures. In the context of the Strategic Defence Review, we have, in particular,
  492
  consulted the United States of America on a range of Reserve issues, including matters relevant to the role, use and deployment of infantry.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 107, what recognised performance indicators are used at each site for which an energy manager has been appointed; and, for each, what practical savings have been achieved in respect of each indicator in each of the last five years. [44899]

  Mr. Spellar
  The performance indicators used across the services are the published Government Energy Consumption Targets. MOD's Energy Consumption is reported to DETR by energy focal points and Departmental results are announced annually, usually in January/February. Last year's figures have recently been announced and indicate that MOD are ahead of the Government targets.

  Employees (Wales)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of the number employed in defence establishments in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [45004]

  Mr. Spellar
  The most recent date for which comprehensive figures are available is 1 July 1997. At that time, the number employed in defence establishment in Wales was 8,450. Of these, 3,350 were service personnel and 5,100 were civilians.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  BBC
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will require the BBC to distinguish between its public service broadcasting and its commercial ventures in its accounts. [44214]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: The BBC's accounts, in its forthcoming Annual Report, due to be laid before Parliament on 15 July, will incorporate a number of measures to increase their transparency, including showing clearly the £90 million cash flow benefit of BBC

  493
  Worldwide to the licence fee payer. The financial statements will also include BBC Worldwide's statutory accounts and a segmental analysis of its activities.

  We welcome these measures and in the light of them have no plans to impose further accounting requirements.

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the Department's energy usage was from(a) renewable energy and (b) combined heating in each year since 1989–90. [44084]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 262.

  English Tourist Board
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to abolish the English Tourist Board. [44623]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: As part of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review, we are looking at all aspects of the Department's work and its related bodies, but no final decisions have yet been made.

  Tourism (National Lottery)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral answer to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) on 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 11, when he expects to conclude discussions about National Lottery funding for English tourism; and what representations he has received on this subject. [44631]

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: Discussions on all subjects relating to the comprehensive spending review will be completed in the summer.

  The National Lottery has provided, and will continue to provide, significant funding for projects in England which will benefit tourism. We received responses from

  £million

  Country

  1992–3

  1993–4

  1994–56

  1995–6

  1996–7

  1997–8

  Total

  Benin

  3.77

  —

  3.83

  —

  —

  —

  7.6

  Bolivia

  3.56

  —

  3.74

  5.79

  —

  —

  13.09

  Burkina Faso

  —

  —

  0.57

  —

  0.56

  —

  1.13

  Egypt

  —

  —

  70.79

  —

  96.23

  4.22

  171.24

  Ethiopia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2.32

  2.32

  Guyana

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  72.25

  72.25

  Mali

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7.06

  —

  7.06

  Mauritania

  —

  —

  —

  0.39

  0.08

  —

  0.47

  Mozambique

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.79

  0.79

  Nicaragua

  0.4

  —

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  0.8

  Niger

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.06

  0.13

  0.18

  Poland

  —

  —

  346.24

  —

  —

  —

  346.24

  Senegal

  0.03

  —

  0.18

  0.08

  0.03

  —

  0.33

  Tanzania

  17.6

  —

  19.01

  —

  —

  0.76

  37.36

  Togo

  —

  —

  —

  1.76

  1.98

  0.49

  4.23

  Uganda

  —

  —

  —

  6.05

  —

  —

  6.05

  Vietnam

  —

  —

  5.84

  —

  —

  5.84

  Yemen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.26

  —

  6.26

  Zambia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.65

  0.28

  6.93

  Total

  25.36

  0

  450.59

  14.07

  118.9

  81 24

  690.16

  494
  several organisations in the tourism industry to our proposals to reform the Lottery, which were set out in the White Paper, The People's Lottery.

TREASURY

  Quarrying Tax
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for a quarrying tax. [43250]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 620), paragraph 5.59.

  Government-guaranteed Loans
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the Treasury's guidelines on whether loans guaranteed by the Government form part of the PSBR. [44965]

  Mr. Darling
  Borrowing by the public sector forms part of the PSBR whether guaranteed or not. Market borrowing by the private sector guaranteed by the Government does not form part of the PSBR. The guarantee is a contingent liability. Only if the guarantee is called in would there be any public expenditure and thus an impact on the PSBR.

  International Debt
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the value of loans including unpaid interest to developing countries made or guaranteed by the British Government which have been forgiven or written off since 1979 broken down by(a) country, (b) year and (c) type of debt; and what has been the total value of loans forgiven or written off since (i) 1979 and (ii) 5 May 1997. [42043]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]: (a) The table shows the value (in millions of pounds) of the principal of export credit loans which has been written off by ECGD, broken down by year and by country. The value of unpaid interest forgiven or written off is not available.
  495
  No export credit loans were written off before 1991/2, making the total written off since 1979 £690.16 million. The total written off in the financial year 1997/8 (ie including April 1997) is £81.24 million.

  (b) The table shows the value (in millions of pounds) of aid loans, including unpaid interest, which has been written off by DFID, broken down by year and by country.

  £million

  Country

  Year Granted

  Amount

  Botswana

  1979

  20.68

  Lesotho

  1979

  0.4

  Malawi

  1979

  30.7

  Sierra Leone

  1979

  10.35

  Sudan

  1979

  9.87

  Tanzania

  1979

  3.4

  The Gambia

  1979

  5.15

  Egypt

  1979

  17.57

  Afghanistan

  1979

  0.98

  Bangladesh

  1979

  15.36

  India2

  1979

  564.16

  Indonesia

  1979

  39.85

  Nepal

  1979

  1.97

  Pakistan

  1979

  76.03

  Sir Lanka

  1979

  25.21

  West. Samoa

  1979

  0.2

  Zimbabwe1

  1980

  22.9

  Uganda

  1981

  16.45

  Uganda1

  1981

  5.64

  Mozambique

  1983

  21.81

  EAC3

  1984

  2.33

  Ethiopia

  1984

  2.5

  Ghana

  1985

  50.85

  Senegal

  1988

  1.07

  Egypt

  1991

  7.02

  Guyana1

  1991

  5.46

  Bolivia

  1992

  0.14

  Honduras

  1992

  5

  Jamaica1

  1992

  6.1

  Zambia

  1993

  55.91

  Guyana

  1993

  53.43

  Jordan

  1994

  43.79

  Jordan1

  1994

  2.35

  Nicaragua

  1995

  0.53

  Nicaragua1

  1995

  0.05

  Peru

  1995

  1.63

  Peru1

  1995

  3.46

  Cote d'Ivoire

  1996

  3.45

  Laos

  1997

  0.03

  Tonga

  1997

  0.46

  Dominica

  1997

  6.6

  Grenada

  1997

  3.31

  St. Lucia

  1997

  2.83

  Mauritius

  1998

  1.1

  Barbados

  1998

  0.23

  Jamaica

  1998

  7.3

  TCI4

  1998

  1.88

  Total

  1979–98

  1,157.5

  1 These countries received Special Debt Cancellation (SDC) rather than Retrospective Terms Adjustment (RTA). However, both mechanisms operate in the same manner.

  2 For India, an equivalent amount of cost aid was granted instead of normal RTA

  3 East African Community

  4 Turks and Caicos Islands

  496
  The total value of aid loans that has been written off since 1979 is £1,157.5 million. Of this amount, £23.74 million has so far been written off since the beginning of 1997.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Her Majesty's Government will treat the euro as a medium of exchange having value or as a unit of account. [44505]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The euro will be the currency of participating Member States and will be treated as such in the United Kingdom, in the same way as any other foreign currency.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how lender of last resort operations will be co-ordinated during Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union; and which individuals or bodies will be responsible for this. [44454]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Treaty of Maastricht does not cover lender of last resort responsibilities. Under the Treaty, Member States and their national authorities therefore remain solely responsible for such matters.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide a breakdown of the United Kingdom's contributions to the European Union for(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98, and the estimated contributions for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) 1999–2000. [44022]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Details of the United Kingdom's gross and net contributions in 1996–97 and 1997–98 together with the Government's estimate of the trended net contribution for 1998–99 were set out in the Departmental Report of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Department's published in April. These figures are reproduced in the following table:

  £ million

  Year

  Gross contribution

  Abatement

  Public sector receipts

  Net contribution

  1996–97

  9,278

  -2,418

  -4,567

  2,293

  1997–98

  8,523

  -1,582

  -4,636

  2,305

  Trended net contribution

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  3,025

  The Government are, in the light of latest information, currently assessing the trended net contribution for 1999–2000 and more detailed cash flow figures for 1998–99. These will be published as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review.
  497

  Low Pay
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women working (i) full-time and (ii) part-time in (1) Pendle and (2) Lancashire earn less than (x) £3 per hour, (y) £3.60 per hour, and (z) £4 per hour; and, in each case, what is the percentage of the total number employed. [44380]

  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. Gordon Prentice, dated 9 June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on earnings.
  As with my reply on 22 May 1997, Official Report, column 117, I can give estimates of the percentage of employees in Pendle and Lancashire earning less than the hourly rates you mention, but not the number.
  The latest information, from the New Earnings Survey 1997, is contained in the attached table:

  Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey pay-period was unaffected by absence—New Earnings Survey—April 1997

  £3.00

  £3.60

  £4.00

  Pendle1

  Full-time men

  0.0

  1.3

  1.3

  Part-time men

  2 —

  2 —

  2 —

  Full-time women

  2.2

  13.0

  19.6

  Part-time women

  3.7

  33.3

  48.1

  All employees

  1.3

  10.9

  16.0

  Lancashire

  Full-time men

  0.5

  3.7

  6.7

  Part-time men

  6.1

  32.3

  37.4

  Full-time women

  1.4

  7.9

  12.2

  Part-time women

  6.0

  26.3

  41.6

  All employees

  1.9

  9.9

  15.5

  1 Parliamentary constituency

  2 denotes an estimate which is unavailable because the sample size is too small

  People of working age1 in employment by occupational group and highest qualification United Kingdom, winter 1997/98, not seasonally adjusted

  Percentage

  Post—graduate

  Higher Education

  Further Education

  GCSE grades A-C or equivalent

  Below GCSE grades A-C

  Other-level unknown

  No qualifications

  Total

  Total in employment2 (thousand)

  1. Managers and administrators

  4.6

  28.8

  28.1

  20.9

  3.3

  7.0

  7.3

  100.0

  4,207

  2. Professional occupations

  23.5

  59.5

  9.1

  4.1

  0.4

  3.0

  0.4

  100.0

  2,705

  3. Associate professional & technical occupations

  5.5

  50.4

  21.5

  14.2

  1.9

  4.5

  1.9

  100.0

  2,623

  4. Clerical, secretarial occupations

  0.7

  12.3

  22.2

  40.2

  9.3

  6.3

  9.1

  100.0

  3,883

  5. Craft and related occupations

  0.3

  6.4

  52.8

  14.7

  6.3

  5.4

  14.0

  100.0

  3,251

  6. Personal, protective occupations

  0.4

  9.3

  23.7

  31.0

  8.2

  12.0

  15.4

  100.0

  2,794

  7. Sales occupations

  0.6

  8.9

  22.8

  36.1

  8.2

  6.6

  16.8

  100.0

  2,102

  8. Plant and machine operatives

  4 —

  3.3

  22.2

  20.7

  10.0

  20.6

  23

  100.0

  2,489

  9. Other occupations

  4 —

  2.5

  14.5

  23.6

  11.1

  12.5

  35.7

  100.0

  2,010

  All in employment3

  4.0

  20.8

  25.1

  23.1

  6.3

  8.2

  12.5

  100.0

  26,143

  1 Working age is men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Totals include a few people who did not state their highest qualification, but percentages calculated using valid responses only

  3 Includes those who did not specify their occupation

  4 Sample size too small for reliable estimate

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey; ONS
  498

  Education Qualifications
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what are the percentages of those in each occupational classification whose highest educational attainment is(a) post-graduate, (b) higher education (excluding post-graduate), (c) further education and (d) GSCE; [44289]

  (2) what were the rates of unemployment according to educational attainment at the most recent available date. [44290]

  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 Yvette Cooper, dated 9 June 1998:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary questions about occupation by highest qualification and unemployment rates by highest qualification.
  The information requested, using estimates from the Labour Force Survey, is shown in the attached tables.

  ILO Unemployment rate of working age1 people by highest qualification United Kingdom, winter 1997/98, not seasonally adjusted

  Highest qualification

  ILO unemployment rate per cent.

  Post-graduate

  2.8

  Higher education

  3.3

  Further education

  4.9

  GCSE grades A-C or equivalent

  6.8

  Below GCSE grades A-C

  8.1

  Other—level unknown

  4.7

  No qualifications

  12

  All2

  6.4

  1 Working age is men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 Unemployment rate for all those of working age includes those who did not state their highest qualification

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey; ONS
  499

  Breast Cancer
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give a breakdown by age range of the incidence of breast cancer in women in England in each of the last five years. [44936]

  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.

  Incidence of breast cancer, England, 1989–1993

  Number of newly diagnosed cases

  Rate per 100,000

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  19931

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19921

  19931

  Under 1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0.3

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  1.3

  1–4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  5–9

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  10–14

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  15–19

  2

  1

  2

  1

  3

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.1

  0.2

  20–24

  29

  26

  24

  18

  20

  1.5

  1.4

  1.3

  1.0

  1.1

  25–29

  145

  148

  129

  152

  141

  7.6

  7.6

  6.5

  7.7

  7.2

  30–34

  407

  398

  440

  486

  460

  24.6

  23.3

  25.0

  26.8

  24.7

  35–39

  945

  873

  921

  945

  882

  59.5

  55.4

  58.3

  59.0

  54.1

  40–44

  1,867

  1,720

  1,829

  1,744

  1,577

  109.0

  99.2

  105.0

  105.2

  97.9

  45–49

  2,272

  2,246

  2,432

  2,797

  2,707

  166.4

  159.6

  165.4

  174.9

  162.0

  50–54

  2,393

  2,694

  2,995

  3,093

  2,946

  186.6

  208.9

  234.6

  241.2

  225.2

  55–59

  2,754

  3,081

  3,468

  3,313

  2,984

  221.2

  251.0

  285.1

  271.9

  242.0

  60–64

  3,259

  3,801

  3,976

  3,855

  3,447

  259.1

  304.5

  320.8

  314.2

  284.7

  65–69

  3,431

  3,343

  3,128

  3,047

  2,698

  255.6

  260.1

  251.7

  251.5

  226.8

  70–74

  2,584

  2,647

  2,863

  3,033

  3,006

  259.6

  255.1

  265.2

  270.8

  257.5

  75–79

  2,693

  2,618

  2,697

  2,611

  2,336

  278.9

  271.2

  282.6

  281.5

  265.7

  80–84

  2,055

  1,998

  2,154

  2,258

  2,052

  292.6

  281.4

  300.9

  315.1

  286

  85+

  1,936

  1,915

  2,092

  2,204

  2,129

  360.2

  343.7

  360.8

  364.7

  337

  All ages

  26,773

  27,510

  29,150

  29,557

  27,392

  109.5

  112.2

  118.4

  119.7

  110.7

  DAS2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  95.2

  98.9

  105.2

  105.7

  97.2

  1 Provisional data

  2 Directly age standardised using the European standard population to take account of the changing age structure of the population

SCOTLAND

  Towns (City Status)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria are used in Scotland to award city status to towns; and if he will make it his policy to create a new city by 2000. [44683]

  Mr. McLeish
  There are no settled criteria for the award of city status to towns in Scotland. Such an award has not been made since Dundee was awarded city status in 1889. Any further award would be a matter for Her Majesty The Queen acting under the Royal Prerogative on the advice of the Government of the day. There are no plans to recommend such an award in Scotland at present.

  Procurator Fiscal Service
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the procurator fiscal posts in respect of which decisions have been taken not to replace an existing fiscal since 1 May 1997; and if he will state the reason for this decision in each case. [44818]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is an independent Government Department under the direction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
  500
  Letter from John Fox to Ms Linda Perham, dated 9 June 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on breast cancer in England.
  The numbers of newly diagnosed cases and incidence rates per 100,000 females of breast cancer (International Classification of Diseases 9th Revision, ICD9, 174) in England, 1989–1993 (the last five years for which data are available), are shown in the table.

  The only Procurator Fiscal post in respect of which a decision has been taken not to replace an existing fiscal since 1 May 1997 is at Alloa. This decision was taken in May 1998.

  The reason for this decision was to ensure good management and operational effectiveness.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the total number of working days and cost thereof in(a) 1996–97 and(b) 1997–98 in respect of which ad hoc deputies were engaged by the Procurator Fiscal Service in each regional area of the service. [44812]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service is an independent Government Department under the direction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

  The total number of working days and cost of ad hoc Procurator Fiscal deputies by region for 1996–97 and 1997–98 were:

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Days

  Cost (£)

  Days

  Cost (£)

  Grampian

  242

  31,509

  81

  10,575

  Tayside

  890

  115,678

  113

  14,681

  Lothian

  67

  8,752

  164

  21,337

  Glasgow

  556

  72,359

  605

  78,727

  N. Strathclyde

  291

  37,887

  194

  25,272

  S. Strathclyde

  121

  15,755

  52

  6,836

  501
  The number of days are approximate and have been derived by dividing the known total cost by an average daily cost.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure was incurred in 1997–98 in respect of the operational running costs of the Procurator Fiscal Service. [44814]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service is an independent Government Department under the direction of my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate.

  Departmental running costs in 1997–98 were £44,237,000, of which £36,064,000 represented the operational costs of the Procurator Fiscal Service.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many legally-qualified members of staff were employed in each regional area of the Procurator Fiscal Service on 31 March in(a) 1996,(b) 1997 and(c) 1998; and what was the agreed complement of such staff for each area on these dates. [44811]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service is an independent Government Department under the direction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

  The numbers of legally qualified staff employed in each regional area of the Procurator Fiscal Service are as follows:

  Region

  Date

  Legal staff employed

  Grampian, Highland Island

  31 March 1996

  30

  31 March 1997

  32

  31 March 1998

  30

  Tayside, Central and Fife

  31 March 1996

  39.3

  31 March 1997

  46.1

  31 March 1998

  44.5

  Lothian and Borders

  31 March 1996

  38.5

  31 March 1997

  36.9

  31 March 1998

  40.7

  Glasgow

  31 March 1996

  62.7

  31 March 1997

  66.5

  31 March 1998

  63.9

  North Strathclyde

  31 March 1996

  34.4

  31 March 1997

  37

  31 March 1998

  36.5

  South Strathclyde

  31 March 1996

  39.2

  31 March 1997

  41.9

  31 March 1998

  42.7

  There is no fixed complement staff.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the case-related expenditure in each regional area of the Procurator Fiscal Service in(a) the financial year immediately prior to the implementation of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and(b) each complete financial year since its implementation in respect of (i) solemn proceedings in the High Court, (ii) solemn proceedings in the Sheriff Court and (iii) summary proceedings. [44815]

  Mr. McLeish
  The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal service is an independent Government Department under the direction of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
  502
  The case-related expenditure in each region prior to the implementation of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 and then subsequent to the Act was:

  £000

  Prior 1995–96

  Subsequent 1996–97

  1997–98

  Grampian

  746

  754

  711

  Tayside

  1,476

  1,705

  1,517

  Lothian

  1,113

  1,115

  1,282

  Glasgow

  1,682

  1,391

  1,174

  North Strathclyde

  973

  849

  802

  South Strathclyde

  1,104

  1,124

  949

  The specific information requested on solemn and summary proceedings is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Further details of operations and costs are contained in the Department's Annual Report, a copy of which is in the House Library.

  School Books
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state in respect of each local education authority area in Scotland the average amount allocated for the purchase of books in each(a) primary and(b) secondary school in 1996–97 and 1997–98. [44817]

  Mr. Wilson
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was spent on(a) criminal legal aid and(b) the administration of the Scottish criminal legal aid scheme in 1997–98. [44813]

  Mr. Dewar
  The Scottish Legal Aid Board will shortly be publishing its full accounts on an accruals basis in its Annual Report and the hon. and learned Member will be sent a copy. In cash terms, the provisional expenditure on criminal legal aid in 1997–98 was £82.054 million. The Board also spent £7.583 million on advice and assistance in criminal matters and £2.438 million on Advice by Way of Representation (ABWOR), most of which was spent on criminal cases. The estimated cost, in cash terms, of administering criminal legal aid in 1997–98 was £2.340 million and that of the criminal elements of advice and assistance and ABWOR was £0.841 million.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Seaward Petroleum Licensing
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the 18th round of seaward petroleum licensing will take place. [45364]

  Mr. Battle
  The 18th Seaward Petroleum Licensing Round has opened with the publication of the formal offer notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  The notice invites applications for unlicensed acreage in the northern, central, and southern North Sea and in the northern half of the Irish Sea, Liverpool Bay, and Morecambe Bay. These are established oil and gas provinces where licences were last offered in 1994.
  503
  Interest is expected, in particular, from companies keen to use new data acquisition and processing techniques to locate structures similar to recent finds in other sectors of the North Sea or elsewhere in the world, or to identify new resources close to producing fields which may extend the life of their existing offshore infrastructure.

  The offer includes blocks relinquished by previous licencees in response to the fallow blocks initiative, which has encouraged companies to hand back acreage for which they have no current exploration or development plans, and so to make it available for others to explore and exploit where possible.

  A number of unlicensed blocks in the broad areas covered by the round have been excluded from this round, either for environmental protection reasons on the advice of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, or to protect the interests of other sea users.

  Drilling and development activity under licences awarded in this round will be subject to the requirements of regulations to implement the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337/EEC) as it applies to the offshore oil and gas industry which came into effect on 30 April 1998. The regulations apply to all relevant projects, irrespective of the date of the licence under which they are carried out, and will give the public access to project Environmental Statements on which they can comment to the Government.

  The closing dates for the receipt of applications will be 10 and 11 September. I hope the industry will take full advantage of the licensing opportunities available to them.

  Parcel Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what complaints she has received about arrangements which provide for transatlantic carriage of parcels by the Post Office to United States destinations at a lower rate than those destinations can be served by United States domestic services. [43805]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  None. If the hon. Member provides details I will look into the issue.

  Electricity
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she will take to ensure that poorer families gain from the benefits of competition in the electricity industry, with particular reference to those using prepayment keys. [43057]

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to her answer of 11 June 1997,Official Report, column 466, what steps she proposes to take to reduce the cost of electricity charges for small consumers on low incomes. [43149]

  Mr. Battle
  In our Green Paper, A Fair Deal for Customers, the Government have asked the gas and electricity regulators to prepare an action plan on ways to ensure that the regulatory regime works to the benefit of all domestic customers including those who are less well off financially. The plan should enable progress in assisting such customers to be judged against measurable targets.
  504
  The Government are considering the case for legislation to require the gas and electricity networks to make differential charges to supply companies in favour of prepayment meter customers. As part of the regulators' plan, therefore, the regulators should advise on whether and how such a proposal might operate and the appropriate level for such charges.

  The arrangements currently being put in place for electricity supply competition by OFFER and the electricity industry are designed to ensure that prepayment meter customers will be able to switch supplier like any other electricity customer.

  Arms Exhibitions
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which officials from her Department attended the Eurosatory arms fair in Paris in June; what were the costs of their attendance; and what funding her Department provided to defence companies attending this event. [44507]

  Mrs. Roche
  The DTI provided support for twenty UK firms exhibiting at Eurosatory in the form of grants towards the cost of participation. A preliminary grant has been paid to the Defence Manufacturers Association who were managing the UK group. Remaining payments are subject to claims not yet received, but the overall budget for the event has been set at £85,000. Two more firms were part of the UK group but are ineligible for grant. I have been informed that no DTI officials attended the event.

  Export Credits
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of export credits to each country in each year since 1970–71 was allocated to defence contracts; [43404]

  (2) what estimate she has made of how much in(a) cash terms and(b) real terms, in 1998–99 prices, each country receiving export credits will receive in (i) 1999–2000 and (ii) 2000–2001; [43405]

  (3) how much in(a) cash terms and(b) real terms, in 1998–99 prices, each country receiving export credits (i) paid back and (ii) had written off in each year since 1970–71; [43406]

  (4) if she will list the countries which have been recipients of export credits from the Exports Credits Guarantee Department since 1970–71; [43407]

  (5) how much in(a) cash terms and(b) real terms, in 1998–99 prices, each country receiving export credits accepted in each year since 1970–71. [43408]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 3 June 1998]: The information requested is in large part either no longer available or could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I am however sending today by way of reply a report that details new ECGD-supported business broken down

  505
  by country for each year since 1986, which sets out the element of defence-related business for each year and each market.

  I am placing a copy of the report in the library of the House.

  Miners
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many interim payments have been made to ex-miners suffering from respiratory disease; and if she will make a statement. [45366]

  Mr. Battle
  To date, 259 payments have been made.

  At the High Court hearing on 27 March, solicitors acting for the plaintiffs were granted a three-month adjournment to allow for further discussions to take place with the Department's agents to seek to agree arrangements for the administration of outstanding claims.

  Given this further delay, we undertook to make interim payments of £2,000 to a minimum of 5,000 elderly claimants currently in receipt of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. We have now extended this offer to all claimants currently in receipt of this benefit, as well as to the widows of those previously in receipt of the benefit. We estimate that this could be as many as 13,000. The speed at which offers can be made is still reliant on the co-operation of the claimants' solicitors who need to submit evidence of receipt of benefit.

  Discussions are continuing between the Department's representatives and the plaintiffs solicitors on suitable arrangements for assessing and compensating valid claims. To help facilitate speedy resolution of these discussions, we have agreed that Small Airways Disease (SAD) compensation should be paid even though no clear finding was made in relation to it in the High Court judgment.

  Tobacco Products
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total value of sales of tobacco products sold in the United Kingdom by each category of tobacco product in the last year for which figures are available. [44076]

  Mrs. Roche
  Statistics on the UK market for tobacco products are available in the Office for National Statistics publication "Product Sales & Trade PRA13, Tobacco Products". A copy of the latest publication, with data for 1993 to 1996, can be found in the Library of the House. These figures exclude Excise duties and Value Added Tax.

  UK Investors (Russia)
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice her Department currently offers to United Kingdom investors seeking to investigate commercial opportunities in(a) Russia and(b) other countries formerly part of the USSR. [44803]
  506
  Mrs. Roche
  We point out to UK investors seeking to investigate commercial opportunities in Russia that there are now a large number of successful UK investments. However, companies wishing to invest continue to face many obstacles, primarily resulting from the lack of transparency in the legal and fiscal framework for doing business and, therefore, good preparation is essential. As far as the remainder of the old USSR is concerned, the investment situation is very variable. As a general rule, at the present time, we would not encourage UK companies to seek out investment opportunities in Belarus, Moldova or Ukraine. The countries of Central Asia and Transcaucasia (with the exception of Tadjikistan) do present investment opportunities in a limited range of sectors but, again, the overall lack of transparency means good preparation is essential. The situation in the three Baltic States is different as the investment framework is now much more amenable to doing business.

  Internet Watch Foundation
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what firm of consultants has been appointed to undertake the review of the Internet Watch Foundation; and how they intend to seek views from interested parties. [43932]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: Work is well under way in preparing to appoint consultants to undertake the review. Discussions have been held with interested parties over detailed terms of reference and expressions of interest will be invited shortly. We will expect the winners of that tender to use a variety of research methods to obtain views from interested parties, including inviting written representations. In the meantime, anyone wishing to offer views should address them to officials in the Communications and Information Industries Directorate of my Department who are commissioning the review.

  Wind Farming
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has further to develop wind farming in the United Kingdom. [43550]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]: The Government consider that wind energy is one of the most promising renewables and has the prospect to contribute substantially to UK energy supplies.

  In line with the Government's manifesto commitment to a new and strong drive to develop renewable energy sources, in June 1997, I initiated a review of new and renewable energy policy including what would be necessary and practicable to achieve 10 per cent. of UK's electricity needs from renewables by the year 2010 and what contribution new and renewables could make to the Government's target of a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010. The Review is considering all forms of New and Renewable Energy including the prospects for onshore and offshore wind energy.

  In November 1997, I announced outline policy proposals for the fifth Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation Renewables Order in England and Wales (NFFO-5), and which included provision for onshore wind energy with new separate technology bands for small and larger scale windfarms. The purpose of these Orders is to secure

  507
  additional generating capacity from renewables in order to help them enter the commercial generating market. There are currently fifty-five NFFO wind energy projects generating electricity with a combined capacity of 132.28 MW and I look forward to seeing this contribution grow in coming years.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment she has made of the impact on investment in the United Kingdom of a five-year moratorium on building gas-fired power stations; [44635]

  (2) if she will publish the Government's estimates of the level of emissions of sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulates from power stations over the period 1999 to 2008 on the assumption that(a) a five-year moratorium on building gas-fired power stations is introduced and(b) that the current moratorium on building gas-fired power stations ends forthwith; [44638]

  (3) what will be the impact on the National Air Quality Strategy targets of a five-year moratorium on gas-fired power stations; and what additional measures would be required to meet these targets following the introduction of such a moratorium; [44637]

  (4) what assessment she has made of the economic impact of a five-year moratorium on building gas-fired power stations on those generators which own coal-fired power stations; [44636]

  (5) what assessment she has made of the impact on employment, by sector, of a five-year moratorium on the building of gas-fired power stations. [44625]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: The Government are engaged in a review of energy sources for power generation. An announcement will be made when a conclusion has been reached.

  Renewables
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of measures set out in the EU White Paper on Renewables on job creation in the United Kingdom; and if she will make a statement. [43667]

  Mr. Battle
  The Commissioner's White Paper recognises that net employment figures in the renewable energy sector are difficult to predict and calculate. It would be very difficult to disaggregate the various estimates for EU as a whole to determine a UK figure. The White Paper envisages a capital investment in renewable energy of around ecu 165 billion by 2010 and estimates that this might create between 500,000 and 900,000 jobs across Europe. Clearly this presents a significant business opportunity for UK companies.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1), pursuant to the answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 4, what discussions the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has had with(a) Ministers and(b) officials in other departments
  508
  relating to the review of EU structural funds in respect of Wales; and what was the nature and scope of such discussions; [44393]

  (2), pursuant to her answer of 21 May 1998,Official Report, columns 543–44, what has been the nature and content of her discussions with Welsh Office(a) officials and(b) Ministers on the subject of (i) Objective One funding for Wales and (ii) other aspects of Agenda 2000. [44394]

  Mrs. Roche
  [holding answers 5 June 1998]: Since the Department co-ordinates UK policy on the Structural Funds, both I and other DTI Ministers have frequently discussed the Structural Funds aspects of Agenda 2000 with colleagues, including those in the Welsh Office. Officials from the relevant departments are also in regular touch.

  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects the review of European Structural Funds to be completed. [43253]

  Mrs. Roche
  As part of the Agenda 2000 package, the Commission published their proposed draft regulations for the Structural and Cohesion Fund policies for the years 2000 to 2006 on 18 March 1998.

  The proposals will have to be agreed by the Council of Ministers and, where appropriate, approved by the European Parliament. We do not expect the regulations for the Structural and Cohesion Funds to be adopted until early 1999.

  Crown Post Office, Watford
  Ms Ward
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the provision of a Crown Post Office in Watford. [44667]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the Crown post office in Watford was converted to a franchise office in February 1997 under a five-year contract. The franchise office continues to provide the full range of services previously provided at the Crown post office. In May 1997, at my request, the Post Office suspended its Crown office conversion programme, except where irreversible contractual commitments existed, until decisions on this programme could be made on an informed basis in the wider context of our review of the Post Office.

  Printing, Packaging and Graphics Communications Industry
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps her Department has taken to encourage workforce flexibility to create and sustain jobs in the United Kingdom printing, packaging and graphic communications industry. [43445]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government recognise the benefits for competitiveness and employment of workforce flexibility, and encourage generally the spread of flexible working practices such as varying patterns of work, multi-skilling, and teleworking. Workforce flexibility will be amongst the issues to be addressed in a forthcoming joint industry/union/DTI study on the competitiveness of the industry.
  509

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Reviews
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list, for each of the last four years, the departmental inquiries and reviews instigated by Ministers which have been chaired by individuals outside her Department; and in each case if she will give the date of establishment and the name of the chairman. [44362]

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  No such inquiries or reviews have been instigated by Ministers in the Privy Council Office.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress made towards setting up the boards of the new regional development agencies. [43235]

  Angela Eagle
  We are currently considering applications for chairmen or chairwomen, and board members of Regional Development Agencies. We cannot formally make appointments to boards until the Regional Development Agencies Bill has received Royal Assent but hope to identify the prospective chairs as advisers before then to help with the preparation for the RDAs.

  Maria Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will site the north-west regional development agency office in Liverpool. [43246]

  Angela Eagle
  Decisions about the locations of Regional Development Agency offices will be for the RDAs. They will need to take account of all relevant factors, including the requirement on non-departmental public bodies to secure best value for money.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if there will be a net increase in resources going to the South West Region after the setting up of the Regional Development Agency. [43243]

  Angela Eagle
  It is too early to say what resources the South West will receive once the Regional Development Agencies are up and running next April. Plans for expenditure in 1999–2000 will depend on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review. However, RDAs will provide a more cohesive approach, which will lead to more effective use of the available funding.

  Council Tax (Second Homes)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of providing a 50 per cent. discount on council tax for second homes. [43236]

  Ms Armstrong
  Around 500,000 households in England qualify for the 50 per cent. council tax discount at a cost of some £170 million. Not all of the dwellings which receive the discount are second or holiday homes.510
  The 50 per cent. discount applies to all unoccupied dwellings and to certain occupied dwellings such as those where all of the residents are disregarded, for example, households consisting of someone who is severely mentally impaired and their carer.

  Inland Waterways
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to improve planning and co-ordination of responsibilities for navigation rights as part of overall management of inland waterways. [43237]

  Angela Eagle
  The country's inland waterways are managed by over 30 navigation authorities. The Association of Inland Navigation Authorities enables them to share information and co-ordinate navigation issues.

  Brown-field Sites
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the locations of identified brown-field sites in the United Kingdom. [43238]

  Mr. Caborn
  Work starts this summer to gather information about previously developed land in England which may be available for redevelopment. My Department is working on this with the Local Government Management Board, English Partnerships, Ordnance Survey and Local Authorities. English Partnerships intends to publish information on an initial set of sites suitable for redevelopment, by the end of the year; summary results for all sites should be available by March 1999.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent representations he has received on his current target for development on brown-field sites. [43245]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government expect local authorities to be able to raise the national proportion of new homes to be built on previously developed land, including conversions of existing buildings, to 60 per cent. over the next 10 years. We also expect the regional conferences of local authorities to bring forward regional recycling targets.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress he has made in his review of policy concerning new housing numbers and development on green-field and brown-field sites. [43251]

  Mr. Caborn
  We are taking forward the further action outlined in Planning for the Communities of the Future. In particular, the Urban Task Force has started its work and we have started work on the development of a National Land Use Database.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of social houses to be built in each of next three years. [43239]
  511
  Mr. Raynsford
  We expect over 53,000 new social lettings to be created during 1998/99 through a mixture of new build, renovation, conversion and assisted exit from the social rented sector. Future levels of social housing provision are dependent on the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform local government finance; and if he will make a statement. [43240]

  Ms Armstrong
  On 30 March, the Government published three consultation papers:

  Improving local financial accountability;

  Business rates; and

  Capital finance.

  The consultation period closed on 1 June and we are currently considering the responses. A White Paper on Modernising Local Government will be published in the summer.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list for each council which has set a budget above its capping limit since the introduction of the capping regime(a) its provisional capping limit,(b) the budget set by the council,(c) the confirmed capping limit and(d) the final budget following appeal. [44462]

  Ms Armstrong
  Copies of the information requested have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Housing Benefit
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to equalise the arrangements for paying housing benefit to council tenants with that for other tenants. [43241]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are currently reviewing all aspects of housing finance including personal subsidies to tenants.

  Sports Grounds (Housing Development)
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received concerning the loss of sports grounds to housing development. [43242]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We consulted local authorities on the 12 February on our proposals to tighten planning controls in respect of development on all local authority-owned playing fields where the English Sports Council advises against the proposals. We received 100 responses. We continue to receive correspondence about our "Planning for the Communities of the Future" policy document some of which has raised this matter.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he will introduce to meet the Kyoto target for reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases. [43244]
  512
  Mr. Meacher
  We intend to issue a consultation paper in the summer on measures to deliver our climate change targets. This will largely focus on delivering our legally binding commitment from Kyoto as well as considering how we might move towards our 20 per cent. domestic aim. We will be looking at the scope for savings from improved energy efficiency by business and in the home; lower transport emissions; and an increase in the electricity generated from renewables and combined heat and power.

  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on progress towards meeting the Government's target for reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. [43249]

  Mr. Meacher
  The United Kingdom is one of only a few countries on target to meet its Rio commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. In fact, for carbon dioxide, the UK is projected to be more than 5 per cent. below 1990 levels and for all greenhouse gases we expect to be 10 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2000.

  We intend to issue a consultation paper in the summer on measures to deliver our climate change targets. This will largely focus on delivering our legally binding commitment from Kyoto as well as considering how we might move towards our 20 per cent. domestic aim. We will be looking at the scope for savings from improved energy efficiency by business and in the home; lower transport emissions; and an increase in the electricity generated from renewables and combined heat and power.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the timetable for the Heathrow terminal 5 inquiry. [43247]

  Mr. Caborn
  The public inquiry into the proposed Terminal 5 at Heathrow Airport began in May 1995 and is currently expected to end in November 1998. The timetable for the inquiry is a matter for the Inspector.

  Standard Spending Assessment
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the level of SSA in Leicestershire. [43248]

  Ms Armstrong
  Leicestershire's SSA for 1998–99 is £352.825 million, an increase of £10.960 million or 3.2 per cent. on the equivalent figure for 1997–98. The SSA per head figure is £590.71.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the expected level of change in SSAs for shire counties between 1997–98 and 1998–99. [43254]

  Ms Armstrong
  Details of the 1998–99 Local Government Finance Settlement were announced in February. The overall change in SSAs for shire counties is a 2.9 per cent. increase compared with the equivalent figure for 1997–98. Figures for individual authorities are available in the Library.
  513

  Greater London Authority
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what role the proposed Greater London authority will play in influencing planning decisions; and if he will make a statement. [43252]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Mayor will be responsible for ensuring that planning decisions on matters of importance to London as a whole take account of the broader strategic interest. He or she will do this through informal advice to the boroughs and through two formal mechanisms:(i) Strategic planning—The Mayor will be required to draw up a Spatial Development Strategy in place of the current guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The London boroughs will continue to produce detailed Unitary Development Plans for their areas, but these must be "in general conformity" with the Mayor's strategy.
  (ii) Development Control—London boroughs will remain the primary planning authorities for their areas. For a limited number of classes of development with significant strategic implications, the borough will have to consult the Mayor before reaching its decision. In the last resort the Mayor will be able to direct a borough to refuse permission where this is necessary on genuine strategic grounds. The applicant would have the right of appeal to the Secretary of State in the normal way. The criteria for applications falling into this category will be strictly drawn and the Government will be consulting on these in due course.

  Rail Fares
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with the regulatory bodies in respect of the level of rail fares. [43263]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Ministers meet with the Franchising Director on a regular basis and with the Rail Regulator from time to time to discuss a range of railways issues. The regulation of fares is a statutory responsibility of the Franchising Director. He has prescribed that annual increases in the price of key fares rise by no more than increases in the Retail Prices Index (RPI) based on June 1995 fare levels. From January 1999, these fares will be pegged to one per cent below the increase in the RPI.

  Rail Performance Standards
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations he has had with the rail regulators in relation to new performance standards for rail operating companies. [43265]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director is responsible for setting performance standards for train operators. Ministers meet regularly with the Franchising Director to discuss a range of passenger railway issues.

  National Rail Inquiry Service
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the service provided by the national rail inquiry service. [43266]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My Department and the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising have received 127 representations about the service provided by the National Rail Inquiry Scheme.
  514

  Bicycling
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to mark National Bike Week. [43268]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We welcome National Bike Week and we are encouraged by the number of events in which people are taking part up and down the country. The week offers an excellent opportunity for raising awareness and drawing attention to the value of cycling. Making it easier for people to cycle will be a key element of our Integrated Transport White Paper.

  The Department is planning a Bike Breakfast at its main London headquarters for staff who cycle to work on National Bike to Work Day on 10 June. Ministers took part in the Great Parliamentary Bike Ride on 9 June and are supporting other events during the week.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the role of bicycling in his transport policy. [43277]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government fully recognise the value of cycling as a means of transport. We have already announced that cycling will have an important role in our integrated transport policy, details of which will be announced in the White Paper we plan to publish later this month.

  Bus Companies
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to encourage the benchmarking of environmental performance by bus companies. [43269]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government are already introducing tax changes to encourage greener buses; and progressively higher emission standards have been required across the EU. I welcome voluntary benchmarking by the bus industry.

  Leeds-Harrogate-York Line
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to ensure an improvement in the quality of service on the Leeds-Harrogate-York line. [43270]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 6 November 1997, the Minister for Transport issued to the Franchising Director new objectives, instructions and guidance which require him to manage the existing railway franchise contracts in the interest of passengers and to secure a progressive improvement in the quality of services. In the case of Leeds suburban services, the Franchising Director works with the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive (PTE), which is also a signatory to the franchise contract, to achieve that. I understand that Railtrack is undertaking a project to increase a capacity on the western approaches to Leeds station and that Railtrack and the PTE regularly review available station capacity for peak services at Leeds. We propose to strengthen the powers available for the regulation of the railway to ensure the improvements in performance and service quality which we want to see.
  515

  British Road Federation
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last met representatives from the British Road Federation to discuss road expenditure and motoring taxation. [43272]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The British Road Federation met my noble Friend the Minister for Roads in July 1997 at which the subject of road expenditure and motoring taxation was one of a number of subjects discussed. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport gave the keynote speech at the BRF's conference on 25 September 1997.

  The British Road Federation have made a full contribution to the consultation exercise which is informing our current fundamental review of transport policy.

  M74 Motorway
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the start date for construction of the M74 between Carlisle and the Scottish borders. [43273]

  Dr. Strang
  Since the start of the Roads Review consultation exercise, I have received seven representations regarding the proposed construction of the extension of the M6/M74 between Carlisle and the Scottish Border, all of them in support.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to regulate privately owned car parking facilities. [43274]

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to discourage parking in urban areas. [43279]

  Dr. Strang
  The Government's views on the use of parking controls and charges as part of an integrated transport policy will be set out in the forthcoming Transport White Paper.

  London Underground
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the progress towards establishing a public-private partnership for London Underground. [43275]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are working closely with London Transport to ensure that the Public/Private Partnership is progressed as quickly and efficiently as possible, and in a way which delivers the best result for taxpayers, passengers and staff.

  Changes have been made to the London Transport Board to provide the new structure needed to meet the challenging agenda we have set for the next two years. Denis Tunnicliffe has been appointed London Transport
  516
  Chief Executive with effect from 1 June, and recruitment of a new part-time Chairman (and a new Managing Director for London Underground) is under way.

  Price Waterhouse and Freshfields have been selected to provide, respectively, financial and legal advice jointly to the Government and London Transport. Competitions for other advisers are at an advanced stage.

  London Transport are also close to finalising an enhanced investment programme for the next two years incorporating the additional funding my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced on 20 March as part of our Public/Private Partnership proposals.

  Vintage Motor Vehicles
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to ensure that effective additives are available for older and vintage motor vehicles following the withdrawal of leaded petrol. [43276]

  Dr. Strang
  Effective substitutes for lead are available that can provide adequate protection from engine wear in older vehicles. With a significant residual market demand for leaded petrol, estimated at 18 per cent. of total petrol sales when the ban comes into effect on 1 January 2000, most major oil companies are actively planning to market a special grade of unleaded petrol containing these lead substitute additives from the middle of 1999. Availability of this fuel will continue for as long as there is a market demand.

  Trunk Roads
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received regarding spending on trunk roads. [43271]

  Dr. Strang
  I have received many representations on spending on trunk roads, including some 14,000 representations as a result of the Roads Review.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current levels of investment in Britain's motorway and trunk road network; and when he plans to complete his review of Britain's road programme. [43267]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), on 5 May 1998,Official Report, column 313.

  Stray Dogs
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of stray dogs in the United Kingdom; and what monitoring his Department undertakes of the number(a) recovered and(b) put down and the cost to public funds of dealing with stray dogs. [44409]

  Angela Eagle
  These figures are not collected centrally. The National Dog Wardens' Association has estimated that about 139,000 strays were handled by local
  517
  authorities in 1995–96, of which 16,000 were put down. Where the owner is known, local authorities are able to recover the costs.

  Sewage Treatment
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce his decision on the need for secondary treatment of sewage; and if it will be in time to allow water companies to comply with the deadline set in the EU Urban Waste Water Directive. [44392]

  Angela Eagle
  My Department is considering the Government's policy options in relation to implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive. Decisions will be made in the context of the current Periodic Review of water prices, which aims to strike a proper balance between the need for environmental improvement and the resulting impact on water bills. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive contains a number of deadlines for different levels of sewage treatment according to both the size of the discharge and the nature of the receiving waters. The vast majority of work necessary to meet these deadlines will not be influenced by decisions whether to allow primary treatment at comparatively few coastal locations.

  Chrysolite
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what account he will take of the French ban on the use and import of chrysolite when determining UK policy. [44422]

  Angela Eagle
  The UK has taken into account the bans in nine EU Member States, including France, when formulating our own policy. Any decision by the UK Government to proceed with further restrictions on the importation, supply and use of chrysolite will be based on robust scientific evidence, thereby fulfilling obligations under World Trade Agreement.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the French ban on the use and import of chrysolite. [44424]

  Angela Eagle
  The UK has considered the bans in nine EU Member States, including France, especially their effectiveness, when formulating our own policy.

  Hammersmith Bridge
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultations his Department has undertaken over the possible reopening of Hammersmith Bridge; with which bodies; and what representations he has received on this subject. [44566]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Consultations on the future of Hammersmith Bridge are a matter for the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham, as bridge owner and local highway authority. Representations so far received amount to 11 Parliamentary Questions, 24 letters from hon. Members and Lords, and 51 letters from members of 518
  the public. Within these representations there have been straightforward requests for information, along with expressions of view for or against re-opening the bridge. Members of the public with views on the subject have been encouraged to make them known to the local highway authority.

  New Forest
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to award national park status to the New Forest under the terms of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; and what would be the impact of these plans on existing New Forest legislation; [44460]

  (2) what plans he has to designate the New Forest a national park authority under the terms of the Environment Act 1995; and what would be the impact of these plans on existing New Forest legislation. [44466]

  Angela Eagle
  The Countryside Commission has been considering the most appropriate arrangements for the continued protection of the New Forest. The Commission intends to present its formal advice to Ministers on this and a number of other issues relating to the protection of nationally important landscapes later this month. We will need to look at the Commission's recommendations very carefully, together with all the information available, before taking any final decisions. Any plans for the New Forest will need to take into account any possible impact on existing New Forest legislation. We hope to be able to announce our conclusions in the autumn.

  National Parks
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions under what statutory authority a national parks authority designated under the terms of the Environment Act 1995 could delegate its planning functions to a relevant local authority. [44465]

  Angela Eagle
  Under sections 101–102 of the Local Government Act 1972, as applied to National Park Authorities by Schedule 7(13)(1) of the Environment Act 1995.

  Walkers
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes to the law he plans following the recent court case in which a walker injured by cattle successfully sued the fanner for damages. [44446]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are not proposing to make any changes to legislation following this incident. Present law is adequate, both in terms of protecting members of the public and enabling farmers to operate effectively.

  Fuel Storage Tanks
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice the HSE gives concerning the maintenance of liquid petroleum gas and other fuel storage tanks located underground at domestic properties. [44379]
  519
  Angela Eagle
  HSE has published guidance covering maintenance of underground tanks for the storage of liquefied petroleum gas, petrol and other flammable fuels. While primarily aimed at industrial installations, the guidance is also applicable to the storage of these fuels at domestic premises.

  Carlisle Airport
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the development of Carlisle airport. [44838]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. I am however aware of proposals for the development of the airport by a private sector consortium.

  Motorway Service Areas
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the Government's review of the 15-mile rule for the siting of motorway service areas, including details of the timetable for the review and for publication of its results. [44670]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are several aspects of Government policy on motorway service areas (MSAs) which we have said we wish to review. On spacing, we will want to consider in particular whether existing policy, which allows MSAs at roughly fifteen mile intervals, strikes the right balance between the needs of motorway users and other considerations including the need to avoid unnecessary development in the countryside. We hope to make a further announcement later this year.

  Motor Cycles
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to permit powered two-wheel vehicles to use taxi and bus lanes. [44804]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 299.

  District Council Wards (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce his conclusions on the implementation of the recent report on district council wards for Northamptonshire. [44958]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We have concluded our consultation on a draft Order implementing the Local Government Commission's recommendations on Daventry and intend shortly to begin a similar consultation for Northampton. For all other districts in Northamptonshire, we are currently in the process of consulting on draft Orders. At present, it is intended that the new arrangements will be established in time for the elections in May 1999.

  Special Needs Transport
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what 520
  measures he is taking to protect the provision of special needs transport in(a) the West Midlands and(b) Coventry. [44401]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Department is conducting a review of voluntary and community transport operators across the country to assess their needs and problems. The review, which will be completed this autumn, will include recommendations on both the protection and development of these important transport services. Specific schemes, such as those in the West Midlands and Coventry, are a matter for the local authority concerned.

  Threatened Plants
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral answer from the President of the Council of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 593, on threatened plants, if he will make a statement on the steps which have been taken to ensure co-operation between Government departments on matters relating to the International Unit for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. [43342]

  Angela Eagle
  The Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions holds the UK State Membership of IUCN. In this capacity, we disseminate information and advice from IUCN Headquarters to other Government Departments, and consult them about particular IUCN issues which impinge on their interests. The Departments concerned are: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, Department for International Development, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence, the Welsh Office and the Scottish Office. IUCN matters are also addressed whenever appropriate in wider discussions on biodiversity issues within the Department and in relevant inter-Departmental fora.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on investment levels on the West Coast main line. [43343]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The development of the West Coast Main Line modernisation and upgrade programme continues to generate considerable interest and I met the West Coast Rail 250 group on 20 May. We have had no representations recently on the level of investment on the line. However, I understand that Railtrack has invested £200 million on the route modernisation since 1995, mainly on repairs and renewals.

  Respirable Quartz
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on how many occasions in each year since a maximum exposure limit was assigned to respirable quartz the Health and Safety Executive has instigated formal enforcement actions against employers who have controlled personal exposures to respirable quartz to below the maximum exposure limits but where exposures were not as low as reasonably practicable and exceeded 0.1 mg/m3; and if he will make a statement. [43714]
  521
  Angela Eagle
  The Health and Safety Executive can take formal enforcement action against employers by Prosecution, Prohibition and Improvement Notices.

  It is not possible to relate HSE' s formal enforcement actions to improve the control of respirable quartz (silica) to specific personal exposures. Action to improve the control of silica is not dependent on exposure measurements. Nevertheless in 1995 there was one prosecution where the Maximum Exposure Limit (MEL) was exceeded.

  In 1996–97, there were 25 Improvement Notices and in 1997–98, there were 24 Improvement Notices in relation to the inadequate control of silica.

  In 1996, ACTS reviewed the effect of the MEL on industry, and HSE will publish a report shortly.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) how many(a) mesotheliomas and(b) lung cancers in (i) smokers and (ii) non-smokers per million persons exposed are assumed to result from environmental exposures to amosite asbestos at airborne fibre concentrations of(a) 0.01,(b) 0.005 and(c) 0.001 fibres/millilitre for 40 hours per week for 20 years; and if he will make a statement; [43715]

  (2) what health consequences, expressed in terms of numbers of mesotheliomas or lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers per million persons exposed are assumed to result from environmental exposures to crocidolite asbestos at airborne fibre concentrations of(a) 0.01,(b) 0.005,(c) 0.001 and(d) 0.0001 fibres/millilitre for 40 hours per week for 20 years; and if he will make a statement; [43716]

  (3) what health consequences, expressed in terms of numbers of mesotheliomas or lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers per million persons exposed are assumed to result from occupational exposures to crocidolite asbestos at airborne fibre concentrations of(a) 0.2,(b) 0.1,(c) 0.05 and(d) 0.005 fibres/millilitre for 40 hours per week for 20 years; and if he will make a statement; [43718]

  (4) what health consequences, expressed in terms of numbers of mesotheliomas or lung cancers in smokers and non-smokers per million persons exposed are assumed to result from occupational exposures to(a) amosite asbestos at airborne fibre concentrations of(a) 0.2,(b) 0.1 and(c) 0.05 fibres/millilitre for 40 hours per week for 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [43722]

  Angela Eagle
  The available evidence is insufficient to make a precisely quantified estimate of the risks presented by exposure to amosite and crocidolite. In a written answer to my hon. Friend on 2 April 1998,Official Report, columns 599–601, I indicated a range of quantified risk estimates for chrysotile. The risks presented by exposure to amosite and crocidolite appear to lie above this range, moderately so for lung cancer, substantially so for mesothelioma. The HSE is preparing a review of the relevant evidence, and will publish this before the end of the year. A copy will be placed in the Library of the House of Commons.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on how many occasions in each year between 1975 and 1 March 1998 the 522
  Health and Safety Executive instigated formal enforcement actions against employers who had controlled personal exposures to asbestos primarily by the use of respiratory protective equipment contrary to the requirements of Regulation 7 of the Asbestos Regulations 1969; and if he will make a statement; [43719]

  (2) on how many occasions in each year since 1988 the Health and Safety Executive has investigated whether manufacturers or importers have(a) produced and(b) imported products incorporating asbestos to assess compliance with the requirements of Regulation 8(1A) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987; and if he will make a statement; [43720]

  (3) on how many occasions in each year since 1988 the Health and Safety Executive instigated formal enforcement actions against employers who had controlled personal exposures to asbestos primarily by the use of respiratory protective equipment contrary to the requirements of Regulation 8(1b) of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987; and if he will make a statement; [43721]

  (4) on how many occasions in each year since 1990 the Health and Safety Executive instigated formal enforcement actions against employers who had controlled personal exposures to below(a) the relevant maximum exposure limits and(b) the relevant control limits but where exposures have not been as low as reasonably practical; and if he will make a statement. [43723]

  Angela Eagle
  The information requested is not readily available at the level of detail required and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  This Government, the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are committed to ensuring the risks from asbestos and hazardous substances are controlled.

  The Commission published a Consultative Document in April 1998 proposing amendments to the asbestos regulations and supporting Approved Codes of Practice to strengthen the approach to the use of, and work with, asbestos.

  This Government and the Health and Safety Commission are committed to the advancement of further restrictions on the importation and use of asbestos as soon as the scientific evidence on the safety of substitutes has become clear.

  Hazardous Substances
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what health consequences, expressed in terms of deaths per million persons exposed are assumed to result from occupational exposures to(a) kaolin,(b) respirable quartz,(c) welding fume,(d) cement dust,(e) styrene,(f) isocyanates and(g) xylene at the current relevant occupational exposure limits for 40 hours per week for 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [43717]

  Angela Eagle
  Occupational Exposure Standards have been set under the control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations (1994) (COSHH) for kaolin, welding
  523
  fume, cement dust and xylene, such that repeated exposure by inhalation at that level should not cause any adverse health effects.

  For respirable quartz, isocyanates and styrene, a level of exposure which is both safe and reasonably practicable to achieve cannot be identified and Maximum Exposure Limits (MEL) have been set under COSHH. Employers are required to ensure that exposure is kept as far below the MEL as is reasonably practicable. For isocyanates and styrene, there is no evidence to suggest that death could result from exposures at these levels.

  The Health and Safety Executive has published statistics on the incidence of silicosis, which is the key health effect from exposure to respirable quartz. However, there are no precise data on the numbers of deaths which result from silicosis; nor is it possible to determine how many deaths might result from exposure to respirable quartz at the level of the MEL, although we expect the figure to be small (Health & Safety Commission Health and Safety Statistics 1996/1997).

  Train Services
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the adequacy of passenger compensation for late trains. [45028]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a matter for the Franchising Director. He is required by his objectives, Instructions and Guidance from the Government to require each franchisee to publish a Passenger's Charter which includes payment of compensation to passengers in the event of poor performance. The Franchising Director requires that the compensation offered under each franchisees' Charter is no less than that offered under the former British Rail Passenger's Charter. Some operators offer significantly more than BR. The Franchising Director continues to look for improvements in Passenger Charters when suitable opportunities arise.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the current levels of passenger complaints relating to train services. [45027]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee (CRUCC) has reported an increase of 94% in the number of complaints received in the first three months of 1998 compared with the same period 1997. It is clear that passengers are still not getting the best deal from the privatised railway and we are determined to put that right, starting with our forthcoming White Paper. In the meantime, I expect train operators to listen to what their passengers are telling them and act on it. Poor performance has undoubtedly contributed to the increase and the House will know of my determination to see the Franchising Director act over that.

  Air Traffic Control
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on the safety of air travellers of the delay to the opening of the new en-route air traffic control centre at Swanwick; and if he will make a statement; [44919]
  524
  (2) if he will make a statement on the severe overload which occurred on the Blackton Sector of the Area Control Operations Room at the London area and terminal control centre, Air Traffic Control, West Drayton, on Thursday 23 April. [44920]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads in another place on 4 February 1998,Official Report, House of Lords, column 118.

  The Civil Aviation Authority is not aware of any incidents on 23 April but is aware of the overload that occurred on the Clacton Sector of the London Area and Terminal Control Centre on 28 April 1998.

  An independent investigation by the Air Traffic Services Investigation Section of the Authority's Safety Regulation Group into the circumstances surrounding the occurrence is continuing. An interim report addressing the causes and making recommendations aimed at avoiding a recurrence is now being considered by the Chairman of the Authority. The final results will be published to the Industry in due course.

  In addition, National Air Traffic Services Ltd. are carrying out their own internal investigation.

  Housing (South Devon)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to send a reply to the letter dated 8 May from the hon. Member for Totnes requesting a meeting with him, the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), South Hams district councillors, South Devon county councillors and the South Hams Amenity Federation to discuss the effect on South Hams, of the projected new housing requirement for South Devon to the year 2001. [44981]

  Mr. Caborn
  I replied yesterday to the hon. Member's letter of 8 May addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale).

  Connex South Central
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to Connex South Central exercising their option to extend their franchise from seven years to 15. [43278]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The franchising agreement for Connex South Central provides for the Company and the Franchising Director to agree an extension of the term up to a maximum of fifteen years. I understand that the Company has presented a proposal to the Franchising Director and that he is presently evaluating it. He is under no obligation to accept the proposal on any particular terms or at all.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what compensation will be offered to Riverford Farm, Staverton Bridge, as a result of loss of trade resulting from the consent by his Department to a test site for
  525
  herbicide-resistant maize; and if he will withdraw his consent for the growing of herbicide-resistant maize in the proximity of Riverford Farm. [45121]

  Angela Eagle
  It has not been established that any loss of trade will occur from the proximity of the GM maize trial to Riverford Farm and in view of this it is inappropriate to consider compensation. I hope the matter will be resolved satisfactorily.

  Regarding the request to withdraw the consent for the GM maize trial I refer the hon. Member to the answer given recently to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 14 May 1998,Official Report, column 156.

  Tritium Waste
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much tritium waste was released into the River Thames by Aldermaston Weapons Establishment in each of the last 10 years. [44138]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have been asked to reply.

  Discharges of appropriate treated tritium waste from the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to the River Thames are made in line with specific authorisations issued by the Environment Agency. Annual discharge levels for the last 10 years are as follows:

  Discharges of Tritium waste from AWE Aldermaston to the River Thames 1987–1997

  Year

  GigaBequerels (GBq)

  1987

  60

  1988

  10

  1989

  21

  1990

  599

  1991

  17

  1992

  27

  1993

  32

  1994

  28

  1995

  10

  1996

  2

  1997

  2

  Since 1993, this information has been published annually in the Atomic Weapons Establishment's "Environment, Safety and Health Report", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Marine Dredging
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the procedures for authorising marine dredging. [45262]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have today announced the introduction of new non-statutory procedures for authorising marine dredging. They are intended to address concerns raised previously by the Crown Estate, environmental organisations and the dredging industry about the present arrangements and are intended as an interim arrangement until such time as statutory procedures can be introduced. The interim procedures, copies of which have been placed in the House Library, will apply in England and Wales and have been developed following extensive consultation with Government Departments, the Crown Estate, the 526
  dredging industry and environmental organisations. I hope that they will lead to more open and quicker consideration of applications for dredging licences, whilst still enabling full public consultation and protection of the environment.

  I also announced that the Government intend to introduce statutory procedures for authorising the extraction of minerals by marine dredging by March 1999. These will implement the requirements of EEC Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by EEC Directive 11/97/EEC) on Environmental Impact Assessment insofar as it applies to the extraction of minerals by marine dredging. There will be appropriate consultation on the provisions.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Staff Car Mileage Allowance
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total real terms value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and(b) staff rail fares paid; and what was the amount of staff car mileage for which reimbursement was made and the percentage change year on year, for each year since 1989–90. [44082]

  Mr. Morley
  The total real terms value of(a) staff car mileage claims paid and(b) staff rail fares paid for each year since 1989–90 is as detailed in the tables. The amount of staff car mileage for each of these years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Staff car mileage

  Year

  Historic cost(£)

  Index factor

  Current cost(£)

  1989–90

  3,173,007

  1.35

  4,273,986

  1990–91

  3,253,215

  1.25

  4,066,518

  1991–92

  3,049,895

  1.18

  3,603,373

  1992–93

  3,257,575

  1.13

  3,665,139

  1993–94

  3,555,068

  1.09

  3,867,567

  1994–95

  3,709,999

  1.07

  3,984,105

  1995–96

  3,444,990

  1.05

  3,624,779

  1996–97

  3,222,498

  1.02

  3,285,581

  1997–98

  3,370,115

  1.00

  3,370,115

  Staff rail fares

  Year

  Historic cost (£)

  Index factor

  Current cost (£)

  1989–90

  l —

  1.35

  1 —

  1990–91

  231,216

  1.25

  289,020

  1991–92

  400,336

  1.18

  472,986

  1992–93

  522,874

  1.13

  588,292

  1993–94

  623,886

  1.09

  678,727

  1994–95

  669,498

  1.07

  718,963

  1995–96

  768,559

  1.05

  808,669

  1996–97

  687,747

  1.02

  701,210

  1997–98

  796,485

  1

  796,485

  1 Figures for Rail Fares for this Financial Year are not available as this item was not accounted for separately until 1990–91

  Departmental Energy Use
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the Department's energy usage was from(a) renewable energy and(b) combined heating in each year since 1989–90. [44079]
  527
  Mr. Morley
  The Department's energy is purchased in the main through The Buying Agency, whose terms represent good value for money for the tax payer. We do not know what proportion of the energy is from renewable sources.

  Over the years we have looked at a number of schemes to provide combined heat and power but so far none has been implemented, either because it did not represent value for money or because of physical constraints. We are, however, now looking at a combined heat and power scheme to serve part of the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge. We have recently introduced at the Central Veterinary Laboratory a system whereby a waste heat

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Consumption:

  Electricity (kWh)

  34,249,049

  38,883,236

  43,058,478

  42,986,112

  43,655,007

  45,527,009

  37,786,870

  Gas (kWh)

  51,983,258

  51,058,770

  42,337,530

  45,116,093

  47,822,314

  57,660,765

  59,623,879

  Oil (kWh)

  44,188,474

  41,769,240

  42,364,511

  46,799,010

  47,085,226

  24,623,842

  9,093,363

  Total (kWh)

  130,420,781

  131,711,246

  127,760,519

  134,901,215

  138,562,547

  127,811,616

  106,504,112

  Expenditure (in cash terms):

  Electricity (£)

  2,138,870

  2,517,250

  2,824,110

  2,907,650

  2,785,872

  2,821,752

  2,196,842

  Gas (£)

  598,808

  619,560

  579,910

  559,460

  542,057

  519,646

  463,989

  Oil (£)

  506,370

  491,690

  509,620

  596,400

  514,188

  320,243

  141,628

  Total (£)

  3,244,048

  3,628,500

  3,913,640

  4,063,510

  3,842,117

  3,661,641

  2,802,460

  Figures for 1997–98 have not yet been collated.

  Agricultural Gangmasters
  Mrs. Fiona Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action is being taken to combat exploitative activities by agricultural gangmasters. [45123]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have been very concerned about the activities of certain agricultural gangmasters who exploit workers, defraud the Government and undermine the businesses of those gangmasters who work fairly within the law providing an essential service to the agricultural industry and ultimately the consumer. We therefore set up an interdepartmental working party to investigate the issue. Its report has now been placed in the Library of the House.

  In light of the findings and recommendations of the interdepartmental working party and discussions with the industry we are putting in place a set of measures to tackle the abuses by a significant minority of gangmasters of workers' rights and of non-compliance and fraud against taxation, National Insurance, benefit and immigration systems.

  The Government are launching "Operation Gangmaster". This cross-departmental initiative will bring together the work of up to 8 different enforcement agencies. The core of this pilot operation will be joint visits concentrating initially on illegal practices in Lincolnshire and East Anglia. Such visits have already occurred this season and one is in train today. This will be supported by general co-operation between enforcement officers alerting other departments to possible illegal activities. Departments will also co-operate in in-depth investigations into illegal gangmaster activities.
  528
  boiler is linked to the main incinerator to provide a large proportion of the heating and hot water for the site.

  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much(a) oil,(b) gas and(c) electricity was purchased for the heating, lighting and powering of accommodation occupied by the Department within the United Kingdom in each year since 1989–90; and what was the total cost in real terms of each in each year. [44087]

  Mr. Morley
  Information for 1989–90 is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information for subsequent years, which brings together energy consumption for the Department's main estate and its agencies, is as follows.

  In addition, enforcement officers in all relevant Government departments throughout the country are being briefed on the legislative framework applicable to gangmasters; this will greatly assist strong enforcement and further cement co-operation between departments.

  Additional support to Operation Gangmaster will be provided through the Government's Business Anti-Fraud Hot Line. Here the drive to identify fraudulent employers will be helpful in identifying those gangmasters who knowingly employ benefit claimants. Other measures being taken by the Government, including implementing the Working Time Directive and the National Minimum Wage, will contribute to improving the position of casual workers.

  Importantly, for the first time, gangmasters, farmers and workers will be informed of their rights and obligations through leaflets which are being issued widely today. These provide a comprehensive picture of all the relevant aspects of law relevant to gangmasters and the people they employ, covering responsibilities of several different government departments. No one should be in doubt as to their rights or obligations under the law, or be able to claim ignorance of the law, if caught abusing their workers.

  I am delighted also that the agricultural and horticultural industries are taking their responsibilities seriously too. The Code of Practice being launched by the National Farmers' Union and the Fresh Produce Consortium today is an important step. It will be of great assistance to all farmers, growers and pack house operators in understanding the relevant law and best practice to be adopted. I very much welcome that the retail sector have given their support to this code as an initial stage towards controlling gangmasters.
  529
  For the longer term, the Government are continuing to examine the scope for registration of agricultural gangmasters and ways to assist the unemployed to take up seasonable agricultural employment more easily, reducing the temptation to work while on benefit and laying individuals open to exploitation by gangmasters.

  This comprehensive approach combining the strength of the several enforcement agencies, providing full information on rights and obligations to workers and employers and the role the industry themselves are playing to tackle the problem of abuse by gangmasters, is breaking new ground.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sites of special scientific interest are covered by the countryside stewardship scheme. [44115]

  Mr. Morley
  Based on the data currently readily available, all or part of the land in at least 400 Sites of Special Scientific Interest is subject to a Countryside Stewardship agreement. However, this figure does not include some early Countryside Stewardship agreements or agreements established in 1997 in Devon and Cornwall, for which information cannot readily be aggregated at present.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking in respect of developing a vaccine to protect badgers and cattle from TB. [44796]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Krebs report concluded that the development of a vaccine for cattle was the best long-term prospect for the control of bovine TB, but saw a badger vaccine as an alternative option if cattle vaccine requirements cannot be met. Following the publication of the report, we have reviewed our research requirements for bovine TB, and in April published a document inviting proposals. These include work to develop a cattle vaccine and to take forward work on a badger vaccine which started in 1994. If suitable proposals are forthcoming, contracts will be awarded for work to start in April 1999.

  Bees
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and(b) evaluated into the value of pollination activity by bees to British agriculture. [44147]

  Mr. Rooker
  Over the years, the Government have funded work on the role and benefits of honey bees on crops. More recently, the Ministry asked ADAS for a report on the impact of varroa on the pollination of horticultural crops. The report was produced in September 1996 and revised in January 1998. Copies of both reports have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to(a) promote training in apiculture and(b) extend the role of his Department's Bee Unit to reflect the agricultural importance of the bee and the threat of disease to the bee population. [44158]
  530
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government support the beekeeping sector through the bee health programme which is delivered in England and Wales by the National Bee Unit, part of the Central Science Laboratory. The total UK programme is costing around £1.5 million this year in addition to the cost of research into bee diseases. Education and training are already important elements of the programme and the emphasis is on helping beekeepers to become more self-reliant.

  The work of the National Bee Unit was included within the Comprehensive Spending Review, the conclusions of which are to be made public shortly.

  Milk Quotas
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is HM Government's policy on the continuance or otherwise of milk quotas; and what is their response to the European Commission's proposal published on 18 March on the extension of, and increase in, quotas. [44499]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government broadly welcome the Commission's proposals for reforming the dairy sector as a step in the right direction. However, we are pressing for a clear date for the removal of milk quotas. Whilst welcoming, in principle, an increase in milk quotas in line with the price cuts, we do not accept the proposed discriminatory allocation of additional quota in favour of producers in mountain areas.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the proposed scheme to increase some milk quotas will apply to the Peak District. [44355]

  Mr. Rooker
  Part of the Commission's proposals would involve a 1 per cent. quota increase for each Member State with priority to be given to young farmers and 1 per cent. for producers in mountain areas. The UK would not benefit from the latter allocation but the former would in principle apply to the Peak District just as to any other part of the UK.

  Dogs (Worming)
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the standards of worming required in respect of dogs kept on meat-producing farms to other dogs in rural areas. [44444]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have no plans to require dogs kept in rural areas to be wormed. Effective wormers are available for dogs either under veterinary prescription or from registered agricultural merchants, saddlers or other outlets, and it is good practice for them to be used on a regular basis.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to secure a reduction in the EU subsidy on tobacco crops. [44356]

  Mr. Rooker
  My Ministerial colleagues and I, and our officials, continue to raise our concerns about the tobacco regime at every opportunity in meetings with the Commission and other Member States.
  531
  The Commission's proposal for reform of the EU tobacco regime is scheduled to be discussed again in the Agriculture Council later this month. Medium and long-term savings are likely if the Commission's proposal can be agreed largely in its current form.

  Sheep
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will assess the advantages of moving sheep head counts for EU purposes from spring to autumn to minimise the risk of ewes becoming separated from their lambs by the process. [44445]

  Mr. Rooker
  Hock counts are needed for a minimum 10 per cent. of claims under the Sheep Annual Premium (SAP) scheme and the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances (HLCA) scheme. At present, these counts must all be carried out during the scheme retention period, which for SAP and HLCA has been combined and fixed at 4 February to 15 May in consultation with the industry. The scope for changing these arrangements is currently limited. In particular, EU rules do not permit an autumn retention period for SAP.

  They do allow for a proportion of flock inspections to be undertaken outside the retention period, if the general standard of on-farm record keeping is satisfactory. Unfortunately this is not yet the case in the UK. It is recognised that a spring retention period is not ideal from the welfare point of view but in practice it has not led to major difficulties. In carrying out their duties, the field staff are sensitive to potential welfare concerns and every effort is made to schedule inspections to minimise the disruption that may be caused to normal flock management.

  Ecu
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the advantages to United Kingdom agriculture of the recent revaluation of the ecu. [44354]

  Mr. Rooker
  It is difficult to assess precisely the impact of changes in the green rates used to convert Common Agricultural Policy support payments into sterling. The Government are well aware of the ways in which movements in sterling may influence UK farming.

  Tallow
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects for the lifting of current EU restrictions on the non-food use of British tallow. [44359]

  Mr. Rooker
  Conditions for the export of tallow derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK for use in human food, animal feed, cosmetics and medical and pharmaceutical products are laid down in Council Decision 98/256/EC. However, exports may not recommence until the European Commission has inspected the implementation in the UK of the controls laid down in the Decision and set a date for this, after consulting the Standing Veterinary Committee. We invited the Commission to carry out the required inspection as far back as October 1997. We hope they will do so soon.
  532
  Tallow derived from bovine animals slaughtered in the UK can already be exported for uses other than in human food, animal feed, cosmetics and medical and pharmaceutical products.

  Beef Export Ban
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the consequences for the British beef market if the ban on the export of British beef has not been lifted by the time the current calf slaughter programme ends in November. [44353]

  Mr. Rooker
  In the 12 months ending 31 May, 608,666 calves were slaughtered under the Calf Processing Aid Scheme. It is by no means evident that, in the absence of a scheme, all these calves would have been reared for beef. If the Scheme were terminated, we would expect UK beef production to increase some 18 months to 2 years after termination and the absolute upper limit of that increase would be of the order of 200 thousand tonnes per annum. The Government are confident that the ban on the export of British beef will have been lifted for animals born after the end of the current slaughter programme, before they are ready for slaughter as finished animals. The ban on the export of live calves is however likely to remain in place for the foreseeable future because of concerns about maternal transmission.

  Barley
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations the EU has received from the US authorities about the subsidised sale of barley in the US; what is the total amount of barley involved; what is the sale price; what is the amount of subsidy offered per tonne; and if he will make a statement. [44324]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: I understand that the EU has received a number of representations from the US authorities about this sale, which involved the sale of Finnish barley to a buyer in California. The total amount of barley involved was 31,570 tonnes, of which 31,520 tonnes received an EU export subsidy of 47 ecus/tonne and the remaining 50 tonnes a subsidy of 21.96 ecus/tonne. The sale price was a matter of private commercial contract. The transaction concerned did not infringe WTO rules.

  Slaughterhouses
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the slaughterhouses in Great Britain have full-time veterinary supervision during their hours of operation. [44237]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: The Meat Hygiene Service (an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) is responsible for the enforcement of meat hygiene, inspection and animal-welfare-at-slaughter legislation in slaughterhouses licensed under the meat hygiene regulations in Great Britain.

  In most slaughterhouses, an MHI or OVS is present during the slaughterhouse operating hours, although in some small slaughterhouses this will not always be the case. The precise length of time spent in slaughterhouses

  533
  by an OVS will depend on several factors including the size and throughput of the premises, the complexity and standard of hygiene of operations, and the type of animal being slaughtered. However, no meat intended for sale for human consumption may leave any licensed slaughterhouse until it has been subjected to apost mortem inspection by an MHI, under the supervision of the OVS, has been passed as fit for human consumption, and been duly heath marked.

  There are 31 full-throughput and 7 low-throughput licensed slaughterhouses in Great Britain with full-time veterinary supervision (ie full-time presence of a qualified veterinarian during ante mortem and post mortem inspections).

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many slaughterhouse operators were prosecuted in 1997 for failure to observe the statutory provisions about welfare at slaughter; and how many official warnings were given in 1997 about failure to comply with those statutory provisions. [44238]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: Three slaughterhouse operators were prosecuted in 1997 in respect of offences under the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995. These Regulations do not provide for the issue of statutory warning notices and enforcement action may be verbal or written. Information on enforcement other than prosecution is not held centrally. Where possible, Official Veterinary Surgeons will act on the spot to correct problems. Evidence of cruelty or persistent disregard of welfare will result in prosecution action being taken.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if it is the policy of the Government to permit the export of slaughter pigs to Spain only where the authorities in Spain have confirmed that the slaughterhouse of destination complies fully with EU provisions relating to the welfare of animals at slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [44297]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: The Department has maintained the list, first established at the beginning of 1993, of slaughterhouses confirmed by the Spanish authorities as meeting Community welfare requirements. This would enable us to consider the position carefully if slaughter animals of any species were shown on a route plan as destined for a slaughterhouse not on the list.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) of 5 May 1998,Official Report, columns 303–04, concerning live animal exports, if all the sheep exported to Spain for slaughter in 1997 were subsequently declared on the route plans as being transported to slaughterhouses notified to him by the Spanish authorities as complying with EU provisions on welfare at slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [44298]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: Yes, save in two instances where failure to return a route plan was recorded for future consideration in relation to the exporter's authorisation to operate. Once route plans have been returned, they are available to help establish whether
  534
  a false declaration has been made in the event that evidence emerges from any source that the journey details may have been other than as declared.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the animal welfare implications of the provisions within the Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 1997 which allows animal hauliers to assess themselves as competent to transport farm animals and horses over eight hours. [44239]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: When we made the 1997 Order five weeks after 1 May 1997, in fulfilment of a Community obligation which had previously been neglected, we made clear that we would review its provisions after they had been in force for a year. We will do this, thoroughly, after 1 July 1998.

  The provisions regarding the assessment of transport staff are among those I shall wish to consider very carefully in the review. There was no practical alternative to allowing employers to assess their own staff (which can mean the self-employed assessing themselves) given the Order requires the assessments to be done by 1 July 1998. However, I shall be very happy to improve these arrangements if our planned public consultation indicates a practical way of doing this.

  Pig Farms
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) official warnings were issued to pig farmers by his Department,(b) prosecutions of pig farmers were made by his Department,(c) complaints about poor welfare on pig farms were investigated by his veterinary staff and(d) welfare inspections were made to pig farms by his Department, in respect of breaches of statutory welfare provisions in 1997, or the most recent period for which figures are available. [44235]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: During 1997, veterinary staff of the Department's State Veterinary Service carried out 649 welfare inspections of pig farms, 145 of which followed complaints about poor welfare. Violations of legislation were found during 56 inspections and, in each case, warnings were given that legal action would be considered if improvements were not made. Prosecutions against pig farmers for welfare offences were initiated by the Department in 7 cases. The State Veterinary Service also co-operated closely with local authorities and other bodies over prosecutions they initiated against pig farmers for welfare offences.

  Goat's Milk
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he will take to prevent the gold-plating of EU rules and regulations covering the production of goat's milk in cottage industries. [45017]

  Mr. Rooker
  The production of goat's milk is governed by the terms of the European Community's milk and milk products hygiene directive, which is implemented and enforced in England and Wales through the Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (as amended). Enforcement should be proportionate to the public health risks, and there is no intention to gold-plate.
  535

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to establish an inquiry into food production methods in each European country to examine trends in the incidence of food poisoning across the EU. [45021]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has invited applications for research on the variations in prevalence of food poisoning both between and within countries with a view to identifying whether there are specific factors responsible. More detail can be found in MAFF's Food Research Requirements Document 1999–2000.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what public opinion surveys he has evaluated into public attitudes towards genetically modified crops. [45122]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Department has evaluated a wide range of surveys on public attitudes to genetically modified crops. Many of these surveys show that the public wish to decide for themselves whether to purchase foods containing genetically modified material. I am delighted that the recent agreement in Brussels on genetically modified soya and maize labelling will enable consumers to do just this.

  Food and Drink Regulations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will instruct his inspectors involved with enforcing rules and regulations in relation to food or drink to do so in the least burdensome manner. [44917]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF Inspectorates and Agencies are already working to incorporate the Enforcement Concordat, launched by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service on 4 March 1998,Official Report, columns 692–94, into their Codes of Enforcement or Service Standards to achieve better, and inter alia proportionate, enforcement which is nevertheless consistent with protecting consumers. Further, in the light of the voluntary approach to good enforcement which the Concordat promotes, we are reviewing enforcement procedures made under section 5 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and applied through legislation to section 10 of the Food Safety Act 1990 as this has been found to be burdensome.

  Artificial Insemination
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he has had with the cattle breeding industry regarding artificial insemination; and when he proposes to bring forward new regulations. [45026]

  Mr. Rooker
  A draft of new Artificial Insemination of Cattle Regulations was issued on 6 November 1997 for public consultation. A meeting to discuss responses to the consultation was held with interested parties on 20 March 1998. I regret, however, that the Department had to suspend work on the draft Regulations in April in order to allow the redeployment of staff to work connected with the relaxation of the EC beef export ban. I should 536
  emphasise that this is only a temporary step: the aim is to resume work on the draft Regulations in the autumn, subject to priorities at that time.

  Sheep Dips
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact of charging for the inspection and licensing of sheep dips on(a) sheep farmers and(b) the environment. [44442]

  Angela Eagle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to license sheep dipping. However we have recently published draft Groundwater Regulations which are designed to enhance protection of groundwater from a number of dangerous substances, including sheep dips. The outcome of public consultation, including the costs involved, is currently under consideration.

HEALTH

  Chiropody Services
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response he has made to the recommendations of Age Concern's report, On Your Feet, published in March 1998. [44004]

  Mr. Boateng
  On 8 May 1998, I wrote to Evelyn McEwan, Director of Age Concern England. The report provides valuable information about National Health Service chiropody services and the perceptions of its users and providers.

  Officials in the NHS Executive are looking at ways in which chiropody services might be further developed and will be consulting Age Concern during this process.

  Emergency Contraception
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to publicise the availability of emergency contraception. [43703]

  Ms Jowell
  The Health Education Authority ran a major public awareness campaign on emergency contraception in 1995 and 1996. The campaign was co-ordinated 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 information pack containing leaflets, posters and "credit cards" giving key information, plus guidance for professionals providing an emergency contraceptive service.

  NHS Frameworks (User Input)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce what input users will have into the new National Health Service frameworks. [43866]

  Mr. Milburn
  National Service Frameworks will be developed with the assistance of an expert reference group which will bring together health professionals, service users and carers, health service managers, partner
  537
  agencies, and others. The reference groups will adopt an inclusive process to engage a full range of views. Membership is currently under consideration and will be announced shortly.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to(a) support research into ways of mitigating the effects of epilepsy and(b) meet representatives of groups representing epilepsy sufferers. [44110]

  Ms Jowell
  The main agency through which we support bio-medical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council (MRC). The MRC is an independent body which receives its grant-in-aid from the Office of Science and Technology, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. The MRC funds a good deal of research into epilepsy, which amounted to some £600,000 in 1996/97. However, the MRC does not currently support any research specifically and exclusively into mitigating the effects of epilepsy.

  The Department's policy research programme (PRP) and the central National Health Service research and development programmes are not currently supporting any research into epilepsy, due to pressure of other priorities. However, records are not held centrally of all research carried out in the NHS.

  The Department is currently supporting several epilepsy organisations through its section 64 scheme of grants. Recently, it also contributed £10,000 to the costs of the annual conference of the British Epilepsy Organisation. We have met recently with one of the epilepsy organisations and officials from the Department are in regular contact with the main epilepsy organisations and the Joint Epilepsy Council, an umbrella organisation for epilepsy organisations.

  Ambulance Response Times
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 20 May 1998,Official Report, column 431, on the Ambulance Service, if he will make it his policy for response times of ambulances to be monitored from the time the emergency service is called. [44329]

  Mr. Milburn
  No. This would not be sensible. The new requirements were developed by an expert advisory group and were widely supported in consultation.

  Community Pharmacists
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that community pharmacists are fully represented and involved in the work of the proposed primary care groups. [44146]

  Mr. Milburn
  No final decisions on the proposed governance arrangements of primary care groups or primary care trusts have been made.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what proportion of Primary Care Group proposals currently under consideration incorporate community pharmacists. [44140]
  538
  Mr. Milburn
  Proposals for establishing primary care groups are currently under discussion locally. We have made it clear in guidance that primary care groups, as well as involving general practitioners, community nurses and social services, should also ensure that they involve other health professionals, primary care contractors (including pharmacists), and secondary care clinicians on issues affecting their delivery of care.

  Complementary Medicine
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the research projects on alternative and complementary medicine included in the current NHS research and development programmes. [44347]

  Ms Jowell
  The following research has been prioritised for funding through the National Health Service research and development programme:

  complementary therapies in the management of back pain,

  acupuncture for the management of pain in primary care,

  the effectiveness of different psychosocial interventions for patients and their families following cancer diagnosis and treatment,

  evaluating the effectiveness of acupuncture in defined aspects of stroke recovery,

  multi-centre study of acupuncture for episodic tension headaches,

  a double blind, randomised, parallel group, study evaluating the efficacy of a homoeopathic remedy in asthma,

  the use of complementary therapies by women with breast cancer in South Thames region,

  art therapy as an adjunctive treatment in severe mental illness,

  non-pharmacological approaches to the management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS),

  the efficacy of acupuncture versus local anaesthetic injection in the treatment of myofascial pain in the jaw muscles,

  assessing the effectiveness of hypnotherapy for pain relief in patients with chronic low back pain,

  the effect of abdominal massage on the bowel habit of adults with cerebral palsy,

  Tea Tree oil as an aid to fighting infection,

  reflexology in the treatment of IBS in a primary care setting.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is being given to health authorities and primary care groups on the inclusion of alternative and complementary therapies in the treatments that may be provided within the NHS. [44369]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department has issued no guidance to health authorities or primary care groups on the National Health Service provision of alternative and complementary therapies.

  Availability of alternative and complementary therapies within the NHS reflects the decisions taken locally by health authorities and general practitioners about the clinical and cost effectiveness of such services and the priority to be given to their provision in the light of other competing demands for the resources made available for local health needs.
  539

  Primary Pharmacy Groups
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce primary pharmacy groups. [44504]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Learning Disabilities
  Ms Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many health authorities with a database detailing information on those people within their area who have learning disabilities make aggregated data available to his Department for planning and evaluation purposes; and how many of them hold that database jointly with their social services department; [44350]

  (2) how many health authorities hold a database detailing information on those people within their area who have learning disabilities; and how many of them are structured to provide information on incidence of different types of learning disability; [44349]

  (3) how many health authorities hold a database detailing information on those people who have autism within their local area; how many such databases are held jointly with the local social services department; and how many such health authorities make aggregate data available to his Department for planning and evaluation purposes. [44351]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, analysis of population needs, and the prevalence and incidence of different types of disability, are important aspects of the commissioning functions of local authorities and health authorities. In "Signposts for Success in Commissioning and Providing Health Services for People with Learning Disabilities", published by the Department in January this year and distributed to health and local authorities, commissioners are advised to have arrangements in place to use both local and national information to build up a picture of the health needs of people with learning disabilities and people with autism in their locality. We also encourage health authorities to work together closely with local authorities in profiling both the volume, and needs, of people with learning disabilities and people with autism.

  Health Trusts
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to change the current responsibilities of health trusts for paying their own bills. [44425]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  MRSA
  Ms Jenny Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus incidents have occurred in hospitals in the(a) West Midlands and(b) London region in each of the past five years. [44438]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on the total number of cases of infection or colonisation with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is not collected centrally.
  540
  National epidemiological data on MRSA are compiled by the Public Health Laboratory service (PHLS) from isolates submitted voluntarily by hospitals in England and Wales for specialist microbiological tests. From these data, the number of incidents of MRSA—three or more patients infected or colonised by the same strain MRSA in a month from the same hospital—is recorded. The numbers of incidents for the years 199–1997 are in the table.

  Year

  West Midlands

  London Region2

  1992

  35

  216

  1993

  68

  348

  1994

  169

  649

  1995

  128

  943

  1996

  121

  960

  19971

  1 55

  1 491

  1 Data for six months only

  2 North Thames, North West Thames, South East Thames and South West Thames.

  The Department is currently discussing with the PHLS ways of improving surveillance systems so as to provide more complete data on MRSA.

  Hospital Beds (Liverpool)
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds were available in(a) Liverpool Royal,(b) Broadgreen,(c) Walton and(d) Fazakerley hospitals in each year from 1990–91 to 1997–98; and what were the cumulative bed losses to Liverpool over that period. [44441]

  Mr. Milburn
  Information on bed availability has been collected at National Health Service trust level since 1991–92 and the data are published in the book "Bed Availability and Occupancy for England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest available data are for 1996–97. Information for 1997–98 will be available in the autumn. A breakdown of the information between the hospitals is not available centrally, but may be available from the chief executives of the trusts.

  Dental Services (Cumbria)
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists practise in North Cumbria; and what is the average number of patients registered with each dental practitioner(a) in North Cumbria and(b) nationally. [44797]

  Mr. Milburn
  The table shows the number of general dental service dentists and the average number of patients registered with each dentist in North Cumbria Health Authority and in England at 31 March 1998.

  General dental service: number of dentists1 and average number of registered patients per dentist at 31 March 1998

  Number of dentists

  Average number of registered patients per dentist

  England

  16,830

  1,477

  North Cumbria

  104

  1,494

  1 Figures include principals, assistants and vocational trainees and exclude salaried, hospital and community dentists.

  541

  Bournewood Judgment
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will take steps, following the Bournewood judgment, to allow sufferers from Alzheimer's disease to continue to be admitted voluntarily to mental hospitals for respite care; [44585]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the Bournewood judgment. [44584]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following the Court of Appeal's judgment in the case of L v Bournewood Community and Mental Health National Health Service Trust, the Department advised the NHS about the Court of Appeal ruling and issued guidance to the NHS on its practical application.

  The trust was granted leave to appeal to the House of Lords, and the hearing took place on 2–8 June. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was given leave to intervene in the case in the light of the wider implications of the Court of Appeal's judgment on the NHS and partner agencies. Further guidance will be issued once the House of Lords' judgment is known, and we will consider then what, if any, further action is needed.

  Insulin Injection Pen Needles
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the outcome of his consideration as to whether general practitioners should be allowed to prescribe insulin injection pen needles on the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [45104]

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

  Health Authorities (Greater Manchester)
  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for consultation on the possible reconfiguration of health authority boundaries in the Greater Manchester area; and if he will make a statement. [45343]

  Mr. Dobson
  Having considered this issue and taken advice from those responsible for the management of health services across Greater Manchester, I have decided that no such re-organisation should take place. There is already a complex management agenda arising from the National Health Service White Paper, which includes the development of Primary Care Groups/Trusts and the Manchester, Salford and Trafford Health Action Zone, which must remain the key priorities for all concerned.

  Waiting Lists (York)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to reduce waiting lists in respect of the York NHS Trust. [45024]

  Mr. Milburn
  For 1998–99, we have allocated £4.009 million to North Yorkshire Health Authority specifically to ensure that more elective patients are treated and that waiting lists for the health authority and local trusts are reduced significantly. The regional waiting list task force is providing expert advice and support to the trust in effective waiting list management.
  542

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that the staff of GPs working in co-operatives have access to the NHS pension scheme. [45023]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have no plans to open the National Health Service pension scheme to staff who are not directly employed by general practitioners, including staff employed by GP co-operatives.

  Millennium Compliance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likelihood of litigation arising as a result of failures in the millennium compliance of NHS computer systems. [45022]

  Mr. Milburn
  There is no difference between liability resulting from year 2000 problems and liabilities resulting from ordinary day-to-day work of the National Health Service. As with ordinary day-to-day work however, the NHS intends to avoid potential liability by taking all reasonable steps to avoid problems in millennium compliance.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the alterations to entitlement conditions for free annual sight tests since 1 March. [45032]

  Mr. Milburn
  There have been no legislative changes but, in advice issued to health authorities and opticians in November 1997, we indicated that patients who have been advised by a consultant ophthalmologist to have regular sight tests because high infra-ocular pressures put them at risk of glaucoma, are eligible for a free National Health Service sight test in the same way as patients diagnosed with glaucoma.

  NHS Executive Regions
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of the reorganisation of the NHS Executive regions to make their boundaries coterminous with those of the Government Offices for the Regions. [44223]

  Mr. Milburn
  Any costs arising from the reorganisation of the National Health Service Executive regions will be managed within existing running costs.

  West Kent Health Authority
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 136, if he will make a statement on how the national weighted capitation formula operates; in what ways the formula has changed since 1995–96; and how each of these changes has affected the funding of the West Kent Health Authority. [44640]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  543

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what circumstances support from the access to work scheme will be available to disabled people taking part in the New Deal programme for disabled people. [44410]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Access to Work will be available for disabled people taking part in the New Deal for Disabled People in the same way and under the same conditions as for any other disabled people. Where an application is made before taking up employment or within 6 weeks of starting employment there will, of course, be no cost sharing.

  New Deal
  Sir Paul Beresford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 92, which parliamentary constituencies are included in the Guildford unit of delivery for the New Deal; and, for each constituency, what is(a) the adult population,(b) the number of young persons aged 18 to 24 years unemployed,(c) the number of young persons aged 18 to 24 years unemployed who could be eligible to join the New Deal,(d) the number who have signed up under the New Deal,(e) the number placed in jobs under the New Deal since the scheme's commencement,(f) the number placed in unsubsidised jobs under the New Deal in the same period,(g) the number of young persons aged 18 to 24 years unemployed who found employment in 1997 and 1998,(h) the number of employers who have signed up to the New Deal and(i) the number of unemployed people who found employment in 1997 and 1998. [42568]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The parliamentary constituencies included in the Guildford unit of delivery are Aldershot; South-West Surrey; Surrey Heath; Bracknell; North-East Hampshire; Guildford; Mole Valley; Epsom and Ewell; Runnymede and Weybridge; Esher and Walton; and Woking. However, the information requested is not available by parliamentary constituency and so it is given for the Guildford New Deal unit of delivery or, where this is not possible, Guildford Local Authority district.

  (a) According to the Census of Population, there were circa 100,000 people, aged 16 or over, resident in the Guildford local authority district in 1991. Figures for the adult population are not currently available by New Deal delivery unit.(b) As at April 1998, there are 941 18–24 year olds registered as unemployed in the Guildford New Deal delivery unit.(c) I refer the hon. Member to 25 February 1998,Official Report, column 292, which provides a list of indicative planning assumptions for Gateway entrants, by unit of delivery, in 1998–99. The table shows that the planning assumption for Guildford unit of delivery is that 543 young people could be eligible to join New Deal, however this should not be seen as a precise estimate or forecast.(d) New Deal for 18–24 year olds was launched in Guildford on 6 April. Since then, 132 young people have joined New Deal.(e) and(f) After only a month
  544
  of the Gateway period, the individual difficulties and problems faced by young people in this unit of delivery are still being addressed by referral to Gateway providers and the other three options. It is vital to the success of New Deal that participants are `job-ready' before referral to jobs.(g) In 1997, around 3,650 young people aged 18–24 were recorded as having left claimant unemployment for a job in the Guildford unit of delivery area. In addition, there will have been others, whose destination is recorded as unknown, some of whom would have left the register to take up a job. In the year to April 1998, the latest date for which figures are available, around 3,300 18–24 year olds left claimant unemployment for a job.(h) In the Guildford unit of delivery, 78 employers have signed Employer Agreements (i) In 1997, around 13,700 unemployed people of all ages left claimant unemployment for a job. The equivalent figure for the year to April 1998 is 12,300. As with answer(g) these figures will not include those whose destination is recorded as unknown.

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will implement the remaining provisions of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [45367]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  We have decided to implement the remaining provisions of Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act in two stages.

  From October 1999, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service; provide auxiliary aids or services which would enable disabled people to use a service; and overcome physical barriers by providing a service by a reasonable alternative method.

  From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to remove, alter, or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.

  In reaching our decision on the timetable for implementation, we have taken full account of advice from the National Disability Council, from organisations of and for disabled people and from business. We have also considered the responses to the 1996 consultation exercise.

  I have today written to the National Disability Council asking them to review the Code of Practice in order to take account of the new duties on service providers. I anticipate that public consultation on the Council's revised Code of Practice and the Government's proposals for a small number of regulations under the Act will begin no later than the beginning of August 1998 and last for 3 months.

  We are also publishing today the analysis of the responses to the 1996 consultation exercise on the timetable for implementation. Copies have been placed in the Library.
  545

WALES

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what rent is being paid by occupants of the Scott Harbour office project under the rent guarantee scheme operated between Cardiff Bay Development Corporation and Grosvenor Waterside. [45117]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Rent paid by the occupants of buildings in Scott Harbour under the rental guarantee scheme is a commercial matter for Associated British Ports. The grant payable to ABP under the scheme is up to a maximum of £1.4 million.

  Prescription Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the total of(a) benzodiazapines,(b) prozac,(c) neuroleptic drugs and(d) sleeping pills which were prescribed in Wales in each of the past 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [44074]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as the data have been compiled and will place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Directors of Social Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many directors of social services there were in Wales in(a) 1988 and(b) 1998; and if he will make a statement. [45007]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  In 1988, there were 8 directors of social services in Wales. In 1998, there were 22 directors of social services in Wales.

  This increase was due to local government re-organisation in 1996. There is one director in each authority.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the cost of the local government reforms in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [45008]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  Estimates of the costs of my proposals for modernising local government in Wales are not yet available. I am currently in the process of consulting on the proposals. The closing date for comments on the final two consultation papers—Improving Services Through Best Value and the New Ethical Framework—is 12 June. While there may be additional costs, these would need to be set against the savings resulting from the more efficient and effective operation of local government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Benefit Integrity Project
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Swinney) of 5 May 1998,Official
  546
  Report, columns 376–77, concerning the Benefit Integrity Project, what timescale the review is working to; and when she will be in a position to report its outcome; [45116]

  (2) if she will list the operational and legal issues that have prevented a review of Benefit Integrity Project cases prior to 9 February. [45115]

  Mr. Denham
  The purpose of the Benefit Integrity Project is to collect up to date information from claimants receiving the higher rate of the mobility component, with either the highest or middle rate of the care component, to ensure they are receiving their correct entitlement. On 9 February, an additional safeguard was introduced to ensure that there is always independent evidence to support a decision to reduce or remove benefit. From that date, the new safeguard has been applied to all initial Project decisions and to cases where a review has been requested.

  The safeguard was introduced because of concerns that some disabled people may not have understood fully what was required of them and, as a result, had not provided a complete picture of the help they need with personal care and mobility.

  Representations have been received from the All Party Disablement Group and others that all decisions made without the benefit of the new procedures introduced on 9 February should be reviewed. We have already made it clear to the House that we are currently considering how to examine those cases where the claimant has not asked for a review of a decision, made before 9 February, to reduce or remove benefit and no independent additional evidence was submitted. We are considering what action should be taken on the 2,400 or so such cases.

  Uprating
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to her answer of 13 March 1998,Official Report, column 394, if she will update the estimated costs of uprating the basic pension and linked benefits given in that answer. [44821]

  Mr. Denham
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Working Benefits (Advertising)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total cost of the advertising campaign for working benefits launched on 1 June. [44573]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  [holding answer 5 June 1998]: The Working Benefits campaign is part of the Government's welfare to work initiative. It is designed to help families beat the poverty trap by letting them know which benefits they can access when they get into work. It targets chiefly lone parents on Income Support, and couples with children who are either out of work, or on a low income. A lot of help exists in the form of in-work benefits, such as Family Credit, Council Tax Benefit and Housing Benefit—these make work affordable. The Working Benefits campaign should alert those in greatest need to the help available to facilitate the move from benefit into work. Lone parents moving off Income Support and into work not only means that they—and their children—can enjoy a better standard of living than they ever could

  547
  on benefit, but can also help to reduce Social Security expenditure on lone parents—currently £10.5 billion a year.

  Total cost of the advertising campaign is £2.15 million, which includes TV and radio production and airtime; design and production of print material; telephone response handling and fulfilment; direct mail to 580,000 lone parents; campaign website; campaign development research; and pre and post campaign effectiveness research.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much money was spent on housing benefit in each district council in Scotland in the 1996–97 financial year. [44204]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  The information is set out in the table:

  Housing benefit expenditure in Scotland 1996–97

  Authority

  £000

  Aberdeen

  124,000

  Aberdeenshire

  16,200

  Angus

  10,400

  Argyll-Bute

  13,100

  Clackmannanshire

  6,900

  Dumfries and Galloway

  21,500

  Dundee

  42,100

  East Ayrshire

  118,500

  East Dunbartonshire

  17,700

  East Lothian

  112,200

  East Renfrewshire

  16,200

  Edinburgh

  98,900

  Falkirk

  119,400

  Fife

  51,800

  Glasgow

  238,000

  Highland

  129,100

  Inverclyde

  17,500

  Midlothian

  9,000

  Moray

  8,800

  North Ayrshire

  122,800

  North Lanarkshire

  156,700

  Orkney

  1,900

  Perth and Kinross

  13,700

  Renfrewshire

  30,300

  Scottish Borders

  11,700

  Shetland

  1,800

  South Ayrshire

  118,300

  South Lanarkshire

  48,600

  Stirling

  12,100

  West Dunbartonshire

  119,900

  West Lothian

  20,000

  Western Isles

  3,200

  1 Non audited figures

  Source:

  DSS Planning and Finance Division

  Disability Living Allowance
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security over the last five years, and in the current year so far, how many recipients of disability living allowance have(a) had their eligibility reviewed by a medical examiner,(b) had allowance withdrawn as a result of the review,(c) taken the review to appeal and(d) won appeals. [44142]
  548
  Mr. Denham
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  Entitlement to Disability Living Allowance is decided by adjudication officers, who take account of reports from medical practitioners.

  Results of disability living allowance reviews and appeals

  Reviews decided

  Appeals decided

  Year

  All decisions

  Decided in favour of customer1

  All decisions

  Decided in favour of customer1

  1993–94

  293,199

  135,187

  18,459

  10,132

  1994–95

  316,589

  153,594

  26,225

  16,516

  1995–96

  332,961

  146,766

  28,225

  17,822

  1996–97

  359,334

  143,755

  35,551

  21,064

  1997–98

  370,054

  134,363

  38,194

  19,683

  1998–99

  24,587

  8,229

  3,381

  1,663

  1 Cases where an existing award is increased or an award is made following a review of a disallowance

  Note:

  Figures are for April 1998

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people aged(a) 65 years or over,(b) 75 years or over and(c) 85 years or over are claiming disability living allowance (i) at the higher level and (ii) at the intermediate level in, (1) North Staffordshire health authority area, (2) the West Midlands health authority area and (3) nationally; and in each case what these figures are as a percentage of the total population. [44328]

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

  Disability Living Allowance comprises three rates of care component and two rates of mobility component.

  Age

  65 and over

  75 and over

  85 and over

  North Staffordshire

  Total population1

  76,143

  32,516

  7,784

  Numbers and percentage who receive DLA2

  Highest rate care

  940 (1.2%)

  0 (0.0%)

  0 (0.0%)

  Middle rate care

  860 (1.1%)

  40 (0.1%)

  0 (0.0%)

  Higher rate mobility3

  4,740 (6.2%)

  480 (1.5%)

  0 (0.0%)

  West Midlands

  Total Population1

  741,622

  496,476

  111,715

  Numbers and percentage who receive DLA2

  Highest rate care

  5,520 (0.7%)

  220 (0.0%)

  0 (0.0%)

  Middle rate care

  7,420(1.0%)

  440 (0.1%)

  0 (0.0%)

  Higher rate mobility3

  32,400 (4.4%)

  3,380 (0.7%)

  40 (0.0%)

  Great Britain

  Total population1

  7,990,121

  5,408,847

  1,273,204

  Numbers and percentage who receive DLA2

  Highest rate care

  58,440 (0.7%)

  3,340(0.1%)

  40 (0.0%)

  Middle rate care

  85,880(1.1%)

  5,940(0.1%)

  60 (0.0%)

  Higher rate mobility3

  360,440 (4.5%)

  41,020 (0.8%)

  440 (0.0%)

  1 Source: Office of National Statistics and Scottish Registrar, June 1996 estimates

  2 Source: Analytical Services Division 5 per cent, data relating to 28 February 1998

  3 Some awards comprise both care and mobility components and figures may overlap.

  549
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households of non-pensionable age are dependent on the higher rate of disability living allowance. [43802]

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

  People under pension age in receipt of the higher rate of Disability Living Allowance

  Disability Living Allowance

  Numbers in receipt

  Highest rate care and higher rate mobility

  943,000

  Highest rate care and lower rate mobility

  192,000

  Highest rate care only

  35,000

  Higher rate mobility and middle rate care

  187,000

  Higher rate mobility and lower rate care

  172,000

  Higher rate mobility only

  294,000

  Notes:

  1. The table includes women under 60 and men under 65

  2. Disability Living Allowance comprises two components. The care component may be awarded at one of three rates and the mobility component may be awarded at one of two rates. Depending on the circumstances of the individual, awards may include either or both component paid at the appropriate rate

  3. Figures rounded to the nearest thousand

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division. Provisional numbers at 28 February 1998, based on 5 per cent. data

  Ms Hewitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what information material is provided on disability living allowance in(a) braille(b) audio type and(c) other formats accessible to people with visual impairments; [43462]

  (2) what steps she is taking to ensure that(a) information,(b) claim forms and(c) other material relating to disability living allowance are provided in (i) braille, (ii) audio tapes and (iii) other formats that meet the needs of people with sensory disabilities. [43463]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Patricia Hewitt, dated 8 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking what information material is provided on Disability Living allowance (DLA) in (a) braille, (b) audio type and (c) other formats accessible to people with visual impairments, and what steps she is taking to ensure that (a) information, (b) claim forms and (c) other material relating to DLA are provided in (i) braille, (ii) audio tapes and (iii) other formats that meet the needs of people with sensory disabilities.
  The Disability Claim Pack, Charter Standard Statement and all other correspondence or forms issued to customers about DLA can be converted into braille via the Transcription Service provided by the Benefits Agency (BA)'s Benefit Enquiry Line (BEL). The Charter Standard Statement is also available on cassette tape. Further information about the Transcription service and copies of the Charter Standard Statement cassette can be obtained from the Disability Benefits Unit (DBU) Customer Services Team at Warbreck House, Blackpool, telephone 01253 337240.
  Customers with hearing or speech difficulties, who have the use of a text phone and require information on DLA can use the Text Phone service which is provided by the Disability Benefits Directorate Customer Care Helpline. The contact number is 0345 224433. Minicom facilities and LOOP systems are also
  550
  available at the BA's regional Disability Benefit Centre's and the DBU. A video incorporating British Sign language and subtitles, entitled DV3 (Sickness & Disabled), is currently available by contacting the British Deaf Association or the Royal National Institute for the Deaf Helpline. This provides information on DLA and other Sickness Benefits.
  In addition to providing forms and correspondence in braille, the Transcription Service can also provide any information required in large print for those customers with a visual impairment. Information on DLA is not currently available on audiotape, however I have asked the DBU to actively consider whether this is possible and the Manager will write to you with the result of these deliberations. The BA is continually seeking to improve the service it offers to its customers in order to ensure that the needs of people with sensory disabilities are met in full.
  You may also wish to know that the BA has an Internet site on the World Wide Web. This is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week at WWW.DSS.GOV.UK.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Benefit Recovery
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total amount of state benefits recovered from successful claimants who were in receipt of legal aid to fight personal injury cases in(a) 1994–95,(b) 1995–96 and(c) 1996–97. [44501]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available as there is no requirement for claimants who are awarded compensation for personal injury to tell this Department whether or not they were in receipt of legal aid.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the expected difference between the income and expenditure of the National Insurance Fund for (1) 1999–2000 and (2) 2000–01(a) before and(b) after taking into account the changes in NI contributions announced in the Budget and assuming that the basic pension and linked benefits are uprated in line with (i) prices and (ii) average earnings. [44836]

  Mr. Denham
  The information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Vaccine Damage
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which options she considered with regard to the scope of the Vaccine Damage Payments Scheme following representations from the Association of Parents of Vaccine Damaged Children; and if she will make a statement. [44054]

  Mr. Denham
  We are considering the Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme as part of the overall review of welfare, which includes disability benefits, in consultation with the Department of Health and groups representing the interests of vaccine damaged children and their families.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the proportion of pensioner households in the lowest quintile of income distribution in Scotland. [43810]
  551
  Mr. Denham
  It is estimated that in 1995–96, a quarter of pensioner households in Scotland were in the bottom quintile of the income distribution of households in Scotland before housing costs (BHC) and a fifth were in the bottom quintile after housing costs (AHC).

  It is also estimated that just over a third of households in the bottom quintile of the Scottish income distribution BHC were pensioner households. On the AHC measure, this reduces to just over a quarter. By comparison, pensioner households make up 28 per cent. of all households in Scotland.

  Notes:

  1. 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.
  2. The income measure used is weekly net (disposable) equivalised income. The figures are given both before and after housing costs in line with usual HBAI practice. However, these figures count households whereas HBAI normally counts individuals. The results are sensitive to the choice of equivalence scale used to adjust household income for the size and composition of the household.
  3. A household is defined as one person living alone or a group of people living at the same address, who either share one meal a day together or share the living accommodation. A household will consist of one or more benefit units, where a benefit unit is a single adult or couple, together with any dependent children.
  4. A pensioner household is defined as a single person over State Pension Age (SPA) or a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over SPA. The estimates are based upon the income and benefits of the pensioner unit, and do not include the income of any other household members.

  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner units in Scotland currently receive payments from occupational pensions. [43811]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when her Department notified local authorities in Wales that the imposition of a limit on the amount of council tax benefit awarded to persons residing in council tax band E and above would not be applied to existing recipients of council tax benefits in such properties; and if she will make a statement. [45094]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  From 1 April 1998, Council Tax Benefit (CTB) for new CTB claimants living in band F, G or H properties was restricted to the maximum available in band E properties. As an integral part of implementation regulations to protect existing recipients of CTB in properties valued in bands F, G and H were laid on 30 March. On the same day the Department issued guidance to all Local Authorities notifying and explaining the change.

  This ensured that some 66,000 CTB recipients were protected at the point of change.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she expects to publish the green paper on pensions before the summer adjournment. [44835]

  Mr. Denham
  As set out in the Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: A New Contract for Welfare" (Cm 3805), we will publish a Green Paper on pensions 552
  later this year. The precise timing is still to be determined. There will then be a period of further consultation before final proposals are developed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she received or expects to receive the report of the Pensions Committee chaired by Mr. Tom Ross; and when she will publish it. [44833]

  Mr. Denham
  The Report of the Pension Provision Group was published on Thursday 4 June. A copy has been placed in the Library. Copies can be obtained from The Stationery Office Bookshop, telephone 0171–873 9090, fax 0171–873 8200, priced £25 ISBN No. 0–11–762607–4.

  A Summary of the Group's Report is available free of charge from: DSS Pensions, Freepost, BS 5555/1, Bristol, BS99 1BL. Telephone number 0345 31 32 33.

  The Summary is also available on the Internet at: http://www.dss.gov.uk/hq/pubs/ppg/index.html.

  The Report and Summary will be published in Welsh shortly.

  Pensions Education Working Group
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she received or expects to receive the report of the Pensions Education Working Group; and when she will publish it. [44834]

  Mr. Denham
  We have just received the final version of the Pensions Education Working Group Report. We will be publishing it shortly.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people, in term of full-time equivalents, are engaged in preparing replies to letters from members of the public in her Department's Correspondence Unit; and what is the average number of replies sent per working day. [44819]

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

  In 1997–98, 49,319 letters from members of the public were received in the correspondence section attached to Minsters' offices. Replies to 32,168 of these were prepared by the Policy Correspondence Unit (which also prepares draft replies to letters from MPs) which had 38 staff at 1 June 1998. The remainder, together with an unquantified number of letters sent to Departmental officials, were dealt with across the Department mainly by officials for who replying to correspondence is only part of their duties.

  Note:

  Staffing figures are based on whole time equivalents.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current rate of non-compliance with payment of maintenance assessments by the CSA for each region within the United Kingdom; [44567]
  553
  (2) what is the current backlog of cases at the CSA; how many of those have been outstanding for over one year; when the backlog is expected to be cleared for each region within the United Kingdom; [44568]

  (3) what are the levels of outstanding debt in the CSA; and what percentage of that debt is unrecoverable for each region within the United Kingdom; [44569]

  (4) what are the current levels of accuracy of settlements for the CSA for each region within the United Kingdom; [44570]

  (5) what percentage of payments by absent parents are for wrong amounts; and what percentage of debt balances calculated by the CSA contain errors, for each region within the United Kingdom. [44571]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  One of our key aims for the Child Support Agency is to ensure that more non-resident parents pay the maintenance they owe. We are looking closely at all aspects of the Child Support scheme to see where improvements can be made and we aim to bring forward a consultation document on our proposals later this year.

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

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. David Rendel, dated 5 June 1998:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  I cannot provide precisely all the information that you have requested, but have provided as much as possible from the most recent information available.
  The Department of Social Security Analytical Services Division publish quarterly a summary of statistics relating to child support; the last report was published on 14 May 1998 and showed that nationally, 41% of non-resident parents were fully compliant, 29% were partially compliant and 30% were nil compliant. The full report is available in the House of Commons library. Analytical Services Division have provided details on a regional basis for Great Britain in relation to nil compliant cases and this information is shown in the table attached.
  Where the Agency has taken-on cases, the length of time taken to complete a maintenance assessment is measured, and cases which exceed 52 weeks are considered to be a backlog; this backlog currently stands at approximately 110,000 down from 225,000 at 31 March 1997.
  The Agency has developed and implemented a strategy for meeting its undertaking to clear this backlog. All Business Units have put in place operational plans which will guide them towards the achievement of our objective of clearing the backlog by 31 March 1999.
  The amount of child support maintenance debt outstanding at the 3l May 1998, was £731,620,185.51. The Agency undertakes a Debt Analysis exercise at the end of each financial year. The analysis is performed at Agency level and cannot be broken down into regions within the United Kingdom. The Debt Analysis exercise for 1996/97 indicated that the percentage of full maintenance assessment debt regarded as probably uncollectable was 38%. Similar analysis is being carried out for 1997/98 and the results will be published in the Agency's 1997/98 Annual Report and Accounts in July 1998, in a format which will satisfy the Committee of Public Accounts recommendation that the Agency " … examine the scope for eliminating a significant amount of this debt, since it is unlikely ever to be collected …".
  554
  The Agency measures the accuracy of maintenance assessments against targets set by the Secretary of State. For 1997/98, the target was for the cash value of all maintenance assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 85% of cases. The Agency met this target scoring an accuracy rate of 86%.
  In 1998–99, the Agency is measuring the accuracy more stringently be examining the last full assessment rather than just the last work carried out, which could have been a simplified review not requiring a full assessment. The revised methodology is similar to that used by the National Audit Office. The checks will be more reliable, measuring accuracy of assessments in earlier years as well as more recent changes to assessments. However, this may result in a larger number of inaccurate assessments being identified in the short term and as a result the accuracy target is lower for 1998–99, and requires the cash value of all assessments checked in the year to be correct in at least 75% of cases. The Agency will be looking to improve on the accuracy target in 1999–2000 and beyond.
  The report of the Comptroller and Auditor General to the House of Commons which was published as part of the Agency's Annual Report for 1996/97 noted that when examining non-resident parents' maintenance balances, National Audit Office staff had identified errors in 85% of the cases examined. I am not able to update this assessment which was based on a sample of cases going back to the start of the Agency, but it is a matter of public record that during its first two years the Agency frequently made errors when assessing maintenance. We recognise the legacy of this problem and aim to tackle this by getting cases right first time and will review older cases as the opportunity arises, for example when a periodic review is being carried out. We estimate that by the end of 1998/99 we will have had the chance in our normal course of work and through periodic reviews to look at many of those individual accounts which stem from the start of the Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Rates of nil compliance in the quarter to 28 February 1998, for Full Maintenance Assessment cases by region of the Parent with Care (Information taken from ASD 5% scan of Child Support Computer System at 28 February 1998)

  Region

  Percentage

  North-east

  22.8

  North-west

  27.2

  Merseyside

  26.6

  Yorks & Humberside

  32.6

  East Midlands

  31.8

  West Midlands

  31.8

  Eastern

  31.2

  London

  31.4

  South-east

  28.1

  South-west

  28.7

  Wales

  25.0

  Scotland

  26.9

  Great Britain

  30.3

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints the Benefits Agency has received regarding(a) over payment and(b) underpayment of Winter Fuel Payment since the scheme came into operation. [44901]

  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what sums were paid to residents in Worcester as winter fuel payments in 1997–98. [43677]

  Mr. Denham
  Winter Fuel payments are one of a number of initiatives the Government have taken to help vulnerable people, especially the elderly, keep warm in the winter. A total of £400 million has been committed for two years (97/98 and 98/99), to help pensioners with fuel bills to pay. This is the first time any Government
  555
  have provided additional help with heating costs to all pensioners living in the United Kingdom who receive a Retirement Pension or one of a number of other qualifying benefits.

  The making of this year's payments has been an enormous and unprecedented exercise. In order to establish all eligible pensioners, correctly identify pensioner households, and determine the amount each should receive, it was necessary to correlate data in around 15 million computer records, involving 15 qualifying benefits, across nine computer systems. Overall, almost ten million pensioners, in over seven million households, have received a payment.

  The administration of winter fuel payments is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Mark Oaten, dated 8 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many complaints the Benefits Agency (BA) has received regarding over and underpayments of Winter Fuel Payments since the scheme came into operation.
  The making of Winter Fuel Payments to almost ten million eligible pensioners in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998, has been a challenging task for the BA. This was achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  Individual representations from customers are dealt with by each of the BA's 109 Districts. Information is not available relating to complaints about either over or underpayments of Winter Fuel Payments.
  We are aware of 649 eligible pensioners who received two £50 payments. This includes 211 who erroneously received two payments due to being in receipt of both Income Support and income-based Jobseeker's Allowance for at least one day in the qualifying week. In accordance with legislation, only one payment should have been made. Also, due to a computer operator error, 40,801 invalid girocheques were sent out with an incorrect date of issue. The error was quickly identified and all the invalid payments
  556
  were replaced within 72 hours. The letter which accompanied the replacement payment apologised for the error and advised the recipient to destroy the invalid girocheque or if they had encashed it, to return the replacement to the nearest Benefits Agency office. It appears that in 438 instances both the invalid and replacement girocheque were cashed.
  In addition we are aware that 9,357 £50 payments have been made to customers who were not entitled to them. All other payments have been made in accordance with legislation which states that the amount payable will be based on official records and therefore are not regarded as overpayments.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Michael J. Foster, dated 8 June 1998:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what sums were paid to residents in Worcester as winter fuel payments in 1997/98.
  The making of winter fuel payments to almost 10 million pensioners, in over seven million households, before the end of March 1998 has been a challenging task for the Benefits Agency (BA). This has been achieved whilst maintaining normal benefit business.
  Around one and a half million of the poorest pensioners, those receiving Income Support (IS) or income-based Jobseeker's (JSA), received their payment of £50 during January. Other eligible pensioners were entitled to a payment of £20 where they lived alone or were the only eligible pensioner in a household, otherwise, they were entitled to £10 if they were in receipt of a qualifying benefit (including each person in a pensioner couple).
  Not all of the information requested is available as the BA collates IS and JSA statistics by BA District Office. These Districts do not correspond to constituency boundaries. Such information as is available relates to the number of pensioners in the Worcester BA District who received a £50 IS payment.
  Following a scan of the computer systems in January, 5,156 £50 payments totalling £257,800 were issued. It is likely that a small number of additional payments will also have been made locally because details for the eligible pensioner were not held on the computer system at the time the scans were completed.
  The information relating to other pensioners who received payments of £20 or £10 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  I hope that this is helpful.

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

House of Lords Reform: Pay Implications
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked the Leader of the House:
Whether he considers it equitable that, over the last financial year, the aggregate of parliamentary salaries (exclusive of ministerial salaries) for Members of the House of Lords was about £156,000 compared with £42 million for Members of the House of Commons; and what commitments of time the Government will expect of unpaid working Peers in a reconstituted House of Lords.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, the noble Lord asks an interesting Question, or rather he asks two interesting questions. I am sure that the whole House will be aware that your Lordships are not paid a salary for all your hard work. Members of the other place are paid a salary for the job they do, which includes representing their constituents. The noble Lord thus draws a false comparison. Direct questions of equity between the two Houses do not arise.
As regards the noble Lord's second question, the Government continue to expect from all Peers the commitment of time necessary to ensure that the House as whole fulfils its functions. If only all noble Lords would take their duties as seriously and work as hard as the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that exceptionally courteous reply. I assure him that it is extremely welcome at last to hear some thinking on this subject from the Government in this House on this occasion. Is there perhaps some new Labour principle of noblesse oblige that working Peers should work without pay? Have the Government given thought to the composition of the House? Will its members not have to be either very old, with Peers in receipt of retirement pensions from other employment, or in receipt of private means, like not a few of the recent appointments to your Lordships' House?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think of little else other than the composition of your Lordships' House. It is with me daily. The noble Lord asks a very interesting question. We must wait to see what the House looks like when the interim House has arrived.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although a certain lightheartedness has crept into the questions
868
and answers, is the noble Lord the Leader of the House not aware that this is a serious matter? Is he not aware also that at this point in time Ministers and Members in your Lordships' House are perhaps the most poorly paid members of any major legislative body, certainly in Europe? If my noble friend wishes to defend the situation, can he tell us of any major legislative chamber in Europe which treats its members worse than Members of your Lordships' House are treated at present?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am indeed well aware that Ministers of your Lordships' House are underpaid and overworked. I am aware also that the allowances and expenses paid to your Lordships for the work that your Lordships do occasions a great deal of unrest. Being aware of those two facts, it is incumbent upon me, as Leader of the House, to make sure that my ministerial colleagues are also aware of them.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in what respects will the Bill which the Government now propose to introduce differ from the Parliament (No. 2) Bill of the 1968–69 Session? Were Michael Foot, Robert Sheldon and other Labour MPs right to destroy that Bill on the basis that it would create a quango based on party political patronage or were they guilty of constitutional outrage in allowing themselves, with Enoch Powell and many hereditary Peers, to destroy the Bill?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the noble Lord must wait for the terms of the Bill which will be published in due course at a time when the Government believe it proper to do so. He can then no doubt make a proper comparison.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the great problem with Peers' expenses is that they are updated with reference to the RPI? Therefore, in real terms, they can never improve. However, the expenses in the other place are updated in all kinds of strange and wonderful ways which mean that they improve all the time.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am well aware that that is my noble friend's view because he has expressed it to me on a number of occasions.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, has my noble friend read the Fabian pamphlet published by my noble friend Lord Desai and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, on the future composition of your Lordships' House? It suggests a Wednesday night lottery draw with a seat in your Lordships' House instead of money for the winners.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have read the pamphlet. I did not realise that it was quite as colourful as my noble friend now reminds me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal accept that

869
Ministers in this House are certainly not well paid compared with their colleagues in the House of Commons? This is totally altruistic from my point of view, obviously. However, will the noble Lord assure me that he is doing his best for his colleagues just as my noble friend Lord Cranborne did for his? Secondly, in any reform which the Government propose, will they cost the proposals? Does he believe that a reformed House of Lords will be nearer the cost of £311,000 per Member of the other place or nearer to the £918,000 per Member of the European Parliament?
Lord Richard: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first two questions is yes as, indeed, is the answer to his final question.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, as Members of your Lordships' House can claim just over £30 per day in out-of-pocket expenses and bearing in mind the fact that the House sits on average for just under seven hours a day, that equates to an hourly rate of about £4.50 or £4.60. Does my noble friend the Leader of the House think that that is a reasonable recompense for the efforts of noble Lords?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am aware of how long the House sits, and I am also aware of the expenses that noble Lords are entitled to draw. Further than that, my noble friend must not tempt me.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether there is any truth in rumours which are circulating to the effect that quite a few of the new Peers on the opposite Benches are finding their duties rather more onerous than they expected? If that is so, can the noble Lord tell the House with what confidence he approaches the appointment of so many more Peers on the Benches opposite?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I approach the possibility of the creation of sufficient Labour life Peers to give us broad parity with the number of Conservative life Peers with a great deal of equanimity.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, is it not a bit much that we have to subsidise the House in the matter of our travel refunds, sometimes for a period of six weeks? Cannot a system of vouchers be introduced as is the case in the other place? After all, the number of times that noble Lords are travelling is known and, therefore, such a system could not be abused. I believe that that would be very much better.
Lord Richard: My Lords, that is an interesting possibility. With the permission of my noble friend and of the House, I should like to look into the matter.

Coal-powered Generating Stations
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking following the recent representations made by American power companies about coal-powered generating stations in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, the Government have noted carefully all the representations which have been made during the review of energy sources for power generation. The review is still under way. The Government will make an announcement when a conclusion is reached: we hope that this will be soon.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Can my noble friend confirm reports that the Government intend to arrange for the generators to take 26 million tonnes of coal a year for the next five years? Further, in view of what he said, can my noble friend say whether the Government believe that electricity from gas-fired power stations really is cheaper than that from coal-fired stations, especially when one has to take into consideration the huge cost involved in building new gas-fired stations? Finally, how much importance do the Government place on security of supply, bearing in mind that the generally accepted reserves in this country would last about 100 years?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend is tempting me to anticipate the conclusion of the review which, as I indicated, will shortly be forthcoming. However, I fear that I must disappoint him in that regard. The point about security of supply to which my noble friend alluded is something which falls to be dealt with in the review.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the Minister indicate what the position is with regard to the coal-fired power stations at present? Are they all in operation or have some been mothballed? Further, if they are in operation, where do they stand in the merit order bearing in mind that they must all be written down virtually to nil?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Lord's detailed question, especially as he asked me about all coal-fired stations. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord on the subject, or he may prefer to table a specific Question for oral answer.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I have a purely factual question for the Minister. Does the noble Lord have any estimate of how many billions of pounds have

871
been spent over the past 40 years in trying to prevent the decline in the coal industry at no benefit to coal miners and with a great deal of distress to taxpayers?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to have those facts at my fingertips; but, unfortunately, I have not.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government's policy is to have a moratorium on the building of gas-fired stations with a view to helping the coal mining industry? If so, and if that remains so, what can these American power companies do to affect us? What is the real threat?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the term "moratorium" is incorrect because it implies that no consents would in fact be given. There are exceptions based on reasoned requests which are being considered, especially with regard to CHP projects. Again, I cannot go into any further detail because I would be anticipating the outcome of the review.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that any arrangements made to solve the problem will be transparent with all costs being identified?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, this Government are significantly more transparent in their operations than their predecessor.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in view of the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, in which I believe he said that 100 years of supply was assured in coal, can the Minister tell the House what is considered to be the assured lifetime of supply of our natural gas?
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, my Lords; I cannot give any assurance in that respect. Such factors will be set out in the review. I do not have that information with me at present. However, I urge the noble Baroness to be a little patient. It will not be long before the review is published.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, in view of the threats which are now being received from American companies, can my noble friend the Minister comment on another important matter which will be discussed in the consideration of the report which is soon to be issued: namely, whether the Section 36 consents are legally binding?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as far as I know, they are.

Forestry Authority: Monitoring Performance
2.49 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford The Earl of Bradford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the Forestry Authority's performance in monitoring privately owned British forestry, particularly in relation to planting, harvesting and policy on sustainability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, we are satisfied with the Forestry Commission's performance in monitoring privately owned forests in Britain. The commission inspects forests to ensure that they meet a wide range of silvicultural and environmental standards and comply with our commitments on sustainability. The UK forestry standard explains how further monitoring will be carried out through a combination of scientific study and national surveys.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that extremely reassuring reply. However, is he aware of the aims of the Forestry Stewardship Council—an unaccountable foundation based in Mexico—which seeks to impose a new regulatory scheme on British forestry which is going through an extremely difficult time at the moment? Does he not think it right that the Government should try to persuade the Forestry Stewardship Council to accept the Forestry Authority as the necessary regulatory body in this country?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the activities of the Forestry Stewardship Council. We are, of course, committed to the idea of sustainable forestry. I believe that the UK forestry standard is the appropriate test. We must recognise that some large retailers—commonly known as the 95 Plus Group—are concerned to establish independent certification. I believe that could best be done by all parties agreeing to use the UK forestry standard as a base with independent audit and thus obtaining certification in that way. I believe that is the appropriate way forward. I hope that the Forestry Stewardship Council will be able to accept that.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I express an interest as the chairman of the all-party forestry group in both Houses. Is the Minister aware that we are all concerned about the destruction of tropical forests but have serious doubts about the ability of some campaigners to monitor that process? As regards the United Kingdom, does the Minister really believe that it is necessary to impose on the industry a new body, the Forestry Stewardship Council, when the Forestry Commission has an international reputation for good research and management in forestry and has grant giving powers to the private sector? Has it not sufficient expertise and sufficient power without imposing a new organisation on the industry?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I have no intention of imposing the Forestry Stewardship Council on the industry but, as I have said, I recognise that some major retailers and purchasers of timber at this moment look to the Forestry Stewardship Council as a certifying body. I believe that the way forward is not down that route but through the UK forestry standard.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at the risk of Question Time becoming a little wooden, does the Minister realise that I agree with him absolutely? Can the noble Lord use his influence to persuade some of these companies of the reality of the situation? While standing in a Sitka spruce forest in Argyll, one sometimes feels that one is in a rainforest, but that is not the case. It is a perfectly sustainable form of forestry and has certainly been planted and felled during the lifetime of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and perhaps during my lifetime, I regret to say. Our forestry is sustainable. The Forestry Authority's standards are excellent. It supervises planting, thinning and felling. There is no need for an extraterritorial body to monitor what we already do well in this country.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am happy to accept everything that the noble Lord has said. The noble Lord and I are in agreement today and I am sure that will be the case in the weeks that lie ahead.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the World Wildlife Fund International has placed British forestry 12th out of 15 countries as regards quality of forestry? Does he agree that that is unfair? Is the Minister's department doing anything to try to cancel that stigma which has been placed on British forestry? Is he satisfied with the general advice which is given to those concerned with forestry in this country on sustainability and biodiversity? My understanding is that at the moment it is site specific and there is a need for more general advice on this issue. Is that available?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, a considerable amount of general and specific advice is available on sustainability and biodiversity. As regards the so-called European "score-card" published by WWF, that is a total and complete nonsense. The main criterion it uses is the extent to which a nation has been able to retain its ancient forests. Britain experienced the industrial revolution and the agricultural revolution some time ago which inevitably destroyed a large proportion of our ancient forests. However, WWF's "score-card" makes it impossible to improve one's score as once an ancient forest is lost, by definition it cannot be recovered.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister admit that in the Government's promotion of their excellent native pinewood schemes in Scotland, the Forestry Authority can occasionally be a little bureaucratic in insisting on natural vegetation censuses when there is really no point in them? Will the Minister look into the problem and remove this unnecessary and
874
expensive bureaucratic procedure, and thus encourage more of these excellent schemes for the regeneration of the natural pinewoods of Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am well aware of the noble Lord's interest in this area. He has made a major contribution to land use in Scotland, in particular as regards natural forests. I shall look into the specific point he makes, but I am sure he realises that one needs regulatory schemes when one is distributing public funds.

Pensions Policy: Green Paper
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
When the Green Paper on pensions policy, promised for June this year, will be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, the Green Paper will be published later this year and it will be followed by a period for consultation.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Do not these repeated postponements mean that we shall reach no firm decisions on pensions policy in time for next year's uprating of the basic pension due to be announced in November? Is the Minister aware that Mr. Tom Ross, who has chaired a committee set up by the Prime Minister to inquire into the position of pensioners, has found that they are not sharing in economic growth? Will the Government therefore please at least take one decision immediately, and that is to restore the earnings link in time for the next uprating?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as I think my noble friend will know, the Ross Report shows that on average pensioners' incomes overall are predicted to rise over the next 20 years in line with earnings, not prices. But clearly those pensioners who are dependent on state, let alone means-tested benefits, will not share in the same growing prosperity as those who have occupational pensions. That is why as part of our consultation we have been working on proposals for a stakeholder pension because the state pension alone will not, and cannot, guarantee people comfort in old age. We need to have proper, second-tier provision. The stakeholder pension, together with the citizenship pension for the future, and our concern to ensure take-up of income support for pensioners now, will address the real problems that my noble friend has identified.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the deadline for publication of this important document has been postponed from the first half of this year to 30th June and now, apparently, until later in the year, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, has said. Can the

875
Minister give us a more precise date? Can she also give us an assurance that the Government have no intention of publishing this document during the summer Recess?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I wish I could give the noble Lord the information that he requests. I do not know when the report is expected to be published. It will be later this year, but I cannot give the timetable. I take the noble Lord's point; however, there is certainly no intention that I am aware of to bring a document out during the Summer Recess, but again that timetable is not in my hands.
Over the past year since coming to power the Government have had in place from July onwards a pensions review consultative exercise, which has given rise to 2,000 replies. We followed that with a stakeholder consultation paper, which gave rise to 200 replies. That was followed by the Ross report group. Its report has just been published. A pensions education group is about to publish a report. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that this Government are seeking the widest possible consent and consultation, so that any proposals we bring before the public will be robust and have all-party agreement.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, why, if this Question has been on the Order Paper for some time, is the noble Baroness quite unable to give a more satisfactory and intelligible, quick, accurate answer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I can give an intelligible, accurate answer. I cannot, however, give the answer that the noble Lord wishes me to give regarding the timetable.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not the truth that the Government and the Cabinet are deeply split on this matter, and that Mr. Frank Field's wilder ideas have proved financially impossible? Is it not a fact that, for nearly two years, some of us have been supplying the material for which the Government say they are now waiting and that they have set up more pilot schemes to inquire into what everybody knows is the position—that pensioners cannot wait any longer?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, my noble friend will not need me to remind her that there are two problems. There is the problem of the poorest pensioners now. They are mainly single women over 75 who have not built up a pension in the past and are not claiming the income support to which they are entitled. Many are losing £17 a week. That means that they are not heating their homes and not eating the food that they would choose to eat. We have proposals in place for pilot schemes which we hope to roll-out nationwide so that pensioners claim the benefits to which they are entitled. That is the short-term problem.
There is a longer term problem. Given our changing labour market, more self-employment—which has doubled since 1979—more part-time jobs, more women entering the labour market with intermittent earnings, and pensioners living longer, we need to ensure that decent second-tier pensions are in place for all people.
876
We believe that that requires a stakeholder pension. The consultation exercise has been held, and we are working on proposals. As soon as those proposals are ready, we shall come before the House with a Green Paper.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we are continually bombarded with evidence that we are sitting on a pensions time bomb? Is it perhaps time to consider returning to our former position; namely, that membership of occupational pensions is a condition of employment? Where that does not exist in employment, should there be some compulsion for every worker to take out a pension scheme?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there is already a considerable amount of compulsion in the pension scheme, as my noble friend will appreciate. Anybody presently earning above the lower earnings limit, some £64 a week, who is not in an occupational pension scheme and is an employee will currently pay into SERPS. But of course SERPS does not cover the self-employed, or part-time and low-paid workers. People cannot pay into SERPS when they are not in work, and many women have broken patterns of employment. So although my noble friend's suggestion will not be unfamiliar to my colleagues in other departments, it still does not address the problem. Many people need a decent second-tier pension in old age, and there is no product in the market-place which offers them that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this subject is made up of many complicated interlocking parts, of which yesterday's welcome publication on pension splitting in divorce is one? Does she further agree that it matters desperately to get it right as well as to get it done quickly?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that contribution. I am sure that the House, like me, will be delighted that, yesterday, we were able to publish the draft Bill on pension-splitting, which was an all-party move by this House. I am delighted that the noble Earl was generous enough to draw that to the attention of the House today.
The noble Earl is right. Since 1988, in the reforms to SERPS, we have put forward various proposals for changes in second-tier pensions over and beyond those in the Pensions Act 1995. The Opposition, when in government, produced Basic Pension Plus, a scheme that has now been dropped. That scheme found no broad consent. If we are to produce a framework for pension provision that offers security as well as comfort in old age, it is clear that it must have staying power. That can happen only if it is based on widespread consultation, not only with the industry and the pensioners' movements, of which my noble friend is such an important advocate, but in all sections of this House. That is why we have now held four consultation exercises and may still need to consider consultation.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I agree that my noble friend is entirely right to take a long view and get this matter

877
sorted out correctly, but does she accept that it is impossible for those pensioners who are alive now, and whose primary source of income is a pension geared only to the RPI, to participate in this country's prosperity unless we move away from indexation by the RPI and back to the policy that we used to advocate of indexing according to the average wage? In other words, there is no conflict as I see it between the position of my noble friend the Minister and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Castle. Surely the two are compatible. What puzzles some of us is why, in relation to my noble friend's request, there is no action in the short term. Some pensioners alive now are rather poor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the short-term action proposed by my noble friend of linking the state pension to earnings rather than prices would raise pensioner incomes this year by 40p. Yet something like 1 million pensioners are going without £17 a week in income support. Comparing 40p with £17 a week, I know what I think is the best way of helping the poorest pensioners.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Procedure Committee's Third Report deals with a number of important questions. Although, strictly, we should deal with the two amendments in turn first, I hope that noble Lords will not feel constrained by their presence and will feel free to range over the report as a whole so that we can have just one debate.
On the matter of using the Queen's name to influence debate, the Procedure Committee considered a lengthy and learned memorandum by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, another by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Blake. The committee decided that the doctrine as stated in Erskine May is correct and should normally apply, but that it was undesirable to impose any absolute rule because circumstances had to be taken into account.
It has to be acknowledged that exceptional circumstances may arise in future. It is not inevitable; indeed it may well be unlikely; but they may do so. In the event of a situation recurring such as the Succession to the Crown Bill, the Procedure Committee thought that it would be desirable if discussions could be held through the usual channels to resolve the extent to which the doctrine in Erskine May should apply in those particular circumstances.
The committee believes that our procedure must retain some measure of flexibility to take account of exceptional circumstances, and for that reason did not recommend that the rule in Erskine May should be regarded as absolute. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford,
878
has, however, indicated on the Order Paper that he wishes to debate the matter further, and your Lordships and I will be able to hear what he has to say.
The Procedure Committee was particularly concerned about the conduct of Starred Questions. I was asked to draw to your Lordships' attention the rules which should govern this procedure. Supplementary questions should ask for information, and not take the form of statements. They should be short. They should not be read. Noble Lords are also reminded that time is often wasted by two or more Peers refusing to give way to another Peer. If questions are short, and Peers give way more quickly, more opportunities will be available to put questions to Ministers, who are in turn invited by the noble Lord the Leader of the House to give shorter, sharper replies.
On carry-over of Bills, the significance of paragraph 2(f) in the report is that the new procedure which is recommended for the carry-over of Bills has no immediate practical consequences for your Lordships' House. Initially the only Bills which will be candidates for the new procedure will be Bills introduced into another place. At this stage in the development of the procedure for carry-over, no Bill which starts off in your Lordships' House and which is still here at the end of a Session will be carried over. It is clear from paragraph (e) that any Commons Bill which is carried over in that House will, when it reaches your Lordships' House, be treated in exactly the same way as any other Bill introduced into another place and brought to this House.
On the matter of hands in pockets and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, I would only say that the committee has been concerned that the traditional way in which the House behaves has in recent times been somewhat eroded. One reason may be that some noble Lords simply do not know, or have perhaps forgotten, some of the little courtesies which characterise the way in which we conduct our business and our debates.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 106) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. USE OF QUEEN'S NAME TO INFLUENCE DEBATE
On 27th February, during the second reading debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill, Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Home Office Minister, informed the House that The Queen had no objections to the bill. Several Lords argued that this disclosure was contrary to the rule in Erskine May that the irregular use of The Queen's name to influence a decision of the House was unconstitutional and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament (p 382). On 2nd March the Leader of the House, after having consulted the clerks, advised the House that on a bill which was so fundamentally personal to The Queen it was only sensible for Her Majesty's views to be made known to the House. He also said that procedural rules should always be applied with commonsense and with due regard to all circumstances.
The Committee has considered the exchanges of 27th February and the Leader of the House's statement of 2nd March.
The Committee believes that Erskine May correctly states the rule, which should continue to be observed by the House. However, the Committee recognises that exceptional circumstances may arise, such as the Succession to the Crown Bill, which make it desirable to depart from the strict application of the rule. The Committee does not recommend that the rule should be regarded as absolute.
2. CARRY-OVER OF BILLS
On 19th November 1997 the Committee considered a proposal made by the Commons Modernisation Committee1, and endorsed by the House of Commons2, that it should be possible for Government hills to be "carried over" from one parliamentary session to the next in the same way as hybrid and private bills. The Committee accepted that there was a case for the carry-over of some Government bills in certain circumstances; and asked the Clerk of the Parliaments to prepare, with the Clerk of the House of Commons, a memorandum in which the practical details and any necessary safeguards would be examined. The Committee has now considered this memorandum.
The Committee recommends that the principle of carry-over should be endorsed by the House and that—

(a) only Government bills should be eligible for carry-over;

(b) carry-over should be restricted to bills which have not yet left the House in which they originated;

(c) the eligibility of bills for carry-over should be settled by informal discussion through the usual channels;

(d) bills should be carried over by ad hoc motions, at least initially;

(e) a Commons bill carried over before it reaches the Lords should not be treated differently from other bills when it reaches the Lords;

(f) no procedure should be agreed at this stage to carry over Lords bills still in the Lords when the session ends.

3. QUOTATION FROM COMMONS SPEECHES IN THE CURRENT SESSION
The present rule is that it is undesirable (i.e. out of order) in the House of Lords to quote from a speech made in the House of Commons in the current session, unless it is the speech of a Minister in relation to Government policy. A similar rule applies in the House of Commons. The Commons Modernisation Committee has reported (Fourth Report, 1997–98, HC 600) that the rule seems to them to be neither logical nor necessary, and that it is difficult to enforce since by the time the facts have been established it is generally too late to prevent a breach of the rule. The Committee agrees with the analysis of the Modernisation Committee and recommends that the rule relating to Commons' speeches should be abolished in the House of Lords.
4. STARRED QUESTIONS
The Committee is concerned about the conduct of Starred Questions and the number of occasions recently when the Leader of the House has had to intervene. The Committee reminds the House of the guidance in the Companion:
"Starred Questions … are asked for information only, and not with a view to stating an opinion, making a speech or raising a debate." (p 84)
The Committee also wishes to stress the following points:

—supplementary questions should not be read, and should be short; and ministerial replies as short as possible, consistent with answering the question;

—Lords should give way to each other promptly;

—shorter, sharper questions and answers will allow more Lords a chance to take part.

5. CONDUCT IN THE CHAMBER
The Committee reminds the House that

(a) it is undesirable to use first names in the Chamber;

(b) Lords should not pass between the Woolsack (or the Chair) and any Lord who is speaking, but if they have to do so, they should bend down as they pass:

(c) Lords should not speak with their hands in their pockets;

(d) The correct way to refer to a Minister is "The noble Lord, the Minister"; it is not correct to refer to "The noble Minister";

(e) the correct way to address the House is "My Lords", or, where appropriate, to use the expressions "Your Lordships" or "Your Lordships' House".

1 First Report 1997–98: The Legislative Process (HC 190).
2 On 13th November 1997.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Marlesford Lord Marlesford moved, as an amendment to the Chairman of Committees' Motion, at end insert ("save for the words "such as the Succession to the Crown Bill" in paragraph 1").
The noble Lord said: In moving my amendment to the report, I seek to give the House the opportunity to maintain fully an important constitutional convention which protects the independence of parliamentary proceedings from interference or undue influence from the Crown; and, no less important, protects the Queen from party politics. It was, I had thought, a convention well known to Members of both Houses. It has been enshrined in successive editions of Erskine May, our parliamentary bible, ever since the publication first appeared in 1844. Previously all governments have felt tightly bound by it.
Your Lordships can therefore imagine my astonishment when, on 27th February, during the Second Reading debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Archer, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on behalf of the Government, say:
"Her Majesty had no objection to the Government's view that in determining the line of succession to the throne daughters and sons should be treated in the same way".—[Official Report, 27/2/98; col. 916.]
I should say at once that I attach no personal blame to the noble Lord, who, as he explained to me subsequently, was merely saying what he was told to say. Nor do I blame the Palace, who, we have been told, agreed the form of words to be used. Nor do I blame my noble friend Lord Archer, who tells me that he had no idea that the Government were going to reveal the Queen's view on the Bill. Nor do I blame the Clerks, who, the Lord Privy Seal has told us, produced the advice that he used on 2nd March as an ex post justification for what had happened the previous Friday afternoon. The Clerks had not been consulted before the event, more is the pity. They might have urged caution before endorsing so flagrant a breach of the convention.
I suspect and fear that the origins of what happened on 27th February lie in the spin doctors' Downing Street surgery, where the temptation to manipulate the monarchy to support the "Cool Britannia" image proved in this instance as irresistible as it was unwise.
In another place the matter would have been dealt with on the spot by Madam Speaker who, I suspect, would have ruled in favour of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, where it is stated:
"The irregular use of the Queen's name to influence a decision of the House is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of Parliament. Where the Crown has a distinct interest in a measure, there is an authorised mode of communicating Her Majesty's recommendation or consent, through one of her Ministers; but Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers: and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgement of Parliament is immediately checked and censured".
We do not know, of course, what Madam Speaker would have said, but the Procedure Committee, to which I referred the matter for adjudication, was told by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, that, as Speaker, he would have "jumped on" such an incident.
The Lord Privy Seal, in his own statement to the Procedure Committee, reaffirmed his justification for the incident. That did not totally surprise me; he is not someone who easily changes his mind. I hope he will not regard it as disrespectful—and I certainly do not intend to be acerbic—if I suggest that just occasionally I wonder whether there is not a touch of hubris in his attitude to the British constitution.
I am, of course, glad that the committee has endorsed the Erskine May rule. I do not object to the committee's conclusion that exceptional circumstances may arise which may make it desirable to depart from its strict interpretation. But in our parliamentary system, and indeed our legal system, rules are modified by precedent. I therefore strongly object to the reference to the Succession to the Crown Bill as an example of where the departure is justified. If the House were to accept these words, it would at once form a precedent—in my view, one which is both unnecessary and undesirable. I do not believe that the summing up of the Chairman of Committees, as reported in the minutes of the committee, justify the inclusion of the words to which I object.
Before I go any further in putting my case, I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Blake, who also gave evidence to the Procedure Committee and whose opinion in these matters is, I believe, deeply respected, to say that he much regrets that, due to a very temporary medical indisposition, he is unable to be here today to support my amendment.
In his statement of 2nd March the Lord Privy Seal recognised the importance of the issue but justified the use of the Queen's opinion on this occasion on three grounds: that on a matter which was so fundamentally personal to the Sovereign and her family, it would have been unhelpful to the House for the Government not to have made her view known; that the procedure must always be applied with common sense and due consideration for the circumstances; and that Her Majesty's views would soon have become apparent through other channels.
Before I specifically refute these reasons, I would ask your Lordships' indulgence to allow me to refer to the historical background to this issue. It is not surprising that the constitutional convention should have originated in the time of Charles I. It was then that the fundamental right of Parliament to be free from Crown interference was fought for and established. It would therefore seem specious to argue that there are earlier historical precedents which now justify what was done in February 1998. The wording of the doctrine as laid down in the current 22nd edition of Erskine May is identical to that of the first edition of 1844. However, the first edition makes it clear that the origin of the issue
882
dates to the remonstrance of the Lords and Commons to Charles I of December 1641, when it was declared:
"That it is their ancient and undoubted right and privilege that your majesty ought not to take notice of any matter in agitation or debate in either of the houses of Parliament, but by their information or agreement; and that your majesty ought not to propound any condition, provision, or limitation, to any bill or act in debate or preparation in either house of Parliament, or to manifest or declare your consent or dissent, approbation or dislike of the same, before it be presented to your majesty in due course of Parliament".
Erskine May refers to the next occasion when the doctrine was spelled out as December 1783, when the Commons resolved:
"That it is now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion or pretended opinion of his majesty, upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either house of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive to the constitution of this country".
That resulted from George III's written message on Fox's India Bill.
Erskine May makes it clear that the doctrine should not exclude a statement by a Minister of the facts in which the Queen's name may be concerned. Even this has led to problems. Sir Robert Walpole, in 1729, and Sir Robert Peel, in 1843, were challenged for giving purely factual accounts of the Sovereign's position on issues. Peel was merely repeating what William IV had already said in a speech from the throne. Even then, Speaker Shaw-Lefevre thought it necessary to reaffirm the underlying position:
"It was quite true that it would be highly out of order to use the name of the sovereign in that house so as to endeavour to influence its decision, or that of any of its members, upon any question under its consideration".
The next major battle started in 1909 and led to the Parliament Act 1911. The parliamentary proprieties were observed and Asquith took the greatest pains to avoid any action which might reveal the King's view. After the Liberal victory of February 1910, Asquith told the Commons:
"it is the duty of statesmen and of responsible politicians as long as possible and as far as possible to keep the name of the Sovereign and the prerogatives of the Crown outside the domain of party politics".
In November, Edward VII having died, the Cabinet minuted George V,
"Ministers are fully alive to the importance of keeping the name of the King out of the sphere of party and electoral controversy … it would be inadvisable in the interests of the state that any communication of the interests of the Crown should be made public unless and until the actual occasion should arise".
Only on 20th July 1911 was the King's agreement to create Peers privately notified to the Opposition leaders and to the House of Lords on 10th August, the last day of the final debate.
Thus parliamentary history underlines the seriousness with which both Houses have, for at least 150 years, treated the constitutional convention that the Sovereign's views should not be used in debate in a way which might be thought to influence Parliament and thus undermine its independence. The Speaker checks even the most minor infringements in the House of Commons.
There seems to me to be neither authority nor precedent for arguing that, in the words of the Lord Privy Seal, in the case of,
"a Bill which is so fundamentally personal to the sovereign and her family",
the convention should not apply. Indeed, a new phrase which is potentially even more pernicious was put the committee. It was said that the Queen's opinion was,
"structural to the Archer bill".
After the justification given we are left with a situation in which it would seem to be open to any Peer to argue in debate on any matter before the House that one of the three criteria of the Lord Privy Seal applies and that the Queen's view on the merits of the matter could or should be revealed. That is clearly unsatisfactory, especially as it is anticipated that there could soon be further constitutional legislation under which hereditary Peers, including Royal Dukes, may lose their membership of the House of Lords.
While common sense and due consideration of the circumstances are good rules to apply to behaviour in and out of Parliament, they hardly justify on their own overturning an important constitutional convention. If the Queen's view on legislation can be given by a government Minister, is it open to the Opposition or Back-Benchers from any party to comment on or even refute that view? Indeed, is the right to put forward the Queen's view to be left solely to the government of the day?
Finally, as we all know, Erskine May applies to both Houses. If we were to endorse this totally new precedent as an exception to the convention, where would that leave another place? Surely in such matters symmetry between both Houses of Parliament is important. I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will indicate that he is prepared to think again and therefore accept my amendment. If the House were to agree to the report unamended, I fear that it would result in a constitutional shambles. I beg to move.
Lord Richard: My Lords, it may be of assistance to the House if I make one or two points at this stage. I am being accused of all sorts of things these days—conceit yesterday, hubris today. One thing of which I suppose I am guilty is not communicating with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, before he gave us the benefit of his extensive knowledge and historical research on this issue.
I do not intend to oppose the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The Procedure Committee had a thorough debate on the use of the Queen's name to influence debates and its conclusions are set out in paragraph 1 of the report. The committee concluded that the rules stated in Erskine May should continue to be observed by the House, but recognised that exceptional circumstances may arise under which it was desirable to depart from the strict application of the rule.
The committee suggested that the Succession to the Crown Bill—the one to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred—should be cited as a specific example of such an exception. It is that example that
884
the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is today seeking to delete. It is clear—at least, I thought it was—that there is a difference of opinion between the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the Procedure Committee on the question of whether the Succession to the Crown Bill does or does not properly form an exception of the kind which the Procedure Committee indicated might arise. However, the noble Lord's amendment does not undermine either of the fundamental principles set out in the Select Committee's report; namely, first, that there should be a rule and, secondly, that exceptions could arise.
Under those circumstances it would not be profitable for the House to spend a great deal of time debating the noble Lord's amendment today, nor would it be profitable for a Division to arise upon it. For those reasons I am prepared to accept the noble Lord's amendment without prejudice to the correctness or otherwise of the Procedure Committee's opinion on this specific case. I am sorry that I could not communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in advance of his rising to speak to indicate that that was the procedure I intended to adopt.
Since I am on my feet, perhaps I may say a few words in relation to the second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It is not a matter upon which I have strong views. The Procedure Committee was persuaded, at the instigation of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—I am sorry to see that he is not in his place—to recommend that noble Lords should not speak with their hands in their pockets. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, is intending to delete that recommendation from the Procedure Committee's report on the grounds that it is possible to go too far in prescribing such minutiae of conduct for your Lordships.
As I said, I do not hold strong views one way or the other on the issue. I remind the House that the three Chief Whips and the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers agreed last week to circulate a paper on conventions in this House which was distributed with all party Whips. The paper covered a number of aspects of behaviour of the House but did not cover the specific point raised in the Procedure Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Given the existence of that paper and the guidance set out in the report before the House today, I hope that noble Lords will feel that they have been given a wide range of guidance on what perhaps may sometimes appear to be arcane points in relation to the way your Lordships' House behaves. Under those circumstances, I hope that the House will be able to decide this matter too without the necessity for a Division.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should mention that, alas, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is extremely ill in hospital.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am very sorry to hear that. I hope that, had he been here, he would not have taken exception to anything that I said.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the third report from the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, as your Lordships will have observed, covers a number of matters. Some are of obvious importance, like the matter covered by my noble friend Lord Marlesford, and others are more trivial but which we as a House would be wise to take seriously.
I should therefore like to say, if the Leader of the House will allow me, how grateful I am for the early opportunity that he has given us to debate the report and for the guidance he gave us on a number of the matters it covers. The opportunity is one which we particularly appreciate, given the pressures an overloaded legislative programme puts on the time available on the Floor of this Chamber.
Of the five matters covered in the Select Committee report, I suspect that the one which concerns us most—and rightly so—is the use of the Queen's name to influence debates. I was grateful to the Leader of the House for what he said. However, I should like to come to this matter a little later in my brief intervention and to take the matters covered by the report in reverse order.
The last two matters to which the report refers may seem trivial, but we should be grateful to the Leader of the House for emphasising the importance he attaches to them.
Conduct—the way we behave and the way we observe the rules—is perhaps more important to us in this House than to another place. We all know that we regulate ourselves and that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has no power to keep order. This makes our rather elaborate courtesies a gavotte of real practical value. These are the rails which keep our wheels running on track. If we observe them we are less likely to be carried away by convictions, however passionately held.
I believe that the importance of these courtesies has increased over recent years rather than diminished. After all, the House is, by common consent, I believe, busier and fuller and more Members wish to intervene, particularly at Question Time, than six short years ago when I first joined your Lordships' House. That inevitably makes the conduct of our affairs more difficult and puts self-regulation under strain. Our rather elaborate courtesies seem to me, therefore, more of a very present help in trouble than perhaps they used to be, even a few years ago. So I believe that we would do well to heed the advice that the committee has tendered in the fifth item of its report. Certainly we on the Opposition Front Bench will do our best to encourage this side of the House to do so.
The advice of the Leader of the House seems to me to be wise and timely in the matter of Starred Questions. As Ministers, all of us have been presented with draft answers of inordinate length. Officials are perhaps understandably anxious to ensure that Ministers cover every aspect and sometimes forget that some answers are more effective for being kept in reserve for supplementary questions; and indeed that Ministers sometimes have to be trusted to be masters of their brief.
886
Equally, us questioners all too easily forget that, above all, brevity is the soul of wit at Question Time and that it can also stump a Minister completely. I remember all too vividly, when I was a Member of another place, Mr. Tam Dalyell asking a one word supplementary, "Why?". Needless to say, the Minister was beaten all ends up. Perhaps we should equally remember that we in this House are often at our most effective when we are not being too partisan. The words at page 84 of the Companion, therefore, and which are quoted with approval in the committee's report, seem to me to be particularly to the point.
On the question of quotation from speeches in the current Session in another place, I can add nothing to the paragraph in the report. This seems to me to be a sensible and practical change and I hope that the House will take the same view.
The question of the carry over of Bills is perhaps more contentious. A number of your Lordships have expressed concern this afternoon about this proposal, particularly since it seems to them to threaten the powers of delay of your Lordships' House under the Parliament Acts.
As a former government business manager, I can say that we, too, looked at the question of carry over when we were in government. We rapidly came to the conclusion that it would hinder the effective completion of a government's legislative programme rather than help it. The reason of course is that, above all, it removes one of the few restraints on great Secretaries of State to moderate their passion for legislation. I hope that I do not misinterpret him, but from the hints that the Leader of the House has let drop from time to time he shares that view, although he might not be able to say so quite as frankly in public as I do now that I am on this side of the House.
For that reason, too, I think Oppositions should welcome the idea of carry over. However, perhaps oppositions which expect to return to government should welcome the caution with which this Government are beginning to treat the idea.
As far as this proposal affects the powers of this House, I think it probably enhances them rather than the reverse. So long as only Government Bills are eligible; so long as the only Bills carried over are Bills that have not left their House of origin; so long as the Opposition Whips have an effective veto through the usual channels on which Bills are selected for carry over, it seems to me that your Lordships would, in theory at least, have an extra Session in which to delay the passage of a Bill before the Parliament Acts applied. As someone who would like to see this House use its powers more and who regards that as perhaps one of the greatest arguments for reform of your Lordships' House, I suspect we should welcome the committee's report as a small step, at least at the margins, towards achieving that aim.
This brings me—I hope briefly—to the most difficult matter which we have discussed this afternoon. It has been most elegantly resolved by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I believe that we should be extremely grateful to him for his statesman-like

887
approach. It is a matter that aroused a good deal of well-justified anxiety in this place; an anxiety which I am bound to say I share to some extent. Therefore, I believe that the whole House should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Marlesford for the role that he has played in bringing the matter to the Procedure Committee's attention and also for the distinguished contribution that he made both to the committee's proceedings and to our debate this afternoon.
It is a sensible practice of the House that on non-political matters we should follow the advice of the Leader of the House. It is something that the noble Lord did when our present roles were reversed and I was always extremely grateful to him for doing so, particularly when I was wrong. I certainly think that we were right to follow the advice of the Leader of the House in this instance and would not dream of questioning the advice which he offered us. Indeed, I accept it completely.
Nevertheless, I wonder whether the time has not come for us to change the practice of this House, as set out by the Leader of the House, as a result of the worry so well articulated by my noble friend.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his evidence to the committee, as I understood him, endeavoured to draw a distinction between the Monarch acting in her personal capacity and the Monarch acting, if I may put it this way, as the Monarch. He argued that in the former case it was right for the Monarch to make her views known in advance of Bills being discussed in your Lordships' House and in the latter, not.
As a matter of academic interest, I would be interested to know if there has ever been an example of the Monarch's private views being used in this way until this year.
However, I have in particular two practical worries about the noble Earl's argument. First, the demarcation line between the two categories seems extraordinarily difficult to define. After all, in the case that we are discussing, the succession to the Throne must, it is true, affect the Monarch personally. That is the advice which the Leader of the House gave us. But the question of who is to be our next Sovereign surely also affects the rest of us as well. A question that affects all of us is surely one that affects the Sovereign as Monarch as well as the Sovereign in her personal capacity. Secondly, the question of the Monarchy—and indeed the role of women—has moved steadily up the political agenda in recent years. This is a matter which is now part of the day-to-day warp and woof of political life. Seeking to involve the Monarch in the day-to-day warp and woof of political life seems to me to be something that perhaps we should try to avoid from now on.
For both these reasons, therefore, I think it would be wise if from now on we altered the procedure currently laid down quite rightly for us in the interpretation of Erskine May by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. I endeavoured to make the same argument in discussions at the Procedure Committee. I understand that the committee had accepted that a new general rule, following the substance of the argument of my noble
888
friend Lord Marlesford, should be recommended to your Lordships' House and that in particular that rule should cover the matter of succession to the Throne.
If my memory serves me right—and it is not always a very reliable instrument—the committee also accepted that it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality and that if the Government wished to ignore this new rule they should do so only by agreement with the usual channels in this House.
In the light of my recollection of the proceedings in the committee, I confess to being a little surprised by the words,
"such as the Crown Succession Bill",
which appear in the third paragraph of the report. Certainly the minutes of the proceedings of the committee seem to me to convey a slightly different emphasis, although I confess that I was grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees who, in his introduction to our exchanges this afternoon, seemed to me to perhaps set my recollection more closely in tune with his. For those reasons, I am delighted that, on reflection, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has decided not to oppose the view of my noble friend Lord Marlesford, as expressed in his amendment. I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for that, as should be the whole House.
In expressing my gratitude for the way in which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has guided us on this matter, perhaps in finishing I may thank him for what I had hoped would be rather more definite guidance on the second amendment before the House. I refer to that standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. If your Lordships find yourselves in the same position as me with regard to the noble Lord's amendment, your Lordships will be on the horns of what seems to me to be an impossible dilemma. On the one hand, there is clearly no one more deeply versed in the procedure and practice of this House than the noble Lord. As a former Clerk of the Parliaments, his knowledge is well known to your Lordships and, in normal circumstances, I would not hesitate to urge your Lordships to accept his advice.
However, there is a difficulty. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House rightly pointed out, my noble friend Lord Ferrers disagrees with the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I have always regarded my noble friend as the final arbiter of manners in this place. Perhaps I may echo the sentiments already expressed this afternoon and say that I feel particularly sad that my noble friend cannot be here today to argue his point. I hope that the whole House will allow me to convey its very best wishes to my noble friend for a speedy recovery.
Perhaps I may make one plea to the noble Lord the Leader of the House: can he offer those of us on this side of the House a little more definite guidance with regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson? It is something which I find myself quite incapable of resolving.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I should like to comment on the report of the Select Committee

889
as a whole and to leave it to my noble friend Lord Russell, if he so chooses, to pursue the remarks made by the noble Viscount in so far as the House may wish to spend a great deal more time on the question of the use of the Queen's name. I think that we all recognise the importance of these issues, but I hope that the House will not become too pompous about them or allow them to consume too much of your Lordships' time. Although they are important, my view, after a very thorough discussion in the committee, is that I hope that the House will accept the report as it stands.
In that respect, I find paragraph 1 of the report a fair recommendation of the conclusions reached. It represents the balance of the discussion and of the decision. I dissent from the view of the noble Viscount in so far as he feels that it might be expressed differently. I would not dissent if the advice of the Leader of the House were accepted and we deleted those words, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Having said that, I believe the report to be a fair minute of our discussions under the chairmanship of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees.
On the final subject of the report—conduct in the Chamber—and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it is fair to say that we reached that item late in the afternoon after discussing other matters, and that such were the persuasive powers of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that none of us felt able to dispute what he was proposing. Therefore, given that I was silent on the matter at that time, I cannot now argue for any amendment to the report.
Nevertheless, returning to what I said at the beginning, I think that we can often be too pompous. If a noble Lord finds it more comfortable to speak in your Lordships' House with his hands in his pockets, I do not think that we should unreasonably object, any more than we should unreasonably object if a noble Lord turns up wearing trainers from time to time—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank:—as, indeed, at least one noble Lord occasionally does. We are a working Chamber of Parliament and we will be better respected outside the more we keep these matters in perspective.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, perhaps I may put in some very brief words. First, as other noble Lords will agree, I must record the fact that the noble Lord who has just sat down spoke with his hands in his pockets. I have no objection. Having heard what various noble Lords have said on this matter, I believe that perhaps it should be referred back to the Select Committee. The draft of the recommendation is incomplete. It states:
"Lords should not speak with their hands in their pockets".
But which pockets? I suppose that it means "trouser pockets", but, like the noble Lord from the Liberal Democrat Benches, quite a number of noble Lords speak with their hands in their jacket pockets. Why should
890
they not do so? I think that we are too much governed by too many small, pettifogging recommendations of one sort or another. Quite honestly, that recommendation reminds me of school more than of anything else.
I have no idea whether Members of the House of Commons are allowed to speak with their hands in their pockets, but nervous Members of another place will quite often speak with their hands in their trouser pockets. That gives rise to the opportunity for others to disrupt that Member's train of thought by shouting, "Hands in pocket!" or something like that. I do not think that we want to follow that in this House.
One Peer whom I particularly admire, who is one of the wittiest among us and whose words I would never miss if I could possibly avoid it, spoke the other day with both hands in his trouser pockets—and he spoke most eloquently. I would regard it as a criminal act to interrupt his flow of speech by telling him to take his hands out of his pockets. It would be an insolent thing to do to a man of great distinction. I say no more on that, other than to ask that we do not say "yes" or "no" today, but send the matter back to the Select Committee and ask it to make its recommendation a little more precise.
Perhaps I may make one other point. I refer to the carry-over. I am very pleased that the Select Committee has made the recommendation that it has, following the House of Commons. For years, the Whips have unanimously vetoed any change in that regard. One small area of our legislative work is very important but hardly gains any recognition in the House. I refer to the work of the committee—its name escapes me—which is always chaired by a Law Lord—
Noble Lords: The consolidation committee.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, thank you. I refer to the work of the Select Committee on Consolidation Bills. The programme of consolidation is artificially squeezed because every Bill that is introduced as a consolidation Bill or a statute law revision Bill must be completed within that Session. That wretched committee has to consider perhaps five or six Bills in the first part of a Session while in the second part of the Session, when it could consider another five or six Bills, it is not allowed to do so because those Bills cannot be carried over. I recommend that Bills which start in this House and which deal with consolidation or statute law revision should be allowed to be carried over. I believe that that most important recommendation would be well received by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he were present on the Woolsack.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I came prepared to speak in support of the amendment which has been called and, if the House was divided, to vote in favour of it. I am very glad that that now appears to be unnecessary. The noble Lord the Leader of the House has been very wise and generous to accept the amendment without a Division. It leaves the substances of the report of the Procedure Committee unimpaired

891
and saves the controversial matter of the Succession to the Crown Bill from going into a footnote of Erskine May by way of a precedent.
If this problem arose again it would be useful to apply two criteria. The first is whether the measure is controversial. Undoubtedly the Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Archer, was controversial. Fifty-six noble Lords took the quite unusual—to my knowledge, unprecedented—course of voting against the Motion of an Address to the Sovereign to allow the matter to be discussed in Parliament. In considering whether there should be an exception to the general rule, it will always be relevant to apply that criterion. Is the measure a matter of controversy?
As to the second criterion, it is useful to look at the mirror image of what is done. Would it have been acceptable if the Minister—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that he should not be thought to be in any way blameworthy in the matter—had said that Her Majesty had indicated that she disagreed with the Government's view? Obviously that would have been quite unacceptable and inconceivable, as the noble Lord, Lord Richard, put it in a letter to me when I took up the matter with him. That being so, I believe that the House has been very well advised to accept the report without the words that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has moved to expunge.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for accepting the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. I direct your Lordships' attention to the suggestion relating to the carry-over of Bills. I was somewhat reassured by the comments of my noble friend Lord Cranborne but have some anxiety about where this proposal may lead. Admittedly, the proposal has safeguards. It is said that it should be applied to some government Bills in certain circumstances. It is also said that the eligibility of Bills for carry-over should be settled by informal discussions through the usual channels. While that is to some degree reassuring, the House is being asked to endorse the principle of carry-over. I find that worrying. This could easily be the thin edge of the wedge. One of the most powerful checks that Parliament has over any government is that, if the government are unable to persuade Parliament to accept a Bill by the end of the Session that Bill falls; it is dead. If the government wish to pursue the matter they must table a completely new Bill in the following Session.
It would be a dangerous move for Parliament to surrender that very important power. Reforms such as this—noble Lords have seen many over the years—invariably make life easier for the Government of the day and more difficult for Parliament to act as an effective check on the Executive. I hope that noble Lords can have an assurance on this matter. I address my remarks much more to the Leader of the House than to the Lord Chairman of Committees. I seek an
892
assurance that this new power will be used with great moderation and will not be extended in any circumstances to all government Bills.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that after this lapse of time it would be an abuse of the time of the House to engage the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, in discussion of his precedents from the reign of Charles I. However, I hope that it is not a waste of the time of the House to say that I am in full agreement not only with what is said in the report but also with the remarks of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal.
It has never been in issue that the rule in Erskine May stands. When the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, refers to the overturning of Erskine May I am not aware of any noble Lord in the House who believes that that should be done. The point at issue has always been simply whether that rule is capable of exception. To borrow a phrase used by the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, there is no suggestion that the Queen's name should at any stage be drawn into the warp and woof of political debate. I believe that noble Lords would unite in deploring such a notion.
The noble Viscount said that I had endeavoured—I believe that was his word—to draw a distinction between the Queen's personal and public capacity. I shall not bore the noble Viscount with a list of the literature on that distinction, to which I am only one of the most recent contributors. He is undoubtedly right that it is a difficult distinction to apply. Good sense is always difficult, but that is no reason for giving up trying to have it. Finally, Erskine May is only 2,000 pages long. It is very dangerous to rest an argument solely on the silence of Erskine May.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, a number of my concerns have already been covered adequately by other noble Lords. One matter that concerns me that so far has not been touched upon relates to the third section of the report that deals with quotations from Commons speeches in the current Session. Those noble Lords who have glanced at the Companion will understand why that rule exists. If I may paraphrase the Companion, the rule is intended to ensure that debates in the House of Commons are not carried over into the House of Lords. It is important that there should be a distinct and separate debate in the House of Lords from the House of Commons, and vice versa. I hope that when the Companion and Erskine May come to be re-written the importance of the separation of debates in the House of Lords and House of Commons is assured, even though noble Lords will accept the common sense of allowing quotations from speeches in either House to be referred to. But if that should be seen as an opportunity for Members of this House effectively to carry on a completely separate debate in the House of Commons that should not be allowed.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in support of my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree, I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House to provide a little more information as to what is intended by sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2. It is proposed that the eligibility of Bills for carry-over

893
should be settled by informal discussion through the usual channels. Read literally, it can mean either that the usual channels will decide whether or not a Bill has started in this House and remains in this House and is a government Bill, in which case it means that all government business can potentially be carried over, or that the Government will come to a conclusion with the usual channels as to which of those Bills are eligible for carry-over on this occasion. Those are two very different propositions, both of which can be read from this paper.
Given that the threat of the loss of a Bill at the end of the Session is a real one—as a former Minister I remember how real it was—I regard that as one of the rapidly diminishing means by which Parliament can maintain control of the Executive. Those of us who feel that the Executive is getting further and further out of the control of Parliament believe that we should retain these restraints. I am not speaking of any particular government; I am talking of a continuing process. I for one would be comforted if the noble Lord the Leader of the House would say that agreement would be reached between the usual channels as to the volume of business that might be done in carry-over rather than that the whole volume of available business might be carried over.
4 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I share the disquiet of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the carrying over of Bills. Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say, first, whether there is any precedent in peacetime—obviously things may be different in time of war or national emergency—for a government Bill, as opposed to a private or hybrid Bill, being carried over from one parliamentary Session to another?
Secondly, in its third report, published on 2nd March this year the Commons Select Committee states that the carry-over should not be a device by which the Government impose their will on the minority. Can we be assured—and here I echo the noble Lord, Lord Elton—that "agreement through the usual channels" means not only securing the agreement of the two main opposition parties, I suppose in both Houses, but also the agreement of the smaller parties and, ideally, Cross-Benchers through the medium of their Convenor bearing in mind that we on these Benches outnumber the Liberal Democrats and all other smaller parties in both Houses put together?
Lord Renton: My Lords, I too feel obliged to follow up what is said in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 2. The trouble, I think, is caused by the use of the word "settled". Settled normally means decided finally. If it be the fact that the usual channels—that means the Whips, coupled no doubt with the Leader of the House, the Leader of the Opposition and perhaps the leader of a minority party—were to decide these things (Front Benches only), they might place themselves in conflict with Back Bench opinion throughout the House. That is a serious proposition.
894
If the word "eligibility" is considered to modify the word "settled", a different conclusion might be reached. But it is the word "settled" that we need to be very careful about. I was rather disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, with whom I have worked in various ways in the past and for whom I have such great respect, decided not to move and press this amendment. I think it is one of great importance. It comes to this: that the responsibility and power for deciding this important matter will be granted to the Front Benches, and to them alone if we are not careful.
Lord Richard: My Lords—
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I am much obliged. Can the Lord Chairman of Committees confirm my own impression that the effect of paragraph 2 of the Report on the Procedure of the House will be absolutely minimal? I take four examples.
First, if a Bill starts in this House and gets only as far as Third Reading when the parliamentary Session is about to end, the Bill cannot be carried over. It cannot be carried over because under sub-paragraph (f) the new procedure does not apply to a Lords Bill still in this House when the Session ends.
Secondly, suppose a Bill starts in the Commons, is passed in the Commons but gets only as far as Third Reading in this House when the Session is about to end. The Bill cannot be carried over. That is because under sub-paragraph (b) carry-over is restricted to Bills which have not yet left the House in which they originated.
Thirdly, suppose a Bill, which started in this House, has been passed by this House but is returned to us with Commons amendments. Again, the Bill cannot be carried over because under sub-paragraph (f) a Bill which starts in this House and is in this House when the Session ends cannot be carried over.
Fourthly, suppose a Bill, which started in the Commons, has passed through all stages in this House but is returned with Commons amendments. Again, the Bill cannot be carried over because under sub-paragraph (b) a Bill cannot be carried over which has left the House in which it originated. It follows that the carry-over of a Bill under paragraph 2 will be confined to extremely rare occasions.
In those circumstances it does not seem to me that the procedure is capable of being used in this House to deprive the Opposition of a power to disrupt Bills which are incomplete as the Session nears its end.
Lord Richard: My Lords—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I know the Lord Privy Seal is becoming impatient but there are important matters here and I think that we have the right to discuss them.
I am very glad that the noble Lord has accepted my noble kinsman's amendment. I am sure he is right to do that. What in fact happened was, in my view, a mistake, for the reason my noble kinsman has said.

895
On the question of carry-over, I notice that noble Lords have been paying a great deal of attention to the sugar on the pill. But the pill itself is that a new principle is being established. The previous principle—and if it was not a principle it was certainly treated as one—that carry-over did not exist except in exceptional circumstances—is being discarded; and now the principle is being established, sugared though the pill is, that carry-over is possible.
During my 16 years in this House as a Back-Bencher I have observed the salutary effect in practice of Parliament having to resolve matters before the deadline. A government seldom wants, despite what the Lord Privy Seal has said, the embarrassment of a Bill falling and having to be reintroduced in the next Session. That is an embarrassment and governments shrink from that.
With or without the sugar—and, as my noble friend Lord Cranborne said, this measure could increase the power of this House—it is a very big change. I am sorry that it came to the House tucked between a big constitutional matter and matters of noble Lords' pockets. I do not think women's pockets are under consideration. I am sorry that such a big measure came in this way to the House. I feel that it should have been first discussed in a debate purely about that. But we have taken advantage of the discussion of the report and I am glad of that.
I hope that, in future, big changes which affect the practice of Parliament—not just of the House of Lords, but of the House of Commons—will not be discussed here simply as matters almost hidden in a report of the Procedure Committee.
It seems to me that, accept it though we must, we should take note that a big change is being made, albeit by this method.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Dean needs support on this. This is a constitutional innovation. It is a constitutional innovation, however small the pill—I take the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman—in that it is a mini-Aspirin; it is not a block-buster or a Viagra. It is however a small pill and it is a start. It is extremely dangerous for such constitutional changes to be introduced by the back-door, which this almost is, with the check on it which states:
"the eligibility of bills for carry-over should be settled by informal discussion through the usual channels".
What happens if the usual channels do not agree and the Government want the Bill carried over? I presume, because they have a precedent, that the Government will have their way. I am sorry. This is dangerous. We should not allow it. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Richard, who is not arrogant or conceited and is quite our favourite Leader of the Government Front Bench at the moment, please, because he is a good lad, to go away and think about it again, because he cannot but see the force of the arguments of my noble friend Lord Dean.
Lord Peston: My Lords, someone should be on record as saying that they agree with paragraph 2, which
896
I do most strongly. I assume, first, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, is correct: the proposal does not apply to this House anyway. I am sorry that it does not, but that is by the way. As I read it, unless I have misunderstood it, the words:
"endorsed by the House of Commons",
are merely a way of saying that they are proposing to do it. I agree with that also.
I assume that sub-paragraph (c) amounts essentially to a view that if they can agree, it will happen; if they cannot agree, in practice, it will not happen. We are discussing technical Bills of the type with which I had to deal on the Front Bench, of the most boring, tedious kind, which most noble Lords do not turn up to debate. On the whole, we get them through anyway. If, for example, the Trade Marks Bill had not got through in time, it would have been sensible with no constitutional—I regard as preposterous the suggestion that we are involved in the most fundamental constitution-making here—aspects, to have said, "We have got this far, but no further. Let us get it cleared off when we come back, without starting it again".
Someone, at least, should congratulate the Commons—if I dare use the words—on the slight possibility that they might modernise themselves. They usually set their face totally against modernisation in any form. I should have thought that that was a good thing. Speaking entirely for myself, I hope that one day your Lordships might also consider this and one or two other modernisations. If I may put it in the vernacular, it is no big deal.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, item 2—the carry-over of Bills—with great respect to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, was discussed in the Procedure Committee. It appeared in the report of the Procedure Committee, which we are now debating. It has not been sneaked into the House in any underhand manner. It is up to all noble Lords, as I am sure they are all aware, and noticeably aware, judging by how full the Chamber is, to debate all reports of the Procedure Committee. This has not been sneaked in in any manner. That is not to say that I do not have grave reservations about the carry-over of Bills. I think that I share the reservations of a number of noble Lords, because I have a nasty feeling that this could be the thin edge of a wedge.
I should turn to the question of Peers speaking with hands in their pockets. This is an example more than a reality. All of us in the Procedure Committee, and outside it, are concerned that the guidance given in the Companion to the Standing Orders should be read, understood and obeyed by Members on all sides of the House. That is what we are concerned about.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I support the points put by my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. My main intervention concerns item 5 of the report which relates to our conduct in the Chamber. There are two areas which do not appear to have been mentioned in the report which may be significant, about which I could perhaps ask the noble Lord the Chairman of

897
Committees while we are debating the matter. The first area is the method by which we address one another. I agree with my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Cranborne, that courtesy in your Lordships' House leads to our self-regulating discipline. I may not be alone in noticing that there is a growing habit of referring to a noble Lord just as "Lord So and So" or "Lord Surname", without prefixing that address with "the noble Lord, Lord So and So" or "my noble friend". The use merely of the surname without the prefix "the noble Lord" or "my noble friend" diminishes our self-regulating discipline in the House. That was my first question.
The second may be a little more controversial. It is whether the noble Lord's committee has considered the dilemma of noble Lords appearing to slumber in the Chamber. We all know that noble Lords do not slumber in the Chamber. The lights are strong, some of us are hard of hearing and getting harder of hearing, and we put our heads back to the loud speakers to hear what is going on. It appears to me to be a sensible time to raise this issue, because the public is not generally aware of the enormous service which your Lordships' House gives to the nation. In view of the scrutiny which, one way or another, your Lordships' House is undergoing at the moment, I should have thought that that is an area which, if not on this occasion perhaps on the next occasion, the noble Lord's committee might care to look into, to the profit of us all.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I have listened with patience. I have the assurance of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that I am not behaving arrogantly. I am not full of hubris. My hands are not in my pockets. Perhaps I may now say something on the carry-over point.
Perhaps I may give the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Dean, wants. It is not the Government's intention, for one instant, that carry-over should apply to—if I may use the phrase—the bulk of the Government's programme. That is not the object of the exercise. The Leader of the House of Commons wrote to me indicating the sort of circumstances in which the Government might wish to carry over a Bill. The analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, seemed to me to be absolutely apposite, and frankly a strong argument in favour of the proposal.
Perhaps I may also make it clear that the proposal does not apply to this House. It does not apply to Bills which originate in this House. It applies only to Bills that originate in the Commons.
The circumstances that the Government have in mind are, first, a programme Bill which was announced in the Queen's speech, which is introduced late because of some external event, such as a court decision or prolonged consultation, which could only complete its passage in the Session of its introduction if it were rushed through. A second possibility would be a programme Bill which is on target to complete its passage shortly before the end of the Session but which is displaced by an urgent Bill introduced on another matter. Another example might be a programme Bill
898
which is introduced late in the Session but which is referred, after discussion through the usual channels, to a Special Standing Committee in the Commons, thereby delaying its arrival in the Lords.
In all those circumstances, it would not be unreasonable for the Government to consider the possibility of carrying over the Bill, provided that it was still down in the other place. One final possible case for carry-over might be of a government Bill which is intended to be introduced in the following Session, but which has been drafted in advance which is ready for introduction in the previous Session. Introducing it in the previous Session would allow for much fuller parliamentary consideration than if it were held over into the following Session.
I wish to make two further points. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that the matter had been sneaked in by the back door. With great respect to the noble Earl, the House has debated this previously on a Procedure Committee report. I have forgotten the exact date, but I remember that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was concerned, as the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, pointed out. The House has had an opportunity on at least two occasions—on the Floor of the House and in Procedure Committee twice—to express a view.
Finally, it is perfectly clear that the eligibility for Bills to be carried over should be settled by informal discussion through the usual channels. If the usual channels cannot agree, prima facie there will be no carry-over. I should have thought that there were sufficient protections built into that procedure at least for this House to agree that the other House be allowed to conduct the experiment that it has proposed to the modernisation committee.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, in view of the discussions we have had, and the business to follow, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not refer to all those who have taken part in the debate. Indeed, most noble Lords spoke on the question of carry-over. Those matters have been dealt with in the remarks made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
I mention two points on paragraph 1 of the report regarding the use of the Queen's name. First, it is necessary to place this on the record. The Procedure Committee's debate on the matter was thorough and lengthy. I was grateful for the substantial contributions made to that debate by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Peers, the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, and the Chief Whips. From that alone your Lordships may feel satisfied about the weight of the discussion. Apart from the useful contributions from the Back-Benchers of the Procedure Committee, perhaps I may mention the helpful contribution by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. On behalf of your Lordships, perhaps I may express our best wishes to Lady Mackay of Clashfern for a speedy recovery from her accident in Scotland.

899
I refer to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. In the light of what has been said in your Lordships' House, and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to accept the amendment to the Procedure Committee's report.
One point arising from the debate is whether or not Erskine May is binding, or applies in this House as it applies in another place. The committee was firmly of the clear view that Erskine May applies in this House just as in another place. It is not binding. While Erskine May is a powerful authority, it represents a statement of the decisions which your Lordships have made on procedural matters. If any amendment is to be made in your Lordships' procedures, no doubt this would be duly recorded in Erskine May in a subsequent edition. Noble Lords may agree that it would not be appropriate for the suggestion made in some quarters that an amendment to Erskine May be put forward by your Lordships' House to be followed. It is not within our power to do that. It is a commercial undertaking. It simply records what we have decided, and another place has decided. I am sure that any changes made by your Lordships will be recorded in future in precisely that manner.
I need say nothing on carry-over, because those matters have been dealt with by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. However, I should mention the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, on the question of hands in pockets. I am grateful for the indication the noble Lord has given that he does not propose to move the amendment. However, what has been said has been noted and will be taken into account. As noble Lords will know, there is nothing to stop matters being raised again in the Procedure Committee, if it is appropriate to do so.
I can answer the noble Lord on one point. I hesitate to do so because it concerns another place. Another place regards it as undesirable for honourable and right honourable Members to speak with their hands in their pockets. I well remember one occasion during the speakership of the late and very much loved Sir Harry Hylton-Foster. As noble Lords know, as in this House, remarks have to be made through the chair in another place. We are not allowed to address noble Lords as "you". Matters were becoming heated and the Scottish Member on the Labour side was driven to say at one stage, "Stand up straight, man. Take your hands out of your pockets", whereupon Sir Harry rose rather meekly from the chair and said, "But I didn't have my hands in my pockets". That is one salutary lesson that we in your Lordships' House might learn from another place.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and the contributions made on that matter will be taken into account. I hope that I have not left out any vital matters. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, will indicate what he will do about his amendment.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may thank him for his great courtesy in inviting me to attend the committee when the point of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, was
900
discussed. I was not a member of the committee and I greatly appreciate the courtesy and welcome that the Chairman of Committees gave me.
One other matter arises from the initial remarks by the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. I gather that at some stage we shall have a statement on various matters under consideration. Will the carry-over issue be included in the document? It has been discussed adequately today. I prefer to refer to it as the product of a cabal. As a Lauderdale I regard the title Cabal with some respect. However, I treat the usual channels with some suspicion having been a rebel when I was in another place.
I have said enough. I wish again to thank the Chairman of Committees for his courtesy in inviting me to attend the committee.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for his kind remarks. We were pleased to have him at the Procedure Committee debate. Indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, had also expressed considerable interest in these matters. We were delighted to offer her an invitation as well.
I confess that I was a member of the usual channels in another place; I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me for having been so. As regards the noble Earl's observations on that point, those are precisely the considerations which I feel sure the usual channels will take into account on the rare and highly unlikely occasion—if I may so predict—that they have to consider those matters.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have supported my amendment and the reason underlying it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his gracious remarks. I immediately withdraw the word hubris. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Bill
4.29 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Government of Wales Bill
4.30 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 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Viscount of Oxfuird) in the Chair.]
Clause 82 [Grants to Assembly]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 205:
Page 41, line 15, after second ("time") insert (", recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole,").
The noble Lord said: We have just had an important debate involving noble Lords in all parts of the House. Important though that debate was, we are one-and-a-half hours short of time for this all-important Government of Wales Bill.
If the national assembly is at the heart of the Bill and the assembly's functions are its arteries, Clause 82 provides the assembly's life blood—its finance. It has come as a surprise to most readers of the Bill that the entire financing of the assembly and all its works is largely dependent on that one clause and the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. There is no guarantee to the assembly that it will be provided with adequate funds to perform its statutory duties and to enable others within its sphere of responsibility to do so.
There is no mention in the Bill of needs in the context of Wales alone or in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom. We regard a reference to the needs basis of spending—the traditional basis recognised by successive governments—as all important. We include such a reference in Amendments Nos. 205 and 206.
It is well known that public spending per head is higher in Wales than in England for a variety of factors, including lower gross domestic product, that add up to the need to spend at a higher rate. Without some acknowledgement of that fact and an assurance that the needs of the Welsh people will be properly and fairly considered, and that the assembly's grants will not be entirely dependent on the whim of the Secretary of State, the people of Wales will be taking an almighty gamble with their future. The bareness of Clause 82 as it stands sends a shiver down most Welsh backs.
Underlying it all is the uncertainty of the Government and Ministers as to the resources that will be available and who will be there to claim them. Will the Secretary of State have a strong voice in the Cabinet after the assembly is established? More importantly, will he have a strong voice in the Treasury? The fear is that the Secretary of State will be a fading figure in the higher reaches of government.
Clause 88 does make provision for the assembly to consider its financial requirements and to state them publicly before the start of the financial year, but that is far removed from the statement of estimated payments required of the Secretary of State in Clause 83. What is to be the relationship between the two statements? What will happen if the financial expectations of the assembly greatly exceed the expenditure proposed by the Secretary of State—as I suspect will be the case? Will the matter be resolved by some Star Chamber procedure involving the Treasury? The least we should expect is consultation and dialogue between the Secretary of State, assembly and other interested parties—as proposed in our Amendment No. 207.
I note in the Guide to the Transfer of Functions Order that the Treasury is withdrawing from the position where its consent and approval is required in the exercise of a multiplicity of functions and powers. When I was a Minister, I could never quite understand why the Treasury had to be so deeply and intimately involved in day-to-day matters. I came to appreciate its value as a long-stop guardian of the public purse. I am not sure whether to welcome or regret the Treasury's withdrawal from many areas of the assembly's expenditure. That development suggests a disinterested view of detailed expenditure and concentration on the main allocations on the part of the Treasury.
There has been much discussion here and in the other place of the Barnett formula. I am delighted to see the noble Lord in his place. That formula decides the public expenditure increases appropriate to Scotland and Wales following agreement on similar increases in the budgets of major Departments of State in England. The formula, which is based on population shares, deals only with year-on-year increases in public expenditure. The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, believes that there is a case for a review and revision of the formula 20 years after he devised it, and the Treasury Select Committee is of the same opinion.
Assurances are given in the Financial Memorandum in this Bill and in the Scotland Bill that the Barnett formula, with minor modifications, will continue to apply—at least in the initial stages of Welsh and Scottish devolution. One understands the Government's reluctance to write the formula into the Bill but I hope that the Government appreciate the wish to see something more concrete than the Secretary of State's discretion. Amendments Nos. 207A and 208B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, express the desire for greater certainty.
Even more important than the Barnett formula are the baseline allocations that are the real foundations of public expenditure in Wales. It is argued that they have developed over time in relation to perceived and proven needs, but the needs of different parts of the United Kingdom are relative and constantly changing. We heard recently the demands of north-eastern England for parity of treatment, and south-west England is also becoming increasingly vociferous. The Government are undertaking a comprehensive survey of public expenditure and it is becoming increasingly clear as time passes that a special survey of the needs of the regions is required, to ensure fair and equitable distribution of resources. If such a survey clearly to spell out the common criteria by which needs are assessed and allocations made is not undertaken, there will be bitter wrangles for resources and recriminations that can only damage the unity of the kingdom.
The Government appeared to acknowledge that argument obliquely in response to the Treasury Select Committee's second report of 10th March. The Government, after referring to their undertaking to update population figures underlying the application of

903
the Barnett formula from 1999 to 2000 and annually thereafter, quoted the Scottish White Paper, stating that
"any more substantive revision of the Barnett formula would 'need to be preceded by an in-depth study of relative spending requirements and would be the subject of full consultations between the Scottish executive and the UK Government'. An equivalent commitment was given in the Welsh White Paper."
I am sure that the Minister is aware that GDP in Wales is well below the UK average, and that full-time earnings, household income and economic activity rates are also lower, so Wales should be expected to gain from any equitable reallocation of resources on a needs basis. But meanwhile Wales is being asked to rest content with the status quo and to take a gamble as to the future.
The Welsh Affairs Committee is rightly concerned about the non-statutory basis of the Barnett formula and agrees with the Treasury Committee,
"that the needs assessment within the Formula should be brought up to date".
That appears in paragraph 90. The longer this issue is allowed to lie on the table, the more agitated people will become at the unfairness of the system within the United Kingdom as a whole. Feelings both within and outside the assembly may be exacerbated by the capital and running costs of the assembly itself, which will be subtracted from other expended areas at a time when the anticipated receipts from Europe are falling away.
While the assembly will have no tax varying powers "initially"—as the Secretary of State once famously said—there is clearly the looming possibility that it could raise extra money in Wales through the local authorities, especially after rate capping is abolished and the business rate returns to local authority control. Local authority grant from the assembly can be reduced and council taxes increased. We hope to return to that subject in due course, but meanwhile Ministers may care to enlighten us as to the Government's intentions in this area where there is a great deal of anxiety which some of us have expressed time and time again. I beg to move.
Lord Barnett: First, I wish to make two apologies. I apologise for interfering in Welsh affairs. I hope that Members of the Committee will not mind if I do so and that after our discussions on the previous business it is not out of order to do so. The previous business is one of the reasons for my second apology. I had thought that we would start our debates at three o'clock and I have an appointment at a quarter-past five which I cannot cancel. I shall be brief.
I wish to refer to Amendment No. 207A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, which refers to the Barnett formula. When I invented it, if that is the correct word, I did not expect it to become a formula. My noble friend Lord Callaghan referred to the formula at some length in his Second Reading speech. He said that he found a "slight odour of sanctity". I did not expect any odour of any kind in relation to the Barnett formula.
On Second Reading, my noble friend said that the formula is really quite simple. It is in one sense, but in another it is complex, as my noble friend made clear. He said, if I am allowed to quote—I have lost track of what one can do and what one cannot do. All I know is that I am not speaking with my hands in my pockets, or in any
904
pocket, although I gather that now one can speak with both hands in one pocket! I am not sure how one does that. To continue, my noble friend said:
"It was adding something which was fairly rational on to something which was completely irrational".—[Official Report, 21/4/98; col. 1055.]
He is right, because the Barnett formula, while it is simple, as the noble Lord said—although he said that any increases would be in the ratio of 85:10:5—applies also to any decreases. However, I am not expecting the present Chief Secretary to propose any decreases in public expenditure. My noble friend Lord Callaghan concluded his remarks by saying that the formula will have to be re-examined. Of course, he is quite right.
First, we need to know what the formula is. It is more than just 85:10:5. It is more than being based only on population. Again, as my noble friend rightly said, it is based on the needs of the population. And rightly so; it should be based on the needs of the population.
I am astonished that what is now called a "formula" has lasted for 20 years under the former Prime Ministers, Margaret Thatcher and John Major. In another sense, I am not astonished because my experience is that governments do not like to change anything if they can help it. They would rather do very little—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Quite right!
Lord Barnett: Who said that? However, the formula has lasted all this time, so if the current levels of expenditure are to provide for current needs, clearly something needs to be done. While Scotland, for example, now has a per capita income well in excess of many regions of England, Wales does not, as I have said on a number of occasions. Certainly, one does not need to change the formula simply to help Wales. Wales is helped by having the Barnett formula. However, it is not right that there should be such irrational haggling between the Chief Secretary and Cabinet colleagues in order to set their departmental budgets and then exclude the Scottish and Welsh.
My noble friend Lord Callaghan was right in saying that one of the reasons I invented the formula was to make life a little simpler. At least when Cabinet colleagues had accepted that, I could deal only with England, which was difficult enough.
The simple formula is quite complex. Perhaps I may quote the fourth Special Report from the Treasury Committee, to which I was honoured to give evidence. Paragraph 10(c) informs us that:
"The difference in spending per head between England and the other countries of the Union on some non-Block programmes, though greater, is significantly narrower than the overall average: for example; social security spending per head in Scotland, which accounts for close to 40 per cent. of all identifiable government spending in Scotland, is only 9 per cent. above the equivalent figure in England, so that once it is excluded and its dampening effect removed, the difference in spending per head widens".
I mentioned that to show that the issue is complex. It is not as simple as working on the basis of whatever happens to be the population because other factors are involved.

905
Paragraph 10(e) of the Treasury Select Committee Report refers to a range of external factors such as sparsity and climate,
"which would add to the costs of providing services in Scotland and Wales even if policy and demand were broadly the same as England".
I am sure that that is right and those who have greater knowledge of Wales than I would agree. I know that it is the case in Scotland because it is one of their arguments for keeping it.
There is a need for a re-examination. It is important that that takes account of all kinds of factors referred to in another part of the Treasury's response. Appendix 1, paragraph 5, states:
"In view of these commitments, the Government sees no case for reviewing the appropriateness of the Barnett formula now".
I emphasise the word "now", although the committee did not do so in the response. The paragraph continues:
"As the Committee itself observed, the formula is simply used to share out changes in public spending plans in public expenditure surveys. It does so on the basis of population",
which provides a fair and objective basis. With great respect to my friends in the Treasury, it does nothing of the kind. Of course, it was not done on a fair and objective basis; it was done in order to make life a little simpler for me. Astonishingly, it has existed for 20 years. I am honoured. I have grown fond of my name and therefore of the name "the Barnett formula". The Government are and were committed in the devolution debates, in the referendum and so forth to maintaining the Barnett formula. I should be delighted but, basically, I am not because I believe it is wrong. However, rather than losing the words "Barnett formula" I suggested to the Treasury Select Committee—and I believe it has accepted the suggestion—that it should be "Barnett formula mark II"; that is, it should be reviewed to take account of current circumstances. I am sure that must be right. We know that the Government are committed not to change it. I regret that and I hope that they will reconsider the matter.
Amendment No. 207A states:
"All Ministers of the Crown and all government departments making payments to the Assembly shall have regard",
and I emphasise the words "shall have regard",
"to the arrangements known as 'the Barnett Formula' and any future arrangements which may be substituted for it".
That is a lot better than the amendment which I gather was moved in another place. That sought to place the Barnett formula into the legislation. That clearly would be crazy and far too rigid and inflexible. I totally disagree with any such amendment.
However, I see no harm in this amendment. Any Treasury Minister—and I include my right honourable friend the present Chief Secretary to the Treasury—would be bound to have regard to the arrangements known as the Barnett formula because that still exists. But regard must be had also to,
"any future arrangements which may be substituted for it".
Therefore, I believe that the amendment does no harm and I could support it in that way. I do not believe that it is necessary but if the Committee agreed to it, I should
906
not object. For the moment, we have the Barnett formula. I am not unhappy to have my name associated with something which for a long time has been relatively rational and intelligent. But today, it is long overdue for reform. Does the noble Lord wish me to give way?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I was merely trying to ascertain whether the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, wishes to speak to his amendment next.
Lord Barnett: Happily, that is not a matter for me. I hope that the Government will, in the very near future, review the Barnett formula in order to change it to take account of current circumstances. If they happen to call it "Barnett formula mark II", I shall not object.
Lord Elis-Thomas: To give living proof of the intervention, I shall now speak. However, I thought it was preferable to hear from the prophet himself, although I shall not refer to him by his first name because that would be out of order. He is a good prophet Joel on this and other matters.
I refer now to Amendments Nos. 207A and 208A and 208B, which stand in my name. Amendment No. 207A proposes that the Barnett formula or any formula or its equivalent should be included in the legislation. I am grateful for the indications of support for it. The argument is that there should be some objective basis for the allocation of resources to the assembly and, indeed, to the Scottish parliament and, I would argue, to the regional spend in England which is perhaps even less apparent in that the whole of England is still lumped together for most expenditure purposes in the allocation between the different functional departments.
The Treasury Select Committee in another place, to which reference has been made, discussed that issue in some detail. It emphasised the nature of the formula and I shall not go through that debate. I wish to stress that there are two components in this regard—the inherited expenditure and the incremental expenditure, the increase.
My first concern is the future basis on which the inherited expenditure is to be assessed. Is there to be some form of political, if not objective, public expenditure round which takes place involving the Treasury, or are we to move towards the very interesting suggestion made publicly, and also in evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, by Professor Heald, on page 9 of its report, that there should be some kind of territorial exchequer board which would be involved in UK-wide needs assessments. It seems to me that there is much merit in that proposal. We should be looking for a body which is removed from both the immediate political process of the government of the day and that of the funding and spending activities of the assembly and Parliament in order that there should be an assessment of the need and the spending plans.
Indeed, in the memorandum to the Select Committee from the Welsh Office, there is a series of statements on comparisons between the need to spend in Wales and England. I shall not go through that at this stage but it refers to education and training, health indicators,

907
employment indicators, housing, transport, environment and demographic indicators. They indicate the difference in levels of need in those countries. Therefore, there is a need for that to be included in an assessment of spending if we are to avoid continuing political argument between the assembly and the Treasury. As Professor Heald said of the Barnett formula in his evidence, it was a rough rule of political judgment. What is important about rough rules of political judgment is that they should have some socio-economic basis to them in terms of indicators. That will then provide a serious basis for political debate rather than having what we have suffered from over the years in Wales; that is, a tendency to blame what some nationalists call the "London government" for all the ills of the nation. We must move on from that kind of discourse in the national assembly.
I have tabled Amendment No. 208A which relates to Europe. That seeks to make transparent the transfers from the European Union to the UK Treasury for purposes relevant to the assembly. This relates not to transfers of expenditure from the UK Treasury but from the European Union. In the past, there has been criticism about Treasury claw-back. The amendment seeks to make transparent any such funding which appears in the Treasury and then appears as part of the funds of the assembly. The statement referring to that makes it even more transparent.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps I may speak first to Amendment No. 207A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas. I have in this grouping Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 which apply to Clause 83. As the Bill is drafted, they must inevitably appear after we have the debate as to whether Clause 82 shall stand part of the Bill, which I oppose. Therefore, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I address that particular issue also.
I am not competent to answer the question of whether or not it is proper to use the Barnett formula as the exclusive denominator in this instance, but I suspect that it is not. It is a remarkably simple and durable formula and like many simple and durable things, it has stood the test of time. Therefore, it is right that we still have it and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, is drafted sufficiently openly not to impose any unreasonable restrictions.
A large part of the funding to the national assembly of Wales will consist of local government funding. For years, that has been calculated on—dare I say it?—a more sophisticated and complex formula than the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, had the wisdom to provide. When I was dealing with it intimately, I always said that if you programmed that formula to produce lamb chops, it would come out with lettuces. It was a wonderful mechanism for causing dissatisfaction in local government. It was adjusted every year to take account of demographic change and the effects of that obviously delighted some people and vexed others. The result was a considerable lack of both transparency and clarity which ordinary members could not understand and those
908
of us who were deep in the workings of the system learned to live with it and perhaps had a glimmering of light in respect of it on some occasions.
Perhaps I may now move on to the issue of whether Clause 82 should stand part of the Bill. I am opposing the inclusion of Clause 82 for the very good reason that, in my view, it is almost the very ultimate in obscure legislative drafting. The question I ask myself is whether we are dealing with the intention of the Bill here or whether we are dealing with the words that are actually written; in other words, which is superior in this particular instance? Whenever I am dealing with a contract outside of this place—and I take legislation as being in the form of a contract—my lawyers always advise me very clearly that it is the wording of the contract that matters and that, if we make a mistake in the wording, the consequences could be rather difficult.
As has already been pointed out, Clause 82 says:
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".
I accept that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament and that, therefore, he must appear before it to explain and justify himself. But it seems to me that that drafting is just a little too whimsical to be satisfactory. Therefore, I have attempted—although I may not have done so adequately—to remove that element of "whimsy" from the Bill by opposing the Question that Clause 82 should stand part and by seeking to amend Clause 83 by way of Amendment No. 208. That would both ensure clarity as regards the funding that will go to Wales and also ensure that the authority of Parliament is stamped on those payments. That is the reason for Amendment No. 208.
Amendment No. 209 deals with a very simple and basic matter which I hope the Government will accept in principle, even if we do not have to put it on the face of the Bill. The amendment would ensure that, when the new assembly comes into being, it knows what funds are available to it from day one. It would require the government statement to be made,
"before the Assembly takes up its authority".
I believe that to be an essential administrative procedure. What I have proposed is a package, which I do not believe to be unreasonable. I wait with interest to hear the Minister's reply because he may be able to allay my worries.
5 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: Perhaps I may comment in relation to Clause 82 and the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord Mackay. There are two subsections in question, the first of which says:
"The Secretary of State shall from time to time make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament of such amounts as he may determine".
Subsection (2) of the clause is set out in exactly the same vein and refers to a Minister or a "government

909
department". Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 seek to insert in that clause the words,
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole".
In my view that is absolutely superfluous. In fact, if any amendment were to be inserted, it would have been sufficient to say,
"recognising the needs of Wales".
Indeed, it is totally unnecessary to add the words,
"in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole",
given what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, said about the circumstances facing the Welsh people. It would have been sufficient to describe it in the way that I have suggested, without taking into account what was happening in the rest of the UK.
Amendment No. 207 says:
"The Secretary of State shall receive representations and consult interested parties, including the Assembly".
The assembly will be the bona fide government of Wales. It does not require any legislation to mandate the Secretary of State to receive representations or to consult anyone. Presumably, that will be done as a matter of form. As regards revenue, I should tell noble Lords opposite that the Government will be providing the money for the Welsh assembly and it will not be raised by way of taxation. This Government are a government who want to democratise at local level. This Government want to ensure that the Welsh assembly succeeds. Therefore, it is this Government who will provide the money to enable it to do the job that it has been established to do.
It strikes me that noble Lords opposite seem to be tabling amendments and seeking to insert caveats in the legislation which can only frustrate the activity of the Welsh assembly and perhaps not let it work as successfully as it otherwise would. Then they might be able to say, "Well, we told you so; we didn't want it in the first place".
Lord Crickhowell: I do not believe that any of the three amendments under discussion would do anything to frustrate the work of the assembly. On the contrary, they seek to obtain guidance as to the effect and meaning of Clause 82, and of the related Clause 83, so as to give us a clearer understanding of the financial arrangements for the assembly. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, had to leave the Chamber for reasons that we fully understand, because I should like to say a few words about the Barnett formula. It is absolutely appropriate that the name of the noble Lord should be so commemorated because of his introduction of the formula in the manner described by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, at Second Reading.
However, in that context, I believe that we should perhaps also commemorate the name of Goschen. In my time in the Welsh Office, whenever we discussed Scottish affairs we remembered the earlier formula dating back to the end of the 19th century, which was the basis upon which money had been distributed to the
910
Scottish Office for many years. What the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, did was to update Goschen in a sense and thereby bring Wales into the formula.
We were told that one of the intentions of introducing the formula was to eliminate some of the conflicts that previously took place. However, if that was the objective, it was not entirely successful. Certainly, during my time in government, there were frequent and sometimes stormy discussions in Cabinet, and in Cabinet committees, about the application of the formula and whether it needed change and reform. Indeed, I recall one such debate in which the Scottish Secretary took part. In those days I was in a happy position because the Barnett formula, as it applied to Wales, was rather favourable to the Principality. It was the Scots who came under the most attack. The balance was pretty reasonable for Wales in that there were no great grounds for the English wanting to give us less or for our formula to come under attack.
However, that was not the case in Scotland. There were strong moves to say that the problems of the north-east of England had become much more severe relative to those in Scotland than had previously been the case, and that there should be a change in the formula. On the occasion to which I referred there was a vigorous debate. Strong words were advanced on behalf of the north-east and, finally, my right honourable friend the Scottish Secretary, as he then was, had to give some ground and a change was made in the formula. But that change had to be so small that it could not be recognised outside because it would be politically unacceptable.
The Barnett formula has survived largely because, up until now, it has not been thought politically acceptable to change it. But that is not a situation which can continue forever. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, set out the reasons why change will be necessary. The Barnett formula no longer accurately reflects the balance of needs among Scotland, Wales and England or, indeed, among the component parts of England which, in some cases, are perhaps in great need of support.
Change will undoubtedly come. We should not get too carried away by these references to the Barnett formula in the sense that we should not be misled into thinking that all we are concerned with in our consideration of the future financing of the assembly is the application of the Barnett formula. As has already been pointed out, it basically deals with incremental changes. But even on that basis it was always possible for Ministers, faced with a particular need or a particular situation, to make a change. I can think of a number of occasions on which, whatever the Barnett formula stated, I negotiated a specific amount to meet a specific need for Wales. I am sure that my successors did exactly the same.
As my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith rightly pointed out, a different formula applied—certainly in my time—to local government. In my time Wales did rather well out of the local government formula. There was always a certain tension in English local authorities because Welsh local authorities appeared to be treated so favourably with regard to the rate support grant. I make

911
these points because at times even Ministers appear to be guilty of inserting in the Barnett formula characteristics that it does not have. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, seeking to respond to points that I had made on 2nd June about the funding of the university sector in Wales, turned his attention to the Barnett formula. He said that he could not see why the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,
"should be treated any differently vis-á-vis assembly decisions, decisions with respect to the Welsh Development Agency, funding for local government or, for instance, plans for improving the trunk road network".—[Official Report, 2/6/98; col. 226.]
In fact local government funding was not—and I do not believe is—covered entirely by the Barnett formula. On that occasion because of the grouping of amendments I was not able to respond to some of the points that were made during the brief discussion we had on the funding of the university. However, I return to the issue again because it illustrates well the point I wish to make.
During that debate I expressed concerns about the funding for the university institutions in Wales. I pointed out that it appeared that the funding would come out of the block grant on the basis of the Barnett formula, which is substantially related to population. I expressed concern because the university institutions in Wales have a large number of students who do not come from Wales. Their requirements have to be set in the context of the United Kingdom as a whole. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, did not side with me because he felt that I sought to do away with the arm's length principle and he feared interference. That was far from my thoughts. I am as robust a defender of the arm's length principle in this connection as he is. However, I fear that the Minister did not reply to the point that I had made. He stated, again at col. 226 of the Official Report of 2nd June, in relation to the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales,
"The functions of that council will remain the same. All that the assembly can do is what is presently capable of being done by the Secretary of State for Wales. It is possible, of course, that the assembly might wish to give increased funding to HEFCW within its budgetary constraints".
My fear is not that it might wish to give more, but that it might be forced to give less because the funding formula that establishes the block grant does not adequately provide separately for university funding. It is possible for the Secretary of State for Wales, or for any other Minister, to make special arrangements each year and to negotiate them with the Treasury and with colleagues to meet the specific needs of any institution, whether it be a university institution or any other institution in Wales.
I hesitate to write formulae into Bills which establish exactly how money should be allocated for the obvious reason that has already been enunciated; namely, that the formulae become outdated. However, I have much sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, which at least does not fix the formula on the basis of the existing Barnett arrangements but envisages a future change. It seems to me that we do not know exactly what the Government's intentions are. We are told by the noble Lord opposite that the present Government's intentions towards the assembly are entirely warm-hearted. But that is hardly
912
the basis on which to prepare legislation to last for many decades. We do not really know how this process will work. The paragraph entitled, Financial effects of the Bill, states,
"The Bill requires the Secretary of State to make payments to the Assembly out of money provided by Parliament. The Assembly will thus become responsible for most of the £7 billion annual budget which is currently controlled by the Secretary of State for Wales. This budget will be updated in future using the existing (population-based) "Barnett" formula, so that its amount will change in line with changes in comparable English spending programmes.
The Assembly may also receive payments from Ministers and government departments".
That leaves a good deal of uncertainty as to exactly what money will be allocated under what arrangements. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who tabled these amendments in that they will enable Ministers to give us some greater understanding of what they have in mind.
It seems to me that what is important in the Bill as it is drafted is the relationship between Clause 82 and Clause 83. Clause 83 tells us that the Secretary of State has to prepare a statement which shows how the money is to be distributed and made up. It tells us, incidentally, that the statement is to be laid before the assembly. That prompts me to ask, "What about Parliament'.'" I recall that whenever I allocated funding for institutions in Wales—certainly for local government in Wales—I had to make a statement in the House of Commons and I was vigorously cross-examined. I am not clear whether it is the intention that when this statement about an important matter is made in future it should be made in both Houses so that questions can be asked in Parliament about it. It seems to me an issue which is of some importance.
To my mind I suppose the best defence for the assembly—that is to say, the best guarantee that it will be adequately funded by future governments, whatever their political make-up—is that there should be full and adequate statements, preferably made to Parliament and to the assembly, concerning the detail of the funding, how it is made up and whether there are any special allocations included that do not come under the Barnett formula, for example in order to provide for higher education on a basis that compares with university institutions in other parts of the United Kingdom. If we are to have full and comprehensive statements made in both parliaments—if it is appropriate to use that term—then we shall begin to have a defence in future and we shall begin to have a basis on which we can proceed, not on the basis of a rigid formula, or of a formula that may be subject to subsequent change but will always be flawed, imperfect and inadequate, but to a formula and a clear declaration by Ministers of what other factors they have taken into account in making their allocations, what additional items they have included, or what they may have taken away in allocating the funds.
It is only by having openness and the ability of Parliaments to audit and debate what they have done that we provide an adequate defence both for the Parliament of the United Kingdom that the money is being properly distributed and allocated in an

913
appropriate manner and for the assembly in Cardiff that it is being adequately provided for and knows the basis on which its provision is made.
Lord Dean of Beswick: One mistake is being made. It was made by my noble friend Lord Davies. It is that the new assembly, once it is under way, will decide how much it wishes to spend, and on what, and that it is bound to be given the okay on spending levels by the Parliament at Westminster. My noble friend referred to the assembly being brought into being to govern Wales. That is not the case. It is being given certain areas of responsibility. The final governance of Wales will happen in another place, as will that of Scotland, and of Britain. So we shall never arrive at a stage when the Secretary of State for Wales makes out his tab for what he wants, goes in to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer and automatically receives that amount. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may well say, "I'm sorry, but that is far too high. The ratio is not correct. You are even exceeding the amount that Scotland receives per capita". So it will not be as easy as all that.
Amendment No. 207A can be construed as having various interpretations. During the passage of the Scottish Bill, I shall attempt to wreck the Barnett formula. I shall move an amendment seeking a fresh start as regards allocations of finance based on equal distribution. Does the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, accept the very generous settlement that Scotland presently receives, and the much poorer one for Wales?
In Scotland, per capita spending is £871 more than in England; the excess is over twice the amount. I am sure that anybody who wants to battle the case for Wales will not accept Scotland being so generously treated. If we start to cut back on that £871 differential for over 5 million people, there will be a lot more money to spend in Wales and the English regions.
Members present may recall that, some time ago, I tabled a Question on the different per capita spending in England, Scotland and Wales. I asked the Minister what it would cost to bring up the levels of spending per capita for the English regions, for the 50 million people in England, so that it is equal to spending for Scotland, instead of reducing the amount for Scotland. The figure was over £300 billion. It is a sum that cannot even be contemplated.
Whatever happens in relation to this Bill, we have to be careful if we change the Barnett formula. The Scots will say that that is the sort of differential they have, that is the sum they wish to remain in place. It may well be that the pressures are now starting in the English regions. Some of those regions, like the regions of Wales, are probably much poorer than the poorest parts of Scotland. There are now terrible areas in the English regions. In some of the big cities, deserts of squalor have appeared. Houses have been bulldozed that were built less than 20 years ago at enormous expense. Industrial buildings have been bulldozed. They were a total waste of time. There is nothing in their place, merely desert.
914
My point is that, if more money is required, we should not be too ready to talk about the Barnett formula unless we are prepared to think that government will cut the funding for Scotland. Money of the dimension that is asked for will not be available.
I shall say no more on this Bill. However, I give notice now that I shall attempt to wreck the special financial arrangement which is totally over-generous to the Scots.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: We are opposed to the Barnett formula appearing on the face of the Bill, or indeed any formula. What is necessary is maximum flexibility.
Two arguments are advanced to support the idea of having a formula, guidance, reference to needs, and so on, on the face of the Bill. One is a fear that is said to be widespread in Wales—though I confess that I have not come across it myself—that this Government will starve Wales of funds as soon as the Welsh assembly is in position. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity. This being the important part of the present Government's legislative programme, it is inconceivable that they will starve Wales of funds in the years to come. Should they do so, or should any future government of a different hue attempt to do so, they will meet their nemesis in the usual democratic way through the ballot box. They will lose their seats in Wales, and there will be pressures from all parts of Wales to ensure that fairness continues and that the needs of Wales are met.
The second argument appears to be this. Unless there is guidance, a reference to needs, or a formula—as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, that causes problems with local government—there will be rows and arguments. The people of Wales will use London government, to use a phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, now eschews completely in his vocabulary. There will be rows about London government.
I do not see it that way at all. My view is that there will be constructive argument as to what are the needs of Wales. There will be constructive debate and discussion. Different responsibilities will be exercised by the assembly from those of the current Secretary of State for Wales. They may not be all that different; but they will be different. Over a period of time, arrangements which are practical and achieved in a flexible way may result in some formula which will avoid future argument. But that day is in the future. It will be for the parties on both sides, for the assembly and for the Westminster Government to discuss among themselves what is the appropriate level of funding to cope with Welsh needs and to see whether that cannot be reduced at a later date, after all the arguments have been gone through, into something that is sensible and acceptable and avoids further problems.
To say now in this Chamber that we must adopt this or that formula, or even to suggest that the Government will have no regard to the needs of Wales, and to say that the Government will have no regard, as the noble Lord, Lord Dean has put it, to the needs of other parts

915
of England is fanciful. Keeping the approach simple, straightforward and without formulae in the Bill is in our view the way to proceed.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer one small concern that I have. I have a great deal of sympathy with what he said, not least with his point about the problems that we shall all face in the future. What is a sensible and rational debate in the Westminster Parliament may be portrayed as such here, but may be portrayed in a totally different way, as a destructive debate, in far-flung parts of the country such as Wales or Scotland. I believe that that is a danger we all face, which has the potential to do great harm to the future unity of the United Kingdom.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I did not intend to intervene, but I wish to make one or two comments about a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell. In a debate of this kind we tend to illustrate the division which is apparent in this House. Although I had doubts when I first saw the Bill, I entirely approve of the Government's flexible approach. I think they are entirely right that devolution is a process and not a formulation of something that is to be set in stone. People tend to forget that there will be Welsh MPs. The Secretary of State for Wales will be answerable to Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. He can be interrogated at Welsh Question Time. There will be a Welsh Grand Committee in the other place. That committee, unlike the Scottish Grand Committee, will be concerned with all legislation that affects England and Wales.
If we were concerned with the Scottish Bill, in which there is legislative devolution, or were concerned with giving Wales a federal government, then we would be concerned about the exact words and the dots and commas, because they would be very strictly interpreted. But this is a process. I have no doubt that adaptation will be necessary along the line. For the success of this process, a great deal depends on good will in both Cardiff and London.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, referred to taking legal advice when entering into a contract and being very concerned about the exact meaning of the words. I think lawyers would tell him that, where there is to be an ongoing process and there is a great need for flexibility of approach on both sides, the most dangerous form of words would be one that would restrict that flexibility.
The debate on these amendments seems to me to illustrate the division. Dozens of amendments have been submitted to us by various bodies and individuals suggesting that this or that would improve the Bill. I have come to the conclusion that the basic government approach to the Bill is the right one. We must not write things in the Bill in a way which could be interpreted as being embodied in stone, which would prevent the developing relationship which is so necessary if the assembly is to succeed.
Lord Prys-Davies: I am more cautious in my approach to Clause 82 than my noble friend Lord Davies
916
of Coity and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hooson. I have some sympathy with the idea behind Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. My noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General was unequivocal in stating that the present Government had no intention of departing from the existing arrangements. That is excellent, up to a point. That point could come during a process of change. Governments come and go; circumstances change. There is no assurance that the present intention, as expressed by my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General, will outlive the present Government. Surely we have a duty to Wales to consider that position.
The omission seems to me to raise two wider issues. First, if a future United Kingdom government decided to apply different criteria for deciding the allocation to the assembly which was less favourable to Wales than the current arrangements, there would be a grave possibility that the assembly would not be able properly to perform the functions over which it has statutory responsibility as it has no revenue-raising capacity of its own. That was a point made by my noble Lord, Lord Dean. That situation would be a recipe for trouble.
Secondly, the Welsh assembly will be a powerful body, its members directly elected. Those members will be men and women of ability. An assembly made up of such members, which has no statutory say in the amount of the block grant given to it by the UK Government to perform its statutory functions, could quickly become dissatisfied with its position and could blame the UK Government for its shortcomings. I believe that in that situation the members would have a genuine grievance. That again seems to me to be a recipe for trouble and would offer no hope of stability.
It has been clear from day one of the Bill that it is a compromise between the status quo and the Scottish Bill. But the Welsh assembly must be a stable assembly if it is to have a future. It seems to me that this clause and another clause which we shall discuss at Report stage may be a recipe for instability. Surely that is not what we want.
Lord Davies of Coity: I addressed earlier the amendments put down by the noble Lords, Lord Roberts and Lord MacKay. I think I must have missed something in what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said in respect of his Amendment No. 208. That amendment relates to Clause 83(1), which states:
"The Secretary of State shall for each financial year of the Assembly make a written statement showing—"
The noble Lord wishes to amend paragraph (a), which states:
"the total amount of the payments which he estimates will be made by him for that year under section 82(1)",
by replacing "under section 82(1)" with,
"to the Assembly as approved by Parliament".
With the removal of Clause 82, which is what the noble Lord proposes, what payments will be referred to?
Lord Dixon-Smith: That question is simply answered. If Clause 82 is removed, so that Clause 83 becomes Clause 82, the Bill would then read:
"The Secretary of State shall for each financial year of the Assembly make a written statement showing—
(a) the total amount of the payments which he estimates will be made by him for that year to the Assembly as approved by Parliament".
That gives a statement of what the payments are; a statement that the Secretary of State will make them; and the authority of Parliament for the payment of those sums. It seems to me that in one simple phrase we encapsulate the totality of Clause 82 and the first part of Clause 83. I suggest that the Bill would therefore be that much simpler, more straightforward and more understandable, which is surely what we should all be aiming for.
Lord Davies of Coity: It seems to me that, if the clause which gives Parliament the authority to provide the money is removed, it will be extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to provide a written statement.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps we should not continue this exchange.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This is obviously an important group of amendments, because if there is any area which is likely to cause trouble, it is finance. All of us want to see this assembly succeed. In view of that there seem to me to be two overriding principles of approach. The first is to eliminate areas of contention and misunderstanding; the second is not to devolve power in any niggardly way.
As for the first, there seems to me to be advantage in the proposal of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas to write in the Barnett formula, provided that there is provision—as there is in his amendment—for its improvement. Whatever the position was in the past, in the operation of the Barnett formula we have seen that Wales received less than it should on considerations of comparative need and population. As the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, pointed out on several occasions, Scotland has done well and, as he never fails to point out, has been considerably better off than the North East of England. The Barnett formula therefore needs to be brought up to date, and that is what the amendment provides for.
I can see no objection to specifying the Barnett formula by name. It is known as such to political scientists, to students of the constitution and to students of public finance. It is a perfectly well understood precept and we should be no more afraid of introducing it than we were afraid of introducing the term "Prime Minister" in the process that took so long before we got round to admitting that there was such a creature in our constitution. Finally, after centuries, it was admitted that there was and that title was admitted to legislation.
We should not be afraid of the Barnett formula. Its advantage is its certainty—that was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—and its retentiveness; it has stood up to time and does not really admit much room for argument. Although the devolution should be
918
in no niggardly spirit, I do not believe that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Davis of Coity, is acceptable; that is, that we should merely say that it should be a payment according to need. That is an open formula which gives ample scope for contention.
Nor, for once, do I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, or the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, although it is even rarer for me to disagree with him. These matters cannot be airily dismissed by referring to "constructive discussion". It is over a quarter of a century since I was a Treasury Minister. But the phrase "constructive discussion" is not what sticks in my memory, and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, who was First Lord of the Treasury, would bear that out.
The great advantage of the formula is that it limits discussion. Therefore it would be most safe for us to adopt Amendment No. 207A in the name of my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas. I venture also to comment on the amendment which is rather on its own, Amendment No. 209, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith and the noble Earl, Lord Northesk. It is important that everybody should know where they are before the assembly meets.
I have one final query on Clause 82 which the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, described as "whimsical". Does subsection (1) cover the ground that is at present covered by the Barnett formula? Is subsection (2), those other contributions mentioned, not covered by the formula? In other words, what are the ministerial payments that are not made by the Secretary of State for Wales at the moment?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I regret to say that in my experience the elevated tone of the discussion this afternoon is not reflected in the Bear Garden of the Cabinet at 10 minutes to one before lunch on a Thursday morning when we are arguing about the last £1 million. That was put in a more vernacular and less elevated way than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, puts it now.
When we deal with the realities of the situation, the Secretary of State is protected by the Barnett formula in the sense that he has a fixed ratio upon which he can rely without fighting too hard. He can sit back and watch the Secretary of State for Defence defend himself against the Secretary of State for Education in the Cabinet discussions that take place and say, "However these two chaps fight it out, at least I have got a formula that I know will be of great benefit to me and I have got a fixed amount".
We must have regard to the realities of the situation. The Secretary of State joins in the argument on the side of the Secretary of State for Education; he does not get much out of defence, but he gets an awful lot out of education. I am talking about the reality of the discussions and not, I regret to say, the rational arguments that affect Members of the Committee.
The Government therefore would be ill advised to depart from the Barnett formula. It is a formula that is well known. It gives protection in a different situation

919
from the one we have had so far. Whether it works out better or worse for Wales in the long run, I am not sure; that may be argued both ways. I notice that the former Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, appears to agree with me.
Recognising that this Government clearly have, as a major preoccupation, the necessity of ensuring that the national assembly starts well, works well and has adequate finance to carry out its duties, I have little doubt that the Barnett formula will be under no pressure to whittle it away from the Government.
As regards the future, with respect to my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas, I would not wish to tie us down to a specific formula of that sort. If one has a good Secretary of State for Wales he will have plenty to do. He will have to argue the matter in Cabinet and get the benefit that he can. He will be backed by a very powerful public national assembly which can easily rouse the opinion of Wales for what he is going to do. Therefore, I would not write in firmly the Barnett formula. I remember all the rough and tumble that goes on in Cabinet.
The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): In responding to this debate I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 205, 206, 207, 207A, 208, 208A, 208B and 209. As the Committee is aware, all these amendments relate to the financing of the assembly's activities. We are very aware of the importance of Clauses 82 and 83. Therefore, this is a very important debate. I am grateful to be given the opportunity to explain how the financial arrangements are intended to work.
I start by saying as clearly and simply as I can the intentions as regards the funding of the assembly. I hope that I shall put many of the Committee's concerns at rest. The Government made it clear in the White Paper A Voice for Wales that we were committed to retaining the present arrangements for deciding the size of the budget allocated to Wales. We have no plans for a fundamental review of the block and the Barnett formula rules. That formula has been in operation for nearly 20 years and it has been accepted and used by successive governments. We are going further than simply using it; we are making it transparent in its operation. For the first time, last December we published the principles to the block—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Does the noble and learned Lord really dispute that the formula is now out of date and that it has operated to the disadvantage of Wales?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: We do not accept that it is out of date. We believe that it still has considerable life in it. It is appropriate for the present circumstances. As I was saying, we are making its operation transparent. Last December we published the principles to the block and formula arrangements. We shall be publishing the detailed rules in due course. Therefore, as regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, it will be clear as to how the sums are calculated.
920
It goes further than that because as the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell has pointed out, Clause 83 of the Bill requires the Secretary of State to publish a written statement for each financial year showing what sums will go to the assembly both from him and from other departments and sources. If and in so far as the sums being paid to the assembly do not fall within the application of the block, increased by the Barnett formula, such as for exceptional items of various kinds, that will have to be made clear on the face of the statements made by the Secretary of State. So the people of Wales will be able to see how the sums are calculated.
We do not believe that the formula gives Wales a disproportionate share of the United Kingdom's resources; it is a purely mechanical exercise based on relative populations. Criticism of Barnett often arises because of confusion between the absolute size of the block and the mechanism for adjusting—
Lord Dean of Beswick: During my short speech on this amendment I brought in the Scottish factor as regards the Barnett formula. I was making the point that the Scottish allocation should be a more realistic figure. There must be something wrong with the Barnett formula because, per head of population, Scotland is much richer than Wales, but it can still draw £871 per capita more than England. Wales comes about one-third of the way in between. I do not accept the Government's statement that the Barnett formula has worked well. It has worked very well for the Scots, but not for those south of the Border.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is a formula that has stood the test of time. It has many of the advantages that have been referred to in the debate, particularly those referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, as to certainty and the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. It gives the Secretary of State for Wales a great degree of protection in his disputes with other Ministers.
It does not take into account, or seek to reflect, spending needs; it is simply a fair way of dealing with year-to-year changes in public expenditure. Our basic position is that we stick with that approach. We believe that it brings certainty and sense to the position and that it has stood the test of time. We believe that we bring transparency to the arrangements. We also believe that it would be wrong to try to incorporate into the Bill the provisions of the Barnett formula.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Is the noble and learned Lord being more "Barnett" than the noble and eponymous Lord himself?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, is not in his place at the moment. I believe that he was being too modest in defending his own formula. We believe that it is the appropriate means for dealing with the spending needs of Wales at present. We have no intention of changing it at the moment. If there were to be a change in the expenditure system, it would be only after a full

921
spending needs assessment had been undertaken. The review would have to take into account factors such as the levels of GDP, deprivation and unemployment. The assembly would be fully involved in any such review. But we have no plans for such—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Is the Minister saying that there is a review under way at present?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am saying two things. There is certainly no review under way at the moment and there is no intention to start one. I said that if there were one—
Lord Dean of Beswick: Then why did the Minister use the word? Why did he bring in the word "review"?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Simply to say that there is neither a review going on nor any intention to have such a review. I apologise if, by using that word, I gave rise to any other impression. I did not intend to do so. I hope that I have made that clear.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am trying to be helpful. Would the Minister care to speculate on the scenario of a possible review? For example, the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, quite rightly spoke for the English regions. Were those regions to have regional assemblies, would there not then perhaps be a case for reviewing public expenditure and its allocation throughout the regions and nations of these islands?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not believe that it would be particularly helpful for me to speculate about the circumstances in which it might be appropriate to have a review. I hope that I have made it clear that no review is taking place at the moment and that there is no intention at present for such a review. We believe it important that that is made clear so that the people of Wales know the basis on which the sums of money will be allocated to Wales once the assembly is operating.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wish to be clear in my own mind. I presume that we are talking about a review of the Barnett formula. There is a review going on of government expenditure called the fundamental expenditure review. It is being conducted by the Treasury. In my capacity as the Treasury shadowman here, I am assured that it is looking at all aspects of government expenditure. The Minister should be careful because of the review that is going on covering all aspects of government expenditure.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There is a comprehensive spending review going on, but it is not looking at the application of the Barnett formula.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I accept entirely that the review may not be looking at the "Barnett formula". That deals
922
with year-on-year change. Can the Minister also tell the Committee whether that review might involve the base line which is where the fundamental debate lies?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Of course it may. The comprehensive spending review will be looking at expenditure in all major departments of state. If there are changes in those departments, they will extend into Wales through the Barnett formula. But with great respect to the noble Lord, that is a completely different point. The suggestion that any government does not look at their expenditure for such things as health, education or whatever, is absurd. I simply point out that we are looking at expenditure, but that does not seem to me to take the debate very much further forward.
In the light of that basic structure, which we have set out as our policy in relation to payments to the assembly, perhaps I may deal with the amendments proposed, first making the point that there has been much debate about whether we should put the Barnett formula on the face of the Bill. We believe that it would be wrong to put on the face of the Bill any formula or statement in relation to funding. That would almost certainly lead to unworkable complexity.
However, there is a further fundamental constitutional point. The money that will go to the Welsh assembly ultimately has to be voted to it by the UK Parliament. As noble Lords opposite have repeatedly made clear, supply is ultimately a matter for the other House, which is sovereign in that respect. Irrespective of what might be put on the face of the Bill, Parliament—in effect, that means the other place—must approve the supply for the government of Wales, for the assembly. In the light of that fundamental constitutional point, it seems wrong to specify on the face of the Bill how those sums should be calculated. However, I hope that I have made clear on behalf of the Government our policy on the funding of the assembly.
Finally, on the detail, money could not go from the Secretary of State to the assembly without Clause 82 because, despite the ingenious argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, Clause 83 deals only with statements of what is to come; it does not give the Secretary of State the power to release that money. We have to have Clause 82; otherwise there will be no power for the Secretary of State to give the assembly any money.
6 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He has made some helpful remarks about the details to be provided under Clause 83. However, can he answer my question about the way in which Parliament is to be informed of those details? The Bill states:
"The Secretary of State shall lay before the Assembly any statement made under this section".
That Vote must not be lost in any general Vote which provides funds. We need a clear statement of detail to be given to this Parliament as well as to the assembly in Wales.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord is right to point out that Clause 83 relates to written statements

923
made to the assembly, not to this House. The amount to be given to the assembly will have to be referred to in the supply provisions considered by the other place. I cannot give the detail of how that will be done, but I shall write to the noble Lord about it.
I turn now to the detail of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 would require the Secretary of State to take into account the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole in determining the money he makes available to the assembly. The amendments would require changes to, or even the complete abandonment of, the Barnett formula and I have already said that we have no plans to do that.
Amendment No. 207A seeks to require that payments made to the assembly should have regard to the Barnett formula or any arrangements which replace it. As I have just said, to include any references to the Barnett formula on the face of the Bill would mean that the whole system would need to be built into the Bill and we do not believe that it would be helpful or practical to freeze the details in statute. The amendment would also require the Secretary of State to consult the assembly about any proposals to change the Barnett system. I have already given my assurance that the assembly would be consulted; there is no need for the requirement to be included on the face of the Bill. In view of this, Amendment No. 207A is unnecessary.
Amendment No. 207 provides for statutory consultation. The assembly will be able to make any representations to the Secretary of State about funding that it wishes. We gave this commitment in paragraph D.14 of the White Paper, which stated:
"The Secretary of State will provide the channel through which the Assembly can conduct any discussions it might wish to have with the Government on financial matters. Thus, for example, if it has any concerns about the detailed operation of the Block formula, the Assembly will be able to make representations to him".
Clause 34 of the Bill already allows the assembly to consider and make appropriate representations about any matter affecting Wales. So the assembly may make such representations to the Secretary of State, if it so wishes. During Committee stage in another place, my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, gave the Government's commitment that there would be discussions about funding between the Secretary of State for Wales and the assembly during the public expenditure survey. No doubt the assembly will wish to give its views on the resources which should be made available to it and any special factors it believes the Government should take into account in reaching their decision. It may also want to give its views on the operation of the block formula.
Amendment No. 208 seeks to amend Clause 83 to insert a reference to the approval by Parliament of the payments the Secretary of State made to the assembly. I remind your Lordships that Clause 82(1) already makes clear that the grant paid by the Secretary of State to the assembly will be out of the moneys provided by Parliament. Thus Parliament will have already approved the money available to the Secretary of State and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will therefore agree that his amendment is not needed.
924
Amendment No. 209 seeks to require the statement under Clause 83 in respect of the first financial year to be made prior to the assembly taking up its authority. The first financial year is defined in Clause 155 and means the period from the first elections on 6th May 1999 to 31st March 2000. While the Government have not taken a final decision yet, we would expect that the final transfer order might come into effect in June or July 1999. There is no need for the Bill to spell out when the Secretary of State is to give the statement. For obvious reasons, the assembly will need to know the amount of money available to it before it starts business. There is no need to have a specific provision in the Bill.
I would submit to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that his amendment, Amendment No. 208A, is inappropriate. Subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c) of Clause 83 already require the financial statement to include details of payments received from a Minister or government department, thus covering EU payments received through the intervention board for example, and otherwise than from a Minister or government department, which would cover any payments received direct for the European Union.
The Government very much appreciate the concerns that the noble Lords in whose names these amendments stand have shown for the funding of the assembly. However, I respectfully suggest that their solutions are not practical. We have thought this through carefully and this is the best method of funding, legally, from the point of view of Wales. I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he clarify one point for me? He said that our amendments, Amendments Nos. 205 and 206, would mean the abandonment of the Barnett formula. Can he explain that comment further?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The Barnett formula is based solely on applying a particular formula to increase the baseline figure year on year. It is not calculated by reference to need. It is simply a formula.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: As we had expected, we have had an interesting debate in which a variety of significant points have been made. It seems to me that the key issue is whether or not we should include the Barnett formula in Clause 82. We heard a statement from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, to the effect that the formula should be reviewed to take account of current circumstances. The noble Lord pleaded for Barnett mark II. I should add that I listened carefully to the remarks made by the former Prime Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff.
Members of the Committee are taking two views of the future. Uncertainty has been expressed by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that it was inconceivable that a government should starve Wales of funds. Perhaps "starve" is not the right word, but it is not inconceivable

925
that a future government may preside over a reduction of funds to Wales or an absence of an increase in the funds available to Wales in future years.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Does the noble Lord agree that even when the Barnett formula was applied by the previous government the then Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Redwood, returned £135 million from Wales to the central Treasury? We have never understood why that happened.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am not sure that it did happen. I believe that the noble Lord should address that question to the right honourable Mr. John Redwood. It may be that there was an underspend at the end of a particular year. However, the Barnett formula operated throughout the 18 years of the previous Conservative government and Wales had an increase under that formula year upon year.
I believe that we heard the authentic voice of the English regions from the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick. I am sure that we shall hear that voice further in future. It is very much with that thought in mind that we have adopted the form of words that the Committee sees in Amendments Nos. 205 and 206. We speak of,
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole".
I do not believe that there is any fairer form of words.
Although I agree with my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that the clause is the ultimate in obscure legislative drafting, I cannot support him in his intention not to vote for Clause 82 stand part, for the simple reason that if we do not vote that the clause stand part the assembly will get no money at all. We have been confronted with that situation before in connection with the rate support grant. Although one may be very critical of the Government's proposal, there is no option but to vote for it; otherwise, the local authorities will get nothing.
The Minister said that it would be wrong to incorporate the Barnett formula. I am inclined to agree with him. Nevertheless, his statements about the comprehensive spending review, as he called it, or the fundamental spending review, as my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish called it, were not entirely clear. It is possible that such a review can affect the working of the Barnett formula. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself told us, the formula covers the situation where spending decreases as well as increases. It may very well be that the comprehensive spending review decides that too much is being spent in Wales on, say, health, in which case there may be an adverse effect on that area of spending through the operation of the Barnett formula.
I am concerned that the inclusion of our words that require the Secretary of State from time to time, recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom as a whole, to make payments to the assembly out of money provided by Parliament should mean the abandonment of the Barnett formula. That gives me pause. Were that not to be the case I would divide the Committee on this issue.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: I did not intervene when the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, wound up the debate. I am sure that tomorrow's Hansard will confirm that, in responding to my noble friend Lord Dean, he emphasised that the words,
"recognising the needs of Wales in relation to the United Kingdom",
expressed sympathy for the English regions, whereas when he sought to justify the argument at the outset he expressed sympathy with the needs of Wales.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My noble friend referred to the Barnett formula operating in relation to a decrease in expenditure. Surely, a problem would arise if hypothetically the fundamental spending review proposed a reduction in health expenditure for England and there was a subsequent decline in the resources available for health in Wales hypothecated within the block as a result of that variance. That would be entirely against the health indicators as set out in the memorandum of the Welsh Office to the Treasury Select Committee. It is when the Barnett formula operates in a negative way that there are cuts if the needs of Wales are shown to be greater than the needs of England in a particular area. Health may not be a good example. The Committee will be able to think of a number of examples—one is education and perhaps a better one is road spending—where there may be a reduction in the Wales block as a result of the reduction in England which is carried through in percentage terms to a reduction in Wales.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will permit me to probe slightly the question of the comprehensive spending review that is taking place. I believe that the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dean, is a very important one. The comprehensive spending review might reveal that some of the English regions were at present disadvantaged. It might reveal that particularly the Scots and in some respects even the Welsh were advantaged. Let us suppose that as a result of that the Government decided to enhance expenditure in those English regions. That would enhance the volume of the English block. If that occurred and the Barnett formula was applied it would also enhance the Welsh and Scottish blocks and thereby defeat the purpose of the exercise. I believe that that illustrates the concern of the Committee about this particular area.
Lord Elis-Thomas: That was precisely the reason I suggested that any review should take place in the context of the English regions. I had in mind that particular example, and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In principle, the Barnett formula looks at changes in expenditure in England and applies formulaically that increase to Wales and Scotland. The comprehensive spending review involves looking at expenditure in all major departments of state. It means that there can be changes in the amount of such expenditure in England. The Barnett formula will then

927
be applied to that, as it has been for the past 20 years. There is nothing sinister or secret about it. Therefore, one can see precisely how it works.
Lord Hooson: Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that the Barnett formula, whether in its present form or a future amended form, will apply to Wales whether or not it is embodied in the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I confirm what the noble Lord has just said. I hope that I have made clear that it is the policy of the Government to continue with the present arrangements. Those include the Barnett formula, which we believe should not be incorporated into the Bill.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: It is on the basis that the noble and learned Lord said that the inclusion of our Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 would mean the abandonment of the Barnett formula that I withdraw the amendments in my name. But we shall study the matter further and possibly return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 206 to 207A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 82 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I have listened with great interest to the full explanations that have come from the Front Bench opposite. I am most grateful for them. Not only I but others will need to study those answers. We may need to return to this, but I am otherwise happy to withdraw the Motion that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think that this is probably the time that I should have asked the question that I did ask, namely what is the relationship between subsection (1) and subsection (2). In other words, what are the moneys in general which the Secretary of State pays to Wales at present and will in future pay to the assembly, and what relation does that have to the Barnett formula? And for subsection (2), which Ministers of the Crown make payment to Wales separately from the Secretary of State?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: There are certain payments that are made by the Secretary of State at the moment but will be made directly by the Secretary of State to the assembly after the assembly is set up. Clause 82(2) will include payments which do not come through the Secretary of State for Wales. These will include, for example, agriculture payments for the common agricultural policy which come through the intervention board and from MAFF. These are dealt with outside the block and Barnett formula arrangements. Payments made by the Secretary of State under Clause 82(1) will obviously be calculated using the Barnett formula. I hope that answers the question, but if there is any part I have not answered, I shall be more than happy to do so.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That answers it with admirable clarity, if I may say so.
Clause 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Statement of estimated payments etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 208 to 209 not moved. ]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 42, line 7, after second ("the") insert ("House of Commons and the").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 209A and with it to speak to Amendment No. 211A.
These two amendments link Clauses 83 and 88. Clause 83 lays out quite clearly that each year the Secretary of State has to produce a written statement that shows how much money he intends to pay the assembly that year, how much other Ministers of government departments are expected to provide and any other sources of revenue to the assembly and other relevant financial information.
This bringing together of the money which is to go to the national assembly of Wales, as I should properly call it, is to be laid out, interestingly enough, by the Secretary of State, who is not a member of the national assembly of Wales. The Secretary of State is to lay before the national assembly of Wales any statement made under this section, in other words a statement about the money which will be provided.
I am adding in, as my amendment, that he should also lay that information before the House of Commons. The Minister may well say that that has already been done because the Votes laid before the House of Commons will contain all that information. But they will contain it in different and diverse places. It seems to me that if the Secretary of State is to go to the trouble of bringing this altogether in order to lay it before the assembly, it would not cause any additional work to lay it before the House of Commons. That seems to me to be a mild request. The information is already going before the House of Commons in the various Votes, but the bringing together would be important, especially as that bringing together is happening as far as the assembly is concerned. It is important that the Welsh Members of the other place—indeed all the Members of the other place—see how much money is going to the assembly.
Clause 88 is linked to that money because it deals with the expenditure. On the one hand, Clause 83 tells us how much money is going to the assembly and then Clause 88 is a statement which lays out the expenditure of the assembly. Clause 87 deals with expenditure by the assembly, but it is Clause 88 that I am dealing with, which is the statement of that proposed expenditure. I have no quarrel with what the clause says. It quite rightly lays out that the assembly will have to know how the money is to be spent. Subsection (4) says:
"A statement under this section shall be published by the Assembly as soon after being made as is reasonably practicable".
I am suggesting that when the assembly publishes this information it should also be laid before the House of Commons so that the House of Commons can see how much money it has voted in various Votes and has ended up in the Welsh assembly. It can also see how that money is being spent. I think that is wise. I am being careful here because I was reprimanded by the noble

929
Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, for attempting to take back powers from the assembly on the last Committee day. I am not doing that; I am just saying "inform the House of Commons". It will be informed about the amount of money it sends. I think it should also be informed properly about how that money will be spent. That seems to me to be logical. As the Secretary of State is doing the one partly, he should do the whole thing, and bring the House of Commons in.
If that is not done and the justification for the expenditure is not laid out—because that is what I am asking for—here is this great pot of money. How will it be spent? That is how it is to be spent, and Members of the other place will be able to see that. I think it is important that Welsh Members of the other place can see that. They are rapidly going to become the forgotten men and women in Wales if they are not careful.
It is also important that the other Members of the House of Commons clearly see, as we have said, why Wales is getting more money per head than England. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, is not in his place because we have heard from him this afternoon, as we have already heard from other English regions—not just about Wales because I shall be looking at the same problem with Scotland—and we have heard it in London. Every person from wherever they come in this place who fancies himself as mayor of London is busy saying that the Scots and the Welsh are getting too much money.
I believe that Scotland and Wales can show why their expenditure per head should be higher. I hope that one day we will be able to say that it no longer needs to be higher. That is an ambition which the previous government certainly had. They went a long way along the road to getting that income for Scotland and Wales increased. We brought new jobs and new prosperity to Scotland and Wales. But we have to be prepared in the future. It is not my doing that the United Kingdom is being partially broken up, but the more that happens the more people will look over the garden fence and ask "Why is Wales and Scotland getting this extra money?"
I believe we need to lay out the "whys" and "wherefores" as clearly as we possibly can. There is no better place to do that than in the other place. There is no better occasion than once a year, coinciding with the Statement made and published by the assembly about the various ways in which the money it has received will be spent. That is the right way to do it.
I have little doubt that there will be a few Members of the other place who will want to debate those issues. If the information is there, it will at least be an informed debate. If the information is not presented to the other place, it will be an uninformed debate. That will put Wales—we shall come to Scotland—in a poorer position with regard to the arguments with the rest of the UK, as there assuredly will be. There has always been a bit of argument. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell and I have been present when the Treasury tried to take back money from Scotland and Wales. They are not alone. The Treasury tried to take back money from every department. It does so under every government, if the gossip in the press is to be believed.
What one needs to fight the Treasury, and perhaps other parts of the Kingdom, is information. I do not believe that my amendments damage the Bill in any way. They are small, sensible amendments. I wonder whether I may perhaps join my noble friend Lord Balfour, who is in his place, and become the second Member of the Committee who has achieved a victory with the Government accepting my amendments. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Crickhowell: My noble friend has, with great clarity, and with more thought than I have given to it, elaborated upon the demand that I made during the previous group of amendments. I set out my reasons then for saying that we should have clear presentation to Parliament so that there would be an absolute understanding of what the money was going for, in order to avoid conflict and not create it.
It is important that we should have openness. I did not challenge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who replied on that point, but his response about how the matter was going to be put to the other place was less than complete. If he has now had a greater opportunity to ponder upon the question, it would be helpful were we to have a clear statement as to how information is to be put to the assembly and Parliament.
I would add just one further comment. It was prompted by the little aside made by my noble friend about the Secretary of State's role. As I have listened to the debate this evening, I have remembered again and again the extraordinary debate we had, many weeks ago now, about the remarkable possibility apparently being considered by the Government that the Secretary of State should also be leader of the assembly. Every time I hear the assembly's duty and the Secretary of State's duty being discussed, the more extraordinary a proposition I believe it to be. It is one to which I shall wish to return at a later stage.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I try not to become provoked, but I have been provoked again by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. Surely he is into second-guessing again. How much of the activity of and decisions taken in Cardiff Bay are to be second-guessed by Westminster in his scenario? As we have said before in our debates, this is a serious devolutionary measure, where responsibility for the allocation of resources, once transferred, lies with the elected people who will make those decisions. That is, once the block has been determined, subject to the variants of the Barnett formula and once it has been—to use the expression—sent down by the 125, it is Cardiff's allocation. If there are to be continual debates at Westminster second guessing the assembly's activities, that is a certain way of undermining it fiscally.
As to the continual persistence by the former Secretary of State on the issue of Mr. Ron Davies, that is a red herring. If Mr. Ron Davies is to be elected, possibly by one member, one vote, as I read in the press by the Labour members in Wales, of whom there must be about 20,000, to become the assembly's first

931
secretary, there is no way he could be Secretary of State for more than a short period. It could form an effective part of the transitional period were the Government to decide that. Surely we do not need to repeat the argument again. There would be nothing better than the first secretary negotiating with the Secretary of State on the block grant were he to be the same person.
Lord Hooson: It is an extraordinary proposition that one should embody in a Bill such as this a clause that would require that information be provided to the other place. The other place is a sovereign body. This is the devolution of powers to a Welsh assembly. The suggestion that the 40 elected Welsh MPs and the Secretary of State for Wales would not give the information to the other place is ludicrous.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I hesitate to intervene in something of a family discussion as an outsider, although one with a great deal of sympathy for the Principality and the new Welsh assembly. I would utter one word of caution, because we in Northern Ireland, until now, when the UK has started to break up, had what was called a separate Appropriation Fund debate, usually twice a year. Colleagues representing hard-pressed regions of England, such as the north-east and north-west, invariably inquired why the headage contribution for Northern Ireland schoolchildren, people in hospital and road expenditure was more than that for their region.
The Northern Ireland Members had to fight a rearguard action in which we said that it was not our fault that the housekeeping accounts were kept separately from those of Great Britain, whereas Northern Ireland had its own, wherein all was revealed. That might be an honest thing to do, but I issue one word of warning. It might bring down upon the heads of the Welsh representatives a degree of criticism from those areas of England which, as yet, do not have separate Secretaries of State.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 209A and 211A. Without amendment, the Bill provides that Supply will be dealt with by the other place; the other place can debate in extenso the amounts of money that will go to the Secretary of State for Wales in relation to the assembly. After Supply has been voted by the other place, the Secretary of State must then make deductions for the running of his own office and for the provision of the lord lieutenants of Wales.
The Secretary of State then provides the net balance to the assembly. In providing the net balance to the assembly, he must make the written statement required by the Bill. The statement will set out the amounts of money available to the assembly, including credit approvals. The statement will explain how those amounts have been calculated; the calculations will of course be based on the block and formula rules, including the Barnett formula which was debated earlier. That will provide a reassurance to assembly members that the grant made available to them has been calculated correctly.
932
The statement will, for the first time, make publicly available details underlying the Welsh block grant, and goes well beyond the current Vote arrangements. Those are principally issues, after Supply has been voted, for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the assembly. When the assembly has prepared its expenditure plans, it is obliged to publish the written statement required by Clause 88.
As I understand them, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, would provide that the Secretary of State would have to make his statement to the other place about the sums of money going to the Welsh assembly and, what is more, the Welsh assembly, before it tells itself what its expenditure proposals are, has to publish a statement to the other place, which, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, appears to involve a degree of not accepting devolution. Surely the Welsh assembly should publish to itself its expenditure programme rather than be forced to send it back to the House of Commons.
The noble Lord's amendment suggests that he does not accept the principle of devolution but presupposes that everything, including the most important element of the assembly, should be supervised by the House of Commons. That is not what devolution is about. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble and learned Lord introduces a red herring when he says that I want the House of Commons to supervise. If I had wished the House of Commons to supervise, I would have inserted the words "and approve". I did not insert those words but simply provided that the statement shall be laid before the House of Commons. If the order in Amendment No. 211A bothers the noble and learned Lord, I am happy to change it at the next stage of the Bill, to insert that,
"A statement under this section shall be published by the Assembly and laid before the House of Commons".
I want the House of Commons to know what is happening to its money, rather than to approve or disapprove. The noble and learned Lord made it clear that supply would remain a matter for the House of Commons. Having accepted that, I do not see the problem with laying before the House of Commons the same statement that will be made to the Welsh assembly.
I was not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux of Killead, suggested that it was best to keep the matter so grey that no one can see through it, otherwise they will all start to complain. I can see some argument for that as regards the English regions. But we shall not get away with that. The noble and learned Lord could easily have argued that whether or not the statement is laid before the House of Commons, anyone who wants to know about it will find out. Unless the minutes of the Welsh assembly are to be secret—I do not believe that they will be—it will be easy for Members of another place to find out what has been laid before the assembly.

933
I do not see the problem. I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. If the House of Commons raises the taxes, then it has a right to be at least informed of the expenditure.
Lord Hooson: If the noble Lord will give way, surely he is consistently confusing two issues. This is an act of devolution, not of abrogating the sovereignty of the House of Commons. The noble Lord has been a Member of another place, as I have. He knows that there would be no difficulty at any time in raising questions that would disclose all the information before the assembly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that there is much between the noble Lord and myself except that I wish the information to be placed publicly in the House of Commons and he sees no problem in the House of Commons devilling around and finding it out.
It is not a question of second guessing, as the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, suggested. It is simply informing the House of Commons where the totality of money is and how the Welsh assembly proposes in the headlines of its statement to spend it.
We shall come to this issue. I find it impossible to believe that the same person can be the Secretary of State for Wales in one government, with Cabinet responsibility, and the first secretary of another entirely separate government. I believe that that is a constitutional impossibility. However, at present it is a red herring that the noble Lord introduced. No doubt we shall discuss it later.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, introduced it. It is becoming an obsession with him.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that it has become an obsession with my noble friend, but it is a matter to which we shall have to return. I cannot see how such a system can work. If it works—I hate to say it—it suggests to me that the Secretary of State from Whitehall will run this devolved assembly. That is total contradiction of devolution. My little amendments are as nothing compared with the suggestion that the Secretary of State for Wales should run the assembly. It does not bear thinking about. If noble Lords want devolution, that is not the way to go about it.
The issue is complicated and difficult. Not only shall I study what the noble and learned Lord said, although I heard it clearly enough, I shall consider again in particular Clause 83(3). It refers to the total amount which the Secretary of State proposes to expend in that year out of the money provided by Parliament. The provision is vague as to whether the proposal is in global terms or in detail.
I shall return to the matter. I take on board some of the points made. I am reassured that the House of Commons will be able to discuss how its money is being spent. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clause 84 [Loans to Assembly by Secretary of State]:
6.45 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 210:
Page 42, line 26, after ("greater") insert ("or lesser").
The noble Earl said: Unfortunately, from time to time circumstances can change quite dramatically. In the course of this century we have had to go through two terrible wars to preserve our democracy; and in the 1930s we had the worst depression ever. My idea is to create some flexibility for the Secretary of State by allowing him to provide a greater or lesser amount of money. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendment No. 210 seeks to allow the Secretary of State, with the consent of the Treasury, to raise or lower the total amount of loans he might make available to the assembly from the National Loans Fund.
It may be helpful if I explain the purpose of Clause 84. The clause enables the Secretary of State to advance temporary loans from the National Loans Fund to the assembly. The Treasury will set the terms of the loans, including the repayment dates and interest rates. This power is necessary to meet such possibilities as a natural disaster in Wales, which requires the assembly suddenly to incur more expenditure than it had planned.
The option of issuing a temporary loan to the assembly gives the necessary flexibility to meet circumstances such as these where the assembly's outgoings are greater than its income. But I stress to the Committee that the decision on whether to advance a loan would rest with my right honourable friend and the Treasury, not the assembly. The upper limit of £500 million was decided by the Government, and also applies in the Scotland Bill. I stress that it is an upper limit, and a lower amount could be advanced in a particular case if the circumstances demanded.
The value of money rarely, if ever, goes down and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to lower the £500 million limit set down in Clause 84, which would be the effect of the noble Earl's amendment.
I hope that that reassures the noble Earl, and I therefore invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rees: Before my noble friend withdraws the amendment, should he decide to do so, I wish to be assured. Can the time limit on such loans endure from financial year to financial year? Alternatively, must they be repaid within the course of the financial year in which they were originally made? It is a most important point. Loans could drag on for a long time. Is there any limit in the aggregate? Let us suppose that there is a loan of £500 million in the aggregate in one financial year that is not fully repaid in the course of that financial year. Can the Secretary of State make a further loan which would take it over the £500 million limit in the

935
next year? These points are left a little unclear. Perhaps I have not read the Bill with sufficient exactitude. I hope that I can be reassured on those points.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The loans must be repayable within the financial year. The precise repayment date within the financial year is a matter for the Treasury. The aggregate outstanding at any one stage cannot exceed £500 million. I think that that answers all the noble Lord's questions.
Lord Rees: Is the time limit to be found in the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not think that it is. The relevant provision is Clause 84(3) which states that,
"Any loans which the Secretary of State makes under this section shall be repaid to him at such times, and interest on them shall be paid to him at such rates and at such times, as the Treasury from time to time determine".
That aspect is not on the face of the Bill but it is envisaged that loans will always be repayable in the financial year, and the aggregate cannot be more than £500 million.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If I heard the noble and learned Lord correctly, he told my noble friend Lord Rees that any money under subsection (1)(a)—because it is unlikely that there will not be a time when the assembly will need a working balance under subsection (1)(b)—would be for temporary excess expenditure. I understand the sort of reasons that may require a loan, when the government in Wales needs money for which it has not budgeted. I want to ask when that money will be paid back. The noble and learned Lord told my noble friend that every loan given would have to be repaid in the same financial year. If funds are given under subsection (1)(a), the problem for the assembly may be that it might exceed its expenditure for that year. I was surprised to hear the Solicitor-General say that. If at the end of the financial year any surviving unpaid loan remained, would that be taken off the top of next year's money as a more sensible way of dealing with crises? If the noble and learned Lord's answer to my noble friend is correct, that is fine—but I thought that the assembly would at the very least be able in special circumstances to repay a loan the following year; otherwise, the need for the loan may not be as urgent as I expected when I read the Bill.
The Earl of Harrowby: It seems extraordinary to discuss this matter because such payments are by their very nature made in a crisis. The odds are that they will never be repaid but will have to be funded from the following year's budget or another source. Actual repayment will not be possible. Supposing there is a major earthquake or something like that, the money will be spent. Such loans can be funded only from another source and almost certainly at a later date, not the same financial year.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is envisaged that where there is an emergency of the sort that I described, by the end of the financial year in which the disaster has
936
occurred and the need has arisen, the assembly will have the necessary funds to repay the loan—whether from a supplementary estimate or its own resources. That is the answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
The Earl of Harrowby: So the assembly would not repay the loan?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It would, because there would be a supplementary estimate. The money would come from central government and would be repaid that way. The loan provision is a sensible way of making money available when one cannot go through the usual necessary procedure quickly because a national emergency of some sort has overtaken Wales.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for this short debate because I did not fully understand the meaning of Clause 84. I am grateful also to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 84 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for his response to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour, which helped clarify the background, and for his letter to me, in which he explained the emergency purpose for which such sums are provided. I am still not wholly convinced as to the need for the clause.
To cite local government precedent in respect of emergencies, it has for a long time operated under the Bellwin formula, whereby a local authority would be required to meet the first product of a penny rate itself. Thereafter, the Government would step in and meet expenditure pound for pound over and above that first sum. That is one way of managing things.
The second problem is that we are dealing with an assembly that will have a budget of around £7 billion. A competent county treasurer—and I assume that the national assembly will employ somebody superior to a competent county treasury—would expect to run his funds with a balance of between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. at most. On occasion, treasurers have been squeezed down to between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. The sum of £500 million happens to represent 7 per cent. of budget. I accept that one might be dealing with a great emergency but I find it extremely difficult to conceive of an emergency on the scale that Clause 84 implies that would not involve the UK government immediately, as of necessity. So I have some difficulty with the need for the clause.
Where will the £500 million reside? Clearly it will not reside with the assembly, so presumably it will reside in the English Parliament and in the English Treasury, with the Secretary of State having a right to draw funds down in an emergency situation. I infer that the fund will be part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's contingency reserve but I am not certain. It would be useful to know

937
precisely where the £500 million will reside. If it resides in the UK, its expenditure will have to be authorised automatically in emergency situations. If so, I am almost convinced that Clause 84 is not needed because the money will be provided anyway from funds that already exist elsewhere in the UK budget. I am sorry to trouble the Solicitor-General further but I must press him for a greater explanation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: While my noble friend was talking, I realised that I had a second point to raise with the Solicitor-General. Let us assume that the government in Wales need extra money to meet some eventuality and a loan is granted. It is possible that the government in Wales might not be able to find the money from their budget to pay it back. In that case, the supplementary vote would be called into question, but that vote is of the other place. What would happen if the other place decided not to agree to give a supplementary vote? Would it be possible for the Welsh assembly to carry over the loan to its next financial year? If it is not possible to do that, would it be possible for the assembly to do a sleight-of-hand and obtain another loan in the following financial year in order to pay back the loan for the current financial year? In that circumstance, no loan would be carried over into the next financial year. I should be grateful for guidance on what the Government envisage in such a situation, which is new to this country. However, as my noble friend rightly reminded us, although the Bellwin formula caters for such similarities in local government, there must be a clear understanding of what will happen in the kind of eventuality I have put forward.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, indicated that the circumstances in which he thought the national loan fund would be called upon under Clause 84 were difficult to imagine and would be of an exceptional kind. We agree. It is a remote fall-back position. Indeed, it is unlikely that Clause 84 will ever be called upon. However, we believe that it is sensible to make such a provision. It would be an exceptional circumstance in which the assembly could not provide the money in the short-term. If in a substantial national disaster the assembly could not meet the cost, it would apply through the Secretary of State to the Treasury for a short-term loan in order to deal with the matter.
The Government believe it entirely sensible to provide that fall-back arrangement, and it is difficult to see the arguments for not doing so. If the provision were not made, taking the advice of the lawyer of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, it would have to be written in. That seems to me to be a very silly circumstance indeed. One should prepare against the day, hoping that the provision will never be used. The noble Lord's comparison with local authorities is, with the greatest of respect to him and his experience, misconceived. The assembly does not have any tax-raising power, whereas local authorities have limited tax-raising powers. It is unlikely that the provision will be used, but it is sensible to make it.
938
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, amounted to asking what happens if the loan is made but the Commons does not agree to it. That is a risk that one must take, but having regard to the nature of the Treasury, one would imagine that it is unlikely to grant the loan unless it is sure that ultimately supply will be granted by way of a supplemental estimate. In effect, a bid is being made on the reserve, a reserve is being held in the National Loans Fund, and I suspect that the situation would be so unique that few people would doubt the correctness of such a loan being made.
For all those reasons, the clause is sensible. It is right that the matter has been raised in the Committee and I hope that I have put everyone's mind at rest as to its "sensibleness".
Lord Dixon-Smith: I thank the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. Perhaps he will allow me to press him on a narrow point. I accept the generality of his argument, but the specific point which causes concern is how the £500 million was arrived at. Clearly, it is an arbitrary sum. However, I am puzzled by the fact that the sum is the same for Scotland. As Scotland has double the budget, one might have assumed that the sums would be different.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord would prefer not to have to answer that question tonight. He might prefer to reply to it by letter, because it seems entirely unreasonable, if one looks at fairness and proportionality, that the two separate organisations should have the same fund for emergency purposes.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It is an upper limit. When one is talking about remote and unforeseeable consequences, it is difficult to provide any mathematical or scientific basis. It simply seems to the Government to be a sensible figure to take for the upper limit. I can take the point no further. I shall not write to the noble Lord because that is as far as we can take it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: After dealing with important questions of public finance which the Committee has been canvassing, I feel diffident in raising a small drafting point on subsection (6). I feel all the more diffident because I have raised the matter previously in connection with other Bills without getting anywhere. But hope springs eternal in the legislative breast.
Subsection (6) states:
"The Secretary of State may from time to time by order made with the consent of the Treasury substitute the amount specified in subsection (5) such greater amount as is specified in the order".
The words "with the consent of the Treasury" are utterly unnecessary. They turn up in Bill after Bill and are repeated in subsequent editions and in the Acts. Cumulatively, enormous sums are expended quite unnecessarily. It is only in the Wonderland of Whitehall that a Secretary of State would exercise a statutory power to increase a limit on lending without the consent of the Treasury. The words are included in Bill after Bill

939
simply as a sop to Treasury paranoia, which is terrified that spending Ministers are in some way subverting its strict regime.
I invite the noble and learned Lord to say specifically whether he can conceive it possible that if the words were omitted the Secretary of State would increase the loan limit without consulting and obtaining the consent of the Treasury. That question can easily be asked and I invite the noble and learned Lord to answer it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is right in saying that it is extremely unlikely that the Secretary of State would increase the limit without first obtaining the consent of the Treasury. Indeed, the Treasury controls all access to the loans fund and therefore it could be increased in practice only with the consent of the Treasury. But far from that being a reason for not including the words on the face of the Bill, surely it is a reason for including them. It means that the Bill sets out precisely what has to be done and who has to do it before the limit can be increased. Surely, accuracy in a Bill as to what is to happen is a good thing rather than a bad thing.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: We have at least been given a reason this time. All too often the reason has been that the words are not necessary or, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern used to say, "not strictly necessary". To include unnecessary words in order to make things quite plain is not good enough in drafting. If we were going to adopt that course we should mention every consultation between any two Ministers. No one suggests that we should do that, not even the noble and learned Lord. Therefore, if the words are unnecessary it is no good saying that that is all the more reason for including them. It is not; it is a reason for omitting them.
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 [Destination of receipts etc.]:
Lord Elis-Thomas Lord Elis-Thomas moved Amendment No. 210A:
Page 43, line 5, at end insert (", or
(c) as a result of the sale of any goods or services by the Assembly or any person or body acting on its behalf,").
The noble Lord said: This is a not very cunning and rather transparent attempt before supper to seek to enable the assembly to retain some resources which it might generate as a result of its own income-raising activities. That would provide it with a little entrepreneurial activity and give it some incentive. The sums that would result from the sale of goods and services by the assembly or on its behalf would not be substantial sums and not of the order set out in our earlier debate on emergencies. It would provide the assembly with a small source of income or revenue which would be of benefit to it in the carrying out of its services. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: It seems to me that the noble Lord has a very fair point. The assembly will have goods of which it may wish to dispose as surplus to
940
requirements. It may also provide services for which it can charge. It would be a shame if all the proceeds disappeared into the Consolidated Fund.
Perhaps I may introduce another item into this amendment; that is, property. I presume that if the assembly were to sell property, the proceeds of the sale would be retained, I hope, by the assembly.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: It may assist the Committee in considering Amendment No. 210A if I explain why Clause 86 is is in the Bill.
The general effect of legislation is that receipts earned by the Crown have to be paid into the Consolidated Fund. The Treasury, however, has the power under the Public Accounts and Charges Act 1891 to direct that sums do not have to be surrendered but may be used as if voted by Parliament.
Unfortunately, the provisions of the 1891 Act will not apply to the assembly because they relate only to government departments that prepare appropriation accounts. The assembly will not prepare appropriation accounts because it will obtain its funding from the Secretary of State and not directly from Parliament.
Clause 86 is necessary both to make it clear that the assembly's receipts are to be surrendered to the Consolidated Fund but also to provide for certain exceptions. One of those exceptions, which is Clause 86(6), is a power for the Treasury to direct that the assembly does not have to surrender certain receipts to the Consolidated Fund, in just the same way as it can direct the Welsh Office not to surrender certain sums now. The underlying principle is to ensure that the assembly will be in no worse position than the Welsh Office is now.
Amendment No. 210A makes the point that income from any goods and services that the assembly may provide must be retained by the assembly. However, the Bill can allow such income to be retained because it could be the subject of a direction under subsection (6). An example at the present time is the income which Cadw generates from entrance fees, sales of souvenirs and so on. Under a current Treasury direction, the Welsh Office is able to retain this income to help meet Cadw's running costs. These matters are better handled through Treasury directions, which have a flexibility that this amendment lacks. In view of my explanation, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
It goes without saying that the point that I have made in response to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, applies also to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy. Any property sold could be the subject of a Treasury direction which would permit the assembly to retain the receipts.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. I am pleased to understand that what I propose is covered by Clause 86(6) and that if the national assembly building were to be of such quality that souvenir models were to be sold worldwide, the assembly would be able to retain the

941
revenue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Expenditure by Assembly]:
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 210B:
Page 43, line 28, leave out (", or in connection with,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment tightens the wording of the clause and seeks to remove any laxity or ambiguity in the wording. Amendment No. 210B would ensure that the assembly shall incur expenditure directly only in the exercise of its functions. We seek to exclude the phrase "or in connection with" the exercise of any of its functions which seemed to us to introduce an element of laxity.
Amendment No. 210C seeks to eliminate any vagueness and concentrates expenditure on securing the attainment of the assembly's objectives. As it stands, the wording seems to us to be diffuse. We have highlighted what we consider to be a weakness in the clause which may allow a shade too much latitude in relation to expenditure and the proper control of it. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: These proposed amendments to Clause 87 should be seen in the context of Clause 41, which provides supplementary powers to the assembly to do anything which is intended to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the exercise of any of its functions.
The effect of the amendments would be to restrict the assembly's expenditure specifically to the functions of the assembly, or to the attainment of objectives within the competence of the assembly. So the amendments would apparently preclude expenditure on such incidental action, notwithstanding that the Bill authorises such action. Therefore, the assembly can do things incidental to its functions but cannot pay for them if these amendments are accepted.
By tying its hands in that way, the assembly would not be able to support activities unless they were specified as functions, or linked to the attainment of objectives of the assembly itself. In this way, for example, the assembly would be unable to pay for the running costs of the assembly itself as this was not a function per se of the assembly. Nor would it be able to support the activities of another body which lay outside the direct competence of the assembly, but where the assembly had an important supporting role to play.
I am sure that the Committee would wish the assembly to have greater flexibility than is allowed for in these amendments, consistent with Clause 41, and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw these amendments.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: The noble and learned Lord does not carry much conviction when I look at Clause 41, which is one of those "supplementary
942
powers" clauses which enables the assembly to do anything which is calculated to facilitate or is conducive or is incidental to the exercise of any of its functions.
This suggestion that if my amendments were accepted, somehow or other the assembly would be able to do various things but not pay for them is somewhat far-fetched. Nevertheless, I must accept the noble and learned Lord's judgment on this matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 210C not moved.]
Clause 87 agreed to.
Clause 88 [Statement of proposed expenditure etc.]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 44, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) Where in any year the Assembly proposes to vary the sums received from the Secretary of State relating to local authorities, it may do so only with the prior agreement of the Secretary of State and the local authorities.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 211 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Northesk is an attempt to provide some degree of clarity and certainty in the financial arrangements between the Secretary of State for Wales, the national assembly for Wales and local government.
The matter is not at all straightforward. At present, the financial arrangements for local government are the consequence, if I can call it this, of a bipartite negotiation with the Treasury as a shadowy third party in the background, probably operating a force majeure clause which no one really appreciates but which everyone has to accept exists.
That negotiation is, perforce, very complicated. Mention has already been made of the distribution formula for local government moneys. It is rarely a negotiation which satisfies everyone. I have a strong suspicion that it does not satisfy the Secretary of State for Wales because of the force majeure operated by the Treasury, which is not a party to the negotiation. But now we are about to insert a third party into that negotiation process. The money will go from the Secretary of State for Wales to the assembly, which, as I understand it, has the power to adjust it. Otherwise, it would simply be a post-box and there would be no point in the exercise.
Indeed, part of the purpose of my amendment is to enable the assembly to adjust that sum but also to ensure that it is a negotiated change involving the other two parties rather than, if you like, a power to change the arrangements which have been arrived at in quite a difficult way unilaterally. It is really how we change that negotiating situation from two or three parties to three or four parties that has given rise to the need for my amendment. Without it, we would have a situation where the current negotiations would be meaningless. It seems to me that those negotiations must go on because, in his turn, the Secretary of State has a negotiation going on in parallel with the Treasury to determine his funding which he will then hand back. It is quite a round-about situation.
However, there is a complicating factor behind that negotiation; namely, that local government has its own tax raising powers. It is possible that the assembly could decide, as a matter of tactics, that it wished to adjust the funding that it receives by giving local government less. That would enable it to spend more elsewhere and, thereby, inadvertently, raise or compel additional taxation on the people of Wales. I am not saying that that is wrong and, similarly, I am not saying that the assembly should not do so. However, what I am saying by way of my amendment is that it should be an open negotiation in which everyone plays a part so that the outcome is agreed. It may not satisfy everyone as regards such outcomes; it will inevitably have to be a compromise and one which may well leave an element of distaste in every participant's mouth.
As I said, my amendment is an attempt to clarify a change in a negotiating pattern so as to try to keep everyone in some degree of agreement—certainly the greatest degree of agreement possible—and, at the same time, give local government the greatest degree of certainty that is possible as to what its funding should be in this new situation. I beg to move.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining the purpose of his amendment and its background so clearly. It has been made abundantly clear that, unlike the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly will not have a tax varying power. Indeed, unlike Scotland, no such question was put to the Welsh people in the referendum. Therefore, the assembly will be largely dependent on the grants given to it by the Government under Clause 82.
Nevertheless, the assembly will no doubt have its own priorities for expenditure and may find itself with inadequate resources to meet its proposed commitments. Naturally it will look for possible savings and other means whereby it may raise additional finance. One of the major areas of public expenditure financed by direct grant from the assembly will be local government which takes up about one-third of the Welsh block total of £7 billion. Another third is taken up by health and personal social services where the pressure is for ever more expenditure and where there is very little scope to raise extra revenue while the service remains free at the point of delivery.
Therefore, it would be surprising if the assembly did not consider the possibility of reducing its financial support to local authorities, thus forcing them to raise a higher proportion of their total expenditure from council tax and the business rate. The rate support grant has traditionally covered a higher proportion of the totality of local authority spending in Wales than in England because of the lower rateable values prevailing in Wales. Rate support grant is not hypothecated and its level is determined by the Secretary of State. It will be similarly determined by the assembly.
My noble friend's amendment would simply require the assembly to secure the agreement of the Secretary of State and the local authorities before it varied the sums payable. That is very much in tune with the spirit of partnership between the assembly and local authorities that later clauses in the Bill seek to encourage. Local authority spending and the rate of council tax have been
944
restrained in the past by central government control, coupled with rate capping. The business rate has also been constrained by central government.
As the Secretary of State's functions in relation to local government are being transferred to the assembly, it looks as if the rate capping restriction on local authorities will come to an end. Indeed, as late as February of this year, the Secretary of State said:
"Certainly, I want to get away from the capping regime. I think that it is unhealthy … as a Government we are opposed to the crude and universal system of capping".—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/98; cols. 385–387.]
If the assembly were to reduce the rate support grant, local authorities could make up the shortfall by raising council tax rates. Of course, if rate capping were to be abolished, they could raise council tax rates anyway, and probably would.
If the business rate were to return to local control and cease to be uniform, I fear that, as in the past when that situation prevailed, local businesses would bear the brunt of increased local authority spending. They would be discouraged from investing in and providing local employment.
If those things were to happen, one assumes that they would not go unnoticed by the Treasury. In the other place my colleagues tabled a new clause to stop the assembly forcing local authorities to raise their council tax without Treasury approval. However, as I said earlier, the Treasury's attitude towards the assembly appears to be one of withdrawal from the detailed supervision and concentration on the main spending allocations. An increase in council taxes would mean an increase in the general level of taxation in Wales and might breach the principle of Exchequer control over such matters.
The key points that I have made were very well put by Robert Hazell of the Constitution Unit of the School of Public Policy at University College London in his commentary on the Welsh White Paper, issued in September of last year. He said:
"If the Assembly's budget is squeezed, it could in turn squeeze revenue support grant to local authorities, and rely on their capacity to increase levels of council tax to make up the difference".
He goes on to explain that further. He says,
"The only other variable source of revenue would be non-domestic rates. If these were returned to local authority control—as local government has demanded—there would be a greater capacity for the Welsh Assembly to precept because local authorities would have a stronger revenue base".
He then makes the following interesting point:
"As with law making powers, the real issue behind revenue-raising power is one of autonomy … if the principal purpose behind devolution is the more efficient administration of policies determined by central government, then it is appropriate for the Welsh Assembly to continue to be funded entirely through block funding. But if the Assembly is to have responsibility for making real choices about the level and nature of public spending in Wales it will need power to raise some of its own revenue. Without such power the Assembly will have no fiscal accountability to the Welsh people".
I detected no strong demand during the referendum campaign for the assembly to have tax-raising powers or the fiscal accountability that goes with it. Nevertheless, it would seem to be an imminent possibility, although it seems strange in a country that requires fiscal support from central government rather than additional burdens

945
placed on its people. My noble friend's minimal safeguards would appear to be the minimum necessary to keep the assembly's spending plans in check. Some of us would argue that primary legislation should be required before that kind of back-door taxation is allowed.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: The Opposition are yet again falling into this trap of seeking to give devolutionary powers and take them away. Let us introduce some realpolitik into this issue. Let us imagine a governing party or a governing coalition in the national assembly facing election at the end of the first four-year term on the same day as local government elections are held. In year three there will begin to be flexibility. Clearly there will be no flexibility up until year three because the current Welsh Office budget applies until then. As I said, flexibility begins to emerge in year three. As regards negotiations between the national assembly—which will take over from the Secretary of State responsibility for local government funding—and local government surely the various parties that will sit in the national assembly will tell the secretary for local government and environment and the members of the assembly subject committee on local government, "For goodness sake, make sure that you have a good settlement because remember we all face election next year". That is what fiscal accountability is all about. There will be fiscal accountability as regards the Welsh electorate.
Of course the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, can argue—he has been involved in discussions with Welsh local authorities—that this is back-door tax raising and an indirect taxation power, but surely devolution is all about granting the block, and the distribution of the block for local government, to the assembly and leaving the assembly to determine the interrelation between local government spending and its own spending, given that that all happens in the full light of day of a political process. That is what it is all about.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, seeks in effect the agreement of the Secretary of State and local authorities before the assembly could vary the sums it receives from the Secretary of State relating to local authorities. I fear that the amendment starts from a misconception. The Secretary of State's grant to the assembly will not be hypothecated; in other words, the grant will not be allocated for a specific purpose. Therefore the assembly will receive no sums from the Secretary of State relating to local authorities. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, the amendment starts from the wrong proposition.
But there is a much more important point than that the amendment starts from the wrong basis, and it is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, made so effectively. The assembly will get the money from the Secretary of State. It will be for it to decide how it spends its money. The amount of money that it gets from the Secretary of State will be determined in
946
accordance with the block and then the application of the Barnett formula. Having got that money, the assembly will be a directly elected body which will be answerable to the electorate for the decisions it takes. It will be answerable to the electorate of Wales in a much more direct way than the Secretary of State for Wales.
It would be quite wrong to seek to fetter the assembly's resource allocation decisions in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggests. Moreover, with the greatest respect to him, I suspect that his proposal would simply lead to chaos, where the local authorities, the Secretary of State and the assembly would all have to agree the expenditure of each penny. That seems to me an ambitious target having regard to all of the people involved. For those three reasons—namely, it starts from the wrong basis; it is fundamentally opposed to the basic principle of devolution; and it is impractical—I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation. I may well take his advice. However, it is easy to over-simplify what is happening. I am quite prepared to accept that the assembly is taking over the function of the Secretary of State in this regard, and therefore that the negotiation will in future take place between the local authorities in Wales and the assembly. I have no difficulty with that. That is easy to understand. However, it leaves me with a problem. The Secretary of State will, of course, make a block grant to the National Assembly for Wales. He will have to arrive at that sum which will be made up of many parts. Those parts—hypothecated or not—must have an origin somewhere. Unlike the £500 million figure that I was so concerned about a little while ago—which is an arbitrary sum—the one-third or so of the budget of the National Assembly for Wales relevant to local government will be arrived at through a distribution formula (which is a sophisticated and complex distribution formula) which relates, I assume, to that of England and Wales. I have not yet heard that although Wales has a separate negotiation it has a separate distribution formula.
Although I am quite happy with the fact that this negotiation will in future take place between local government and the assembly, the fact of the matter is that the sum of money will originally have been arrived at through the application of a formula. That is not hypothecated and the parties concerned will negotiate something else, but that formula applies different results to different authorities. Therefore the matter will not be straightforward. I shall need to consider further what the noble and learned Lord has said, as I hope he will consider further what I have said. We may need to return to this matter at a later stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I wish to make a short business statement.
In view of the late start to today's proceedings, it has been agreed through the usual channels that the Government of Wales Bill will be set down for a further Committee day on Monday 15th June as first business. Once that Bill is disposed of, the House will then proceed as planned to the second business of the day, the Minimum Wage Bill. It has also been agreed through the usual channels that the best endeavours will be used to complete the two Committee stages on the Monday.
In moving the Motion that the House do now resume, I suggest that the Committee is not reconvened before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

International Criminal Court
7.40 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the establishment of an international criminal court.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who are attending the debate. I am particularly grateful to those who have indicated an intention to participate. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the subject while there is still time to influence the outcome.
When future historians are asked what was the outstanding achievement of the 20th century, I believe that very near to the top of the list will be the establishment of a regime of international law and order and the concept of an international community.
There is still a long way to go. National sovereignty is still cited when a nation state is called to account for the damage which its activities have imposed on the global community. But we now have in place a wide system of treaties and conventions imposing obligations on individual states and a network of bodies to regulate activities on a global scale and to attach some sanctions to those obligations.
Even the most powerful nation states—those which are aggressively conscious of their national sovereignty—now operate within a framework of constraints which would have been inconceivable at the beginning of this century. Unhappily, the 20th century has also witnessed horrific crimes against individuals, often on a massive scale.
Among the last of the no-go areas where the writ of the international community does not run is the right of a nation state to protect its individual nationals from accountability to the international community, even when they have been guilty of actions which they must know infringe worldwide standards of morality and which are a flagrant infringement of international convention.
Since the 1940s, when the world community, speaking through the United Nations, declared genocide to be outlawed, there have been discussions as to the creation of an effective global system of criminal sanctions applied to individuals and administered by an international criminal court. Tribunals established ad hoc to deal with a particular situation such as Nuremburg, and more recently Croatia and Rwanda, are susceptible to taunts that they present victors' justice and do not carry the authority of a court which is already in place administering an accepted system of substantive and procedural law.
In 1989, the General Assembly instructed the International Law Commission to prepare a draft statute for the establishment of an international criminal court. It returned with a text in 1993. But the assembly could not reach agreement. A number of states declared that they could not see the need for such a court. Then the assembly established an ad hoc committee, open to all United Nations members, to draft a treaty giving effect to the statute.
The committee has done a great deal of work, seeking where possible to overcome the objections of states whose consciences have told them that their nationals might find themselves before the court. The committee has been greatly assisted by members of the NGO community, who have provided a high degree of expertise. In particular, I am grateful to the Coalition for an International Criminal Court, consisting of a number of leading NGOs in this country, for keeping me up to date with developments. I also wish to express my thanks to Assistant Professor Hays Butler of Rutgers University for his valuable bibliography on the subject. Next month, it is hoped that a draft text of the statute will be put to a gathering of national representatives in Rome.
The progress that has been made should be an occasion for rejoicing. But at this moment that would be premature. There are three possible outcomes from the Rome discussions. We may present history at the close of the 20th century with a great step towards a safer and more just world; or there may be no agreement and no court; or they may cobble together a compromise which enables them to announce the establishment of a new court but which in fact is without teeth and without the power to curb the atrocities and suffering which we have seen in Bosnia and Rwanda. There will be some hard bargaining in Rome.
Among the questions which remain to be decided is whether prosecutors shall be independent, able to decide on jurisprudential criteria as to whether a prosecution shall be initiated or whether it should require the consent of the state to which the accused belongs or the state in whose territory the alleged crime took place. One United Nations official is quoted in a recent article in the Guardian as saying that if you kill 100,000 people you are more likely to escape justice than if you kill one.
A possible compromise may be to make prosecution subject to the consent of a chamber of the court at a pre-trial hearing. That would operate as a safeguard against frivolous prosecutions, although if we may assume that the prosecutors who are appointed will be

949
responsible and trustworthy individuals, frivolous prosecutions are not likely. I should be grateful to hear my noble friend's comments on that question.
Then there is the role of the Security Council. Should it have power to stop a prosecution and, if so, for what reasons and on what grounds; or should the constraint go further, and a prosecution require the positive consent of the Security Council before it can proceed—bearing in mind that that would require unanimity so that a single member could veto any prosecution. In a world which now believes itself subject to the rule of law, is there a place for a veto on prosecutions by a political body?
Thirdly, what is to be the interface between national domestic jurisdictions and the international court? No one wants to duplicate prosecutions, and there may well be problems of double jeopardy. But can a nation state be permitted to exclude the jurisdiction of the court simply by initiating a show trial designed to produce a whitewash? Surely the final decision on whether there is an effective national jurisdiction should be with the international court. Perhaps my noble friend will tell us the Government's thinking on what has come to be called by a new word which is not likely to find its way into any poetry books—"complementarity".
A fourth question is whether the court will have power to operate and enforce a reparations regime to compensate victims. The criminal courts of this country have power when someone is convicted of a criminal offence not only to pass sentence on the offender but to order him to pay compensation to the victim. It is part of the process of bringing home to the offender the loss that his conduct has caused and of reassuring the victim that the community understands the injury that he has suffered. The draft statute makes reference to the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and to the reparations guidelines. I am grateful to Redress for reminding me of the issue, and I look forward to my noble friend's comments on that matter.
To date, the Government have a good record in these discussions. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has done great service to the reputation of this country among those who care for human rights and who value the rule of law. But on all these issues there will be a need for a clear statement from the United Kingdom and for a leadership which, if it does not come from this country, is unlikely to come from the western hemisphere. I hope that my noble friend can assure us that the Government will seek to secure for the 20th century a place in history as a period of compassion, of the control of power and of respect for the rule of law.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for putting this important Question tonight.
There was a certain poignancy, two weeks ago, to find oneself reading the obituaries of that outstanding American war crimes prosecutor, eminent lawyer,
950
historian and human rights activist, Telford Taylor, who died on 23rd May at the ripe old age of 90. He must have thought it sad, perhaps intolerable, that 50 years after the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials and all that should have been learned from them, there was still no permanent court to try and to punish the perpetrators of the kinds of crimes that had so horrified the world at that time.
It is an irony that might have brought a wry smile to Telford Taylor's lips that, three weeks after his death, the international community is finally sitting down to negotiate the international human rights treaty which will set up an international criminal court. When 185 nations gather in Rome next week, they will, we hope, put an end to this unacceptable situation in which for so long the myth of impunity has unbalanced the scales of justice.
We are here tonight to seek assurances from Her Majesty's Government that during these difficult negotiations they will not only continue to support strongly the creation of the court, which they have done so far and on which I congratulate them, but that they will insist on its unassailable independence.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer has very well described the intended remit of the international criminal court. It is hard to conceive how any modern democracy could wish otherwise than to see established a permanent tribunal to bring to justice the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity. We cannot for ever rely on the kinds of ad hoc arrangements such as the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, which the war crimes in the former Yugoslavia made necessary, or the Arusha tribunal for Rwanda. I do not criticise the work that they have done, but they are ad hoc arrangements, and we need a permanent court.
The negotiations have proved, and continue to prove, extraordinarily difficult. As my noble and learned friend indicated, one reads that there are still 1,700 square brackets to be removed from the texts. From my days at the United Nations I remember how square brackets used to keep us up all night and how difficult they sometimes are to get removed. In this case, the devil is not just in the detail. The key question of the independence of the court is still on the table, and that is what I wish to address in the remainder of my brief remarks.
The international criminal court must be an impartial, independent and legitimate court. If it is not, it will be useless and one would then be forced to agree with Amnesty International's sad opinion that no international criminal court would be better than a weak international criminal court.
It has, of course, to be a United Nations body, for only the United Nations can invest it with the international legitimacy and authority which it must have. What is clearly not acceptable is that its status as a UN-created body should confer any licence on the Security Council or any UN member state to interfere in its operations.
That raises the question, also raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer, of the independence of the court's prosecution service. The court's chief prosecutor should have the right to initiate investigations on his or her own initiative, based on whatever sources are accessible, and subject only to the appropriate scrutiny by

951
a chamber of the court's own judges. That should maintain the court's independence, while deterring politically motivated or frivolous investigations.
However, if reports are to be believed, there are some states, such as France, the United States, China and Russia, which insist that no investigation can be triggered unless and until the Security Council refers the matter to the court. That is unacceptable. The court cannot be kept subordinate to the Security Council. Those who claim that it should be argue that it is the only way to prevent ill-advised prosecutions from interfering with the council's primary task of maintaining international peace and security. They further argue that crimes should, where possible, be dealt with by the state in which they are committed, with the international court as a last resort. We know what the problem is when it is left to the state to decide whether a prosecution should be brought. These are weak arguments.
Maybe others who know the issues better than I do can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Singapore has put forward a compromise which would permit the Security Council to decide, on a vote, to bar the court from involving itself in an area of conflict already on the council's agenda. I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether that is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. I fear that it is, but I rather hope that it is not. It is the foot of interference in the door of independence, and in time that door will simply be pushed open wider and wider. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not feel in any way intimidated by the fact that other permanent members of the Security Council appear to disapprove even of the Singapore compromise for just the opposite reasons and want the council to give positive approval for any and every prosecution in areas of active interest to the council.
The Rome negotiations may well be the last opportunity we have to fill a most glaring gap in the armoury of world justice. We must not allow a weak, half-hearted solution to emerge. As Telford Taylor memorably declared:
"There are some universal standards of human behaviour that transcend the duty of obedience to national laws".
It would be a fitting recognition of his high principles if a permanent international court were established that would ensure that a failure to live up to those universal standards of human behaviour would be impartially judged and appropriately sanctioned by the international community. That can only be realised if the court is truly impartial and not in any way subject to political interference.
7.58 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, I rise with trepidation, being the only totally lay person contributing to this important subject this evening. Kofi Annan had this to say:
"There can be no peace without justice, no justice without law and no meaningful law without a Court to decide what is just and lawful under any given circumstance".
952
He had genocide in mind, and so it is hoped that the establishment of an international criminal court will ensure that humanity's response to genocide will be swift and just. It is 50 long years since the United Nations first recognised the need for an international criminal court to prosecute crimes such as genocide, with the court being referred to as the missing link in the international legal system. I can only partly agree; much else needs to be done, in my view.
It is true to say that too often acts of genocide and gross violations of human rights go unpunished and a practical need for such a court, recognising that the Court of Justice only handles cases between states, could well be a practical necessity.
Fundamental questions of a practical nature, however, must be asked. What law is the court going to apply? What states will be agreeing to it? What procedure will it be following? What will be the standard of proof? How will penalties be determined and applied and what will be the appeals process? And, more generally, to what extent will the court, whilst serving principled aspirations, purely be an ineffective vehicle for practical realities?
The world now faces a multitude of differing odious crimes. There is a fundamental united desire for the majority of those crimes to be addressed by all civilised states in order to bring the perpetrators to justice.
I would not necessarily limit the court to genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It could, under certain circumstances, relate to drugs, terrorism, asylum, corruption, child abuse, whether bonded labour or pornography—the list goes on.
I accept that Trinidad and Tobago did make a start in 1989, through the General Assembly, by asking the International Law Commission to resume work on an international criminal court to include drug trafficking. What happened in that regard? The court, as being considered, might be too cumbersome an institution to refer or determine such equally malodorous matters, facing a constant conflict between national legislation weighed against its ideals.
Is not there a real case to be made for a more harmonised approach among members states towards national legislation, which would ensure general and more consistent standards, and one would therefore hope enforcement, as felt generally applicable.
I do not wish to go too wide of the Question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. But two examples come to mind where a common approach to national legislation would be beneficial, and could be in tandem as establishing an international court, so as to give the court real teeth through being effective and able to deliver a rapid response.
The first example has an immediate relevance given that our Home Secretary is going to make a statement before the Recess on matters relating to corruption. In addition, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker—who is not in her place—recently sent around a note expressing concern about the,
"many tragic examples of how transnational corruption impedes worthwhile development projects and impacts most adversely on the poorest in society".

953
By coincidence and extension, I am considering the merits of a private Member's Bill to address the broad responsibility of British multinationals abroad covering a wide range of environmental and human rights issues, which would also take in issues of corruption. The United States Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1998 initiated talks between many countries, including the United Kingdom, with the object of agreeing on common legislation to combat bribery and corruption of public officials in international business transactions. And again, in the area of terrorism, we all know that organisations and individuals based in the United Kingdom are funding or otherwise aiding terrorism outside the United Kingdom, generally making this country a safe-haven.
So again we can turn to the United States. Under a 1996 law relating to anti-terrorism legislation, it is a criminal offence to provide funds or other forms of material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organisations. I hope our Ministers are considering a similar approach, as failure to do so would not be targeting the nub of the problem.
Finally, the partly misunderstood, outgoing Colombian President, who has been in the front line in the fight against drugs, has long advocated greater global co-operation in the fight against criminal organisations. One of his proposals, in a speech to the United Nations, referred to the need to reach global agreement on judicial co-operation that would include judicial reciprocity and assistance in the exchange of evidence, judicial seizure of assets derived from drug trafficking, terrorism, and extradition.
So the case, in summary, would be to proceed with the international court, but also to work as a matter of urgency to harmonise national legislation, with a view to the future dismantling of intra-regional borders, and then to get on and put all the world's ills to right.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the commitment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, to international affairs and international justice is of long standing and I thank him for raising this issue tonight.
In the latter days of the Second World War the name of Belsen was branded upon my mind, young though I was. As the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, pointed out, those who were closely involved in the liberation of those camps and who, like Telford Taylor, were involved in the Nuremberg trials, must have believed that horrors on that scale could never happen again. The United Nations organisation was to be the safeguard of collective security and the Genocide Convention, adopted on 9th December 1948, must have appeared at that time to be a potent weapon to deter the war criminal and the mass murderer.
In its judgment the Nuremberg tribunal said:
"crimes against international law are committed by men and not by abstract entities and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced".
954
Thus it was that the 1948 convention recognised that genocide could be committed by constitutionally responsible rulers, by public officials or by private individuals and the principle of individual criminal responsibility and accountability against all persons who commit acts of genocide was then established. It is the foundation of the draft code formulated by the International Law Commission in 1996 at the request of the General Assembly. It applies equally, without any exception, against anybody through the governmental hierarchy or the chain of military command all the way down to the private citizen.
Yet genocide has not been stopped. The optimism has not been fulfilled. Cambodia lost 2 million lives in the killing fields; Bosnia devised ethnic cleansing; the scale of the original genocide in Rwanda could barely be grasped. Saddam Hussein was responsible for attacks upon his own citizens, the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. And perhaps on this very day in Kosovo, in the Great Lakes of Africa and in Algeria the killing, raping and torturing of civilians continues. Law is meaningless unless it is enforced.
Hence the vital importance of the Rome Conference to commence on Monday next. Many thought it would be 50 years before an international criminal court could come into being. But there has been progress. The preparatory committee, which held its sixth and final session at the United Nations headquarters in New York in March and April, was able to adopt a draft statute for the establishment of the court. The Rome Conference will, it is to be hoped, finalise and approve a convention for setting up the court. It hopes to produce a draft which can be submitted to the General Assembly for approval and adoption later this year.
Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, has already been quoted. But I do not apologise for quoting his words again. He said this further:
"In the prospect of an International Criminal Court lies the promise of universal justice. That is the simple and soaring hope of this vision. We are close to its realisation. We will do our best to see it through to the end. We ask you to do yours, to ensure in our struggle that no ruler, no junta, no State, no army anywhere can do anything to abuse human rights with impunity. Only then will the innocents of distant wars and conflicts know that they too may sleep under the cover of justice; that they too have rights and that those who violate those rights will be punished".
The United Nations is well served by its Secretary-General.
Perhaps I may address some of the core issues raised by your Lordships, matters which will have to be determined. There is the question of jurisdiction to consider. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, asked what law would be applied. The court should have jurisdiction over genocide as defined in the 1948 convention, committed in times of both peace and war; other crimes against humanity, when committed on a systematic basis or large-scale murder; extermination; the forced disappearance of persons; torture; rape; enforced prostitution and other sexual abuse. Justice for women in that regard must be at the forefront of the court's responsibilities. The court should also have jurisdiction over arbitrary deportation across national frontiers and the forcible transfer of population within national frontiers. Other crimes that the court should cover include arbitrary detention, enslavement,

955
persecution on political, racial, religious or other grounds. One has only to go through the catalogue of those crimes to realise how grave an issue faces the proposed international criminal court.
It should also have jurisdiction over serious violations of humanitarian law in international and non-international armed conflict. There should be no threshold, no requirement that the violations of humanitarian law in either type of conflict were part of a plan or policy or part of a large-scale commission of such crimes. There is much work to be done.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, when introducing this Question, referred to consent to prosecution. A requirement that the consent of any state is needed before any investigation can commence will wreck the effectiveness of the court, whether it be the consent of the state which has the custody of the suspect or the accused, or the state where the offence occurred; or the state of the accused or of the victim's nationality. The purpose of the court is not to supplant the national jurisdiction of any court, but to step in when it perceives that the organs of a particular state have completely collapsed, as happened in Rwanda; or that the political will to bring offenders to justice is lacking, as has happened, regrettably, in Bosnia. The court must therefore have an inherent jurisdiction without the requirement of consent. It must have universal jurisdiction—that is to say, the right to prosecute any individual wherever in the world a crime is committed.
As regards defences, none can be allowed to be introduced to these crimes which are prohibited by international law, such as superior orders, duress or anything that weakens the principles of individual criminal responsibility. That is the principle to which I referred in the judgment of the Nuremberg tribunal.
As for the independent prosecutor, he is the only truly effective person who can ensure that all cases which should be brought before the court are in fact brought. An independent prosecutor should be able to initiate investigations of any crime within the court's jurisdiction on his or her own initiative, based on information from any source, and also to present search and arrest warrants and indictments to the court for approval without the interference of any state.
There is a precedent. The prosecutors of the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have these powers. Referrals and state complaints should only be a supplement to other sources for the prosecutor. Both the Security Council and states are political bodies and they may, if they so choose, select situations for investigation on political rather than legal grounds.
So it follows that no political body, including the Security Council or the state, should have the power to stop or even delay an investigation or a prosecution under any circumstances whatsoever. There is no legitimate ground under international law or morality to obstruct justice by stopping or delaying investigations of crimes of genocide and so on. Any delays in an investigation permit the memories of witnesses to fade and facilitate the destruction of evidence and the
956
intimidation of witnesses. No state should be allowed to introduce statutes of limitation for these crimes because that would mean that the international community could not investigate or prosecute persons who have successfully evaded justice for a prolonged period of time.
There are other issues that need to be addressed such as victim protection and the question of a fair trial. Any trial before the international criminal court must be held in accordance with the highest international standards at all stages of the proceedings. As regards finance, the experience of the Yugoslavia and Rwanda ad hoc tribunals demonstrates that an international court must receive stable and adequate finance and human and technical resources to ensure that it functions effectively.
In the absence of a permanent international court, the perpetrators of atrocities may believe that they will go unpunished. The history of the 20th century shows that, by and large, they have been right. The will to set up ad hoc tribunals is lacking and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed out, the complaint arises with ad hoc tribunals that it is the victors who are punishing the vanquished with laws promulgated after the event. For heads of state, commanding officers and for the lowliest platoon Mai Lai commander and for the so-called freedom fighters, the likelihood of condemnation and punishment is the only deterrent against acts of violation and barbarism. Genocide, ethnic cleansing, rape and murder must earn condign punishment, swiftly and fairly administered. This is a step forward. One hopes that the Rome Conference will come to a final conclusion and put into the hands of the international community a potent weapon.
Yesterday I became a grandfather for the first time. I held my new grandson in my arms realising that he will have a life expectancy of some 80 years up to the year 2080. I thought to myself, as I was preparing this speech for your Lordships, let us hope that he does not have to face and deal with the sort of problems that have afflicted us and our generation at this time.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I should like to join those of your Lordships who have congratulated the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on introducing this debate at such an important moment in the development of an international court of criminal justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, quite rightly referred to Mr. Telford Taylor and the crucial contribution he made at the Nuremberg trial. I believe that it is also appropriate tonight that we should remind ourselves of the immense contribution that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, has made to what I hope will happen in the middle of this month, not only as Attorney-General at the time of Nuremberg but also constantly since then in advocating the outcome that we all fervently hope will take place.
I suppose that there are at least three vital reasons why we ought to set up an effective international court of criminal justice. The first is quite simply to make sure

957
that the perpetrator of evil faces up to the consequences of what he has done; and, if convicted, spends the rest of his life behind bars.
The second reason is that the existence of an international criminal court will be a deterrent to people who contemplate committing crimes like genocide and crimes against humanity; although I should remind your Lordships that that will only be true if the court enjoys an effective system to bring the alleged offender before it. For example, if we look at the court which is dealing with the events that took place in Bosnia, we have to come to the sad conclusion that the real reason why that court is not effective is not its composition but the absence of any effective mechanism for getting the accused in front of it. Unless in two weeks' time the right decisions are taken in Rome about that, however elegantly the jurisprudence is defined in the draft documents and however well designed is the court itself, it will be a futile exercise.
The third reason why the court will be important is that unless the perpetrators of war crimes are brought to justice, the societies in which the atrocities happened will never come to terms with those events. Again, from what is happening in Bosnia it is clear that that is so. There will never be reconciliation to the events in Bosnia until the people who committed the crimes there are brought to justice.
I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, said about the importance of getting the procedure right in the court. A remark attributed to Winston Churchill was that the strength of the protection of the criminal accused is the mark of a civilised society. That must apply equally to an international society just as to a national society. However, it is equally true that unless we get the mechanisms right for bringing the accused to the court, the procedures alone, however good, will not get us any further down the road to success.
I wonder how carefully the Government have thought this through. What happens if a nation state in which a crime has been committed refuses to yield the suspect? What remedies do the Government have in mind to recommend to the drafting convention? Would they, for example, consider giving powers to the Security Council to implement any request for the accused to be brought before the criminal court? Would a government, if necessary, use force to ensure that a suspect within their jurisdiction is brought before the court?
What of the crimes themselves? Will the Government consider including the crime of aggression in the range of crimes that will be adjudicated upon? One of the most important reasons why the Nuremberg trial was able to bring individuals such as Generals Jodl and Keitel to justice was the existence of the war crime of aggression in the terms of reference at Nuremberg. One of the reasons why we have not been able to bring Mr. Milosevic to justice is that the war crime of aggression was not included in the list of crimes under the jurisdiction of the Yugoslav court.
What attitude will the Government take? There are those who think that, if aggression is included, there should be a veto by the Security Council on whether the
958
court can go ahead with the prosecution. Others believe that even if the court ought to go ahead with a such a prosecution, at any particular moment, were it to become politically embarrassing, the Security Council ought to be able to call a halt to it. What is the Government's attitude to that? Indeed, what attitude will the Government take to political interference generally in the activities of the court? Several noble Lords have made that point. Will the Security Council have some sort of veto either ex ante or in the course of an investigation or prosecution? What role should a nation state be able to play in deciding whether a prosecution should start or whether to stop it in course?
All of those matters are crucial to whether an international court of criminal justice will be a success. I entirely agree with what all noble Lords have said about the importance of the independence of the prosecutor. I wonder whether we have investigated sufficiently carefully whether the role of the investigator and the prosecutor should be under the same head. In this country investigations are conducted by the police but prosecutions are conducted by the Crown Prosecution Service. Should there be a distinction between the functions of investigation and of prosecution in the international criminal court? Have the Government considered that? If so, what is their approach?
Ought the crimes to apply internally within states as well as between states? What of the case of Iraq and the initiative by my right honourable friend Mr. John Major in establishing safe areas? The Government have taken a bold initiative on the existing problems in Kosovo. Does that mean that they will support the jurisprudence and jurisdiction of the international criminal court with respect to war crimes committed by a leader in his own state?
Even if we get all of those questions right, we should be under no illusions about the role that such an international court of criminal justice can play in international society. It would be a great mistake to use the existence of an international criminal court as an excuse for not doing anything else about wrong-doing. There is no substitute for collective security in the world in which we live at the moment. I am sad to say that even if there had been an international criminal court in the 1930s, I very much doubt whether it would have acted as a deterrent to Hitler.
So, when we are facing the present crisis over Kosovo, it is crucial that this time, as we failed so lamentably to do at the time of the siege of Vukovar, we recognise that the only response in the circumstances of today which can possibly stop what is happening there is force.
I trust that when the noble Lord replies, he will give me the answers that I wish to hear.
8.26 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for the opportunity to debate this important topic and for the deep personal knowledge and commitment that he brings to it. This is, indeed, a key time for us to be

959
debating this issue. As noble Lords have said, the draft treaty will be discussed on Monday of next week in Rome. The United Kingdom will be there both in the guise of the EU presidency, represented by my honourable friend Mr. Tony Lloyd, and as the UK Government. It is important that that conference succeeds.
I have listened to all the points made and it is clear that all in the Chamber agree that the time is right for a permanent international court. Public opinion supports it. Sadly, the most appalling atrocities continue to be perpetrated around the world and, by and large, the world media bring them to our attention. The international community has responded in two of the worst cases by setting up the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. However, as those tribunals demonstrate, there is clearly a need for an institution that is able to act quickly wherever such heinous crimes are committed.
The Government are strongly in favour of the establishment of an effective international court, designed to try crimes of the most serious nature. We see the creation of an effective court as a key component of the Government's policies on human rights, the upholding of international humanitarian law and the prevention of conflict. The Government have played an active part in the negotiations on the establishment of the court. We have sought to give an early lead to others through the publication of a policy paper, which was laid before this House and another place in February.
We subsequently held a meeting of EU experts in February. We have contributed a substantial sum to the UN Trust Fund to assist representatives of the least developed countries to attend the conference in Rome. We have worked closely with the NGO community, which understandably has a close interest in the establishment of the court. I pay tribute to its efforts in this area.
We are not yet there. There is still much to resolve at Rome, as my noble friend Lord Grenfell indicated. The text contains many square brackets. The more sensitive topics still under discussion include which crimes should fall within the jurisdiction of the court; how investigations are initiated; whether prior consent is needed by state parties before an investigation can take place; the role of the Security Council; and the question of how the court should be funded. Most of those issues have been raised by noble Lords.
We recognise that most of the nations of the world operate within the rule of international law but we need a new instrument for three main reasons: first, to ensure that in those instances where international law is not observed justice is done effectively. If the principles of international humanitarian law are to be upheld, we must ensure that those who commit the most serious international crimes cannot do so with impunity. Secondly, there is the issue of deterrence. We hope that in future at least some of those who are tempted to commit atrocities will hesitate in the face of an effective instrument that punishes those who commit such crimes. The third issue is reconciliation in societies that very often are terribly war torn. The knowledge that those
960
who have committed atrocities are to be brought to justice may help some who have suffered to put the past behind them.
The United Kingdom Government want a court that is permanent and fully effective but have set in safeguards to ensure that it operates properly. It must have sensible limits to its jurisdiction. Those should be focused on crimes of greatest international concern. It must reinforce, not redefine, international agreements for peace and security under the UN Charter. If the court is to be properly effective, those who adhere should accept its jurisdiction over all the crimes listed in the statute establishing the court and should have a mandatory obligation to co-operate with requests from the court. The consent of state parties with an interest in a case should not be necessary before individual prosecutions or investigations can take place. Nor should it be possible for state parties acting in bad faith to resist requests from the court for disclosure of information on manifestly ill-founded national security grounds.
However, there must be safeguards. My noble and learned friend Lord Archer and my noble friend Lord Grenfell referred to complementarity with national legal systems. The court should not act when national legal systems are clearly able and willing to do so. But the court should have the authority, having heard the views of the state with jurisdiction, to determine whether that is truly the case. States acting in bad faith cannot use complementarity—or what might be termed negative outcome show trials—as an excuse to shield suspects from the international court. Conversely, states should not be able to use the court as the means of avoiding a politically embarrassing or financially costly trial at home.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, questioned the jurisdiction of the court but came to somewhat different conclusions. The view of the Government is that the court's jurisdiction should have a clear demarcation so that it concentrates on the crimes of greatest international concern. We believe that those should cover genocide, crimes against humanity and grave war crimes, whether committed within or between states—to deal with one point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. It should also include in particular crimes committed during internal conflicts since recent history has shown that that is where war crimes of this nature most often occur.
The crime of rape and other crimes of sexual violence committed in armed conflict should be properly defined and explicitly added to the court's statutory list of war crimes. We also support the inclusion in that list of the crime of recruitment of children into armed forces. Appropriate procedures will be required for other cases of abuse involving women and children.
To reply to one matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, the court should have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression, but that has to be defined and determined. The Government believe that it should be limited to those cases where the Security Council has

961
determined that aggression has taken place. We believe that that would depoliticise or at least reduce the political pressures on the court itself.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raised the question of extending jurisdiction beyond that. In our view the list of war crimes should include only those recognised in customary international law. The Rome conference will not be able to settle some disputed questions such as the use of nuclear weapons. The noble Viscount also raised the question of the extension of jurisdiction to drugs, child abuse generally, environmental crimes and corruption. I agree with him that increased judicial co-operation is required in all of these areas, but those areas are not envisaged as part of this court's remit. To extend its field outside armed conflict or serious international crime—crimes against humanity and genocide—runs the risk of diluting the effect of the court. There are already arrangements for dealing internationally with crimes related to terrorism and drug trafficking. To include those in the court's jurisdiction would divert it from its main task.
A number of difficult points have been raised and have not yet been settled. They will be subject to serious negotiation in Rome. In particular, we have referred to the independence of the prosecutor. The United Kingdom Government will strongly support the independence of the prosecutor and the authority of that office. We need to protect that office from political pressure. At the same time, there is a need for appropriate checks and balances to guard against capricious investigations by the court. This will be difficult. My noble friend Lord Grenfell will understand that we do not wish to set out in great detail tonight our negotiating position. Our delegation in Rome will be deeply involved in those negotiations and hopes to take a lead at the conference. I can assure my noble friend that the principles he has enunciated this evening are those of Her Majesty's Government. Coupled with that were queries about the role of the Security Council. The court should reinforce and not redefine existing arrangements. The Security Council must be able to refer cases to the court when acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter; otherwise, it is likely that more ad hoc tribunals will be required to carry out decisions of the Security Council.
Queries were raised about the Singapore compromise. The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the Security Council should, when the court begins an investigation, have the power to request a time-limited suspension of cases when it determines that international peace and security may otherwise be damaged, for example when court action may derail sensitive peace negotiations under the jurisdiction of the Security Council. Similarly, in the first instance it will be for the Security Council, not the court, to decide when aggression has taken place. Part of the reason for giving the Security Council some initiative in this matter is to ensure that rogue states cannot get off the hook. They will include states who are not party to the treaty. The Security Council should be able to use its powers under Chapter VII, whether or not a state is party to the statute of the treaty setting up the court. None of this detracts
962
from the fact that the Government wish to see the prosecutor having independent jurisdiction and the court having power to initiate prosecutions without those being approved by either the Security Council or the states involved and they should generally be free of political interference.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer referred to the question of reparation. Her Majesty's Government support the provision for the court to order those whom it convicts to pay reparations to victims. We support the obligation on party states to enforce those judgments.
We believe that despite the negotiating difficulties still outstanding, Rome will signal a success on the road to the creation of an international court. It is hoped that this House will within a fairly short period consider the primary legislation that is required to enact the provisions in order for us to meet our obligations under a treaty that we can sign. The creation of a permanent international court is a historic task. It will be a major new organ that will play a crucial role on the world stage for many decades to come.
The 20th century has been a dreadful and barbarous one and continues to be so for many people around the world today. I end by joining with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in saying that, for the sake of all our grandchildren, we hope to create this court as part of a more civilised approach to international matters in the 21st century. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Archer for tabling this Question and all noble Lords for their contributions.

Government of Wales Bill
8.40 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 88.
[Amendment No. 211A not moved.]
Clause 88 agreed to.
Clauses 89 to 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Staff etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 47, line 9, leave out from beginning to ("by") in line 10 and insert ("Any function of the Auditor General for Wales may be exercised").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely technical amendment to bring the wording of this clause into line with the text of paragraph 5(5) of the schedule which we discussed earlier and which this Committee agreed last week. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 95 to 97 agreed to.
Clause 98 [Auditor General for Wales: miscellaneous]:
[Amendment No. 212A not moved.]
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 104 agreed to.
Clause 105 [Publication of accounts and audit reports etc.]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 212B:
Page 54, line 13, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 86, line 40, after ("of') insert ("the Office of").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similarly a drafting amendment. It simply ensures consistency with the definition of the office of chief inspector. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Forestry Commissioners]:
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: This clause deals with the proposed arrangements for the Forestry Commission. I, for one, would certainly be grateful to the Government for an explanation of what is proposed. As I understand it, there is to be a tripartite division of the Forestry Commission. There are to be separate parts of the Forestry Commission, one responsible to the Scottish Parliament, the other responsible to the Welsh Assembly, and a section of the Forestry Commission which is responsible, I take it, to the United Kingdom Parliament.
I should be grateful for a fuller explanation of what is proposed, for the obvious reason that a unified Forestry Commission has been generally very acceptable in this country in recent years. We have seen the benefits that have emerged from having a unified forestry authority.
I should be grateful for an explanation in detail of what is proposed and how the responsibilities are to be divided, how the assembly, in particular, will take on responsibility for the commission in Wales and how such responsibility is to be reconciled with the responsibility for forestry in the rest of the United Kingdom.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elis-Thomas: I warmly welcome the opportunity briefly to debate forestry. I also welcome the Government's decision to devolve forestry to the national assembly.
Forestry policy is an integral part of land use, countryside, agriculture, tourism, recreation, sustainable development policy and many other things. The forestry industry has retained employment throughout rural Wales since 1919 when the Forestry Commission, as one of the oldest of our nationalised industries, was established.
964
The development of forestry was originally in order to maintain a supply of timber; now its further development in relation to both private forestry and public forestry in terms of the pulp and paper mill industry in Wales; the growth of saw mills in mid-Wales and also the importance of timber and brushwood as a secondary energy source, all point to the importance of planning forestry in a sustainable way.
I am certain that the Minister can assure us that that is the intention, that we will carry with us the best of forestry practice throughout the UK and Europe but also integrate that effectively with land use within Wales. I am also certain that under the assembly we may look to the development of further forestry, particularly from sustainable woodland, broad-leaved and mixed woodlands and the replacement of forestry in an environmentally sensitive way, which is now taking place in many parts of Wales.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the Minister intervenes, as a former forest Minister, perhaps I may say a few words about forestry.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Two Front Benchers?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I must say to the noble Lord that we can both speak from the Front Bench. We do not do it often but other parties in this Chamber do it frequently. I seldom do it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: Some of us have only one Front Bench and, indeed, one Back Bench.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This subject is important. The reason it is simply a clause stand part debate is that we would like to explore with the Government how they envisage the Forestry Commission operating after devolution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, in a debate in your Lordships' House on 29th October 1997, a debate instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, from the Liberal Democrat Benches in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said at col. 1125:
"The functions of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in relation to forestry will be transferred to the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly respectively. The commission will however continue to be the government department with responsibility for forestry throughout Britain. The commission will report separately to the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly but will still he a national responsibility. I hope that provides some comfort and confidence to my noble friend".
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, unfortunately is not here. I have to say that it did not provide me with much comfort and confidence. I am still puzzled. Schedule 6 is a long and complex schedule to achieve what I might sum up as the dismemberment of the Forestry Commission and then its coming together again. That seems to me to be surprising.
Forestry is an important industry in this country. We are not heavily forested, as we heard this afternoon at Question Time: something like 10 per cent. in the United Kingdom. I am not sure of the Welsh figure but

965
I think that it is probably better than 10 per cent. Scotland is certainly better than 10 per cent. But in comparison to Germany at 30 per cent. and France at 26 per cent. we are pretty poorly off for forestry. But, despite that, it is an important and growing industry in the United Kingdom. The output from our forests is about £800 million a year, and growing. Against that figure, which sounds large, we have about £6 billion of imports.
Some 40 per cent. of the forestry section is run by the Forestry Commission. The other 60 per cent. is run by the private sector. The Forestry Commission, which is now in two, has an involvement in the private sector in that the Forest Authority, as all sides of this place agreed this afternoon in an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has a major role to play in the private sector. After all, it gives the planting agreements and the felling agreements, and it is a pretty big and important player.
Not only does that make for a large number of jobs in the countryside throughout the UK, and especially in Wales; it makes for a great many what I call downstream jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, mentioned that point. Over the past 10 years about £1 billion has been invested in the UK pulp and paper industry. In Wales, there is the Shotton papermill and other wood users. They are not just local sawmills but industries that manufacture hardboard and the like. They are serious and important manufacturing industries which do not just employ people but keep down the £6 billion import bill.
Forestry has been treated on a UK basis. Until now, the Secretary of State for Scotland has been the lead Minister. For a while I was the Minister in the Scottish Office responsible for forestry throughout the UK. That is a little while ago, but my interest in forestry has in no way waned.
I am not sure whether the Ministers will be able to help me. I hope that they can. It may be easier to deal with this point when we come to the Scotland Bill, because the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is currently the lead Minister for the UK on forestry. I am sure that the two Ministers have been well briefed and will accept my proposition that forestry is important for Wales. That does not relate merely to the growing of timber but to the Shottons and the downstream jobs.
Places such as Shotton depend for their timber supplies not just on Wales but on other parts of the UK. I do not know what happens currently, but in the past forests in the south of Scotland have been supplying Shotton. I make that point to try to bring home to the Committee the fact that the UK forest industry is a unified one.
My fear is that the splitting up of the UK forest industry will lead to the Scottish parliament looking at Scottish forestry and being much more concerned with the supply to the Scottish downstream industry, whereas the UK Government and the Forest Authority are interested in the supply of timber to all manufacturing plants in the UK. Currently, the Forestry Commission, albeit responsible to the lead department in Scotland, looks at the matter from a UK point of view. It works
966
out how timber will go to Shotton. In another year—it is like that—it may be how Welsh timber goes over the border and into England and may be even comes to the pulp mill at Irvine in Scotland. There is a cycle in timber which means that there is a great deal of felling going on in one part of the country and that timber has to be dispersed about the market place.
It is that united forest industry that I fear may be broken up. I can see the Government deciding what money to give the Forestry Commission in Wales. It might say, "We are not interested in supplying timber to Irvine or to England". Conversely, and perhaps more worryingly for Wales, an English Minister or a Scottish Minister may decide that they are not interested in supplying timber to Shotton. They may say that it is not their problem; it is the problem of the Welsh assembly. That is a difficult and dangerous position in which to land the Forestry Commission.
In a minute I shall ask how we will divide up the expenditure, which is not currently divided. I want to carry on with planting. Governments can skew planting. The Government could decide that they were obsessed with the green lobby. I did not like what are called—I believe erroneously—exotic species, which are sitka spruce and the like, which I agree are not native but which grow extraordinarily well in our climate and are in demand in the market place.
We need planting to feed the mills. If we do not have planting to feed the mills, in 20 or 30 years' time we may not have the timber that they need to carry on. As I have tried to explain, that planting has to be done on a UK basis, so that one can look at the whole picture, and the total demand, whether it be Shotton, Irvine, the hardboard manufacturers, Caberboard in central Scotland or whatever it may be. The Forestry Commission has been able to look at the total demand and supply picture, and work out with the UK Government what type of grant machinery should be in place to deliver that timber.
Noble Lords who have heard me speak about forestry before are aware that I should like to see more planting done in the UK. That inevitably means the necessary grant, because the tax advantages no longer exist. If the UK Government, who will be the Government of England so far as concerns forestry, decide that they want to be green and plant lots and lots of hardwood and skew the planting programme for hardwoods, that could, not next year or the following year but in 20 years' time, have an enormous consequence for Shotton because it may not be able to obtain enough wood. I am worried about that. My worry was in no way diminished when on 18th February the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, told me:
"it would be perfectly possible for the grant system in Scotland to be different from that in Wales, and from that in England".— [Official Report, 18/2/98; col. 256.]
I am concerned that that could result in us not looking at forestry in the UK in a unified way. We might end up not with a problem, as I said, in the next decade, because all the timber that will go to the pulp mills in the next two or three decades is already growing. But in the decades after in the 2020s and the 2030s the problem could occur.

967
I am worried that one of the players—let us say England—may decide, "We are not interested in softwood any more". That could have serious consequences for Wales and Scotland. If the Scottish parliament decided that it was interested only in supplying timber to the timber industry in Scotland, that could have consequences for Shotton and other places in Wales. The point I am making is that one cannot turn on and off the supply. The planting is done for supply 30 years hence. One can obtain a great deal of timber out of one part of the country for a little while, as the woods come to maturity and they are all being clear felled. For another 20 or 30 years there may be very little timber from that part of the country.
I am trying to emphasise what I believe is the need to look at forestry as a UK asset. Forestry should be based on a UK strategy. If the Forestry Commission is answering to the national assembly for Wales, the Scottish parliament and the UK Parliament for England, it could be looking at three different strategies which may not all be pointing in the same direction.
My second concern relates to how one negotiates with three different local governments the money that the Forestry Commission needs. If the Forestry Commission has to split its accounts, it will have to spend time and trouble to do so. Its bureaucracy will cost more if it has to split its accounts. It is easy to decide that the forest officers in Wales are a call on the Welsh portion of the commission. I assume that the headquarters will remain in Edinburgh. How will those people who make the decisions in the forest authority in Edinburgh divide up their time? Will they have to keep a log sheet: "From 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. I dealt with forestry in Wales. From 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. I dealt with forestry in Scotland"?
Lord Hooson: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not arguing against devolution of any control of forestry to the Welsh assembly or to the Scottish parliament? He simply makes a Second Reading speech.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry that the noble Lord is so disinterested in the forestry industry that he does not consider these detailed points deserve an answer. This speech is a good deal more detailed than a Second Reading speech. I suspect that I would be chided if I had such detail in a Second Reading speech and that the noble Lord would say that such speeches are broad brush. I seek to go into detail.
The noble Lord's conclusion may be right. I am extremely concerned about the Forestry Commission being split up. I do not deny that. I am prepared now to sign up to devolution. However, I have a few continuing worries; the Forestry Commission is one. I am quite relaxed now about health, education or local authorities going to the devolved parliaments. But we must explore the problems on one or two issues. The very fact that the Forestry Commission has almost four pages and a whole schedule to itself in the Bill underlines the difficulty of splitting up the Forestry Commission.
There is no point in the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, saying that somehow one does not need to ask these questions; I believe that one does. We shall have the
968
difficulty of the Forestry Commission dividing itself up and having to argue about its budget with three different masters. The law of the Medes and Persians tells me that each master will try to screw the commission down, paying it the least amount. It will say, "No you should not have all these items in. That will go to the English chap, or the Scottish chap". The Scottish and English will try to do the same with the Welsh chap. It will be very difficult.
I have a number of detailed amendments that could have been put down. However, I wish to explore how the Government will implement a devolved Forestry Commission. I do not say that I shall not come back to the subject. However, previously we have had assurances of the best in the best of all possible worlds. That may be so. But I know a little about government. Whether it is the UK Government for England, the Scottish government for Scotland or the Welsh assembly for Wales, they will not part with their bawbees too readily. They will try to part with as little money as possible. That could be bad for the administrative budget of the commission.
The more important issue is the grant system. I understand that it will have to be paid by the Welsh assembly so far as concerns Wales. I do not worry so much for the Welsh growing industry; I suspect that a Welsh assembly will understand the importance of planting conifers. I am more concerned about an English Government, where the pressures—as I know from being a forestry Minister at one time—are on the hardwoods. The supply of sitka spruce may not be as readily available over the Border in 20 or 30 years as it is now. Places such as Shotton may be in severe trouble.
I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say. It might have been better had the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, had this debate the first time round, as the current Minister responsible for forestry in the UK. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, has been well briefed. He has been told the difference between hardwoods and softwoods, sitka and other species. I hope that he will give me some assurance that my fears about the division of the Forestry Commission are ill founded and that I can rest comfortably in my bed while the trees grow.
9 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I hope that the Committee will forgive my addressing the Government of Wales Bill rather than a government of Scotland Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, says that it might have been appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to make the response. That would be so on the Scotland Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I had better tell the noble Lord now that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is the Minister responsible for forestry in Wales as we speak; and England and Scotland.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What I am pointing out, I hope reasonably politely, is that this is the Government of Wales Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Elis-Thomas, rightly, I suggest, focused on

969
what the amendment is about. There are two amendments. It is probably helpful, if the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, thinks it useful, to deal with Clause 107 and Schedule 6 at the same time. They are different aspects of the same point.
It is important on these occasions not to be alarmist, not to worry people who live and work in Shotton. It is an area which historically has been deprived of heavy industry, with the run down of other alternatives. It is important not to raise alarmist fears. If there is a market for a product which is wanted for Shotton, it will be supplied either by Scotland, Wales or England. I do not believe—I am surprised that an advocate of the free market system suggests—that growers in England controlled by the Forestry Commission would be reluctant to try to sell their product to Shotton. That is not the world I recognise.
Perhaps I may focus on the point. In the context of the Government of Wales Bill, should Clause 107 and Schedule 6 be deleted? Perhaps I may focus on Wales. I entirely agree with what the noble Lords, Lords Roberts and Lord Elis-Thomas, said. Forestry is important to Wales. Over 4,700 people are employed; 1,270 are employed by the Forestry Commission. So it is important. The forest area in Wales is not limited to the land owned by the commission. In March 1997 the forest area of Wales was 247,000 hectares. Of those, 120,000 hectares were owned by the commission at that date. As the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, said, forestry allows farmers to diversify in difficult times. They can plant woodlands instead of agricultural production. A well-planted forest is attractive to tourists and provides excellent habitat for wildlife. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, we are not proposing a separate forestry commission for Wales. I hope that is the categoric assurance of the kind the noble Lord wanted. There is no question of dismemberment. If one troubles to cast one's eye over Schedule 6, paragraph 1(1) states:
"The Secretary of State may by order make provision for securing—
(a) the separate exercise in relation to Wales of functions of the Forestry Commissioners".
There is no question of dismemberment. We do not propose to create a separate commission for Wales.
In the context of devolution—which, to echo the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, is one that I thought the Committee had accepted—it is right that the assembly should have responsibility for settling the commission's policies and funding activities in Wales. Following devolution—here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—there are bound to be matters that affect Great Britain generally. One would be looking for agreement between the Ministry of Agriculture, a representative of the Welsh assembly and the appropriate Minister in the Scottish executive.
In view of some comments, I must say plainly that there is no prospect that under Clause 107 of and Schedule 6 to the Government of Wales Bill, employment of the present workforce in Wales will be prejudiced in the slightest way. It is very important that one does not say things that alarm people in an area
970
that is central to their lives—namely, their employment, home, social and local life. We think this is the proper way to deal with things. I stress that I am dealing with the Government of Wales Bill, not with what may or may not be said of the Scotland Bill.
In Wales, there will be no separate forestry commission. Not all planting is the same. Not all local conditions are the same. One wants decent flexibility in Wales, which will be subject to discussions between the Welsh assembly and the Forestry Commission officials who have to deal with Wales. That seems a step of practical utility, not the end of the world as we know it. It is an aspect of devolution that has been thought through. Bearing in mind my assurance to the Committee, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Roberts of Conwy and Lord Elis-Thomas, will be content and that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, will withdraw his resistance to Clause 107 and Schedule 6.
I recognise and welcome the tone in which the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, put his arguments—as an inquiry about what will happen in Wales. I do not myself believe that a market in Wales will not be fulfilled by Scottish, English or Welsh producers. Similarly, if there is a market in Scotland, I do not think that producers in Wales will be chary of travelling over the border simply because there are new constitutional arrangements. That is not realistic. If the noble Lord has specific concerns, I will be perfectly happy to convey them to my noble friend Lord Sewel, who will deal with them in the appropriate context. Whether or not there are worries in filling up time sheets in Edinburgh does not strike me as enormously helpful in considering Clause 107 and Schedule 6.
Clause 107 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall be agreed to?
Lord Roberts of Conwy: It is not difficult to understand how concerns about the operations of the Forestry Commissioners spread outside the devolution proposals for both Scotland and Wales. Schedule 6 makes clear, at paragraph 1(3), that the functions of the forestry commissioners
"(b) may be exercised differently in relation to Wales on the one hand and England or Scotland on the other."
That is only an indication but the fact that statement has to be made in the context of a schedule headed "Forestry Commissioners" shows that there is to be a change that must be carefully managed.
We have been accustomed to a unified Forestry Commission that pursues policy in England, Scotland and Wales that is complementary in the sense that such industry as uses forestry products in the UK draws them from different parts of the kingdom and abroad. The whole industry is run on a national basis and governmental control of forestry has been exercised for some considerable time through the Scottish Office. Therefore, it was natural for my noble friend, who had responsibility for forestry in the United Kingdom when a Minister at the Scottish Office, to express his concerns about the future and the way in which the forestry commissioners will operate in England, Scotland and

971
Wales. His concerns extend way beyond this Parliament to many aspects of the forestry industry in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Having received assurances from the Minister that the arrangements will not allow for such separation as is required in England, Scotland and Wales for the purposes of the assembly in Wales and the parliament in Scotland, I am content that we should withdraw our objection to the Question that Schedule 6 is agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 213A:
Before Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
("Privilege of Assembly

APPLICATION OF BILL OF RIGHTS AND CLAIM OF RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS
.—(1) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 and of that part of Article XXV of the Claim of Right Act 1689 which secures freedom of speech and debate to members of Parliament shall apply to the proceedings of the Assembly; and those Articles shall be construed accordingly.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above—

(a) proceedings of the Assembly shall not be questioned on grounds of non-conformity with Assembly standing orders except where such non-conformity raises a devolution issue within the meaning of Schedule 7 to this Act, and

(b) speeches made in the Assembly shall be treated as having the same status in law in relation to proceedings of the Assembly as speeches made in Parliament have in relation to proceedings in Parliament.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I begin by apologising for visiting yet another Lord Mackay into deliberations on the Bill, particularly when in the same breath I indicate that in speaking to this and subsequent amendments I shall make reference to the Scotland Bill. I believe that there are similar threads between them, a view which I suspect is shared by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who is in the Chamber and I suspect somewhat interested in what I have to say.
The first amendment raises the issue of according to the assembly the privilege that attends to what is said in this Parliament when cases are raised in courts throughout the United Kingdom. It seeks to provide that the provisions of Article IX of the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish equivalent of that—namely, Article XXV of the Claim of Right Act 1689, which secures freedom of speech and debate to Members of Parliament,—apply to the proceedings of the assembly. It seeks to elaborate on the practical effects of that in subsection (2).
It may be instructive to bear in mind what lies behind the privilege that is incorporated in Article IX of the Bill of Rights. It is the need to ensure that as far as possible Members of this Parliament and witnesses who appear before the committees of this Parliament are able to speak freely without fear that what they say will later be held against them in the courts. The important public interest protected by the privilege is to ensure that a Member of either House, or a witness appearing before a committee of either House, when he speaks, is not inhibited from speaking fully and freely.
That principle, coupled with the wider principle that the courts on the one hand and Parliament on the other are both astute to recognise their respective constitutional roles, means that the courts will not allow any challenge to be made to what has been said or done within the walls of Parliament in performance of Parliament's legislative function.
In tabling the amendment, I wish to make it clear that it is not intended in any way to prevent the executive functions which will be discharged by the assembly or any committee of the assembly or any individual on behalf of the assembly being appealed to the courts or made the subject of judicial review proceedings to any lesser extent than can happen at present. Nor, indeed, is the amendment designed to exclude any reference in court proceedings to speeches made either in this House or in another place when on the authority of the case of Pepper v. Hart it is appropriate that such reference should be made.
It is right that I should publicly acknowledge the assistance that I have had in framing the amendment from senior officials within the Public Bill Office. The amendment is designed to have several purposes. First, it is designed to encourage free speech in accordance with the principles as I have explained them, free speech not only by members of the assembly and in particular by the first secretary and the assembly secretary but also by those who will be called before the committees of the assembly to contribute to the discharge of its functions.
Secondly, it seeks to extend to the assembly and encourage it to recognise the principle which currently guides the relationship between this Parliament and the courts. Again, I have already made reference to it; namely, the recognition and respect that the one has for the other's constitutional role.
Thirdly, the intention is to discourage the number of occasions on which legal proceedings are raised for political purposes. Those of us who have practised in the courts know that from time to time, whether to do with the affairs of local authorities, where it happens quite frequently, or to do with the conduct of referendums, where it happens less frequently, actions are raised for a political purpose; that is, to draw attention to particular political causes, to attract the media to the court proceedings and then, once the necessary publicity has been received and the political mileage has been made, the proceedings are abandoned in the event that they prove to be unsuccessful, which in most instances they do.
As I construe this Bill and the provisions of the Scotland Bill, it would be possible for court action to be raised with a view to preventing the assembly proceeding to deal with a certain piece of business, interrupting the assembly during the course of proceedings or seeking to quash the assembly's decisions when they are concerned with the approval of subordinate legislation. Whether it be done by injunction proceedings in England and Wales or interdict proceedings in Scotland, technically speaking, it would be competent to do so. That is not the situation which applies to proceedings in this Parliament. Therefore, a third purpose is to discourage the number

973
of occasions on which disgruntled politicians, of whatever party, have recourse to the court to try to frustrate the will of the elected members.
The fourth purpose is to exclude the possibility of parties and their respective lawyers trawling the speeches made by assembly members with a view to seeing whether anything said can support judicial review proceedings which may be proceeding on the grounds of error of law, failure to take account of a relevant consideration or whatever, or equally to prevent such attempts to be founded on irregularities of procedure. All those matters are commonplace when judicial review of the actions of local authorities takes place.
I accept fully that in the setting up of a devolved assembly such as that proposed for Wales and the devolved parliament as is proposed for Scotland it is necessary to have in place judicial procedures to resolve constitutional disputes that arise in relation to the issue of vires. Equally, I believe firmly that it is not in the interests of the success of either the assembly of Wales or the parliament of Scotland to have recourse to the court unless it is strictly necessary, and even then such recourse should be on as limited grounds as possible.
I believe that this is an important issue and I very much look forward to a constructive response from the Minister.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are discussing important issues, but in many ways it is a question of déjá vu, although I am not sure what the Welsh equivalent of that phrase is and I cannot draw on the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, because he is not in the Chamber at present. However, we discussed these issues at some length on an earlier Committee day. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was good enough to contribute his proposition; namely, that one needs full, fearless and frank debate in the assembly. We dealt with such matters by way of our amendments to Clause 78, which I believe were generally welcomed by Members on all sides of the Committee.
There are a number of propositions here, but I believe that they have been overtaken by our amendments to Clause 78. In any event, I do not think that some of them could properly apply to the Welsh assembly. The amendment starts with the words;
"For the avoidance of doubt".
Whenever I hear those words, I feel a little like Field Marshal Goering and reach for my revolver. There is no doubt here. On any legitimate construction of Article IX of the Bill of Rights, there is no possibility of it applying to the Welsh assembly because it relates to the Parliament at Westminster. There is no doubt about that. The Claim of Right Act 1689—an Act of the former Scottish Parliament—could not, with the utmost ingenuity, even of members of the Wales and Chester circuit, possibly apply to the Welsh assembly.
I take note of the points behind the amendments. I hope that I am not being impolite, but I believe that they were designed for a situation that has been overtaken by events. We amended Clause 78 by drawing
974
on provisions in the Defamation Act 1996. The real protection in respect of free, fearless and frank discussion, to use the noble Lord's phrase, is immunity from actions for defamation. Indeed, as I said, we discussed the matter on an earlier day of the Committee stage. We have already provided for that situation to general agreement from all sides of the Committee.
I should point out to the Committee that Members of Parliament cannot be criminally liable for statements made in proceedings in Parliament. That was considered in the case of Duncan Sandys in 1938. It was generally agreed there that the Member of Parliament in question could not have been convicted of a breach of the Official Secrets Act for information disclosed in the course of proceedings in Parliament. Therefore, there is the effective immunity of a Member of Parliament in Westminster from criminal prosecution, but of course the other place has internal sanctions for breach of its own rules, which can include imprisonment.
As far as concerns the assembly, we provided last week that standing orders made for preserving order in the assembly must include provision for preventing conduct which would constitute a criminal offence. That, of course, would include the power to restrain the making of statements which, if made, would constitute a criminal offence. If those standing orders were ignored and a criminal offence were then committed, we do not see why the offending member should be immune from prosecution. There is no power in the assembly for it to imprison its own member—a power which does obtain in another place.
We are quite certain that the amendments we moved last week will give adequate and full protection to the freedom of speech of assembly members. Therefore, trying to apply Article IX of the Bill of Rights to the proceedings of the assembly is neither required nor appropriate.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord because he dealt with a question which is encompassed in subsection (2)(a) of his amendment. As he explained, that seeks to apply to proceedings of the assembly the rule excluding review by any court of the observance by either House of its internal procedures and practices in the discharge of its business. That is subject to the exemption—namely, the "devolution issue"—which I believe the noble and learned Lord described as the vires question. I entirely agree with him.
The noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to apply to a body which is not a parliament principles which have been developed in the context of this Parliament. It is well known that no court will entertain a question which impugns the internal workings of another place. However, it will be very odd indeed if, having accepted the amendments which we discussed at some length last week, Members of the Committee were now in effect to provide that non-observance of standing orders—and I stress this point—even those specifically required by the Bill, could never allow a court to hold assembly action invalid. I respectfully suggest that that would be nonsense. The court would be entitled to examine the question of whether standing orders which had been introduced on a mandatory basis in the Bill

975
and which had been breached could in fact result in a finding of invalidity and the granting of a remedy. That is a discretion open to the court.
The final matter which the noble and learned Lord again helpfully outlined relates to Pepper v. Hart. It is well known that in some circumstances the courts can look at the legislative history of a statute when construing its provisions. That was held not to be impeaching or questioning proceedings in Parliament which would have been contrary to the Bill of Rights. The rule in Pepper v. Hart will continue to apply to legislation going through Parliament which confers order-making powers on the assembly. Statements made in the course of those proceedings could be used in the Pepper v. Hart context.
Whether statements made in the assembly in the course of its order-making procedures could be relied upon is a different question. As I said last week, the assembly's powers are to make subordinate legislation only. When your Lordships' House decided Pepper v. Hart it paid regard to its earlier decision in Pickstone v. Freenzans, which concluded that it was permissible to construe subordinate legislation having regard to the legislative history. We believe it would be for the courts to decide whether the same approach could be taken in relation to proceedings in the National Assembly for Wales. The cases are there and the courts can address these issues.
I summarise. Article IX of the Bill of Rights could not properly apply to the assembly. Article XXV of the Claim of Right Act 1689, which is a peculiarly Scottish Act, could not conceivably apply to the assembly. Freedom of speech in debate is already secured by the amendments we discussed and passed last week. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his proposed new subsection (2)(a) on the basis of my explanation. As regards his proposed new subsection (2)(b), I hope I have given him the assurances that he sought in the context of Pepper v. Hart.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hooson: I hope that the noble Lord will deal with the following point. I understood that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, also suggested that action could be taken in the courts to seek an injunction to prevent the Welsh assembly from considering certain points. It had not occurred to me that that could be done. I do not think that the noble Lord dealt specifically with that point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I can conceive of such circumstances in the vires context. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, dealt specifically with the vires context. If there were a proposal by the Welsh assembly to deal with its devolved powers ultra vires, it seems to me as a matter of principle that any remedy would be capable of being sought by a disaffected party who had sufficient locus. That might well include the remedy of injunction. That
976
is a matter for the courts to develop. However, as a matter of principle, I believe that the noble and learned Lord is right in the vires context.
Lord Prys-Davies: Will my noble friend on the Front Bench deal with an issue which was not raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon? I have followed the proceedings of the joint Parliamentary Privilege Committee which has discussed this question. It has also discussed the question of whether a Member of Parliament should be immune from being subpoenaed to attend and give evidence in criminal or civil proceedings. I fully accept the relevance of Clause 78, as amended, but there is nothing in the Bill that deals with the question of whether a member of the Welsh assembly will be immune from being subpoenaed to give evidence. Therefore I assume that he or she will not be immune from that. I hope that my noble friend can answer that question.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is an interesting question. I believe it would depend on the basis of the evidence that was sought to be the subject of the subpoena or the order to produce documents. Certainly if it related to transactions which were non-assembly transactions, the matter would be clear. I wish to consider that question because it divides itself into at least two parts. I think it is better if I write to the noble Lord and place a copy of my reply in the Library.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In responding to the Minister, perhaps I should make it abundantly clear that I was fully aware of the terms of Clause 78 as amended. I was also fully aware of the amendments that were tabled to the standing orders for the reason that, when I went to put down the same amendments to incorporate the Scottish equivalent, I discovered that I had been beaten to the putting-down post, if I may use that term.
I hasten to assure the Minister that the purpose that lay behind this amendment had nothing to do with preventing members being sued for defamation and libel, and nothing to do with the disciplining of people who might or might not misbehave in the assembly, whether they are members of the public or members of the assembly. The purpose was to raise issues which are to some extent focused in subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the amendment. I hoped I had touched on the general issue. If a provision along these lines does not apply to the deliberations of the assembly, I conceive—and I believe I am not alone in this—that it will be possible for people to seek to challenge the decisions of the assembly, whether they are made by the assembly itself or by secretaries to whom decisions are delegated, by relying on what was said in debate and seeking to demonstrate to the court that the whole proceedings were based on a misunderstanding as to what the current law is, or that they proceeded on a failure to take into account the relevant considerations. In other words, we should be able to use speeches made in the assembly in a way that it is inappropriate to use speeches made in this Parliament by government Ministers or any other Member of this House or another place.

977
Therefore, I have to say frankly to the Minister that, while I fully accept that it has nothing to do with defamation of character or the issue of misbehaving, I find his answer not a complete answer to the questions I raised, which I consider to be of relevance to this assembly and also in relation to the Scotland Bill.
I am interested to have the Minister's acknowledgement that in certain circumstances injunction proceedings would be competent against the proceedings of the assembly. I intend to think very carefully about what he has said. I hope that he and his colleagues will reflect as to whether it is desirable if the courts on the one hand and the assembly on the other are to respect the constitutional position of each one who wishes to admit any responsibility at all of proceedings being taken to seek to interrupt the deliberations of the assembly, either because certain standing orders have not been complied with or there is an allegation that erroneous information is before the assembly as it moves to take an important decision in the exercise of its executive function.
This was clearly a probing amendment. On that basis, I seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 108 [Observing Community law and human rights]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213B:
Page 55, line 30, leave out ("Community law or").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps I may also speak to Amendments Nos. 213B, 213D, 213G and 213K. Amendment No. 213C is also in the group, but I shall respond to any noble Lord who speaks to it after I have spoken to my amendments.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn indicated at Second Reading that it would be necessary to bring forward amendments to bring this Bill into line with the Human Rights Bill, which is now being considered in another place. That is the purpose of the amendments to which I speak.
As the Government of Wales Bill presently stands, the assembly is forbidden by a provision in a single clause, Clause 108, to act incompatibly with Community law or with the convention rights. Government Amendments Nos. 213B and 213E unpack that clause, so that separate provision is made for Community law and separate provision for the convention rights.
The important changes in respect of convention rights are made by Amendment No. 213D, which has several elements. First, as drafted, Clause 108 does not specify who could challenge the assembly for a breach of its human rights obligations under that clause. The answer provided by the proposed new subsections (2) and (3) is that a person will be able to bring proceedings under Clause 108 only if that person is or would be a "victim" under Clause 7 of the Human Rights Bill or is a law officer of the United Kingdom Government or is the assembly itself. In determining such proceedings, a
978
court's powers to award damages would be limited in the same way as under Clause 8 of the Human Rights Bill.
Amendment No. 213G makes clear that, for the purposes of Clause 108, "action" by the assembly includes a failure to act. This brings Clause 108 into line with the Human Rights Bill, Clause 6(8) of which specifically includes failures to act save in certain limited circumstances. Amendment No. 213K makes a consequential amendment to the definition of devolution issues in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to ensure that a failure to act which is incompatible with the convention rights is a devolution issue for the purposes of the special judicial procedure involving the judicial committee of the Privy Council.
Finally, as a consequence of the unpacking of Clause 108 to which I previously referred, Amendment No. 213F makes a consequential amendment to Clause 109 so as to include in a single clause the existing provision as to Community obligations of the assembly and the provision, previously in Clause 108, for the assembly not to act in a way that is incompatible with Community law.
These are detailed amendments, but I hope that they will not prove controversial. I believe that they do not raise any new points of principle. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for explaining these amendments, which seek to address an issue which I raised during the Human Rights Bill relating to the compatibility of the provisions of that Bill with the provisions of the Scotland Bill and the Government of Wales Bill, which became available during the passage of the Human Rights Bill through your Lordships' House. I regret that, because I was not present in your Lordships' House yesterday, I saw these amendments for the first time today. The amendments sent to me on Friday did not include these amendments and I have therefore not had as much time to look at them and consider their implications as I would have wished. I accept that they seek to address the concern I raised during the Human Rights Bill that there was possibly some incompatibility between the provisions of the two Bills which might be undesirable.
I have a number of questions to pose, in particular in relation to Amendment No. 213D. First, why is it proposed that proceedings in relation to any acts under the Government of Wales Bill which breach convention rights should be limited to those proceedings which can be raised under the Human Rights Bill? I understand that to be the purpose of the new subsection (2).
As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the Government have not yet indicated which courts and tribunals will be designated as the appropriate courts and tribunals for the purposes of proceedings under Clause 7 of the Human Rights Bill. For that reason, it is at the present time impossible to identify what role the lower civil courts and certain tribunals may have in this area. Unlike the case of the transfer of functions, where draft orders are available, no draft orders are available in relation to the designation of the appropriate courts under Clause 7.

979
In that state of uncertainty, why should we limit the proceedings in the way that subsection (2) does? If either the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord Chancellor of England was to exercise the rule-making power under the Human Rights Bill and to provide that actions could only be raised in the superior courts—the High Courts of England and Wales or the Court of Session in Scotland—it might lead to additional complexity of litigation and inevitably additional expense.
Secondly, I raise a question in relation to Amendment No. 213D and the new subsection (3). Why should Law Officers be treated differently from any other party to the litigation? I merely pose the question. I have not had time to research it, but differentiating between the rights of one litigant—namely, the Law Officer—and the other litigants may raise an issue of Convention rights. One seems to be able to advance an argument which another party in the same litigation seeking to achieve the same result cannot. On a first reading that strikes me as an odd provision and I should welcome hearing further from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General on that matter.
The amendments meet concerns that I felt and I welcome them. However, until I receive answers to those and other questions that may arise, I am unable to give the Minister an assurance that I consider these amendments to be as non-controversial as he. In view of the fact that they come forward at this stage, I do not intend to press Amendment No. 213C, though it may be necessary to return with that or a similar amendment at Report stage.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, poses two questions in his intervention. First, he asked why we limit the rights to those set out in the proposed subsection (2). The answer is that Clause 7(1) of the Human Rights Bill—the subdivision of the Law Officers—permits only victims to bring proceedings under that Bill. It would be anomalous and wrong for the Government to allow people who were not victims to challenge the assembly for contravention of human rights. In effect, we would be giving a greater locus to people in respect of the activities of the assembly than in relation to any other public authority in the country. That seemed to be wrong. At Second Reading therefore we said that we would introduce measures to make the two consistent, which is the purpose of subsection (2).
I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord's first question. He asked also why Law Officers are treated differently. The reason is that a Law Officer is not a victim for the purposes of the Human Rights Bill. The Law Officers represent the public interest and, without the provision that we included in subsection (3), there would be doubt that the Attorney-General or the other Law Officers could bring proceedings against the assembly for breaches of convention rights when it would be appropriate that they did so to clarify a situation. I hope that that answers the noble and learned Lord's second question.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 213C not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213D:
Page 55, line 31, at end insert
("(2) Subsection (1) does not enable a person—

(a) to bring any proceedings in a court or tribunal if he could not do so under the Human Rights Act 1998, or

(b) to rely on any of the Convention rights in any proceedings in a court or tribunal if he could not do so by virtue of that Act.

(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to the Attorney General, the Assembly, the Advocate General for Scotland or the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
(4) Subsection (1)—

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

(b) does not enable a court or tribunal to award any damages which it could not award by virtue of that Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213E:
Transpose Clause 108 to after Clause 109.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Community obligations of Assembly]:
Lord Thoroton of Falconer Lord Thoroton of Falconer moved Amendment No. 213F:
Page 55, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) The Assembly has no power—

(a) to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation, or

(b) to do any other act,

so far as the subordinate legislation or act is incompatible with Community law.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Power to prevent incompatible action etc.]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213G:
Page 56, line 18, leave out ("do acts") and insert ("act (or fail to act) in a way which is").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Devolution issues]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213H:
Page 90, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) a question whether a function is exercisable by the Assembly,").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 213J. These two amendments are designed to elucidate the full meaning of "devolution issue" in Schedule 7. Amendment No. 213H simply proposes that a narrow question of vires—is the assembly to take any action in

981
this matter at all?—can be a devolution issue; although I freely admit that this question ought to be answerable by reference to the Transfer of Functions orders and future legislative grants of power, rather than requiring reference to a court. No doubt there will be issues about it from time to time.
Amendment No. 213J amounts to a tacit acceptance that the assembly may have duties imposed on it other than by Community law and, to the extent that these require judicial consideration, the procedure established by Schedule 7 would operate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213J:
Page 90, line 39, at beginning insert ("a question whether the Assembly has failed to comply with a duty imposed on it (including").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 213K:
Page 90, line 40, at end insert (", or
( ) a question whether a failure to act by the Assembly is incompatible with any of the Convention rights.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 213L:
Page 90, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) a question whether a failure to act by the Assembly is incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law, or
( ) a question whether a failure to act by the Assembly First Secretary or one of the Assembly secretaries is incompatible with any of the Convention rights or with Community law:).
The noble and learned Lord said: The first part of this amendment has clearly been overtaken by events, through Amendments Nos. 213H to 213K. I fully accept that, in the light of these amendments, which were tabled, as I understand it, subsequent to my amendment, the first part is inappropriate.
The second part of the amendment raises a distinct issue on which I should welcome a response from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General. It arises in this way. If the assembly has failed to act in a manner which gives rise to an issue of vires based on an incompatibility with the convention rights of Community law, the fault may lie not with the assembly itself, but with the first secretary or one of the assembly secretaries who is responsible for presenting, for example, secondary legislation or proposals for action to it.
Therefore, I pose the question whether in those circumstances it may be appropriate to have as an additional devolution issue the matter which appears in the second part of the amendment. I readily accept that on one view it is an issue of construction as regards the constitutional position of the assembly that the first secretary and any of the assembly secretaries, will act
982
in accordance with powers delegated to them by the assembly. Nevertheless, particularly if we have the curious situation that we discussed earlier of the Secretary of State for Wales occupying the position of first secretary of the assembly, it might be appropriate for the avoidance of any doubt to have this identified as a separate devolution issue. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The noble and learned Lord answers his own question. We take the view that the second subsection, relating to assembly secretaries, would be otiose since the assembly secretaries would be acting for the assembly rather than in their own right. Their failures to act would be failures of the assembly to act. Even if the amendment had been necessary, that point would have been covered by the first proposed subsection. In the light of that assurance, I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to accept that assurance which will be available if the issue should ever arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 214:
Page 90, leave out lines 41 and 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is the first of a number of amendments raising the same issue; namely, whether in Schedule 7 references to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be replaced by the insertion of the words "House of Lords". Accordingly, in moving Amendment No. 214, with the leave of the Committee, I should like to speak also to all the other amendments grouped with it.
The purpose of this series of amendments is to probe and, I hope, to have answered questions about the Government's thinking on the issue of whether it should be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, as the Bill proposes, restricted to those members who qualify under paragraph 33 of Schedule 7, or the House of Lords where, in accordance with the convention by which judicial business is handled in your Lordships' House, it would be determined by the Appellate Committee before reporting the matter to the House.
Clearly, this is also of relevance to the Scotland Bill, where the devolution issues that will arise for determination by the courts may be more extensive than those arising under this Bill, including, as they will, the vires of primary legislation which it will be competent for the Scottish parliament to enact. I understand that a number of noble Lords are concerned about this issue and that they intend to raise it during the passage of the Scotland Bill.
A number of considerations arise. First, the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House already serves as the supreme court in the United Kingdom for all proceedings with one major exception; namely, that of criminal appeals from the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. The question that therefore arises is: why, if that is the case, is it appropriate to substitute a new supreme court for this tranche of judicial business even

983
if as a matter of fact, if I might use these terms, the judicial cast in both bodies would have a certain similarity?
Secondly, I refer to the Human Rights Bill and to the judicial proceedings that will be competent under that legislation. As was mentioned earlier, Clause 7 of that Bill is relevant here. The ultimate court of appeal in civil proceedings will be the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House. In many instances, the issues raised will be similar. Indeed, Amendment No. 213D, to which the Committee has recently given approval, may mean—indeed, it probably will mean—that the issues raised are virtually identical. Therefore, it is possible to imagine a situation where the same act, or failure to act, could be challenged by different types of proceedings. In one type of proceeding, it would be competent for the ultimate court of appeal to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, while in another type of proceeding it would be the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House. The question arises whether that is entirely sensible.
The third consideration is that if the ultimate court of appeal is the Appellate Committee, it may serve to reinforce the supremacy of this Parliament in a way that would be welcomed by those of us who are committed to devolution and who are determined that the devolved assemblies in Wales and Scotland will work but equally that those bodies operate as integral parts of a thriving United Kingdom. I am aware that that view is shared by a number of Members of your Lordships' House.
At this time of night I merely raise this as a probing amendment to seek guidance as to why the Government have selected this particular route. I hope that that will be explained to the Committee and that the issues that I have raised in this probing amendment will receive a response.
10 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has not put forward any particular case as to why the House of Lords should be the ultimate court of appeal. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has both domestic and overseas jurisdiction. Customarily, it has dealt with constitutional issues arising out of written constitutions in the Commonwealth and overseas territories. Its present jurisdiction is reduced because all of the Hong Kong area and many of the overseas territories that customarily were dealt with by the Privy Council have gone. Procedurally, it is easier to deal with than the House of Lords and is more flexible.
I do not understand the argument that the House of Lords in its judicial capacity should be the ultimate appellate court because of the supremacy of this Parliament. I understood that its supremacy was the Queen in Parliament. The Privy Council reports to Her Majesty who makes decisions on the advice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I do not believe that it can be much more "supreme" than that. I do not believe that that provides any particular reason why the matter should not remain with the Judicial
984
Committee of the Privy Council; that would appear to be a practical and appropriate body to be the ultimate appeal court on constitutional issues.
I turn to Amendment No. 215 in my name and that of my noble friends Lord Hooson and Lord Geraint. At Second Reading I suggested that it would be far simpler, easier, quicker and less costly if constitutional issues arising out of the Welsh assembly were brought before a court in Cardiff as opposed to having to come to London. This amendment seeks to make what I believe to be the highly practical suggestion that the High Court. sitting in its capacity as a divisional court, and the Court of Appeal may sit in Wales. That power may already exist. If I hear that from the Benches opposite I shall be satisfied. However, I have no personal knowledge of any case where the court has sat as a divisional court in Wales. Certainly, the Court of Appeal does not do so.
I was criticised on the basis that I sought to up the ante and make a greater constitutional innovation in Wales and give it greater power, by giving to Wales its own Lord Chief Justice. I do not believe that that was the burden of my remarks. However, even if that were the case, Northern Ireland with a population of 1 million has a Lord Chief Justice and Scotland has all kinds of judges. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, will be able to enumerate them. They are not very well known to us. I refer to the Lord Justice Clerk and so on. Scotland has a whole raft of judges who sit in Edinburgh and who no doubt will continue to do so. Why, therefore, should we not have in Wales a High Court judge who sits in the Divisional Court who customarily deals with constitutional issues and knows the whole set-up, has regular people in front of him who are accustomed to argue the constitutional issues, and from him to the Court of Appeal?
In Wales we are fortunate to have some eminent Lord Justices of Appeal, any one of whom, I am sure, would fulfil that function and give that expertise which the people of Wales will require on issues of that sort. If the present system is used, every time a constitutional issue arises in the Divisional Court or the Court of Appeal is approached in London. the whole background to the Government of Wales Bill will have to be gone into. The powers of secondary legislation and its division from primary legislation will have to be investigated as from the beginning with each new tribunal before which those issues are raised. That would seem in the end to be a highly expensive and inappropriate procedure.
If, as I see from some nods from the Bench opposite, the power exists for the High Court and the Court of Appeal to sit in Wales, I would welcome an indication that that will be permissible.
Lord Prys-Davies: In response to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, I would mention that there is, of course, another view. There is a perception among members of the public that the Appellate Committee of this House is a part of Parliament's own processes and it would therefore be a judge in its own cause. It might not be seen as reaching an impartial judgment.

985
There is one question I should like to ask my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. I note from paragraph 33 of the schedule that no member of the judicial committee shall sit and act as a member unless he holds certain offices. Going back to the question of public perception, if there are no Welsh judges on the Privy Council, can the Privy Council sit with lay assessors such as a Welsh academic with expertise in constitutional law?
If there is a constitutional issue, it is important that the public have confidence in the tribunal and its membership.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I wonder whether, with permission, I might make one comment which I meant to make earlier about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I fully support that amendment and see absolutely no reason why that should not be the practice.
Perhaps I may raise as a related issue the question of where the court might sit? Whether it be the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, what is the Government's position on whether it would be competent for either of those bodies to sit, whether in Cardiff on the one hand or in Edinburgh on the other hand, when dealing with devolution issues?
As I think is well known, the Privy Council is occasionally convened in Scotland at a certain time of the year if any emergency business requires to be transacted. Therefore, as far as I am aware, there is no constitutional objection to the judicial committee taking up its judicial bed and walking. I have to say that whether it is to overcome the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, or for any other reason, if the ultimate Court of Appeal is able to sit in public, whether in Wales or in Scotland, and people who are interested are able to observe what is going on, that may well make the important role which judges have to play in the working out of devolution more readily understood. If they have to take controversial decisions, as I apprehend they may, they may make those decisions more acceptable.
The Earl of Balfour: Some of my amendments relate to Schedule 7. I shall start with page 91 and paragraph 7(2) which provides:
"Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply

(a) to a magistrates' court, the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, or

(b) to the High Court if the devolution issue arises in proceedings on a reference under paragraph 6".

I am no expert on the law, but that appears to leave only the county court. I am intrigued by that.
I turn now to page 92 and my Amendment No. 220 and page 94 and my Amendment No. 235. There is almost the same schedule in the Scotland Bill. I have equally no doubt that there will be a similar schedule within the Northern Ireland assembly Bill when it arrives.
986
The Lord Advocate is an office that goes back many centuries. It is in the Scotland Bill. The Lord Advocate has not been included in almost the identical procedures within this Bill. That made me wonder. We have the advocate general, and that is fair enough. He is a new person. Those are the fundamental questions that I am raising on Schedule 7.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton.: I shall deal first with the amendments referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, which would substitute this place for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the judicial mechanism for resolving disputes about the assembly's use of its powers. The Government have made it clear in relation to this Bill and the Scotland Bill that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be the most appropriate body to act as the final arbiter over constitutional matters relating to the exercise of its functions by the assembly or the Scottish parliament.
There are a number of reasons for that. First, the Judicial Committee acts already as the final constitutional court of appeal for the colonies and various parts of the Commonwealth. It therefore has experience of handling cases raising constitutional issues.
Secondly, it is important that there should be a flexible mechanism in place for disputes about the assembly's powers to be resolved promptly. The amendments, which seek to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council with references to this place, would add to the judicial workload of this place. I am not sure that that would lead to prompt decisions on cases, bearing in mind the various provisions in Schedule 7 for cases to be referred on appeal.
Next, I draw attention to paragraph 33 of Schedule 7, which gives greater flexibility about the membership of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council than exists for the judicial membership of this place. The Judicial Committee can draw its members from anyone who is, or has held the office of, a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary or certain high judicial offices. The latter includes Lord Chancellors and judges of the High Court or Court of Appeal in England and Wales or Northern Ireland or the Court of Session in Scotland but excludes senior judges from the colonies or the Commonwealth. I am afraid that it would also exclude the sorts of persons that my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies had in mind. It is a much larger pool than the pool for the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.
For the reasons given, it is not possible for the Government to accept the amendments which seek to substitute this House for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, nor to remove references to it. I respectfully say that I think the right conclusion has been reached in relation to which is the more appropriate body. I know of no reason why the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cannot sit anywhere in the British Isles that it chooses. Those in the box equally know of no reason why it cannot sit anywhere in the British Isles. If anyone can think of a reason, will he write and let noble Lords know? One should proceed on the basis that it can. When it deals with judicial matters

987
at present, it sits in public. It is obviously critical whether it continues to do so in relation to such issues. I imagine that it is a matter constitutionally for it to decide whether it wishes to go on circuit, as it were, and sit elsewhere. One can see considerable merit in the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in that respect.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord may recall that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council frequently sat in India when India was in the jurisdiction of the Empire.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I do not recall it personally, but I accept that it occurred. On that note, I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, relating to the High Court and the Court of Appeal sitting in Wales, on which he spoke with some passion during Second Reading of the Bill. I am happy to tell him that the amendment is unnecessary. Under the provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1981, the High Court and the Court of Appeal can sit at any place in England or Wales provided they do so in accordance with the rules of court and directions of the Lord Chancellor. The power is there already. Whether they wish to do so is a matter for them rather than this House.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to paragraph 7 of the schedule, asking in effect whether only the county court can refer matters to the Court of Appeal. The provisions in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the schedule are designed to have the following effect. Paragraph 6 provides that the magistrates' court cannot refer direct to the Court of Appeal. It can only refer to the High Court. Paragraph 7 is designed to ensure that the High Court or the county court can refer direct to the Court of Appeal a devolution issue, but the paragraphs exclude the Court of Appeal referring the matter to itself or the House of Lords referring a matter down to the Court of Appeal. I hope that that explains the provisions.
Amendments Nos. 220 and 235 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, are inappropriate because the purpose of paragraphs 13 and 30 in Schedule 7 is to give power to institute proceedings to a Law Officer of the UK Government, not a Scottish parliament. Under the Scotland Bill, the Lord Advocate will become a Law Officer of the Scottish Executive and the post of Advocate General for Scotland is being created so that the UK Government continue to have a Law Officer dealing with Scottish affairs. I would not envisage that someone exclusively a member of the Scottish Executive should have the right to which the noble Earl refers.
In the light of those explanations, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful for that reply. I am beginning to understand matters a little better in that respect. I was intrigued to find subtle differences in the schedules dealing with all four countries of the
988
United Kingdom. I am much obliged and thank the Committee and the Solicitor-General for his helpful answer.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I too am grateful to the Solicitor-General for clearly explaining government thinking. As to public perception, I am not entirely convinced by the argument that the Judicial Committee's experience of dealing with the colonies cuts much ice with those people who favour devolution or, to take it one stage further, independence. The Scottish National Party in another place was most vexed at the thought that any body, such as a Judicial Committee, that might be tainted with colonial experience should have a role to play in devolution. The issue interests many noble Lords, and I am sure that the Solicitor-General's remarks will be taken into account when they raise the matter during the passage of the Scotland Bill. I welcome also the Solicitor-General's comments on where the Judicial Committee can sit. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was going to tell the Committee that he had appeared before the Judicial Committee. Perhaps I am getting him mixed up with another learned Peer who frequents the Liberal Democrat Benches. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 214A:
Page 90, line 42, at end insert—
("( ) In this Schedule "civil proceedings" means any proceedings other than criminal proceedings.").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 217A and 241A, which are also drafting amendments. Amendment No. 214A provides a definition for the purposes of Schedule 7. Amendment No. 217A is a drafting simplification, and Amendment No. 241A brings the Welsh Bill into line with the Scottish Bill in providing—as is generally the case—that no parliamentary procedure is to apply with respect to rules to regulate proceedings before the Judicial Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 215 to 217 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 217A:
Page 91, line 41, leave out ("High Court, or of the Court of Appeal") and insert ("court concerned").
The noble and learned Lord said: I have spoken to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 218 to 235 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 94, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Where a court or tribunal refers a devolution issue for determination under sub-paragraph (1) above, the relevant law officer making the request for such a reference shall pay all the

989
costs or expenses of any parties that subsequently take part in any proceedings in the House of Lords for the determination of the devolution issue involved.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment and Amendment No. 238 raise the question of the additional expense that may occur when the relevant Law Officer intervenes in proceedings before a court or tribunal and requests that the court or tribunal makes a reference. As my amendment has it, that reference would relate to the House of Lords, but I accept that reference should be to the Judicial Committee, for the determination of a devolution issue. In a similar vein, Amendment No. 238 deals with the situation where the Attorney-General or the assembly itself may be involved.
There is a concern that parties who are caught up in cases involving devolution issues, whether they are raised by the parties bringing the civil proceedings or whether they are pled as a form of defence by the defendant or defender to such proceedings, may end up having to pay a great deal more by way of legal costs and expenses than might be the case if the Law Officers did not intervene.
Any litigant who raises proceedings runs the risk of bearing some expense. However, in the early stages of devolution when certain issues fall to be resolved the proceedings are more complicated than otherwise might be the case and that motivates Law Officers to intervene. There is then an argument that as the issue will be resolved for all the citizens, whether of Wales, as in this Bill, or of Scotland, as under the Scotland Bill, the costs should be borne not by the parties originally involved in the case. That is why I tabled Amendments Nos. 236 and 238. I shall be interested to hear the Government's thinking on this important practical issue. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: Amendments Nos. 236 and 238 relate to the question of costs. The Government's attitude is that the amendments are inappropriate since the principle they are seeking to achieve is contrary to the usual principle on which costs in court proceedings are determined; that is, it is in the discretion of the court. Section 15 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 makes provision for the costs to be in the discretion of the Judicial Committee. The Law Officer can refer the matter to the Judicial Committee in one of two circumstances; either where there are already proceedings in existence, which is paragraph 30, or where there are not, which is paragraph 31. Where a devolution issue is referred to the Judicial Committee under paragraph 31, it is difficult to envisage how any party, other than the assembly or the UK Government in the guise of the Attorney-General, would be involved. I recognise that it might be possible and that other people might want to be joined.
As regards matters referred to the Judicial Committee from another court under paragraph 30, it would be for the Judicial Committee to decide how the costs of all participants should be dealt with. I can envisage the kind of points which the noble and learned Lord made about people getting caught up in complex litigation where the purpose was to resolve the point for others rather than
990
for themselves. Such points might carry some weight in a costs issue in front of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But, equally, there are circumstances in which the conduct of the party makes it appropriate for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to make awards of costs against them.
Surely, the right course in relation to all these matters is to leave it to the Judicial Committee to determine where the justice of the case lies in relation to the costs issue. That is what underlies the Government's thinking. It is the normal approach taken in relation to costs. That is why it is as it is. I hope that that explanation assists the noble and learned Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It certainly assists in understanding the Government's position. The problem is that normal litigation does not allow a Law Officer to intervene and, with the approval of the court, to take the case out of the lower court and march it off to the Judicial Committee.
Furthermore, I find the reasoning slightly difficult to reconcile with Amendment No. 214C, to which the Committee will turn shortly. It appears to give the court, the tribunal, somewhat of a steer to depart from the normal practice where an order under Clause 112 falls to be made. However, the purpose of the amendment was to ascertain the Government's thinking on the matter. That I have received and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 237 to 241 not moved.]
10.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 241A:
Page 94, line 48, leave out ("under this paragraph") and insert ("which makes provision falling within sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 112 [Power to vary retrospective decisions]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 241B:
Page 56, line 28, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("( ) In criminal proceedings, the court shall take account of and act upon any decision made under subsection (1), whether by the court itself or by a superior court, in the conduct of the criminal proceedings in which the decision has been made.
( ) In civil proceedings, the court or tribunal may, if it considers that it is in the public interest to do so, suspend the effect of the decision for such fixed period, not exceeding six months, and on such conditions, as to allow the Assembly to make any further provision of subordinate legislation as it deems appropriate.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment seeks to explore, with reference to the provisions of Clause 112, what will happen in practical terms when proceedings are raised, whether they be criminal or civil proceedings, and the court or tribunal reaches a view

991
that the assembly did not have the power to make a provision of subordinate legislation which figures in the case before the court or tribunal.
As the clause stands, it would authorise the court or tribunal, having reached the view that the provision of subordinate legislation is outwith the competence of the assembly, to make an order. The court would have a discretion to do so. In the first place, that order could remove a limit on any retrospective effect of the decision it had reached as to vires or, alternatively, suspend the effect of that decision for any period and on any conditions to allow the defect in the provision of subordinate legislation to be corrected by the assembly. As we were discussing earlier, the defect in the subordinate legislation could relate, for example, to a failure to follow mandatory standing orders.
The clause directs the court or tribunal that:
"In determining whether to make an order under this section, the court or tribunal shall (among other things) have regard to the extent to which persons who are not parties to the proceedings would otherwise be adversely affected by the decision",
that is, the decision it had previously reached. Subsection (4) allows the Attorney-General to intervene in such proceedings if he considers it in the public interest to do so. Of course, the very nature of the devolution settlement is, as Schedule 7 makes clear, that such an issue could arise not only in courts or tribunals in England and Wales but also those in Northern Ireland or in Scotland. Therefore, in passing, one must draw attention to the fact that that would give the Attorney-General the right to intervene in proceedings in Scotland and in Northern Ireland.
I should like to look briefly at the two types of proceedings; first, criminal proceedings. If the criminal court reaches a view that a provision of subordinate legislation is ultra vires, it seems to me that that may arise in one of two contexts. One is where there is some incompetency in subordinate legislation which is involved in the criminal charge that the defendant or accused faces. Another situation might be in relation to the admissibility of some evidence on which the prosecutor sought to rely in seeking to establish guilt.
As a very recent case decided by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House decided—the case of Boddington v. British Transport Police—such a public law offence requires to be or can be raised as a preliminary issue, whether before the trial itself commences or possibly, if it related to the admissibility of evidence, during the conduct of the trial itself.
I have some difficulty in understanding how, in any circumstances, a criminal court could pronounce an order removing or limiting the effect of a decision it had reached; that whether the subordinate legislation underpinned the charge or related to admissibility of evidence, it would be proper to remove or limit any retrospective effect of that decision. Perhaps more important, I have some difficulty in understanding how it would be proper to suspend the proceedings for any period and on any condition to allow the defect to be corrected. I would welcome guidance from the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General as to how the Government envisage such a provision ever being appropriate in criminal proceedings.
I turn now to the question of civil proceedings. What guides my thinking on the matter is the desire to limit, as far as possible, the role of the courts after the devolution Bills—for example, the Government of Wales Bill—come into force. I have a concern, which I believe will be shared by others; namely, that if the court is given this discretionary power of whether to remove or limit any retrospective effect of the decision, or, alternatively, whether to suspend the effect of the decision for a period of time, that may serve to draw the courts into political controversy from which they would do well to steer clear.
The issue which remained unresolved by the Boddington case also lies behind my concern; namely, what will be the effect in civil proceedings of a court reaching the view that a particular piece of subordinate legislation was ultra vires? Should it proceed on the basis that it ought to be treated as having been null and void from the day that it was enacted and as having no legal consequences at all, or should it subscribe to another view? The speeches in the Boddington case made it clear that that is an issue which, in so far as it currently arises, remains to be resolved. I suggest that setting devolution on the road—whether in Wales or Scotland—with that issue remaining unresolved, at least as far as concerns vires issues under these two Bills, would be transferring to the courts an issue upon which the Government ought to form a view and which they ought to bring before both this Committee and this Chamber for approval. Therefore, for those reasons, and without seeking to elaborate in any detail on the fundamental legal issue which lies behind my concern as to what may happen in civil proceedings, I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: As the noble and learned Lord said, Clause 112 provides for the power of a court or tribunal to vary the retrospective effect of its decision that subordinate legislation made by the assembly was ultra vires.
Subsection (2) of the clause empowers the court or tribunal to remove or limit any retrospective effect of such a decision or to suspend it. We believe that that is a sensible, important and practical power to give to the court. It gives the court or the tribunal a discretion as to varying the retrospective effect of its decision. We believe that the courts can exercise that discretion with responsibility.
The effect of the noble and learned Lord's amendments would be to limit the effect of the discretion that we give to the court. Both in relation to criminal and civil cases, the noble and learned Lord referred to the underlying uncertainty as a matter of law as to what the effect would be of a piece of subordinate legislation being declared invalid. I believe that the noble and learned Lord is correct to say that the law is in a state of uncertainty. The Boddington case was not required to resolve that dispute. There are cases in the Court of Appeal in England that identify the differing views in relation to what the law is, in particular as to whether or not such pieces of subordinate legislation, ultimately declared invalid, have any effect in relation

993
to people who may have relied upon them or conducted their affairs on the basis of them, perhaps for many years.
I do not think it is right or necessary for the Government to seek to come to some unrealistic resolution of what is an unresolved point in the law. Rather it must be much more sensible for the Government to seek with clarity to give the courts powers to deal with the often unfair effects of a late and perhaps surprising declaration of the invalidity of certain provisions. With the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, surely the uncertainty of the law provides the appropriate justification for Clause 112. The courts know precisely what powers they have by looking at Clause 112(2). They do not have to resolve the Boddington issue, if I may call it that. They can simply approach the issue on the basis of where the justice of the case lies, not only in relation to the people before the court but also having regard to the extent to which persons who are not parties to the proceedings would otherwise be adversely affected by the decision to strike down particular regulations.
I think the Government have made a sensible choice here. We have provided clarity about the powers of the court and we have given the court power to do justice where there are problems about the effect of subordinate legislation. It seems to us to be a realistic and sensible approach and it is hard to criticise it. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful for the frank manner in which the Solicitor-General described the uncertainty in the law. However, he has not addressed the issue I raised about criminal proceedings as to whether, notwithstanding the uncertainty of the law, it is appropriate to give any criminal court powers of the nature set out in Clause 112(2)(a) and (b). This is an important issue—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord. I did not address that issue and he is right to draw my attention to it. One can quite see that in relation to an individual criminal case it might be extremely unusual for the courts to declare that certain legislation has never been passed and then not strike it down in respect of the case before it. However, we must remember that other criminal cases will have gone before which are not before the court at that stage. One can envisage circumstances in which the court may say the measure in question does not apply to a particular defendant but it would be wrong to unscramble a whole series of cases that have been conducted in previous years. I am not saying that will apply in every case, but the court may reach that decision considering all the people who may have relied on the provision over the years.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful for that further explanation, although I remain seriously concerned about the issue. I intend to return to this matter later and I hope that when I do so the Benches of
994
this Chamber may be populated by others with a similar interest in the important legal issues that lie behind Clause 112. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman of Committees: I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 241C is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 241D.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 241C:
Page 56, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Where a court or tribunal is considering whether to make an order under this section, it shall order notice (or intimation) of that fact to be given to the Attorney General and the Assembly (unless he or it is a party to the proceedings).
(4A) Where the Attorney General or the Assembly is given notice (or intimation) under subsection (4), he or it may take part as a party in the proceedings so far as they relate to the making of the order.
(4B) In deciding any question as to costs or expenses, the court or tribunal may—

(a) take account of any additional expense which it considers that any party to the proceedings has incurred as a result of the participation of any person in pursuance of subsection (4A), and

(b) award the whole or part of the additional expense as costs or expenses to the party who incurred it (whether or not it makes an order under this section and whatever the terms of any such order it does make).

(4C) Any power to make provision for regulating the procedure before any court or tribunal shall include power to make provision for the purposes of this section including, in particular, provision for determining the manner in which and the time within which any notice (or intimation) is to be given.").
The noble and learned Lord said: At present the Bill provides for the Attorney-General to be involved in proceedings in which an order under Clause 112 might be made. However, it is possible that a case may proceed without either the Attorney or the assembly being parties, and as drafted, Clause 112 does not explain how the Attorney might be able to become involved in such a case. The new subsection proposed by Amendment No. 241C provides for that and also makes provision in relation to any additional expenses which a party might incur as a result of any intervention by the Attorney-General or the assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I have no objection to the purpose of this amendment. However, in view of the statement by the Lord Chairman that he cannot call Amendment No. 241D if Amendment No. 241C is accepted, perhaps I should explain what lies behind Amendments Nos. 241D and 241E so that the noble and learned Lord the Solicitor-General will reflect upon it.
Clause 112 as drafted would admit the possibility of the Attorney-General taking part in proceedings in Scotland or proceedings in Northern Ireland. In parts of Schedule 7 reference is already made to the relevant Law Officer. It seems appropriate to follow the same practice in relation to Clause 112 as applies in other parts of the judicial scheme that is laid down, to the effect that if the proceedings are in England and Wales it should be the Attorney-General, in Scotland the Advocate General, and in Northern Ireland the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland. I merely raise

995
these matters in the hope that they will be reflected upon, even though I cannot subsequently move Amendment No. 241D.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: I am prepared to accept the principle of these amendments. While proceedings to which Clause 112 will apply are likely to arise only in England and Wales, I accept in principle that they could arise also in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. Consequently, I see the sense in the points made by the noble and learned Lord in applying this power to take part in such proceedings to each of the relevant Law Officers.
However, for technical reasons we cannot accept the amendment as drafted. It does not tie in with Amendment No. 241C which we propose in relation to subsection (4). We shall need to consult counsel as to the precise drafting of any amendment. I shall also need to consult colleagues, and in particular with the Scottish Office, as it may have implications for the corresponding provision in its Bill; namely, Clause 93.
The noble and learned Lord has not had the opportunity to move the amendment. However, I make it absolutely clear to him that I undertake to return on Report with our own amendment to meet the point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 241E not moved.]
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendments Nos. 242 and 243:
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—
("Redress of complaints

WELSH ADMINISTRATION OMBUDSMAN
.—(1) There shall be an office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman or Ombwdsmon Gweinyddiaeth Cymru.
(2) Schedule (Welsh Administration Ombudsman) (which makes provision about the Welsh Administration Ombudsman and, in particular, enables him to investigate administrative action taken by the Assembly and certain other public bodies in Wales in response to complaints claiming maladministration) has effect.").
After Clause 112, insert the following new clause—

AMENDMENTS OF HEALTH SERVICE COMMISSIONERS ACT 1993
(" . Schedule (Amendments of Health Service Commissioners Act 1993) (which makes amendments of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 in relation to the Health Service Commissioner for Wales and in consequence of the establishment of the office of Welsh Administration Ombudsman) has effect.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Carter: Looking at the clock, I should say that it is much too kind. Nevertheless, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Treatment of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses: Report
  Treatment of Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses: Report
  National Blood Authority and NHS, Scotland
  National Blood Authority and NHS, Scotland
  Incontinence Services, Scotland
  Incontinence Services, Scotland
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Implementation
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Implementation
  Primary Class Sizes
  Primary Class Sizes
  Corporal Punishment of Children by Childminders
  Corporal Punishment of Children by Childminders
  Marine Dredging
  Marine Dredging
  Cannabis: Reports
  Cannabis: Reports
  NHS Staff: Pay Awards
  NHS Staff: Pay Awards
  NHS Waiting Lists
  NHS Waiting Lists
  Disabled Living Allowance and BIP
  Disabled Living Allowance and BIP
  Reasonable Doubt: Interpretation
  Reasonable Doubt: Interpretation
  Droit de Suite
  Droit de Suite
  Agricultural Gangmasters
  Agricultural Gangmasters
  Food Standards Agency: White Paper
  Food Standards Agency: White Paper
  Set-aside: Evaluation
  Set-aside: Evaluation
  International Whaling Commission
  International Whaling Commission