Sitting of 17 June 1998

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

Disability Living Allowance
[Relevant document: Fourth Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1997–98, on Disability Living Allowance (HC 641).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.34 am
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I am speaking instead of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security, who, unfortunately, has injured his back. Although members of our Committee do not have the power to send him a mobility allowance, we certainly send him our best wishes.
The background to the Select Committee report is increasing recognition of disability in our community and, as a consequence, a growing proportion of the social security budget going to disability benefits. The report, which is the fourth from the Select Committee, deals with disability living allowance. Our inquiry focused on two matters: DLA in general and the so-called benefit integrity project, from the Department of Social Security. We conducted our inquiry at a time of growing concern about intentions regarding disability benefits, which many hon. Members will have picked up on in their constituencies.
The history of DLA goes back quite a long way. Invalid tricycles were introduced for war pensioners in the early 1920s, and more recently, in the 1970s, mobility and attendance allowances were introduced. They gave way to DLA in 1992. DLA is a benefit that is based on care and the mobility needs of people with disabilities, for people who become disabled before the age of 65. Its structure is in some respects complex, because the care component has three rates—the highest is £51.30 a week and the lowest £13.60. There are also two rates for mobility.
To the surprise of Governments and of Parliament, the number of people claiming DLA has increased dramatically since 1992, from 1 million in those early days to almost 2 million by 1997–98. By any measure, that is a surprising increase which requires explanation. The puzzle about DLA is compounded by the fact that there is considerable evidence that some people are not claiming their entitlement; in the jargon, there is a take-up problem. Estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50 per cent. of eligible people are not claiming DLA.
Those two factors—an increasing number of claimants and evidence of DLA not being taken up—suggest the need for review. The Government are conducting a review
280
of disability benefits, which we welcome. In our report, from which I shall quote carefully to reflect the view of members of the Committee, we
"recommended an urgent review of all aspects of DLA."
We add:
"In its present form, DLA is an unstable benefit and its future … almost impossible to predict."
That is partly because of court decisions, which have changed the basis for eligibility, and because of flawed administrative procedures, which fail
"in terms of simplicity and workability."
Much of the DLA procedure is based on self-assessment, and rightly so in many respects. It is important that there is not just a medical model, and that a person can state details of disability and needs, but we are not convinced that the balance is properly struck between self-assessment on the one hand and objective functional criteria and medical evidence on the other. We recommend that the Government look at that again. We also recommend reconsideration of methods of reviewing claims and dealing with changed circumstances as a matter of urgency.
The number of claimants raises the issue of what DLA is intended for. Who are the target group? We recommend that the Government should decide whether greater targeting on more severely disabled people would represent a better approach. We also state that, whatever the criteria in the future, a greater effort must be made to ensure full take-up. Many of the people whom we are discussing have serious needs. We must frame policies that can be easily understood, so that those people can claim the allowance to which they are entitled. We also ask the Government to consider how certain groups who are currently excluded from DLA, such as those with mental health problems, can be helped in the future.
Other members of the Select Committee may want to say more about DLA. Indeed, hon. Members who are not on the Committee may want to talk about it—that, after all, is the purpose of the debate. Before I sit down, however, I want to say a little about the benefit integrity project, which, I think, has implications for the relationship between the House and the Executive.
The project was initiated during the dying days of the last Administration. It was based on a desire to attack fraud or, as it might be described, incorrectness in the programme. One estimate suggested that DLA fraud could amount to some £499 million a year. It is clear that the Department received money from the Treasury to pursue a benefit integrity project designed to cut costs. I should add that DSS officials now say that fraud is probably minimal, rather than amounting to the large figure which I have mentioned.
The Committee is seriously concerned about the genesis and implementation of the benefit integrity project. In the run-up to the launch of BIP, as it is known, no consultation whatever was undertaken with groups representing those affected, despite an undertaking by the then Minister of State responsible for disabled people. The Committee does not blame that former Minister, Alistair Burt, whose good intentions regarding consultation we respect; nor do we blame current Ministers. Our criticisms are levelled at officialdom in the DSS. We believe that the failure to undertake even the slightest consultation was a serious error which has had serious consequences.

281
BIP involved people being visited in their homes, or receiving postal inquiries about their entitlement to the higher rates of benefit. The timing is important. BIP was formally launched on 28 April 1997, just three days before the general election. The first questionnaires were issued on 6 May 1997; I suspect that the minds of hon. Members were on other matters then. It was on that day that ministerial responsibilities were announced. The Minister responsible, Lady Hollis of Heigham, was not even made aware of BIP's existence until 29 May 1997, when, we are told, she took a telephone call from departmental officials at Preston railway station. Despite that incident, it is possible that Preston railway station will never achieve the prominence of, say, the Finland station in European history, but we were puzzled by the fact that the Minister was only informed by officials at that time.
The Committee believes that launching BIP without proper ministerial authority was a
"very serious error of judgement."
There are clear general election guidelines for officials which say that no new action should be launched during an election campaign if it is of a long-term character, and we think that those guidelines were ignored. We have recommended to the permanent secretary at the DSS that, in conjunction with her opposite numbers in other Departments, she should renew the rules of conduct and good practice in regard to general elections, to minimise the risk of such errors of judgment occurring in the future.
The Committee has put the benefit integrity project on what we describe as a six-month probation, and has asked Ministers to report to us on its progress by the end of July. We had considered calling for the suspension of the project, but, given the improvements that have been made, we thought that a probation period was more appropriate.
This matter has serious consequences for some of the people who are most at risk in our society. It has an important impact on people with major disabilities. We were struck by the witnesses with disabilities who gave evidence to the Committee, and we thank them for doing so. We particularly remember a woman with muscular dystrophy, who was clearly very ill and needed artificial breathing aids. She had been visited by officials, but it turned out later that her forms had been filled in incorrectly, and, although she needed virtually around-the-clock care, her higher rate of disability living allowance had been withdrawn. Apparently her general practitioner said that, if that had happened to her, no one could possibly be entitled to the allowance. The GP's disgust was shared by the Committee members who saw that brave witness.
I was also struck by the fact that, when we questioned senior DSS officials—including those directly responsible for BIP—it became clear that, despite the controversy that the visits were running into, none had seen fit to accompany their junior officials to see what was actually happening. The gap between policy and administration in offices and what was happening in people's homes is lamentable. It may explain why the thread of common sense and human compassion failed to run through this part of social administration.
As well as asking for a review of the benefit, we urge Government to
282
"consider publishing a draft Bill, following the normal process of consultation, to allow a full public debate to take place before legislation to reform DLA is introduced into Parliament."
I hope that our report will help the House in its deliberation on these important matters.
9.47 am
Mr. David Atkinson: I welcome the opportunity to refer to a constituent's experience of the benefit integrity project, which astonished me so much that I concluded that the project, in so far as it affected the severely disabled, should be scrapped immediately.
I have no problem with the original concept of BIP as envisaged by the last Government. It was a sensible response to the outcome of the 1996 benefit review, which suggested that 27 per cent. of claimants' awards were incorrect, and that the figure for fraud amounted to 16.7 per cent. No responsible Government could ignore an estimated annual loss of £500 million in overpayments due to fraud.
The Select Committee is right to question the Department's judgment in launching BIP during the week of a general election and without the benefit of consultation with outside bodies, which was originally promised by the Minister. That is the main source of the problems that have arisen, which, in my view, have caused the project to be fatally flawed in the context of the severely disabled.
I knew little about BIP at the time, although I welcomed it as further evidence of the last Government's determination to control public expenditure, and saw it as a response to previous Select Committees' demands for a better way of combating fraud.
In January, my constituent, Mrs. Lesley Burton, wrote to draw my attention to the problems that she and her disabled husband were experiencing with the Department of Social Security and the disability living allowance. This is the same Lesley Burton to whom the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) referred. With the greatest courage and determination, she came to the House on 25 March to give her testimony to the Select Committee.
Mrs. Burton told the Committee that she has had muscular dystrophy—a progressive muscle-wasting disease—for 35 years. She, will never get better. She had been receiving the higher-rate mobility component paid with the highest-rate care component. She gave evidence about her experience of the visiting officer from the Benefits Agency under the benefit integrity project. I shall not repeat it in detail, because it is reported on page 47 of the report.
The outcome of the visit was that the adjudication officer decided that Mrs. Burton satisfied only the criteria for an award of the middle-rate care component. The news that her benefits were to be reduced obviously came as a distressing surprise in view of the fact that she is physically completely dependent 24 hours a day on people, on life support machinery and on her two electronic wheelchairs. Unlike other equally severely disabled people, who understandably may not have had the will to challenge that outcome, my constituent did and, as a result, her entitlement to the highest rate of care component was restored, as was her husband's—but that is another story.
In preparing her testimony for the Select Committee, Mrs. Burton obtained a copy of the DLA form completed by the visiting officer, from which it became immediately

283
clear that the officer had had an entirely inadequate appreciation and understanding of my constituent's disabilities. As Mrs. Burton told the Select Committee:
"I wish I could express to you my disbelief on reading page 24"—
of the form—
"which asks about the help I need at night. This was simply crossed through 'not applicable'. The questions were not asked. The last five pages she simply ignored. Nowhere on the form is there any mention of the suction equipment I could not live without. … That without the ventilator at night I would die."
She also said that the form did not show that
"I need someone with me all night. That I am dependent 24 hours a day."
The Minister, Baroness Hollis, referred my letter to the Secretary of State to the chief executive of the Benefits Agency, who replied to me, as did the screening officer of the ombudsman. When I had received a reply from Baroness Hollis, I visited my constituent at home to meet her and to discuss our next move. Suffice it to say that any hon. Member would have been as astonished as I was, having seen my constituent's situation at first hand, that any visiting officer from the Benefits Agency should have completed a questionnaire in a way that would lead to a reduction in her benefits.
In my view, Mrs. Burton's testimony to the Select Committee about her condition was entirely accurate. Therefore, I must conclude that the experience and training of at least one BIP visiting officer are inadequate. To how many more does that apply? I must also conclude that the DLA questionnaire is inadequate to establish a true appreciation of the complicated nature of disabilities, such as those of my constituent, although, to be fair, in her case key questions were not asked.
It is obvious that notification of a reduction in benefits to genuinely severely disabled people, such as my constituent, and especially to the more vulnerable and frail, must cause the most terrible distress. I regret that the chief executive of the Benefits Agency did not apologise in his letter to me, but tried to discredit my constituent's recollection of the visit. I have sought an apology from him. I have asked the ombudsman to accept the comparison of the questionnaire completed by the visiting officer with the one completed by my constituent as sufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation of her complaint of maladministration.
Far from establishing fraud in cases of severely disabled people in which there is little scope for fraud, the benefit integrity project is an expensive exercise that is causing great distress to the most disabled in our society. There is a risk of tragic misjudgments being made about the level of benefits on which people rely to sustain a minimum quality of life. I have written to the Secretary of State to urge that the most severely disabled be excluded from the benefit integrity project. I share the Select Committee's concerns and agree with the recommendations about the benefit integrity project, but I am sorry that it has not recommended the same in the report that we are debating today.
9.54 am
Ms Patricia Hewitt: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said in opening the debate on behalf of the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to participate
284
in this inquiry as a member of the Select Committee. From the inquiry and from the experience that constituents have shared with me, I have learnt far more about the operation of disability living allowance and other disability benefits in the past six months or so than I had dreamed of before becoming a Member of Parliament.
I want to stress the appalling and intolerable complexity of the disability living allowance and, more generally, of the support system for people with disabilities. Although each part of the system has no doubt been developed with the best of intentions, it is virtually impossible for people with disabilities, their advisers or the civil servants who try to operate it to make sense of the system.
One of my constituents, a woman called Lisa, was a nurse for many years. Some 16 years ago, after a severe bout of flu, she contracted myalgic encephalomyelitis. Since then, she has suffered from not only ME, but degeneration of the spine and severe depression. In May 1996, she applied for disability living allowance. Despite the evidence of her condition, which is recognised by the World Health Organisation, and the fact that various medical specialists attested to the merits of her case, she was refused the allowance. She appealed, and in January this year she was awarded DLA care component at the middle rate, which is one of about 15 possible outcomes under the current structure.
The award was backdated to 1996 when Lisa applied for DLA. At that time, it was the rule that people awarded the care component at the middle rate were automatically deemed to be 80 per cent. disabled. Once people were judged to be 80 per cent. disabled, if they had been unable to work for several months they qualified for severe disability allowance, which is a non-contributory benefit to compensate for the fact that a person cannot work. However, between her application and the appeal that awarded her the backdated DLA, the rules were changed. From April 1997—halfway through the history of her case—only people on the higher rate of DLA care component were judged to be 80 per cent. disabled.
Although Lisa's claim for DLA has been awarded and has been backdated to 1996—at which time she would have also been entitled to severe disability allowance—as she had to go through the appeal procedure she has been refused SDA as a result of the change of rules in 1997. That is just one example of the extraordinary complexities that are inherent in the system and have forced my constituent and many others to become expert not only in managing their own disability but in understanding this abstruse part of welfare rights law. With the help of a solicitor and welfare rights officers, my constituent is now pursuing an appeal on the other aspect of her case—the claim for severe disability allowance. I intend to write to the Minister about her case but, in general, I want to reinforce the Select Committee's recommendations for a dramatic simplification of the system.
Costs are inherent in any such simplification and some cases will not be precisely covered by such new rules. However, it is clear to all those who have examined the matter and have learnt from our constituents that simplification will bring immense benefits not only to those who are trying to administer the system but, above all, to people with disabilities who are the system's intended beneficiaries. I shall illustrate the need for simplification in the context of people with disabilities who are able to undertake employment. Our report recommends a much closer and more comprehensive

285
review not simply of DLA but of other cash benefits, services and equipment, all of which can assist disabled people to live independently and, in many cases, to work.
Last week, I was privileged to visit the centre for integrated living in my constituency where I heard from people, many of whom with severe disability, who were in work. They included a social worker who is completely wheelchair-bound and a welfare rights advocate, an organiser at the centre, who is completely blind. Those people are assisted not simply by DLA but by access to work grants. That is a fairly new benefit, but those people are struggling because the system is complex and it is often administered by staff who know much less about the adaptations that are available than the disabled people.
I have given the example of the blind man, whose name is Aslam. He knew when he applied for employment that he needed a laptop computer with a Braille keyboard and a voice synthesiser. That is expensive equipment, but it is one of the wonders of modern technology which enables him to do a full-time job. He applied for it in early June last year and a decision was finally made by the regional office of the Department for Education and Employment towards the end of October, and I think that the equipment was provided in December. His employer was willing and able to wait but many would not have been willing to wait for the access to work grant to come through that made it possible for Aslam to be employed.
The plea by those constituents of mine is for the Select Committee's recommendation to be acted on rapidly, and they ask that staff who implement the access to work grant be given the training and support that they need to ensure that the benefit's potential is fulfilled, as it must be if the new deal for people with disabilities, which every hon. Member warmly welcomes, is to succeed.
I plead not simply for all our recommendations to be implemented but for a simplification of the system so that disabled people know the purpose of disability living allowance and of the overall system of benefits, services and adaptations in equipment. I also ask for a simplification of the gateway to those various forms of support that will provide disabled people with opportunities for independent living when possible and with security of income and of services on which, above all, they depend.
10.4 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I attended the Select Committee meeting at which evidence on the introduction of the benefit integrity project was heard and, as it unfolded, I could hardly believe what I was hearing. The clear message was that none of the misery that has been caused by the project was necessary in the first place. Disabled people should never have been subjected to it. It is utterly frustrating for those of us who have constantly argued against the system to discover from the Select Committee report that BIP was an illegitimate creation with no political warrant.
In introducing the Select Committee report, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said that no consultation took place with disability groups about BIP. However, worse was to follow. It is bad enough not to consult such groups, but, from the evidence, it transpired that incoming Ministers did not get a look-in either. It is
286
outrageous that a controversial scheme that has had an impact on so many of our constituents should have been launched in that way in the middle of a general election campaign and without the incoming Government's approval. The Select Committee report rightly sets out recommendations to ensure that that scenario never occurs again.
Four questions need to be answered. First, I have always assumed that, in advance of a general election, shadow Ministers had some sort of contact with civil servants to discuss plans and the timing of legislation that remained on the books. The evidence to the Select Committee makes it quite clear that, immediately after the election, no new Government figures were informed on such matters. Perhaps the Minister will confirm in his winding-up speech that there had been no discussion on the timing and details of BIP with the shadow Cabinet before the election.
Secondly, when a Labour Minister finally became aware of BIP during the now infamous telephone call to Preston railway station, why did the Government not act? Why did they not halt the project immediately they became aware of its timing and undertake an investigation into the reasons for BIP and, in particular, carry out a detailed examination of the way in which it would be executed? That would have enabled them to make a clear judgment on whether it was a project that they were prepared to inherit and for which they would take responsibility.
Thirdly, did the Secretary of State for Social Security consider cancelling the project when the matter was ultimately drawn to her attention? As the project has not been cancelled, the fourth question is: why did the Government decide to proceed with BIP? I hope that the Minister will answer those questions. It is clear that the Department's civil servants made a serious error in introducing the project when they did. Is it not also true that the Government were at fault for failing to call off the project at the earliest available opportunity? Since the crucial period for that opportunity, towards the end of May, there have been many opportunities to abandon BIP.
The Government have had plenty of evidence to suggest that BIP is not working. We have heard stories of poorly trained staff carrying out bad assessments and of incorrect targeting leading to groups of people who should have been excluded from the project being placed under BIP. There has been a threat about Motability vehicles to those who chose to appeal against decisions and, of course, the long and arduous appeals process is full of inconsistencies. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the project should have been abandoned.
The Select Committee report is excellent, but the catalogue of incompetence in the process is likely to bring despair to disabled people. However, the positive recommendations in the report at least provide a constructive way forward on DLA. The acid test is whether the Government will now choose to follow up the recommendations of the report quickly. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that the Government endorse many of the Select Committee's ideas, but they need to go further than that. Having had a chance to read the report, I believe that disabled people deserve an apology from the Government for the fact that the whole mess was allowed to happen in the first place. Again, I hope that the Minister will make that clear today.

287
There is one key area in which I disagree with the Select Committee's recommendations. The hon. Member for Croydon, North said that the Committee was prepared to place BIP on probation for six months, but surely we have had enough black-and-white evidence by now. We have talked about probation periods and reviews, but none of that will work. The project should be scrapped and we should move on to a different system for reviewing DLA. How can we resurrect a system that was implemented without proper political scrutiny? How can something as discredited as BIP begin to regain the confidence of those being assessed? How can something that failed to tackle the problems in the first place be worth propping up for a further six months?
We should look to the future and not start from the perspective that benefit is paid to too many people, as both the previous Conservative Government and the Labour Government appear to believe. The critical question should be framed in terms of how those who are not claiming DLA to which they may be entitled can be brought into the system. All the evidence suggests that take-up is low among those who are in most severe need of the benefit. We can put in place parallel measures to help people to move away from benefits wherever possible, but the fact that a large number of disabled people need DLA should not be disputed.
We should introduce a new system of reviewing benefits and set up a disability home visit programme. That should be established with the aim of carrying out a proper assessment of people's needs, rather than of reducing Government benefit spending. Such a programme should be targeted at those who are not currently claiming and those who should be claiming at the higher level of the severity scale. It should involve careful and well-thought-out visits from staff who have been properly trained to assess uptake of benefits, to identify where equipment could help, to talk through disability rights issues and to help individuals with a whole package of appropriate benefits.
Disabled people want that sort of exciting development, which exemplifies the standards that we expect to govern the new Government's policy and to be upheld in the civil service. The Conservatives cannot afford to be sanctimonious—after all, B1P was their idea—but, equally, the Labour Government can take no comfort. What started out as a lack of information and an error by civil servants has now become a lack of constructive Government action to remedy or to replace the project. Today provides the Government with another opportunity to take decisive action and I hope that the Minister will not disappoint when he winds up the debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. To enable everyone who is desirous of catching my eye to do so, short speeches would be helpful.
10.12 am
Mrs. Joan Humble: I am not a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, so I read the report with great interest. It is an excellent and detailed report, which reflects many of my constituents' concerns. As other hon. Members have said, we all get complaints from people who have been made
288
desperately anxious that their DLA may be taken away or reduced. After Christmas, my advice surgeries were full of people who had received their complicated forms just before Christmas—what sort of present was that? They did not understand why their benefit was reviewed, especially those who had originally been told that their benefit was for life. Apparently, a benefit is not for life if BIP comes along and a decision is made to review that benefit. There was great concern, some of which was unnecessary.
I was pleased by the measures taken by the Government earlier this year to address some of the worst aspects of the benefit integrity project, but, as the report makes clear, there are still aspects that cause serious concern. Underpinning the whole report is a lack of understanding of why DLA is paid: many of those who come to my surgeries see DLA not as a benefit to help meet their care needs, but as compensation for their disability. They do not understand that, although their disability or illness has not changed, their care needs might have changed and the benefit might need to be reviewed. We need to clear up that basic confusion.
Part of the confusion surrounds the lack of medical evidence used when assessing DLA, which is currently based on self-assessment. The report, rightly, asks whether DLA should be based entirely on self-assessment, or on a medical model, or on a mixture of both. My constituents' main complaint is that, as adjudication officers are not medically trained and do not understand the nature of my constituents' disabilities, how dare they say that my constituents no longer need the higher-rate component or the middle-rate component?
The DLA headquarters are located in my constituency, so thought that I had better go along and talk to the staff who administer the system, instead of continuing to send them letters as I have done since being elected. I have visited Warbreck house three times; my third visit was fascinating, because I discussed in detail with adjudication officers how and why they arrived at their decisions. I assure hon. Members that adjudication officers are not monsters, but people who operate the system that we set up. We have a responsibility to them to make sure that the system is one that they can efficiently and effectively administer, which is what they want to be able to do. Those who work in delivering DLA care about the people to whom they speak on the phone and about whom they read; they get to know those individuals and want to support and help them. Our responsibility is to look carefully at the report, to ensure that the Government pay attention to the serious failings it identifies and to translate that into a more efficient management system for benefits for people with disabilities.
The issue of self-assessment and the role of medical evidence are important, because those hard-working adjudication officers who are my constituents have to make extremely difficult decisions. On the one hand, they read an individual's own description of his or her condition, but, on the other, that description might not illustrate the level of care needed to support the individual's life style. Adjudication officers base

289
decisions on the paper evidence before them, but that evidence is not always sufficient. Therefore, I welcome the report's recommendation that there needs to be
"A better balance between corroborative evidence, objective functional criteria and the claimant's self-perception".
Like many disability organisations, I would not be entirely happy with a change to a fully medical model, but we need to redress the balance.
The report also recommends that we should set up a
"cross-departmental working group … to examine … assessments and service provision for disabled people across health, community care, Independent Living Fund and local authority direct payments".
Many people with disability are bewildered by the wide array of Departments and services and by the number of doors on which they have to knock to get the support that they need to be active members of our community. Some local authorities that have introduced charging policies for social services take into account the whole of DLA; some take into account only part of DLA; some do not take it into account at all; and some local authorities do not charge for social services. Some local authorities have introduced direct payment systems and others have not. Disabled people are expected to make their way through this minefield, of which DLA is just one part. One of the important issues highlighted by the report is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) said, disabled people need a simple system that they understand, and a system that can be properly administered.
We need a disability benefit system that reflects the proper status of people with disabilities. I hope that the Government will consider in detail the report's many recommendations and will respond positively.
10.19 am
Mrs. Theresa May: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to this important debate. I welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Social Security undertook its review and produced a thoughtful report on the disability living allowance. I am a former joint chairman of the all-party disablement group, and I think that the group can take some credit for having at least triggered the idea that it was important that DLA be examined. I think that it was the representations made by Lord Ashley that led the Committee to do so.
As the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) said, the investigation was carried out against a background of considerable concern among people with disabilities and disability organisations about the threats that appeared to be hanging over disability benefits under this Government at the turn of the year and in the early months of this year, and against a background of growing concern about the way in which the benefit integrity project was operating.
We have heard some telling comments this morning, especially from my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson). He spoke of his constituent who gave evidence to the Select Committee about the hardship caused by the way in which BIP has been operating. The project has caused real distress because people are concerned about the threat of cuts to disability benefits under this Government. Concerns remain. Although some were dealt with by the
290
Government in their welfare reform Green Paper, they failed to address certain aspects of the problem, and people are still worried about the threat that hangs over DLA.
I shall focus on certain details in the report. I am worried that BIP continues to operate regardless of the evidence of the very real hardship that it is causing. I was disappointed that the Select Committee chose to give six months' probation to BIP and did not call for its suspension pending a full review, something for which disability organisations have been calling for some months.
I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reconsider. He has always set his face against a suspension of the project, but I hope that he will today say that he is prepared to suspend its operation pending a full review. The project has operated under this Government and they have had several opportunities to suspend it. They have considerable evidence of the damage, anxiety and distress that it is causing to people whose benefits have been cut or taken away quite erroneously, as in the example cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East. I hope that the Minister will go further than the Select Committee report and say that the Government are prepared to suspend and review BIP.
The Select Committee considered how assessments were carried out for DLA. I will not say that the Select Committee appeared to dismiss self-assessment, because it agreed that such assessment should continue, but there is some concern about its references to the possibility of adapting an all-work test to some sort of all-living test. There is great anxiety about the way in which the all-work test operates, and questions remain about it in the case of incapacity benefit. Scope has already said that it is worried that such a test could be adapted as an assessment for DLA. I would caution against moving too quickly down that path. Self-assessment is important because it is the people with disabilities who know best what their needs are. It is important that self-assessment continues to be a key aspect of any assessment for DLA.
Taxation is another source of anxiety hanging over DLA. In her evidence to the Select Committee, Baroness Hollis said:
"Means testing has been ruled out … Taxation has not been ruled out".
That worries many people with disabilities because of what DLA was intended to be. It was intended to cover the costs that people incurred because of their disabilities. It is about empowering people with disabilities. The Government should not lose sight of the concept of empowerment when considering any changes to DLA.
I shall read out two quotations which clearly show what DLA is really about. One comes from evidence to the Select Committee given by Richard Wood on behalf of the British Council of Disabled People. He said:
"It is paid to give disabled people dignity, to allow us to live independently in the community, to allow us to be independent of other people, to make our own choices about how we choose to buy our care in, whom we would wish to pay to do that. which goods and services we need to be able to purchase to support that independence."
The second is from Scope, which said:
"The current system is consistent with the Government's commitment, as expressed in the Welfare Reform Green Paper, that disabled people should be enabled to live fulfilling lives,

291
with dignity. This commitment can only he achieved if disabled people own and control how their needs are met, rather than having them judged by other people who cannot have the same insight into the effects of their impairment on their daily life."
DLA is about empowering the individual. It is a recognition of the fact that it is people with disabilities who best know their own needs and how they should be met. Those two key principles underpin DLA. I should have liked a little more recognition of that in the Select Committee report and its recommendations. However, it is an important report which raises several key issues about the operation of DLA and BIP. I look forward to what I hope will he a constructive and positive response from the Minister. This is the second Adjournment debate to refer to the problems of BIP, and I hope that the Minister's reaction will he more positive this time.
10.27 am
Mr. Paul Goggins: I am a member of the Select Committee on Social Security, and I found the inquiry extremely important and timely in that it provided a focus for the widespread concern that is felt about the benefit integrity project.
Clearly, the inquiry was too short to be able to make detailed recommendations about the disability living allowance as a whole, but the Committee heard enough evidence to suggest that the Government should undertake an urgent review of all its aspects. That review should take account of several points made in the Committee's report and in this morning's debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) spoke about the need for simplification of the benefits for disabled people. Consideration should be given to the role of self-assessment, which is desirable in itself, but no doubt leads to the benefit becoming unstable. There is also considerable evidence, which Ministers should consider, that many severely disabled people are not getting the level of help that they require.
I shall refer to three aspects of BIP which still concern me greatly. The first is the relationship between costs and savings. It was estimated that in years one and two of BIP, the costs would be £23 million and the savings, now revised down, would be £45 million. Therefore, for every LI spent, £2 would be saved. However, the estimated figures for the first year are that £11.5 million will be spent, and that a mere million will be saved. So, for every £2 spent, less than £1 would be saved. Such a financial result may strike hon. Members as hardly worth the effort of attaining it. When the result is set against the fear and upset that the benefit integrity project has undoubtedly caused, it becomes extremely difficult to justify. I think that all Committee members were struck by the evidence given by disabled people who had been disallowed their benefits.
Secondly, I am concerned about the issue of incorrectness and allegations of fraud in claims for disability living allowance. The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) mentioned the Department of Social Security benefit review—on which the benefit integrity project was based—which alleged that there was 27 per cent. incorrectness, nearly half of which was attributable to fraud. It alleged that, every year, there was almost half a billion pounds of fraud in disability living allowance claims.
The implication or undercurrent of the DSS benefit review is that many disabled people are fraudsters, which I reject. Moreover, the evidence being produced by the
292
benefit integrity project shows that such a conclusion is wrong, and that, although there is about 21 per cent. incorrectness, there is almost no fraud in DLA—which is a salutary reminder to Ministers and all other hon. Members that we have to be extremely cautious when making claims about levels of benefit fraud.
I am concerned, thirdly, about the issue of reviews and appeals. If people dispute decisions made under the benefit integrity project, they can ask for a review. Subsequently, if necessary, they can seek an appeal. The Committee's report contains the review figures for January 1998, which show that one quarter of all reviews resulted in an increased award. However, the latest figures, for April 1998—which are in the Library—show that a third of all reviewed cases received a benefit increase. Moreover, two thirds of the 61 appeals that were completed in April resulted in the restoration of or an increase in benefit. The results are a very worrying indication that the quality of the original BIP decision was extremely poor. The report makes it clear that the Committee expects there to be major improvements in the project.
Many hon. Members have asked in this debate whether BIP should have been suspended. Like my Committee colleagues, I gave serious consideration to the question, but two factors prevented me from going along with a suspension. First, the Secretary of State took action in tightening the BIP guidelines. The most severely disabled people were exempted from the project, and objective corroboration is now necessary before benefits are withdrawn. Secondly, there is no denying that Ministers have made sterling efforts in gaining the confidence of disabled people and their organisations, and in making progress on these issues.
I therefore concluded that BIP should have six months' probation, and I certainly hope, and expect, that further progress will be made in the project. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that, in the long run, the Government must consider a major overhaul of disability living allowance.
10.32 am
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I shall speak only briefly, as I know that the Minister and the shadow Minister wish to speak. I should like to pay tribute to my colleague on the Select Committee on Social Security, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), for his excellent precis of our recommendations. I should like equally to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), whose constituent I well remember appearing before the Select Committee. It was quite inconceivable that her benefit should have been removed in such a fashion. I felt that she was very dignified, but certainly in need of state support, of which she was being deprived. I hope that those matters will be resolved very shortly.
I thought that the Select Committee's report was useful, as it highlighted the reasons for the need for reform of disability living allowance, albeit it did not give many suggestions on what that reform should include. I think that the resolution of two matters—one of which has been mentioned in this debate—would be helpful in reforming DLA. I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt), who kept mentioning in Committee the first of the matters—which is that DLA forms are not helpful to people with blindness or other sensory disabilities. It would be very helpful if such people were considered when the forms are produced.

293
The second matter, which hon. Members have mentioned in this debate, is medical assessment and the current self-assessment system. I think that, at the very least, we shall have to require the use of much more medical corroboration in deciding the cases of people seeking disability living allowance. If we were to do so, provision of DLA would gain much more public support.
The Select Committee has clearly identified the fact that the system operates very much in an ad hoc manner in determining who receives DLA and at what rate they receive it, which cannot encourage public support for the benefit, or give confidence to those who need the benefit that they will receive the amount to which they are entitled. The hon. Member for Croydon, North explained how such a situation has arisen, and also said that introduction of DLA was a great achievement of the previous Government.
The DLA programme has grown over time and been subject to changes by the courts. It is now very unclear who should be eligible to receive the benefit and how much they should receive. I very much hope that the Government properly review the benefit and make changes that will reassure everyone that it operates in a manner that hon. Members can justify, and perhaps even explain, to our constituents.
I should like to mention one other matter dealt with in our report, and mentioned in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), on which I should be grateful for the Minister's comments—the spectre of taxation of disability allowance. Conservative Members would very much object to choosing such an option which, although it was mentioned in the context of a review, is in the report.
The Select Committee was told by many disability organisations that they would consider such taxation to be extremely unfair, and that the purpose of disability living allowance is not to redistribute income, but to enable people to live full lives, despite their disabilities, and to pay for the things that they require to tackle their disabilities, so that they can live their lives as best they can. Conservative Members would vehemently oppose any proposal by the Government to tax DLA.
I should be very grateful if the Minister would put the taxation issue to rest once and for all, as it—like the benefit integrity project, and other issues raised by the Government on the future of DLA—is mentioned very frequently in my postbag. I should be very grateful if, in future, I could write that the Minister has firmly ruled out taxation of disability living allowance, either now or in the future.
10.37 am
Mr. Chris Pond: I shall speak very briefly, because I know that we have to leave time for Front Benchers to speak. I know also that my fellow Labour members of the Select Committee would like to add to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) to Lord Ashley, who has worked in both Houses on disability issues and on stimulating our inquiry.
Our inquiry has shown that there are considerable difficulties with the current operation of disability living allowance, and particularly with how the benefit integrity
294
project sought to address some of those difficulties. It is very clear that there were difficulties in some of the DLA assessments, many of which appeared to be arbitrary. Lack of take-up of the benefit also demonstrates that it is not working well. I think that all hon. Members involved in the debate have been clear about the fact that the BIP project—as initially conceived, or misconceived—made matters considerably worse.
At its conception, I described BIP as something of a Whitehall farce—which would have been comic had the project not caused such severe anxiety and hardship to so many people. I know, after talking to people with disabilities in my constituency, that the project itself was such a cause of anxiety that it could well have made their condition worse. That is why the Select Committee seriously considered calling for the suspension of BIP. However, we decided to call for BIP to be put on probation rather than suspended to see how the changes implemented by the Government were working.
A review of DLA, which is much to be welcomed, should focus on claims made in the early years of the introduction of the benefit, when there was real chaos in the way in which it was being administered and officials were clearly uncertain as to its implementation. The review should also look at the issue of life claims, which is something of a misnomer because many claims issued supposedly on a lifetime basis have to be reviewed as a result of changing circumstances.
I welcome an overall review of DLA. We need to consider seriously whether or not BIP should be suspended, and I know that the Minister will be examining that, subject to the probation that we have suggested. It is also important that we make a clear distinction between what has happened under BIP and DLA and the Government's overall approach to welfare reform, which is not about cuts in benefit to severely disabled people, but about seeking to ensure that people who have to depend on benefit have a level of income that provides them with dignity and independence, while encouraging as many as possible to work.
10.40 am
Mr. Simon Burns: First, I congratulate the Select Committee on its report on DLA and BIP as both issues have been of great concern and of a sensitive nature to the country for the past year or so. The problem arose because the Government caused people with disabilities a great deal of anxiety and fear over the future of DLA. The sole reason for that was their shoddy and piecemeal approach to reforming social security. The lack of a clear policy direction is far more damaging than having no policy at all. The rumours, the leaks, the counter-rumours and the counter-leaks with which we have all become so familiar might be the ideal way for the Government to carry out their market research and gauge public opinion, but they have to realise that such actions affect real people, and in this case they have had a serious effect.
As Margaret Pedlar of the mental health charity MIND said:
"I cannot stress too strongly the anxiety that was caused earlier in the year by rumours over means-testing or taxation of Disability Living Allowance or its replacement by services. Nor should the importance of this benefit to people's lives be underestimated."

295
The Government have singularly failed to recognise the sensitivity of the subject and even now, after more than a year, there remains uncertainty as to whether or not DLA should be taxed.
The problem began last November when there was a press report that the Government were considering the taxation of DLA. The leak was neither confirmed nor denied by the Government, leaving thousands of people with disabilities unsure as to the future of their benefits. Yet rather than making their position absolutely clear, which would have prevented a great deal of the heartache, confusion and sheer panic, the Government greatly added to the uncertainty by letting it be known that they were considering cuts not only to DLA, but to the whole range of disability benefits. It was made quite clear in the report by Channel 4 in mid-December that the Government were planning wide-ranging cuts in disability benefits. Again, the Government did nothing to dispel the fears of people with disabilities for the future of their benefits. Even when the Opposition pressed them on many occasions on whether DLA would be means-tested or taxed, Ministers did nothing to clarify the position.
People with disabilities had to wait until late March this year, with the publication of the long-awaited Green Paper on welfare reform, finally to receive the assurance from the Government that DLA would not be means-tested. The question must, therefore, be asked about why the Government waited four months from the initial rumours about means-testing before ruling it out. If it was never their intention to means-test DLA, they could have ruled it out at the time and saved many people much anxiety, but the uncertainty that pervades Government policy in these matters continues.
The Government still have not made up their mind about whether DLA ought to be taxed. Only a few weeks ago, we heard from the Minister for Welfare Reform on the Dimbleby programme that the taxation of DLA was one of the options being considered. He said:
"I can't give you the answers yet—because we are having a general consultation about it."
It seems that the uncertainty will continue until the Government finally make up their mind, but it is still causing concern to many people.
The Select Committee report makes the strong recommendation that taxation of DLA should be considered only in the context of a full review of the purposes and the level of the benefit. It is worth raising here the important argument that disability benefits, of which DLA is one of the most important, serve the purpose of levelling the playing field to some extent. It is essential that any proposals to tax DLA do not erode that fundamental principle which underlies disability benefit. However, it seems that so far, the Government have done all they can to ensure that the concern and worry continue, and that is nothing compared with the damage caused by their operation of the benefit integrity project, which has quite rightly featured so significantly in our debate today and in the Select Committee report.
The detailed Select Committee report offers a full and dramatic account of how the lack of communication between incoming Ministers and the Department of Social Security resulted in the shambles that has marked the project so far. We have the extraordinary circumstance, unearthed by the Select Committee, of the Minister concerned only discovering the existence of the project
296
on 29 May during a telephone conversation from Preston railway station. It seems extraordinary that, for 23 days after taking office, Ministers were completely oblivious to a fundamental policy that was being implemented by their Department, which already had a significant impact on the lives of so many people.
Mr. Steve Webb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burns: No. I am very short of time.
I should like the Minister to explain something to the House, as I cannot see it anywhere in the report and I am puzzled. Certainly under the previous Government, whenever there was a Government reshuffle—and I suspect that it was also the case on 4 May 1979 when new Ministers were first appointed—Ministers were issued by their civil servants with significant briefing material on every policy for which they had direct responsibility and on the overall policies being pursued by the Department. Were Ministers at the Department of Social Security—on or shortly after 6 May—issued with detailed briefings of their ministerial responsibilities and the policies that the civil service anticipated that the incoming new Government would pursue? If they were, did the benefit integrity project in any shape or form feature in that briefing? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, how did it escape the notice of Ministers—particularly the Minister directly concerned with the policy—until 29 May? If the answer to the question is that there was no reference to the project in any briefing to new Ministers, what action have Ministers taken to reprimand civil servants who made such a significant failing, and what confidence do they have that other policies being hatched in the Department will not be enacted in a similar way, oblivious of ministerial knowledge or control? I would appreciate an answer from the Minister.
Like several hon. Members who spoke in the debate, I am perplexed and disappointed that the report has simply put BIP on probation until the end of July. In an earlier debate two or three months ago, we called on the Government to suspend the project—notwithstanding the actions taken by the Secretary of State in February to seek to improve its immediate impact—so that it could be overhauled and reviewed thoroughly without causing harm to those individuals most directly affected. We urged the Government to get it right once and for all, rather than continuing to try to sort it out piecemeal. The Select Committee has put BIP on probation until the end of July. As we shall presumably go into recess in July, when will the Select Committee study and reconsider what has occurred during that probationary period? Will nothing be done for another three or four months? If so, we shall face an on-going problem.
Time is short and I do not wish to eat into the Minister's time. We are concerned about the way in which DLA has been handled, and the report has picked up on those concerns. We are also gravely concerned about BIP and its introduction, which the report has picked up on starkly. I hope that the Minister will respond to the genuine concerns expressed by all hon. Members who have raised the issue, particularly the question of the briefing of new Ministers when Labour came to power in early May last year.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. John Denham): I thank the Social Security Select Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who introduced the debate in the absence of the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). We hope that he will be better soon.
The Committee's fourth report on disability living allowance is both interesting and useful. It is a substantial report which makes many detailed, and in some cases far-reaching, recommendations—all of which are being studied carefully. Many of the issues are being addressed, and I understand why the House has sought an early opportunity to discuss the report. However, it is important that the Government consider all the issues carefully, so I shall not respond fully to the report today. We shall make a formal written response within the usual time scales that apply to replies to Select Committee reports. We intend to respond by the end of July, as requested by the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North,
The Select Committee report will undoubtedly feed into the debate about disability living allowance. My hon. Friend outlined—as did several other hon. Members—the Select Committee's call for a review of disability living allowance. We set the ground rules for this debate in the welfare reform Green Paper. In that paper, we set out our firm commitment to the principle of providing special allowances to help with the extra costs of disability and maintaining DLA as a non-means-tested and national benefit for those who meet the entitlement conditions. I make it clear that taxation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but we have no current plans to tax DLA and there was no reference to that in the Green Paper.
Mr. Nick Gibb: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Denham: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only a limited time in which to respond to many hon. Members.
It is worth remembering the central role that DLA plays in the lives of disabled people. It has many positive aspects. It is paid to disabled people whether they are in or out of work. This year, we expect that about £5.5 billion of disability living allowance will go to help about 2 million disabled people. The Select Committee confirmed the importance of that help and those values. In considering DLA, we want to ensure that the many advantages of DLA as it stands at present are not lost in an effort to put right some of the faults.
However, as the Select Committee recognises, there is a question about whether some of those who receive DLA are entitled to it and whether others who are entitled to it are not getting the help that they need. In order to receive DLA, disabled people make a statement of their care and mobility needs, which is usually backed up by evidence from a general practitioner. Several hon. Members referred to medical evidence. In more than 40 per cent. of cases, there is either an independent medical examination or evidence from a GP.
The recent joint investigation of DLA by the DLA advisory board and the Department of Social Security suggested that there was insufficient evidence to support
298
the benefit claim in two thirds of cases. It also found that one third of the awards made for life—which constitutes two thirds of all awards—were made to people whose conditions might have been expected to improve. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) referred to life awards. That is the current term used in the legislation, but we accept that a life award does not mean an award for life. If people's conditions or needs change, their entitlement can be affected.
Many speakers, including my hon. Friends the Members for Croydon, North, for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) and for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, expressed concern about the lack of clarity and robustness and the difficulty involved in understanding the criteria for current entitlement. That is why we gave an undertaking in the Green Paper to review the gateway to DLA and to set up a forum of representatives of groups of and for disabled people to help take it forward. We have now established the forum under the chairmanship of my noble Friend Baroness Hollis, and it is having its first meeting today. The forum's terms of reference are:
"To consider possible options for changes in the gateways to benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and carers, and how to ensure that help is directed to those who need it."
A wide range of organisations are represented on the forum, and we take consultation seriously. I am sure that the Select Committee's report will feed usefully into the forum's discussions in the coming weeks.
I turn now to the benefit integrity project. There have clearly been problems with BIP, many of which the Select Committee has highlighted. However, the Select Committee also accepted the need for a mechanism to ensure that current DLA recipients receive their correct entitlement. After careful consideration, the Select Committee decided not to endorse the sorts of calls that we have heard today from some hon. Members to suspend the project. For our part, we believe that BIP is necessary, but we want to ensure that the project is conducted as sensitively as possible and that the right decisions are taken.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) asked why the decision was taken to proceed with the project when Ministers became aware of it. The Department of Social Security, backed by the National Audit Office, presented to Ministers evidence of fraud amounting to nearly £500 million and we acted immediately to improve the training available for staff. Due to the nature of the benefit, it has become clear that that estimate of fraud cannot be sustained, although the project has maintained that estimate of incorrectness.
I am not convinced—I do not think that the Select Committee was either—that it would have been right to be aware of a substantial level of incorrectness in a benefit and simply to choose to do nothing about it. It is clear that we must conduct the project sensitively and make every effort to ensure that we take the correct decisions. The fact that the benefit integrity project is necessary illustrates some of the problems surrounding DLA.
BIP is backed by standard assessment and adjudication rules—they have not been changed—and the responsibility for decision making rests with the same people who have always exercised that responsibility. The usual full rights of review and appeal apply to cases reviewed under the benefit integrity project, in the same way as to any other disability living allowance claim or review. Those rules ensure that decisions relating to benefit entitlement are objective and based on evidence.

299
We are already working on some of the issues raised by the Select Committee. We have kept the project under review since inheriting it, and we have made changes whenever they were considered necessary. One of the most welcome changes was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 9 February. From that date, no benefit has been reduced or taken away solely on the basis of evidence from the claimant—we shall always ensure that there is additional evidence. Disability organisations, the Select Committee and other hon. Members have called for that change to be extended to cases decided before 9 February. We are keen to explore that proposal.
I have already informed the House that we have been trying for some time to overcome the various legal and operational difficulties that such a change would present. The number of cases affected is not the major problem: the number of cases decided before 9 February without any additional evidence and where the claimant had not already asked for a review or appeal is estimated to be fewer than 2,000. However, the process must be handled very carefully.
For instance, re-examining very many cases will not necessarily lead to benefits being increased or restored. Indeed, there is always the possibility that benefit could be reduced further. Claimants need to be fully informed about the possible outcomes of any further review, but in a way that would not dissuade them from exercising the right to have their case re-examined.
Having described some of the issues that we have had to consider, I am pleased to be able to confirm that we shall be looking again at those pre-9 February cases which were decided without additional evidence and resulted in a reduction or removal of DLA, where the claimant did not seek a review of the decision. Exact details are still being worked out, but we shall move forward as quickly as possible, in keeping with a careful and sensitive approach. I am sure that the House will welcome the announcement.
We have made a series of further changes to the benefit integrity project. We have introduced regular meetings with representatives from organisations of and for disabled people. We have agreed that certain groups of DLA recipients will not be contacted directly as part of the project. There will be further consideration of other excluded groups at a meeting towards the end of the month, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) suggested—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Bosnia and Herzegovina
[Relevant documents: First Report from the Defence Committee of Session 1997–98, on Peace Support Operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina (HC 403), and the Government's response thereto (HC 535).]
11 am
Mr. Bruce George: It can perhaps be said that the Select Committee system goes back 500 years. Those 500 years of experience have been distilled into the miserable powers with which we are conferred—and we do not even exercise those powers. The Defence Committee, which I am privileged to chair, has had a busy 12 months. There have been 28 formal meetings, five foreign visits—to the United States, Germany, Bosnia, Bonn, for a small group of us, and NATO–15 domestic visits, including to Northern Ireland, and 23 informal briefings. I have pushed the Committee very hard. We have had a total of 72 meetings so far and there will be two more tomorrow. We have been dealing with a labyrinthine bureaucracy that makes the Ottomans seem the personification of open government—although my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces is a great exception to that scientific rule.
I am very pleased that we are debating the first of our reports on peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. The device of allowing Select Committees to be reported is a marginal addition to their limited powers. Our report was timely when it was written. It was written very soon after our return from Bosnia—perhaps hastily would be the wrong word to use—because we felt that key decisions were being made at the turn of the year on the continuation of the stabilisation force and that it was necessary very swiftly to produce a report based on our experience and observations. Today's debate is timely in that key decisions are being made in the Security Council on the continuation of SFOR. The timeliness is important; I would like to think that it was deliberate, but knowing this place, I am not entirely convinced.
The report concerns the Defence Committee's fifth visit to Bosnia—although it was the first for the present Committee members. We therefore bring quite considerable knowledge of the situation in Bosnia to the report and have a right to offer advice on what should happen, bearing in mind the appalling lessons of the past and the many mistakes that were made by Governments throughout the world, especially those in the European Union and NATO.
I very much welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces. We are awaiting debates on two further reports; one—on NATO enlargement—has already been written. Government Members who are well programmed might say that the Government have a busy timetable and therefore have not been able to find time to ratify—if what we do can be dignified by the term, which, of course, it cannot—the reports. Those who are rather more adventurous might say that the lack of debate is unfortunate. I would say that it is a disgrace that the Government have not found sufficient time to debate a key issue to the future of eastern and central Europe, NATO and world security. I hope that time will be found before the recess.
The Committee is awaiting the production of our sixth report—we are not quite sure when it will occur—which is on the strategic defence review. The Committee has

301
been on standby for January, February, March, April, May and June. Are rumours true that we shall be on standby in July, August and even September before we have the opportunity to produce our report?
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Chairman of the Select Committee confirm the rumour that he intends that the Committee should sit through the month of August in order to question Ministers about the contents of the strategic defence review?
Mr. George: I have said publicly on several occasions that, if we have to suffer, then Ministers should too. It is fanciful for Ministers—and, why not, Treasury Ministers, too—to assume that they can hide somewhere in northern Italy, drinking expensive wine while we are advancing the cause of the Executive as a result of their oversight. Perhaps some package holiday back to the United Kingdom can be arranged for them.
If our Prime Minister wishes to pursue an ethical foreign policy—I can think of nothing more ethical than preventing genocide—and if he wishes to sustain the British ability to defend ourselves and to meet our treaty and alliance obligations, it is very important that our armed forces are of the right size and the present high quality, well led, well trained, well motivated, well equipped, have high morale, receive good political leadership and are not grossly overstretched. Those qualities must be maintained. Skills and morale do not descend from the sky; they have to be nurtured.
As the Secretary of State–1 am pleased that he is present—Ministers and members of the Defence Committee know, we cannot accept that what we have at the moment will remain in perpetuity. The skills in our armed forces could disappear; troops could leave due to gross overstretch. Our capable forces are a precious asset that must not be squandered. I am wasting my time by talking to Defence Ministers because I share their views, but I hope that those on the other side of the road realise that, although economic policy is important, the defence of our national interest is equally, if not more, important.
Our troops are so professional. Man for man, woman for woman, pound for pound—or, if ever we were unfortunate enough to get into a common defence policy, kilo for kilo—our forces are probably the best in the world. They are doing a superb job in Bosnia. One wonders what would happen if their presence there were greatly diminished. To illustrate their sheer professionalism, I shall cite one small example. Some of us visited the King's Royal Hussars, which were then based around Mrkonjicgrad. I cannot adequately express my admiration for that half regiment; they were brilliant. The range of tasks and the versatility that they displayed were quite staggering. Given their experience in Northern Ireland, they were as good at being infantrymen and paramilitary policemen as they were at driving tanks.
I am delighted to say that, on our recent visit to Germany, we found the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards ecstatic about their new Challenger 2s—the Rolls-Royce of world tanks. I just hope that Vickers does not do the same for Challenger 2 as it did for Rolls-Royce. The tank is superb. A disastrous decision has been made. [Interruption.] I shall not be partisan; my friends on the Opposition Benches know what I just managed to prevent myself from saying.
302
The King's Royal Hussars operate and drive around in Scimitars and Warriors. They even travel on horseback. They were immensely popular locally. Their military capability was superb, and they had an amazing civil assistance programme, which earned them enormous local praise. They improved water supply, established street lighting and rebuilt roads and schools—all that with half a regiment. We can be so proud of what our young men and women are doing there, but it is important that in the strategic defence review we are careful to ensure that those assets are not dissipated.
Let us make no mistake; if any of the options that were on the table for the future of SFOR had been implemented, the consequences would have been catastrophic. One option, which was obviously not serious, was total withdrawal with no follow-on force. Some people have argued for that, and the one piece of publicity that we had following publication of our report came from Simon Jenkins, a former adviser to the Committee concerning our Falklands report. Clearly, he thinks that it is not our responsibility to stay in Bosnia, and that we should get the hell out of there.
I believe that if that line were pursued, the consequences would be disastrous. A purely deterrent force, small and based outside Bosnia, would have been nonsense; a deterrent force of 20,000 would have been inadequate. I hope that it will be announced that there will remain a force of about the present size, because I am pretty certain that if those forces were significantly diminished, the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims would get back to basics—killing each other, dusting down their kalashnikovs and driving their tanks out of the compounds in which they are now retained. Revenge would be sought, with killings and masses of refugees—and of course, the forest fire would spread.
Will the Minister of State tell us what he intends to announce about the future level of British forces? I would like that confirmed. Can he say anything about the NATO contribution in general, what the balance between NATO and non-NATO elements will be, and what the United States commitment is? It would be helpful for that to be restated.
As we said in our report:
"We believe that the task of SFOR is not yet completed, and we support the continuing presence of a multinational force"
in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Within that, of course, Britain must continue to play its significant role.
Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Defence Committee for giving way to me. While he is discussing the configuration of SFOR, does he agree that the only reason why we can provide such excellent troops in their present shape is that they have retained a high-intensity war-fighting capability, which can then be flexed into other shapes, whereas if we had designed our troops around a peacekeeping or gendarmerie function, they would be nothing like as good at peacekeeping?
Mr. George: That is true. The example that I gave of the King's Royal Hussars consists of guys who have been in Northern Ireland and know about low-intensity operations, but who also exercise for a major war involving their tanks, and are capable of acting as

303
paramilitary policemen. The training and experience within those individuals' competence coves such a range as to make them startlingly unique.
I believe that the continuation of SFOR will buy time—more time to see how the other part of the equation works—the restoration of civil society in Bosnia, and democratisation, with social and economic regeneration. That certainly needs time. I believe, as President Clinton said, that we need not a deadline, but a series of milestones. When those milestones are reached, there can be a diminution in the military presence.
I shall now make a few points about other matters, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Obviously Kosovo is in our minds. Milosevic has been described as both an arsonist and a fire fighter—the man who begins the crisis and then, it is to be hoped, comes round to put out the fire that he has started. The Balkans will remain an area of our continent beset with crises, and we must explain to our electorates why British forces are there. Their presence stems not simply from high ethical motives, but from our self-interest.
After the SDR is eventually published, I hope that our forces will not be significantly different from those that we have today. Yes, they must be geared up for the 21st century, but I hope that defence expenditure will remain at about 2.6 per cent. The last report of the previous Defence Committee, then chaired by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin), whom I can call my hon. Friend, said that any further cuts in defence expenditure would endanger the defence of the realm.
Mr. Michael Colvin: May I respond to that reference to myself, and add, for the benefit of the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see in his place, the information that the final paragraph of that last report on the previous defence White Paper was originally very tough and said that the cuts had gone so far but must go no further—I drafted that myself—but that another five lines that went even further were then added by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who is now Chairman of the Defence Committee. I warn the Secretary of State that a couple of shots have been fired across his bows, and I hope that he reads the conclusion of the report carefully.
Mr. George: I thank my hon. Friend for those helpful remarks.
I have one further point unrelated to Bosnia, although it could be connected. From the press I understand that two of the recent rioters in Marseilles were serving British military personnel, one from the Royal Air Force and one from the Army. I hope that my remarks somehow waft their way over to their commanding officers to consider when they get out of the slammer. Unfortunately, they are not on Devil's island. I can never forgive the French for abandoning that magnificent penal colony, where those guys ought to be serving a sentence of three years, not three months. I hope that those men's commanding officers will pay attention to the press reports.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. George: Yes, but for the last time.
Mr. McWilliam: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that those men are probably in more trouble where they are now than they would be on Devil's island, where there is now a rather nice hotel.
Mr. George: Is that so? My travelling has obviously not been as extensive as that of my hon. Friend. I presume that those men's time in prison will not be such a wonderful experience.
In conclusion, the House can pay tribute to our armed forces, especially those serving in dangerous places in the world. Their presence there is important and appreciated. If the Prime Minister wishes to deploy British forces in trouble spots throughout the world, there must be a critical mass of our armed forces, and we are now at the point where that barely exists.
We have all read the press stories about the Treasury demanding our aircraft carrier programme, Eurofighter, or our Challenger 2 tanks. We have been waiting long enough for a decent tank, and it would be criminal to abandon the Challenger 2 after 70 or 80 years of waiting. If those press stories are remotely true, I think that everybody here, the full Defence Committee, and a large majority in the House of Commons will join the Secretary of State in telling the Treasury, "Hands off."
11.17 am
Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), has pointed out, the report is now rather more than six months old, and proceedings this morning have been notable for two reasons. First, through the passage of time the report has become timely because SFOR' s mandate expires on 21 June, so by accident, what we say today may be of rather more relevance than it might have been a few months ago.
The other notable feature is that this is, I believe, the first time in the 11 years that I have been a Member of the House that I have heard an intervention by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) in a Defence debate without the words "Territorial Army" passing his lips. I suppose that that may be because, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he intends to tackle that topic with his usual enthusiasm later.
The hon. Gentleman would, of course, be right to raise that subject in the context of Bosnia. I guess that all hon. Members, when they have visited units in the Army, have almost always met someone in the Territorial Army who has either been to Bosnia or is about to go there.
I visited the Fife and Forfar Yeomanry territorials in my constituency recently, and I met one soldier who had given up his job in civilian life to accept a six-month tour of duty in Bosnia. That is typical of the enthusiasm of many in the Territorial Army for the opportunity provided by Bosnia, and it also reflects the fact that our effectiveness there has, on many occasions, rested on the fact that we have been able to call up from the Territorial Army people of competence and ability who were easily able to fit into the regular units to which they were assigned.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that the gentleman in question, who has given up his civilian career to go to Bosnia, will have a regiment to come back to?
Mr. Campbell: Rather interestingly, that was the question he asked me, and I was not able to give an unequivocal answer. I promised to raise the matter with the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Armed Forces. I have done so informally, and I take the

305
opportunity to do so more formally. They will have deduced from the response from hon. Members on both sides of the House that a part of the strategic defence review which will receive as much scrutiny in the House of Commons as any will be that part which deals with the future of the Territorial Army.
I do not expect Ministers to tell us this morning what they will do with the TA—we can read about it in The Times every other week. Talk about open government—parts of the strategic defence review seem to be conducted in the pages of the broadsheet newspapers. We hope to have soon a White Paper which will allow us to focus on decisions, rather than responding to what often looks like well-placed speculation.
I want to concentrate briefly on what has been achieved by the NATO military presence in Bosnia under the guise of SFOR. The first and obvious thing has been stability. As a result of that stability, obstructionist police chiefs have been successfully removed, war criminals have been arrested—UK forces have participated in that—and mendacious propaganda outlets, such as television stations, have been shut down. Local armed forces have been brought firmly under control and—something that would have been inconceivable a year ago—two major elections have been held in Bosnia against a peaceful background.
I mention those matters because they were all key undertakings of the Dayton agreement. Such success as has been achieved must not be thrown away, and the achievements must be built upon. If we do not continue to do that, most observers recognise that there is still potential in the region for a resumption of the damaging and brutal fighting which precipitated the intervention of NATO some three years ago. Early withdrawal of NATO would serve only to create circumstances in which that brutality could re-emerge.
The Committee's report draws attention to the need for political reconciliation and economic reconstruction. The peace created by SFOR provides us with the opportunity to push ahead towards that reconstruction. The decision to continue the mandate is, I understand, to be predicated on the view that there is no fixed exit date, but there is to be an exit state; that is to say, at a point when civil society has been properly restored in the area, NATO forces will withdraw.
We must ensure, therefore, that our presence is designed to bring about that exit state at the earliest possible date. There is a risk—Cyprus is a clear example—of temporary postings or obligations becoming part of the status quo. To a limited extent, I accept one of the propositions contained in the article by Mr. Simon Jenkins, to which the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Walsall, South, referred; there is always a risk of deployments of this kind becoming part of the status quo. We must ensure, therefore, that during the period of deployment and the renewed mandate, we press ahead with those parts of the Dayton agreement which still require to be implemented.
The report highlights a number of key factors which need to be addressed urgently if civil society in Bosnia is to progress. For example, there is no proper definition of citizenship or passports. Discriminatory property laws block the return of displaced persons, and the concept of
306
refugee return made up a key part of the Dayton agreement. It is well known that the police do not deal even-handedly with politically motivated crimes. There are numerous cases of wrongful arrest and abuse of persons in custody. The issue of civil policing must be dealt with quickly.
The restoration of a recognised domestic civil police will come about only by close co-operation with the international police task force. That restoration of civil policing in which all sectors of the community can have confidence will, in my judgment, make the greatest possible contribution to the restoration of long-term stability.
One senior British Army officer pointed out in a recent article:
"The restructuring of the police to the standards of western democracies is an essential step if SFOR is one day to withdraw successfully."
I understand that the UK contributes 60 officers to the IPTF. I wonder if that is an area in which we could do a little more. We have a long-established tradition of civil policing in this country, and surely it would be right to try to extend our influence in these matters in Bosnia.
The international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia deals with those indicted for war crimes. Everyone accepts that that is a crucial process if the scars that the events in Bosnia have left behind are ever to be healed. It is generally accepted that the tribunal is short of funds and is unduly bureaucratic. One of the key recommendations of the report is that
"international bodies urgently re-examine the resourcing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia."
The report ends with a recommendation that the
"mandate for the successor force to SFOR should be based on a three year plan and be fully integrated with a comprehensive strategy for civilian implementation."
As I said, the proposals now envisage an exit state rather an exit date. That is a development in thinking since December 1997 and, although I was a subscriber to the report, thinking has developed—particularly across the Atlantic in the United States—that an exit state approach is the one that we should develop rather than the fixing of an exit date. The advantage of that is that more long-term strategies will be able to be pursued in areas such as mine clearance, the arrest of war criminals, the fight against corruption and the return of refugees.
The truth is that the implementation force and SFOR succeeded far beyond the expectations of those of us who supported their deployment. If one had said on the eve of the deployment of IFOR that it would have been able to restore stability as it did as quickly and as effectively, people would have expressed a certain degree of scepticism. SFOR has managed to take that process on and has maintained stability. The task for the follow-on force is to ensure that the stability allows the growth of the essential elements of a civilian society. That is why it is timely that we should discuss this report, albeit that the debate—as it were—is six months out of date. It reminds us once again that there are unfinished tasks in Bosnia.
11.27 am
Mr. Keith Hill: I very much welcome this debate. It is almost a year to the day since the House last debated the situation in Bosnia on an Adjournment motion

307
in my name. Other hon. Members took part in the debate then. Since Bosnia represents the most significant act of deployment of British troops overseas and since the situation in the Balkans continues to constitute the greatest threat to stability in Europe, it seems appropriate that the House should return to this subject—at least at a 12-month remove.
The occasion for this debate is the excellent report of the Defence Committee on peace support operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I congratulate the Committee on its detailed and wide-ranging report. In particular, I congratulate the Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who, in his speech this morning, demonstrated his outstanding expertise on defence issues—the product of many years' immersion in the matter. He is absolutely right to point out the special contribution of British forces to peace support in Bosnia and Herzegovina. For reasons with which we are all familiar, the British Army has unique experience in performing at the cusp of civilian and military operations. Like my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members, I pay tribute to the achievement and reputation of the British forces in Bosnia. I welcome the Government's constructive response to the Committee's report, about which, I dare say, we shall hear more from my hon. Friend the Minister.
The first and major recommendation of the Committee's report, which was published in December last year, was that the presence of a multinational force in Bosnia be continued. That demand was at the heart of the debate in the House 12 months ago—it was supported by all those who spoke—when it was far from certain that the SFOR mandate would be extended beyond its expiry date in June 1998.
As we now know, the NATO permanent council decided on 18 February to continue SFOR's operation at current levels until the general elections in September, with some reductions after that date if circumstances permit. I note that the council will review the situation on the ground periodically and the SFOR mission every six months, but that no precise duration has been specified in the mandate.
Earlier this year, the United Nations high representative, Carlos Westendorp, said that he thought that the SFOR follow-up force should remain in force for three more years. I also note with interest that President Clinton has said that the mission should be tied to concrete benchmarks, not to a deadline, and that it must have clear objectives that, when met, will create a self-sustaining, secure environment, which would permit troop withdrawal. I am sure that that is the right approach, to which, I hope, the British Government will lend their support. The truth is that progress on the Dayton objectives has been painfully slow over the past 12 months. However, it is equally true—and universally recognised, not least among ordinary Bosnians—that there would have been no progress at all without SFOR.
The problems are obvious: the majority of common institutions are operating inadequately; illegal structures of government persist in the federation; there is a lack of strong multi-ethnic political parties and a structured civil society; and there are no functioning public corporations. If the UN high representative had not assumed sweeping powers, there would be no common citizenship laws, no customs union and no common flag—not even common number plates on cars. Human rights violations remain
308
endemic and comprehensive plans to facilitate the return of the refugees have not been implemented—it is estimated that 600,000 Bosnian refugees remain abroad and that more than 800,000 Bosnians remain displaced internally.
Against that depressing backdrop, it is worth recognising that important, if limited, progress has been made, notably the shift, following the elections in November last year, towards a more moderate political regime in the Republika Srpska. The new Government, headed by Milorad Dodic, are supported by both moderate Muslim and Serb deputies. They have transferred the seat of Government from Pale to Banja Luka; they have decided to abolish all the laws adopted by the previous Parliament, which was dominated by the radical nationalists under Radovan Karadzic; they have promised strict implementation of the Dayton accords; and they have offered an operational plan to encourage Muslim and Croat refugees to return. Those moves have triggered the release of international aid to Republika Srpska—further grants and credits will be released as the commitments are implemented.
We should not exaggerate the progress that has been made, but it is impossible to believe that such virtuous developments could have occurred, paving the way to greater normalisation, without the presence of SFOR. There has also been progress in Bosnia in arms control, in confidence-building and security-building measures and in restructuring and reforming the police. There has been some economic revival in the federation, to which the minorities have begun to return—to a lesser extent, they are also returning to Republika Srpska.
In last year's debate on Bosnia, I argued that only the return of the refugees—Serbs, Muslims and Croats alike—would bring long-term stability to Bosnia. I made the obvious point that refugees would not return while the indicted war criminals remained at large. This time last year, of 75 indicted war criminals in all parts of Bosnia, only nine had been arrested and only two prosecuted. That is another area in which progress has been made over the past 12 months, and in which British forces have played an important role and even forced the pace. Hon. Members will remember that, on 10 July last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in the House the arrest by British troops of the indicted war criminals Kovacevic and Drljaca, the latter of whom was fatally wounded during his capture. I understand that nearly 30 indicted war criminals are now in the hands of the international criminal tribunal at The Hague—a third of them are currently standing trial.
No one should underestimate the risks entailed in the pursuit of the indicted war criminals, both to the troops and of creating political instability, but the pursuit must continue—Karadzic remains a target for the international community—and must apply equally to Muslim and Croat, as well as to Serb, war criminals. Only SFOR can carry out that pursuit, which is a further reason why its mandate has rightly been extended.
Bosnia and Herzegovina represent an immense and continuing tragedy. With hindsight—which is, of course, always 20:20—it is now generally accepted that an early force projection by the west might have held the ring between the warring sides, so preventing the tragedy from unravelling. I think that that lesson has been learnt and I

309
cannot commend too highly the resolute position that the British Government are adopting on the current crisis in Kosovo.
The persuasive powers of President Yeltsin have evidently not prevailed over Slobodan Milosevic. It is perfectly clear that the Serbian army and militias will remain in Kosovo, but it is intolerable that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should be using aircraft, heavy artillery and tanks against its own largely unarmed so-called citizens—the intention may not be ethnic cleansing, but the effects are starting to seem as if it were. If the international community has the means to stop such action, it should use them.
Stability in the Balkans would probably not be served by the secession of Kosovo from what remains of Yugoslavia, but Kosovo must subsist—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haslehurst): Order. The debate is about Bosnia and Herzegovina. Although references in parallel to Kosovo are permissible, the debate is not about Kosovo.
Mr. Hill: I fully accept your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is difficult to debate the situation in Bosnia, which has regional implications, without taking into account the situation in Kosovo. With your permission, I should like to outline the implications of President Milosevic's actions in Kosovo.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are debating the Select Committee's report on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The hon. Gentleman would be out of order if he pursued his intention.
Mr. Hill: I accept, of course, your reproach, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
SFOR's record in Bosnia has been outstanding—it has held the ring. Lessons for Kosovo can certainly be learnt from the experience of the projection of international force into Bosnia, and I am sure that the British Government and the international community will bear such considerations in mind. I hope that we shall hear reassuring words about further international action in the Balkans from my hon. Friend the Minister.
11.38 am
Mr. Michael Colvin: On behalf of the Defence Committee, I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) for taking such an interest in our report and for participating in this debate. I only wish that more hon. Members were present today, as the defence of the realm is a crucial matter. When I entered the House, probably more than a third of hon. Members had some experience of the armed forces—many compulsorily, some voluntarily. That wealth of experience is now missing, so I commend to the hon. Gentleman the parliamentary armed forces scheme, which is run by Sir Neil Thorne, a former Member of Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman takes part in future debates on defence matters, he should perhaps concentrate more on defence than on the politics in neighbouring countries—the scheme could do him a great deal of good.
310
May I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of our Select Committee. If patience is a virtue, he is certainly virtuous because, as the longest-serving member, his patience has been rewarded with the chairmanship of the Committee, which has a long record of consensus—one that will be maintained, I am sure, under his chairmanship.
I shall also use this opportunity to pay tribute to previous Committee members. Our membership was thoroughly devastated at the general election and other members left for other reasons. We must all acknowledge the valuable work that previous Committees did and pay tribute to new members. If ever there was a fresh leavening of the loaf, we have had it. In particular, I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) for the way in which they have adapted to the work. If the armed forces can put ladies in the front line, why cannot the Defence Committee also move with the times and introduce a female element? And very useful it has been.
I was looking forward to what would have been my fifth visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina with the Defence Committee, but instead I found myself attending the assembly of the Western European Union in Paris. My Chairman will no doubt be relieved to know that the worsening situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and neighbouring states was the principal item on our agenda and we spent some time discussing what sort of force should succeed the stabilisation force. Everyone agrees that the continuing presence of British troops in SFOR and the contribution that British officers, in particular, have made to the headquarters are key elements in the administration of the Dayton agreement. Any successor force must include the British and, of course, the Americans.
Although Dayton has imposed a durable and expensive ceasefire and warfare may have ceased, no one could say that peace has come to Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the authorities have been lamentably slow to honour their obligations under the peace agreement. How to achieve a permanent peace is beyond everyone at present and the growing tensions in Kosovo and Albania mean that the situation in the Balkans will get worse before it gets any better.
The Muslims signed the Dayton accord because they thought that NATO would intercede on their behalf and the Croats and Serbs signed it because they presumed that that would never happen. That extraordinary ambiguity is the basis of Dayton's success in maintaining the ceasefire. Now the time has come for a renewed or fresh mandate for NATO's continued presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which no one doubts will happen.
One welcome development has had a painful down side. The emergence of the precarious democracy in Republika Srpska has forestalled moves for a referendum on its future. The hon. Member for Streatham referred to that. We know that a majority of Serbs favour seceding from Bosnia-Herzegovina and joining up with Serbia. That too was President Milosevic's strategy and because he has so far failed to achieve the greater Serbia in that way, he has turned his unwelcome attentions to Kosovo.
Our Select Committee report makes many recommendations, but I shall touch on three that are relevant to the strategic defence review and one other. First, on strategic heavy lift, 1 found it particularly

311
embarrassing to go to Marchwood military port to see the departure of our troops and equipment to the former Yugoslavia and to realise that they had to wait for a fortnight for the arrival not of British but of American and Ukrainian ships for the heavy lift to be made.
The Government must tackle the problem of merchant naval heavy lift as part of the strategic defence review. I acknowledge that the previous Government successfully torpedoed our Merchant Navy through their fiscal policies, but if this Government do not tackle that problem, we will be in trouble. Although it can be assumed that we can hire the ships required for heavy lift on the open market, there is no guarantee that we will be able to get the crews required, so I hope that the Government will deal with that in the SDR.
On heavy lift by air, there has been a long debate and the previous Defence Committee produced a report on the subject, recommending a mixed fleet of the successor to the C130 Hercules—the C130J—and possibly the future large aircraft made by Airbus Industrie GIE. The latter is still on the drawing board and is unlikely ever to get off it. In fact, the Germans are now in discussions with the Russians and Ukrainians to develop the Antonov for heavy lift.
Also, according to frequent reports in the newspapers, it looks as though the Government will either purchase or lease the C17 from the United States. There are two versions of the C17; one military, the other civil. The Government should think carefully about the armaments on the military version. If we purchase the civil version, however, it will be completely unarmed, but some military defence will be necessary in the theatres of war in which it will be flying or it will be a sitting duck. The Government should think carefully before plumping for the civil version.
The second point is that, when the previous Government cut our armed forces by about 30 per cent., they cut defence medical services by about 40 per cent. The structure they put in place, in particular the military district hospital units, was good—they were simply undermanned. The SDR should also tackle that and consider the role that the Territorial Army could play in providing the expertise and skills required for field hospitals. If Britain were engaged in high-intensity warfare, we would not be able to set up the required number of field hospitals. Our Committee has looked into that matter and it is referred to in the report that we are debating. That is one area in which the Government must do something.
The third point on the SDR is the cost of our operations in SFOR. It is estimated that in 1997–98 the total cost to Britain will be £200 million. That is a charge that must go on the Consolidated Fund, not our hard-pressed defence budget.
One of the six common institutions established under Dayton to cover the whole of Bosnia-Herzegovina was the Standing Committee on Military Matters, which was the last of the institutions to meet—last September in Sarajevo—but which has had a crucial role to play in long-term security and stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in facilitating dialogue on security arrangements with the international community. Our Committee concluded:
"in order to promote greater stability, the programme should be developed away from its current bilateral status towards a NATO-based programme more fully integrated with the role of the SCMM, a role which in turn must be supported and developed into something closer to a partnership for peace."
312
That is an important recommendation and I would like the Minister's comments on it when he replies to the debate.
In conclusion, I shall state the obvious—but it is always something that needs to be repeated. Visiting our troops on joint operations with the forces of other nations, with which one can draw comparisons, brings a mixture of satisfaction and pride—satisfaction in seeing a job really well done and being able, as a Committee, to do something to help them and pride in confirming that our service men and women are the best in the world and the best led.
I commend our report to the House.
11.48 am
Laura Moffatt: It is difficult to express my feelings about my visit to Bosnia and the subsequent production of our report. As the House has heard, the Defence Committee has previously visited Bosnia several times, but as a very inexperienced member of the Committee I made my first visit there under the careful supervision of our Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who kept a close eye on us. New members were given a great opportunity to express themselves. I am extremely grateful for that and for the comments made by the hon. Member for Romsey (Mr. Colvin).
I have thoroughly enjoyed my time on the Defence Committee. The visit was a moving experience. It is difficult to believe that the industrial and economic base of Bosnia and Herzegovina was so badly destroyed that just 6 per cent. of it was functioning after the war—although we could see the devastating effect of that.
I want to concentrate on the medical services—an issue close to my heart. On our visit to 24 Armoured Field Ambulance, it was amazing to see the work that was done, but there are practical ways in which to do the job more efficiently. It is difficult for medical people to set up a whole new service in an area of which nearly a third has been destroyed. I was sensitive to the views of those who said that we would gradually have to reduce the service that we provide to the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina so that they can develop their own medical services, but that will be difficult; medical people naturally want to help—and I commend them for doing so sensitively.
There are practical difficulties. Previous Committees commented seriously on the ways in which operations must be conducted in the field. As a result, a new containerised operating theatre was provided—the GIAT. There are still difficulties, however, as it is cramped, and anyone taller than 6 ft would find it difficult to work there. I urge the Ministry of Defence to continue to work with experienced users of that sort of operating theatre to try to produce the best facilities. The French and Canadian facility is better than that available to our medical service personnel.
Laboratory staff in the field must work in tented accommodation. As a nurse, I could see how difficult it was to keep those areas clinically clean or sterile. Like the report, I urge that we consider containerised laboratory services so that we can ensure that areas are clean and can provide the best service.
A much more serious problem for those who work in the medical services of both the reserve and regular forces is overstretch, although that word oversimplifies what I

313
want to say. They have to adapt from life in the United Kingdom to serve as doctors, consultants, nurses, paramedics, laboratory staff and all the others who make up a good medical service, and goodness knows the service in Bosnia and Herzegovina is good.
There is no doubt that the previous Government's medical services reorganisation was a disaster. I have heard it said that the service was just underfunded, but the reorganisation was fundamentally flawed and it is causing great difficulty for those who attempt to work in the national health service at home and those who serve abroad.
As we travelled from one base to another, we heard dissatisfaction at the way in which the service is being run. Because the SFOR operation was winding down, many consultants felt guilty about huge waiting lists at home. The NHS is a hard-pressed service in which doctors, nurses and everyone else want to do their best, and I urge a careful consideration of how we work with the NHS through the Defence Secondary Care Agency to ensure that we get the best from our serving forces. They should feel that they are contributing, not that they are letting down their colleagues at home. Some felt that by going away to serve they might cause extra difficulty at home. I hope that that has been fully considered in the strategic defence review.
I found the visit very moving and I was privileged to go to Bosnia and to contribute to the report. Everyone in the House will be full of admiration for our serving forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The esteem in which they are held by the people of those countries is unbelievable. If our troops do that sort of job for us by helping to create stability in the region and contributing so much to peace, it is beholden on us not to let them down.
11.55 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for his speech and praise his record as a doughty champion of our armed services. He is held in much higher esteem than most politicians by the services, and has written a seminal book on the subject.
There are, of course, no quick fixes. The Defence Committee has seen the situation on the ground. My own familiarity with it is different, and relates to earlier. There can, however, be slow fixes, and IFOR and SFOR can be regarded as a type of cast on a fracture. The cast must stay in place for a while, until the application of pressure can be eased. We shall never return to the multi-ethnic, multiracial, harmonious Bosnia of old. It is gone. If there was a time for peace with justice, that time was April 1992, and we and all the western democracies shall for ever reproach ourselves for acting so late.
What we are preventing now is the return of genocide. Every day the peace lasts, it strengthens. The conflict will not go on for ever. The situation is improving and we must thank our soldiers for that. From experience, I know that our soldiers lead the world, not only in war fighting, but in peace keeping, peace making and peace building. As I have said often before, we have the best little army in the world and I am confident that it will remain so after the strategic defence review.
Let it be said that there are costs—the casualties, the dead and the injured, especially in the early months and years of our involvement. To this day, there is the danger
314
of a return of warfare. It is not a safe environment for anyone, including SFOR and British troops, as long as mines remain in the ground. The casualties, at a time of overstretch in our armed forces, also extend to soldiers' families. Often, especially in the early months, a battalion would return from duty in Bosnia to find that its casualties included 10 per cent. or more of its marriages. A soldier would gain a medal, but lose a family. What kind of a trade-off is that?
In one specific case, the casualties include a brave soldier of the Parachute Regiment who was arrested last October under the Official Secrets Acts. He still has not been charged, but his career and his reputation are in ruins. When the investigation is over, I shall wish to hold the Ministry of Defence police to account; nor shall my sword sleep in my hand on that point. He, too, is a casualty of our Bosnian involvement.
There is no point in living through such experiences unless we learn from them. As we contemplate a follow-on force, some serious lessons can be learned: one is that if we are going to threaten force, we must be willing to use it or our bluff will be called. Another is that whatever is done must be done within the context of international law, which, to be honest, is one of the problems in Kosovo at the moment.
We have learnt that the application of sanctions is a cruel and blunt weapon. They tend to hurt those whom they are designed to help: they reward the villains and the black marketeers and punish the little people. They did so in Iraq and it was certainly so in Serbia at the time of the Bosnian war.
The most important lesson is that there are issues of right and wrong as well as of national security. It is in the interests of our national security that we help to maintain the peace in Europe, but we must not forget the element of right and wrong, of doing what we should and believing that Bosnian lives matter. British lives have been sacrificed; if we walk away now, that will have been in vain. Sometimes it is necessary to do what is right rather than what is expedient and we must stay the course in Bosnia.
12 noon
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on its report. It acquired much knowledge and wisdom on a short visit.
United Kingdom involvement in SFOR is in the highest traditions of professionalism. I have seen UN peacekeeping forces at work on the Golan heights, and I have no illusions about the difficulties involved in such situations, especially when a multinational force is involved.
In Bosnia-Herzegovina, we are involved in building peace, not merely keeping it; there is a distinct difference. In that context, it is especially timely that the Select Committee highlighted the need to buttress moderate forces in the region. Sometimes that is done overtly, as the report said, as in the timely interventions to protect civil rights in the so-called battle of the buses before the elections last November, and sometimes it is done more subtly, by reminding the population of the window beyond, which involves economic reconstruction.
The King's Royal Hussars played a commendable role in re-establishing dairy farms, distributing children's magazines in Serbo-Croat and in English, and supplying

315
a radio service in and around the area of Sipovo. The rebuilding of civil society is a key element in the operations of any peacekeeping force.
I recently returned from a conference of young European politicians in Slovenia, where I met representatives from Sarajevo and Tuzla, who emphasised the need for support and encouragement in that rebuilding. Before the civil war, Bosnia-Herzegovina was a sophisticated, multinational, multiracial, multi-ethnic and, by and large, multi-tolerant society, especially in the urbanised areas.
SFOR, and the British troops that it contains, continues its commitment to the prosecution of war criminals. No one can be in any doubt about the logistical difficulties in apprehending those people and the practical difficulties for the tribunal in The Hague, but it is extremely important to press ahead. We should remember the post-war experience with Nazi war criminals. It is not always easy or even possible to bring such people to justice overnight, or even within two or three years, but anything that the defence force can do should receive our support and endorsement.
I am glad that the report draws attention to the continuing problems with human rights. In the traumatised situation of Bosnia-Herzegovina today, no one should expect all the functioning civil rights of a western social democracy, but we must expect certain basic decencies. One of my constituents, who served as a volunteer in the forces in Bosnia-Herzegovina, was imprisoned, initially without charge, as a result of the political situation there, and we should draw attention to such cases.
The report is a snapshot of the aftermath of the civil war, and in its estimate of the cost and its assessment of the need for an over-the-horizon presence, it underlines how wrong Bismarck was when he said that the Balkans were not worth the bones of a Pomeranian Grenadier.
We need to educate and inform the public about our involvement in the Balkans. There is an understandable temptation to give up because of the apparent incomprehensibility of the region. I recently came across a 1912 cartoon of John Bull being sucked into the whirlpool of the Balkan wars of that time. We ignored the problem then, and the result was the assassination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarajevo and the first world war. We cannot ignore it now, and that is one of the reasons why I welcome my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's firm stance on Kosovo, and the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
It is important to remember that the Bosnian crisis has its origins in the situation in Kosovo. All parties are responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, and the lack of political leadership contributed to the situation that unravelled in Bosnia. In 1989, Slobodan Milosevic used the 600th anniversary of the battle of Kosovo—a traumatic event in Serb history—to underline Serbian demands and to attempt to remove the region's autonomy, and that event precipitated the removal of Slovenia and Croatia from the federation and resulted ultimately in the spill-over into Bosnia of the conflict between Serbia and Croatia.
Unless we understand the interconnections of the areas and the increased importance of maintaining a presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina, we shall suffer the consequences. The Serb-Croat conflict and the collapse of Yugoslavia
316
in 1991 sucked Bosnia-Herzegovina into civil war, and Kosovo could suck in Albania and Macedonia and, eventually, Greece and Turkey.
To sustain and to build peace, as we are attempting to do in Bosnia-Herzegovina, is never an easy option, but if NATO is to retain credibility, we must all continue our efforts in that direction. The report says:
"In summary, considerations of altruism and national self-interest lead to the same conclusion in respect of our involvement in former Yugoslavia. The price of peace would be far outweighed by the costs of a resumption of war."
12.8 pm
Mr. Crispin Blunt: When the Select Committee last visited Germany, every unit that we visited, including RAF Bruggen and 7 Armoured Brigade, told us of the difficulties of sustaining the current operational posture of our armed forces in their deployment in Bosnia, the Gulf and elsewhere.
My regiment was in Höhne but, sadly, we were not able to visit it, because the vast majority of the troops were supporting the eighth squadron tour in Bosnia. The experience of the Light Dragoons shows how our operational tour commitment, which is now indefinite, with the extension of SFOR, is beginning to undermine our military efficiency and capability.
I want to draw out one point for the Minister: the Prime Minister thinks that we can go on an adventure in Kosovo, without re-examining the state of the defence budget and thinking about the commitments that it is sustaining, but in my judgment, from what I have heard in the Defence Committee and from the feedback that I have received, the armed forces are no longer capable of sustaining another indefinite operational commitment. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will restrain the Prime Minister from thinking that Britain can take on a neo-imperial role and commit its armed forces around the world. If the Prime Minister wanted to behave like that, there would have to be another defence review and substantially increased resources would have to be put into the defence budget.
We have learned lessons from Bosnia, but some hon. Members have drawn the wrong lessons from it in respect of Kosovo, which is a different situation. We should not get drawn in, not only for reasons of foreign policy and international law, but for reasons of practicality and the state of the defence budget.
12.10 pm
Mr. John Maples: We have heard some interesting and well-informed speeches. It has been an eye-opener to hear so many speeches from Government Back Benchers calling for a proactive and obviously more expensive defence policy. Those sentiments will not have been lost on the Minister.
The Defence Committee, whose valuable work has highlighted key issues, has said that SFOR' s work is incredibly valuable, and we would all agree with that. There is danger of a return to war in Bosnia, but SFOR has succeeded in maintaining an effective ceasefire since late 1995, which is a not inconsiderable achievement. There has been less progress on the political front, but we always knew that that would take time and there are signs of hope.

317
I want to deal with the consequences of British involvement in SFOR for defence policy in terms of overstretch, and with welfare issues for British troops serving with SFOR, which emerged from the Committee's report. We are told that, under the renewed mandate, SFOR is to maintain its current strength of 34,000 until after the elections in September. That strength will then decline—it is not clear by how much, but it is clear that American participation will reduce. Is there any plan to reduce British numbers?
At paragraph 18 of the report, the Defence Committee highlights the fact that reducing numbers without reducing the role would pose dangers for troops as well as for the peace process. Does the Minister think that a reduction in numbers in September, if it takes place, would he likely to pose dangers for the British contingent or for any other parts of SFOR?
Although continued American participation seems to be secure for the immediate future, Congress is clearly unhappy for various reasons, such as the timetable and the cost. We must acknowledge the serious danger that the United States will further reduce or even eliminate the role of its ground troops in Bosnia in the foreseeable future. For many of us, a largely unwritten condition of our involvement and the involvement of many of our NATO and other partners in Bosnia has been that American troops must be on the ground with us. That must remain a fundamental precondition of our involvement. In their reply to the report, the Government agreed that American forces should continue to play a significant role,
"provided force is NATO led … and that other allies participate".
Does that mean American participation? For many of us, it does.
SFOR' s task seems likely to take several years and could become indefinite. Lieutenant General Pike, the British deputy commander, foresees a three to five-year role for SFOR, and there is a strong possibility that American involvement will cease before its task is complete. That task seems to have become open-ended, and the danger of that happening is predictable in such operations. I hope that the Government will reflect on that when formulating their approach to other problems in the Balkans.
Our armed forces have long-term commitments in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland. No assumptions are being made in the defence review about early troop level reductions in Northern Ireland and, clearly, no such assumptions could be made about reductions in Bosnia. It is distinctly possible that the Government will decide to commit further troops to the Balkans in Macedonia and Kosovo, so the level and the extent of our overseas commitments could increase. That does not take account of a hot war breaking out, as it nearly did in the Gulf a few months ago. It seems to Conservative Members that all of that has serious implications for manpower planning in our armed forces and in the strategic defence review. We shall examine the review closely, to see how it deals with those problems.
Welfare issues were highlighted by the report. The Committee said that the biggest grumble among our troops was about telephone calls. I realise that it is difficult for a Ministry dealing with a £22 billion budget
318
to change down into a low enough gear to deal with such simple issues, but they are often at the heart of recruitment, retention and morale. The Government should address the matter more seriously than they have: one short telephone call a week may be enough for people who do not want to talk to their parents or their children, but it is not enough for married people with husbands or wives or families.
Hon. Members should think about soldiers who are allowed one short telephone call to their families each week while away from home for six months, serving their country. Those few minutes would be totally inadequate to deal with problems in the marriage or with one of the children at school. The report called for an increase, but the Government have effectively dismissed that out of hand by saying that the current arrangements are "fair". To many of us, there is no way that they are fair. Such people are serving their country a long way from home, for months at a time. I urge the Government to think again. The cost cannot be all that great, and wonders could be done for morale, and even for recruitment.
Threats of family breakdown are a serious cause of people leaving the services and the consequent recruitment problems. A small sum spent on telephone bills might save marriages and, in the long run, recruitment costs. If the Government cannot go as far as we and the Defence Committee would like them to do, could they at least be more generous with service men and women who have wives or husbands or children at home?
A Territorial Army officer who had spent six months in Bosnia recently told me about not only the short time allowed on the telephone, but the fact that the telephone system was incredibly unreliable. People would tell their wives to be ready with the children for a call at 5 o'clock on a Friday, but the call would not happen because the system was inefficient and did not function. What is the cause of that and what is being done about it?
Overstretch is producing serious consequences. Over two years, the average British soldier can expect to spend six months in Bosnia, six months in Northern Ireland and, probably, time overseas in training. Tours last an average of six months, with some for specialists lasting up to 12 months, and, because of our commitments, the period between tours in Bosnia and in Northern Ireland is often very brief. Many of our service personnel are away from home so much that they are often unable even to take all their leave entitlement, and they get only two weeks' home leave during a six-month posting abroad. All that means that service personnel spend much less time with their families than has been the case over the past 20 or 30 years. That imposes serious problems and strains on relationships.
Those are major problems for armed forces personnel and their families, but one of the main pressures that cause people to leave the armed forces comes from their families because of long absences from home. The costs are borne by the families, and often end in divorce, but they are also borne by us as taxpayers through the need for additional recruitment. May I ask the Minister, if I could have his attention for a moment, what the Ministry is doing to address those issues? Does he foresee the problem of overstretch getting worse or better? What level of attention and importance does the Ministry give to welfare issues? It seems to Conservative Members not to be as high as it should be.

319
Our troops are, as always, doing a wonderful job and we can, as we always are, be justly proud of them, but extended peacekeeping missions abroad pose serious questions for defence policy. I hope that the Minister will address them. We shall examine the strategic defence review closely to see how they have been dealt with, and we expect the Government seriously to consider the welfare issues raised by the Committee and at least to make immediate changes to the cost and reliability of the telephone system.
While we are fulfilling commitments that result in extended periods away from home for our troops, we owe it to them and to their families to treat them with the utmost consideration. If we fail to do so, not only will recruitment and retention problems worsen, but we, as a nation, will fail to honour and value our armed forces in the dangerous and difficult situations in which we place them.
12.19 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) on his presentation of the Committee's report. I know how much work he and the Committee have done on this, as on a number of other issues. The presentation of his first report must be a milestone in his career.
I welcome the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) to the Opposition Front Bench. I know that he has views on, and experience of, defence and the armed forces as a result of his work as a parliamentary private secretary and, subsequently, Economic Secretary to the Treasury between 1987 and 1992—the period in which the cuts in personnel that resulted in the current overstretch were initiated. I hope that his time at the Ministry of Defence will grant him a less illusory perception of the work that the armed forces actually do. I shall return to the question of overstretch later.
Almost every speaker has placed Bosnia in the context of current events, relating personnel and other problems to the terrible and dangerous events in neighbouring states. Although the problems are concentrated in Bosnia, all those hon. Members would expect me to make a brief reference to events in Kosovo. The key to resolving the situation there remains political; but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said after the NATO Defence Ministers' meeting last week, President Milosevic must understand that diplomacy to end the Kosovo violence is being backed up by the threat of force. As for further measures—some of which we were asked to rule out by the Opposition Front Bench and other Opposition Members—we will rule out, or rule in, no options at this stage. Our objective must be to put the maximum pressure on President Milosevic.
I must tell those who, unsuccessfully, urge me to lecture the Prime Minister and tell him that we ought to diminish our share in world responsibilities that I will not do that. I think that what the Prime Minister says is absolutely right.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
Dr. Reid: I have only nine minutes in which to reply. With all respect, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I cannot take interventions.
320
The NATO Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels last week directed NATO to conduct Monday's air exercise in Albania. I am glad to say that, far from shrinking from that, the United Kingdom was able—and pleased—to contribute six Jaguars and a Tristar to the exercise. I am sure that the House is proud that our forces took part in that international warning to President Milosevic that diplomacy would be backed by force.
In the wider context of Bosnia, let me say that the Government welcome the Committee's report and, in general, share its positive view. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have visited Bosnia on a number of occasions to engage in discussions with our commanding officers and troops. I visited our troops only a fortnight ago, and my right hon. Friend will visit them shortly. Like the Committee, I was struck by the steady improvements that had been made in the condition of the country.
The tragedy of Bosnia is obvious to anyone who goes there. It is a magnificent and beautiful country with tremendous potential, reduced to dire straits by the war. Thankfully, however, there have been steady improvements, and the restoration of normal life is inching forward. I am proud that our national contribution to SFOR continues to play a large part in the progress that has been made.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) that, although the smiles, diplomacy, tact, courage and endurance of our soldiers on the streets of Bosnia are important, other things are important, too. Our tanks and AS90 guns, designed for high-intensity warfare, have provided invaluable support for our peacekeepers in Bosnia, where the might of heavy metal and heavy artillery is understood and respected. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about high-intensity capability, weaponry and training: those elements should be part of our peacekeeping missions. But success has a price. I am not referring merely to the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Bosnia, although the House will note with sadness the death on Thursday of Lance Corporal Kevin Bell in an accident in Bosnia. Our condolences go to his next of kin—and, indeed, to all who have lost their loved ones in the service of their country in Bosnia and elsewhere.
The situation on the ground has been transformed since 1995. The fighting has ended; refugee return is picking up in Republika Srpska, among other places. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that some 7,000 people returned to their homes in April, and almost as many in May. Of course we would all like the figures to be higher, but they are very encouraging none the less. During my recent visit, I saw for myself both the successes and the problems of refugee return—for problems remain in such areas as Drvar and Derventa. We have made it clear that all parties must live up to their Dayton obligations to accept and manage refugee returns, and that the recent violence—particularly in Drvar and Derventa—is unacceptable. Of course SFOR will do what it can to help, but the problem is essentially political. We cannot force returns at the point of a gun.
There are a number of promising developments. For instance, Bosnia now has a new flag and a national vehicle registration system, and has agreed a new national currency. Although none of those developments would have taken place without continuous pressure from the international community, they are important steps on the road to normality.

321
There are other signs of progress, some of which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden). Above all, the House will recall the pre-eminent role that British SFOR forces have played in the detention of war crimes indictees in Bosnia. Of the nine who have been detained over the past year, five were detained as a direct result of action by British SFOR troops, and two were detained with their assistance. I am sure that the House will join me in paying tribute to the courage and professionalism of the forces involved. The United Kingdom has also been heavily involved in the important task of de-mining, which is another positive development in the sorry battlefield that has been Bosnia.
The consclusion that I draw from all those developments is that the international community, and the United Kingdom, must remain engaged in Bosnia—but not indefinitely. It is critical for the people in Bosnia, especially the political leaders, to start taking responsibility for their own future as soon as possible. We must not perpetuate a dependency culture in Bosnia.
Mr. Maples: Does the Minister agree with Lieutenant General Pike that SFOR's commitment now looks like a commitment of three to five years?
Dr. Reid: We shall take the stages in Bosnia as they come. We cannot commit ourselves 10 or even five years in advance, or make predictions. What I will say is what I said in 1994, from the Front Bench where the hon. Gentleman now sits, that we could be in for a 10-year haul in Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman's predecessors—who
322
were sitting on Government Benches—openly mocked me. I think Opposition Members have some prescience in these matters, which may not be shared throughout the House.
We have made it plain that we are not in Bosnia indefinitely. We have said that we shall assist, but that the benchmarks will be the state of affairs rather than a timetable.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South referred to the size and shape of the force in Bosnia after 20 June. The United Nations has now extended SFOR' s mandate. The United Kingdom will play its part in the successor force, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the precise nature of our contribution in the not too distant future.
Hon. Members have raised a number of issues. As we would expect, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) raised the issue of overstretch, as did several others. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very concerned about the effect on families. We are well aware of the problem. The hon. Gentleman will understand me when I say that we do not intend to take lectures on overstretch from people who were part of a Government who cut personnel by 32 per cent. and who spent £500 million only to leave us 7,500 troops short. The Labour Government, in one short year, have turned those figures round, and are now recruiting 67 per cent. more into the Army than the Conservative Government did in the previous year. We have reduced the shortfall by 1,000 in 12 months. For the first time in three decades and against a background of falling unemployment, we have increased the numbers coming into the Army.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the strategic defence review will give this matter a high priority. We recognise the role that our soldiers have played in Bosnia.

Millennium Bug
12.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for responding to the debate. He is a senior Cabinet Minister and he, at least, recognises the importance of this issue. I am delighted that he is present to respond to the Audit Commission's report "A Stitch in Time—facing the challenge of the year 2000 date change", which was launched today. This report is an alarm bell which should shake the Government into action. It is a shocking account of the dangerous unpreparedness of local authorities, health trusts and emergency services in tackling the enormous problem of the millennium bug.
The millennium bug is a problem that any date-sensitive equipment will have when we switch from the 1900s to 2000. To save memory, many pieces of equipment use only the last two digits of the year: 1998 becomes 98, 1999 becomes 99 and 2000 becomes 00, which is exactly the same as for 1900. My credit card has already been refused by a petrol station because the two digits at the end of the expiry date are 00. I am used to my credit card being rejected for other reasons, but not for that.
We must remember that, in 2000, many people will not go back to work until 4 January, and that 2000 is a leap year. What has the Prime Minister said about the millennium bug problem? On 30 March 1998, he said:
"If we don't tackle this problem, the economy will slow as many companies divert resources to cope with computer failures and some will even go bust. So the millennium bug is a serious issue. This is one deadline that is non-negotiable. Normal processes will not meet it. This must be treated as an emergency."
Unilever has gone so far as to suggest that the millennium bug could cause a worldwide recession. Problems are already occurring. There is the famous story of the food consignments that were rejected three times because the computer kept reading the date 2000 as 1900. In 1996, a date time problem shut down two aluminium smelting plants in New Zealand. It took 1 million New Zealand dollars to open them up again.
Many people think that the millennium bug affects only their personal computers, but nothing could be further from the truth. In 1995, 200 million computers and 7,000 million pieces of equipment with date-sensitive timing or embedded systems were sold worldwide. So 7,000 million pieces were sold in one year alone, and that was three years ago. The problem does not affect just personal computers.
Page 11 of the Audit Commission's report paints a vivid picture of the day in the life of a director of finance of a local authority. His diary entry reads:
"Drove into the office to pick up some homework—chaos on the roads despite the lack of traffic—seemed to be a problem with all the traffic lights en route.
Pulled up to the car park—barrier refused to open—must be a problem with my swipe card. Left car on road.
Walked up the drive to municipal offices and noticed that a ground floor window had been smashed (why no alarm?)—make a note to speak to head of security on Tuesday when he gets back from the Bank Holiday.
Punched in the door entry code—wouldn't allow me in! Had to climb in through the broken window!!!
Lifts on my floor didn't seem to be working. They can't all be out of commission? What on earth is going on?
324
Still—at least our IT people made sure this Millennium Bug problem hasn't affected our main financial system."
We do not usually associate traffic lights, lifts, door entry codes, burglar alarms and barrier controls with the millennium bug. A crematorium had to spend £30,000 to replace its embedded chip. Those are all serious problems.
The British Medical Association contacted me yesterday. It is extremely concerned about the Audit Commission's report. It lists some of the problems that it foresees will occur on 1 January 2000. It includes:
"lists failing to work
infusion pumps and ventilation equipment needing resetting
freezers storing blood and IV fluids malfunctioning
radiotherapy and chemotherapy equipment unable to deliver correct dosages".
It says that GPs will also be affected by
"loss of patient records
hold ups and errors in screening programmes
delays in securing vaccines
equipment failures
disruption to call answering services."
Dr. Kenneth Robertson, chairman of the BMA's information technology committee, has warned:
"Doctors need to realise that any piece of electronic equipment more complex than a fan heater is likely to be affected by the millennium problem."
Yesterday, the chief of the health service, Sir Alan Langlands, stated rather worryingly that he "could not guarantee" that all patients would survive. He would not put a figure on the number of likely deaths. However, in the Daily Express yesterday a leading doctor from St. Bartholomew's hospital, who is also a computer expert, estimated that the figure could reach 1,500. We were reminded of the three-day computer breakdown in the London ambulance service in 1992, which is alleged to have resulted in 20 deaths.
The report does not seek to sensationalise. It states:
"For the national health service and local government, there are serious risks to life and health."
It further states:
"hospitals could be susceptible to a malfunction of medical equipment … that communications systems used by the emergency services might fail to work, increasing risks to the public… Traffic lights may stop working, increasing the risk of accidents".
The Audit Commission reports that, even with all those risks, less than 10 per cent. of local authorities and health trusts have contingency or appropriate plans in place. It says that half the local authorities and trusts have not prioritised what is to be done, and less than a third of local authorities and trusts have documented their strategy for dealing with the problem. The report states that only a third have undertaken a review of existing support and maintenance contracts, only a third have made specific budgetary provision and a third still have no IT inventory for the equipment or contracts.
The country is facing a serious crisis of epidemic proportions. This electronic plague will affect us all. Cap Gemini, a computer consultancy, has predicted that one in seven organisations in Europe and America will not be able to complete the necessary work on time, even if they started now. The Audit Commission report states:
"National health service trust chief executives have expressed some concern over the resources that are required to undertake a thorough testing programme. Few feel that they have the expertise or resources to test any but the simplest systems."

325
What are the Government doing? We had an indication of that from the Prime Minister 10 weeks ago in his speech on this subject. What has happened since? Not a lot, other than the passing of 70 days: we are 70 days closer to the millennium time bomb. The Prime Minister's action plan is risible. It is like sticking a band-aid over a bursting dam. It amounts to a national publicity campaign. Has it started? If so, where?
In a written question, I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much had been spent on this wonderful advertising campaign, but the question has been given to the Department of Trade and Industry to answer. Who is in control of the issue? With all the confusion of responsibility, we still have no noticeable campaign.
Mr. Brian White: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: No. I am sorry, but I have only limited time.
There is an advice hotline for small and medium businesses. How well publicised is that? How many have used the hotline? Is the telephone number an official secret? Another of the Government's earth-shattering pledges is co-operation with the BBC on raising awareness of this issue. That has also passed me by—perhaps they are working it into an episode of EastEnders. It is depressing enough as it is, but imagine how much more depressing it would be if disasters were to befall Albert square because of the inaction on solving this problem. Even the Old Vic might have to close.
Task Force 2000 has predicted that a civil emergency can be averted only by spending £50,000 million. It estimates that £12 billion of that would be for public services. Even the Government admit that £3 billion-worth of public spending will be required.
Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to what almost certainly will happen in less than two years' time. Is he aware that I have a Bill before the House called the Millennium Conformity Bill, which is due for Second Reading on 3 July? It would enable us to avoid many of the problems that he has highlighted. The Government have a last chance if they support the Bill and recognise that they have a responsibility to ensure that we avoid the problems to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, to whom much credit is due for raising the issue earlier than many other people. I pay tribute to his campaign. We wish his Bill well on 3 July and shall be interested in the Government's reaction.
The Prime Minister has admitted that an extra £3 billion will be necessary in the public sector before 31 December 1999. He has also admitted that there is a shortage of 50,000 people with IT skills, and especially bug skills. He has announced the training of 20,000 bug busters, but that is 30,000 people short. It is like bridge builders deciding to construct only 40 per cent. of a bridge. It is nonsense. If there is a shortage of 50,000 bug busters, we should ensure that that number is trained.
326
We are not working to a movable deadline and we do not have the luxury of continuing this essential work for 27 months into the millennium, because that is what a shortage of 50,000 bug busters means. The resources are a joke. Although the Prime Minister has said that an extra £3 billion will be needed in the public sector, he has announced the switching of £70 million of technology money to the bug problem. Some of that will be spent on training the 20,000 bug busters and on increasing the Action 2000 budget to £17 million. That £70 million is less than 2.5 per cent. of the money that is needed to sort out the problem. The Prime Minister stated:
"Your supply chain is only as strong as its weakest link."
There seems to be a few weak links in the Government on the problem.
Many companies are getting on with the job. United Utilities, which serves my constituency, has assured me that it will be millennium compliant by the end of this year, and Lancashire Ambulance Service NHS trust says that it will be ready by March 1999. However, the Audit Commission report clearly states that trusts and local authorities are well short of the commission's benchmarks. The report states that there is still time, but it concedes that there needs to be prioritisation. The country needs to know now the progress of each local authority and trust in tackling the millennium bug problem. The best way to do that is to publish all the information, perhaps in some sort of league table, so that people know what is going on.
In his millennium bug speech, the Prime Minister said:
"We want to encourage open scrutiny and feedback."
That must be right, but it will happen only if the public have all the facts.
Task Force 2000 refers to confused lines of responsibility. Action 2000, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is taking the issue seriously, the President of the Board of Trade and committees have called for a clear line of responsibility. The Chancellor of the Duchy should take full control and should feed information straight to the Prime Minister on this issue. We are asking chief executives in industry to take control and we should be prepared to do that too. There should be a one-stop shop to tackle the millennium bug.
People have a right to know about fresh action that the Government will take in the light of today's shocking report. Excuses will no longer do. Half-measures would be an improvement on what has happened so far, but they would be totally inadequate. Enormous sums will be needed, but from where will they come? A Library paper on the millennium bug states that public bodies are receiving
"no additional funding and are expected to meet the costs of the millennium bug from existing budgets."
Does the Chancellor of the Duchy expect us to believe that that is at all possible, given all the other pressures on local authorities and health authorities? Where will they find the extra money? Will it have to be diverted from services and from care functions?
The Government seem to think more about their millennium dome than about the millennium bug. Spending large sums on the one is a folly: spending so little on the other is a disaster. The Government have a responsibility to get a grip on the problem, and the Minister must tell the country what they intend to do.
12.43 pm
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): I sincerely congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on obtaining the debate and on his prescience on realising that the Audit Commission report was published today. I agree 100 per cent. that we must face the problem of the millennium bug, but there is no point in panicking. It is a problem not just for this country, but for the world. The hon. Gentleman was right to welcome the first-rate report by the Audit Commission. It is called "A Stitch in Time" and in a sense that says it all. It makes the observations to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded and it concludes:
"The problems are not insurmountable but urgent action does need to be taken."
I agree.
The report is a management paper. It is a mantra, a handbook that local authorities and the national health service can use to try to make sure that they meet the problem when it arrives. I hope that every senior manager in the NHS and in local government reads it, because it is a major step forward. The warnings are chilling and we cannot run away from them. I intend to publicise the report and to tell local authorities and NHS trusts that they must address the problem with much more urgency.
The Audit Commission report makes it clear that it is the responsibility of chief executives and senior officers in local government and NHS trusts to address the issue. Chillingly, it also says that organisations or managers may be legally liable for any injuries or losses that are caused by failures in the system. There is no hiding place for anyone who tries to run away from tackling the problem.
All hon. Members have a responsibility to make sure that their constituents, the people to whom we are responsible, have proper services on 1 January 2000. I hope that all hon. Members will contact their local health trusts, health authorities and local authorities to make sure that they are tackling the problem seriously and that they have a copy of the report. It is important for all of us to play our part.
Not surprisingly, the hon. Member for Ribble Valley alleged that the Government had been guilty of inaction. I refute that, but I do not want to be too heavy on the point because, when we took over about 13 months ago, we were 13 months further away from the problem. It is now more of a problem than it was 13 months ago. Apart from one or two honourable exceptions, a few of whom are in the Chamber, few people in the Conservative Government and only one former Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), took much interest in the issue. When I inherited it and received from the National Audit Office in May last year the first report, which was called "Managing the Millennium Threat", I was appalled by what little had been done and immediately set about trying to tackle the issue.
What have the Government done to counter the millennium bug threat? First, we have set up two Cabinet Committees to drive forward action across the public and private sectors. Even if we are successful in tackling the problem in the public sector, that on its own is not enough because, in a complex society such as ours, the private and public sectors are interwoven to such an extent that, if one fails, both will fail. We think immediately of hospitals, which are very much in our minds. We think immediately of the emergency services and ask whether
328
the ambulances will continue to run; that is a public service, but one usually calls for an ambulance by telephone, which calls into question one's confidence that the private telephone services can meet the need to make emergency calls. I am confident that they can, because British Telecom is ahead of the game in that respect, but it is a good example of the interrelationship between the public and the private sectors. That is why we have set up the Cabinet Committees to ensure not only that there are contingency plans for emergencies, but that across the sphere of social activity, both private and public, there is an enmeshing of action and that problems are being solved.
Dr. Michael Clark: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Science and Technology a few months ago, he gave the Committee a statement of confidence that all the emergency services would have their priorities right by 2000. In the intervening months, has his confidence increased or decreased?
Dr. Clark: My confidence has increased. I have had reports from the ambulance services in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland telling me that they have looked at their procedures and are continuing to do so, which has reassured me considerably.
I do not want to sound complacent, but I am much happier about central Government than about the public sector generally. I was encouraged by the official report published in May this year by the National Audit Office, which examined one of the most difficult central Government Departments—the Department of Social Security. The report's summary stated:
"The Department's approach to project management complies with the best practice recommended by CCTA."
I am not saying that we have got everything right, but we have a firmer grip on the issue where it affects central Government. That effort has been helped by my quarterly reports to the House and, even more so, by our having put on the internet and laden the Library of the House of Commons with the detailed plans, updated every three months, of every central Government Department. One of the key points in the Audit Commission report is that openness and transparency are among the cardinal weapons with which we can fight the problem, as is the extension of best practice.
In the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £100 million for high-technology skills. As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley acknowledges, £30 million of that is designated for use in training the 20,000 bug busters—the hon. Gentleman may deride that number, but that is 20,000 more than were planned by the previous Government. I emphasise that, when we took over, the cupboard was almost bare of ways to tackle the problem. We have also increased the Action 2000 budget to £17 million.
The last time I spoke on this subject in the House was 10 days ago, when I presented the information I had gathered in the most recent quarterly review of progress. I lay great store in reporting to the House of Commons, because it is one way in which we can monitor the progress achieved and decide whether we need to change direction or the speed with which we work. Since 8 June, I have written to all Ministers setting out the problems

329
revealed by the most recent survey in respect of their Department and reminding them that there is no room for complacency. I have stressed again the problem of embedded chips and asked all Departments and agencies to continue to press suppliers for information about product compliance, because that is a serious issue.
I took up an assertion made during my last statement to the House, which was that even Microsoft's Windows 95 was not compliant. We are seeking greater clarification, but the answer I received was that it depends on how the system was established: if it was set up with two digits, as opposed to four digits, it is not compliant. I am pursuing the matter with Microsoft, but it is an example of how hon. Members have helped us in our efforts to tackle the problem.
I am also following up individual cases of slippage and insufficient testing strategies. We are monitoring closely what Departments are doing in respect of risk assessment and business continuity. In addition, I am encouraging the wider public sector to make information about their year 2000 programmes available in the same way that I have made available central Government information.
Mr. White: On the question of risk assessment, does the Minister accept that many public services will be unable to do everything and that what is important is that they do the things that matter, while remaining aware of what they have left undone? What is critical is that they get high-risk systems and embedded chips sorted out.
Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. "A Stitch in Time" makes the point clearly that the real issue is not the technical aspects of the problem, but the breadth of the problem. Everyone who is informed on this subject agrees that we will not be able to do everything that can be done, which is why we need to set priorities. That is another message from the document, which gives me another opportunity to extol its virtues—it is full of good common sense.
All of us in the House have to use our influence and authority. A lot of responsibility is being delegated and a lot of power is being handed down to the working level, but it would be a great step forward if we could have the same openness in the wider public sector that we have in respect of central Government Departments. I would encourage hon. Members to urge the wider public sector to be more open and to give us more information.
Mr. Evans: To return to my earlier point, will the Chancellor publish the full details which have been accumulated? Will he tell my constituents where their
330
local authorities and health trusts will find the extra money necessary to bring them up to the level at which they can test and, if necessary, repair any damage that may be done to their equipment?
Dr. Clark: We have already put on the internet and in the Library all the information that we have received from the wider public sector. I am not yet satisfied that I have enough information, but the hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this is our first run. When we had a go at central Government Departments, they knew how to respond to our efforts and each survey brought us more of the sort of information that we needed. I hope to make that sort of progress in the wider public sector.
On finance, we, like the previous Government, made it clear to health authorities, local authorities and all public sector bodies that the problem had to be addressed. We assured them that the problem existed and insisted that they made sure that their budgets took account of it, so there is no reason why extra money should be needed. We estimate the central Government costs at about £402 million. We have received conflicting figures for the national health service: the latest figure, quoted in "A Stitch in Time", is sightly more than £300 million, but I believe that future estimates will be higher. All the evidence from the private sector is that there will be a gradual, not dramatic, increase.
I have commissioned an infrastructure risk assessment to try to develop our understanding of the risks and vulnerabilities inherent in systems through0out the public and private sectors. I accept that there are gaps in the information that has been provided. We are trying to close those gaps and will continue to do so. I am pleased that we are making progress across the field and that we are working with our fellow Governments in Europe and throughout the world.
We tend to think of this as a domestic problem, but it clearly is not. That is why the Prime Minister raised the issue with the European Union, with the G8 and at the European-Asian conference. It is also why it was raised at the Council of Ministers meeting that I attended about three weeks ago. It was raised by another Government who asked for an exchange of information and best practice among European Governments, and I was asked to take the lead in that. I have sent the information that we have to the respective Ministers to make sure that not only are we doing all that we can to get it right but that other countries are doing the same.
I join the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in complimenting the Audit Commission's document, which is first rate. The warnings are there for the chief executives. The responsibility is theirs. We shall keep the pressure on them, but, at the end of the day, they have to be in charge.

Rare Plants
1 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: One in eight of the world's plants are facing extinction. That is the conclusion of the World Conservation Union's red list. The list is a first attempt on a global scale to identify all threatened plants. Thirty-three thousand species, representing 12.5 per cent. of the world's known higher plants, are at risk of extinction. Many are of great horticultural beauty, some are medicinal, many are trees, and others are relatives of crop plants that could be of great importance for the sustenance of those crops in the future.
I am not critical of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. On the contrary, I have been impressed by the seriousness of its parliamentary answers and by what it has done to date. I understand from non-Government sources that the British delegation to the Bratislava conference of parties to the convention on biological diversity did well, as Britain did with its chairmanship of the CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—standing committee.
Like hundreds of thousands of other people, I am concerned about species' disappearance. Judging from the reaction of the British press to the publication of the red list, it seems that many of their readers share those concerns. We therefore owe a debt to Dr. Mark Collins of the conservation unit in Cambridge, to Dr. Kerry Walter and David Ingram and others at the botanical gardens in Edinburgh, and, indeed, to the distinguished staff at Kew for what they have done. The red list is produced in Britain. It is done through a global network of experts, but Britain can take some pride in the fact that it was mostly organised by scientists here.
We should not simply wring our hands. This is a public issue. It is also a window of opportunity, and the purpose of this debate is simply to ask how we can mobilise resources. I have three points to make of which it was sensible to give notice. First, what is happening at home under the biodiversity action plan in the United Kingdom? In particular, what is happening in respect of the Darwin initiative? There is no point in going into detail about any of the 19 species such as the Lundy cabbage, but we should ask what is being done for the relatively few species listed as being at risk in the UK.
Secondly, what is happening Europewide? The Uppsala conference agreed on the need to identify and protect plant sites. Thirdly, in the developing world, the loss of resources is often the indirect, but sometimes the direct, cause of poverty. Let me give just one example. One in three of the dipterocarp trees under threat in south-east Asia underpin the forest economies. A lack of action will simply add to the poverty, as well as damage the environment.
I know that the Government have much to say, so I will sit down at this stage, because it is more important that we hear what they have to say than that I take my full 15 minutes.
1.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for raising this important issue. I thank him for his kind remarks about the work of our Department.
332
The conservation of plants is sometimes overshadowed by concerns about animal species—the so-called "charismatic mega fauna" such as elephants, tigers and whales. As an illustration of that, we currently have five red lists of threatened animal species, but have only just got the first red list of threatened plants. That is despite the fact that more than two thirds of the 35,000 species in which trade is monitored and regulated by CITES—the United Nations Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species—are plants. I am therefore very glad to have the opportunity today warmly to support the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend about the importance of plant conservation, and to outline some of the practical steps which the Government are taking to tackle this essential task.
Like my hon. Friend, I hope that today's debate will stimulate interest in this issue, and help to ensure that the red list receives the recognition and wide attention that it deserves. I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's kind remarks acknowledging the efforts that the Government have been making in this direction.
As my hon. Friend has said, the list is a Herculean undertaking, which has taken 15 years to complete. I pay tribute to the efforts of the many botanical and conservation scientists who have devoted so much of their time and expertise to this impressive co-operative effort, which was literally worldwide. The picture that it paints is, as my hon. Friend said, a worrying one, with one in eight of the world's plants threatened with extinction.
The red list is, of course, not an end in itself, but a catalyst. What is important now is what the countries whose species it lists and what the international community generally do with it. The list identifies the species under threat. It aims to
"serve as a stimulus and a challenge to botanists and conservationists around the world to contribute to knowledge on plants and the threats to them, and to promote increased conservation action."
We need now to think carefully about how the red list can best be translated into co-ordinated practical action.
My hon. Friend raised three particular issues. The first was what we are doing domestically. The red list includes 19 species which are found in the United Kingdom, including the Lundy cabbage, which he mentioned, and the English sandwort. I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that species action plans are currently being prepared for 14 of these species, with the aim of ensuring that these precious parts of our natural heritage continue to exist and to flourish in the UK. Of the other five species, we shall, in close consultation with our scientific advisers—the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—be monitoring the English sandwort and the Welsh groundsel.
There are doubts about the taxonomic classification of one of the other UK species, the Little Robin. The Aran mountain ash is a new addition to the red data list, and the Jersey pink is found only on Jersey, which is not covered by the UK biodiversity action plan.
To conserve plants effectively, it is vital to ensure also that the habitats that support them are properly looked after. In the United Kingdom, a large proportion—some three quarters—of our protected network of almost 4,000 sites of special scientific interest support significant communities of plants and have been given SSSI status wholly or partly because of their botanical interest. Moreover, there is in the UK a wide range of other

333
initiatives that make an invaluable contribution to plant conservation. The initiatives include English Nature's species recovery programmes and the wide-ranging conservation activities undertaken by the voluntary sector, including bodies such as Plantlife and the Botanical Society of the British Isles.
Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend for replying to this debate—the subject is not his direct responsibility in the Department—and I quite understand why the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), has to be abroad today. However, he is responsible for urban areas. There is an argument for at least considering whether more SSSIs—every small ones—could be established in certain urban areas and in certain circumstances, even in inner cities. Is that being thought about in the Department?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point, about which, in its broader terms, we are much exercised in the Department. Rightly, as part of the Government's planning policies, there is increased emphasis on ensuring that, wherever possible, new housing development in particular is concentrated in urban areas, to relieve pressure on the countryside and to contribute towards regeneration of our cities. However, we are equally concerned that such development should not be at the expense of the quality of the urban environment, and certainly should not involve development of sites that are essential to the maintenance of green spaces, wildlife and playing fields in urban areas.
I cannot answer my hon. Friend's specific question on whether further consideration is being given to designation of more SSSIs in urban areas, for the reason that he has explained to the House—in this debate, I am standing in for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is abroad today on presidency business. However, I shall raise the matter with her, and ask her to write to my hon. Friend with an answer to his question.
As I said, significant numbers of communities of plants have been given SSSI status wholly or partly because of their botanical interest, and English Nature's species recovery programme and the conservation activities undertaken by the voluntary bodies that I mentioned are very important in conserving flora.
We are concerned also about what the red list reveals about the conservation status of some plant species found in the United Kingdom's dependent territories. About four in 10 of the plant species found on St. Helena, for example, are at risk. We are considering the advice of our statutory advisers—the Joint Nature Conservation Committee—on the findings of the red list, and will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of the Government of any UK dependent territory concerned, so that we can assist them in considering the action that should be taken to deal with the threat to their plants.
Mr. Dalyell: It so happens that I have a constituent who has been involved in St. Helena. Representations have been made to the authorities there to be a bit more careful than they have been in recent history about their unique flora.
Mr. Raynsford: I undertake to bring that point to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State,
334
and to ask her to bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the attention of the authorities in St. Helena—in exactly the same way as the attention of other dependent territories—is drawn to the important issue of preserving rare plant species that may be unique to a particular dependent territory.
The second matter dealt with by my hon. Friend was about what we are doing at the European level. The habitats and species directive lists a large number of plants of Community interest, the conservation status of which requires establishment of special areas of conservation. We and other member states are currently drawing up lists of candidate sites, which, in the UK's case, will be notified shortly to the Commission. The Commission will then assess the overall picture with a view to ensuring that the EU network of sites provides an adequate network of protected areas for the species and habitats listed in the directive.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend mentioned the wider international context, and asked what the UK is doing not only to preserve rare plants but to assist in measures designed to sustain communities that live, often on very limited means, in areas containing some of those rare plants.
The UK has played a leading part in the efforts being made by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species to conserve plant species. The CITES scientific committee is currently reviewing the most significant trade plant species to ensure that harvesting from the wild is sustainable. The convention's standing committee recently endorsed a 900 per cent. increase, to £100,137—admittedly from a relatively low base of £10,246—in resources devoted to that process, which is known as the significant trade programme. A United Kingdom representative, from the Royal Botanic Gardens, has been appointed as co-ordinator of the CITES significant trade programme for plants.
The programme's work involves a review of the data on international trade in the species concerned; an analysis of the level of trade in wild and artificially propagated plants; an assessment of the conservation status of the species concerned; and a series of recommendations setting out the action necessary to ensure that trade is sustainable. The United Kingdom has also provided the vice-chairperson of the CITES nomenclature committee, which comprises a group of international experts and has been working on production of standard CITES references for plants.
Through the Royal Botanic Gardens, the United Kingdom has also been particularly involved in preparation of checklists for orchids, bulbs and cacti. The UK has also been closely involved in the work of the carnivorous plant specialist group of the species survival commission of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The group has been reviewing the conservation status of carnivorous plants, and developing a carnivorous plant action plan.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks about our role in the biodiversity convention. Biodiversity has been one of the key issues under our EU presidency. The EU biodiversity strategy has been adopted by the Council, and is a good example of how a region can work to integrate biodiversity into all areas. At the Bratislava conference, we led as presidency a successful EU participation that helped to shape many final outcomes.

335
Useful progress was made on assessment and monitoring of biodiversity. There was for the first time a constructive debate on the third objective of the convention—the sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources.
We also support developing countries' efforts to implement the convention. My hon. Friend mentioned the Darwin initiative, which he will know is funded by my Department. The initiative supports collaboration between UK biodiversity institutions and developing country partners, to help the latter implement the convention. In six years, the initiative has funded 172 projects, involving more than 70 British institutions and with links to more than 70 countries.
The initiative's projects so far have involved not only the major British biodiversity institutions—such as the natural history museum and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew—but many universities, research institutes and other educational bodies. The projects include one to develop management plans for three protected areas of the Andaman Islands, whose rainforests and mangroves are of global significance because of their high diversity and uniqueness.
Mr. Dalyell: It is impossible to exaggerate the problems of protecting the mangroves. If the mangroves go, so will the sea walls, and that could have terrible effects on the countries concerned, let alone the flora and fauna.
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the interrelationship between programmes for the protection of flora and the sustainability of the local environment, and that is very much at the heart of the Government's philosophy. The rainforests and mangroves are of global significance because of their high diversity and uniqueness, and, as my hon. Friend rightly said, they contribute to the sustainability and the safety of the Andaman Islands.
Another project being undertaken under the Darwin initiative by the Royal Botanic Gardens will aim to conserve ethnobotanical information and seeds from medicinal plants growing in arid and semi-arid areas of Tunisia and assess their economic potential. It will involve training students from different research institutes and universities in Tunisia in horticultural, conservation and phytochemical techniques. I should add, tongue in cheek, that we might even offer a little assistance on football techniques. This week, it is impossible to avoid such a reference.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend referred to football, so may I turn to Brazil, where I first became deeply interested in problems of ethnodiversity because of Dr. Darrell Posey, now at Oxford? What are we doing in respect of the links that Kew has with the Amazon, as I understand that they need further modest funding?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, as I do not normally cover such matters, I shall have to seek advice. However, I undertake to write to him about the steps being taken to assist in Brazil.
I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern about the link between poverty and the conservation of biodiversity. Biodiversity is particularly important for the alleviation of poverty, because it contributes to stable ecosystems and
336
provides more options for poor people whose livelihoods are often directly based on natural resources. Biodiversity produces species and varieties which can adapt to different circumstances, such as some varieties of crop that are drought or pest-resistant.
It is important to see people as part of the solution, not the problem. In many areas, the diverse range of species has been protected and developed by local people. One thinks, for example, of indigenous crop varieties. However, in certain circumstances, meeting immediate needs may drive people to resource depletion. The Government are working to prevent that, through projects that tackle poverty and biodiversity together.
Our key aims are to improve poor people's livelihoods through sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity; to protect those livelihoods by preventing biodiversity loss which can increase vulnerability and have disproportionate effects on the poor, and to provide alternatives for people who would otherwise be forced to over-exploit biological resources. In practice, it means supporting projects that stimulate the sustainable use and management of resources. The Government have supported a number of projects, including the Mount Cameroon project, which, by involving local expertise as well as the Government and industry, has produced practical systems for the sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products. We have also funded the World Wide Fund for Nature "People and Plants" project, which seeks to resolve conflicts between the conservation and over-exploitation of plant resources, and to enhance their value to local people.
Projects can also help to conserve genetic resources that are important for the future. For example, a project in east Africa helped to increase bean production by improving disease management while maintaining local bean varieties. Finally, they can promote benefit sharing by funding botanic gardens and similar institutions in developed and developing countries, and defining a common policy for the fair exchange of genetic resources.
Mr. Dalyell: May I put in a plea for a little more money to be made available to welcome incoming students to the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh, Kew and other institutions? The most cost-effective way that we can help some countries is by enabling their students to come here to be trained.
Mr. Raynsford: I undertake to make sure that my hon. Friend's comments are passed on to the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle), and to the Department for International Development, as they both have a direct interest in the matter. We have been seeking through a variety of ways to help that interrelationship, and encourage the development of local capacity. In Kenya, for example, we have strengthened the capacity to support sustainable management of plant biodiversity through assistance to the national museum of Kenya. We have also supported a plant conservation and propagation unit to ensure preservation of indigenous crop species.
To come back to where we started today's debate, the IUCN's work in producing its red lists is of crucial importance to international efforts to conserve wildlife species. In recognition of this, my Department, jointly with Scottish Natural Heritage and the Royal

337
Botanic Gardens, has recently provided a funding package of £125,000 to assist in the setting up of an IUCN species conservation centre in Cambridge. The centre will include a scientist who will be responsible for organising the red list programme, including liaising with scientific experts worldwide, organising workshops, and assisting with database management.
Mr. Dalyell: Does that mean that it will be updated?
Mr. Raynsford: The whole purpose is that the red list should not be static, but constantly evolving in response to known information which has to be gleaned from all over the world. It was a Herculean task to establish the red list in the first place, and it is vital that it is kept up to date and linkages maintained to ensure that.
Finally, I am delighted to be able to announce today that my Department will be providing a contribution of £10,000 to a succulent plants project being undertaken by the world conservation monitoring centre in Cambridge. It involves a review of the conservation status and international conservation measures for succulent plants, which will build on the work done by the WCMC and others for the red data book. The survey will look at succulent plants which are threatened with extinction in the wild, and will provide the basis for an assessment of additional CITES measures necessary to protect these species.
Mr. Dalyell: I am extremely pleased—as many who work in the field will be—with the serious and constructive nature of my hon. Friend's response. Successive British Governments—this is not a party matter—and civil servants should be applauded for their serious work that has set an example in the European Community. Perhaps such work will increase British influence in the Community, and I wish the civil servants, scientists and politicians involved well.
Mr. Raynsford: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks, which I entirely endorse. I shall ensure that they are conveyed to all responsible. As he rightly emphasises, it is not a party matter, but an example of government at its best, taking a lead and setting an example in the various agencies through which we can exercise influence in Europe and in the wider international context.
I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government fully share his concern about the threat facing many of our plant species. We have been and will continue to be fully and actively involved in national, European and international efforts to conserve this vital component of our planet's natural resources.

Food Safety Act
1.29 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to have the opportunity to initiate this debate, but I am disappointed that it is necessary. Unusually, not one but two Ministers are on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. I appreciate their attendance and I hope that the debate will help them and the House generally.
I believe that the enforcement procedure under the Food Safety Act 1990 is not working as well as it should. Hon. Members will know that the Government's White Paper on the Food Standards Agency was published in January. Consultation has proceeded since then and legislation will follow in due course. As food spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, I am delighted to support that initiative and look forward to the discussions that will take place in the House. However, at present there is a hiatus, and I believe that the current regime is patently inadequate and lacks equity. It could be argued that we would not be contemplating major legislation if the present situation were wholly satisfactory.
In the interim period, the Food Safety Act 1990 clearly involves a huge amount of red tape. There are unnecessary deaths on the one hand and the closure of flourishing businesses on the other. I am convinced—I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree—that we are not finding the right solutions to current problems. To a large extent, it is a question of enforcement rather than the statute itself. It is my belief—I hope that Ministers share it—that it is essential to learn the lessons of the past and the present in order to ensure that the Food Standards Agency focuses on the prevention of public health problems and scares and does not act solely as a firefighter, responding after incidents occur.
I found an extremely useful source of information for this debate, which also gave a general analysis of the inadequacies of bureaucracy. It is a book by Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, both of whom have studied issues of this sort for many years, which was published in 1995. I refer right hon. and hon. Members to the book, which is entitled, "The Mad Officials—how the bureaucrats are strangling Britain". It has the added merit, when it comes to bedtime reading, of containing illustrations by the inimitable Willie Rushton, and I strongly recommend it to Ministers. It is a classic and is extremely helpful in identifying some of the problems with which I hope that they are concerned. It certainly identifies the web of red tape with which I have no doubt that their red boxes are filled every night. The book states:
"One of the more unpleasant by-products of the Environmental Health Officer's 'hygiene blitz' was how local papers could be drawn into publicising their activities in a way which might do immense damage to particular businesses—often as it turned out, without justification."
Today, I shall refer to the case of Duckett's cheese. I have been in close contact with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—I hope that he will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and contribute to the debate—and the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who is not able to be here but who has been most helpful in marshalling the argument. I think that I speak for us all when I stress that we do not seek

339
to minimise the need to protect public health or deal with food poisoning incidents. However, the case of Duckett's cheese shows that the "hygiene police"—as I call them—must be sure that their facts are accurate because their actions result in individual businesses being submerged by the tide of safety procedures and destroyed overnight.
In this case, Duckett's cheese of Somerset was supplied to a processing company called Eastside Cheese Company in Tandridge, Surrey, which is run by Mr. James Aldridge. Mr. Aldridge processes specialist cheese for a limited market and obtains a substantial quantity of cheese from Mr. Christopher Duckett of Wedmore in Somerset, in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency. On 4 and 8 May, supplies of Wedmore and Tornegus cheeses, made by Mr. Duckett, were sent to the Public Health Laboratory Service for sampling. Mr. Aldridge was told that the samples proved to be entirely negative so far as E. coli 0157 was concerned—he has never received any results to the contrary, so he must assume that that result stands. However, when one consumer of the cheese was found by a Bristol hospital to have an illness apparently caused by E. coli 0157 bacteria, the position changed abruptly.
On 8 May, a category A food hazard warning was issued by the Department of Health. Local authorities were required to ensure that all stocks of cheese originating from Duckett were held by wholesalers and retailers and were required to obtain samples of such cheeses in their areas for testing by the PHLS. No results have been supplied on the total number of samples tested or on any positive outcomes. Mr. Aldridge had voluntarily retained his stock at that stage, but he was told unofficially that he should threaten to sell some cheese in order to invoke section 9 of the Food Safety Act 1990. This he did so that he could be compensated.
The original detention order made by Tandridge council on 19 May under section 9 of the Act put a stop to all sales of Duckett's cheese from Mr. Aldridge's premises, where it is sent for smoking and maturing. That occurred despite the fact that samples showed no contamination by E. coli. The environmental health officers sampled only three batches, and it is against the law to ask for cheese to be condemned unless every batch has been sampled. Mr. Aldridge commissioned an independent analysis of his entire stock, which produced 100 per cent. negative results. However, the following day, the Minister for Public Health signed the emergency control order to come into effect on 21 May 1998 under section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990. That effectively put both Duckett's and Mr. Aldridge out of business. Meanwhile, the one alleged sufferer of E. coli in Somerset has fully recovered.
Lest it be thought that I am somehow contributing to a right-wing plot, I shall quote from the New Statesman, which is the bible of new Labour. On 29 May 1998, it picked up on a crucial point and said:
"The Department of Health's 20 May press release makes a cryptic bullet point remark dismissing the milk. 'No screening of raw milk and no HACCP in operation. Hence lack of confidennce…& What? The Duckett's milk is screened by Milk Marque, which has stringent procedures, and the Ducketts were operating under HACCP, a fancy acronym for a hygiene regime. They couldn't have been in business if they weren't. After the recent scare, theirs is probably the cleanest dairy in the land."
At a meeting with Mr. Aldridge, his solicitor and Dr. Richard North on 5 June, an official apparently admitted that, when the order was issued under section 13 of the Food Safety Act, there was no public health risk.
340
Under section 4(2) of the Act, the "Minister" who signed the order had to be either the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Health. No junior Minister can sign that order. The order should have been signed by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), as the Secretary of State for Health, or by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The legality of the order is therefore rightly questioned. This matter may be the subject of a judicial review, so obviously I cannot go any further into the legal position. The Act is quite clear, however, and there are concerns that the Department of Health has acted illegally.
In the meantime, the cost to the taxpayer continues to mount. Mr. Aldridge, together with the wholesalers and retailers whom he supplies, will have to be compensated for loss of business. Mr. Aldridge's business, which was recently valued at £200,000, is now worth nothing. Costs therefore include £100,000 for the cheeses, £200,000 for business, as well as possible claim for compensation by numerous others, and an estimated legal bill of another £200,000 to £500,000 so far.
Effectively, Ministers and their accomplices have reversed the burden of proof. Of course, this is not the only time that that has happened. Cheese makers are being asked the impossible. They cannot prove that food is always fit; they can say only that they have been unable to detect any strain of E. coli.
There is also the question of natural justice. It cannot be right that authorities take away a person's business for no good reason and without compensation. By inserting Duckett's cheese by name as unfit in the emergency control order, the Department of Health was able to remove the company's right to compensation. That is nifty work, but it is not to the credit of Her Majesty's Government.
This and many other cases show that the nanny state did not begin on 2 May 1997. The legislation to which I am referring was passed in 1990. Indeed, it could be said that, if ever there were a nanny Government, they were the Government of Nanny Thatcher, who always knew best. Significantly, the Booker-North book was published after 15 years of Conservative government. Indeed, it contains the very sad but similar saga of a cheese maker in Pembrokeshire in 1993. Fortunately, although the connotations were similar, the consequences were not nearly as financially calamitous.
If we are to have a Food Standards Agency, let us for goodness' sake ensure the necessary expertise and experience behind it so that it can work efficiently and with equity. It must not be dominated by the food faddists at the Department of Health. It must be accountable to an independent Select Committee along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee.
It is remarkable that, so far, so many such incidents have been targeted on small producers. It seems incredible that shortfalls and failures never occur in larger manufacturers or processing plants. In 1997, there were 1,087 cases of E. coli. Fourteen businesses are in jeopardy over the one case to which I am referring. Simple arithmetic tells us that 15,218 businesses a year could be affected. If we are to go down the route of over-zealous, over-bureaucratic inspection by people who lack experience and expertise, there could be a problem of adequate food supply.

341
I have three specific questions for the Minister on this latest bitter experience. First, is she satisfied that the procedure initiated in the Duckett case—for the first time in eight years, as the Government have admitted—is really appropriate? Secondly, given that farmers are compensated for BSE and tuberculosis breakdowns in cattle, how can she justify the unsatisfactory compensation arrangements for food? Is there one law for cows and quite another for their products? Thirdly, how can we ensure that the mistakes of the recent past—inadequately trained, inadequately resourced and inadequately experienced sledgehammers trying to crack small-scale nuts—are not perpetuated in the new Food Standards Agency regime?
I return to the New Statesman, which puts words in Ministers' mouths—but perfectly justifiably. It said:
"We are not only destroying a classic English cheese—we are bragging about it."
The previous debate concerned endangered species. At the end of it, the Minister referred at some length to a particular succulent endangered species that he sought to protect. I suggest that, in debating local and regional specialist foods, we are on the same subject.
1.44 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) for allowing me to contribute briefly to the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman has the Minister's permission to make his remarks.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have been in contact with the hon. Member for North Cornwall. I apologise for not specifically requesting—
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I am content for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am grateful to the Minister, who knows my interest in this subject.
Mr. Duckett is my constituent. I have known him for 15 years. He is a highly respected Somerset farmer and fully responsible for the safety of the food that he produces. He is aware of the dangers of food poisoning and wishes to co-operate with the authorities in every way. He was therefore shocked, as I was, by the unprecedented issuing of the emergency control order; it was the first ever issued under the Food Safety Act 1990. It was issued when Mr. Duckett was already fully complying with the requests and instructions of local environmental health officers.
We are not talking about an epidemic. There was a single reported case of food poisoning connected with the cheese: in a 12-year-old boy, who happily made a full recovery. All the stocks of the cheese were stalled and other sensible measures were already in place. I join the hon. Member for North Cornwall in asking the Minister to justify her Department's use of the emergency order, given that the detention of food notices issued by local authorities were apparently already working with the full co-operation of Mr. Duckett and his customers.
342
I understand that compensation might be payable under local authority orders if batches of the cheese are subsequently found not to be contaminated and could be released to customers. Will Mr. Duckett be eligible for any compensation that may be made payable as a result of the order to which he and his customers are subject?
Lastly, and in a way most importantly, Mr. Duckett has had his livelihood wiped out. He has no income, even though the cows from which he obtains the milk and his premises have been declared safe. Although the contamination was never adequately explained, all possible measures have been taken. Effectively, he has been ruined. When will the emergency order be lifted? Apparently, local environmental health officers are content. When will the Minister's Department be content, so that my constituent can get back to earning his living?
1.47 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on securing the debate. I welcome the opportunity to deal with the questions that have been raised, as an important part of the Government's wider health policy.
Food poisoning causes illness in increasing numbers of people every year. In 1997, there were more than 100,000 notifications, and many more go unreported. That is why food safety controls must be in place at every stage of the food chain—from plough to plate. Food businesses, too, must adopt preventive measures against the contamination of food. Any case of E. coli must be dealt with, with the utmost care.
In response to the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I would argue that we have not so far seen any further cases of E. coli as a result of the outbreak to which we are referring precisely because of the preventive action that was taken.
The risks of infection have recently been demonstrated all too tragically by the emergence of new strains of the bacterium E. coli. We know that children, elderly people and other vulnerable groups are especially susceptible to that, and that some develop what is known as HUS—a severe kidney problem, now believed to be the commonest cause of acute renal failure in children in the United Kingdom. I am sure that I do not have to remind the House that the 1996 outbreak of E. coli 0157 food poisoning in Lanarkshire claimed the lives of 21 people. This is not a matter that we can treat lightly.
The Government's approach to the implementation of legislation in such circumstances is that sensible, risk-related action is the most effective. That includes a wide range of measures, including education for small businesses that helps them to comply with the law. We are encouraging local authorities to adopt the enforcement concordat, which reflects precisely the principles that I believe to be important for good enforcement—those of openness, consistency and a proportionate approach to problems.
Those principles will also apply to the actions of the Food Standards Agency. Everything that the agency does will be geared to improving food safety and protecting public health by arrangements at both national and local

343
level, and by encouraging individuals, through better public education, to take what responsibility they can for improving their health.
As a result of our wider approach, formal enforcement measures, such as improvement notices or emergency prohibition notices, are used relatively infrequently. In 1996, one third of a million food establishments were visited, but only just over 100 prohibition orders were issued. Local action is the first port of call, but for serious or widespread problems it may need to be complemented by Government action.
That is why I recently signed the order under section 13 of the Food Safety Act 1990, the focus of today's discussion. That section empowers the Secretary of State to make an emergency control order to prohibit commercial operations with respect to food, if he is satisfied that the carrying out of those commercial operations
"involves or may involve imminent risk of injury to health".
Of course we recognise that an emergency control order issued under section 13 may have a major impact on food businesses affected by it—a matter that we do not regard lightly. That is why the decision to sign such an order is a difficult one. Parliament clearly included that provision in the Food Safety Act for the purpose of protecting public health. The key principle underpinning any such action by the Government is that we must be satisfied that any commercial operation in respect of the food in question
"involves or may involve imminent risk of injury to health".
A judgment has to be made as to the risks. That is not always easy, but I believe that our response in the case in question was proportionate to those risks. There is no doubt that, whatever decision we take—to act or not to act—will be the subject of scrutiny, debate and controversy, both politically and in the country at large. If we opt to make an emergency control order, those affected by it have, rightly, the right of every citizen to subject that decision to legal test under the process of judicial review.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall will understand that, because the order is now the subject of legal action, my comments must be limited. None the less, it is important to place on the record the sequence of events leading to the making of the order.
A 12-year-old boy developed not a minor tummy upset but renal failure, was put on dialysis and was found to have an E. coli 0157 infection. Investigations showed that he had eaten cheese containing E. coli 0157. Other cheeses from the same producer were also found to be contaminated. Altogether, 10 samples out of 200 were found to contain E. coli 0157. I understand that full details of all the samples taken by the Department were provided to Mr. Aldridge and his advisers at a meeting on 5 June. Cheeses containing the organism had been produced on several different days and were found in several different outlets.
Food hazard warnings were issued advising local authorities of the action that they should take to ensure that none of that cheese reached the public. Despite action at local level, it subsequently became apparent that potentially contaminated cheese was still available at retail outlets. Furthermore, there were also signs that voluntary agreements not to release the cheeses were breaking down.
344
I was therefore satisfied that commercial operations in respect of those cheeses involved, or may have involved, an imminent risk of injury to health, and that the emergency control order was the most appropriate way of dealing with the situation. A widely distributed food had been found to be contaminated with E. coli 0157, an organism likely to cause serious illness or even death.
A further difficulty, as always in dealing with cases of pathogen contamination, was that microbiological testing could not provide a guarantee that any batch was safe, as organisms in food are not uniformly distributed. Infection by E. coli 0157—one of the most dangerous strains of E. coli, and the one implicated in that case—can occur as a result of ingesting a very small number of organisms. Eating those cheeses was thus akin to playing Russian roulette; some of them were contaminated, but it was not clear which.
The order has promoted swift, firm and consistent action across the country, and by complementing local action with a national measure, has aimed to ensure that the necessary controls are effectively implemented. As a result, no one else has been put at risk, and so far we can say that the possibility of an outbreak such as the one in Lanarkshire has been avoided.
Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister give way?
Ms Jowell: I should like to make a little more progress; then I will.
I remind the House of the fundamental reason for the provision of the powers in the Food Safety Act—to protect the public and to save lives. Let us not be in any doubt about that priority. We always use those powers proportionately, and not, as those who in many cases irresponsibly parody such action would say, as part of an anti-business crusade.
Mr. Tyler: If the Minister cannot deal with the question of compensation here and now, will she please consider carefully the way in which the use of that particular procedure and that particular order would seem to have foreclosed the issue and precluded adequate compensation? That is a major issue, as things stand.
Ms Jowell: I can answer that question in the context of the law, which is that the cheese producer in this case accepted that the food was unfit by surrendering it. I should like to make it clear that the producer has co-operated at every stage with the efforts made to contain the risks posed by the outbreak. The provisions of section 9 of the Food Safety Act mean that compensation is an issue only if the owner of the food challenges the basis for action.
We have always aimed to use the powers proportionately. Looking to the future, as the right hon. Member for Wells invited us to do, I make it clear to the House that we are working closely with the Specialist Cheesemakers Association to help to get the cheese producer back into production. I should also like to inform the House that the child who was so ill as a result of the E. coli incident is, we understand, recovering.

345
When we are satisfied that it is safe to do so, we shall lift the section 13 order, and the cheese producer will be able to continue production of his cheese. I am determined that, when we reach that point, we shall lift the order with the same alacrity with which we introduced it. It is easy
346
to dismiss the significance of one case. We have not had an epidemic—but that is because we took the right proportionate action for the sake of public health.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Western Education and Library Board
    Mr. William Ross: What monitoring is being carried out by her Department to determine the impact of measures put in place by the Western education and library board to reduce the debt arising from the overspend by that board. [44741]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): The Department is monitoring the action taken by the board to ensure that it complies with the approved spending plans. The phased repayment of the advance to the Western education and library board to meet its over-commitment in 1997–98 reduced its block grant for 1998–99 by 0.39 per cent. My Department has been in very close touch with the Western board since the discovery of the very substantial overspend. There have also been investigations by Coopers and Lybrand into the effectiveness of the revised financial control systems that have been put in place. We shall keep in close touch.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Minister aware that the clawback being applied across educational establishments in the Western education and library board area involves Limavady college of further education, which was receiving only 87 per cent. of the average funding when the overspend occurred? Given that the funding is still below the average level, the clawback is bound to have a severe effect on that college and others. Is that not adding insult to injury? Will the Minister do something to relieve the situation which one can see developing day by day?
    Mr. Worthington: We are doing all we can to limit the impact of the overspend by the Western education and library board. Obviously, I cannot redirect resources from other parts of Northern Ireland or from other boards that did not incur the overspend. The repayment has been phased over four years, which means that the cut this year is of the order of 0.39 per cent. I am willing to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the college of further education and Limavady grammar school.

    New Northern Ireland Assembly
    Ms Beverley Hughes: If she will make a statement on arrangements for the first meeting of the Northern Ireland assembly. [44742]
    Ms Gisela Stuart: If she will make a statement on the arrangements for the first meeting of the Northern Ireland assembly. [44748]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): Following the outcome of the election on 25 June, and having identified and appointed an initial Presiding Officer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to notify Members that
    348
    the first sitting of the shadow assembly will take place in the week beginning 29 June at Castle buildings, Belfast and, from September, at Parliament buildings. Upon full transfer of power, the assembly will determine its own meeting place. I will write to all political parties later this week regarding the business of that first meeting.
    Ms Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for his informative answer. In the light of the large majority of women voters who supported the agreement and of the role of women generally in bringing us to this point in Northern Ireland, does he hope, as I do, that many more women will take part in the decision-making process by being elected to the Northern Ireland assembly?
    Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course I do. I entirely agree that the assembly elections will provide an excellent and unprecedented opportunity to involve more women in public life in Northern Ireland. Women from all parties played a highly significant role in the talks process. We understand from polling that 75 per cent. of women in Northern Ireland—Catholic and Protestant—voted for the agreement in the referendum. I am pleased to inform the House that just under 50 women from a total of around 300 candidates are standing for next week's assembly elections.
    Ms Stuart: The first meeting of the assembly will be a tremendous historic event and a great new beginning for the people of Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the main objective of the assembly will be to achieve greater integration between all sections of the community and between all ages, and that, in that integration process, particular attention will be paid to the young people of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Murphy: The House will agree that the turnout at the referendum was the highest that we could have hoped for—indeed, it was the highest for many decades. Many young people voted for the agreement on the basis that it would provide an opportunity for further integration of all communities and of people of all ages in Northern Ireland. I am pleased to say that, once it has been elected next week, the assembly will give another unprecedented opportunity for that to occur. The way in which voting will take place in the assembly is unique, and will offer an opportunity to bind together those people who, for many centuries, have been bitterly divided.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: I think that it is true to say that, if I had been in prison for two years or more, I would have been barred from standing for election to the House of Commons. I accept the Government's policy on prisoner release, but will the Minister think most carefully about who should be barred from sitting in the assembly at Stormont? It may not augur well for the assembly's future if elected representatives have to sit in the Chamber facing those who are guilty of terrorist offences.
    Mr. Murphy: It was not the Government who decided these matters, but the agreement, which was forged by all the representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland. Nothing in the agreement says that ex-prisoners cannot be members of the assembly, just as there are no such rules in the House of Commons.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: If a Sunday newspaper article is to be believed, at the first meeting

    349
    of the assembly, Sinn Fein-IRA elected Members will be accompanied by armed bodyguards, whose weapons will have been issued as personal protection by the Secretary of State. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true?
    Mr. Murphy: As far as I am aware, it is untrue.
    Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Does he agree that there is no room for private armies in a free, open and democratic society, and that, if politicians in Northern Ireland or elsewhere felt that they needed protection, they would have only to contact our security services to receive the best protection in the world?
    Mr.Murphy: Yes, of course they would—I think that everyone accepts that. I think that everyone also accepts that the agreement was based on the understanding that violence would no longer be part of a democratic society in Northern Ireland—to that extent, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

    Victims of Violence
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What steps are being taken to help the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [44743]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, the Northern Ireland victims commissioner, published his report "We Will Remember Them" on 13 May 1998—his recommendations have been widely welcomed. As Minister with responsibility for victims, I am developing proposals to provide greater recognition for, and assistance to, the victims of 30 years of violence in Northern Ireland. I hope to make further announcements soon on taking forward the recommendations.
    Mrs. Humble: Given the recent proposals on the release of prisoners and the impact that that will have on victims and their families, does my hon. Friend have plans in the immediate future to develop help and support for those victims, who have suffered dreadfully because of the violence in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Later this evening, we shall continue consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, which deals with the early release of prisoners provided that certain conditions are met—I shall be moving an amendment on that issue.
    We believe that if victims so choose, they should have some knowledge of the possible release of the people who may have perpetrated acts of violence or other crimes against them. Of course, the problem is much more complicated and difficult than that, but we hope that the legislation will take account of all the complexities involved.
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is the Minister with responsibility for victims and that he is looking into the interests of victims. Does he believe that it will help victims of violence when they know that the people who murdered their husbands,
    350
    recently kneecapped their sons, intimidated their families and destroyed their businesses, or whatever it might have been, are still at large—in fact, have been released from prison—and still have the capability to perpetrate those crimes? They still have their weapons and explosives and, as yet, there has been no commitment to decommissioning from any major terrorist organisation.
    Mr. Ingram: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware that 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland voted, overwhelmingly, for the agreement. If it can be allowed to be fully implemented, hopefully we shall be able to avoid the grief and pain that have sat upon the people of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. It is better that we begin to look forward, as well as dealing with the issues relating to victims that we have to deal with and for which I now have responsibility.
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the Minister agree that personal victims of violence must be the first priority? However, will he also join me in condemning the sectarian arson attacks last Monday in Downpatrick, my home town, which obviously had a sectarian intent? Does he share my concern that part of the attack involved an explosive device, which had the attributes of paramilitary involvement? Furthermore, I urge him to ensure that the three businesses involved—both Catholic and Protestant—which were put out of business and the ancient and honourable cricket club, which was completely destroyed, get immediate and urgent aid from the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland agencies in general.
    Mr. Ingram: Of course, we all condemn unreservedly any sectarian, paramilitary or terrorist attacks. Within the present climate in Northern Ireland, there is no cause for them to continue and we call on everyone associated with those groups not only to give up their weapons, but to stop carrying out those acts. There are procedures for compensation, and I am sure that the businesses that have suffered will be aware of them and will apply in due course. Their applications will, as usual, be considered sympathetically.
    Mr. James Gray: Further to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), does the Minister agree that there must be a firm and unbreakable linkage between the release of prisoners and the decommissioning of weapons?
    Mr. Ingram: Of course there is, not only in the agreement, but in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, which we considered on Monday and will be considering later today and tomorrow.

    Civic Forum
    Maria Eagle: What role the new civic forum will play in Northern Ireland following the referendum result on 22 May. [44744]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): As the agreement states, the civic forum will be a consultative and advisory body on social, economic and cultural issues for the Northern Ireland

    351
    assembly. It will have no formal powers, but will aim to influence decision making by promoting and encouraging informed debate.
    Maria Eagle: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that only nine women were elected to the old Stormont Parliament in 50 years, and that was in a House of 78? Does she agree that, if we are to have peace in Northern Ireland, it is vital that women participate more fully in public life there? Given that only 16 per cent. of candidates for the assembly are women, does she agree that the civic forum will at least provide a stepping stone for women to become much more actively involved in public life in the Province?
    Marjorie Mowlam: Yes, I do. As we know, many more women are involved in the voluntary sector in Northern Ireland than in the political process, although there are small numbers of women in most of the parties and I hope that their voices will be heard in the assembly. It is up to the people of Northern Ireland in the upcoming elections to see whether they can make that happen with the 50 women who are standing. I hope that the forum will be a voice for women and for the old and young—in fact for people throughout Northern Ireland—so that we can continue to build a sense of community and working together as the months and years go by.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the possibility of a civic forum, how will it be selected, bearing in mind the fact that European partnership schemes have often failed to deliver what they were set up to do because of the pressures on the business community and others? Those meant that business people could not attend sufficiently often and that other community representatives who were full-timers, could dominate community aspects.
    Marjorie Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman will know that some district partnerships have been very successful, and others less so. Where Churches, business, trade unions and the voluntary sector have worked together, they have helped to build and to further a sense of community. I do not know how the members of the civic forum will be elected. We have consulted widely, have talked to people and have had submissions from some parties. Ultimately, the decision will be up to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in the assembly, but we will do all we can to put forward constructive and positive options and to facilitate decision making.
    Mr. Roger Stott: My right hon. Friend is replying to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) about the civic forum. I am a member of the British-Irish interparliamentary body, a forum set up a number of years ago. How does my right hon. Friend see our future role, as British parliamentarians and Members of the Dail Eireann try to foster good relationships between the House of Commons and the Dail and to move the peace process forward?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I would not be so presumptuous as to tell members of the British-Irish interparliamentary body what their role should be. I am sure that it will
    352
    continue to be a positive one, which will be enhanced by working alongside the British-Irish council to further relationships among these islands.

    Northern Ireland Agreement
    Mr. Andrew George: What representations she has received on the Northern Ireland agreement from individuals and organisations in (a) mainland Britain, (b) Crown dependent territories and (c) Eire. [44745]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I have received a range of representations—mostly supportive of the agreement—wishing the people of Northern Ireland a better future built on the foundations of peace and reconciliation laid by the agreement, and free from the division and misery that marked the previous decades.
    Mr. George: I thank the Secretary of State. The agreement says:
    "A British-Irish Council will be established … to promote a harmonious and mutually beneficial development of the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands."
    As I come from Cornwall, a part of these islands that has its own distinct identity, culture and language, I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on the progress made towards the essential British-Irish council. If she wishes—rightly—to ensure that the council reflects
    "the totality of relationships among the peoples of these islands",
    will she ensure that minority ethnic groups are included on that council to contribute to the celebration of diversity within our nation?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman. There is no doubt that when the body is set up, it will deal with questions of commonality across different regions in these islands on health, education and transport, which clearly cross the whole of the islands. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's specific interest in the south-west can be fully taken into account.
    Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways in which to secure support for the Northern Ireland agreement would be to make sure that the House continued with its policy of bipartisanship? Does she also agree that the shadow Secretary of State, who could not be bothered to be in the United Kingdom when the agreement was being negotiated, should at least be able to stop yet another petty internal split in the shadow Cabinet from leading the Conservative party down the dangerous road of possibly breaching that policy?
    Marjorie Mowlam: My hon. Friend makes his point strongly. For my part, I should be very disappointed if the bipartisan approach that has served both sides of the House— Government and Opposition—so well were to come to an end. I sincerely hope that it does not, but that is not totally up to me.
    Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Secretary of State will be aware of special provisions in the agreement to allow British citizens living in Northern

    353
    Ireland to carry Irish passports. Has she received any representations from persons living in the Irish Republic who want to carry British passports, and will the Government consider granting those who live in the Irish Republic and consider themselves British the right to those passports, to provide equality under the terms of the agreement?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I agree that equality under the terms of the agreement is a positive end to aim for. I have received no such applications, but if I did, I would certainly consult the Home Office, which would have a direct interest.
    Kate Hoey: Given that the agreement mentioned parity of esteem and equality, has my right hon. Friend received any representations, or does she have any views, on the recent decision of the Gaelic Athletic Association to refuse membership to anyone who has been a member of the security forces? Does she agree that that is a reprehensible step and shows that some people are still not prepared to make that extra effort to bring about peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland?
    Marjorie Mowlam: I would like everyone to make that extra effort. As my hon. Friend well knows, the GAA said that it was willing to move, but only if there was clear movement to introduce change in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. As usual in Northern Ireland, we have to wait for someone to take the first step. I hope for changes in a number of dimensions, and I agree that it would be good for people to spend more of their leisure time together, but that will be up to the members of the GAA, who will have heard what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. James Cran: Will the Secretary of State confirm that she has received representations to the effect that, of those elected to the Northern Ireland assembly, only those who have renounced violence and fully committed themselves to co-operation with the decommissioning commission will be appointed as Ministers? Does she agree that, if that does not happen, Ministers will exercise executive power with one hand while retaining the means of violence with the other?
    Marjorie Mowlam: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Ministers will have to sign a pledge of office, committing them to complete and unequivocal ceasefires and to peaceful, non-violent options. Co-operation with the independent commission is one of four stringent factors that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in May. These are written into the Northern Ireland (Elections) Bill.

    Parades
    Helen Jones: What steps are being taken to reduce tensions over parades in Northern Ireland. [44746]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 established an independent body, the Parades Commission, with the statutory responsibility of encouraging and facilitating local accommodation on
    354
    contentious parades. I welcome the acceptance by the loyal orders of the commission's determination to reroute the tour of the north parade, scheduled for this Friday. Given that acceptance, there can be no excuse whatever for any outbreak of violence this weekend or thereafter.
    Helen Jones: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Parades Commission on its work so far and on its decisions which, as the whole House will agree, have been both transparent and fair? Will he do all that he can to ensure that all those involved in parades, both marchers and protesters, reach an accommodation and accept the commission's decisions, so that in future, we may avoid the disorder that has occurred so often in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend makes her point very well. We should always recognise how difficult a task the commission faces. We congratulate it on its efforts to date and wish it well in its future determinations. We all recognise the full impact of any outbreak of violence such as we have witnessed in previous years and of the battle of the marching season, which damages not only the economic health and future well-being of Northern Ireland, but the psychological and physical health of everyone who lives there.
    Mr. Phil Willis: In a television interview on 7 April, the transcript of which is fully available, the Chief Constable of the RUC made it clear that, even if the Parades Commission decided against the Orange Order marching down the Garvaghy road, he would allow the march to go through if the Orange Order then amassed the number of people that it had in previous years to force that march through. In that case, what future would the commission have, especially on the sensitive Ormeau road and Drumcree parades?
    Mr. Ingram: The Chief Constable does not have the power to overturn the legal determination of the commission, but the police have the power to take whatever action is necessary on the day to preserve life and property. Its determination would still stand, on the basis of its best endeavours to resolve issues in respect of the parade or march that it was considering.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to the previous question, if the Parades Commission decided that the Drumcree march should not return to Portadown along the Garvaghy road, but by some different route, would the RUC enforce that decision and ensure that peace reigned throughout the area during that weekend?
    Mr. Ingram: The best thing that all of us can do is hope that there is no repetition of what has happened in previous years, whether the march is allowed to go ahead or not. The commission has a very difficult job to do, and it is not for me or for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to prejudge what it will do in respect of any application for the march at Drumcree. The matter rests with the commission, and other powers rest with the Chief Constable to deal with public disorder on the day, should it arise.
    Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the best single action that could be

    355
    taken to reduce tension over parades in Northern Ireland would be for the concerned residents group on the Garvaghy road to withdraw its opposition to the march? Will he acknowledge the march's importance to members of the Unionist community? To them, it shows tolerance of their rights and their culture.
    Mr. Ingram: I would not want to be accused of lecturing the hon. Gentleman, but the best help that he could give would be to come round behind the Good Friday agreement and give every support to what the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland expressed through the ballot box on 22 May. Clearly, we recognise the rights of those who want to march, and the legal rights of those who may want to protest against that. I hope that things can be done peacefully, through reconciliation, with both sides talking to the Parades Commission to find the best answers, in respect of not only the Drumcree parade, but subsequent parades over the coming months.

    Economic Package
    Mr. Ross Cranston: What progress is being made on the economic package for Northern Ireland announced in May. [44747]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): An implementation plan has been drawn up and action is being taken on the Chancellor's package. An interdepartmental group has been set up to oversee progress. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will closely monitor the implementation of the package. The initiative has been widely welcomed in Northern Ireland as making a significant contribution to enterprise and investment.
    Mr. Cranston: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Chancellor will be visiting north America to encourage inward investment, but I believe that small and medium-sized businesses are the bedrock of the community, not only economically, but socially. Does my hon. Friend agree that the provisions in the Finance Bill on capital allowances are especially valuable?
    Mr. Ingram: I welcome the Finance Bill, and I also welcome what the Chancellor announced specifically for Northern Ireland—a unique package of 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances for investment by small and medium-sized firms in plant and machinery. That will give a cash flow boost of £100 million over the next four years, which follows the reduction of small companies corporation tax from 23 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the previous Budget. All of that will help to stimulate a key sector of the Northern Ireland economy.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: Given the level of wages in Northern Ireland, in relative terms, what estimate has the Minister made of the number of jobs that would be lost there after the imposition of a minimum wage of £3.60 an hour? Does he support the Chancellor of the Exchequer's wish for a lower rate to be applied to young people in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ingram: As the Minister responsible for the economy in Northern Ireland, I have made representations to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure that he has taken due note of them.
    356
    We have a particular set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. We are trying to change the whole shape and structure of the Northern Ireland economy, which for the past 30 years has suffered from the troubles that we all know about. We want to make it a high-wage, highly skilled and high value-added economy. That is what we are driving for, and that is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will achieve through the measures in his last two Budgets—and, I am sure, in future Budgets as well.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Norman Baker: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Baker: May I draw the Prime Minister's attention to a press release that was issued by the Labour party just before the last election, on the subject of the privatisation of air traffic control? According to the press release, the privatisation is an
    "own goal and shows how out of touch the government is."
    It commands no public support, and will
    "undermine public confidence in Air Traffic Control".
    Does the Prime Minister now agree with himself? Does he not think it rather dangerous to perform U-turns with aeroplanes?
    The Prime Minister: No. As we made clear before the election, we are prepared to do anything necessary, both for public finances and to ensure that we secure the right investment in air traffic control. The public-private partnership that we have announced means that 49 per cent.—a golden share—stays with the Government. It will secure the investment that we need, and will give us a new regulatory body to improve air safety. I take it from the fact that the hon. Gentleman is now opposing the measure that that is another spending commitment on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
    Mr. Jim Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the many thousands of Scotland supporters who enjoyed themselves so peacefully in France? Does he recognise that the vast majority of England supporters are also peaceable, and a credit to the nation and their team? Will he, however, lead the House in condemning the mindless minority of English hooligans who have terrorised the people and the city of Marseille, and will he give a commitment that action will be taken as a matter of urgency? England prides itself on the claim that it is the home of football, but, if such scenes are repeated, it will unfortunately be renowned as the home of football hooliganism.
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree. I congratulate the Scottish fans on the way in which they have behaved

    357
    throughout the World cup—and, as my hon. Friend rightly says, the vast majority of English fans have behaved extremely well. We condemn, without reservation or qualification, the mindless minority who do nothing but bring disgrace on themselves and the name of our country abroad, and we have already introduced a huge package of measures in an attempt to stop such things happening. There was merely a trickle of restriction orders when we first came to power; there are now more than 70. We have put together probably the biggest package of measures for co-operation between the French and the British police that has ever been known.
    Let me say this to my hon. Friend and to others. The problem is that, although we can stop known hooligans, if they are known, the vast majority of those who have been picked up by the French police have no record of football hooliganism that would appear on criminal records—or even on our database, which is the most extensive in the world. However, we will consider whatever other measures we can take, so that that small minority is eliminated from watching football throughout the world.
    Mr. William Hague: I support the Prime Minister's sentiments. He clearly shares the anger that so many of us felt when pride in the victory of the England football team was coupled with shame at the behaviour of hooligans. We are tabling amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill, which will be debated next week, to place new restrictions on thugs travelling to overseas football matches, and to make them pay compensation for the damage that they cause. Can we expect the Government's support for those amendments?
    The Prime Minister: We shall certainly consider any amendments, and if they would improve the situation we would be very happy to accept them. In debates on the legislation, Conservative Front-Bench Members have tried to water down, rather than strengthen, the anti-social behaviour orders. If sensible amendments could make a difference, we shall support them. However, we must also consider ways of ensuring that restriction orders—the powers that already exist—are used more comprehensively. In particular, we must try to deal with the problem of intelligence on football hooligans, which is not as great as we need it to be, even though we have the most extensive database in the world. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Murphy), we can stop football hooligans only if they are known.
    Mr. Hague: I agree entirely with what the Prime Minister said about the need for intelligence, although when he talked about the Opposition Front Bench—[Laughter.] He will find a good deal more intelligence among Opposition Members than he will among those sitting around him. When the Prime Minister referred to Opposition Front-Bench Members, he was mixing one set of amendments with another. Does he accept that there is a strong case for such measures? The view of this country from overseas is severely affected by these incidents. While he is quite right to talk about improved co-ordination, it is important to do everything we can to toughen up the legislation.
    The Prime Minister: There is no point having a prolonged debate on this matter, but the right
    358
    hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench spokesman described the proposals as dangerously unworkable. We are perfectly happy to examine any amendments that are tabled. We must also consider the restriction orders and the basis of co-operation with other police services. We should also encourage employers to take strong action against people who are convicted of football hooligan offences abroad. I hope that strong action is taken against convicted football hooligans who are employed by the public service or by the armed forces.
    We can take all the measures we like—we should take whatever measures are necessary—but we must be quite clear where the responsibility for such violence lies. It lies with those individuals who do not represent the best either of Britain, of England or of English soccer.
    Ms Rosie Winterton: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Yorkshire and Humberside region has been the first to set up a regional chamber in anticipation of the establishment of regional development agencies next year? Does he agree that regional government for England would be a further step towards the Labour Government's objective of giving more power to people in the regions to take decisions over their own lives?
    The Prime Minister: Regional development agencies will act as important co-ordinating bodies for attracting inward investment and for improving the circumstances of local economies. Having championed subsidiarity in Europe, we should champion it at home as well.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In the Budget, did the Chancellor really intend to penalise retiring small business men and women while creating a huge tax loophole worth perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds to some of the richest in the land, including some partners of certain merchant banks?
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the Chancellor has done that.
    Mr. Ashdown: Has the Prime Minister seen the very clear report today, which says that the Chancellor has done exactly that? Has he read the report in the Financial Times, which says that the Chancellor has, indeed, done exactly that? The report in the Financial Times concedes the case, because one of the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers has apparently said, "Yes, we've got it right, and this proves that we need to get it—we've got it wrong, and this proves that we need to get it right."[Laughter.] I shall say that again, in case it is misunderstood. The Minister said, "We've got it wrong, and this proves that we need to get it right." Surely there cannot be any benefit in the Government creating large tax loopholes for the very rich while telling teachers and nurses that they must have pay rises less than the rate of inflation. The Prime Minister has said that hard choices must be made. This is an easy one: spend more money on providing decent public services for the many, and less on large tax breaks for the few.
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that that is nonsense. The 10 per cent. capital gains rate is designed to encourage long-term investment, and we believe that it will do so. As for the cost measure and the implication

    359
    that we could pass this money on to other people, that is simply not the case. I believe that the vast majority of people support this measure, because it will encourage long-term investment in business and industry. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is against it.
    Dr. Tony Wright: As one who had the good fortune to be at Wembley in 1966 on that glorious day when England won the World cup, may I congratulate the Prime Minister on his role in securing an honour for Geoff Hurst? However, it has created the expectation that every English footballer who scores a hat trick in a World cup final will receive a similar honour. Could my right hon. Friend send an urgent message to France saying that that expectation will be fully realised?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the wisest course is probably to wait until the hat trick has been scored.
    Mr. John Butterfill: The Prime Minister will be aware that his Foreign Secretary has refused to release to the Select Committee copies of the telegrams that were sent to the Foreign Office by our high commissioner in Sierra Leone. Is that because copies were forwarded to No. 10 Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: No. My right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that that must await the outcome of the Legg inquiry when we will deal with it in accordance with the normal rules of the Pergau inquiry that took place earlier. I am sorry that Conservative Members, despite their best interests, still cannot manage to get anybody in the outside world interested in what has been a ridiculous Opposition caper from beginning to end.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: My right hon. Friend will know that Lucas in my constituency proposes to make redundant next month 70 workers who make compressed natural gas bottles for vehicles. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country needs to do more to encourage the use of environmentally positive fuels, such as compressed natural gas, for road vehicles of all types? Does he agree that such a policy would be good for jobs and the environment?
    The Prime Minister: It would and, of course, we have taken a series of measures, particularly in the foresight vehicle link programme, and in his Budget the Chancellor took measures to promote vehicles that use more environmentally friendly fuel. In the end, of course, businesses have to be run as such and I greatly sympathise with the plight of my hon. Friend's constituents. I know that he recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry to discuss whatever help we can give.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Prime Minister confirm the independent figures that have been produced by the House of Commons Library which show that after his first year in office the average family is £1,000 a year worse off as a result of tax and mortgage rate increases?
    The Prime Minister: No, I do not confirm that. From memory, the House of Commons note upon which the Opposition rely states that it all depends on the
    360
    assumptions that are fed in by those who are asking for the information. The £1,000 includes, for example, rises in excise duty, five sixths of which were introduced by the previous Government. We all remember who put up taxes by over £1,000 a year. It was the Conservative party in direct breach of its election promises.
    Yvette Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the conviction rate for rape is a shocking 9 per cent.? Is he also aware of a new locally-driven West Yorkshire initiative that is trying to tackle the problem by providing specialist training for prosecuting barristers? Can he assure the House that Ministers will take a direct interest in that programme as it develops, and that if it is successful, they will encourage the Crown Prosecution Service to adopt the programme throughout the country?
    The Prime Minister: An interim report was published by the Home Office in December. The final findings will not be available until early next year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is already taking action. He has announced a series of proposals to improve the way that rape victims are treated by the criminal justice system. They include special measures to make the process of giving evidence less intimidating, a ban on defendants personally cross-examining the victim and powers to enable the court to clear the public gallery when a victim is giving evidence. In the light of the final report to be published early next year, we shall decide what other measures we need to take.
    Mr. William Hague: On a day of disturbing economic statistics for wages and jobs, will the Prime Minister make it clear that he will not give in to the President of the Board of Trade, many of his Back Benchers and the Trades Union Congress when they call for the implementation unamended of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations?
    The Prime Minister: We shall make our conclusions on the Low Pay Commission known when it is right to announce them. The continued Conservative opposition to a minimum wage shows how totally wedded they are to—[Interruption.] It is over here that we want to see them. These are the people who oppose any minimum wage at any level. These are the people who are happy that hundreds of thousands of people are paid less than £3 or less than £2.50 an hour. These are the people who believe that a strong economy can be built on sweatshop wages, but people on this side of the House do not.
    Mr. Hague: It is a good job the Prime Minister is not on "Just a Minute", because we have heard deviation, hesitation and repetition, all in one answer. Are not three things now clear? Today's figures show a rapid rise in wage inflation and the first signs of an increase in unemployment. The introduction now of the Low Pay Commission's recommendations is likely to make both problems worse. Is it not essential that, if he cannot abandon those proposals for a minimum wage, he should at least water them down, as the Chancellor wants him to do?
    The Prime Minister: I totally disagree. Employment in the past year, under this Government, is up more

    361
    than 400,000; unemployment is down 270,000; youth unemployment is down 60,000; and we have 30,000 already on the new deal, which is another policy opposed by the Conservative party. Perhaps when the right hon. Gentleman gets to his feet now, he will tell us whether he intends to repeal the minimum wage legislation if elected, or keep it.
    Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister wants me to tell him our policy in future years when he will not tell us his policy today. Is it not extraordinarily complacent of him to dismiss the concerns about unemployment that inevitably arise from today's figures? Is it not incredibly arrogant of him to say that he will not water down the recommendations, when every newspaper has been briefed that that is what the Chancellor wants to do? How is it that every newspaper in the land can be told what the Chancellor thinks about this, but the Prime Minister does not have the courage to tell his own Back Benchers in the House of Commons? Is it not true that he and the Chancellor have decided that the minimum wage has got to be watered down? Let us hear from him frankly, now, at the Dispatch Box, that that has got to happen.
    The Prime Minister: What is absolutely clear is that, as ever, the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues believe that the answer to the problems of the economy is low wages. We do not believe that; we support a minimum wage and we shall introduce it. I do not know anybody who believes that it is the low-paid who have responsibility for any difficulties that there are. The responsibility lies with us to ensure that we have a proper, strong economic policy, in which we take the right measures for monetary and financial stability. Let us be clear on one thing: the Conservatives have opposed every interest rate rise since the election and every measure to cut the Budget deficit. If we carried on with the policies that the right hon. Gentleman wants, rather than with our policies, we would end up in the boom and bust that we had under the Conservatives, with interest rates at 15 per cent. for a year, record repossessions, record bankruptcies and record recession. That was his Government's record, but it is not going to be ours.
    Mr. Hague: If there is no difficulty about a minimum wage, why is the Prime Minister finding it so difficult to reach a decision on it? He attacks the previous Government, but does he not recall that he inherited the best economic situation of any new Government? He inherited low inflation, low taxes, low interest rates and falling unemployment, but now we see taxes up, inflation up, mortgage rates up and unemployment heading that way. Does he still think that things could only get better?
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that for the 400,000 extra people in work since the last election things are better. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman how else they have got better. We are going to avoid the economic crisis into which the previous Government plunged us in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Let us remember what we inherited—we inherited record borrowing and a doubled national debt. We, not the Tory Government, put those things right. It is we who have put the financial deficit in order. The Tory party, when in power, ran a deficit on the current account of £12 billion every year. We are going to run current account surpluses. We are going to get
    362
    down the national debt that it doubled. We are going to avoid boom and bust and put our economy on a stable footing, which the Tories never did.
    Ms Sandra Osborne: Does the Prime Minister agree that National Air Traffic Services has a record of safety and efficiency which is second to none? Will he consider that commercial interests could jeopardise that record, and will he give a categorical assurance that the new Scottish centre at Prestwick will go ahead as planned, no matter which option is chosen for the future structure of NATS?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I understand that contract negotiations for a new air traffic control centre at Prestwick to replace the existing centre are under way between National Air Traffic Services and Sky Solutions, the preferred bidder. That will continue to be the case. Of course, as a result of the proposals that we are putting forward for air traffic control, an extra £1 billion will be invested in it, which is the best news for the service and for jobs that there could possibly be.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: On 6 May, the Prime Minister told the House with reference to the Northern Ireland agreement:
    "It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that".
    Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement? If so, could he explain to me, so that I understand, why that requirement is not provided for as a prerequisite in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill which is currently before the House? Is not there a danger that those who affirmed the agreement and voted yes will consider that they did so under a false prospectus?
    The Prime Minister: There is no reason to do that at all. I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in a little detail because it is important.
    On 6 May, I did indeed say that, and I stick by it 100 per cent. Indeed, I went on to say:
    "It is not just a question of decommissioning, but a question of making sure, as the agreement says, that there is a complete and unequivocal ceasefire."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
    I also quoted the speech of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), who said:
    "When sensitive matters such as prisoner release on licence are discussed—for which, as the Government has made clear, there is no general amnesty—the independent Commission, and the Secretary of State, are bound to have regard as to whether decommissioning has taken place."
    [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can make his remarks later if he wishes.
    I then went to Northern Ireland the next week and said in my Balmoral speech, which set out precisely what we were going to do:
    "In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the Agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account."
    One of those was
    "full co-operation with the Independent Commission on decommissioning, to implement the provisions of the Agreement."

    363
    That is precisely what we have now put in the Bill which states:

    "the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account"—
    it then lists various items—
    "co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997."
    In other words, that is precisely what we said we would do. We have put it in the legislation in order to make it quite clear that although, as I said, we cannot alter the agreement or insert new legislative preconditions, decommissioning is an essential part of the package. Those parts of the package in respect of decommissioning have to be obeyed, as everything else. That is what we said before the referendum; it is what we are saying now, and it is in the legislation.
    I have to say to the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that we supported the previous Government through thick and thin on this. We shall look very, very carefully at any amendments that are tabled, but they cannot rewrite the agreement. Decommissioning remains an essential part of the agreement, and our legislation is fully consistent with what we established before the referendum.
    Mr. Keith Vaz: The Prime Minister will recall that, in his speech last October in Brighton, he said that it was worth reminding ourselves of how much negative discrimination there really is. Given that statement, and the fact that he has now signed the Commission for Racial Equality's leadership challenge, will he tell the House precisely what action he will take to ensure that black and Asian people are fully represented in the highest levels of the civil service and in Government appointments to quangos?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend may know, there are a series of Government programmes to promote people from ethnic minority backgrounds coming into the public service, and the Government are currently working with the Windsor fellowship and other community organisations to ensure that black and Asian people are encouraged to apply for careers in the public sector. We are also fully committed to the Commission for Racial Equality's leadership challenge, which seeks to promote equal opportunity policies in public and private organisations.
    It is also appropriate that we are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the arrival, at Tilbury docks, on 22 June 1948, of the SS Windrush. I believe that those people and their descendants have made a great contribution to a Britain that is proud of being a multicultural, multiracial society.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: How can the Prime Minister justify spending annually over £1 million of taxpayers' money to fund employment of Labour party spin doctors at No. 10 Downing street?
    The Prime Minister: We follow precisely the same rules that have been applied by other Governments and in exactly the same way. The fact that we do so rather better than the previous Government is a reflection on them rather than us.
    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: This week, I received an answer from the
    364
    Scottish Office stating that more than twice as many women between the ages of 35 and 54 die from breast cancer than from any other single cause. What action are the Government taking to tackle that greatest single cause of premature death? Will the Prime Minister tell us also whether further care will be given to older women by extension of routine screening beyond the age of 65?
    The Prime Minister: First, I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend on the issue. We have put in place a series of proposals that will mean that—by April 1999, for breast cancer, and by 2000 for other cancers—there will be a maximum two-week waiting time to see a specialist after an urgent GP referral. Implementing that proposal is being funded specifically out of the money that was raised by getting rid of the internal market that did so much damage to the national health service. Women over 65 are not routinely invited for screening, although they are entitled on request to a free three-yearly scan. It is important that that entitlement should be more widely known and taken up. We are currently looking at ways in which we can improve the publicity given to it.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is now almost 12 months since two British aid workers—Camilla Carr and Jon James—were taken hostage in Chechnya? Does he realise that, last week, an Inter-Parliamentary Union delegation from the House raised the matter with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister and received an assurance from the Russian Government that they will do everything that they can to ensure the hostages' early release? Bearing in mind the fact that their families are keen to raise the profile of the hostage issue in Britain, will the Prime Minister say that he, like me, will maintain his personal interest in the issue and do everything that he can to ensure that Camilla and Jon are returned home safely?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly shall. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I have raised the issue myself a number of times with President Yeltsin, who has indicated that he gives his full support to efforts to find and free the hostages. Tomorrow, the Home Secretary will see the Russian Minister for the Interior. We are deeply concerned about the hostages—we have been deeply concerned about them all the time that they have been in captivity. We shall continue to do everything that we possibly can to locate, to find and to free them.
    Ms Oona King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Jarman index, I represent the most deprived area in Britain? Is he also aware that Tower Hamlets suffers from the greatest overcrowding in housing in Britain—in fact, 10 times the national average? Will he join me in congratulating the council on reducing the housing waiting list by 10 per cent. over the past year? Will he give us further assurances that more money will be made available for housing in the poorest areas of Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The capital receipts initiative has already put

    365
    some £50 million into London authorities. The figure will increase to almost £170 million this year. Obviously, that will make a difference to housing waiting lists, as will the inner cities initiative which attempts to deal with some of the worst housing estates. Perhaps most important, however, is the fact that, under the new deal, large
    366
    numbers of people who are long-term unemployed, lone parents or young people who have been unemployed for a significant period of time can get help to get a job. Getting a job and earning a decent standard of living is one of the most important factors in providing better housing.

European Council (Cardiff)
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I shall make a statement about the meeting of the European Council which I chaired in Cardiff on 15 and 16 June. My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my hon. Friends the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury were also present. I have placed a copy of the conclusions in the Library.
I should begin by thanking the city council and the people of Cardiff for their warm welcome and hospitality. I congratulate them whole-heartedly on the arrangements for the summit, which were universally admired. Cardiff itself looked marvellous and did great credit to Wales and this country.
The European Council had four main themes: economic reform and employment, enlargement and the necessary accompanying policy reforms, the future development of the EU and foreign policy issues, notably Kosovo. We also discussed a range of other questions which touch the lives of ordinary people: the environment, crime and drugs and the millennium bug. The Finance Ministers issued a statement on the world economy, a copy of which is attached to the conclusions.
We had an important and valuable debate on the economic reform programme needed in Europe if the single currency is to succeed. There were four aspects to that. The first was employment. At Luxembourg last November, the European Council agreed a set of employment guidelines aimed at promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable work force and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. Under the United Kingdom presidency, all 15 member states have submitted national action plans putting the guidelines into effect. We agreed at Cardiff that the next steps were concrete measures on lifelong learning, with a particular emphasis on older workers, strengthening equal opportunities, promoting new ways of organising work, revising tax and benefits systems to improve incentives to work and developing a culture of entrepreneurship. The need now is to implement the national plans. The guidelines themselves will be revised in December.
Secondly, the European Council endorsed broad economic guidelines to co-ordinate national economic policies. They incorporate commitments on macroeconomic stability and structural reforms of the labour, product and capital markets—essential if member states are to promote growth and employment and remain competitive in the face of globalisation. The guidelines also emphasise the need for reform to remove regulatory burdens on businesses. We established a process to exchange best practice and monitor progress to ensure that those commitments are lived up to.
Thirdly, good progress has been made on strengthening the single market during the past six months, for example through agreements on telecoms and gas liberalisation injecting genuine competition into those markets. The European Council agreed that the Commission should work on an extended scoreboard containing indicators of effective market integration and price differentials, as a tool for benchmarking progress in creating a genuine
368
single market. The existing scoreboard has already helped implementation of single market measures by member states to improve from 73 to 82 per cent. in the past six months. We invited the Commission to table an action plan to improve the single market in financial services, and emphasised the need to promote competition and reduce distortions such as state aids. These are important commitments. Perfecting the single European market is vital for trade and investment.
The fourth area was the need to promote competitiveness and entrepreneurship. We were all fully agreed on the vital role of small companies in creating new jobs and wealth, and on the need for action to produce the best possible environment to encourage entrepreneurs. That means, in particular, increasing access to capital and cutting unnecessary regulation. Action in those areas was agreed.
Fundamental economic reform is essential if member states are to be able to compete and create jobs in the global marketplace, and is therefore particularly essential for monetary union. The measures agreed at Cardiff represent a new strategy to achieve that. I draw the House's attention to two points: the degree to which the strategy reflects British thinking about competitiveness and the direction of reform, and the unanimity across Europe that this is the right way forward.
The second major theme was enlargement and the policy reform needed for that. Enlargement negotiations and the accession process were successfully launched in March. The Commission also tabled then a package of proposals on the reform of EU policies and their financing—the so-called Agenda 2000. The proposals would, for example, reform the common agricultural policy and save the consumer at least £1 billion a year in lower prices. The European Council agreed a deadline of March 1999 for reaching agreement on the package, with final adoption before the European Parliament elections next June.
A crucial part of the negotiations will concern the EU' s future financing. There has been a good deal of press speculation about the position of the German and other Governments over their net contributions to the budget. No doubt member states will continue to make their case for change in one direction or another. For our part, I made it clear that I will maintain the United Kingdom budget rebate, which cannot be changed without the agreement of the Government and the House.
As part of our enlargement debate, we discussed Turkey. The UK presidency has worked hard to restore positive EU-Turkey relations following the downturn at the end of 1997. The Cardiff conclusions re-emphasised that Turkey's candidature to join the EU must be treated on the same basis as those of other candidate countries, and endorsed a new strategy towards Turkey. The Commission has now said that it will come forward with proposals for financing to overcome the existing impasse in that area. It is too soon to say definitively, but I believe that that will help to put this important relationship back on the rails and provide a basis for future progress.
On the foreign policy side, we issued a strong declaration on Kosovo, condemning the use of indiscriminate violence by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian security forces. If President Milosevic does not take steps to comply with our demands

369
on dialogue, refugees, international monitoring and an end to violence, he should be in no doubt about our united resolve. We wait to see whether his discussions with President Yeltsin yesterday may lead to the necessary changes on the ground. Meanwhile, NATO planning and UN Security Council consultation will continue.
We also discussed our serious concern about the middle east peace process, where the EU remains supportive of US efforts. We called on India and Pakistan to take early steps to adhere to the international non-proliferation regime. We expressed support for Indonesia—provided a credible economic reform programme is followed—and underlined the need for an acceptable solution to the problems of East Timor, including the early release of political prisoners. The European Council gave its support to the Northern Ireland peace agreement, and agreed that the EU should continue its active role in promoting peace and prosperity there.
We also discussed the environment and crime and drugs. We agreed on the need to implement the Amsterdam treaty provisions on integrating environmental protection into EU policies. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister began this process during the UK presidency by bringing the work of the Transport and Environment Councils together and ensuring that the next three presidencies are committed to an agreed programme. I am also delighted that, one hour ago, the Environment Council in Luxembourg concluded the European Union's burden-sharing arrangements to implement the legal obligation agreed at Kyoto for greenhouse gas emissions. That is an important step towards a cleaner world.
In Cardiff, we welcomed the excellent progress made in implementing the action plan on organised crime. We endorsed the key elements of the EU drugs strategy for the period 2000–04 and asked the Council and Commission to develop a comprehensive plan for action.
Heads of Government also had a wide-ranging discussion on the future development of the EU. We face big challenges: the introduction of the euro, enlargement, tackling unemployment and social exclusion, combating organised crime and giving the Union an effective voice in the world. There was agreement among EU leaders that, if the Union is to meet those challenges in a way that has the confidence of our citizens, it must ensure that people feel less remote from its political processes and institutions, and that they can support European solutions to shared problems without fear of losing their national identity. That means increasing the democratic legitimacy of the European political process and making a reality of subsidiarity—being ready to co-operate where that is the right way of resolving common problems, while reassuring our peoples that Europe will not encroach on national or regional freedom of action in areas where the state or, indeed, local authorities can best take responsibility.
There was widespread acceptance that the solutions do not simply lie in more centralised decision making, and that we need to find a more effective relationship between Europe's institutions and our national Governments and Parliaments. We now have to take those principles and make them the centrepiece of future European reform. The informal Heads of Government meeting in Austria in October will begin that process.
370
We have also agreed that, once the Amsterdam treaty is ratified, we will move on to the institutional issues not resolved at Amsterdam—notably, the size of the Commission and vote reweighting. We also asked the Commission and the Council to pursue work on improving their efficiency and organisation and to report on progress during the next presidency.
I was delighted to welcome Nelson Mandela to Cardiff, joining my European colleagues in paying tribute to his extraordinary leadership in South Africa, and taking the opportunity to discuss with him the prospects for completion of an EU-South Africa co-operation agreement. We are agreed on completing the negotiations by the early autumn. I understand that only 1 per cent. of the issues remain to be resolved.
I believe that the Cardiff European Council marked a solid step forward towards a more effective and better accepted European Union. We agreed, without rows or drama, on a series of substantive points to equip our countries and peoples better for the future. At the start of the UK presidency, I outlined five objectives: building support for a third way in Europe—economic reform, combining economic dynamism with social justice; launching monetary union; getting enlargement off to a good start; taking forward common action on crime, drugs and the environment; and demonstrating that Europe could be a force for good in its relations with the outside world.
Those objectives have been met. As important as anything else, for Britain, after years of negative and destructive posturing that isolated Britain in Europe but did not advance our interests, we have re-established strong, positive relations with our European Union partners. Those relations, not before time, are transformed and for the better. That is good for Britain, for Europe and for Britain in Europe. Cardiff was the proof of that.
Mr. William Hague: I shall begin by agreeing with the Prime Minister on one thing: congratulating the city and the people of Cardiff on hosting the summit, fully justifying the decision taken on the matter by the previous Government and proposed by me as Secretary of State for Wales.
The Prime Minister's statement brings to an end a British presidency of disappointment, missed opportunities and poor diplomacy. Indeed, the presidency was recently censured by the European Parliament for reinforcing the image of a bureaucratic, rather than a people's Europe.
We welcome the progress on implementing the overdue single market directives in national laws, and the reaffirmation of the European Union's commitment to the World Trade Organisation. On Kosovo, we welcome the moves to ensure that the Serbian Government understand that political progress is the only long-term solution to the problem, and that that means that the province's autonomy must be reinstated and the civil rights of ethnic Albanians fully respected.
Progress in those areas cannot disguise what is absolutely clear from the European Council's conclusions: little or no progress has been made on the central objectives that the Prime Minister himself set for the British presidency of the EU. Does he remember saying, when he launched the British presidency at Waterloo station, that one of the top priorities was to get

371
negotiations on EU enlargement off to a "flying start"? Does he share my disappointment that, six months later, that looks further away than ever? Is he aware that the Finnish Prime Minister has said publicly that enlargement is
"looking more problematic than it did a year ago"?
Does he agree with today's editorial in the Financial Times, which sums up a widely held view at home and abroad:
"The most dispiriting aspect of the summit…was its failure to inject momentum into the reforms—financial, agricultural, and institutional—essential to proceed with enlargement to the east"?
Does the Prime Minister also remember saying at Waterloo station that he would tackle
"the cost and waste of the CAP",
which
"continue to grow year by year"?
Will he now concede that, six months later, we are no nearer fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy? The first meeting on the Agenda 2000 negotiations on CAP reform all but collapsed, and member states have so far failed to find a common position on which to begin negotiations. For all the right hon. Gentleman's fine words, at the end of the British presidency we are left with the cost and waste of the CAP continuing to "grow year by year".
As for the reform of structural funds and of the internal institutions of the EU—both essential prerequisites to enlargement—the Prime Minister has admitted today that those have been left to the Austrian presidency later this year.
On reducing Europe's crippling levels of unemployment—another of his original Waterloo objectives—does the right hon. Gentleman agree with a view widely held across Europe that the momentum created by the Luxembourg summit on jobs in November has been all but lost over the past six months? After all the talk, talk, talk about tackling unemployment, the British presidency has achieved nothing of substance. All that the Prime Minister has been able to promise in his statement is that unemployment is yet another issue to be given greater urgency at the European Council in Vienna under the Austrian presidency.
Then there was the environment, which the Prime Minister described as a theme of his presidency. Has he seen the comments by Friends of the Earth, which condemned the Cardiff summit as
"not much greener than a multi-storey car park"?
Let us hope that this afternoon's agreement has led to some improvement on that.
Another of the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman set himself six months ago was to smooth Europe's relations with the outside world. Does he share our disappointment that his presidency presided over the collapse of the EU's new transatlantic marketplace initiative, which would have taken us a long way towards creating a transatlantic free trade area, with all the benefits to businesses and jobs that that would have brought?
As for the failure to conclude a trade deal with South Africa—a deal that was supposed to be the highlight of the Cardiff Council—does the Prime Minister agree with Glenys Kinnock—[Laughter.]—who said:
"I don't know how the EU leaders can look Mandela in the face?"
372
The right hon. Gentleman may laugh at that. I do not want to embarrass Glenys Kinnock—he might tell her to get off the gravy train—but that is what she said.
In the light of the utter shambles surrounding the Brussels summit on a single currency, which the Prime Minister himself chaired, and for which I suspect his presidency will be remembered, does he regret saying at Waterloo station:
"dealing with whatever is on the agenda with dispatch and efficiency is the hallmark of an effective presidency"?
Does the right hon. Gentleman remember coming to the House after the Brussels summit and saying—not that anyone believed him at the time—that all the issues on the launch of a single currency had been "resolved satisfactorily"? Yet now we hear him on the "Today" programme saying that that summit was a "mess". It is a pity that he did not have the straightforwardness to say so here in the House of Commons at the time.
Six months ago, the Prime Minister set clear objectives for the British presidency, leading up to the Cardiff summit—objectives on enlargement, on CAP reform, on employment, on external relations and on the environment. He said that the presidency would be
"a test for Britain to show that we can and do offer strong leadership in Europe".
Six months later, is it not clear that the Government have failed that test? Is it not clear to everyone that the Prime Minister is no closer to achieving his objectives than he was at the beginning of the year?
Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a huge number of things have been left to the Austrian presidency to take forward? On CAP reform, on enlargement and on recovering momentum on unemployment, all that the Cardiff Council could say was that those subjects would be dealt with in Vienna. No wonder the British presidency has been an object of derision across the continent.
Has the Prime Minister seen Le Point magazine, which said:
"the British Presidency of the European Union is, at the moment, one of the most timid and poor in recent years"?
I am surprised that the Chancellor has not read what has been said about himself and the Foreign Secretary recently. Did the Prime Minister read the Austrian newspaper Der Standard two days ago, when it summed up the Prime Minister's performance as:
"A lion at the start. A lamb at the finish"?
Is the Prime Minister aware that, when I was in Cardiff on Sunday, one European leader told me that, during the British presidency, he had had his photograph taken more often than ever before, but had never been asked to reach a substantive decision? When the right hon. Gentleman looks back on the past six months, does he not see that he has left only one real and worthwhile legacy to his successor? Referring to the Brussels summit of last month, the Austrian Chancellor says that he has
"now learnt how not to organise a summit".
The Prime Minister always wanted to be a president. What a shame that, when he was one, he made a mess of it.
The Prime Minister: Some of us recall the previous Conservative Government. Some of us recall the beef war, and the shambles that occurred every time they went anywhere near Europe. I can tell the Leader of the

373
Opposition that the overwhelming feeling—not just in the rest of the continent but, I suspect, in this country—is, "Thank heavens that Conservative Government have gone."
If the Leader of the Opposition wants some quotations, I should point out that the German newspapers in the past few days have said:
"The Labour Prime Minister can pride himself on the fact that Britain has presided over two truly historic steps forward towards European unity during the British EU Presidency: the founding of monetary union and the launch of enlargement."
From Spain, we hear:
"The British Presidency can be judged … as competent and professional."
From Sweden:
"The most important change in the British Presidency this time round has been the will and ambition to actually achieve something positive and not to only delay and criticise."
From France:
"In Cardiff, the Europe of nations is scoring points over the supporters of federalism."
From Portugal:
"Germany and France are now more in agreement with Britain's economic positions: greater flexibility, greater competitiveness, less centralisation."
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about the Daily Express?
The Prime Minister: I would quote the Daily Express if knew what was in it. If it is on my side in this matter, that is very helpful. Whatever it is, I will pray that in aid as well. [Interruption.] The story probably is not true—at least I hope that it is not.
Quite the most bizarre experience in Cardiff was to be preceded there by the Leader of the Opposition running around, holding press conferences and saying what a disaster everything was about Cardiff and the British presidency. I just point out—seriously—that, if a Labour Opposition had ever behaved like that on the eve of a Tory presidency, those self-same newspapers that support the right hon. Gentleman at the moment would have accused us of being unpatriotic. The fact is that no one paid the slightest attention to him at Cardiff, or anywhere else—but that is more a reflection on the right hon. Gentleman than anything else.
The fact is that we achieved all that we said we would do as a UK presidency. We did launch monetary union, and we did get enlargement off to a flying start. It is bizarre for the right hon. Gentleman to say that nothing happened on enlargement—we launched the enlargement process. The accession partnership is now under way, and we have agreed a timetable for all the reforms to be put in place for Agenda 2000 by March 1999.
As for the common agricultural policy, as a result of the conclusions of the Agriculture Council—chaired by Britain—there is already agreement to reduce prices to consumers by more than £1 billion a year, rising to £2.5 billion later.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we achieved nothing on jobs and unemployment, but we have achieved an enormous amount. The agreements that have been made
374
not just at the beginning of our presidency but at Cardiff represent—as he will see, if he reads the conclusions—probably the most radical change in direction for Europe for many, many years, and very good, too. They represent action by Government which is far more effective than some of the more bureaucratic regulations pursued in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that we had failed on the environment— literally just hours after we scored a significant victory. We have implemented the Kyoto package and, under the brilliant chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, we have got Europe to agree on how to implement it. That is a considerable step forward.
The right hon. Gentleman had a collection of criticisms from a Finnish newspaper, Friends of the Earth and Glenys Kinnock. On the EU-South Africa matter, we would have liked an agreement in place by Cardiff. However, it was not as a result of the UK that agreement was not reached. We have now agreed that we shall conclude the negotiations by the early autumn, and only about 1 per cent. of the matters are still outstanding—a considerable step forward.
It was extraordinary for the right hon. Gentleman to say that Europe's relations with the outside world have been adversely affected. The EU-US summit got us a way around the extraterritorial sanctions of the US—something that people in the EU have been trying to do for years. We managed to achieve that. On Kosovo, the EU has not been the problem. If there are problems, they lie outside the EU. For the first time in ages, we managed to get a common position established quickly.
As for the Brussels summit, as I have always said, the negotiation was very difficult, but the result was right. If we had followed the advice that the right hon. Gentleman was urging on me—he would have blocked the Dutch candidate—we would have ended up with the financial markets opening on the Monday without any candidate, or any candidate anyone had heard of, to head the European central bank. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that would have been a complete disaster, both for Britain and for Europe.
If the right hon. Gentleman looks more closely at these things, he will see that, as I said, one of the most important aspects of the British presidency has been the establishment of good, solid relations between Britain and the rest of Europe. His problem—although I am not sure what position he really takes—is that many in his party are opposed to everything to do with Europe. They do not want the euro or anything in Europe to succeed—they are opposed to it and do not like it. That is why they and a few of their friends in the press have to go around saying that Britain can never get on with Europe—they do not want Britain ever to have a positive relationship with Europe. We have tried to establish good relations with the rest of Europe precisely to get rid of such attitudes. I suggest that, rather than attack us, the right hon. Gentleman should sort out his party, unite it and give it a sensible position to defend.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: In overall tone and initial intention, much in the British presidency over the past six months—culminating, of course, in Cardiff—can, we believe, be welcomed. It has been a pleasure to have a British Government who have taken a more constructive

375
attitude, which has won Britain new chances. The Government's agenda—reform of the CAP and the common fisheries policy, cost cutting, institutional reform and jobs—has been right. Measured against the initial hype, however, the outcome has been more disappointing than we should have liked. The Government can reasonably claim to have made a start, but not to have made much progress.
I want to touch on three areas. The first is institutional. Does the Prime Minister agree—there was a hint of it in his statement—that the time has come for a much clearer definition of those powers that will be held at the centre of the European institutions and of those that must ultimately remain with the nation state?
Secondly, on Kosovo, we welcome the steps, small as they are, that have been taken as a result of the Milosevic-Yeltsin meeting, but does the Prime Minister agree that, unless President Milosevic is prepared, whatever he may have signed up to in Moscow, to silence the use of heavy weapons against his civilian population—which is a clear infringement of civil liberties and destabilises the Balkans extremely dangerously—NATO may have to do that for him?
Finally, the Prime Minister quoted with approval the comments of a German newspaper that there had been an historic achievement on monetary union. Does he find anything odd in the fact that monetary union had only a bit part in the concluding paragraph of his statement? Monetary union was one of the most historic achievements of the presidency, but Britain presided over it rather than took part in it. The previous Government's failure—and, I am bound to say, the timidity of this Government—on monetary union means that Britain is outside Euro X exactly when the provisions for external trade, in which Britain has a greater stake than any other European nation, are being drawn up.
As I have said before, the Prime Minister will have to grasp this nettle, and he will have to do so sooner rather than later. If he followed, as we recommend, a declaratory policy saying, "We will join," set a target date, held a referendum on the principle before the next election and took the decision afterwards at a time of the Government's choosing, the pound would go down, interest rates would go down, investment would come to Britain rather than be at risk of going elsewhere, and Britain would be able to capitalise on the Government's fresh and new tone, so that our influence in Europe would increase incredibly, giving us a better deal for the future. Why can the right hon. Gentleman not see that?
The Prime Minister: First, the two biggest steps that Europe has taken in the past few years have been enlargement and monetary union, which were both launched under the UK presidency, so it is odd to say that we have not made progress—we have made considerable progress. I could have quoted from other foreign newspapers, as the coverage has been extremely positive. The Conservative party and some of its supporters in the newspapers always want to pretend that Britain cannot get on with Europe—they can never have a good news story about Europe; it is a sort of suppressed thing. Anyway, we did extremely well on that.
The most important thing about the institutional changes is that the new debate which we have launched from Cardiff will not be limited to subsidiarity, but will
376
deal with the areas in which Europe should co-operate and work more closely together, for example, crime, drugs, foreign policy, completion of the single market and economic co-operation, and those in which it can plainly do less from the centre and where we need decentralisation. That is a big debate and it is now under way. If it is properly fashioned and formulated, we can play a significant part in it.
As for what the right hon. Gentleman said about Kosovo, I agree entirely. NATO may still have to do that and, obviously, we have to build the maximum amount of support for it. However, what is heartening from the European Union perspective is that we got a common position together quickly, which has been promulgated. There is no difficulty within the European Union about taking action, including military action.
As for monetary union, of course, if we are not a part of it, we will have less influence over it—that is a statement of the obvious. It is the price that we pay if we are outside. However, we have to take the decision on monetary union on the ground of our national economic interest. That is what we have said all the way through. We have laid down the conditions clearly. I have said that I want the euro to succeed and that it is an important step for stability in Europe. We have to be sure that our national economic conditions are correct. At present, there is not sustainable convergence between ourselves and other economies and, if we joined without that, the result would be bad for Britain. We have set the right principles and I believe that we have set the right course. We are making preparations for our industry to be able to use the euro—to deal in it, in any event.
The different relations that we have in Europe are an important facet of this country's better standing in the world. Also, we have nailed one other myth, which is that Britain has to choose between a relationship with the United States and a relationship with the European Union. We are stronger in the US if we are stronger in Europe, and we are stronger in Europe if our relationship with the US is maintained.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I wonder if we could make a little progress now. The statement has taken nearly half an hour and only two right hon. Members have been able to ask questions.
Mr. Giles Radice: Does the Prime Minister agree that the constructive British presidency has helped to reconcile the United Kingdom to its continental partners and the British people to membership of the European Union? The presidency has also seen the beginning of enlargement with the countries of central and eastern Europe and of economic and monetary union, which is a historic event indeed. Is it not the case, however, that, if the United Kingdom is to keep up its European momentum, the sooner we join the European currency, the better?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that there is any point in repeating what I have said on that. We have put our position very clearly and that is the position to which we will hold, but I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments on our presidency.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Would the Prime Minister accept that many of us regard

377
the presidency as a pathetic flop? We are well aware that the previous Government, and indeed this one, have tried hard, but the problem is that the European Union is not the sort of structure that is amenable to reforms.
On agriculture, does it not worry the Prime Minister, first, that every day since he came to office, £635,000—a lot of money—has been spent on destroying food and, secondly, that the most that he could achieve next year would be lower prices in exchange for higher subsidies? Will this Government—and, indeed, all Governments—not accept that there will never be a way of reforming that policy unless they take the responsibility back to member states?
The Prime Minister: Let me first say where I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I agree that the common agricultural policy requires fundamental reform.
Sir Teddy Taylor: But we will never get it.
The Prime Minister: We will get it. People say that Europe never reforms itself, but it constantly reforms and changes—the very process of enlargement is a massive reform in Europe, as is the single market. It is not correct to say that Europe never reforms. In the end, the hon. Gentleman takes the position—it is a perfectly honourable position—that Britain would be better out of Europe altogether. That is his view and I totally understand it. My own judgment is that that would be disastrous for Britain, in terms of jobs, investment and our standing in the world. In the end, the hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party must be careful not to leave themselves hoping the whole time that Europe will fail, because only failure will justify their position. It would be better to recognise that any serious Government will keep Britain in the European Union, and that we should try to make it work.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I press the Prime Minister on military action in Kosovo? In the absence of ground troops, including heavy armour, what will air strikes achieve? What is the common position on the delicate question of the further fragmentation of Yugoslavia? Do we have an undertaking that no military action will be taken without the agreement of both the Russians and the United Nations?
The Prime Minister: Of course we are working hard to get United Nations support for the action that we seek to take. It would not be wise for me—vis-a-vis President Milosevic—to speculate on what efficacy there may be in various military options. I assure my hon. Friend that the options are under consideration in NATO and that we are in consultation with our allies.
As for the break-up of the federal republic, if my hon. Friend is referring to the idea of independence for Kosovo, I will say that we have made it clear that that is not our aim or our desire. We support the idea of autonomy within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but securing the independence of Kosovo is not our objective. Our objective is to ensure that the aggression and brutality happening in Kosovo should cease.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the Prime Minister explain why the European Union feels it necessary to have
378
a position on the merits or otherwise of Kosovan independence? With his apparent enthusiasm for the use of armed force around the world, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the almost unanimous feedback that the Select Committee on Defence received from the Royal Air Force in Germany and the British Army of the Rhine on our recent visit there, which was that overstretch on indefinite operations means that the armed forces frankly cannot sustain another indefinite operational commitment without severe damage to our military capability? Will he bear in mind the fact that we have been in Cyprus for 34 years, in the Gulf for eight and in Bosnia for six, before he takes steps to deploy armed service men on yet another operational commitment that has no end in sight?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Defence Committee are aware that we inherited a situation in which defence forces had been cut by 30 per cent. under the previous Government. What is important is that the strategic defence review is conducted not as a cost-cutting exercise, but as a genuine exercise in how to equip our forces for the modern world. When the review is published, the hon. Gentleman will find that it does precisely that. We hope to avoid the mistakes made by the Government that he supported.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it is necessary for the European Union to have a position. By implication, he suggests that we should not consider any action at all in Kosovo.
Mr. Blunt: No.
The Prime Minister: Forgive me; I misunderstood that part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
It is important that the European Union should take a position because the strategic interests of the EU are engaged. There is already serious disorder, and if it becomes even more serious and the region is destabilised, it will spread into Albania and Macedonia. What could happen in the whole Balkan region is perfectly clear, and we have learnt enough from our history to realise that we have to take action. We had similar debates at the time of Bosnia, when many Conservative Members said, "Why bother?" If we had not bothered, we would face a catastrophe in that part of the world. We face the same choices again, and we shall try to ensure that whatever military action we take is swift and effective.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: To save time, I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) about the role of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I also support the Prime Minister's attitude towards Britain's joining the European single currency very quickly.
Many people are anxious about Turkey joining the European Union, especially when we consider its record on human rights, its banning of political parties and the treatment of its Kurds. Considering its current actions, one wonders whether it merits consideration for membership. It seems to have refused to attend to even the most basic human rights policies.
The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. It is clear that the Copenhagen criteria

379
would apply to Turkey, as to any candidate country. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, human rights workers in Turkey want it to be part of the European Union. We must make it clear that we can discriminate neither in favour of nor against Turkey. It must be judged by precisely the same standards as everyone else. We also need to find a way of unblocking the financing strategy for the customs union, which is an obligation into which the European Union entered.
We made progress on Turkey at the Cardiff summit, and I hope that we can get a more positive response from Turkey as a result of the significant moves that we have made to help it.
Mr. Ian Taylor: If anything, I should like the Prime Minister to have made more progress on the two key elements for the presidency: economic and monetary union and enlargement of the European Union. It is in the national interest for both to be successful. Will the Prime Minister draw certain conclusions, because the Chancellor's recent statement did not give clear evidence on how the convergence between our economy and those on the continent can take place, but it cannot simply happen by accident? The fiscal relaxation will clearly cause monetary tightening.
We must ensure that enlargement takes place, but will the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the British people that it is not a cost-free exercise? Economically, it will have considerable repercussions for the wealthier nations of the existing European Union, and there will be some tough institutional challenges that he will have to explain.
The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the fiscal relaxation of which the hon. Gentleman speaks has occurred. In fact, the fiscal tightening that was built into the Budget will apply for the next three years. Most people think that it was a tough settlement, and the debt to gross domestic product ratio is due to come down from the 45 per cent. which we inherited to 38 per cent. As I said at Question Time, current surpluses will run in every single year of the Labour Government. There has had to be monetary tightening because of the inflation that has come back into the system. We produced a pretty big fiscal tightening when we came to office, in the face of opposition from the Conservative party.
Mr. Taylor: We must watch the figures carefully.
The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree.
There will be no easy ride, and that is why we have not yet been able to reach an agreement, but it is important that we have now agreed a timetable. There will be changes to the common agricultural policy and the structural and cohesion funds, but it is not all one way and there will be great benefits from enlargement, in terms of both trade and an enhanced role for the former communist states of eastern Europe. We must have the courage to go ahead with enlargement and complete it in the German presidency. We made good progress in our presidency, and it was never envisaged that we would complete the process.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In the context of improving democratic accountability in the
380
European Community, does my right hon. Friend welcome today's report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on scrutiny of European business, and in particular the extension of the powers of the Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise more effectively EC legislation and the proposals under pillars 2 and 3 of the Maastricht treaty?
The Prime Minister: Yes, we support that strongly. The better the scrutiny of European legislation and actions by national Parliaments, the easier it is to move Europe closer to people.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his experiences during the British presidency have helped him to understand that the European Union is not a democracy, but a collective? Does he recognise that a collective can operate only in its own interests and, by definition, cannot act in the separate interests of its component parts? Does that not explain why he has so abjectly failed to deliver any satisfaction on or resolution of the problems afflicting the British agriculture and fishing industries, which will most likely be bankrupt before the Community is able to change its ways?
The Prime Minister: Actually, we have achieved considerable progress on bovine spongiform encephalopathy, and we have had the ban lifted in Northern Ireland—the European Commission at least has agreed the date-based scheme, although there is still some way to go. At Amsterdam, we concluded a good agreement in respect of fishing, which, again, is progress.
I simply disagree with the hon. Gentleman, almost philosophically, that collectives can never operate in the interests of the individual parts. Britain is part of the European Union, not for reasons of Europe, but because it is in Britain's interest to be part of it. Of course that means that we pool sovereignty to an extent, as we do in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for defence reasons, and of course that means that we do not always get our way on everything—that is in the nature of collective arrangements—but, taken all in all, Britain's membership of the EU has been positive and good.
The hon. Gentleman should look back over 50 or more years of arrangements that we have had with the rest of Europe, and he should consider how the EU has developed—it has developed in a way that is positive for this country and for the whole of Europe. I am afraid that we just disagree.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Did discussions at Cardiff include consideration of the significant contribution that EU structural funds have made to regional competitiveness in the United Kingdom through, for example, support for businesses, training, regeneration and initiatives such as the Merseyside special investment fund? Has he considered how regions of this country might have more authority in their dealings with Europe and in the administration of structural funding, to ensure that full benefit goes to them and that they achieve maximum competitiveness?
The Prime Minister: We certainly discussed the importance of structural funds, which are obviously very important in areas such as Merseyside. We believe that

381
the new development agencies will help to co-ordinate European money in respect of the various regions of the country. There will have to be changes in structural funds, but areas of the United Kingdom, such as Merseyside, will still have a good claim.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: May I echo the Prime Minister's congratulations to the people of Cardiff on a successful Council and the excellent arrangements? The Council certainly raised the profile of Cardiff as our capital city and of Wales as a nation.
As the Prime Minister knows, the presidency conclusions refer to the reform of structural funds, and progress was noted. Does he realise that parts of Wales, especially west Wales and the valleys, will qualify for objective 1 status for the first time when the reforms are taking place? Will he give a commitment that the Government will support that application?
The Prime Minister: We will certainly do our best for those areas of Wales. I cannot give a guarantee on what the outcome will be, but we shall make the case strongly. In relation to Cardiff, I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend tell us a little more about the problem of Turkey? He has referred to its human rights record: is it being made clear that there is no way in which it could be accepted into the European Union for as long as it illegally occupies northern Cyprus? Is it being made clear to Cyprus that its application for membership of the EU will not in any way be vetoed by Turkey? Can we encourage Cyprus in that it will not be too long, even if the occupation continues, before it is properly a member of the EU?
The Prime Minister: It is, of course, not a precondition for accession by Cyprus that there is a settlement of the division there. It is, however, only right and honest to point out to people that it will be far easier for the accession negotiations to proceed smoothly if there is a settlement, and I believe that better relations with Turkey are an important part of achieving that.
We have made it clear that there should be no discrimination in favour of Turkey, which would have to abide by the same rules as every other country, but it is important to make it clear to Turkey that we are not discriminating against her either. We should in particular make it clear that the European Commission has now said that it is minded to introduce a strategy to unblock financing. That would be a big step forward, and I hope that there is a good response from Turkey.
Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Prime Minister recall that, during the European summit, he held a press conference at which he expressed the belief that the establishment of a single European currency would help to protect Europe from an Asian-style economic and financial crisis? I believe that that is the exact opposite of the truth.
Will the Prime Minister reflect on the fact that, if we leave out Japan, which has a different set of problems from the rest of Asia, the prime cause of the Asian
382
financial and economic crisis was the fact that the countries involved had been on quasi-fixed exchange rates, operating theoretically through a basket of currencies, but actually dominated by a single currency—in their case, the United States dollar? I believe that those fixed exchange rates brought about the crisis, following tremendous tensions that eventually proved to be insupportable and unsustainable. I fear that similar considerations will in due course hit the euro, and will cause havoc in the economies of continental Europe.
The Prime Minister: I certainly recognise the hon. Gentleman's expertise in these matters, but I think that the Asian crisis was caused by, as much as anything else, the lack of transparency and accountability in those countries' financial systems. There was also an absence of political reform in certain systems, which meant that people were not confident that the economic information and data that they were receiving were correct.
As for monetary union, I said that it would be a force for stability provided two things happened. First, a strong financial monetary policy must be pursued by the European Union as a whole—by the central bank. Secondly, monetary union must be combined with a programme of economic reform—structural reform in Europe. I think that, if Europe does both those things—if it runs a tight and disciplined micro-economic policy, and pursues measures to encourage micro-economic dynamism—the EU and monetary union will succeed; but, obviously, debates on this matter will continue.
several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I can now call only Members who will ask brief questions, because I am not prepared to keep the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box after 4.30 pm. There are eight minutes to go.
Mr. Richard Burden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and the progress that has been made.
May I refer my right hon. Friend to what he said about the middle east peace process? Does he agree that it is a matter of great concern that tension is increasing in the region, and that the situation is not helped by the recent intransigent attitude of the Israeli Government? There have been provocative actions—for instance, the military parades that took place on the 30th anniversary of the occupation of east Jerusalem.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the good work done by our consulate in that part of the world in monitoring the human rights position, while also saying that there is a role for the European Union? If Israel wishes to proceed with new and deeper association agreements with the EU, there is a human rights dimension, which the EU would expect Israel to abide by like any other country.
The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to congratulate the consulate on its work. As for the peace process, I believe that the United States proposals are the right basis for a settlement, and I hope they will succeed.
The EU has a role to play, particularly in regard to interim economic issues. If it can play a helpful role in any other context, it should do so, on the basis of the US proposals.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I shall be as brief as possible. Was the Prime Minister made aware in

383
cardiff of the result of the Gallup poll published yesterday, showing that 65 per cent. of the British people oppose entry into EMU, only 33 per cent. support it and 2 per cent. are undecided? Does that not give him pause for thought when he pats himself on the back and congratulates himself on being in time with the process of European unification? He is certainly not in tune with the British people on this issue.
The Prime Minister: I believe that our position on monetary union is right. The hon. Gentleman takes the view—as do a large number of Conservatives—that it should be ruled out in any circumstances. That may be public opinion, but we have to decide what we believe is the right position and then argue for it. He and most of his party are opposed to monetary union on any terms. I think that the British people will take a more pragmatic view and will decide what is in their national economic interest. That is the position that we have adopted. Whether it is supported or not, it is, in my view, the right position.
Mr. David Kidney: The Prime Minister has reminded us that one of the priorities of the United Kingdom presidency was to encourage the European Union to create a more highly skilled work force and a more flexible labour market. Does he agree with me that those reforms are essential for the successful launch of a single currency, and that it is in Britain's interest that the currency is successful, whether we are in it or not? Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will continue to push for those reforms long after we give up the presidency of the European Union, so as to achieve a strong euro in the European Union and in the world?
The Prime Minister: I agree with that entirely. With the measures that have been agreed at Luxembourg and at Cardiff to promote a skilled, adaptable and flexible work force, we are investing in our people, but not burdening business with too much regulation. That is undoubtedly the right way forward. My hon. Friend is right to say that the euro matters to us whether we are inside it or not. Its success is in our national interest.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The people's Europe was the theme of the British presidency at the beginning of the six months. Was that discussed at Cardiff? Does the Prime Minister realise that the people's Parliament in Europe is the European Parliament? Is this not a most extraordinary week in which to launch an attack on that institution, given that he is due to visit it tomorrow and to present the conclusions of the Cardiff Council?
The Prime Minister: I can never work out where the Tory party is coming from nowadays. We discussed the people's Europe: that was the purpose of the political discussion that we had on the first day. I yield to no one in my affection for the European Parliament. Indeed, I shall be addressing it tomorrow, so it is just as well that that is the case.
As many Heads of Government said, it is important that any abuses are rooted out. I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree with that. The President of the European Parliament made a clear statement on behalf of Members
384
of the European Parliament, saying that he fully accepted and agreed with that approach. That was a responsible attitude to take.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: It is inevitable that one of the consequences of enlargement will be a reduction in the availability of structural funding, because more countries will be sharing the pool of resources. Is it not about time that national Governments joined together to work out a new regime to substitute domestic public expenditure for some of the programmes that at the moment are covered by European structural funding, or many parts of the United Kingdom and other European Union countries will suddenly lose money? Surely we should work out a new framework to enable national Governments to allocate these resources.
The Prime Minister: It is too early to say what the outcome of the negotiations will be. It is difficult to say whether national programmes will have to replace any European programmes that go as a result of the changes. We must ensure that, if any changes are made, the various regions of Britain are properly looked after, but we have a long way to go before the negotiations are over.
Mr. Graham Brady: Much of British manufacturing industry is already in recession, particularly in the north of England, where the Prime Minister and I represent constituencies. Does he accept that hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the wisdom of the Government's current approach of dividing fiscal and monetary policy? Does he believe that it is viable to conduct a European monetary policy without having a co-ordinated European fiscal policy?
The Prime Minister: The European Union has made it clear that it does not think that the EU should try to set tax rates for all its members. The hon. Gentleman asked about manufacturing. Of course, because of the strength of the pound, manufacturing faces problems in our areas and elsewhere, although the latest figures show a small rise in manufacturing output and employment. The worst thing that could happen to manufacturing is boom and bust, and I make no apology for repeating that. The worst setting for British industry would be a return to the days of spurts of growth followed by deep recessions. Unfortunately, that is what happened under the previous Government, and we must try to end that once and for all.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Does the Prime Minister remember that, at the beginning of his presidency, one of his priorities was the agreement of the negotiating mandate for the European Union for the replacement of Lomé and, with it, the banana protocol? Why has he not been able to find an agreement on that matter?
The Prime Minister: Fortunately, I am well briefed by the Foreign Secretary and am able to tell the hon. Gentleman that on Monday the General Affairs Council will discuss both those matters. We have made progress, but whether we will be able to reach completion will have to wait until Monday's outcome. No doubt, after that,

385
my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary can write to the hon. Gentleman telling him precisely what has been agreed.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan rose—
Madam Speaker: To show what a softy I am, I call Mr. Alasdair Morgan.
Mr. Morgan: The presidency conclusion document calls on Indonesia to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms in East Timor. Can the Prime Minister say unambiguously whether those freedoms extend to the right to self-determination for East Timor?
The Prime Minister: That is not part of the presidency conclusions. However, we made it clear that we wish the process of negotiation between the Indonesian authorities and people in East Timor to carry on. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), recently visited Indonesia and met some of the East Timorese dissidents who have been detained. The European presidency conclusions contained a strong statement urging the release of political detainees in East Timor and elsewhere. It also urged on the Indonesian Government fundamental economic and political reform. I think that that is as far as it was right for us to go.

Points of Order
4.33 pm
Mr. Joe Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am glad that you have allowed me to raise this matter. Tomorrow morning, the Business Committee will sit to timetable part of the Crime and Disorder Bill on the age of consent. That is unique in that a Back Bencher's new clause is being given Government time. I understand that about three hours will be allocated.
Some amendments have been tabled about the age of consent, because many of us feel that a straight yes or no is not entirely appropriate. I need not go into details now, but some people think that, in view of the Utting report on child abuse, there is a case for saying that the age should be levelled at 18 just for children in care. At the end of the three hours, if that is the time that the Business Committee allocates, there will be time for only one vote and amendments, such as the ones that I have mentioned, cannot be voted on. That makes it easy for hon. Members who support one side or the other to keep talking to prevent a vote at the end of the allocated time.
On a Government Bill, timetabling can be agreed between the two sides as a sort of mutual guillotine, and that has been acceptable only since the general election: it was one of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, of which I was a member. However, if one Back Bencher's new clause is timetabled, surely it discriminates in favour of that Back Bencher if another Back Bencher's amendment or new clause cannot be voted on. Before the Business Committee sits and the motion goes on the Order Paper to be set in tablets of stone, I suggest that the Business Committee should make sure in some way that there is enough time for other amendments and new clauses to be called, even if that has to be stated on the Order Paper. In other words, it would be unfair to discriminate in favour of one Back Bencher and against another. As that is a precedent, I ask you to rule on it.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The problem is that, when the guillotine falls, amendments that have been selected by you cannot be voted on, which differs from what happened the past. Outstanding amendments that have been selected may not be debated, but they ought to be voted on. We had that situation last week, when, even though a large number of Members wanted to vote on it, the subject of tuition fees could not be voted on, because there had been no debate on it. Although the amendment had been selected by you, the matter could not be voted on. The situation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is relevant to next week's debate.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There are amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait). I bow to the expertise in House matters of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), but I emphasise that you are being invited to rule on a most important issue. It is important that Members should have the chance to have more than a yes or no vote on the issue.
Madam Speaker: I have the impression that I am being lobbied by Back Benchers. The Business

387
Committee meets tomorrow. I listened with great interest and seriousness to what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said, but I cannot give a ruling, because the matter is primarily one for the Business Committee. However, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said and see whether I can be of any help. I understand his point and recognise its importance.

Disposal and Re-use of White Goods
4.36 pm
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to mitigate the environmental problems of disposal of white goods by means of a point-of-sale deposit system to encourage re-use or responsible disposal; and for connected purposes.
The House might be curious about what white goods are. "White goods" is a generic term for large electrical appliances which covers refrigerators, freezers, cookers, washing machines, driers and dishwashers. Such items are a great boon to households when they work, but a great curse when they do not and subsequently prove not to be repairable. Although most machines end up being recycled to the extent that they eventually arrive at the scrap metal dealers, they often get there by complicated routes and create substantial environmental damage in the process.
We know that more than 1 million refrigerators, almost 2 million washing machines and 500,000 dishwashers are purchased each year. Estimates vary about the quantity of such machines that are discarded each year, but about 200,000 to 300,000 tonnes of scrap engines, casing and coolants is a fair estimate. Many machines are disposed of responsibly, with about 50 per cent. of all purchases of new machines offering an opportunity to exchange the old one with the retailer. From direct investigation, I know that such returns are dealt with responsibly, but by no means everyone exchanges the old machine and, in any case, many people either buy their machines from dealers who do not offer that service, or buy second-hand.
Many end-of-life machines are at large and they are easy to spot: they are in people's garages, on wasteland or on roadside verges. They pose a danger to children who play in them and almost always require collection at a later date, often by the local authority at public expense. The result in respect of fridges and freezers is that most of the coolant chlorofluorocarbons they contain will disappear into the atmosphere. A parliamentary written reply which I received estimated that 300 tonnes or two thirds of the total CFCs in redundant machines enter the atmosphere each year, which contributes to the problem of ozone depletion. The good news is that CFCs are being replaced in newer fridges by hydrofluorocarbons, which do not deplete the ozone layer. The bad news is that HFCs are something like 12 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Another recent parliamentary answer said that HFCs will account for 1 per cent. of the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, but some people suggest the figure is substantially higher. If we are to make progress on our emission targets, we need to take such figures very seriously.
Even if we were able to persuade people not to leave their white goods on verges but to dispose of them responsibly, we as a nation would still be missing an opportunity to save resources by reusing parts of redundant white goods or repairing those goods for further use. In Liverpool, there is an excellent organisation called CREATE which does just that. It takes in redundant machines—in many cases from companies such as Dixons which operate a take-back policy—and either repairs them or cannibalises them for parts. Only then is the residue scrapped after the safe drainage of CFCs or HFCs.

389
Although CREATE estimates that about 25 per cent. of machines are potentially reusable when people put them out for council collection, by the time anyone can get to them at the council tip, only 3 per cent. are still recoverable. In other words, a string of CREATEs around the country could make an enormous difference to the recovery of machines which people want to dispose of, but which still work or are repairable. CREATE is a superb organisation. Another organisation—RESPOND in London—is now following in its wake, but we must be realistic and acknowledge that such organisations are only scratching the surface.
All this is happening against the background of the development of a proposed European directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment—known in Euro-speak by its acronym WEEE. This directive, which is certainly on its way, will require each nation to establish effective schemes to deal with the problem—for example, perhaps by involving producers in schemes to dispose of their machines when they are finished with.
The likely effect is that producers will increase the price of machines to take the directive into account, but it is unclear exactly how it will work. Will purchasers have to bring a used machine to the shop before they can buy a new one? If a Zanussi fridge is found in a lay-by, will Zanussi or its agents be required to come and get it? Above all, the directive does not seem to contain any mechanism to persuade the public to take part in responsible disposal and reuse.
The Bill offers a way out by giving the product a separate value once its use for its original purpose is over. In that way, the value always goes with the machine, whoever owns it, and the incentive to redeem that value is constant. The Bill proposes that retailers of white goods should be required to lay a deposit on new appliances at the point of sale. This would be at a level to be agreed, but it would typically amount to about 10 per cent. of the purchase price—let us say about £20 to £30.
The purchaser would be issued with a deposit note which would effectively act as a logbook for the life of the appliance. Should the machine be sold on by the original purchaser in full working order, the logbook would of course go with it. At the end of the machine's life, it could be encashed on presentation when the machine is collected for scrap by a local authority or given for parts recovery to a voluntary organisation or business.
The value of the deposit would be substantial enough to encourage encashment by the consumer and would clearly increase as an incentive as the capital value of the product decreased. The retailer of the white goods would have the responsibility of issuing the logbook and collecting the deposits, which could be passed on with the minimum of bureaucracy to a central agency, perhaps set up on a similar basis to Entrust, the agency that administers the distribution of landfill levy grants. Existing organisations such as Waste Watch could, I believe, perform this function relatively easily.
390
The central agency would be responsible for reimbursing the agencies paying out on redeemed logbooks and for assisting the establishment of bodies able to receive end-of-life white goods for refurbishment, cannibalisation or disposal. The financing of the system should be feasible at zero cost to the Exchequer, as the time lag between receipt of deposits and their eventual redemption allows income to be obtained from investment. Furthermore, not every logbook for every machine will finally be redeemed.
The system should therefore allow for the financing of a handling charge to retailers, the administration of the agency responsible for operating the scheme, and for considerable underwriting of organisations such as CREATE which could establish end-of-use bodies in the way I described.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate the very real benefits that the scheme would produce, which I can summarise. First, the scheme would introduce an incentive to counter dumping or storage. Whenever possible, goods or parts of goods that can be recycled would be recycled. Secondly, the scheme would establish an incentive to encourage disposal of white goods through agencies that will undertake to reuse them or to dispose of them in an environmentally friendly manner. Thirdly, the scheme would establish—through purchase of the products themselves—a source of support for organisations undertaking recycling of white goods. Fourthly, the negative environmental impact of the release of CFCs or HFCs from refrigerants would be greatly reduced. Lastly, the scheme would ensure that a substantial element of bulk in the waste stream is diverted, rather than subsequently recovered after disposal.
Some people have said that implementing the proposals in my Bill could be inflationary. However, we have to remember that the EU directive will come, and that manufacturers inevitably will put up their prices to cope with it. We should bear in mind also the fact that there is a better way of dealing with the matter—and I think that my Bill offers it.
I therefore hope that the House will agree to give my Bill a Second Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Alan Whitehead, Mr. Martin Linton, Ms Margaret Moran, Miss Melanie Johnson, Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Mr. Andrew Reed, Mr. Martin Salter, Mr. Tom Brake, Mrs. Louise Ellman, Mr. Mark Oaten and Mr. Stephen Hesford.

Disposal and Re-use of White Goods
  DISPOSAL AND RE-USE OF WHITE GOODS
  Dr. Alan Whitehead accordingly presented a Bill to mitigate the environmental problems of disposal of white goods by means of a point-of-sale deposit system to encourage re-use or responsible disposal; 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 205].
Orders of the Day

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 3 June].
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

  Human Rights Bill [Lords]
    Clause 5

      RIGHT OF CROWN TO INTERVENE
      4.46 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move amendment No. 120, in page 3, leave out lines 33 and 34 and insert—

      '(a) a Minister of the Crown (or a person nominated by him);

      (b) a member of the Scottish Executive.'.

      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 19, in page 3, line 33, leave out from 'Crown' to end of line 34.
      No. 20, in page 3, line 34, at end insert
      'or
      (c) any other public authority which can show that it would be affected by such a declaration of incompatibility.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 121 to 124.
      Mr. O'Brien: In moving Government amendment 120, it may be convenient if I also speak to the amendments grouped with it, starting with Opposition amendments Nos. 19 and 20. However, it may be helpful if I first explained the intention behind clause 5.
      The purpose of clause 5 is to give the Crown the right to intervene in proceedings in which the court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility. The need for the Crown to be given that right flows from the importance of such a declaration. It is right that the Government—who answer for the United Kingdom in proceedings at Strasbourg and will have responsibility for considering whether to propose to Parliament the amendment of legislation in respect of which the declaration is made—should have the opportunity to make any relevant arguments to the court before it decides whether to make a declaration. The need for the Government to be able to make such arguments is the reason why clause 5(1) entitles the Crown to be given notice of such a case, and why paragraph (a) of clause 5(2) entitles a Minister to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
      Paragraph (b) of clause 5(2), which amendment No. 19 seeks to remove, currently permits
      "a person nominated by a Minister of the Crown"
      to be joined to the proceedings. There is good reason for including that provision, and therefore for opposing the amendment.
      It will sometimes be more appropriate for a person nominated by a Minister, rather than the Minister himself, to be so joined—for example, when there is a public
      392
      interest in relation to a private Act. It may be more appropriate also in cases relating to—to name but a few—Measures of the Church Assembly or Measures of the General Synod; regulators of public utilities; or, perhaps, the Director General of Fair Trading. In such cases, the appropriate person to intervene—the person who is best able to make arguments on the legislation in question—may well not be the relevant Minister.
      However, I see several difficulties with the alternative proposed in amendment No. 20. First, it focuses not on those who are primarily responsible for and familiar with the legislation, but on those whose actions are governed by it. Secondly, it is ambiguous. What does it mean when it refers to a public authority being "affected by" such a declaration?
      As we explained in Committee, a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the relevant legislative provision. It is only if Government and Parliament decide to amend the legislation that anyone would be affected. So interested parties should take up their cases with them rather than with the courts.
      Alternatively, if "affected" were construed in another way—for example, to cover anyone affected by the provision of legislation rather than the prospect of a declaration —innumerable organisations might satisfy the requirement. Clearly, that would create an impossible situation. Arguments over who was eligible to be joined would be interminable, and the proceedings might grind to a halt with so many parties involved. That might not be bad for the Opposition, but it would be bad law and bad for the courts. Why do the Opposition think that the entitlement to be joined should be confined to public authorities? Legislation can affect non-public bodies, and courts can make declarations of incompatibility in cases that do not involve a public authority.
      The amendment may be intended to elicit information, and in due course the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) may describe it as such,. However, its effect would be to undermine the Bill. In the light of my comments, I hope that, in due course and after full consideration, the Opposition will not press amendments Nos. 19 and 20.
      I turn now to Government amendment No. 120. Clause 5 provides that, where the court is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by him is entitled to be joined as a party to the proceedings. It is envisaged that that will remain the position in all cases, but in Scottish cases which relate to devolved matters, Scottish Ministers should also be entitled to be joined as a party.
      The purpose of amendment No. 120 is therefore to enable a member of the Scottish Executive to be joined as a party to proceedings in addition to a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by him where the court is considering making a declaration. The detailed arrangements for notice to be given will be set out in the rules of court that are provided for in clause 5.
      Government Amendments Nos. 121 to 124 are technical amendments to clause 5. Clause 5(1) entitles the Crown to be notified when a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility. Clause 5(2) currently provides that a Minister of the Crown or a person nominated by him is entitled to be joined as a party to proceedings
      "on an application made to the court".

      393
      As the Crown is entitled to be joined as a party, there is no need for an application to be made. Amendment No. 121 accordingly amends clause 5(2) so that the requirement is simply for the Crown "giving notice" to the court. Amendments Nos. 122 and 123 make consequential changes to the wording of clause 5(3). Amendment No. 124 likewise makes consequential changes to clause 5(4).
      Mr. James Clappison: The Minister was quite correct to anticipate the exploratory nature of amendments Nos. 19 and 20. It was useful to have had the opportunity to listen to his remarks before making my case for the amendments. His speech was helpful, and clarified some of the issues.
      The Minister was right to say that clause 5 gives the Crown the right to intervene in proceedings when a court is considering whether or not to make a declaration of incompatibility. We agree. It is right that the Crown should be able to be party to the proceedings in such cases, not least because, as the Minister said, the Crown would ultimately be responsible if the case went to Strasbourg.
      We agree that, when a court is considering making a declaration of incompatibility, it is right that the Crown should be a party to those proceedings so that its views may be heard before the court makes that determination. Our concerns arise out of our agreement on that point—I do not want to put it too strongly, as these are exploratory amendments —and are reflected in amendment No. 19. We wish to know a little more about the persons who may be nominated by the Crown to represent the Crown.
      I listened carefully to the Minister's opening statement. It is true that he gave some examples of cases in which persons would be nominated by the Crown in these proceedings. However, I have two questions arising out of his comments. First, will the Minister spell out clearly what criteria will be used to decide whether a Minister should be a party to the proceedings or a person should be nominated by the Crown? He provided some examples, but it was not entirely evident on what principle that decision would be based.
      My second point also flows from our agreement on the fundamental right of the Crown to be joined to the proceedings. When a person is nominated by the Minister in the circumstances envisaged by the clause, upon whose behalf will that person act? Will such people take their instructions from the Crown? Will they reflect the Crown's concerns in the submissions that they make? What other interests may such people represent? What will happen in the event of a conflict of interest? Could a Crown nominee also represent another party to the proceedings?
      We seek reassurance that the person nominated by the Crown will act both on the instructions of the Crown and clearly on its behalf. There must be no other conflict of interest; the Crown's views must be heard when the court decides whether to make a declaration of incompatibility. We seek to explore those concerns in amendment No. 19.
      The Minister has not fully satisfied our concerns outlined in amendment No. 20. We want to explore whether other public authorities can be part of the same proceedings. At this stage, I do not want to anticipate the
      394
      debate that we shall have on clause 6 regarding the definition of public authorities. Suffice it to say, for the purposes of the discussion on this clause, that that definition could range widely.
      Many bodies may be deemed public authorities for the purposes of the Bill. We envisage that, if a breach of a convention right is alleged against a public authority, it might affect many other public authorities of the same nature. An obvious example that springs to mind is the Churches. A Church may be a party to the proceedings, and the principle applying to it may affect many other Churches, faith communities and so on. We are concerned to explore whether their voices should also be heard as parties to the proceedings.
      I take the Minister's point about seeking to avoid complexity, and joining many plaintiffs to the proceedings. However, he will know that it is commonplace in civil proceedings for one plaintiff to represent a number of others in cases where there is a common interest. For example, in personal injury cases, one victim may represent many other victims whose cases have broadly the same factual background.
      We want to explore whether the same procedure could be employed here, so that we could hear the voices of all public authorities that may be affected by a particular decision. At the end of the day, such decisions could be very significant for the public authorities concerned. A great deal could be at stake, and we are concerned to explore whether their voices may be heard also. On that basis, I commend our amendments. I should like the Minister to explain those issues before I respond.
      5 pm
      Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a little in support of amendments Nos. 19 and 20. I was interested in what the Minister said, but it may be sensible to ask several more questions, which he has not yet adequately answered.
      I understand that the prime purpose of amendment No. 19 is to find out a little more about the circumstances in which the Government anticipate that Ministers will nominate other persons to be joined as a party to proceedings. The Minister gave some examples. One can understand that some of the regulators—the Director General of Fair Trading and the like—may have such an important status. The debate raises the question of the extent to which the Government anticipate that public authorities comprise bodies beyond a Minister's ambit. On that rests quite an important question.
      If the Government believe that bodies outside a Minister's ambit are very often likely to require to be joined to proceedings, and therefore will require nomination by Ministers, would it not be better—linking to amendment No. 20—to clearly define a public authority for these purposes? I understand that we should not anticipate the debate on clause 6, and that, to an extent, that point takes us on to clause 6, but if one were to use the term "public authority" in clause 6 more definitively, the point would relate to clause 5. Rather than leaving the point vague, there should be a clearer definition.
      Very often these days, Ministers proceed by way of enabling legislation. In this context, the provision is not even enabling. It simply gives Ministers discretion to nominate persons —apparently without any definition of scope—to be joined to proceedings. As far as I can see,

      395
      such persons are not even defined as those who have the character of a public authority. It would be useful if the Minister explained how widely the Government expect the power to be used.
      The debate also raises the question of how many times Ministers expect that it will be necessary to seek to join proceedings, and in what circumstances. How regularly would Ministers need to be part of those proceedings? If other bodies were to be joined to such proceedings only very infrequently, it would be perfectly possible for Ministers to act on behalf of public authorities—if the definition of them is narrowly drawn. There is no doubt that, in order to protect the powers of the Director General of Fair Trading, which derive from legislation and which would, as the Minister said, have to be amended by order, the President of the Board of Trade or Ministers would be perfectly competent in acting on behalf of the director general.
      The Minister has not adequately explained under what circumstances it would be necessary for persons other than the Minister to be entitled to act on his behalf. I understand that it would be much more convenient for Ministers to rely on public authorities to do the job if such instances occurred frequently. However, if we are considering relatively few instances, Ministers could perfectly possibly act on behalf of public authorities, especially if such authorities were relatively narrowly constrained.
      A second aspect of what the Minister said seemed to be quite wrong. If I understood it correctly, the heart of his argument was that anybody who may have an interest and be affected by proceedings before a court seeking a declaration of incompatibility would have recourse to the process by which any declaration of incompatibility is followed up by the introduction of an order subject to affirmative resolution. The Minister rightly said that a declaration of incompatibility does not in itself lead to prevention of activity under the legislation to which it applies.
      I may be misunderstanding that point, but it seems possible for a court to act directly on secondary legislation; to declare where it is not compatible with the European convention by virtue of primary legislation. As the Bill states, the court can quash or intervene in respect of secondary legislation in order to make it compatible with the European convention without a subsequent statutory instrument or order coming before the House.
      My understanding is that, if that is the case, there are many instances in which the detail of the application of legislation under statutory instruments could potentially be declared incompatible by a court, and, in effect, amended in its working practices to bring the secondary legislation into line with the terms of the European convention directly, without subsequent recourse to Parliament through further statutory instruments.
      I acknowledge that, in that context, we would be dealing not with the high policy of legislation but with its detail, but it is precisely in relation to such detail that bodies other than Ministers—perhaps a wider range of public authorities that operate under the detail of legislation, especially under the detail of secondary legislation made in pursuance of the intentions of Ministers—may often have detailed reasons to want to intervene and be joined as a party to proceedings, so as to explain how the declaration of incompatibility would affect them.
      396
      We have not arrived at that debate yet, but, if a wider definition could be made of the public authorities affected by a substantial amount of the secondary legislation that could be directly subject to the decision of a court on a declaration of incompatibility, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will have raised an important issue with our amendments—an issue to which the Minister has not yet given us an adequate response.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for telling us that the intention behind his amendments is, by and large, to explore the issues raised by clause 5, and that he broadly agrees with the proposition that the Crown should be able to be a party to the proceedings in relation to a declaration of incompatibility.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me to go beyond the examples I cited, and to give a few more. During his submission and that of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), reference was made, for example, to the Church. I know that some hon. Members have raised the idea that, at some stage, an issue might be raised in relation to the General Synod, or to the Church Assembly, which was its predecessor, and that it might then be possible for a Minister to decide that it was not for the Government but for another body to provide the information.
      In making a nomination, the Government would have to consider the criteria as to what was the public interest in the Government's deciding to nominate a particular organisation to be present during the proceedings. Is there an interest in the court's being better informed, in that that organisation could perhaps put forward information to the court that may allow it to make a better decision?
      Mr. Clappison rose—
      Mr. O'Brien: Let me explore the argument a little further; then 1 will give way to the hon. Gentleman on that point.
      The issue for the Minister is fairly narrow: what is the public interest in having a person nominated by the Minister as a party to the proceedings giving information to the court? That person is there not so much to challenge one side of the argument or the other, as to ensure that the court makes the right decision, with all the necessary information and arguments before it.
      The person nominated will speak, in a sense, in his or her own capacity. Such people will be joined by the Minister who regards it as being in the public interest, and in the interests of a proper examination of the issues, that that person be joined. The Minister will decide who the person should be. The criterion is simply who the best person is to raise the arguments about whether legislation is compatible. A nominated person will be joined in his own capacity and would be acting on his own behalf—not on behalf of the Government. If the measures of the Synod were being considered, it is expected that the Synod itself would be nominated by the Minister if it were decided that that was in the public interest. The judgment would be made on those criteria.
      Mr. Clappison: I was going to ask the Minister about that precise issue. If a case involved the Churches,

      397
      would one of the existing parties to the proceedings—such as a Church—be nominated and, if not, what other organisation would be nominated? What happens if there is a conflict of interest between that of the party that the Minister has nominated to represent the Crown, and the Crown's own view?
      Mr. O'Brien: It is anticipated that, in considering whether to nominate a particular individual or organisation, the Minister will take into account whether it is in the interests of the Government, Parliament and the nation that the issues should be aired before the court. The issue is not to join the party as a partisan in the case. We want to make sure that all the arguments which need to be put are put before the court, and information which may be relevant should be made available to the court.
      It is not expected that the Government or the Minister would take such action on a large number of occasions. Having the power there—particularly in the sort of cases I have mentioned, and in cases such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who referred to the Director General of Fair Trading—is important. It is quite proper for such people to be nominated by the Minister.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: The amendments from the Government and the Opposition are incompatible. The Government are trying to widen the ability to intervene, or to nominate somebody to intervene, and to remove the discretion of the court to prevent such a nomination from being acceded to. Previously, it had to be by application, and it will now be by notice. We are seeking to widen the criteria of people who might be able to intervene if they feel that their rights are affected.
      What concerns me is that there may well be occasions when individuals or groups feel that a judgment will impinge on them very much. They might have an entitlement—certainly under the ordinary rules of court—to intervene and to be allowed to be joined. How will they be affected by this position?
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also raised those points, and was concerned that persons who might be affected by a declaration of incompatibility and any subsequent change would be able to be a party to the proceedings. Our view is that it should be a matter for the Government, the Minister and those nominated by him to inform the court's arguments and decisions. It should not be the right of persons who would not otherwise be able to be joined to the proceedings—merely because a declaration of incompatibility has been considered—to make themselves a party. If they have another locus to join in the proceedings, they can pursue that in the normal manner. We do not propose to create new mechanisms for parties to be joined.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire explored that matter further, and asked about primary legislation and secondary legislation. In terms of primary legislation, he is right to say that we envisage that an individual or organisation would approach the Government, as it is a decision for the Government whether to act on the
      398
      declaration of incompatibility. In a sense, nobody is affected until the Government have made that legislative change.
      Quite rightly, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked about secondary legislation. Our view is that, if we were to create the circumstances in which anyone who might be affected by a decision could somehow parachute in and create a new situation in the court, it would lead to chaos. If they have the right to be a party to the proceedings, they should, in the normal course of a civil case, become a party to the proceedings. That would not be the effect in a criminal matter. We must be careful not to create new opportunities for persons to become involved in criminal matters.
      The best way for persons interested in the outcome of a secondary legislation matter to proceed is that the Government will have to consider how they deal with any decision in relation to secondary legislation by a court. At that point, it is right that any person or organisation interested in any change that the Government may or may not be considering should deal with the Government and Ministers.
      5.15 pm
      The opportunities are there. It may be that those involved have the ability to become a party to a civil proceeding. They almost certainly would not, and should not, have the ability to become a party to a criminal proceeding. In the normal course of events, if they are able to become a party to a proceeding, it is a matter for them to do so. Those who would not have the ability to become a party to a proceeding must deal with the Government afterwards.
      The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire also touched on the matter of definitions of public authorities. We are moving to that matter, and—if he will forgive me—it is probably better if we deal with it later. I think that I have dealt with most of the points raised, and I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will not press his amendments.
      Mr. Clappison: I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I am grateful for his full response. This has been a useful exercise, and we have taken matters a little further through this exploratory amendment. However, I am still not entirely satisfied with where matters stand. We have found out a bit more about the circumstances in which the Government envisage the power to nominate somebody being used, but we are not clear why they want to do so.
      I am also not entirely satisfied about why it would not be simpler for the Minister simply to nominate someone to represent the Crown in all such proceedings. I draw some reassurance from the fact that the Minister said that there will be few proceedings in which it is envisaged that someone will be nominated to act on behalf of the Crown. However, even in those few proceedings, there may be a risk of a conflict of interest arising. The Minister knows full well that, in such litigation, it is not always possible to foresee where a conflict of interest will arise. There are occasions when there appears to be no conflict of interest at the beginning of litigation, but one develops during litigation.
      We are concerned that the Crown's voice is heard, and that it represents the public interest when a court is considering whether to make a declaration of

      399
      incompatibility. The public interest, as represented by the Crown, must not be affected by any other considerations which another party to the proceedings might well have. We are speaking up for the public interest in this matter. I have listened to what the Minister has said, and, to make progress, I do not propose to press the amendment.
      Nor do I propose to press amendment No. 20, although the question of litigation affecting large numbers of public authorities—the Church is a classic example—should be dealt with. We have heard concerns expressed in this House and elsewhere about vexatious litigants who are queuing up to bring charges against the Churches. 1 do not want to go too far down that road at the moment, but I take that as justification for the amendment. However, in the interests of making progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      The Chairman: Order. Procedurally, that is not necessary, as I am about to put the Question on a Government amendment on which the others hang.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 121, in page 3, line 35, leave out
      'an application made to the court'
      and insert 'giving notice'.
      No. 122, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'An application' and insert 'Notice'.
      No. 123, in page 3, line 37, leave out 'made' and insert 'given'.
      No. 124, in page 3, line 40, leave out
      'an application under this section'
      and insert
      'a notice under subsection (2)'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
      Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      ACTS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
      Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 4, line 7, at beginning insert—
      `( ) A public authority is any person or body which—

      (a) is established and regulated by statute; or

      (b) has ministerial appointments on its governing body;

      and for the purposes of this Act such a person or body under paragraph (a) above is only a public body when acting in the discharge of its statutory functions.'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 27, in page 4, line 17, leave out from 'court' to 'the' in line 22 and insert `and'.
      No. 28, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'or tribunal'.
      No. 29, in page 4, line 24, leave out from second 'court' to 'when' in line 25.
      No. 30, in page 4, line 27, leave out
      'by virtue only of subsection (3)(b)
      400
      No. 31, in page 4, line 31, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
      '(7) For the purposes of this Act, the private acts of a public authority shall not be regarded as incompatible with Convention rights'.
      No. 34, in page 4, line 31, leave out
      `by virtue only of subsection (3)(b)'.
      No. 142, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
      '( ) A court or tribunal shall not determine that a person is a public authority for the purpose of subsection (3) (b) if in relation to a complaint based on similar facts made against the United Kingdom in respect of an act, decision or omission of that person the European Court of Human Rights would declare a complaint to be incompatible with the Convention under Article 27(2).'.
      No. 143, in page 4, line 32, at end insert—
      '( ) A court or tribunal shall determine that an act is private in nature for the purpose of subsection (7) if in relation to that act the European Court of Human Rights would declare a complaint based on similar facts to be incompatible with the Convention under Article 27(2).'
      No. 93, in clause 21, page 13, leave out lines 43 and 44.
      Sir Norman Fowler: The amendment was originally tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney). In so far as it relates to the press, I declare an interest as non-executive chairman of Regional Independent Media, which publishes newspapers both in Yorkshire and in Lancashire, although regrettably not in Blackburn. As the Committee knows, there is more than one view in the newspaper industry on the issues surrounding the clause.
      The amendment goes far beyond the press and the Press Complaints Commission; it relates to the definition of a public authority. Clause 6 makes it
      "unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right."
      However, there is substantial vagueness in the definition of a public authority. Clause 6(3) states that a
      "'public authority' includes…a court or tribunal, and…any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
      The notes to clauses say that the clause proceeds on the basis that some authorities are so obviously public that it is not necessary expressly to define them. Indeed, in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said:
      "Clause 6 is designed to apply not only to obvious public authorities such as government departments and the police, but also to bodies which are public in certain respects but not others."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1232.]
      Unsurprisingly, the vagueness of such language has led to substantial argument about what is and what is not covered. Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, asked the obvious question—what are functions of a public nature? In the other place, he said that central Government, local government, the police, immigration officers, prisons, courts and tribunals were covered, but that he found it difficult to understand the White Paper guidance that
      "companies responsible for areas of activity which were previously within the public sector, such as the privatised utilities",
      also exercised public functions. He asked:
      "What has the fact that the activity was originally in the public sector got to do with the definition that we find in the Bill"?— [Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582. c. 1293.]

      401
      He wondered whether there would be any difference between the BBC and ITV companies or commercial radio. Indeed, he took the view that all of them were included in the definition of a public authority. He asked where the process would end—he wanted to know whether Safeway or, indeed, Asda were covered, as they self-evidently conducted business of a public nature. He was led to the conclusion that there must be a better way in which to define what is meant by a public authority. The amendment seeks to address that issue.
      Responding to the concerns raised on Second Reading in the other place, the Home Office Minister, Lord Williams of Mostyn, said that he anticipated that the BBC would be a public authority, that Channel 4 might be a public authority and that commercial television stations might not be public authorities. He said:
      "Some authorities plainly exercise wholly public functions; others do not. There is no difficulty here."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1309.]
      My response to that is, with respect,
      "Up to a point, Lord Copper",
      as he then went on to discuss newspapers. His view was, subject to the proviso that this was a matter for the courts to determine in due course, that a newspaper was not a public authority. Indeed, much of the debate has been about that issue, particularly the status of the Press Complaints Commission.
      Mr. Lansley: I am listening with care to my right hon. Friend. Before he moves on to the press, will he agree that it is remarkable that, in the other place, a Minister abandoned to the future jurisprudence of UK courts the definition of the scope of the Bill? Does not that leave us in a difficult position in examining the Bill?
      Sir Norman Fowler: That is exactly my point—my hon. Friend is entirely correct.
      Miss Julie Kirkbride: On that point, I was musing why, when the BBC and, presumably, Channel 4 and ITV, are public authorities, ITV companies probably are not— on newspapers, the matter is not clear. From my recollection of my days at ITV, its functions had a public service element, so one would suppose that its activities could be drawn into the ambit of the Bill.
      Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary, with his usual clarity, will be able to guide the Committee on those questions, although I am not sure that the Government have so far entirely succeeded in giving clear guidance—we look forward to what the Home Secretary has to say.
      My hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) and for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) point to the vagueness that surrounds the matter—none of us is clear about what the legislation means, especially as it seems that it will partly be interpreted only later. As they suggested, it is not that the press is the only issue or that the Press Complaints Commission is the only body that will be affected by the Bill; the status of the press merely serves to illustrate the difficulties with which the amendment is concerned.
      Clause 1 sets out the convention rights that are given effect by the Bill, including articles 8 and 10. The trouble is that those articles could be in conflict. Article 8 concerns
      402
      the right to respect for private and family life; it states that a public authority should not, except in certain circumstances, interfere with the exercise of that right. Article 10 sets out a right to freedom of expression and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by a public authority. Somehow, a balance must be struck between what we can call the rights to privacy and free speech and free reporting—we cannot burke the fact that there is a conflict between the two articles.
      The Burgess and Maclean case of the 1950s provides a practical example of what I mean. As the Committee will recall, the two British traitors suddenly left the country—they left alone, but Maclean left behind his wife. One newspaper, the Daily Express, took a close interest in Mrs. Maclean, believing that she might join her husband behind the iron curtain. There was a row and the Daily Express was roundly condemned, not least in the other place, for its breach of privacy and its intrusion. Ultimately, of course, Mrs. Maclean did exactly as the newspaper suspected and slipped away to Russia. I do not want to argue the merits of the case. Suffice it to say that there is a true illustration of the real conflict between the two articles.
      5.30 pm
      So, not surprisingly, a debate has centred on the Press Complaints Commission. Clause 6 provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a convention right. Does that include the commission? The Government's view was that it was exempt from the provisions of the Bill—or, to put it more precisely, that was the Lord Chancellor's view. According to a report on 1 December 1997 in The Guardian—a paper in which I always have the greatest trust—the Lord Chancellor was involved in what the newspaper called a "lively argument" with the now beleaguered Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who warned the Lord Chancellor that the new law could damage press freedom and interfere with the commission's judgments. According to The Guardian, that argument was shot down in flames by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds that the Secretary of State was a layman and that he was an experienced lawyer. The newspaper reports the Lord Chancellor as telling senior newspaper executives that there was no question of the Press Complaints Commission being affected by the law.
      Indeed, the Lord Chancellor sought to give reassurance on Second Reading in the other place when he said—perhaps a less than resounding phrase—
      "I am a member of a Government who, as a whole, give the highest value to upholding the freedom of the press."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 1997; Vol. 582, c. 1229.]
      I am not entirely sure what he meant by "as a whole". I suspect that he meant except when the Government's interests are affected. He went on to say, directly to the press—
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Where?
      Sir Norman Fowler: I shall have to look that up if the right hon. Gentleman really wants to know. The Lord Chancellor went on to say to the press:
      "I understand your concerns but let me assure you that press freedom will be in safe hands with our British judges and with the judges of the European Court."

      403
      There might be agreement on both sides of the Committee that "safe in your hands" is a political expression that should be avoided these days by any wise politician because, only a few weeks after the Second Reading debate, on 18 November, David Pannick QC wrote an important article in The Times suggesting that the Press Complaints Commission was a public authority. On 24 November, the Lord Chancellor did a spectacular legal U-turn and accepted that his advice had been wrong. In a press notice he said:
      "It is possible that the Press Complaints Commission will be held to be a public authority under the Human Rights Bill when it becomes law. I had earlier thoughts that it would probably not, but an Opinion given to the PCC by David Pannick QC persuaded me that it probably will be."
      However, he added:
      "If so this is good news for the press because the courts will regard the PCC as the primary body to provide effective protection to people who suffer from press abuses."
      He went on to add the slightly dubious proposition that he and Mr. Pannick
      "have both been telling the press exactly the same thing."
      Those assurances did not entirely settle the matter with the public, the press or, perhaps above all, with the Press Complaints Commission. As the noble Lord Wakeham, the chairman of the commission, pointed out, if his adjudications on matters of privacy could be subject to subsequent action by the courts, his task of trying to resolve differences would no longer be a practicable proposition. The courts would be able to intervene after the commission's work had finished. He added that his chances of making self-regulation work to the benefit of ordinary people and without cost to them would be minimal.
      The point being made was that the Press Complaints Commission seeks to mediate and reach agreement. The fear is that, if it becomes a body with new procedures to fine newspapers and to introduce a mechanism for prior restraint of newspapers shown to be on the point of breaching someone's privacy, the whole nature of the commission will change. Certainly it can be argued, as some have, that that should be the case, but I do not think that anyone would seriously argue that we should do all that and change all that entirely by accident. That again is what lies behind my fears about the Bill.
      Miss Kirkbride: Perhaps this is a question for the Home Secretary, but you—
      Hon. Members: Right hon. Friend.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I will answer to anything.
      Miss Kirkbride: My right hon. Friend might like to muse on whether, if a judge takes that decision, that judgment could then be overtaken if another judge decided in another case that some of the capacities of the Press Complaints Commission should be considered those of a public authority under the relevant legislation. How moveable a feast will it be?
      Sir Norman Fowler: As my hon. Friend said, that is really for the Home Secretary to explain. As far as the chairman of the PCC is concerned, it raises the fear and doubt that it will be bypassed and that people will go
      404
      straight to the courts. I am trying to be as neutral as I can—I have my own views on this—and would merely say that, if we are to make changes of that sort, they should be made deliberately and explicitly and in the knowledge of what we are doing. We do not want to drift into such a change.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: To clarify the thinking of the chairman of the PCC, if possible, was he saying that the commission felt that it could not be effective if there were a potential legal remedy? If he was, it would seem to rule the PCC out of considering, for example, potential defamation cases. I am not clear whether its case was expressed as widely as that.
      Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman must make up his own mind and he will have read the debates in the other place as I have. Basically, my noble Friend Lord Wakeham said that, first, there was a danger that the whole nature of the PCC would be changed with the right to fine or order compensation, which it does not have at the moment—the idea of prior restraint is certainly entirely different. The second danger would be that no one would take the slightest bit of notice of the commission in any event, but would simply bypass it and go to the courts. Why deal with the middle man, so to speak? My noble Friend had a number of concerns.
      Mr. Andrew Rowe: My right hon. Friend has set out a number of criteria against which a change might be made—I think he included words such as "coherent", "deliberate" and "carefully thought through". Is he not asking rather a lot? This Government have so far made few changes that could possibly match up to any of those criteria.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I do not want to enter into such deliberate party political banter at this point because I am optimistic that the Home Secretary will agree with everything that I have said and accept my amendment. I shall leave it at that.
      Let me go back to the danger that I see. As I understand it, the Government are not only in favour on the whole of press freedom, but are, on the whole, opposed to introducing a new general law of privacy. It must follow that they do not want to achieve that by the back door. They do not want to make law explicitly, but nor do they want it to slip in. I agree with the Government's intention not to introduce a general law. Newspapers are there to expose; that is their function. At their best, the media expose crooks, spies and fraudsters, although at their worst they intrude into private lives when no public interest is served. The difficulty is obviously in drawing a line.
      The law should certainly protect the public against phone tapping or interception of mail, but it should not attempt to judge taste, on which the public are capable of reaching their own conclusions. I do not think that public opinion is overwhelmingly conclusive on the question of a general law of privacy. A House of Commons reference sheet in November 1997 said that The Guardian had published the fascinating finding of an ICM opinion poll that 90 per cent. of respondents favoured a privacy law, but 53 per cent. felt it should not protect politicians from

      405
      media investigation into their private lives. That is a curious proposition, although it is doubtless a true sign of public opinion.
      The point is that the uncertainty surrounding clause 6 of the Bill means we are in danger of making changes that are neither intended nor explicit. Arguments can be, and are, made in favour of changing the Press Complaints Commission. That seems to be what the Lord Chancellor was advocating outside Parliament earlier this year in an interview with the New Statesman . He advocated a PCC that would have powers to fine newspapers that breached the commission's privacy guidelines, or, more accurately, to award compensation. The Lord Chancellor appeared also to advocate a mechanism for prior restraint of newspapers that were shown to be on the point of breaching someone's privacy without justification.
      It is argued that such change would avoid the danger of people using the courts—the danger I mentioned to the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan)—rather than the PCC to pursue grievances. That danger has also been pointed out by the constitutional lawyer Sir William Wade. The price of that, however, is that the PCC would become a different animal. A few newspapers, including The Guardian, accept and support that idea; others, such as The Times, say that the PCC would not and could not survive the strain of its new obligations, and that not many newspapers would voluntarily co-operate with it. I do not want to argue which of those cases is correct, but to change the whole nature of the PCC by accident and without sensible consultation would not be good law making.
      The amendment would bring greater certainty to the definition of a public authority. We have sought to limit the bodies or people covered. A body would be a public authority established and regulated by statute, or one that had ministerial appointments to its governing body. That does not settle everything; it excludes the PCC, for example, but could well affect the Broadcasting Standards Council. The way forward is for the Government to produce an amendment or new clause—the Home Secretary promised some such action on Second Reading— that would give primacy to the effect on the media of article 10 on freedom of expression. The aim should be to have a measure that covers all media, not just the press. To use the jargon, they should be on a level playing field.
      The important principle behind the amendment is that we should aim for more certainty over who is or is not covered. What is a public authority, and what is not? The Bill is vague and uncertain, and that is neither good law nor in the interests of the public.
      Mr. Straw: It may help the House if I respond first to the speech by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler). It is a matter of great regret that the newspaper chain of which he is the non-executive chairman does not have a newspaper in Blackburn. It would be welcome, and I would enjoy its competition with the world's finest newspaper, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph. [Laughter.] I mean that; I have often said so on the record.
      406
      5.45 pm
      The amendments raise an important question at the heart of the Bill—the definition of a public authority. The right hon. Gentleman dealt with some of the issues very elegantly. Before I turn to the amendments, and comment on what he said about the press, which will come up later in our consideration, I want to explain what clause 6 is intended to achieve and why we came to the conclusions written into the Bill.
      When we were drawing up the Bill, we noted that the convention had its origins in a desire to protect the individual against the abuse of power by the state, rather than to protect one individual against the actions of another. The history of the establishment of the Council of Europe and the great desire at the end of the war that states in Europe should never again be able to oppress their citizens as Nazi Germany and the axis powers had done, explain why the convention places on the state responsibilities in respect of its treatment of residents and citizens.
      We decided that convention rights should be available in proceedings involving what might be very broadly described as "the state", but that they would not be directly justiciable in actions between private individuals. Although we were not prepared to go as far as that, we wanted a realistic and modern definition of the state so as to provide correspondingly wide protection against an abuse of human rights. Accordingly, liability under the Bill would go beyond the narrow category of central and local government and the police—the organisations that represent a minimalist view of what constitutes the state. The principle of bringing rights home suggested that liability in domestic proceedings should lie with bodies in respect of whose actions the United Kingdom Government were answerable in Strasbourg. The idea was that if someone could get a remedy in Strasbourg, he or she should be able to get a remedy at home. That point was crucial to the Bill's construction.
      For those Members who are not particularly conversant with the jurisprudence of the European Court—I make no point about that; why should they be?—it is worth noting that the Strasbourg court has over the years developed its own concept of the state, and its idea of the bodies for whose actions a Government, as a signatory high contracting party, are answerable goes much wider than the original narrow definition of the state.
      Having set those principles, the question is how we are to translate them into legislation. I do not for a second pretend that that is the easiest matter in the world or that there is one simple answer. As long ago as when we issued the Labour party's consultation document, "Bringing Rights Home", we recognised that there was no cut-and-dried, off-the-shelf answer as to which organisations in today's society stand in the shoes of the state and act on its behalf.
      That is a particularly difficult question in the circumstances of the development of institutions in this country, which does not have a single, codified written constitution. I am proud of the way in which we have, for at least three and a half centuries, avoided violent revolution, while every other European country was either

      407
      conquered by another, larger country or went through an internal convulsion. The reasons for that are the subject of many learned tomes, but—
      Mr. Oliver Heald: First past the post.
      Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman should not tempt me too far, but let me tell him that in Old Sarum before 1832 it would not have made a huge difference whether we had first past the post, additional vote plus or even our old friend Mr. Victor d'Hondt. For the many seats that were controlled by the Duke of Newcastle, the voting system made no difference, because he either had only one candidate or bribed the electors.
      One of the reasons why we were able to develop our institutions peacefully concerned the development of our legal institutions, with the common law and jurisprudence behind them. Over the years, institutions have evolved that perform functions that are effectively those of the state, in its continental sense, but are not directly under the control of the state. I happen to think that that is a good thing, but it poses some difficulties for the drafting of legislation.
      Mr. Grieve: It is a matter, not only of the lack of codification but of the fact that we have deliberately farmed out functions to charitable organisations such as the Royal National Lifeboat Institution that in other European countries would be discharged by the state. That is the nub of the problem. I assume that the RNLI would be a public body.
      Mr. Straw: It would be a public body in respect of the public functions that it performs, but not of all its charitable functions.
      Our society has placed a high value on the notion of self-regulation. Essentially, the House has told particular professions or organisations that they should put their house in order and regulate themselves or we will introduce statutory regulation. Many institutions have accepted that incentive.
      The best example involves regulation in the City: the Takeover Panel was not established by statute and, as far as I am aware, none of its members is appointed by Ministers, but it plays a crucial role in the regulation of markets and competition policy and has been regarded by our domestic courts as susceptible to judicial review. Although they have not used that language, the courts have effectively said that the Takeover Panel, which may be entirely private in its composition, exercises a public function. That is one of the complexities with which we have had to deal in trying to draft the Bill.
      Mr. Rowe: Is the Home Secretary saying that, for the purposes of the Bill, the definition of the state is that which has been evolved by the court in Strasbourg, or that it is what we have traditionally defined as the state? That is quite an important distinction.
      Mr. Straw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the distinction is not as great as he thinks. If we are to incorporate the convention in British law and make sense of it we must, as a basic minimum, ensure that the Bill and its application require that the British courts recognise
      408
      domestically as public bodies those bodies that would be recognised as such in Strasbourg. Otherwise we will not be bringing rights home and we will simply make a rod for our own back by ruling out adjudication by British courts on questions that can plainly go to Strasbourg.
      In that case, we would miss out on what has been recognised by all parties as a benefit, whatever other arguments we may have had in the Chamber, and British judges would not be able to adjudicate on the convention. If we can give the margin of appreciation of the benefit of British jurisprudence to the development of convention concepts, we may avoid what people sometimes regard as foreign judges pronouncing on British matters. That could ultimately happen, but the possibility will be reduced.
      As a matter of practice, we think that there is much guidance to be gained from the way in which British domestic courts have developed the concept of judicial review. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) used the word "traditionally". We are not dealing with something that is cut and dried or traditional. In terms of both convention jurisprudence and the British courts, the matter is very dynamic; 30 or 35 years ago, when I took my law course, administrative law was an obscure diversion for the odd academic postgraduate, because concepts of judicial review were undeveloped, but now it is an essential part of lawyers' activity.
      Mr. Edward Garnier: I hope that I am not being too dim, but it seems to me that the nub of the clause is the difference between an act of a public nature, as set out in subsection (3)(b), and a private act. In any given case, a court will have to decide whether what a body is doing—be it an omission or a positive act—is public or private. Is the Home Secretary saying that jurisprudence at Strasbourg would allow any given judge to say straight away that an act is clearly public or private, or is he saying that the clause offers the English courts the opportunity to develop a common-law understanding of the difference between public and private acts?
      Mr. Straw: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will bear with me, I would like to continue my explanation and, if he is not satisfied, I will gladly give way to him again. The matter is extremely complicated and it has been challenging for us to deal with. There are problems with the amendment that show some of the hazards in the way of anyone who tries to define satisfactorily what are public authorities and public functions in a way that will stand the test of time.
      As a minimum, we must accept what Strasbourg has developed and is developing, as otherwise we will not be bringing rights home. We wanted to ensure that, when courts were already saying that a body's activities in a particular respect were a public function for the purposes of judicial review, other things being equal, that would be a basis for action under the Bill.
      In most cases in which convention rights are prayed in aid, that will be done by way of an application for judicial review. That will be one of the arguments as to why an administrative decision should be overturned, but others, relating wholly to domestic law, will no doubt be on the application.
      As I have made clear, I am happy to give way, but I hope that hon. Members will bear with me. Even if a fixed view of the question could be reached, as the

      409
      right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) claimed, it could not be right for all time. One of the issues that we considered—the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire raised it with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department—was whether we could provide lists of bodies that were and were not public authorities. We could have saved all this argument by doing so, but we thought that that would be inappropriate, for reasons that I shall explain.
      We considered a wide range of approaches, some of which were not far removed from the approach in the Opposition amendments, although they were not identical, for reasons that I shall explain.
      6 pm
      Miss Kirkbride: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Straw: I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind. I should like to continue.
      The most valuable asset that we had to hand was jurisprudence relating to judicial review. It is not easily summarised and could not have been simply written into the Bill, but the concepts are reasonably clear and I think that we can build on them.
      I am happy to lift the veil on the considerations of the Cabinet Committee and say that we devoted a great deal of time and energy to this issue, as I hope hon. Members would expect us to. We decided that the best approach would be reference to the concept of a public function. After stating that it is
      "unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with a Convention right",
      clause 6 accordingly provides that a public authority includes a court or a tribunal, and
      "any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature."
      The effect of that is to create three categories, the first of which contains organisations which might be termed "obvious" public authorities, all of whose functions are public. The clearest examples are Government Departments, local authorities and the police. There is no argument about that.
      The second category contains organisations with a mix of public and private functions. One of the things with which we had to wrestle was the fact that many bodies, especially over the past 20 years, have performed public functions which are private, partly as a result of privatisation and partly as a result of contracting out. I am not going to argue with that—it has happened.
      For example, between 1948 and 1993, a public authority—the British Railways Board —was responsible for every aspect of running the railway. Now, Railtrack plc does that, but it also exercises the public function of approving and monitoring the safety cases of train operating companies. Railtrack acts privately in its functions as a commercial property developer. We were anxious—I make this point to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield in particular—that we should not catch the commercial activities of Railtrack—or, for example, of the water companies—which were nothing whatever to do with its exercise of public functions.
      410
      Private security firms contract to run prisons: what Group 4, for example, does as a plc contracting with other bodies is nothing whatever to do with the state, but, plainly, where it runs a prison, it may be acting in the shoes of the state. The effect of clause 6(7) is that those organisations, unlike the "obvious" public authorities, will not be liable in respect of their private acts. The third category is organisations with no public functions—accordingly, they fall outside the scope of clause 6.
      As with the interpretation of any legislation—this picks up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—it will be for the courts to determine whether an organisation is a public authority. That will be obvious in some cases, and there will be no need to inquire further; in others, the courts will need to consider whether an organisation has public functions. In doing that, they should, among other things, sensibly look to the jurisprudence which has developed in respect of judicial review.
      As the hon. and learned Member for Harborough knows, the courts have said that the Takeover Panel amounts to a public authority for the purposes of judicial review. They have also said, however, that the Jockey Club is not susceptible to judicial review, even though it is established by royal charter and performs functions which would be performed by the state or a state agency in other jurisdictions.
      To take a topical example, the courts have said that the Football Association is not such a public body as to be susceptible to judicial review, so they are used to drawing a line, and, up to now, the line which they have drawn has been sensible. The Takeover Panel plainly performs a public function—there can be no argument about that, even though it is a private body—and even though the public enjoy football, it is highly debatable whether the functions of the FA are public functions. The same is true of the Jockey Club and its functions. The courts have been careful in holding susceptible to judicial review bodies which are not plainly agents of the state.
      The courts will consider the nature of a body and the activity in question. They might consider whether the activities of a non-statutory body would be the subject of statutory regulation if that body did not exist, which covers the point about the Takeover Panel; whether the Government had provided underpinning for is activities; and whether it exercised extensive or monopolistic powers.
      What I have said is intended to make it clear why we have drafted clause 6 in the way that we have, and what effect it is intended to achieve.
      Sir Norman Fowler rose—
      Mr. Roger Gale rose—
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm my suggestion that, when the Government put clause 6 together and discussed the matter in detail in the Cabinet Committee, the Lord Chancellor's advice was that the Press Complaints Commission was not a public body, and that the Government have proceeded on that basis?
      Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to a path down which I do not want to go. This is as far as I

      411
      shall go in lifting the veil: as I recall, the discussion about the middle group — bodies which are not plainly organs of the state, but could exercise public functions— was about Railtrack and the water companies, not directly about bodies such as the PCC. I shall be quite open about the fact that we discussed the BBC and the press. The BBC is plainly performing a public function, and the House has long accepted that it should be the subject of much greater regulation than the press. We have ended up with a mixed economy: the BBC has clear injunctions on it about balance, while the press rightly have no such injunctions on them, except those which they impose on themselves through the PCC. That is entirely right in a free society.
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Mr. Straw: I have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman quite a lot, so would he allow me to continue?
      Mr. Gale: Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, will he deal with this important point? He said that the courts would take into account whether a body was underpinned by legislation. The PCC, to an extent, is underpinned by legislation, such as law on trespass and various other laws which affect its workings. Does he think that the courts would consider the PCC to be a public body?
      Mr. Straw: My noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn made clear in the House of Lords our considered view that we believe that the PCC would be regarded as a body exercising public functions under clause 6, but not for the reasons raised by the hon. Gentleman. All bodies that are entirely private are subject to the law of trespass and the law at large. We are not discussing that, but whether they are exercising a public function.
      Amendment No. 106 states:
      "A public authority is any person or body which—

      (a) is established or regulated by statute; or

      (b) which has ministerial appointments on its governing body".

      Bodies established and regulated by statute would be public authorities only when discharging their statutory functions. If amendment No. 31 is agreed to,
      "the private acts of a public authority shall not be regarded as incompatible with Convention rights".
      I do not want to "mix it". I hope that we are having a serious discussion. Having spent 18 years of my life sitting on the Opposition Benches, I recognise that drafting amendments is not the easiest task in the world for Opposition Members: I could probably list all the occasions on which I was admonished by Ministers for my lack of technical brilliance in that regard. There are, however, some internal curiosities in the amendments that we are discussing, which highlight the problems that exist.
      Mr. Garnier rose—
      Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is bursting, so I will give way to him.
      Mr. Garnier: I hope that I will not be admonished myself, given that my name is attached to a number of the amendments that we are discussing.
      412
      In many ways, I agree with what the Home Secretary is saying. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) mentioned the Press Complaints Commission. Amendment No. 32—to which I subscribed—has not been selected, but paragraph (h) deals with the General Medical Council.
      The General Medical Council was created by statute, but performs an internal disciplinary function. It disciplines doctors who fall into error, but its functions are not set out in statute. It is not a statutory body in the sense that some nationalised industries are statutory bodies. Nor is it even a body to which the law of contempt applies when it sits as a court. That was decided only this week in the Court of Appeal.
      We have here a delicious mixture. The General Medical Council is a body created by statute —as, I believe, is the Law Society—or at least recognised by statute; but it performs internal disciplinary functions of a quasi-courtlike nature. As we discovered this week, it is not susceptible to the law of contempt. In carrying out its judicial and disciplinary function, will the GMC fall foul of clause 6 as it is now drafted, or does the Home Secretary believe that our amendment would assist public understanding of the issue by introducing at least a degree of clarity?
      Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that the amendments would assist in that way. They are clear, but they are wrong. [Interruption.] Let me make my point. There was a Second Reading debate about whether we should incorporate the convention; this debate is beyond that.
      As I was saying, the amendments are clear, but they are wrong. The list—I will not go into it in too much detail—would exclude from the definition of public functions some bodies whose functions are so plainly public that they would be held to be so by the Strasbourg court. If we did not incorporate the convention, people would have to traipse off to Strasbourg to claim their rights, and the main object of the Bill would be rendered nugatory.
      I submit that to argue that
      "any part or member of Her Majesty's armed forces"
      is not a public authority, while certainly clear, is plainly wrong. Surely the first function of the state is to establish the armed forces, and to preserve the security of the state. The General Medical Council is plainly performing the function that the state expects it to perform—regulating the conduct of doctors.
      Mr. Grieve: Surely any body that regulates a profession of any kind must be a public body for the purpose of that regulation.
      Mr. Straw: That is true, unless the professions exist as conspiracies against the public, which is what the public sometimes think. Those of us who are members of a profession that is unregulated by statute should recognise that we have responsibilities to ensure that that great profession is regulated in a manner that is consistent with the public interest. In fact, I have no doubts about the matter. I think that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
      As I was saying, there are some internal curiosities. If a body is established by statute, under amendment No. 106 everything that it does will, by definition, be part of the

      413
      discharge of its statutory functions. The proviso to amendment No. 106 will therefore never bite. That means that the private acts of Railtrack would be included in the Opposition amendment, but not in our legislation. I suspect that Railtrack would prefer our legislation to that of the Opposition. I am not making a technical point; I am merely drawing attention to the difficulties that are caused when someone seeks clarification, but gets it wrong.
      The most obvious reason why amendment No. 106 will not do—I have given technical reasons, but this is really important—is that it does not include Secretaries of State like myself. The Secretary of State for the Home Department is not a
      "person or body which… is established and regulated by statute";
      nor are Departments generally. Most are not legal entities in their own right. Ministers and Departments exercise a range of statutory powers, but many of the powers that I exercise relate to the royal prerogative, or are common-law powers.
      6.15 pm
      If the amendment were adopted, it would go both too far and not far enough. It would go too far by including the private acts of bodies such as Railtrack and the water companies, which were established by statute, when we want only the public functions to be included. It would not go far enough, by a long way, in that it would not include Government Departments. It would also exclude other bodies that are at present judicially reviewable. The most obvious example is the panel on takeovers and mergers, which was held to be judicially reviewable following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the ex parte Datafin case in 1987, but which is not regulated by statute. The same applies to the British Board of Film Classification.
      That is a very interesting body. As I know all too well, following the interesting discussions in which I have had to engage with the board to get it to do the job that is expected of it, it is an entirely private organisation. It is not regulated by statute. It has a curious connection with the Video Recordings Acts, but hon. Members on both sides of the House—on behalf of the public—are pressurising it to do a job on behalf of the public, and classify films properly. In any other jurisdiction, a state body would probably do the work. Here, it is done by a self-regulating body that clearly has a public function. I believe—and I think the public would believe—that that body should be seen as exercising public functions.
      I doubt that these are the results that the Opposition want to achieve. As I have said, we live in a common-law jurisdiction—living law is a great strength, although it sometimes produces intellectual challenges—and in a world in which the boundaries between what is public and what is private are changing. Bodies established by statute, and with statutory functions, must properly be regarded as public authorities, but that is too narrow a criterion to stand on its own.
      I wanted to make another point before talking about the press, which was raised by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. Amendment No. 27 would remove references in clause 6(3) to tribunals being public
      414
      authorities. I do not know why the amendment was tabled. We think that tribunals should be public authorities, at least in so far as they are bodies in which legal proceedings may be brought. If they were not, there would be a significant gap in the protection of human rights offered by the Bill. "Tribunals" include industrial tribunals, the employment appeals tribunal, immigration adjudicators and the immigration appeals tribunal. If those bodies are not required to comply with convention rights, it is hard to think of bodies that should be. If the employment appeals tribunal were deemed not to be a public body, the cases would go straight to the court in Strasbourg.
      Let me now deal briefly with the issue of the press. It is an important issue, but we shall have an opportunity to return to it when we debate the result of the consultations and considerations on the question of protection of press freedoms—which, as I told the House on 16 February, I have undertaken with Lord Wakeham and, through him, the Press Complaints Commission. On 16 February, I told the House:
      "Lord Williams and I have been involved in detailed discussions with Lord Wakeham. In particular, we have considered whether safeguards similar in framework to those set out in clause 31 of the Data Protection Bill"—
      which was satisfactory to all parties—
      "could be brought into this Bill, without compromising its essential purpose.
      I am pleased to tell the House that these discussions have borne fruit, and we have reached an understanding with Lord Wakeham … on a framework for amendments to the Bill".
      I then said:
      "The precise wording of the amendments has not yet been agreed".—[Official Report, 16 February 1998; Vol. 306, c. 776-77.]
      They will be brought before the House in due course.
      There has been a series of discussions with Lord Wakeham and, through him, those whom he represents. They have almost reached a satisfactory conclusion. I shall table those amendments and, as the usual channels are well aware, they will be properly debated. It will ultimately be a matter for the courts, but our considered view is that the Press Complaints Commission undertakes public functions but the press does not, which is crucial. We shall seek in the amendments to give the press further protection and reassurance.
      Sir Norman Fowler: Where does that leave broadcasting organisations? Will the treatment that is applied to the press be extended to broadcasting organisations, so that they work in the same way and are subject to the same rules as the press?
      Mr. Straw: The amendment as currently drafted does not mention the Press Complaints Commission specifically. It refers to a privacy code. The protection would be available to any broadcaster or publisher. For example, if someone feared that he was about to be exposed, he may seek an interlocutory action. In such a case, broadcasters would be treated similarly, but not the same, because they are not in the same position as the press. The BBC has its own charter and a separate code, which is different from that of the PCC. We are not working on an ad hominem basis in respect of the Press Complaints Commission code. I said that I would be happy to discuss the matter with the right hon. Member

      415
      for North-West Cambridgeshire before the debate, and I should be happy to discuss it outside the House with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield if that would be of assistance.
      Sir Norman Fowler: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is important, and we shall have to wait and see the amendment that he tables. Does it mean that, for all media organisations, freedom of expression and the right to report take precedence over some rights of privacy?
      Mr. Straw: I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would not mind, to wait until he has seen the terms of the amendment. The same issue arose with respect to the Churches. This is not a consequence merely of the incorporation of the European convention: having signed up to it, we cannot assert, as a contracting party, that one part of it wholly trumps another part. There is a separate issue about article 3, which is a stand-alone article, but the whole point about the convention is that it balances one article with another. What we did in respect of the Churches was to suggest to the courts that they pay particular regard to freedom of religion. That is the essence of what we are seeking to do for the press: we want to provide important procedural safeguards.
      The press are most anxious about the procedural safeguards. I understand and share their concern. Someone may be worried, not that an untruth will be told, which would lead to an action for defamation, but that the truth will be told about them. The press are concerned that that person will be able to prevent that truth from being told about them by obtaining an interlocutory injunction. That shows the complexity and intellectual challenge of the law of privacy. We are entitled to keep truths about us private, but the law of privacy is complex. The law of defamation is about preventing the press or anyone else from uttering untruths or punishing them for doing so and forcing them to correct the untruth.
      Mr. Garnier: It is not to punish them.
      Mr. Straw: Sometimes exemplary damages are awarded as compensation for an untruth, and it has to be shown publicly that it is untrue. A recent case involved The Mail on Sunday in a spectacular way. The problem with privacy law is that it does not deal with the publication or the unearthing of an untruth, but with the publication or unearthing of a truth. The difficulty is that once a truth has been told, it cannot be untold, unlike an untruth. That is the problem with which we have been wrestling.
      I subscribe to a view on the importance of press freedom similar to that of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. As public figures, we have to take our knocks, and some of us have done so. We need to achieve a balance, and that is what we are trying to do in the amendment. I am happy to discuss it with the right hon. Gentleman and to make it available to the House as soon as possible.
      Mr. Gale: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Straw: I shall give way for the last time, because I have spoken for a long time.
      Mr. Gale: When does the right hon. Gentleman expect these amendments to be tabled? He is giving the
      416
      impression that we are waiting for the Press Complaints Commission to draft amendments that are in its interest. Those of us who believe in privacy law find that extremely unsatisfactory. We are debating clause 6, and in a moment we shall have to vote on whether we want the clause to stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Straw: I have made no secret of this amendment: I made it clear on 16 February.
      Mr. Gale: We are now in the middle of June.
      Mr. Straw: There is no secret about the process. I am well aware that we are in the middle of June, but I have had to deal with plenty of other matters in the meantime, as has the Press Complaints Commission. The amendments will be tabled as soon as possible.
      I have spoken at length, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members have found my explanation helpful. I hope that in the light of what I have said the Opposition will not push the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Maclennan: This has been a tantalising debate: it is perhaps a trailer for a later debate in which we shall all be better armed to participate fully because we will know what resolution the Government have proposed to meet the concerns of the Press Complaints Commission. It has been a valuable debate, as it has allowed the Home Secretary to bring home firmly the point that the convention does not rank fundamental rights in accordance with some hierarchy. It would be extraordinarily unattractive if, during the passage of the Bill, we allowed the special concerns of particular organisations, even such august organisations as the PCC, to prevent us from understanding that the balance of these rights is very much a part of the protection provided by the convention.
      It is certainly true that if there appears to be a conflict, particularly in respect of articles 8 and 10, the European Commission and Court have leant in the direction of guaranteeing freedom of expression. None the less, they have weighed these issues against each other when they have appeared to be in conflict. I hope that we shall seek to take that approach in our domestic courts and that we shall not try to develop a different statutory provision. If we were to do so, that would threaten the process of repatriating these rights and would require people to go to Strasbourg where a different line has been developed.
      The Government's approach in clause 6, of defining public authorities—in so far as it defines them—by what they do, is question begging. In view of the options, that is perhaps the best way to approach the matter. It does not make sense to list the bodies that the Bill intends to cover because, as the Home Secretary said, such a list could develop over time. We have no wish constantly to revise the Bill to take account of changes, but it is probably preferable to admit that there is some uncertainty and that it is not possible to get rid of it by legislation. We could eradicate it only by being exclusive, which would not serve the purpose of the Bill.
      6.30 pm
      The uncertainty is sufficiently narrow in practice for it to be justifiable to allow the courts to seek to resolve uncertainties where they arise. That is not a horrifying

      417
      principle. For too long we have deceived ourselves into thinking that Parliament can foresee and take into account all the circumstances that might arise under some of our legislation and exclude problems. In terms of jurisprudence, that is a mistaken approach. I am happy to see much broader definitions and language in Bills because the courts have shown themselves to be conservative in their interpretation of Parliament's intention. They come up against hard, practical applications and can apply broad principles more effectively and certainly than can Parliament in anticipation of the application of rules that it seeks to draw up.
      We do not need to spend much time on the Opposition amendments. They have stimulated debate, but they seem to be defective in ways to which the Home Secretary referred and others. Perhaps they were intended to be no more than a peg on which to hang an interesting debate. I have rarely been riveted by any 40-minute speech, but the one made by the Home Secretary was enthralling. The definition of a public authority by reference to what it does is right because that widens the scope of the coverage to include not only Departments and other central arms of the state, but subordinate and perhaps even localised public bodies that should be made accountable, under the terms of the convention, for their behaviour so as to secure fundamental rights and freedoms.
      Mr. Gale: I suppose that I should declare an interest as a paid-up member of the National Union of Journalists. I should welcome the clauses and their relationship to the European convention on human rights because they seem to inject a privacy law by the back door into the law of the United Kingdom. As one who believes that it is time this country had a law of privacy, I ought to welcome that, but I have a difficulty with clause 6 and my reason for speaking to the amendment is that I face the problem that faces my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), although I approach it from a different angle. The problem is that the clause is neither fish nor fowl.
      The Home Secretary said a couple of times that he would prefer to await the results of the deliberations of the Press Complaints Commission before tabling amendments to protect the interests of the press. It seems that that is the closest we shall get to a privacy law from an Administration who live by quote, photo-opportunity and soundbite. Any Administration who sought to introduce a proper privacy law would undoubtedly be soundly bitten by the media upon which they feed. The Bill will not protect the individual as he should be protected, neither will it enshrine the proper rights of a free press in a free democracy.
      The European convention on human rights contains a clear conflict between the interests in article 8, the right to respect for private and family life, and article 10, freedom of expression. Amendment No. 106 seeks to define a public authority in a way that would remove the Press Complaints Commission from the province of the Bill and would therefore negate the Home Secretary's undertaking—perhaps indication would be fairer—that he thinks that the courts would hold the commission to be a public body. If the matter goes to a vote I shall find it difficult to support the amendment.
      418
      There is a need for a privacy law. The press have increasingly demonstrated overweening intrusion. I do not seek to protect a Foreign Secretary who has been caught in flagrante or a Treasury Minister with offshore interests, but I would seek to protect their children from press intrusion. My noble Friend Lord Wakeham, for whom I have an extremely high regard, has tried hard to develop a press code that offers a fair degree of protection to individual privacy of the kind that is mentioned in the Bill. The amendment relates to that. At the same time, he has tried to protect the interests of the press in their lawful aim of publishing in the public interest matters that are directly important to, for instance, the security of the realm.
      Lord Wakeham has failed because until the Bill hits the statute book, the Press Complaints Commission has no statutory power or sanction. It has no power to fine. Not long ago, as a result of gross intrusion into the lives of at least two minors—the children of hon. Members—the commission amended its code of conduct to give specific protection to children. Only a few weeks ago there was the revolting spectacle of the press beating a path to the door of Mary Bell and her 14-year-old daughter, a girl who, as far as anybody is aware, has committed no crime whatever. It remains to be seen whether Lord Wakeham's admonitions will be heeded or whether the true story of the people's nanny, as it will become known, will be published within a few days.
      If I understood him correctly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the primacy of article 10, but I would argue that article 8 should have primacy and that the right to respect of private and family life is paramount. Amendment No. 106 would negate that right, because it would deny the thesis offered by the Home Secretary that, as the Bill is drafted, a court would deem the Press Complaints Commission to be a public body. However, I quite understand why my right hon. Friend tabled the amendment—at the moment, we do not know whether that will be the case. At the moment, we do not know what amendment or amendments the Government will table, or at what stage during the Bill's passage the Government will table the amendment or amendments—I assume that it will be an amendment and I am looking at the Home Secretary in the hope that he might nod—to enshrine rights of freedom for the press; nor do we know whether those rights also guarantee rights of privacy for the individual, as enshrined in article 8. At the moment, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we do not know, because the Bill is profoundly unclear. The clause is also profoundly unclear and, if there is a vote on clause stand part, I shall have to vote against it on that ground.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 142 and 143, which stand in my name and would clarify the definition, central to our debate, of what is a public authority.
      An individual will be able to sue a public body, claiming a breach of his convention rights. When the judges consider the action, they will have to consider two points: first, is the body actually a public body and, secondly, is the act complained of one on which they can rule? The answer to the first question relies on the definition of a public body, which we shall debate in relation to clause 6. The answer to the second question relies on the definition of what is a private act and what

      419
      is a public act, which is dealt with in clause 6(7). Under clause 6, it is possible for a private body, such as a Church, to be considered a public body when it performs what are deemed to be public functions.
      Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we have debated what is a public body. The definition of a public authority offered in clause 6 is:
      "any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature".
      That is a woefully inadequate definition, which is badly drafted, lacks certainty and will make bad law. The two principal concerns, as we have heard, centre on the Press Complaints Commission and the effects on religious bodies. I shall not deal with either of those in detail as they are not central to my argument today, but they should not be forgotten.
      Both Houses have tried on numerous occasions to tease out from the Government what they mean by "a public body". My hon. Friends have put long lists of questions to the Government, but so far we have been unable to obtain from them a satisfactory definition of a public body. Today, we have debated the BBC. The Home Secretary originally said that the BBC would be a public authority, but ITV would not. I am advised by Professor Ian Leigh of Durham university, who has helped me with the drafting of my amendments—
      Mr. Straw: Any relation?
      Mr. Leigh: No, but his name is spelt the same way as mine. He is professor of law at Durham university and he has advised me that the BBC would not be a public authority. As the Home Secretary and other Ministers have admitted time and again on the Floor of the House and in written answers, no one really knows what a public authority is until the courts start to make their decisions—"We will leave it to the courts," is the usual answer. How on earth is the Committee supposed to know what laws it is passing if we use forms of words that no one can explain until after the Bill has been enacted? If Ministers do not know what they mean by "a public authority", how can judges be expected to know? They interpret the laws we make, but we are making a law that we do not fully understand because the Government have refused to explain precisely what it means.
      Earlier, the Secretary of State for Scotland, summing up for the Government, said that the Bill was nothing to worry about—that it simply brought about a change of venue for human rights issues and that, instead of cases being heard in Strasbourg, they could be heard in a local British court. On 20 May, he confidently asserted that none of the problems that I and others had identified, for example in relation to religious liberties or press freedoms, would arise because no such problems had occurred so far in Strasbourg. His exact words were:
      "no one can point me to any single change, other than the forum in which the cases may be heard that will result from the Bi11."—[Official Report, 20 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 1066.]
      In so saying, the Secretary of State for Scotland sought to dismiss our concerns, but the truth is that there are many changes in the Bill other than a change of venue, which is why it is a serious matter that we should debate carefully.
      420
      6.45 pm
      First, a green light is given to judges to develop rights well beyond the convention. The Secretary of State for Scotland might have less understanding, but the Home Secretary has a full understanding of the Bill and he knows that the Bill does not just incorporate the convention—it is not as simple as that. Repeating the slogan "Bringing Rights Home" does not change the fact that the Bill creates rights that go far beyond the convention. The Government have created a bill of rights that is based on the convention, but it is a bill of rights that goes far further than the convention and it will give scope for creative judgments by the courts. Judges will be able to interpret convention rights in new ways, not accepted in Strasbourg. As was pointed out when we debated clause 2, the jurisprudence of Strasbourg is not binding on the UK courts as they interpret the law. For us in the UK, this Bill will be more far reaching than the convention on human rights that we have come to know and love over the past 50 years.
      The second reason the Bill goes far further than the convention is that there is a radical change in respect of who can be sued under convention rights. Only Governments can be sued in Strasbourg, but the Bill allows individuals to take a public authority to court over their convention rights. That is a fundamental change from the convention as we have known it. Until now, if someone felt that their convention rights had been breached, they sued their Government in Strasbourg. Their Government conducted the defence and paid the legal bills. If the actions of a public authority were questioned, the Government had to defend that public authority, not the public authority itself. The public authority—bear it in mind that we are about to suck in many organisations that have hitherto not been considered public authorities—did not even need to be represented and did not have to pay any legal bills; the Government handled it all.
      If the Strasbourg court found in someone's favour, it made an order against their Government, not against any individual or the public authority. If damages were payable, they were paid by the Government, not by any individual or public authority. We should remember that we are dragging in many quasi-public bodies that might not have the resources to meet that sort of legal challenge. If a change in law were required, the Government changed the law; the public authority did not have to change anything. The judgment of the Strasbourg court did not have any direct effect at all. Even in the famous Costello Roberts case, which abolished corporal punishment, it was the Government who were sued, not the school.
      The third change relates to who foots the bill. Clauses 6 and 7 allow people to sue the public authority directly and clause 8 provides for damages or other penalties to be ordered against that authority. The change of venue will also cause legal action to proliferate, which is no small matter. It will be far easier to trot along to the local High Court and sue a public authority than it is to go to the expense of suing the Government in Strasbourg. Those of us who question the Bill fear that there will be a flood of cases to establish exactly what a public authority is. That is why this debate is so important. Any body that looks even vaguely as if it might fit into this wide category, which the Government have failed to define, may find itself on the receiving end of a summons.

      421
      My amendments seek to address the issue of what is a public authority and what actions it can be sued for so as to limit the number of cases that might arise and to introduce some certainty. I should have thought that the Committee was united behind the idea of certainty and the attempt to limit the number of cases.
      The problem with clauses 6 and 7 is that they show the massive inconsistency in the Bill. Clause 6 deals with who can be sued and clause 7 deals with who is entitled to sue. Clause 6 is so widely drawn that no one is able to say what a public authority is, but clause 7 is very different. That is what irritates groups such as Liberty and Justice, which were hoping to be able to sue under clause 7. They wanted the Bill to give pressure groups a right to initiate legal action, but the Home Secretary argues—rightly, in my view—that only an individual can be a victim, so only an individual can sue. Therefore, in defining who may or may not sue, the Bill becomes tied to the practice of Strasbourg.
      Clause 7(6) states:
      "a person is a victim of an unlawful act only if he would be a victim for the purposes of Article 34 of the Convention if proceedings were brought in the European Court of Human Rights".
      As the Bill defines so clearly and precisely who may sue by reference to the convention, one would have thought that it would define who can be sued by reference to the convention, but it does not. That is the problem.
      What I argued in our previous debate, and what I continue to argue, is that if we are to incorporate the convention—it is a big if, but I shall not go into that now—we should tie the UK courts to the jurisprudence of Strasbourg to stop them feeling compelled to interfere in social, ethical, spiritual and moral issues that have traditionally been left to Parliament. If we are going to incorporate the convention, it is far better to do it in a sensible way than in a way that results in huge uncertainty and creates the spectre of judge-made law—something that we have always resisted and is not in our traditions, although it is in the traditions of countries such as the United States that have a bill of rights. Therefore, my two amendments simply use the same standard as is accepted in Strasbourg.
      One of my amendments would require the UK courts to define a public authority as Strasbourg does. The other requires them to define acts of a private nature in the same way as Strasbourg. Nothing could be simpler. It would add to the Bill an obligation on the courts to consider whether a claim should be entertained by the courts on the same basis that Strasbourg would consider it.
      We should not consider the nebulous definitions along the lines of clause 6—Strasbourg does not. There has been much debate about this and I appreciate the Home Secretary's problems in this respect. Strasbourg does not have this problem. Instead, it refers to article 27(2) of the convention, which deals with the inadmissibility of cases—whether courts should entertain them.
      A wealth of jurisprudence on the admissibility of claims has grown up around article 27(2). When considering the admissibility of any complaint, the European Court of Human Rights considers whether the body against whom the complaint is made is a body whose acts are subject to the convention and therefore a body for whose actions a Government can be held
      422
      responsible. The jurisprudence already exists, so it seems to make perfect sense for us to use that experience, not to dismiss it.
      Article 27(2) also considers the nature of the act itself. Clause 6(7) refers to acts of a private nature. A body that falls within this strange broad definition of "public authority" has a possible escape route if it can show that the nature of the act complained of is private. That is perfectly justifiable. An authority may be a public authority, but we accept that it carries out private actions. However, the problem is that we have no clear guidance in the Bill as to what that means.
      I believe that by referring the courts to article 27(2) of the convention we can give them clear guidance by requiring them to abide by Strasbourg's approach. Under protocol 11 of the convention, the existing filtering body—the European Commission of Human Rights —is to be abolished as the full court is restructured. Article 27(2) will then become article 35(3), but it will still exist.
      To sum up one argument, there is a glaring inconsistency in that the Bill clearly defines who can sue by reference to the convention, but defines who can be sued by reference to the Government's own home-made formula. That means that no public authority or quasi public authority can really be sure whether it fits the definition. Good law requires certainty. Requiring the courts to apply the Strasbourg test for liability in the way that the Bill requires them to apply the Strasbourg test for standing will increase certainty. Surely that is something in which the Committee should be interested.
      When considering what bodies can be subject to judicial review, we should be wary of creating the sort of confusion that has existed in our courts for many years. The Home Secretary hinted at the difficulties that we have experienced. Every time an application is made for a judicial review of the actions of a public body, the argument about whether the body complained of is public has to be rehashed. That sows confusion.
      Hours have been spent in court rooms and thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted on the problem of what is a public body. Every time there is an application for judicial review, the question of what is public has to be argued all over again because the law is unclear. Unfortunately, there is already extensive confusion in our law, and we are going to make it worse.
      There have been numerous appeals to the higher courts where pronouncements have been made, but the question of what is a public body remains unresolved. Since the 1980 case on judicial review—O'Reilly and Mackman—five House of Lords decisions have been handed down on this one point and there have been numerous other appellate decisions. It is no good for the Government to pretend that clear jurisprudence already exists in this country which can guide the courts on what is or is not a public body. The Government are not telling us in the Bill; nor does the jurisprudence exist.
      Mr. Grieve: Is not that the whole point—what is public has not been defined hitherto and cannot be defined? To that extent, is not my hon. Friend perhaps worrying overmuch about judicial interpretation in relation to human rights? Will not developments in that sphere

      423
      follow almost exactly developments involving public bodies generally and which inevitably have come from the courts with very little comment on them here?
      Mr. Leigh: That is true, but new rights will be created. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the courts will have a virtually clean sheet. If the convention is to be incorporated, we fear that many bodies that have hitherto been considered private and which could not be sued will be sued. Of particular concern are the private Churches, which have very few resources and will now be sued because they will be considered public bodies. Therefore, I cannot accept my hon. Friend's seeming lack of concern about this issue; it is vital.
      As was made clear earlier, we do not even know whether the Jockey Club is a public body. Apparently it is now a public body but that was not clear before, as the Home Secretary said. (Interruption.] I am sorry. Have I got that wrong? I apologise.
      Mr. Garnier: I do not want to interrupt my hon. Friend, but I think that he quite innocently got things the wrong way round. I think that the Home Secretary said that the Jockey Club was not a public body.
      Mr. Leigh: I apologise, but that shows that there is going to be confusion about what is or is not a public body. The fundamental failure of clause 6 is that it invites a similar confusion. A huge amount of time and money will be spent over hair-splitting definitions. I believe that the Bill will place a foot flat on the accelerator, pushing the limits yet again of the definition of a public body, and create a whole new flood of cases on the point.
      I believe also that there will be years of uncertainty in the courts. Some banisters, or some judges, will try to assimilate the English judicial review test, whereas others will argue on the basis of Strasbourg jurisprudence. Those consequences are all quite unnecessary and could be substantially avoided simply by following Strasbourg on who can be sued, just as the Bill follows Strasbourg on who can sue. I think that that would be a neat solution.
      One might argue that if we are to incorporate the convention—a point on which I have some doubts, although it is not for the Committee to debate it today—we should at least try to do it properly and in a manner that will not cause years of confusion. I take the view that we would make a more, not less, certain law if we followed the course that I have been advocating. I think that judges would be grateful for clear guidance and a clear sign that they should keep out of the internal affairs of many public bodies—including Churches and religious charities—on which they will otherwise be forced to adjudicate.
      7 pm
      Including in the Bill a reference to article 27(2) would invite the court to consider whether an applicant could bring a complaint at Strasbourg against the Government about an action. If we are bringing rights home, as the Government now claim, we should ensure that they are the same rights as currently exist at Strasbourg, not new rights to sue bodies that were previously exempt.
      The other advantage of my approach over the Government's approach is that it is more flexible. My approach should appeal to the Government because it
      424
      would eliminate the danger of a gap over interpretation appearing between the United Kingdom and Strasbourg, as UK courts would automatically follow the line taken by the Strasbourg court. My approach would avoid the danger of a burden being placed on bodies that normally would not be liable.
      It is bizarre that the Government's approach raises the possibility that a body that is successfully sued as a public authority in the United Kingdom might subsequently go to Strasbourg, which might decide that the result of the action was a breach of the body's human rights. A charity, for example, would not normally be considered to be a public authority as it is a private association. However, the Lord Chancellor has said that, in the Bill, charities would be considered to be public authorities.
      If the Government want to impose liability on certain bodies in addition to those that are already covered by Strasbourg, they should say so now and name those bodies in the Bill —which is all that I and other Conservative Members have asked for, repeatedly. The list of privatised utilities, for example, is not so long that it could not easily be incorporated in a schedule.
      Why are the Government refusing to name in the Bill the public bodies that will be covered by the Bill? Why are they not coming clean to Parliament? Surely the Government should have the courage to state clearly who the Bill is intended to catch and not hide behind the courts, which is what they are currently doing. The Government's current definition is simply not good enough or clear enough.
      I believe that the Bill goes wider and deeper than the convention. It goes wider because the definition in clause 6 of a public body includes bodies whose actions have never, ever been dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights. It goes deeper because United Kingdom courts will be forced to become involved in social, religious and other issues in which they should have absolutely no involvement.
      The Bill leaves fundamental issues in a mess, whereas in Strasbourg at least there are clear rules. As I said, the Government want to follow those clear rules in clause 7—which is fair enough—when deciding who can sue, but not in clause 6. Therefore, the matter of which bodies can be sued is wide open and the Government have given no help to the Committee.
      Would Parliament ever pass a Finance Bill without knowing to whom it applies? Is not the affected party a central matter included in any Finance Bill? To whom will a tax apply? When the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers the Budget, does he say, "I think that we should create a general right. The courts have a wealth of jurisprudence to decide it and they can be relied upon to do so"? No; the Chancellor states to whom the Bill will apply. The Committee is being asked to consider a Human Rights Bill without being told in clear detail—in any detailx2014;to whom the new rules will apply.
      The Bill will leave judges free to exercise creativity and poetic licence and require them to go further than Strasbourg has ever gone. As there will be little or no jurisprudence dealing with the cases that courts will have to consider, they will—as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—be starting with a clean sheet. Confusion will immediately be created and courts will have to create that jurisprudence as they go along.

      425
      I believe that my amendments would deal with some of those points and I commend them to the Committee.
      Mr. Garnier: I shall endeavour to speak as briefly as I can. We have had a very good debate, and I pay tribute to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who thoughtfully highlighted the very point that I wished to make on clause 6—which is that it is vague for uncertainty.
      As I said in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, and the debate on the Gracious Speech, I do not have any specific fears about introducing into domestic legislation the European convention on human rights. However—as Ministers tell us that they are bringing rights home and creating a new approach, so that people can litigate on some matters in domestic courts rather than in Strasbourg—the Government owe a duty to Parliament and to those who will hereafter have to interpret the law to avoid as much uncertainty as possible.
      The Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber. I have not started making polite remarks about him, but I soon shall. I am glad that he has returned.
      From my own experience as a barrister practising in the law of defamation, I know that, in any given case, the law frequently develops. I know from my own experience at the Bar that judges frequently develop the law. I shall give two examples from my own sphere of practice —qualified privilege and fair comment.
      It is often said that the categories of fair comment are never closed. Occasionally, a new case will be decided that extends the list of occasions of publication when qualified privilege applies. We are currently awaiting a judgment in the case of the former Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, Albert Reynolds, who recently had an action against The Sunday Times. An interesting question will be decided by the Court of Appeal in that case, by the Lord Chief Justice and two other Lord Justices, which is whether qualified privilege applies to the particular fact of Mr. Reynolds's case. I shall not go into the detail of the case now, as it is not germane to our debate.
      What constitutes a matter of public interest for the purposes of fair comment also is not frozen. Our courts are perfectly accustomed to extending the categories of matters of public interest, so that justice can be done in any particular case. We are used to that practice. However, that was under the old system.
      Under the flashy new Labour Government, we are being given rights which, if we are to have them—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, and I fully accept— should be so drafted by the Government that any possibility of doubt is avoided.
      As I said a moment ago, judges are perfectly capable of deciding whether a particular function is of a public nature or whether an act is a private act. I do not doubt that judges will be able to deal with that question, as they deal so with so many other questions in their daily working lives. However, as I said, as we are moving into a new era of activity, it seems only right and proper that the Government should be a little more careful in how they draft legislation.
      The point was underscored by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. Whereas clause 6 is vague for uncertainty, clause 7 is quite the opposite. The category
      426
      of those who may sue is carefully defined, whereas the category of persons who may be the respondents is not certain. I am quite happy to live with that, but it is a regrettable matter on which we are entitled to comment. We have the opportunity to get it right—or more right—but at least at the moment the Government appear not to be persuaded by the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and those who spoke subsequently.
      The question of definition is always difficult. Reverting to my own sphere of practice, it is often asked of me and my fellow defamation specialists how one defines what is defamatory. Like an elephant, it is easier to recognise than it is to define, but we have to do the best we can. I had hoped that this new, wonderful Government would do rather better than the best that they could, and apply their mind and get their head round the question of definition.
      The failure adequately to define what is a public authority means that the convention is no longer considered to be the perfect catalogue of rights as it was in the post-war period. I fully accept the analysis of the Home Secretary that the convention came into being after the second world war, to prevent the new states from repressing their peoples, who had been the victims of Nazi and fascist dictatorships. We are fortunate that we are the only one of the first 12 countries in the European Union that has had neither a home-grown nor an imported dictatorship, so we can stand back a little from the problems of post-war continental Europe. However, this evening's debate gives us the opportunity to push the Government a little and to ask them to apply their mind a little more rigorously to the issues.
      The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) about the likely contest between article 8 and article 10 are valid, although I do not agree with him in all circumstances. Reverting again to my own sphere of practice, the courts frequently have to balance the rights of a plaintiff who has been defamed or is about to be defamed and wants an injunction prior to publication, and the rights of the newspaper or potential defendant who says, "I shall prove that what I say is true." In those circumstances, at an interlocutory stage, the judge says to the plaintiff, "I am sorry, but the right to utter an untruth, if it proves to be so, takes precedence over your right to protect your reputation." The injunction is not granted and the article is published. If the defendant fails to justify at the trial, additional compensatory damages are available. It does not do the plaintiff much good at the time, but I am concerned that the contest between freedom of expression and the right not to have one's privacy invaded has been overtaken by a little too much emotion and perhaps not enough reason. However, that is a matter that may be for another day.
      Mr. Straw: It certainly will.
      Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Home Secretary says that it will be a matter for another day. I wish that he would tell us when it will be. Every day when I wake up and open my bedroom curtains I think that that day will dawn, but sadly, since February, the sun has not risen. Perhaps some legislative Viagra could be introduced to assist the Home Secretary in his thinking, but on that rather flippant note, I shall return to my first point in at least partial support of my hon. Friend the Member for

      427
      Gainsborough. Clause 6 is vague for uncertainty. It could be improved upon, and I invite the Home Secretary to think again.
      Mr. Grieve: We have had a fascinating debate, which has been made all the more enjoyable by the diversity of views expressed. I pay particular tribute to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who latched on to a number of important points about the legislation and its effect, although I cannot agree with everything that he said.
      As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, we are in danger of getting ourselves bogged down in the Press Complaints Commission and the issue of privacy. It is a bridge to be crossed when we reach it, but it should not impinge on the question of what is or is not a public authority. It is a separate, important issue, but we would be making a mistake if we started worrying about the privacy law and the slight difficulty into which the Government seem to have got themselves, to which I shall return in due course.
      7.15 pm
      I prefer to start with basic principles. It is well known that I am broadly—and in many ways in detail—in favour of incorporation. It is clear that the thrust of the convention is aimed at controlling governmental authority, which extends its influence not only through Government, but as the Home Secretary rightly said, through a variety of agencies and bodies that come from it or are tolerated by it for a variety of purposes. For example, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has charitable status, but also has the task of prosecuting for the purposes of animal welfare. It is a charitable body, which has been granted quite extensive powers by Parliament. It clearly falls within the ambit of an extension of the state because it is tolerated in the functions that it exercises. Therefore, the idea that we have to extend to public authorities the discipline of the convention should not be a matter of dispute.
      What I found more interesting in this evening's debate was the possibility that what we see as a public authority might be different from what is perceived to be a public authority in Strasbourg, not only in terms of definition, but in terms of function—what it does and what powers it has been granted. When we were discussing the clauses that we introduced for the protection of religion and religious freedom, we drew attention to the margin of appreciation. I assume that there will also be a margin of appreciation in the interpretation of the legislation by our national courts. I should be grateful for confirmation of that when the Home Secretary replies to the debate.
      If there is a margin of appreciation, it would follow logically that our national courts will first apply to the definition of a public authority the definition that they have been applying historically in the growing process of judicial review and secondly, where necessary, make reference to foreign jurisdictions and decisions in Strasbourg, to draw comparables. I would also assume that the fact that they draw comparables does not necessarily require them to follow them. Again, I should be grateful for the Home Secretary's confirmation.
      Whereas hitherto we have seen the margin of appreciation as a device by which our national courts would narrow the scope of the convention, what I found
      428
      fascinating and cogent about the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough was fear that, in this area, our national courts are ahead of Strasbourg and might well use the margin of appreciation for a wider test than is being applied there.
      The question is: should we worry about that? My hon. Friends think that we should. That brings us back to the Bill's fundamental issues and the understandable fears expressed by my hon. Friends, that the creation of the convention and the granting to the judiciary of the powers of definition and interpretation will lead to the erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, and potentially to our loss of control over the development of the law in that area.
      At the end of the day, I do not think that I shall lose sleep over this. I must accept that that may differentiate me from my hon. Friends, but my view derives from my experience as a barrister and my knowledge of how the national judiciary appears traditionally to work. The rock-bottom question is: am I prepared to trust the judiciary with the interpretation of the definition of a public authority?
      I listened carefully to the explanation of the amendments. I am delighted that this debate has taken place, because people should realise what is happening and what we are doing. The issue cannot be swept under the carpet. The discussion has taken place and many people have applied their minds to the definition of a public authority and, quite understandably, expressed their anxieties, and I believe that the Home Secretary's escape from the morass was more cogent than that of other hon. Members who participated in the debate. There is an all-or-nothing aspect to the discussion. If we were to define a public authority in the way that some have suggested, I believe that we would get into other unintended areas of difficulty.
      Will this situation produce what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough fears so much: all sorts of small-scale bodies being carpeted through the courts in ways that they did not expect? We cannot escape the fact that, following the passage of the legislation, there will be a blossoming of litigation on the subject. I suppose that I should declare an interest as a lawyer—although I do not think that I shall practise in this field. I suppose that litigation will blossom until the matter settles down through judicial interpretation.
      When I consider whether judicial interpretation will mean that Parliament has shed its rights and exposed people to unintended consequences, I must admit that I think it will not. I believe that the public authority definition is already established pretty well in our law. It has developed over time. A feature of this country is that we have allowed the judiciary historically to develop all sorts of areas of law. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough referred to the question of defamation. Equitable estoppel has not been discussed in the Chamber, but the consequences of its emergence in the past 50 years have been dramatic, to say the least, in relation to the rights of the individual.
      I am content to leave to the judiciary the task of interpretation, precisely because I think that public authority is not a new concept and is already well established in the mind of the judiciary. I also take the view that, with the margin of appreciation, it is less likely that the judiciary in this country will start to apply that definition to bodies that none of us would assume to be

      429
      public authorities. If it does and that means that Strasbourg disagrees and imposes its view upon us, so be it—we shall be no worse off than we are now. I do not believe that it is likely that the extensions will be so great in our domestic field—where we have already gone beyond Strasbourg—as to cause us particular concern.
      I welcome the discussion on this fundamental and important issue. I am happy to say that we live in a state where we have common law—that is one of our great treasures. In a funny way, we are adding to it, and I do not think that we shall do ourselves a great deal of harm in the process.
      Mr. Lansley: I am grateful for the opportunity to add to this very interesting discussion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), I have enjoyed listening to the different perspectives. I am not a lawyer, and it has been interesting trying to keep up with the legal arguments. However, I suppose that there are benefits in not being a lawyer, as I have endeavoured to understand, as a law maker, how the measures will impact upon the bodies that will be affected.
      I confess that I believed at the outset that the Government were not offering any definitions or allowing any scope for applying the measures—my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made that perfectly clear in his speech—and were, in effect, surrendering that power to the courts. The Home Secretary explained some of the Government's thinking, which was interesting and added substantially to the debate. However, I do not think that he addressed the heart of the problem: the motivation behind the amendments.
      The problem is not simply that the Government are abandoning any thought of defining the scope of public authorities for the purposes of the Bill and handing that power over to the courts—I understand that the Government have considered carefully the consequences of seeking to define the scope of public authorities in the Bill. Our courts have tended to move towards wider judicial review of administrative action by bodies that are not necessarily considered to be Government bodies but which perform a quasi-judicial function similar to that of a conventional public body. If we were to seek to define the scope of public authorities narrowly, we would expose ourselves to the risk of people going directly to the court at Strasbourg and we would not be well served by giving a right of action in United Kingdom courts.
      However, I am not clear—the Home Secretary's speech did not provide the answers—about the basis upon which he understands that United Kingdom courts will operate in attempting to define a public authority. Will they do so by referring to the developing thesis of what judicial review should constitute? In the context of the application of the European convention on human rights, it would be inapplicable to think too widely or too narrowly. There would not necessarily be a read-across between the appropriate application of the European convention—which is a treaty made by Government, with the intention of incorporating it into the actions of public authorities and making them liable to action by private individuals—and the question of judicial review. I suspect that the courts will examine the manner in which a body that operates in relation to a profession, for example,
      430
      carries out its functions. If that body has a judicial character, it should do so with reference to principles that are subject to review by the courts.
      If it is not appropriate to use that basis, perhaps, in time, the courts will put that to one side and look specifically towards Strasbourg. If it is intended to allow our definition of a public authority to be precisely the definition adopted by Strasbourg, we shall face the problem upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield expanded—and he did a much better job than I could. That is the heart of the problem.
      If we in this country understand the state differently from the manner in which it is understood by other countries that are parties to the European convention and subject to the Strasbourg court, should not that be reflected in our jurisprudence? We should acknowledge that we have that different understanding rather than simply incorporating, by virtue of the wider definition of public functions, a broader definition and encouraging our courts to adopt it and to interpret it as being consistent with what would be the conclusion of the Strasbourg court as it might be applied in a different jurisdiction.
      There is a difference between the state in our context and that in other contexts. We all have our examples. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution; that example goes in one direction. I have worked in the chambers of commerce, which are voluntary bodies in this country but public law bodies in most EU member states. There will be a range of such differences in the manner in which bodies operate in different countries.
      There are great differences now, which might increase, in the extent to which industry is owned by the state or has the character of a public function. We have far fewer nationalised industries than other countries. Of the industries that were formerly nationalised, an increasing number are becoming competitive in the marketplace rather than exercising a quasi monopoly. It is terribly important that we understand how we can ensure that we establish through the European convention an exercise of the rights applicable to individuals as against public authorities, by reference to an understanding here of what constitutes a public authority following our signing up to the convention. Such a definition should not necessarily be exactly the same as that in the Strasbourg court.
      7.30 pm
      Uncharacteristically, the Home Secretary was not generous enough about the amendments. If the amendments do not technically do the job, it would be possible to go down a path indicated by them: considering bodies that are framed by statute over which Ministers have powers of appointment, perhaps including reference to the Crown and the bodies and powers that emanate from it. Alongside amendment No. 106, we should perhaps consider something like amendment No. 31, which specifically excludes the private acts of public authorities.
      We should move towards a definition that looks to the source of authority rather than simply to the nature of the activity. By using the definition of
      "functions of a public nature",
      one is opening the door to UK courts looking directly to a Strasbourg-style definition of what constitutes the state and public authorities. We should look, through the source

      431
      of authority, to what in this country might turn out to be a narrower definition. We should follow not public money but the public authority—authority being the operative word—which is passed on through legislation, the Crown and statutory obligations. By doing that, which is distinct from the judicial review test, we might be able to establish in this country a definition of public authorities that is distinct and relevant in our circumstances, even if it is not conterminous with that which might be applied by the Strasbourg court in other countries.
      Miss Kirkbride: I do not intend to speak for very long, because I am somewhat in awe of my hon. Friends who are lawyers and who quote cases of which I have never heard.
      I have found the debate interesting, as I did the Home Secretary's explanation of why he was unhappy about the Conservative amendments. I took on board his comment that, if he were to list public authorities in the way in which we suggest, difficulties in the ability to repatriate rights would be created. Sadly, in my view, which I know is somewhat beyond the scope of this debate, that appears a very good reason to have left things well alone, leaving rights just to sue the British state in the European courts. That would not lead to all the difficulties to which my hon. Friends have drawn attention.
      The description of how matters might develop given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) was particularly illuminating. Will the Secretary of State say who will pay the legal fees of the various bodies that at present can be sued only vicariously through the British state, but may soon be sued in their own right? Some of the bodies exist on relatively limited resources. The public functions they provide might be diminished by the fact that they will encounter significant and expensive legislation. I am sure that the Bill will create something of a beanfeast for lawyers—sadly not those in the House.
      Mr. David Ruffley: The debate has been very interesting; I was certainly interested to hear the Home Secretary's comments. He made his points in a non-partisan manner, which we appreciate.
      Before dealing with two specific points on which I should like the Home Secretary's views, I must say that the uncertainty inherent in the definition of public authorities is unfortunate. It is caused by the Government's unwillingness to take responsibility for listing the public authorities that they have in mind. They are abdicating their responsibilities by saying that the courts should decide; that, in some sense, Parliament is not fit or able to determine, or capable of determining, which public authorities should be brought within the ambit of the European convention as it is incorporated into UK law.
      My first specific point relates to the operation of the term "public authority". I understand why the Home Secretary does not wish to be drawn on specific cases. None the less, paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper provides some guidance on what the Government would consider a likely candidate for a public authority. I draw the Home Secretary's attention to companies that are responsible for areas of activity that were previously in the public sector, such as privatised utilities. He referred to Railtrack, and we take his points.
      432
      It has been brought to my attention that companies such as British Gas and BT, which fall into the category of privatised utilities, could be brought within the definition of public authorities. How can they be treated differently from companies that have always been in the private sector and which compete in the same market? That is a potential breach of competition or company law. The question is certainly being aired. Will the Home Secretary specifically meet the objection to the definition in the White Paper?
      The second specific point relates to the Press Complaints Commission. We are very worried about how the nature of that body may change. There has certainly been debate in government. We know that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has had certain disagreements with the Lord Chancellor. There is general confusion about the PCC's status.
      I have a point to put to the Home Secretary. If the Press Complaints Commission is indeed a public authority—on 1 December, a press release from the Lord Chancellor suggested that, following some high-powered advice from David Pannick QC, he probably now thought that it was a public authority—certain things follow. It follows that individuals may, under article 8, wish to pursue a claim for a breach of their right to privacy. Such people would go to the Press Complaints Commission, but they may not get a determination that they like there. They may then wish to go to the court, and under the convention the court would be obliged to deliver effective remedies.
      If that is the case, there will be an in-built incentive, almost a requirement, for the courts to ensure that the public authority in question delivers effective remedies. What might those be? There could be a power of prior restraint. The court may say that the PCC should have the powers to fine or compensate. That is the inescapable logic of bringing the PCC within the definition of a public authority.
      Will not the nature and character of the PCC as a voluntary organisation that can deliver swift justice at a low price to ordinary people, with all the advantages that that brings, therefore be destroyed? It is in that spirit that I urge that amendment No. 106, especially in terms of exempting privatised utilities and the PCC from what could be damaging consequences, be taken seriously.
      Mr. Straw: I shall try briefly to answer some of the points that have been raised—those, that is, that I did not try to answer during the debate. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the way in which they have entered into the debate.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked me about the margin of appreciation, and whether our national courts will be ahead of Strasbourg in applying the convention. He and I both use the term "margin of appreciation" in a loose way, for which I have been admonished, so I pass that admonition on to him. Technically, the term refers to the way in which the Strasbourg court gives the benefit of the doubt to a domestic jurisdiction. It will continue to do so. Indeed, the more we can develop our own jurisprudence in connection with the convention, the greater the margin of appreciation that will be given.
      I should have explained before that we could not directly replicate in the Bill the definition of public authorities used by Strasbourg, because, of course,

      433
      the respondent to any application in the Strasbourg court is the United Kingdom, as the state. We have therefore tried to do the best we can in terms of replication by taking into account whether a body is sufficiently public to engage the responsibility of the state. The hon. Gentleman explained that well.
      The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) asked who would pay in domestic actions. The organisations concerned will pay, so some aspects will depend on the depth of their pockets. That was one of the reasons why I made that clear a couple of weeks ago when we debated the subject in respect of the Churches. I wanted to avoid vexatious litigation against the Churches, which is why I was persuaded to provide them with additional protection in the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) picked me up on paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper, which mentions privatised utilities. That put the matter in a general way, to make the point that, if we had a list of public authorities, it would quickly go out of date. I am absolutely clear that we must, to use the old cliché, provide a level playing field between BT and other, wholly private, operators. They would have to be treated the same under the Bill.
      That is why we do not want to go down the road advocated by amendment No. 106, which, with commercial property developers, for example, would treat Railtrack more onerously than any other body—such as the wholly private developer McAlpine, which is known both to the hon. Gentleman and to me—simply because Railtrack happens to be a statutory body. I do not want to do that, which is why I say that there is a defect in amendment No. 106.
      7.45 pm
      Overall, the difference between some Opposition Members and other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee is whether we seek to define a public authority and a public function by reference to the substance and nature of the act, or to the form and legal personality of the institution. As we are dealing with public functions and with an evolving situation, we believe that the test must relate to the substance and nature of the act, not to the form and legal personality.
      If we were to do as the Opposition recommend, we would have a definition too wide in some respects, which would cop Railtrack's purely commercial activities as it should not, and too narrow in others—that is, it would exclude the Home Secretary, and I think that I ought to
      434
      be covered by the Bill. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the Opposition will seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Sir Norman Fowler: This has been a valuable and rather important debate, and I congratulate those of my hon. Friends who have taken part in it, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley). I also listened with interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Mr. Maclennan).
      I think that I am right in saying that, apart from the Home Secretary, no Labour Member has taken part in the debate.
      Mr. Straw: My hon. Friends wanted to leave more time for you.
      Sir Norman Fowler: I am most grateful for that—but it may also say something about Labour Members' commitment to the legislation.
      I cannot say that I am happy with the position under the clause. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said, with great eloquence, there is a lack of clarity and certainty. The Home Secretary has been discreet about what has taken place in government and the processes of government. However, the potential confusion is illustrated by the fact that no less a person than the Lord Chancellor proceeded into the legislation on the basis that one important body was not a public authority, but has now come to the conclusion that it is.
      I acknowledge the important assurances that the Home Secretary has given, and his response to the debate. He has said that new amendments will be brought forward to cover the area of interest of the PCC, and the press and the media generally. For us that is an important commitment, and we welcome it. We would like to see those amendments sooner rather than later, because, as several of my hon. Friends have said, we have been waiting for them for some time.
      Having secured that commitment from the Home Secretary, I do not wish to press amendment No. 106 to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 41, in page 4, leave out lines 24 to 26.
      No. 138, in page 4, leave out lines 27 to 30.—[Mr. Allen.]
      Clause 6, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.— [Mr. Allen.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
  [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 15 June].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
    Clause 8

      APPLICATIONS TO REVOKE DECLARATION
      7.48 pm
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 4, line 27, at end add
      `and the Secretary of State shall make such an application if the condition in section 3(8)(b) is not satisfied.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 23, in page 4, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
      '(2) The Commissioners shall revoke the declaration if any of the applicable conditions in section 3 are no longer met.'.
      Clause stand part.
      Government new clause 4—Revocation of declaration.
      Mr. Hunter: I am somewhat surprised by the absence of the two hon. Members whose names appear above mine in support of the amendment. The only point I need make in moving these self-explanatory amendments is that—as I understand the situation—they are substantially reflected in new clause 4, tabled by the Government, and therefore the amendments cease to be relevant to our deliberations. Effectively, the amendments have been taken on board by the Government and have been overtaken by events.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out that new clause 4 replaces the import of amendments Nos. 22 and 23, and I shall give some background to this important area.
      On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew attention to a problem with the Bill as it is drafted. He said:
      "clause 8 needs to be strengthened. In particular, an obligation should be imposed to seek revocation if the conditions in clause 3(8) have not been satisfied. Moreover, the commissioners should have a duty to revoke declarations if the conditions in clause 3 are no longer met."—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1100.]
      The Government have taken note of those points—which were well made—and considered them.
      Clause 8 is intended to ensure that a prisoner who receives a declaration from the commissioners under clause 3 but who is not granted immediate release should still meet the criteria set out in clause 3 at the time when he comes to be released. The Bill as drafted gives the Secretary of State a power to refer a case back to the commissioners if she considers that the prisoner no longer meets the criteria.
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann identified that it is not clear whether the commissioners are under a duty to reconsider the case against the criteria. Helpfully, he also drew attention to the need to take account of changes of individual circumstances of the prisoner and of the
      436
      consequences of an organisation that was previously not specified by the Secretary of State being specified. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) tabled amendments Nos. 22 and 23 to try to deal with that problem.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I take it that that refers only to prisoners before they are released.
      Mr. Ingram: I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps if he contributes to the debate he will be able to help me.
      We considered the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to be insufficient, and we tabled new clause 4. The effect of the new clause is to place the Secretary of State under a duty to refer the case of a prisoner back to the commissioners if she considers that, either as a consequence of an order made under clause 3(8) or because of a change of circumstances, the prisoner no longer satisfies the conditions set out in clause 3.
      That means that, if an organisation returned to violence, any prisoners who supported the organisation and who remained in custody would be referred back to the commissioners, who would consider whether they continued to meet the criteria for release. The Secretary of State may also refer the case back if she becomes aware of evidence or information which was not available to the commissioners when they granted the declaration. In either case, the commissioners are under a duty to revoke their declaration if the conditions in clause 3 are not satisfied.
      The Government consider that new clause 4 meets the concerns expressed by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, and we ask the House to accept that the existing clause 8 should be replaced with new clause 4. It is worth while paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has dealt carefully and responsibly with a specific weakness in the Bill. In light of our other debates on the Bill, that seems to be the way in which we can make progress in amending and improving the Bill. We have had some grandstanding over the past couple of days in The Daily Telegraph and The Times, but that does not help us to deal with a complex Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has shown that, by careful analysis and consideration, we can take the issue forward.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Can I have some clarification from the Minister? He may be aware that the Irish News reported at the weekend that attacks were carried out in the Markets area of my constituency by the official IRA. He may be aware also that Mr. Turley, a constituent of mine, was murdered at the weekend. At a time when the House is against judicial sentencing for capital offences, he was murdered without any trial. He may have been a drug runner, but that does not justify what happened. It has been put to me that the body which did that can be described as the SAS of Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein. Would that type of thing be considered in the light of new clause 4?
      Mr. Ingram: First, I will not speculate on matters raised in the press. However, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman has described the issue, it does not seem to be a description of events which would be reported to

      437
      me. As he knows, we never discuss information which may be in the hands of the Secretary of State or myself and which has been passed to us by the security forces. We must consider the details. Clearly, our sympathy would go the family of anyone murdered, because they are still victims—irrespective of what they may have been involved in.
      Mr. William Thompson: Is there a loophole in the Bill? The Secretary of State can apply to the commissioners before the prisoner's release, but the commissioners can grant an application if a prisoner has not been released. Does that mean that if the determination date came up after an application by the Secretary of State, the prisoner could be released and out before the commissioners re-heard the case? Would it not be wiser and more prudent that, once the Secretary of State had made a declaration, a prisoner should not be released until the commissioners had again heard the case?
      8 pm
      Mr. Ingram: That was a rather convoluted explanation of a set of circumstances—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we want to achieve in new clause 4. I do not want to go through the whole import of the new clause again, except to say that it was designed to ensure that the belt-and-braces approach could be properly exercised. Clause 8 contained a weakness, which the new clause has resolved. Having explained the purpose of the new clause, I commend it to the Committee.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister invited me to return to the issue, so I ask him whether he can confirm that the new clause deals only with prisoners before they are released, and that it will not affect people who have been released but who are in such circumstances as are envisaged in the new clause. The new clause seems to have effect
      "any time before the prisoner is released".
      It seems to deal only with prisoners who are in custody; it does not cover a prisoner who has been released but who still has the same relationship to the organisation of which he was a member.
      The Minister congratulates the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on being diligent in his business, but has not the Minister weakened in carrying out his business? Should not the new clause cover both parts of the equation—the prisoner who has not been released and the prisoner who has been released?
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is now trying to amend the new clause, but he had the opportunity to try to ensure that any weakness he saw in clause 8 was dealt with. If he had had a major concern, it would have been helpful if it had been expressed in the form of an amendment, although I can tell him that, of course, the licence covers those who are released. On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), the matter must, in the circumstances that he described, rest with the commissioners.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister is wrong to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for
      438
      North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) missed the opportunity to table an amendment that would cover the issue, as that issue is also dealt with by clause 9. Moreover, amendment No. 44, which we tabled, would ensure that the period after a prisoner was released is covered.
      On new clause 4, we are talking about a narrow, even trivial, issue, in that we are concerned only about the band of time after the commission has reached a conclusion but before a prisoner is released—something could happen in the few hours or days between those two events.
      Mr. Hunter: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 8 disagreed to.

    Clause 9

      LICENCES: CONDITIONS
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 37, after 'Ireland', insert—
      '( )that he is not involved in directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people,'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 13, in page 4, line 38, leave out
      'in the case of a life prisoner'.
      No. 44, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
      '(d) that any organisation which at the time of his release under this Act he supported, but which was not then specified as a terrorist organisation under section 3(8), has not subsequently been specified as such an organisation under that section.'.
      Mr. MacKay: Amendment No. 12 covers a simple, but important, point. There is a genuine fear, which I hope that the Minister shares, that a terrorist organisation that has renounced violence and is observing a ceasefire could subcontract its work to another organisation. If the Secretary of State found that that was happening, it would be important that she had powers under clause 9 to cover people in such organisations—otherwise, a coach and horses would be driven through the Bill in a way that I know that the Minister would not want. We believe that amendment No. 12 would add weight to the Bill.
      Amendment No. 13 is similar to an amendment that we tabled earlier this week—we do not see why the measures should apply only to life prisoners. We did not press the amendment on Monday and we shall not necessarily press this amendment, but perhaps the Minister has now had time to reflect on the matter. I do not want to fall out with him over this, but we believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill. I do not believe that ordinary, reasonable people will understand why only life prisoners, and not others, represent a threat to society. The Committee will be aware that almost all terrorist prisoners represent a danger and that life prisoners are not necessarily always the most dangerous. We are revisiting old ground—I make no apology for that—and I simply ask the Minister to reflect further on the matter. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
      Mr. Ingram: As was said on Second Reading and earlier in Committee, the licence conditions under the Bill

      439
      are extremely demanding. The Secretary of State may recall a prisoner if she believes that he has broken, or is likely to break, a condition of his licence.
      For the record, it is worth spelling out those conditions again. First, the prisoner must not support, or be likely to support, an organisation identified as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8). Secondly, the prisoner must not be, or be likely to become, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland. Thirdly, in the case of a life sentence prisoner, the prisoner must not be, or become likely to be, a danger to the public. Those are three exacting licence conditions, which go well beyond any that are currently applied in Northern Ireland. They are designed specifically to apply to prisoners who have been involved in acts of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
      If life sentence prisoners were to be involved in such offences as are suggested in the amendment, it would be open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider that they were a danger to the public and to suspend the licence accordingly. The ordinary criminal law is entirely adequate to deal with prisoners serving fixed-term sentences who have committed ordinary criminal offences that are not related to terrorism.
      With the exception of some sex offenders, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences in Northern Ireland for non-terrorist offences who are released are not subject to any licence conditions. If they commit further offences, they are dealt with in the usual way and sentenced for those further offences. In some cases, prisoners who commit a further offence after being released from prison may be subject to a further penalty in respect of that part of the sentence that was remitted. Under the Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, a court has a discretion to make an order requiring a prisoner to serve the remaining part of a previous sentence before beginning a new sentence. That provision will apply also to prisoners released under this legislation.
      The involvement of terrorist organisations in organised crime is worthy of further consideration. We are dealing with different issues and that matter was raised on Second Reading. I want to consider whether the licence conditions should be extended to include such activity when a terrorist organisation moves across into ordinary organised crime as set out in preceding debates. We may well have to consider that matter.
      Amendment No. 13 would extend a third licence condition—that a prisoner should not become a danger to the public— to fixed-term prisoners. During the debate on clause 3, when we considered amendments Nos. 7, 55, 33, 35, 53 and 10, I set out the arguments against making risk one of the criteria that the commissioners should be required to consider when deciding whether a fixed-term prisoner should be released. That debate and argument are set out in column 42 of the Official Report on Monday 15 June. At that time, I explained that a life sentence was intended to mark the particular nature of murder and that it could also be imposed for other serious crimes if risk were a concern.
      I remind the Committee that, under normal law, prisoners serving fixed-term sentences are not subject to a risk assessment before being released. As risk is not a condition that fixed-term prisoners must satisfy to be released unless the risk is that the prisoner will engage in
      440
      terrorist activity, it is therefore not appropriate for such a test to be imposed as a licence condition. If it were imposed, it could cause the following problem. A prisoner could have his licence suspended by the Secretary of State and revoked by the commissioners on the ground that he was, or was likely to become, a danger to the public. The prisoner could then apply to the commissioners for a declaration under clause 3. They would have to consider the prisoner for release against the conditions set out in clause 3 and, if those were met, make a further declaration in his favour. Clearly, a state of affairs in which a prisoner could be recalled to prison for breaching his licence conditions but released again because he met the criteria in clause 3 would be unsatisfactory, in particular as the prisoner in question would not have committed a further criminal offence. It would have a yo-yo effect, which would clearly be undesirable.
      Of course, in an earlier debate we dealt with that matter and with the reasons why we did not feel that the provision should apply. Logically, those should similarly apply to the licence conditions. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to withdraw the amendment. There is a clear relationship between the release and licence conditions. We could not allow the sort of back-and-forwards process that would result if the amendments were agreed to.
      Mr. Hunter: The Minister's comments did not embrace amendment No. 44. The argument for that amendment, to which I have added my name, is so explicitly self-explanatory because of its wording that I do not need to elaborate on it in detail. The basic argument is: what would happen if a prisoner had cleared obstacle 3(8) and the organisation of which he is a member or is deemed to support had been specified not to be a terrorist organisation but, while he is on release on licence, it is then deemed to have become a terrorist organisation by the Secretary of State? The amendment, which I support, would mean that it would be a case of, "Tough luck, you're back inside." Does the Minister agree that the amendment has some valid points?
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I, too, will speak to amendment No. 44. To some extent, the Minister seemed to support the argument behind it by saying that he would table a new clause later. The Minister recognises that whether a prisoner should be released is based on certain factors—if he supports a terrorist organisation, that would show that he should not be released. Under clause 3, which we have already debated, if the commissioners decided to release a prisoner but the organisation he supported was subsequently specified as a terrorist organisation, he would not be released. What could be the difference save that the prisoner is out of gaol?
      The prisoner is released from gaol not because of anything that he or she might have done but because of the status of his or her organisation. Surely, the status of the organisation must then determine whether the prisoner should remain out of gaol. If the prisoner is to remain in gaol if the organisation is deemed to be a terrorist organisation, it must also be right that he should return to gaol if it is subsequently listed by the Secretary of State as such.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. David Maclean: I wish to support amendments Nos. 12 and 44, and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) hit the nail on the head about the latter. Prisoners will be released not because of any great change of heart on their behalf or any particular merits that they have, but because the organisation to which they belong is perceived by the Secretary of State to have satisfied certain criteria and can therefore be listed as not participating in terrorism. Having been released through no merit on his part but purely because of his status as a member of an organisation that has temporarily, or for a ploy, renounced violence, it would be extraordinary if the prisoner did not then go back to gaol because of his status when that organisation undertook violence again or went back to terrorism so that the Secretary of State had once again to proscribe it. To me, that is self-evident and I think it would be obvious to every ordinary and reasonable person.
      I hope that the Minister will not say that the amendment is rewriting the Belfast agreement. Clearly, it is not rewriting anything at all. Surely it is a common-sense approach. Those prisoners released under the Bill purely because their host organisation has given up violence and satisfied the criteria must be returned to gaol when their host organisation once again takes up violence or, to be more precise, terrorism.
      On amendment No. 12, does the definition in the Bill that the prisoner
      "does not become concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland"
      embrace those other acts of violence that terrorists carry out in the pursuit of terrorism? I am suggesting not the scenario that the Minister described of a terrorist organisation moving into organised crime, drugs or other rackets, but the present situation in Northern Ireland, in which organisations may not be setting off major bombs that attract the media's attention, but people are being beaten up and kneecapped, pickaxes are being taken to their legs on a daily basis, and they are subject to violence in the course of terrorist intimidation. That intimidation does not necessarily raise money for organised crime, but may impose a terrorist will on the community.
      Many acts of violence seem not to be caught by the definition of terrorism that involves being
      "concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
      I am happy to be corrected, and I admit that my recollection of which offences are classed as terrorism is a bit hazy, but would some acts of violence, such as kneecapping, that are being committed by terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland against other citizens in Northern Ireland be classified as terrorism?
      I support the amendment because it seems that those who are not directly involved in terrorism but who are directing, assisting in or instigating acts of violence are furthering the aims of terrorism and should, therefore, be caught by the Bill. I am worried that the clause 9 definition of terrorism is too narrow. It may restrict us to those involved in planting bombs or shooting members of the security forces, and it may not cover the all-too-regular occurrences of other acts of violence
      442
      perpetrated for the furtherance of terrorism against the citizens of Northern Ireland, but not prosecuted as terrorist offences.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister chided me for not raising this matter before, but it should be raised under clause 9. This point is to do not with a prisoner who is still in custody but with those who are out of custody when the organisation to which they belong has been found to be engaged in violence. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has illustrated the point by mentioning the declaration that the old IRA has recommenced its fight. That organisation is not proscribed, although the proscription "Irish Republican Army" is broad. For years, the old IRA has claimed that it was no longer involved, and that that term covered the Provisional IRA. However, the purpose of the amendments is simply to ensure that the long arm of the law will be able to reach out to bring back to custody members of organisations that have recommenced their violence. That is important, and should be dealt with.
      Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to the Minister for his replies. I shall be happy not to press amendment No. 13 on the basis of his assurances. However, I want to press a little further on amendment No. 12 although the Minister need not be concerned that I intend to press it to a vote as I shall withdraw it in due course if he agrees to consider it further on Report or to have it considered in the House of Lords.
      The amendment is straightforward and non-controversial. If the Minister flicks back a little through the Bill, he will find in clause 3(9) that
      "In applying subsection (8)(b) the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account whether an organisation…
      (c) is directing or promoting acts of violence committed by other organisations".
      We have deliberately used the same phraseology in amendment No. 12, because it covers the point well. I cannot for the life of me see why it cannot also apply to licensed prisoners. Perhaps the Minister will wish to reflect on the point rather than giving a definite answer now, and I should be happy for him to return on Report or to have the point raised in the House of Lords. I shall withdraw the amendment, but would be interested in any observation from the Minister. I reserve the right to have the amendment reintroduced in the House of Lords if there is no satisfactory response.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I should say that, if the hon. Gentleman wants further information, he should ask the Minister for it and then withdraw his amendment in the light of that information. Before he mentions withdrawing it again, another Member may wish to speak.
      Mr. William Ross: A couple of interesting points have arisen. The list of proscribed organisations mentions simply the IRA, but the organisation that has been responsible for most of the violence for many years is the Provisional IRA. Exactly what is the legal position? Does "IRA" cover both, and if

      443
      so, what about the original IRA, now known as the official IRA, which, according to some newspapers, has come back to life?
      Mr. Peter Robinson: And the Continuity IRA.
      Mr. Ross: There is the Continuity IRA, too. If we do not have the correct set of letters, might there be a defence in law? It might never have been used, but there is a possibility of it.
      Amendment No. 12 raises the question of the subcontractors for the Provisional IRA and its fellow travellers. I think that the amendment is sensible, and I hope that the Minister will take on board what the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) has said. He will recall that I tabled an earlier amendment to cover anyone involved in a criminal act, which I thought sufficiently wide to cover not only acts clearly concerned with terrorism, but lesser crimes such as punishment shootings, intimidation and violence. In any other part of the United Kingdom, those would be considered major crimes, and the fact that they can be described in Northern Ireland as minor crimes shows the background against which the debate is taking place. The Minister should reconsider. Not only are there subcontractors, but some crimes that are not listed should be associated with the greater crimes of the terrorist organisations.
      Amendment No. 44 relates to the further problem of a possible change of name for terrorist organisations, by which they might manage to escape for long enough to get beyond the law by skipping across the border. As we know from bitter experience, there is not a snowball's chance of getting them back. I hope that the Minister will keep those points in mind.
      Mr. Ingram: Let me deal first with the points made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) by returning to our discussion on release conditions for determinate sentence prisoners. The way in which that was defined still stands. To introduce a new criterion would make a difference to what currently applies. We judged that that was not appropriate. By reading that across to the licence conditions, I tried to explain that to have a different type of definition would mean that those who were going back and forward under a breach of licence as a determinate sentence prisoner would come back under release conditions, and then get out again. A fine judgment was needed on this point, and we tried to ensure that the current law on determinate sentence prisoners remained in place as far as the risk element was concerned. That is why the read-across applied between release conditions and licence conditions.
      As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am always prepared to consider matters, but the case must be better made. I do not criticise him; he argued his case well, but there would need to be more substance to it. We would not enhance the law of Northern Ireland by doing what he has suggested. That said, I am prepared to consider the matter because we must, in introducing any Bill, consider logicalities and illogicalities, and try to resolve them. We have judged that the way in which the Bill has been drafted is sufficient to deal with the circumstances for the release of determinate prisoners, but I am always prepared to consider further. The matter can always be examined further in another place.
      444
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) upbraided me for not alluding to amendment No. 44. That was because the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) had not yet spoken in favour of that amendment, so there was no point in debating it. Amendment No. 44 would enable prisoners who supported at the time of their release an organisation that was later specified as a terrorist organisation to be recalled automatically. I understand the reasoning behind that, but the amendment goes beyond what is required.
      8.30 pm
      Under the Bill as it stands, if a prisoner who is released on licence becomes a supporter of a terrorist organisation—an organisation specified by the Secretary of State under clause 3(8)—he is in breach of his licence and can be recalled. That would include circumstances in which an organisation that a prisoner supports was identified after he had been released as a terrorist organisation under clause 3(8); but for a prisoner to be recalled he must be, or be likely to become, a supporter of a terrorist organisation at the time of recall.
      The fact that a prisoner supported such an organisation in the past is not a ground to recall him as that would be contrary to human rights law for the simple reason that a case has to be proven. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Belfast, East tries to advance his argument by shouting. He has an opportunity to debate the issue and I am trying to explain the background to the Bill and my understanding of the weaknesses of amendment No. 44. However, I understand the concept that he is trying to advance.
      If a prisoner is released, and the organisation to which he belongs subsequently resumes its proscribed activities, why should there be an automatic assumption that the individual involved has not changed his ways? The hon. Member for Belfast, East probably thinks that no one can change their ways because he has never changed his thinking in all the time that he has been arguing his case in Northern Ireland; but people do change.
      Mr. Maclean indicated dissent.
      Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that he was an eminent and highly competent Home Office Minister, and if he does not understand that those who are allowed out on licence may themselves have changed and should not be subject to recall because of the activities of an organisation to which they once belonged, I should like to hear his interpretation of what would be right.
      Mr. Maclean: The Minister is unnecessarily churlish. I never made the claims that he so arrogantly ascribes to me. I merely cited some of the unfortunate experiences that I have had.
      If the prisoner is released on licence, not because of any change in his behaviour but because of a change in the organisation to which he belongs, I do not see how it would be contrary to human rights laws for him to be recalled because of another change in that organisation's behaviour.
      Mr. Ingram: I do not want to get into a load of hypothetical issues, but what happens if that prisoner,

      445
      who once supported that organisation, starts arguing against it when he is released on licence and helps us to understand its activities and even to bring other people to justice? If that organisation is then deemed to fall outwith the ambit of the Secretary of State's judgment on whether the prisoner should have been released in the first place, why should that prisoner be recalled, when he is now a good citizen? I do not understand the logic of the arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.
      Judgments on release will be made on a case-by-case basis even though an organisation may be deemed to satisfy other aspects of the legislation so that those who are associated with it can, in general, be released. If an individual prisoner does not satisfy the conditions, he will not be released even though the organisation to which he belongs is judged to have changed sufficiently to warrant the release of other prisoners.
      Mr. Maclean: Let us be clear. We are talking not about good citizens but about terrorists who have been sentenced fairly in a United Kingdom court to a term of imprisonment—perhaps five, 10 or 15 years, or life—for murder or terrorism. Those people are to be granted release because of a political settlement, and that release depends not on their behaviour, on their renouncing violence and becoming good citizens, but on the organisation to which they belong renouncing terrorism. Surely the Minister realises that, if that organisation goes back to terrorism, the prisoner has no merit in demanding that he remain at large.
      Mr. Ingram: I do not want to be churlish again, but the right hon. Gentleman did indeed tell us about his experience as a Home Office Minister and how he was twice as good as a psychiatrist when it came to judging individual cases. Let me take him through the idiot's guide, because he has obviously forgotten everything that he should have learnt when he was a Minister about the rights of prisoners.
      The right hon. Gentleman asks why a prisoner cannot be recalled if the organisation is specified after his release. The answer is simple: people can be recalled as a result only of their own behaviour and not of the behaviour of an organisation to which they once belonged. I cannot make it any clearer than that. Is he really telling the Committee that people who were once terrorists must remain terrorists for ever and can never renounce violence or say that they are sorry, or even help the security forces to bring others to justice? If that is his argument, I want him to defend it, but if he accepts my argument, he should remain seated.
      Mr. Maclean: I do not entirely accept the argument that the Minister is producing; those prisoners will be released early, but they will be released early because of a political settlement, in the normal run of events and irrespective of the Bill. In furtherance of a political settlement, the Bill will allow accelerated release, but that accelerated release will be based not on the good behaviour of prisoners but on the behaviour of the organisations to which they belong. Accelerated release on licence purely because of their organisations' behaviour could be rescinded because of
      446
      their organisations' behaviour. That issue is separate from the normal release of prisoners after their sentences have expired.
      Mr. Ingram: I used the phrase "the yo-yo effect" in terms of amendments Nos. 12 and 13, and there is a yo-yo effect between myself and the right hon. Gentleman. I made a comment about the European convention on human rights and the breach that would apply. To try to understand the argument, he should read article 5(4), which deals specifically with the rights of an individual in respect of events outwith his control. Such an individual may have been a supporter of an organisation, or have been the most senior person in it, and he may be subject to accelerated release, but once he is out, he has to be judged on whether he continues to support that organisation.
      When we are trying to reintegrate people into a normal and peaceful society, why should such a person be taken back into prison if events take place that are outwith his control and that he does not support, and how would that help what we are seeking in terms of the agreement for which the people of Northern Ireland voted so overwhelmingly?
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: Does not the point being made by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) fall on the ground that an individual who renewed his support for such a terrorist organisation after his release would be guilty of an offence under existing legislation? He could be charged and prosecuted, so the law adequately covers the scenario suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wasting a lot of the Committee's time.
      Mr. Ingram: I hope that my hon. Friend is not saying that I am wasting a lot of the Committee's time. I am genuinely trying to ensure that there is clear understanding of what is entailed, so that there is no misrepresentation outside the House and no attempt to say that the Government are doing something that is against the best interests not only of those who may be released, but of people in the wider community, of whose best interests we must always take full consideration.
      My hon. Friend makes the point well. A person may be released because he is a member of an organisation that satisfies the criteria in the Bill, but if it no longer satisfies the criteria and he is found to be supporting it, he will go back inside—he will be recalled. The protection is clearly present.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister said that, while he understood the general principle that I was discussing, the thrust of his opposition was that an individual who had been released may no longer be associated with an organisation; indeed, he may be publicly opposing it. Surely it would be simple, under the clause, for the case to be heard by the commissioners. At least at that point, the police would not have to prove a case against that individual to get him back into gaol. It would be for the commissioners to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to disconnect an individual who had been convicted in respect of terrorist crimes from the organisation of which he had been a part.
      Mr. Ingram: I do not want a dialogue to develop between myself and the hon. Gentleman—I have

      447
      explained the situation. I can understand why people say, "Once a member, always a member. If the organisation breaches the terms of the legislation, everyone should be back inside." I have tried to explain, however, why that is wrong in detail and wrong in terms of the ECHR. There is not much more to be gained from further debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. I shall not ask hon. Members to support it.
      The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) again referred to press speculation. We do not respond to press speculation. Any judgments in relation to security issues are based on the best advice received—not on advice from anonymous sources who may or may not be privy to information, and who have spoken to the press and put their own spin on it. Those matters are sensitive and delicate when one is dealing with intelligence information, and it is better to be right than to fly off at a tangent, as so many people do when they read something in the press. It is better to be balanced and responsible when dealing with such issues.
      I have no intention of accepting amendments Nos. 12 and 13—we have had that debate—and I have no intention of accepting amendment No. 44. I hope that the hon. Member for Bracknell will withdraw his amendments.
      Mr. MacKay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendments Nos. 12 and 13.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Amendment No. 13 is grouped with amendment No. 12. However, the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), who tabled amendment No. 44, can propose that it be put—although there can be no debate on it, because the amendments are grouped together.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Committee vote on my amendment?
      The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman can have a vote, although I am not inviting him to do so.
      Mr. MacKay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The First Deputy Chairman: We must now deal with amendment No. 44.
      Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 4, line 39, at end insert—
      '(d) that any organisation which at the time of his release under this Act he supported, but which was not then specified as a terrorist organisation under section 3(8), has not subsequently been specified as such an organisation under that section.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 280.

      [Division No. 308]

      [8.45 pm]

      AYES

      Casale, Roger

      Paisely, Rev Ian

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Mr. William Thompson and

      Norris, Dan

      Mr. Peter Robinson.

      448

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Denham, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Donohone, Brian H

      Alexander, Douglas

      Doran, Frank

      Allan, Richard

      Dowd, Jim

      Allen, Graham

      Drew David

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Edwards, Huw

      Ashton, Joe

      Efford, Clive

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Baker, Norman

      Fisher, Mark

      Banks, Tony

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Barron, Kevin

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Bayley, Hugh

      Flynn, Paul

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Foster, Michael J(Worcester)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Galbraith, Sam

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Galloway, George

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Gapes, Mike

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Best, Harold

      Gerrard, Neil

      Betts, Clive

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Blackman, Liz

      Godsiff, Roger

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Goggins, Paul

      Blunkett, Rt Hon David

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Gorrie, Donald

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Grant, Bernie

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Grogan, John

      Browne, Desmond

      Hain, Peter

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Burden, Richard

      Hancock, Mike

      Burgon, Colin

      Hanson, David

      Burnett, John

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Healey, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Heppell, John

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hesford, Stephen

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Casale, Roger

      Home Robertson, John

      Caton, Martin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hope, Phil

      Chaytor, David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Church, Ms Judith

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Clapham, Michael

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Clelland, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hutton, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cohen, Harry

      Ingram, Adam

      Coleman, Iain

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Colman, Tony

      Jamieson, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cooper, Yvette

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Corbett, Robin

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

      Cotter, Brian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cox, Tom

      keetch, Paul

      Cranston, Ross

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cummings, John

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dalyell, Tam

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Davidson, Ian

      Laxton, Bob

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Levitt, Tom

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dawson, Hilton

      Linton, Martin

      449

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rendel, David

      Livsey, Richard

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Rooney, Terry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Roy, Frank

      Love, Andrew

      Ruane, Chris

      McAllion, John

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Salter, Martin

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Sanders, Adrian

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McFall, John

      Sawford, Phil

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Sheerman, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McLeish, Henry

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

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

      Mallaber, Judy

      Soley, Clive

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Martlew, Eric

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Meale, Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Merron, Gillian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Miller, Andrew

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mitchell, Austin

      Stott, Roger

      Moffatt, Laura

      Stringer, Graham

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Moore, Michael

      Stunell, Andrew

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      (Dewsbury)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Morley, Elliot

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Morris, Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Timms, stephen

      Mudie, George

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mullin, Chris

      Todd, Mark

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Touhig, Don

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Truswell, Paul

      Norris, Dan

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Olner, Bill

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Tyler, Paul

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Wallace, James

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Pendry, Tom

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Wareing Robert N

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      Pike, Peter L

      White, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Pollard, Kerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pond, Chris

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Pope, Greg

      Willis, Phil

      Pound, Stephen

      Wills, Michael

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Winnick, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Woolas, Phil

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Worthington, Tony

      Purchase, Ken

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Radice, Giles

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Raynsford, Nick

      Janet Anderson and

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 5, leave out line 4 and insert—
      '(b) Commissioners shall consider his case.'.
      450
      The amendment is intended to ensure that when the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner who has been released under the terms of the Bill, the case is automatically referred back to the commissioners. It is then for the commissioners to decide whether the licence conditions have been breached, or are likely to be breached, and whether to confirm or revoke the licence. The amendment is required to avoid any possibility of doubt about the procedure that is to be applied if a licence is suspended.
      Under the Bill, it is for a prisoner to apply to the commissioners to consider the suspension of his licence. However, it would be open to a prisoner to make no such application. Although that is unlikely, if it were to happen the licence would continue to be suspended and would not be revoked. The amendment would ensure that in such cases the commissioners would automatically consider the case, thus removing any possibility of doubt about the prisoner's position.
      Mr. William Ross: The amendment is remarkable. We are not only letting prisoners out but insisting on shoving them out the door if an excuse can be found to do that. Clause 3(2) states: "The Commissioners shall" and clause 9(2) states that the Secretary of State "may". The amendment seeks to remove "may" and insert "shall". On each occasion the words "may" or "shall" are used to the advantage of the criminal. There is no question about it.
      It is astonishing that it is to be open to individuals to go along and ask the commissioners to take another look at their case and that we cannot even trust them to do that. They must love the Maze, or Maghaberry, or Crumlin Road prison so much that they do not want to leave. They must feel at home in prison—perhaps because they can get a free education inside and they are studying for a degree. They do not want to leave, so here we have a situation in which the individual, whether he likes it or not, will have his case reconsidered and, if at all possible, the door will be opened and he will be shoved out. That is a most remarkable state of affairs.
      9 pm
      Mr. Thompson: I, too, find the amendment rather strange. When a prisoner is released, it will be up to the commissioners to review the situation of that prisoner in the light of the knowledge of the Secretary of State. It appears that the commissioners will have the power to second-guess the Secretary of State's decision. However, the Secretary of State might have information of a security or intelligence nature, which it might not be advisable to share with the commissioners. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prisoner to have the review by the commissioners. In addition, will the Minister clarify whether the prisoner will be taken into custody again before the commissioners are allowed to consider the case, or will the commissioners be allowed to consider the case before the prisoner is taken into custody again?
      Mr. Ingram: The amendment is straightforward: it is designed to prevent a situation arising in which the legislation goes into limbo. We are trying to ensure that a flaw within the Bill as it stands is corrected. As I explained, in cases where the Secretary of State suspends the licence of a prisoner released under the legislation, the case will be automatically referred back to the

      451
      commissioners. That would not happen under the Bill as it stands, even though it was originally intended that the commissioners should decide on the licence conditions.
      The way in which the commissioners operate is set out elsewhere in the Bill. The nature of the body is such that it has to satisfy international law and the European convention on human rights that individuals are treated fairly, adequately and equitably in the eyes of the law. I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) wants to suspend the law entirely in Northern Ireland, but that is not something that the Government want to do—indeed, no democratic Government could do so. We have to ensure that the law is applied at all times, properly and fairly.
      The amendment is a technical amendment, designed to ensure that the legislation does not remain in limbo. The hon. Gentlemen who have spoken are arguing another point, which is unrelated to my opening explanation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10

      RELEASE: FURTHER PROVISIONS
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 5, line 41, leave out
      '(disregarding custody before the sentence was passed)'
      and insert
      '(or the start of any period of custody by which the sentence is treated as reduced in accordance with section 26 of the 1968 Act)'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 84.
      Mr. Ingram: Amendments Nos. 83 and 84 deal with two gaps in the accelerated release provisions. Amendment No. 84 is important because it ensures that prisoners who would benefit from the accelerated release provisions must serve at least two years in custody. In particular, it would ensure that prisoners who spend a period of time unlawfully at large would not have that period overlooked.
      As drafted, the Bill would allow a prisoner who had been unlawfully at large, either as a result of an escape or as a result of failure to return from leave, to be released two years after the commencement of the legislation, regardless of the time actually spent in prison. Clearly, it would be unacceptable for such prisoners to benefit in this way.
      Amendment No. 83 deals with prisoners who come into custody and are convicted after the legislation has commenced. It will ensure that the time spent in custody awaiting trial counts towards the period that they serve. This is directly in line with established United Kingdom practice in relation to the calculation of sentences. We are therefore ensuring that prisoners' rights are established in terms of UK practice, and amendment No. 84 will ensure that what we intended in the Bill is properly enacted.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister go further and tell us what would happen if the individual murdered someone while escaping from custody or committed
      452
      another lesser crime on his way out? What would happen with regard to any further sentence to which he might be liable for that further crime?
      Mr. Ingram: My understanding of the legislation is that it would depend on what type of prisoner he was. It would depend on the nature of the licence conditions. We are dealing with two different categories of prisoner—life sentence prisoners and the determinate sentence prisoners. If a prisoner murdered someone on his way out of prison or carried out some other heinous act, and this was known to be so, as opposed to it being something that someone merely said had happened, clearly he would be brought to judgment for the completely new crime that he had committed.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 5, line 43, at end insert
      'and in particular shall ensure that the accelerated release date for any prisoner is not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms by any organisation of which he is a member or supporter has been verified by any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Decommissioning Act 1997.'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, in clause 17, page 8, leave out lines 22 and 23.
      No. 15, in page 8, line 24, at end, insert: '10(7)'.
      No. 16, in page 8, line 27, after '3(8)', insert 'or 10(7)'.
      No. 17, in page 8, line 36, after '3(8)' insert 'or 10(7)'.
      Mr. Moss: The amendment relates to—
      Mr. McNamara: It would help the Committee to consider the amendment and to size up the Opposition's attitude if the hon. Gentleman could confirm what is on the tapes, namely:
      "The decision to vote against the bill was tonight confirmed at a meeting of the Tory Shadow Cabinet, although a spokesman for Mr. Hague said that they also reaffirmed their support for the bipartisan approach."
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is nothing to do with the amendment.
      Mr. Moss: I was not at the meeting, so I do not know. It is as simple as that.
      Amendment No. 6 relates to our amendment No. 1, which the Committee debated on Monday and deals with clause 3, subsections (8) and (9). Subsection (9)(d) contains words that are taken—although not verbatim—more or less from the paragraph on decommissioning in the agreement. Amendment No. 6 relates to amendment No. 1 in dealing with decommissioning of arms by a certain date, which will be verified by the commission.
      It is interesting that the Government have continued to ignore the points that have been made by Opposition Members on the accuracy and intent of the wording that was signed up to by all parties to the agreement. Paragraph 3 of the agreement's section on decommissioning states:
      "All participants accordingly reaffirm their commitment to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations."

      453
      The wording in our amendment No. 1 simply stated that an organisation
      "is committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations".
      Therefore, the wording in the agreement and in our amendment No. 1 is pretty much identical.
      The agreement's section on decommissioning goes on to state:
      "They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement."
      Our amendment No. 1 went on to say:
      "and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, including any of its own, by 22nd May 2000".
      That date is, of course, two years after the date of the referendums.
      We argue yet again that the words in our previous amendment—to which I have already said that amendment No. 6 is related-were essentially the words of the agreement. Our amendment No. 1 did not seek in any way to go outside the words of the agreement, which have been signed up to by all the parties involved. Even at this stage, we ask the Government again to think carefully about the reasons why we intend to press the matter further on Report, and further if necessary.
      In amendment No. 6, we are simply saying that, before any prisoner can be released, confirmation must come from the commission that the principles and intent of the decommissioning section of the agreement have been adhered to by the signatories to the agreement.
      Amendments Nos. 14 to 17 deal with clause 17. In those amendments, we are seeking to ensure that, if the Secretary of State uses his or her powers under clause 10(7) to amend any subsection within clause 10, it should not be subject to a negative resolution of the House. We believe that, if a Secretary of State decides to make any changes to the subsections in clause 10, they should be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament, a draft having been laid before both Houses.
      If—as we propose in amendment No. 14—we leave out of the Bill clause 17(2) and add—as we propose in amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17—clause 10(7) in the subsections specified, our objective will be clarified: to ensure that, if the Secretary of State takes a decision or decisions, that decision or decisions should come before both Houses of Parliament for affirmative resolution.
      Mr. McNamara: Earlier in the debate, I drew the attention of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) to a press release that you, Mr. Martin, felt had nothing to do with amendment No. 6. I had thought that the press release showed the Opposition's seeking to cherry-pick the provisions they like. I had also thought that it demonstrated something that never happened when the Government were in opposition—seeking to undermine progress in achieving peace. On certain occasions to my knowledge—I could enumerate them—it was necessary to protect the position
      454
      of the then Secretary of State, who was engaged in negotiations, and to prevent cries for his dismissal for one thing or another.
      The amendment does precisely what I feared and to which I referred. The Opposition are seeking yet again to rewrite the agreement so as to have a precise linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. The purpose behind the amendment is to rewrite the agreement and to betray the different parties to it. Those parties entered into the agreement on the basis of what was in it, not on the basis of what the Opposition would like to be in it.
      To say that is not to say that one does not want the decommissioning of arms—of course one does—but to suggest that there must be a direct linkage between an individual and the satisfaction demanded in the amendment on decommissioning is unfair on the individual and, I suggest, unfair to the independent commission on decommissioning. If we read it carefully—
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. McNamara: I shall finish my point and then I shall gladly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      If we read the amendment carefully, we find that it states:
      "and in particular shall ensure that the accelerated release date for any prisoner is not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms".
      That is what the Opposition are asking for now. They are asking not for a token, not for a substantial amount and not for a bit of Semtex here or a kalashnikov there; they are asking for the decommissioning of all illegal arms. Who knows how many illegal arms are held by any paramilitary organisation?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The security forces know.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman, the hon. and reverend Gentleman who leads for the Democratic Unionist party, says from a sedentary position that the security forces know. If the security forces know the amount of illegal arms that are held, that would suggest their being there with the quartermasters counting the arms as they are put in their concrete bunkers somewhere in County Meath, Kerry or, God help us, perhaps in North Antrim. It is obvious that that is not so and that the security forces could not possibly know.
      Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
      Mr. McNamara: I shall finish my point and then I shall give way, first, to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson) and then to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley).
      How can anybody know of all the illegal arms that are held? Who will be satisfied that all illegal arms have been decommissioned? The commission on decommissioning cannot verify that all illegal arms have been decommissioned. It is necessary to depend on information that will necessarily be incomplete.
      On the basis of the argument that Opposition Members are advancing, paramilitary organisations will say, "This is a list of what we have. We have 13 pikes from 1798,

      455
      a few muskets from another occasion, a couple of .303s from 1916," and so on. Is that what they will do? How can we be certain that there is not another pike in the thatch? It is—
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The agreement says that.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be quiet.
      Mr. McNamara: The commission cannot be certain. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said, I think, "That is what the agreement says," but it does not. Paragraph 4 states:
      "The Independent Commission will monitor, review and verify progress on decommissioning of illegal arms, and will report to both Governments at regular intervals."
      Is that the point that the hon. Gentleman is raising? It does not make the independent commission, which could not possibly know whether all arms have been handed in, infallible; it refers only to the "decommissioning of illegal arms".
      Mr. Thompson: The hon. Gentleman claimed initially that there was no direct connection between prisoner release and decommissioning. He should have listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon when he said clearly that there was such a connection and that it is explicit in the Bill. Our argument with the Prime Minister is not the connection but the fact that it is not explicit in the Bill—and it should be.
      Mr. McNamara: I listened carefully to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today. He did not say what the hon. Gentleman alleges. I suggest that he reads the Prime Minister's words very carefully.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The agreement says:
      "They also confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South".
      We did not put that in the agreement because we were not there. The parties that signed the agreement put that there—including the word "all." What is more, the security forces have already informed the Minister how many arms they believe the IRA has, about the IRA's strike capability and of how many arms other organisations have.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
      Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. He said that the Minister has been told how many arms the security forces believe the IRA has—they do not know how many arms the IRA holds. That is my first point. Secondly, the agreement states:
      "They … confirm their intention to continue to work constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission, and to use any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums".
      That statement is qualified by the reference to working "in good faith" to achieve that aim. The amendment says:
      456
      "not before the decommissioning of all illegal arms".
      It will not matter that the parties have worked in good faith and used such influence as they have because, unless every weapon is put down, nobody will be let out of prison as part of what is surprisingly called accelerated prison release.
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire has strengthened his position since the last time we discussed this matter: he is now calling for all arms to be handed in. There is no way that the security forces or many of the organisations, given their diffuse nature, will know precisely how many arms are held. If, as the Opposition claim, there is a quartermaster with the Continuity IRA who hands out arms to dissidents, who is to be held responsible for those arms? Who can be certain how many arms are involved unless we know what the quartermaster has passed out?
      The amendment, quite apart from being illogical, asks people to achieve the impossible. We cannot be certain of ever delivering what the amendment calls for. No man or woman who belonged to an organisation would ever be released because the terms of the amendment are not deliverable or achievable. Such linkage between prisoners and arms is not in the agreement. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is seeking to rewrite the amendment. That is not what representatives of the various loyalist and republican paramilitary factions signed up to when they agreed to an unequivocal ceasefire. They signed up to the agreement, not to the interpretation that Her Majesty's Opposition would like to put on it. The Opposition are cherry-picking.
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is putting a danger before the Committee. If one of the signatories does not like some little part of the agreement, will they seek to rewrite it? Some people in the Republic may not like, say, the constitutional clauses, and seek to amend it in legislation. Are they to be allowed to succeed? Will they have the precedent that the Opposition are trying to set? The Opposition are putting the whole agreement at risk by seeking to tamper with what Her Majesty's Government have brought forward.
      Mr. Donaldson: I support the amendment. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that to accept the amendment would be to betray the parties that had signed the agreement. I suggest that he read the list of names in which the amendment has been tabled. He will see the name of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who I believe is the leader of one of the parties that signed the agreement.
      It is vital to emphasise the importance of decommissioning in this process. Decommissioning first came on the scene before the talks got under way—with the report of the international body that was chaired by the former senator, George Mitchell. That international body recommended that the decommissioning of terrorist weapons was an important part of the confidence-building process surrounding political talks. In all the time since that report, not one weapon has been decommissioned by any terrorist organisation. It is important not to lose sight of the fact that we are talking about terrorist organisations, not political parties.
      The hon. Member for Hull, North is wrong to say that there is no link between decommissioning and the release

      457
      of prisoners. One of the Government's criteria concerning eligibility for release of prisoners in clause 3 is that a terrorist organisation must be
      "co-operating fully with any Commission"
      established by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. That creates a link between decommissioning and the release of prisoners; the Government themselves have created the link in the Bill. We are simply trying to clarify exactly what
      "co-operating fully with any Commission"
      means.
      Are hon. Members who oppose the amendment suggesting that "co-operating fully" could mean something less than the decommissioning of weapons? If that is so, let them tell us. It is important that we understand what "co-operating fully" with the independent commission means. The Secretary of State will have to judge whether any of the terrorist organisations is "co-operating fully". How can it be argued that a terrorist organisation is "co-operating fully" on the decommissioning of weapons when it is not decommissioning its weapons? In anyone's terms, a failure to decommission weapons represents a failure fully to co-operate with the independent commission.
      Mr. McNamara: As I understand the situation, there are signatories to the agreement who are said to represent various paramilitary organisations. Let us take the case of signatory X. He tries to use his best efforts to achieve decommissioning by the organisation of which he is supposed to be the political representative, but his fullest and best endeavours fail. What then? He has kept to all the undertakings that he gave in the agreement.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Donaldson: With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, it is not the political parties but the terrorist organisations that are referred to in clause 3. It does not matter whether Sinn Fein, the Ulster Democratic party or the Progressive Unionist party are using their best endeavours. With regard to the criteria that the Secretary of State must consider, the question is: is the terrorist organisation co-operating fully with the commission? Is the IRA co-operating fully with the independent commission?
      Sinn Fein does not have prisoners in the gaols; the IRA does. I happen to believe, as I understand the Government do too, that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked—but the question here is whether a prisoner who belongs to a terrorist organisation qualifies for early release under the terms of the Bill.
      The Secretary of State is required to consider a number of criteria before she can reach a determination whether the organisation to which the individual prisoner belongs qualifies for accelerated release. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Hull, North, the organisation concerned is not the political party but the terrorist organisation.
      Therefore I will continue to argue that the terrorist organisation must fully co-operate with the commission on disarmament—and surely that must require full decommissioning to take place. If the terrorist
      458
      organisation to which the prisoner belongs is not decommissioning its weapons, how can one possibly argue that it is co-operating fully with the independent commission? It is important to draw the truth out.
      I suspect that there is a great deal of ambiguity surrounding the criteria and that when the Secretary of State comes to consider them they will be fudged.
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman says that there is a great deal of ambiguity about the Bill, but does he agree that there was no ambiguity when the agreement was sold to the people of Northern Ireland by the Government? They were led to believe that prisoner release—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is beyond the scope of the amendment, which is confined to a particular matter.
      Mr. Donaldson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making; the Government need to spell out the details clearly.
      During the debate on a previous amendment, I asked the Secretary of State to spell out exactly what she means by co-operating fully with the independent commission, but she failed to do so. No one from the Government Benches has yet told the Committee what the Government's interpretation of that phrase is.
      I ask the Minister again to tell us when he responds whether that phrase means that the terrorist organisations are required to decommission their weapons. Does co-operating fully with the commission mean actual decommissioning of terrorist weapons? I think that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know.
      As for the amendment, we have a scenario in which terrorists may be on remand at the moment or still at large, having committed serious offences but not yet having been sentenced for, or perhaps even charged with, offences that they committed before the cut-off date in the Bill. Such an individual—when apprehended, brought before the courts and found guilty of serious crimes, including murder—will be released after two years. That is also true for some who have committed multiple murder.
      The amendment is entirely reasonable, as it requires that individuals convicted of a serious offence in those circumstances cannot be released until there has been decommissioning of terrorist weapons. That is the least that the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect. I hope that the Government will reconsider their approach to the amendment and, in particular, that the Minister will spell out—at long last and clearly—what the Government mean by requiring terrorist organisations to co-operate fully with the independent commission.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I support the amendment, the central point of which is the requirement for the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms. Decommissioning has been at the core of controversy in Northern Ireland for a long time. It was the position of Her Majesty's Government when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister that before anyone could get into a talks process there would be a requirement for them to decommission. That was diluted and the Government then indicated that it would

      459
      be sufficient, on the basis of Washington 3, for organisations to put forward a significant portion of their weaponry as an indicator of their intent, while agreeing to decommission the rest during the talks process.
      That, of course, was diluted as well and the Government accepted that organisations should enter the talks process on the clear understanding that, during the process, the paramilitary organisations would decommission their illegal weapons. That was diluted and organisations were allowed to remain throughout the whole talks process without decommissioning one bullet, one weapon, one ounce of Semtex or one detonator.
      We have been told that for the release of prisoners and entry into government, a substantial proportion of weaponry would have to be decommissioned. That was the indication the Prime Minister gave the Leader of the Opposition in the House on 6 May. It is not unreasonable, therefore, that the Opposition might put in the terms of their amendment an undertaking given to them by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. It is hardly odd that the terms of the amendment should be consistent with the Prime Minister's undertaking.
      I must agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In the agreement—as I have said consistently—there is no requirement for decommissioning, nor is there any sanction if decommissioning does not take place. It makes it clear that organisations must use their best endeavours—but too bad if they do not succeed. There is no punishment for any of the participants if they fail, having used their best endeavours—unless, of course, one accepts the terminology used in the agreement in the section dealing with prisoners, such as where it says that there must be a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Does such a ceasefire have to be interpreted as including the decommissioning of weaponry?
      One could argue that if people are intending to give up violence, there is no requirement for them to hold on their weaponry. It would not be inconsistent with a total and complete cessation of violence—indeed, it would be a way of demonstrating that they had given up violence for good—if the organisations handed in their illegal weaponry. The people of Northern Ireland were led to believe that that was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement, because that is what he told them.
      On that basis, we are entitled to say that the Prime Minister should honour his commitments, not only on the release of prisoners, but on other aspects of the implementation of the agreement, such as the formation of an Executive. The amendment is important, if only as a test of whether the Prime Minister has been as good as his word—it would include in the Bill the very words that he agreed accurately reflected his position. Again, I wait to see whether the Government will include in the Bill the undertakings that the Prime Minister has given to the House.
      Mr. Ingram: As we have had a detailed debate on this group of amendments, it is worth setting out the background to clause 10. As has been said in previous debates, the purpose of the Bill as a whole is to implement the prisoners section of the Good Friday agreement, as negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties in Belfast and as endorsed overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. Those are the key facts.
      460
      Paragraph 3 of that section of the agreement said that
      "the intention would be that should the circumstances allow it, any qualifying prisoners who remained in custody two years after the commencement of the scheme would be released at that point."
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State placed in the Library a copy of a memorandum on the release of prisoners, which was circulated to all the parties in the negotiations. Paragraph 7 of the memorandum said:
      "Most eligible prisoners would be released within two years. At that point those prisoners still in custody would be automatically released if otherwise eligible for release under the scheme. This date would be set in legislation. The Secretary of State would have power to bring the date forward or to put it back depending on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society."
      Clause 10 reflects those arrangements.
      I recognise at the outset that, in what can only be described as an unusual Bill, the clause is exceptional. However, it reflects what was negotiated and accepted by the parties in the negotiations in Belfast and what has now been endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. It is important that the prisoners element of the agreement, like the agreement as a whole, is set in the clear context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole.
      Like my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, I have said repeatedly that the agreement stands or falls as a package. If there is progress in implementing some elements of the agreement, but no progress in implementing others, the agreement as a whole will not work. It is essential that the arrangement for the release of remaining eligible prisoners after two years, as provided for in the clause, is clearly understood to be in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole.
      There are important safeguards to ensure that that is so, including the general safeguards in the Bill: the Secretary of State can suspend the release of prisoners generally at any time; she can, under clause 3, exclude from benefit prisoners who support a terrorist organisation; and she is required to keep that under regular review. In addition to those general powers, the Secretary of State has the power under clause 10(7) to move the two-year cut-off point forwards or backwards—the clause provides the Secretary of State with powers to delay the automatic release of prisoners at the two-year point if she considers it necessary.
      Mr. Moss: The Minister said that the parties to the agreement should go along with all sections of the agreement, but will he deny that, under the Bill as drafted, at the end of two years, with all the prisoners released, it is still possible that no decommissioning will have taken place?
      Mr. Ingram: I shall deal with those circumstances, because that is an important element—[Interruption.] I do not see what is so funny about it, and I do not know why the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) finds decommissioning so funny, as it is vitally important.
      I have said that the provision is set firmly in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole and, as the memorandum that my right hon. Friend placed in the Library of the House said, in the context of
      "progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society."

      461
      A number of hon. Members rightly drew attention to the commitments on decommissioning, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) mentioned. In particular, paragraph 3 of the section on decommissioning, on page 45 of the agreement, binds anyone who supports it
      "to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"
      and to using
      "any influence they may have, to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms within two years following endorsement in the referendums North and South of the agreement and in the context of the implementation of the overall settlement."
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Donaldson rose—
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman had a good run at his argument. If he lets me expand mine, we can move on and deal with the points on which he is dissatisfied—[Interruption.] It is better that we explain the overall context of the debate, so that we can then try to understand the points at issue.
      The commitments set out in the agreement and whether they are adhered to are clearly relevant to whether the circumstances exist and whether progress to a normal peaceful society has been sufficient to justify the release of all remaining eligible prisoners in two years' time. Progress on the decommissioning element of the agreement is essential to implementation of the agreement as a whole. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May:
      "These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time".
      I well understand the arguments that have been advanced for amendment No. 6 and the general thrust of the arguments advanced in the debate. Nothing in the clause as it stands prevents the Secretary of State from taking full account of progress, or the lack of it, in implementation of the decommissioning section of the agreement, in deciding whether to change the two-year cut-off point. Indeed, as again has been repeatedly stressed, progress in implementing all elements of the agreement is critical if the agreement as a whole is to work.
      Mr. Donaldson: I should like to clarify something. The agreement is binding upon the participants—the signatories—but the Bill relates not to the signatories or the participants in the talks, but to individual prisoners and the terrorist organisations to which they belong. My question for the Minister is: what do the Government mean by those organisations being required to co-operate fully with the independent commission? That is what we are asking. We are interested not in what the participants to the talks are doing in the context of the Bill, but in the terrorist organisations to which the prisoners belong. The question is, how do the Government interpret fully co-operating with the independent commission on the part of the terrorist organisations? That has nothing to do with using one's influence. Does it mean decommissioning taking place?
      Mr. Ingram: Of course, one of the conditions is a requirement to be co-operating with the decommissioning
      462
      body. Another is the point that I was just stressing, which the hon. Gentleman has not taken on board—I do not know whether that is because of an unwillingness to listen to the strength of the case that is being advanced by the Prime Minister. The judgment will necessarily become more rigorous in time. The question is, at what point does it happen? As we get closer to the two-year point, those who will be judging whether the agreement is being properly applied will judge whether there has been movement in that period. Therefore, the judgment will become more rigorous, the closer we get to that point. By any definition, that must be the worst scenario.
      The best scenario, which all of us want, is progress. The more people talk up the possibility that progress will never happen, the more they give sustenance to those who do not want it. They give support to those who want to wreck what the agreement has set out to achieve.
      Language is important to ensuring that we quantify exactly what the agreement says, and the Bill does that. Prisoner releases will be carried on the back of that, and the test to be applied will become more rigorous over time.
      Mr. Donaldson: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am willing to participate in debate with him in the way that he wants, but he has had a good chance to speak. I am trying to set out a structured argument, so that we can have a reasoned debate.
      Mr. Donaldson: Answer my question.
      Mr. Ingram: I am answering it in my way, and in the way in which it should properly be answered for those who want to see movement towards a peaceful society on the basis of an agreement voted for by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ingram: No. Those who want to wreck what we are trying to achieve as we deal with difficult and complex issues to take forward the agreement just weeks after its endorsement by the people of Northern Ireland could, if they gave the right type of support to what we are trying to achieve, help us to move forward in a more structured way.
      The agreement used the phrase,
      "should the circumstances allow it"
      rather than establishing a specific precondition. So did the memorandum placed in the Library of the House, which used the phrase,
      "depending on the circumstances and progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society."
      Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Ingram: No, but I shall in a moment.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East constantly goes on about what the Prime Minister has said. The hon. Gentleman says that the Prime Minister has conned the people of Northern Ireland, and he uses the press in Northern Ireland to support that. He does not of course

      463
      use the Irish News; he probably would not want to quote that paper. Therefore, let me give him a quotation from last night's edition of the Belfast Telegraph, which said:
      "The Conservative Party is going down a dangerous road by warning members will vote against the bill on prisoner releases when it reaches its final stage in the Commons on Thursday."
      The paper is a substantial voice of opinion within Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The Minister said to ignore the press.
      Mr. Donaldson: Ignore the press.
      Mr. Ingram: Let me remind hon. Members what I have said about the press. I said that we should ignore speculation in the press. The point about the Belfast Telegraph is addressed particularly to the hon. Member for North—East Cambridgeshire, so that he can pass it on to the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who cited The Times to justify his position. The Belfast Telegraph has expressed a quality judgment, and has taken into account what the Prime Minister actually said. The leader goes on to say:
      "Yet Mr. Blair made no explicit linkage between decommissioning and prisoner releases, as the Tories are now demanding."
      The extensive, well-argued, cogent leader is not without criticism of those engaged in the process, which makes it a healthy read. It concludes:
      "No one likes the Agreement in its entirety, but it still represents Northern Ireland's best chance of securing a lasting peace."
      I think—indeed, I know—that that is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for on 22 May. That is what they said when they endorsed the agreement.
      Mr. Moss: I have the memorandum that the Secretary of State placed in the Library and I have read paragraph 7, which deals with
      "progress towards the creation of a more peaceful society."
      The Prime Minister has spoken several times of organisations giving up violence for good, and the words "unequivocal ceasefire" in the Bill are important. Will the Minister answer the simple question that I put to him about 20 minutes ago? Under the terms of the Bill, is it possible, at the end of the two years, that all prisoners could be released without any decommissioning having taken place? Yes or no?
      Mr. Ingram: I wish that the debate were as simple as that. The hon. Gentleman has an extremely responsible position, speaking for a major party that was involved, month after month, year after year, in trying to advance the peace process, through secret dealings with the IRA and a range of other means, with the full support of my party in opposition. We gave him every encouragement to understand the sensitivities and difficulties in a spirit of bipartisanship. It would be nice to think that those of us who genuinely want a peaceful society could simply decide by fiat that decommissioning was to take place tomorrow, but that will not happen. If he does not understand that decommissioning, by its very nature, must be voluntary, he should not hold his position as a spokesperson on this issue.
      464
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about how we could attest to the words in the agreement and elsewhere, and the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the information that the security forces provide to Ministers and to the Prime Minister on what equipment and arms paramilitary organisations are understood to hold, although we never discuss the level or basis of that knowledge, because to do so would give information to those organisations.
      Opposition Members may play fast and loose with the issue, and those who are campaigning against the agreement have the democratic right to try to wreck it. If they do not want to implement the express wish of the people of Northern Ireland, they need not help to do so.
      Mr. Donaldson: They want decommissioning.
      Mr. Ingram: There is no argument among any Members of Parliament on that point: that is the objective that we all desire. I hope that that intervention does not imply that the Government do not want weapons to be decommissioned. The question is how to achieve that objective. Conditions on the matter in the legislation are likely to be reflected in subsequent legislation for a settlement and we shall have to take account of the key elements of the Belfast agreement.
      We must deal with all those factors in a structured way and relate them one to the other. On our first day in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that
      "it is also true to say that underlying those explicit links are deeper and more fundamental understandings.
      The Government are in no doubt that a fundamental element of those underlying understandings is that those who seek to benefit from the agreement can do so only on the basis of a genuine and unequivocal commitment to exclusively peaceful means, now and in the future. That is fundamental."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 72.]
      I have endeavoured to make it clear that the Government have much sympathy with the concerns expressed by those who support amendment No. 6 and the thinking underlying it. We can contemplate the operation of the two-year cut-off point only in the context of the implementation of the agreement as a whole. I hope that the subtlety as well as the clarity of that explanation is understood by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who speaks—(Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman seek a yes or no answer. Does he want another lecture on what his Government did and the subtleties that they had to be involved in to try to achieve momentum towards peace?
      10 pm
      We could be absolutist and approach the debate as a black-and-white argument. If Her Majesty's official Opposition are going down that route, they are moving rapidly into the ranks of those who want to wreck the Belfast agreement. They will be linking up with hon. Members who have no wish to take it forward on a structured and coherent basis, which is what the majority of the people of Northern Ireland–71 per cent.—voted for on 22 May.

      465
      The electorate knew that there were subtleties in the argument, and they knew what they were doing when they voted in that way. They did not operate on the simplistic notions with which the hon. Gentleman has approached the issue.
      Mr. Moss: I thank the Minister for giving way, but I did not paint my question in black and white. I asked for a yes or no answer, but I used the word "possible". I did not ask him whether there would definitely be decommissioning; I just asked whether it was possible that, at the end of two years, all prisoners could have been released with no decommissioning having taken place.
      In answer to a question from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev Ian Paisley), the Prime Minister said:
      "Certainly we will give effect to the pledges that have been made prior to the assembly elections. That is absolutely right. As I have made clear throughout and do so again now, the provisions in relation to decommissioning and what I said about it before the referendum campaign stand and must properly be put in the legislation."—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 366.1
      The only reference to decommissioning is in clause 3(9), which mentions "co-operating fully" with the commission. There is no mention in the appropriate part of the Bill of the pledges on decommissioning given in the agreement. How does the Minister equate what the Prime Minister said with putting that properly in the Bill?
      Mr. Ingram: Those who have followed the debate will realise that we are saying, "Oh yes it does," while the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members from other Opposition parties are saying, "Oh no it doesn't." The hon. Gentleman was a Northern Ireland Minister. He understands the difficulties and the complexities of the issue, although when we were debating other legislation, he told me that he was never the Minister with responsibility for security, so I should not ask him difficult questions on such matters. If he brushed up on just how difficult this issue is, he could perhaps represent his once great party properly at the Dispatch Box.
      The Bill has been carefully constructed, and it upholds in their entirety the assurances given by the Prime Minister on 14 May in his Balmoral speech and subsequently. Those who say that it does not are those who want to wreck the agreement, not take it forward. That is the important linkage with which we are dealing. We are saying that there are specific powers under the clause and in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make decisions—depending on the circumstances, on the judgment at the time and on how the agreement has been implemented, whether in full or in part.
      Let me pose a hypothetical question. What would happen if a judgment that could wreck the agreement was made on a Thursday, without the people who made it knowing that an organisation may have been prepared to change its position on Friday? Hon. Members should think about that carefully. There must be careful consideration and judgment, and we have to move forward on that basis. The Bill is clearly in line with the agreement and clearly in line with the commitments given by the Prime Minister. We have had a detailed debate, but hon. Members may wish to return to parade again their wish to see the Belfast agreement destroyed. That, of course, is the right of a democratic society.
      466
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire raised issues relating to amendments Nos. 14 to 17. I understand his argument, which was that the power to vary the two-year cut-off point was very significant—not least for the reasons that we have been discussing. I am therefore prepared to accept his amendment and those tabled with it, which would make any order varying the two-year cut-off point subject to affirmative rather than negative resolution in Parliament. Scrutiny of what the Secretary of State does will take place here, in the House. That is where it will be judged whether or not the agreement has been implemented in full.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: It would be wrong for us to close this part of the debate without giving the Minister a further opportunity to reflect on—and, indeed, put right—something that he may well regret tomorrow morning. On two occasions during his speech, he was given the opportunity to answer a simple question. Many people in Northern Ireland signed up to the agreement—many within the 71 per cent. about whom the Minister continues to talk—because they believed that there would be actual decommissioning before any prisoners would be released, or before their representatives would be in government. They believed that that would happen before prisoners were released.
      The question asked by the Opposition spokesman was not whether the Minister believed that that would happen before prisoners were released. The question was whether he believed that, after two years—after all the prisoners had gone—one bullet would have been handed over. The Minister could not answer that question. I am not sure whether the Minister appreciates the impact that that will have in Northern Ireland—the knowledge that not only will no guns, no bullets, no Semtex and no detonators be handed over before the prisoners get out, but they may not be handed over at all.
      Mr. Ingram: My Secretary of State tells me not to respond to what has just been said, and I will pay due attention to that, once I have made one comment.
      What does the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) know about the decommissioning legislation? Does he know when it was passed? Probably not. In fact, it was dealt with on 11 March. I dealt with it in Committee. Since then, I have had meetings with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland to speed progress, and meetings with the decommissioning body. It should not be said that I, or any of my colleagues, have not been trying to remove the gun, the bomb, the bullet and Semtex from the face of Northern Ireland.
      We have, as a Government, 13,500 RUC officers on the estates of Northern Ireland. We have 17,000 members of Her Majesty's forces trying to tackle terrorism. This Government, and, indeed, past Governments, should not be accused of being soft on terrorism. The major point is that we are determined to defeat, as best we can, the scourge of terrorism that has blighted the face of Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. The agreement is a major step towards achieving that.
      I only wish that the hon. Gentleman would understand that, rather than living in the past. Let us begin to look towards the future.
      Mr. Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting amendments Nos.14 to 17. I am glad that we did not need to debate them for three hours; at least the strength of our points has been taken on board.

      467
      We had a prolonged discussion on amendment No. 6. Twice the Minister was asked a simple question about possibilities, and twice he evaded giving a simple answer. If it is his judgment that he did not give a straight answer, he will have to face the consequences of how that is played in the press tomorrow, here and in Northern Ireland. That is his decision.
      The Opposition are not seeking to wreck the agreement. We support the Government on all parts of the agreement, including the section on decommissioning. We would not have supported the Government if there had not been a section on decommissioning. We have never accused the Government of not wanting decommissioning along the lines that we have proposed. There is no accusation that the Government's intent regarding decommissioning is not strong. That is not the question we are posing. We are merely asking whether, under the legislation, prisoners could be released at the end of two years without decommissioning having taken place. The answer is yes, but the Minister will not reply to that simple question.
      We shall not pursue this matter tonight, but we may revisit it on another occasion. We thank the Minister for his concessions on amendments Nos. 14 to 17, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 84, in page 5, line 43, at end insert—
      '(8) Nothing in this section shall permit the release of a prisoner following a declaration under section 3(1) before he has served two years of the sentence to which the declaration relates; and for that purpose any period of custody by which the sentence is treated as reduced in accordance with section 26 of the 1968 Act shall be treated as served as part of the sentence.'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11

      NOTICE OF DECISIONS
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 6, line 17, at end insert—
      '(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Commissioners shall not have to give reasons where the decision to refuse is based on information received from the Royal Ulster Constabulary or Security Services and where these organisations warrant that revealing the information would be prejudicial to national security or put at risk the lives of individuals.'
      Clause 11 causes me concern as it is drafted. The commissioners can, quite rightly, refuse an application. The clause forces the commissioners to give reasons for their decision. The rules in schedule 2 permit the Secretary of State or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to give information or evidence to the commission on behalf of the security services. The Secretary of State or the Chief Constable of the RUC would have responsibility for giving information to the commission that may lead it to determine that the person concerned is still a danger to the public or is involved in terrorism. The commission may then refuse to grant that person's application for release.
      The commission is under an obligation to give reasons to the individual. It would be highly detrimental to the security forces, to the RUC and to national security if the commission were forced to give reasons that revealed potentially confidential information supplied to it by the Secretary of State or the RUC.
      468
      Paragraph 5 of schedule 2 allows the Secretary of State to make rules for the provision about evidence and information, including provision for the giving of evidence by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and the RUC. The Government may say that the rules they make under schedule 2 will deal with the problem. I should be interested to know whether the Government believe that any rules they may make by statutory instrument or order under schedule 2 could set aside the provisions in clause 11, which require reasons to be given to prisoners in those circumstances.
      I will be delighted if it is the Secretary of State's view that the security services, the Secretary of State herself and the RUC will be protected when they give evidence or information to the commission, that the information will be kept confidential and that the sources of their information will be protected and will not be revealed. As the Minister stressed, sensitive issues are involved.
      One does not talk about the RUC's knowledge of weapons because that could reveal sources. Similarly, the RUC may not wish to reveal to the commission its sources of information on people whom it thinks are terrorists. Those sources must be protected, and reasons must not be given for doing that. Is there a mechanism in the Bill to prevent reasons from being given? Clause 11 does not permit exceptions. Will the rules to be made under schedule 2 be ultra vires because clause 11 does not permit rules that would make exemptions from it?
      10.15 pm
      Mr. Ingram: We do not yet have the rules to which schedule 2 (5) specifically refers, because we are framing the legislation as we go along, accepting Opposition amendments as well as tabling our own, and that may have an impact on the rules. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who may be concerned about this matter that, through the normal processes, we always protect those who give information. We would never put at risk anyone who was acting in the interests of security.
      We are mindful of the need to protect such people and, in the light of my assurances, I do not think that the amendment is necessary. We give the right hon. Gentleman the absolute assurances that information and those who give it will be protected under the rules, which will be made available in draft form in due course.
      Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister. I would never question the Government's integrity on these matters. We should do our absolute utmost to protect sources of information. I was merely concerned about the mechanisms, the legal procedures, in the Bill that would allow the rules to ignore the provisions of clause 11. That clause seems to provide for no exceptions: reasons must be given. I hope that the Minister will seek legal advice about whether an amendment, perhaps one better drafted than mine, is necessary. For example, it could state that reasons would be given in all circumstances except where the Secretary of State has drafted rules under schedule 2.
      The Chief Constable of the RUC has to ensure that none of his officers or people acting on their behalf put at risk. Is there not a danger that he might not want to give information if he thought that the rules were inadequate? If he has the slightest fear that it would be possible, perhaps under judicial review, for the

      469
      commissioners to be ordered to reveal the sources of information, he may decide that it would be better to let a terrorist be released than to provide it. That is a technical question, and I am happy to let the Minister reflect on it and perhaps answer it tomorrow, if that is appropriate.
      Mr. Ingram: The right hon. Gentleman adopts a wise approach in allowing me to reflect on that matter, because it involves some sensitive issues. He asked whether schedule 2 and clause 11 are incompatible. I shall reflect on that, and if there is any weakness in the legislation we shall amend it. I am satisfied that it is robust enough to achieve the protection we seek through the rules. Obviously, we have carefully considered the issue because of the matters that the right hon. Gentleman raised. We shall always reflect on valid points, and if there is a weakness, it will be corrected.
      Mr. Maclean: In view of the Minister's reasonable response, and on the basis that he will reflect on it, I am delighted to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      INADMISSIBILITY
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 6, line 40, after 'section 5', insert
      'of the Criminal Law Act 1967 or of'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 86 and 87.
      Mr. Ingram: This is one of those explanations that is difficult to set forth, because it is extremely legalistic. However, I hope that the Committee will bear with me, because it is worth explaining in detail what these Government amendments would do.
      As it stands, clause 13 provides that evidence and information given by prisoners to the commissioners are not admissible in certain proceedings. The proceedings in question relate to offences of membership of a proscribed organisation and other activities consistent with membership. Obviously, no offences of violence are listed. This is to allow prisoners to present their cases to the commissioners without fear that statements they might make will be used in evidence in the proceedings in question. It does not grant immunity from prosecution for the offences in question.
      The amendments simply add to clause 13 certain proceedings that apply in Great Britain for which provision is already made in clause 13 in relation to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 85 adds a reference in clause 13 to section 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, as the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provision—section 5 of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
      470
      The offence in section 5 of the 1967 Act and the Great Britain equivalent make it an offence to conceal information about an arrestable offence. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will be inadmissible in proceedings for those offences, but only in so far as the offences relate to an offence of membership of a proscribed organisation, or other activities consistent with membership.
      Amendment No. 86 adds a reference in clause 13 to sections 93H and 931 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sections 18 and 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, as the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions—articles 50 and 51 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those provisions are concerned with investigations into whether a person has benefited from criminal conduct. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will be inadmissible in the investigations in question, but this will not, of course, prevent such investigations from taking place.
      Amendment No. 87 adds a reference in clause 13 to section 93J of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 20 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995, as, again, the clause already refers to the equivalent Northern Ireland provision, namely, article 54 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Those provisions are concerned with court orders for the disclosure of information held by Government Departments. The effect of the amendment is that evidence given to the commissioners will not be capable of being the subject of such a court order. Again, however, there is nothing in the amendments to prevent such court orders being made.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 86, in page 7, line 7, after
      'under', insert "section 93H or 931 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 18 or 19 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or'.
      No. 87, in page 7, leave out line 10 and insert
      'section 93J of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, section 20 of the Proceeds of Crime (Scotland) Act 1995 or article 54 of the Proceeds of Crime (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;'.—[Mr. Dowd.]
      Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15

      SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND
      Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 8, leave out lines 6 and 7.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Clause stand part.
      Government new clause 5—Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland.
      Government new schedule 1—Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Corbyn: I am sorry that it has taken the Committee so long to reach this stage. When I tabled amendment No. 91, I was unaware that the Government were intending to table new clause 5 and, in particular,

      471
      new schedule 1, which meets many of my concerns. However, it might assist the House if I briefly set out those concerns.
      Is it accepted that it is wrong to treat offences committed in Britain as somehow worse than similar offences for which someone was convicted as a result of what happened in Northern Ireland in the past? It is essential that there should be some consistency, which is why I raised this issue in the first place.
      The Government new schedule refers to prisoners convicted in Britain and then transferred to Northern Ireland, but there are concerns about how cases involving someone who has been convicted in this country and who is still imprisoned here but who is widely considered to be a victim of a miscarriage of justice will be dealt with.
      I cite as an example the case of John Kinsella. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments, but there is a body of opinion that feels that he is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. He has served a considerable proportion of his sentence—indeed, more than a third of it—so, had he been transferred to Northern Ireland, or had he come from Northern Ireland in the first place, his case would have been dealt with within the terms of the Government's proposals.
      There also seem to be a disproportionate number of Irish prisoners in Britain who are the victims of miscarriages of justice. The evidence is there, and the Home Office must be well aware of it, because of the number of cases being investigated. One in particular that comes to mind is that of Danny McNamee, who was convicted on very dubious evidence. A raft of information has been handed to the Home Office which suggests that Mr. McNamee is innocent. He has served almost half his sentence, so, again, he ought to come within the ambit of the Bill, especially within the terms of the Government new clause and new schedule. There is widespread concern about the safety of such convictions.
      We must address miscarriages of justice as well as the treatment of people who have been convicted where there is no dispute about there having been a miscarriage of justice. There is an undertaking in the Bill that they will be treated differently because of the nature of their offences. The Bill is about looking forward to a more peaceful future in which we recognise the motives of people who have committed offences, but I am concerned about the number of people who are wrongly accused of committing offences which they clearly did not commit, for whom people are prepared to campaign, and who, indeed, attest to their own innocence. We should not forget such people, and I hope that either the Secretary of State or the Minister will reassure me on that point.
      Mr. Ingram: I wish to speak against clause 15 stand part and in support of new clause 5 and new schedule 1.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) recognised that his amendment has now been overtaken by the Government new clause and new schedule. He raised several issues which are not covered in the Bill. Any matters relating to alleged miscarriages of justice are matters for the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so there is a mechanism whereby such matters can be fully considered and any miscarriages of justice, if there are any, put right.
      Mr. Corbyn: Does the Minister accept that the fact of someone having been imprisoned in England after what
      472
      he believed to be a miscarriage of justice and serving a longer sentence than he would have served had he been transferred to Northern Ireland would form the basis for a review of that sentence by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, because his treatment here might be deemed detrimental to his interests compared with what would have happened had he been moved to Northern Ireland?
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Ingram: We are dealing with a very complex matter—the provisions on transferred prisoners. As I said earlier in the debate, I cannot deal now with cases of those who are alleging miscarriages of justice. There is a danger that we are getting into the details of such cases. However, as the matter is complex, 1 shall write to my hon. Friend on it and explain the position. As I told the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), if the Bill contains any specific weaknesses on the matter, we shall attempt to correct them. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that explanation.
      Taken together, new clause 5 and new schedule 1 fully and clearly state in the Bill our intention on transferred prisoners. Although it was thought that explanation of our intentions would have to await a draft order, that is no longer the case. The new clause and new schedule are intended to ensure that prisoners who have been transferred to Northern Ireland can be treated as much as possible as if they had been convicted and sentenced in Northern Ireland, and that the same savings and safeguards apply.
      Specifically, were the Bill's arrangements to lapse, the new clause and new schedule would ensure that life sentence prisoners who have been given a restricted transfer to Northern Ireland will continue to be dealt with under English or Scottish release arrangements.
      I therefore commend the new clause and the new schedule to the Committee.
      Mr. William Ross: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I must protest at the way in which the matter has been handled. The matter of sentences passed outside Northern Ireland was originally dealt with in the Bill in clause 15—"Miscellaneous"—which contained about 26 lines of text. It was then dealt with by new clause 5, which has two lines of text, and then by a new schedule—which appeared only yesterday—that has two full pages of text. It is unreasonable for anyone to say that, at such short notice, we have had time to wade through all the text. The issue is complex, and has many aspects.
      If the Government were planning to include the provisions in the Bill, why did they not do so initially, so that we might have considered them—their general principle—in the debate on the Bill's Second Reading? If they had done so, we should have been able last weekend to examine the provisions, and then to reach conclusions on whether we should agree to the new clause and new schedule.
      I therefore hope that the provisions will be considered very carefully in the other place, and that any necessary amendment will be made to them. The matter has been dealt with in a completely unsatisfactory manner.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Bill has been severely guillotined, yet pages—about which we

      473
      knew nothing when the guillotine was agreed to—are being added to it. The House's business managers saw to it that Northern Ireland Members did not know about the guillotine motion, which was dealt with on a Thursday night. We were never informed about it. One hon. Member was informed about it, but he saw to it that his colleagues would not be so informed. It is in his interest that the Bill is passed.
      It is unfair that a Bill that has been so severely guillotined should have pages added to it by the Government, who now say that we should stick to that guillotine. It is completely unfair. The Minister can laugh if he likes but it is surely not parliamentary procedure to have undigested legislation passing through the House of Commons. For the Minister to laugh and say to us, "Yes, that is what you will get," does not bode well for democratic debate in this place. Surely the Government would be keen to declare what they want so that we may understand their policy and have the opportunity to comment on it. In the time that is available to us, it is impossible to comment on those matters.
      Mr. Ingram: Perhaps it is worth while explaining the situation. The matters set forth in the new clause and the new schedule were dealt with within the agreement anyway. It had always been our intention to ensure that what was contained within that part of the agreement was fully reflected in the proposed legislation that we are considering. The problem is that it relates to jurisdictions outwith Northern Ireland—namely, England, Wales and Scotland.
      These are complex matters in terms of definitions in finding equivalent offences. We sought to ensure that the clarifications were properly defined to satisfy the Law Officers in the jurisdictions of England, Scotland and Wales and that they were before the House of Commons at as early a stage as possible. If those matters had proved so complex that the difficulties could not be properly squared, we may have been dealing with them in the other place. We have tried to bring them forward as early as possible. It has been a question of timing. As I have said, we have been dealing with complex issues.
      I apologise if hon. Members think that they have somehow been disadvantaged, but every political party in Northern Ireland was offered the full opportunity to be taken through the Bill in its entirety. If there had been an area of concern—
      Mr. Ross rose—
      Mr. Ingram: Hold on. Let me explain.
      It was simply a matter of contacting my office. We could have taken hon. Members through any doubts or questions that they may have had about the application of these provisions. As hon. Members know, we have been very open in the way in which we have brought forward this legislation. We have tried to consult and to amend the Bill as it has developed over the weeks.
      We had a commitment to try to get the Bill on to the statute book by the end of June. Of course, we shall not achieve that. However, we shall get it on to the statute book as soon as possible. Again, that is set out in the agreement. If hon. Members feel that they have been
      474
      disadvantaged by the way in which those matters have been handled, I ask them to reflect on the way in which they have approached them. If they had approached my office, we could have taken them through the details of these large amendments.
      Mr. Ross: The point is that the new clause and the new schedule were not in the Bill. Even those who went to the Minister asking to be taken through the Bill would not have seen them. The new clause and the new schedule were not ready when the rest of the Bill was being printed. The schedule deals with crimes committed within the United Kingdom. It does not tell us anything about individuals who may be transferred, for instance, from the Irish Republic. Why is that matter not included if it has taken so long to sort out these matters?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: My party saw the Minister about the Bill. We did not see a draft of the Bill when we consulted him, and he did not know then what the new schedule would be, or what the part of the Bill would be that is now under discussion. The hon. Gentleman says that he had to wait so that the Law Officers in the other jurisdictions could come to an agreement. We can well accept that. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has apologised to the Committee, including the hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
      It would be shabby if controversial legislation were put before the House of Commons in this way over and over again. The Minister has a deep difference with the Northern Ireland Members sitting on the Bench that I occupy, including all the Unionist Members present this evening. Some have been mentioned, but they did not even turn up to the meeting that has been referred to, to put their views. It would be wrong if that were done over and again to the people of Northern Ireland. I accept the Minister's apology. However, I hope that, in the future, we shall have the opportunity at least to read the Bill that we are supposed to discuss in the Chamber.
      Mr. Corbyn: I find these arguments slightly amazing. The point of a Committee of the whole House is to allow amendments to be put—the Government can even move amendments; that is not against the rules—and accepted by the Committee. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Therefore, the Democratic Unionists' expressions of amazement are ludicrous—to put it mildly.
      I moved amendment No. 91 because I wished to draw attention to particular aspects of the legislation that I thought needed further examination. I am pleased that the Government have tabled new clause 5 and new schedule 1, which go a long towards meeting my concerns, and I look forward to the Minister's reply. I appreciated the way that he described his new clause and new schedule as "taking over" my amendment—I hope that that is a sign of my new-found influence over the Government in those matters. I can offer them further advice on other subjects, if they wish it. That is no problem: my door is always open and I can offer advice at any time.
      I could draw attention to several other issues, but I do not want to test your patience, Mr. Lord, by straying wide of the clause under consideration. I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter on the subjects that I have raised, which I recognise are very complicated. However, I hope that he recognises also that I have drawn attention to two serious miscarriages of justice—namely,

      475
      McNamee and John Kinsella—and I hope that that information will be conveyed to both the Home Office and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Miscarriages of justice do no one any good because locking up the wrong person allows a criminal to go free. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 15 disagreed to.
      Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17

      ORDERS AND RULES
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 8, leave out lines 22 and 23.
      No. 15, in page 8, line 24, at end, insert: '10(7)'.
      No. 16, in page 8, line 27, after '3(8)' insert 'or 10(7)'.
      No. 17, in page 8, line 36, after '3(8)' insert 'or 10(7)' .—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 19

      EXTENT
      Mr. Ingram: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in page 9, line 5, leave out 'and 15' and insert
      `, (Information for victims) and 15'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 3—Information for victims.
      Mr. Ingram: During the Second Reading debate, several hon. Members drew attention to the plight of victims and their need to be given some idea of when offenders would be released. That point was also raised by the noble Lord Alderdice and members of the Alliance party, who made powerful representations on behalf of victims.
      Victims of an offence or their families should have the right to know when perpetrators of offences are likely to reappear in public as a consequence of their release under the Bill before the Committee. When the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised the matter, I said that I would be happy to consider further questions on the issue, with a view to tabling a Government amendment to tackle that point. I have done that: an amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fulfils my commitment.
      The amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State, if it is requested—that is an important point—to provide victims of an offence and members of their families with information about the prisoner sentenced for that offence. That would of course include the date on which the prisoner is to be released, if that has been set. It would also include information about whether the prisoner has made an application under the legislation, and whether it has been accepted or refused. The Secretary of State
      476
      would not be required to make information available if she believes that it would put a prisoner at risk. That is an important and necessary safeguard.
      I should like to make one or two other points but, in view of the time available and the fact that I understand that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who raised this issue in the first place, wants to comment in the few remaining seconds, I shall not.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Phil Willis: The Liberal Democrats are extremely grateful to the Minister—first, for allowing us so much time to respond, and secondly, and more importantly, for including this very important issue in the Bill.
      All the issues that have been debated tonight are incredibly important, but this element of the Bill redresses the balance for those whose lives have been wrecked as a result of terrorism. Until now, the Bill was all about the people who had perpetrated crimes and the arrangements for releasing them from prison. The amendment and the new clause redress the balance; they say that Parliament is genuinely concerned about the victims.
      We would place a proviso on new clause 3(2), which we should like to follow up on Report. Although some problems surround that proviso, tonight is clearly not the time to raise them. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I say to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who spoke on behalf of the bereaved in Northern Ireland, that they will in no way think that the amendment and the new clause redress the balance. The hon. Gentleman may not have meant that the amendment and the new clause fully redress the balance, but if the Committee and the House think that informing people that those who murdered their loved ones are getting out of prison does anything for those victims' sorrow, darkness and sadness, there is something very wrong.
      I want to say that strongly on behalf of the people whom I represent, who have gone through the darkest of all tragedies. Some of them are mere vegetables today; their loved ones have to attend to them. To one such victim, who has been in a coma for a very long time and whose wife has to stand at his bed and attend to his every need, the amendment and the new clause will never balance anything.
      There is much dispute about whether providing information to victims is a good or bad thing. Perhaps it is better for people not to know that the person who carried out such an act is being released from prison. Such knowledge could put more fear into their hearts. None the less, I am quite happy that applying for the information should be a matter for the relatives. The Committee should not think that it can balance the books just by accepting the amendment and the new clause.
      Mr. Ingram: That is not the intention of the Government amendment and the new clause. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not have a monopoly on compassion; he never has had. This issue is one of those particularly difficult ones. That is why the Government set up the commission under Sir Kenneth Bloomfield. I have been charged to take

      477
      forward some of the deeply hurtful issues to try to find a way of making them hold. The amendment and the new clause represent one of the ways in which we have given manifest support to that effort. It will not solve all the problems, but it may just begin to address them for some of the people if they so wish. I ask the hon. Gentleman to have a bit more compassion in his heart; to understand what we are trying to achieve rather than condemning it out of hand.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 20 and 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [11 June], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

    New clause 3

      INFORMATION FOR VICTIMS
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall provide a statement under this section about a person if he receives a written request to do so and he believes—

      (a) that the person about whom the statement is sought is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland for a fixed term of at least five years or for life,

      (b) that the sentence was passed in Northern Ireland for a qualifying offence, and

      (c) that the person requesting the statement, or a member of his family, was a victim of the offence for which the sentence was passed.

      (2) But the Secretary of State shall not provide a statement if he believes that to do so would create a danger to the safety of any person.
      (3) A statement under this section about a person shall state—

      (a) whether he has made an application under section 3;

      (b) if he has made an application, whether it has been granted;

      (c) if his application has been granted, whether he has been released and the date on which he has a right to be released, or on which he was released, under section 4 or 6;

      (d) if he has been released on licence, whether his licence has been suspended under section 9(2) and, if so, whether it has been confirmed or revoked under section 9(4);

      (e) if he has been released on licence under section 4, the date on which the licence will expire.

      (4) If the Secretary of State has issued a statement under this section and becomes aware that any of the information in it has ceased to be accurate, he shall send a revised statement to the person who made the original request at his last known address.'—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 4

      REVOCATION OF DECLARATION
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall apply to Commissioners to revoke a declaration under section 3(1) if, at any time before the
      478
      prisoner is released under section 4 or 6, the Secretary of State believes—

      (a) that as a result of an order under section 3(8), or a change in the prisoner's circumstances, an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied, or

      (b) that evidence or information which was not available to the Commissioners when they granted the declaration suggests that an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied.

      (2) The Commissioners shall grant an application under this section if (and only if) the prisoner has not been released under section 4 or 6 and they believe—

      (a) that as a result of an order under section 3(8), or a change in the prisoner's circumstances, an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied, or

      (b) that evidence or information which was not available to them when they granted the declaration suggests that an applicable condition in section 3 is not satisfied.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]

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

    New clause 5

      SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND
      '. Schedule (Sentences passed outside Northern Ireland) (which makes provision about sentences passed outside Northern Ireland) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Schedule 1 agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      COMMISSIONERS' PROCEDURE
      Amendment made: No. 90, in page 12, line 3, at end insert—
      '. The rules may provide for proceedings to be held in private except where Commissioners direct otherwise.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

    New schedule
      SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND

        Eligibility for release
        1.—(1) This paragraph applies where a prisoner who makes an application to Commissioners under section 3(1) is serving a sentence of imprisonment in Northern Ireland and the sentence was passed in England and Wales or Scotland.
        (2) Where the applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term, the Commissioners shall grant the application if (and only if)—

        (a) the sentence is for a term of at least five years,

        (b) the sentence was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence, and

        (c) the second and third conditions in section 3 are satisfied.

        (3) Where the applicant is serving a sentence of imprisonment for life, the Commissioners shall grant the application if (and only if)—

        (a) the sentence was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence, and

        (b) the second, third and fourth conditions in section 3 are satisfied.

        Equivalent offence
        2.—(1) An offence is equivalent to a qualifying offence if it—

        (a) was committed before 10th April 1998,

        479

        (b) was committed in connection with terrorism and the affairs of Northern Ireland, and

        (c) is certified by the appropriate Law Officer as an offence which if it had been committed in Northern Ireland would have been a scheduled offence within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, 1978, 1991 or 1996.

        (2) If a person who makes an application under section 3 in relation to a sentence for an offence requests the appropriate Law Officer to provide a certificate under sub-paragraph (1)(c) in relation to that offence, the Law Officer shall as soon as reasonably practicable—

        (a) grant the certificate, or

        (b) refuse the request and notify the person who made the request of the refusal and the reasons for it.

        (3) In deciding whether an offence would have been a scheduled offence a Law Officer shall ignore the possibility of a certificate by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland that the offence was not to be treated as a scheduled offence.
        (4) For the purposes of this paragraph the appropriate Law Officer is—

        (a) in relation to an offence committed in England and Wales, the Attorney General, and

        (b) in relation to an offence committed in Scotland, the Lord Advocate.

        Effect of declaration
        3. Where a declaration is granted under section 3 in accordance with paragraph 1, sections 4 to 13 shall have effect with the following modifications.
        4.—(1) For section 4(1)(b) there shall be substituted—
        '(b) one day for every day of remission which he has lost and not had restored (or additional day which he has been awarded and which has not been remitted) in accordance with prison rules.'.
        (2) The reference in section 4(4) to the time when a prisoner could have been discharged under prison rules shall be treated as a reference to the time when he could have been discharged had the relevant sentence been passed in Northern Ireland for a scheduled offence.
        5. The references in sections 5 and 10 to section 26 of the Treatment of Offenders Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 shall be treated as references to any enactment which has the effect of, or an effect similar to, that section and which applies to the prisoner concerned.
        6. The following shall be substituted for section 7—

        Life prisoners: specified dates
        7. In specifying a date for a prisoner under section 6 the Commissioners must have regard to—

        (a) any order or direction made in relation to the prisoner under section 28 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (duty to release certain life prisoners);

        (b) any order made in relation to the prisoner under section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (duty to release discretionary life prisoners);

        (c) any other information, whether relating to the prisoner's case or to other cases, which the Secretary of State submits; and

        (d) previous decisions of Commissioners.".

        7. For section (Information for victims)(1)(b) there shall be substitute—
        '(b) that the sentence was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence.'.
        8.—(1) The reference in section 12(4) to detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure shall be treated as a reference to detention at Her Majesty's pleasure.
        480
        (2) For section 12(5)(6) there shall be substituted—
        '(b) was passed for an offence equivalent to a qualifying offence.'.

        Restricted transfers
        9.—(1) Nothing in Part II of Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners: restricted transfers) shall prevent the making of an application under section 3 of this Act.
        (2) The following provisions of this paragraph have effect where—

        (a) a prisoner is granted a declaration under section 3 in relation to a sentence in accordance with paragraph 1, and

        (b) his transfer to Northern Ireland in respect of that sentence was a restricted transfer for the purposes of Part II of Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act.

        (3) A fixed term prisoner's transfer shall cease to be a restricted transfer when the declaration under section 3 is made.
        (4) A life-sentence prisoner's transfer shall cease to be a restricted transfer when he is released on licence under section 6.
        (5) Where a transfer under Part I of Schedule 1 to the 1997 Act ceases to be a restricted transfer in accordance with this paragraph, paragraph 15 of that Schedule shall apply as if the transfer were an unrestricted transfer and had been effected at that time.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Bill reported, with amendments.
        Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

    NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
    Ordered,
    That—

    (1) the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 1998 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

    (2) the Order of the House of 6th November relating to sittings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee shall be varied by substituting for the words 'and Thursday 2nd July at half past Ten o'clock' the words 'at half past Ten o'clock, and on Thursday 2nd July at Ten o'clock.'

    (3) at the sitting on Thursday 2nd July, the Committee shall take questions for oral answer and shall then consider the draft instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

    (4) in respect of the sitting on Thursday 2nd July—

    (i) Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation)) shall have effect with the substitution in paragraph (2) of the Order, for the words 'two and a half, of the word `three'; and

    (ii) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) and Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)), the Chairman shall interrupt proceedings at half past One o' clock .—[Mr. Dowd.]

    HUMAN RIGHTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)
    Ordered,
    That the Order of 1st June relating to the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (Programme) be amended as follows:
    (i) in sub-paragraph 1(1), by leaving out from 'completed' to the end of the sub-paragraph and inserting 'at four sittings and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill at the fourth of those sittings';

    481
    (ii) in sub-paragraph 1(2), by leaving out 'On each such allotted day' and inserting 'At each of those sittings except the fourth';
    (iii) by inserting after sub-paragraph 1(2)—
    '(3) At the fourth of those sittings, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill for any part of the period of three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill which falls after Ten o'clock'; and
    (iv) by leaving out paragraph 7.—[Mr. Dowd.]

  Epilepsy
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  10.51 pm
  Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise this important subject in the House. Epilepsy is the most common serious neurological condition in the United Kingdom, and 30,000 people a year are newly diagnosed with it. One in 50 of our population are affected by it at some time in their lives, and in 1996 about 1,000 people in this country died from epilepsy. Despite those stark figures, epilepsy remains a much neglected area. It is still treated as something of a taboo subject, widely misunderstood and often stigmatised.
  Late last year a constituent of mine, Tricia Odd, wrote to me and told me about the death of her daughter Katy in April 1997. Katy was 19 and studying radiography and radiotherapy at City university in London when she died suddenly from epilepsy. She had had her first seizure when she was eight years old, and at the age of 13 she wrote a moving school essay under the title, "Epilepsy—The Voice from Within".
  Katy wrote:
  "When I have a fit it's as though someone or something in my head has taken control of my body and mind. I'm not asleep but awake, I'm not dead but alive … This is the voice from within me … but I'm not going to let it rule my life".
  Katy's death was a tragic waste of a promising young life. Mrs. Odd and her family are determined that lessons have to be learnt from her daughter's life and death.
  When I received Mrs. Odd's letter it had a powerful impact on me. My mother Jean acquired epilepsy when she was 50 as the result of an especially nasty accident. Six years ago, she died suddenly and unexpectedly during an epileptic seizure. Tonight's debate enables the House to draw some lessons from the lives of Katy Odd and Jean Twigg.
  I am grateful to Epilepsy Bereaved?, the National Society for Epilepsy and the Royal College of Nursing for their advice and information which has been invaluable in preparing for this evening's debate. In the limited time available, I shall focus on three main areas: first, care for those who are living with epilepsy; secondly, improving the treatment available and raising public awareness about epilepsy; and thirdly, the critical area of research into sudden death in epilepsy.
  The quality and availability of care varies enormously for people with epilepsy. Many people have excellent care and access to good services, and in some parts of the country, the availability of care is very good indeed. I am pleased to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of nurses, doctors and other health care workers delivering such care.
  There is a real problem with the lack of referral opportunities to specialist clinics. There are very few specialist clinical provisions. Misdiagnosis is, I am sad to say, widespread. I am told that of those attending the National Society for Epilepsy assessment centre, something like one in five have been found not to have epilepsy at all. Yet some have been taking anti-epileptic medication for years. It is a complex condition and, as such, requires a complex multidisciplinary approach. I am

  483
  told that, today, two in five cases are not referred to a specialist, only to a general physician, and that one in 12 are not referred to a neurologist at all.
  Two specific suggestions have been put to me: first, that the situation that I have described briefly would be improved if it were easier for cross-regional referrals to be carried out; and secondly, that epilepsy should be considered for inclusion in the Government's new arrangements for commissioning specialist services. I would be grateful for my hon. Friend the Minister's comments on those two suggestions.
  Mr. Brian White: As the parent of a stepson who has epilepsy, one of things that I feel is deficient in terms of people looking for care is the support services for parents and families. There does not appear to be very much support for the families of people with epilepsy. Will my hon. Friend address that point?
  Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter, and I will come to some related issues in a moment. In a short debate covering the whole area of epilepsy, it is important that the different issues are addressed. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, which connects very much with the area that I am moving on to.
  The stigma attached to epilepsy is very real, and it remains so. Epilepsy is a cause of social exclusion. I am told that unemployment rates for people with epilepsy can be as high as 30 per cent. The training for those working in the health field is often very poor. One of the examples cited to me is that very few, if any, postgraduate courses in neurology include specific teaching on epilepsy. More generally, there is an urgent need for improved training, not only for health care professionals, but for all those working with people with epilepsy—whether they are teachers, employers, prison officers or others.
  The education service, and schools in particular, have a great opportunity to educate young people about epilepsy, and thereby to challenge some of the prejudice and reduce some of the stigma associated with epilepsy. One of the points made by the Royal College of Nursing to me was that school nurses can play an important role in educational work. That can have benefits not only in terms of raising general awareness, but for children in schools who have epilepsy, and their families.
  There is good practice from which we can learn, and I have been finding out more about it in preparing for tonight's debate. For example, the good work done at the Walton centre in Liverpool was praised by the Audit Commission last year. There are some good examples of work in other countries—notably, I am told, in Holland. I welcome the National Society for Epilepsy's funding of a professional chair in epilepsy at University College hospital—the first in the UK. It is very much to be welcomed and will be positive in moving the subject forward.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider establishing a national service framework to provide agreed standards of epilepsy services across the country, and that he will consider including epilepsy within the local targets for health improvement programmes currently being considered by the Government. Both those ideas merit consideration because of the prevalence of epilepsy and the high death rate that is associated with it.
  484
  On the crucial question of research, as recently as the 1980s, few medical textbooks dealt with mortality or sudden death associated with epilepsy. The widespread lack of information and research led a group of families to form Epilepsy Bereaved? in 1993—the group became a charity two years later. From my discussions with members of that group and with Mrs. Odd and her family, it has become clear to me that more information is needed, and that that information needs to be provided in a balanced and appropriate way.
  Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for raising this subject. I was made aware of the problems of sudden death in epilepsy by my constituent, Mrs. Eileen Stirling. I agreed to follow up the issue, and want very much to add the voice of Sheffield, Hallam to that of Enfield, Southgate in calling for much more research, particularly into sudden death. I am also concerned about the suicide rate among epileptics, which is a serious problem—the pattern is well attested. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that research is also needed on that.
  Mr. Twigg: Absolutely, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of suicide. Research must examine, not only medical questions, but the social and other consequences of epilepsy for people living with epilepsy, and their families. More research is needed, but existing research also needs to be taken seriously—it has often been neglected or ignored, and many of the lessons that we are starting to learn now could have been learnt years, if not decades ago, if that research had been taken seriously.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will know that I was first made aware of sudden death in epilepsy through the sudden death of a good friend, William Preston, with whom I was at college in Oxford 10 years ago—he was also known to the hon. Gentleman. An investigation of the causes of sudden death needs to be national, so that there are sufficient numbers to feed into the research. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister say how the Government can support such research projects.
  Mr. Twigg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. A programme of research needs to be national to ensure that it is fully comprehensive and takes account of the different interests that are involved.
  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group is currently studying the availability of clinical services—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will say more on that in his closing remarks. I hope that he can assure the House that the Government will seriously consider the outcome of the group's report, which is due, I think, in about a year.
  From my discussions with the various organisations, it has become clear to me that the Government's interest in the subject has been widely and warmly welcomed—tonight's debate is, therefore, timely. However, Epilepsy Bereaved? has emphasised its belief that, in addition to considering general standards, we must deal with the appropriate standards for those who are at greatest risk, particularly those aged between 15 and 35.

  485
  Moreover, detailed information must be gathered from families who have been bereaved, especially in recent years. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested, any research or audit that is undertaken must include such details if it is to be fully comprehensive. That is necessary not only to ensure that research is as effective and wide-ranging as possible, but to enable bereaved families to have a voice. Although it is vital that any audit or research listens to the health care professionals and to experts working in the field, it is equally, if not more important, that a voice is given to the bereaved families. Such families have the right, not only to the care and support that they need, but to find out why their loved ones died, which could ensure that such deaths do not occur in future.
  All hon. Members have a duty to raise awareness about epilepsy, to challenge the still widely held prejudices and misunderstanding and tackle the social exclusion and other disadvantages that are often experienced by people with epilepsy and their families, to improve the care and support provided throughout the country for those affected and to support and encourage research, so that the death rate from epilepsy is reduced.
  In the previous Parliament, the all-party group on epilepsy was very active. I believe that it is still in existence, but it is a little more dormant in the new Parliament and I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House, in all parties, will be keen to join me in encouraging wider membership of the group and increasing its activity and profile. Tonight's Adjournment debate is an opportunity to kick-start that process.
  I look forward to the response of my hon. Friend the Minister and am confident that he and the Government will take the issues of care, research and increasing public awareness very seriously. By doing so, they will be providing an appropriate and fitting way to remember the life of my late constituent, Katy Odd.
  11.5 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): This is a timely and welcome debate on a subject of considerable importance and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) on having chosen it as a topic for our Adjournment debate tonight. The number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have intervened is an indication of the seriousness with which the House takes this issue.
  In that regard, we owe a debt of gratitude to Epilepsy Bereaved? and all those who have given their time, efforts and energy to support its valuable work for having raised the consciousness of the House and hon. Members about sudden, unexpected death from epilepsy. The stream of correspondence that has come into my Department from families who are living with the reality of bereavement and who are determined, as Katy Odd's family is, that their loved ones shall not have died in vain has helped to make the whole House conscious of the importance of the issue.
  Only a few weeks ago, I met a delegation of epilepsy specialists, carers, family members and others organised by Epilepsy Bereaved? They shared their concerns and experience with me and officials. No one listening to them
  486
  could be under any illusions as to the scale of the problem. Almost 1,000 people die each year in the United Kingdom during, or shortly after, an epileptic seizure. Those deaths are due not to accidents caused by the seizure, but to the seizure itself.
  As a result of that meeting, which was helpful and productive, we have invited the delegation to consider submitting a bid for a national sentinel audit into epilepsy services. That is a new and extensive form of clinical audit that is very much part of our new national health service and is designed to ensure that we enable practitioners, including those in primary care—I hear what my hon. Friend has said about the important role of general practitioners—to compare their practice against agreed national standards and, we hope, to address areas of shortfall or poor practice as a result.
  More research remains to be done, as a number of hon. Members have said. We do not know the extent to which improved standards of care for epilepsy patients would have a direct effect on the death rate from epilepsy seizures. More work needs to be done in that area, but research suggests that some people with epilepsy may be more at risk than others, which may have implications for carers as well as for the medical profession.
  For example, in many investigated deaths from epilepsy, patients died alone, often in their sleep. They were also predominantly young people, aged between 15 and 37, which is, as my hon. Friend said, the key age group. If, as I hope, a national sentinel audit bid is successful, it might enable us to identify the at risk population. It would also give some clear pointers to where further research is needed.
  I am committed to ensuring that we create a context in which it is possible for such research to take place. The Medical Research Council funds a great deal of research into epilepsy and did work worth more than £600,000 in 1996–97. General practice has made a valuable contribution to epilepsy research, especially in terms of epidemiology, but we cannot be complacent. The Clinical Standards Advisory Group recently awarded a contract to the Institute of Neurology to advise Ministers on standards of clinical care for, access to and availability of services to national health service patients with epilepsy.
  Mr. White: Has my hon. Friend considered the experience of other countries, particularly Scandinavian countries and Holland, where a lot of work has been done on the causes of epilepsy and the treatments available? Will he consider using some of the lessons of those schemes in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Boateng: We are committed to considering good practice among our European partner countries and I shall ensure that that is taken on board.
  I look forward to receiving a draft report in May 1999, and a report to Ministers is expected in autumn 1999. We already have the benefit of working with the medical profession to raise awareness. The primary care already referred to is vital in that regard. The average general practitioner is unlikely to deal with enough cases to develop expertise and knowledge in epilepsy, yet patients rely heavily on GPs as the gatekeepers to specialist services and the monitors of their conditions. We must ensure that we give GPs the back-up necessary to enable them better to fulfil their role.

  487
  The Department of Health has funded a care project run by GPs in Cheshire, which is evaluating provision of services to people with epilepsy in the community. Its interim report highlights a number of areas of concern in relation to epilepsy services, including use of older epilepsy drugs, inadequate follow-through, misdiagnosis and inadequate information. More generally, and more disturbingly, the study identifies a low level of interest and awareness of epilepsy among GPs and shows variations in prescribing and referral habits. That work helps us to see the potential health gains of improvements in epilepsy services. Considerable gains could be made through improved prevention and from accurate diagnosis and the best possible management, both of which require expertise and follow-up.
  It is encouraging to note that an increasing number of general practices have undertaken audits of care for patients with epilepsy. Through that, they have developed an interest in epilepsy and in improving services. For some GPs, that has led to developing competence in diagnosis, changing and adjusting medication and providing support and advice. Some practice nurses are also taking an interest in epilepsy and specialist nurses make a contribution to the development of expertise in epilepsy treatment.
  I pay tribute to carers, who play a vital role in ensuring that those who suffer from epilepsy have the support and care that they so greatly need. The creation of larger primary care groups will present opportunities to explore new models of care delivery and people with chronic
  488
  conditions such as epilepsy will have the opportunity to influence the changes as the new NHS—modern and dependable—unfolds. Carers and voluntary groups will have a special role in that process.
  We must grasp the nettle of confronting the real prejudice and stigma that continue to affect those who suffer from epilepsy. That prejudice harks back to the middle ages, with the idea that people with epilepsy were possessed by evil spirits as they suffered their convulsions. Such ideas have no place at all in our society as we move into the next millennium.
  I assure hon. Members that we will respond to the challenge laid down by Katy Odd in "Epilepsy—The Voice from Within". In partnership with the voluntary sector, which plays such an important role—I am glad that we have been able to support its efforts with section 64 grants to assist in the development and publication of information—and with carers and epilepsy sufferers themselves, listening to the user, we will ensure that that voice is amplified throughout the service and that the standard of care that we are all entitled to expect in the new NHS is delivered.
  That is our commitment to Katy Odd, to Jean Twigg and to their families, as well as to the many others who look to the House for leadership. That leadership will be forthcoming.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Belmont Stables, Mill Hill
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the public inquiry into the planning issues arising from Belmont Stables, Mill Hill, will recommence. [45439]

  Mr. Caborn
  The principal parties and representatives of third parties were notified by a letter, dated 1 May 1998 that the inquiry into the appeals by Belmont Riding Centre Ltd, would resume on 4 August 1998 with Mr. Palmer, the original Inspector, if he were fit or, alternatively, if he were not, recommenced by a new Inspector. The letter also stated that the principal parties would be given 1 month's notice as to which alternative is adopted.

  The principal parties and representatives of third parties were told in letters dated 10 June 1998 that Mr. Palmer would not be returning from sick leave before 4 August. At present, therefore, an Inspector would be available to recommence the inquiry on that date. However, the parties have indicated that they may not wish to do so and other alternatives are being actively and urgently investigated.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the number of passengers the London Underground's Jubilee Line extension will carry per week when the Millennium Dome is open to the public. [45760]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand from London Transport that an approximate estimate of Jubilee Line Extension passenger journeys per week, during the busiest period for the Millennium Dome, would be 1.6 million. (If visitors to the Dome are excluded, the estimate falls to 1.1 million passenger journeys per week).

  Traffic Commissioner
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will place copies in the Library of the Traffic Commissioner's business plans. [45816]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]Traffic Commissioners are required to submit annual reports to the Secretary of State on discharge of their Goods and Public Service Vehicle licensing functions and other responsibilities. Copies of these reports are placed in the Library. The Business Plan of the Traffic Area Network has not hitherto been published but I am placing a copy of the 1998–99 Plan in the Library.

  Mobile Homes
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the working group on the operation of present legislation for mobile homes has been set up; what the terms of reference and programme of work are to be; when the working group is expected to report; and if he will make a statement. [46143]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Park Homes Working Party held its first meeting on 14 May. Its aim and terms of reference are as follows:

  Aim: To promote the effective and equitable operation of existing statutory controls on permanent residential park homes and to consider what changes, if any, in these might be desirable to achieve a fair and workable balance between the needs and interests of park home residents and park owners/operators.

  Terms of Reference: To review the statutory framework of park homes legislation and, in particular, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, Caravan Sites Act 1968 and Mobile Homes Act 1983, and consider:

  (a) what is the best current practice in the application and enforcement of these controls by local authorities, and how it might best be disseminated;

  (b) whether there is further scope to achieve the effective operation of existing controls through initiatives generated by the park homes industry; and

  (c) whether there are significant weaknesses in the content of the existing controls which might be remedied, without disproportionate increases in public expenditure and in costs to operators and residents, through changes to secondary and, if appropriate and when Parliamentary time allows, primary legislation.

  The Working Party is aiming to present recommendations to Ministers by Spring 1999.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce regulation of the deposit scheme for people who rent property in the private sector. [46081]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We are concerned about the problem of tenants' rental deposits being withheld unreasonably by landlords at the end of tenancies. We are currently looking at legislation operating overseas to see whether there is an appropriate model for dealing with those problems. But we will need to be satisfied that any new requirements would not deter reputable small landlords, or potential landlords, and that they would achieve a fair balance between the interests of tenants and landlords.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 10 June 1998,Official Report, columns 575–76, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the households which own or rent a second home, indicating where the second homes are located. [46092]
  205
  Mr. Raynsford
  The table shows estimates based on data from the Survey of English Housing for the three years ending March 1997.

  Location of second homes in England

  thousands

  Region

  Homes

  North and North West

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  East Midlands

  15

  London

  26

  South East and East Anglia

  60

  South West

  41

  West Midlands

  15

  England

  201

  Notes:

  1. The table shows second homes in England owned or rented by households with their main residence also in England. It excludes second homes which are the main residence of another household, and those which the owners are intending to sell

  2. Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability. Data for three years, and for some regions, have been combined to preserve a reasonable sample size

  3. Data shown are based on the former Standard Statistical Regions rather than the present Government Office Regions, as this was the only regional definition available at the start of the survey period

  Education Expenditure
  Dr. George Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish a table showing for each education authority the amount allocated per pupil for each of the education SSA sub-blocks in 1998–99 attributable to the relevant population sparsity factor. [45828]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A table showing these figures has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Birmingham Northern Relief Road
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of the(a) advantages and (b) savings to business and commerce which would result from the construction of the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [46065]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The Department's case for proceeding with the Birmingham Northern Relief Road was fully set out in evidence given to the 1994–95 public inquiry. Its construction would provide a high quality alternative route to the heavily congested section of the M6 through the West Midlands for commercial and other traffic. It would better facilitate the movement of through traffic from Scotland and the North West through the West Midlands to the South East, the Channel Tunnel and ports.

  In strongly supporting the proposed scheme at the public inquiry, representative road haulage and business organisations pointed out the damage which the present levels of congestion on the M6 were causing in terms of delays and to competitiveness.
  206
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the cost benefit analysis of the construction of the proposed Birmingham Northern Relief Road. [46064]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: A formal cost benefit analysis of the scheme was not carried out because it is to be privately financed. However, before deciding to award the concession to Midland Expressway Ltd., the previous Government took into account a comparative analysis of the economic benefits of the scheme with a publicly financed tolled road and a publicly financed untolled road. This showed the scheme having a benefit: cost ratio of more than 2:1. This information was contained in Department of Transport evidence on toll policy and its application to the Birmingham Northern Relief Road put to the 1994–95 public inquiry. I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from(a) the Merchant Navy Association and (b) others about the establishment of a Merchant Navy Day on 3 September. [45536]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the election, there have been five written representations from the Merchant Navy Association, and twelve from members of the Association writing in a personal capacity.

  Nuclear Deterrence
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 32, on how many occasions he has not answered written questions from hon. Members on the grounds that he considered a matter to be closed. [46363]

  Mr. Prescott
  This is the latest in a series of related questions from the hon. Member. I have nothing to add to my answers of 18 May 1998,Official Report, column 218, 8 June 1998, Official Report, column 413 and 15 June 1998, Official Report, columns 32 and 40.

  Rural Bus Services
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will introduce proposals for the payment to English local authorities of the new grant for rural bus services; and if he will be issuing guidance to the authorities concerned on use of the grant. [46645]

  Dr. Strang
  I announced a provisional distribution of this grant on 28 April, subject to approval by Parliament in due course. Following consultation with interested parties, I have now laid before the House a Special Grant Report under Section 88B of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. This incorporates my detailed proposals for the payment of the grant and the conditions which will apply to its use. My Department is also circulating guidance to local authorities; a copy has been placed in the Library.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Personal Injury Cases
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the legal aid bill in 1996–97 and 1997–98 for personal injury cases was for cases won by the plaintiffs and resulted in the expenditure on legal aid being recovered from the defendants at the conclusion of the proceedings. [45166]

  Mr. Hoon
  This information is not readily available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The proportion of the gross legal aid costs recovered in all personal injury cases closed (including medical negligence matters) during 1996/97 can be broken down as follows:

  All personal injury litigation (including medical negligence)—cases closed 1996–97

  £ million

  Percentage of gross cost

  Gross payments

  274.1

  n/a

  Costs received

  206.7

  75

  Damages retained

  4.1

  1

  Contributions retained

  2

  1

  Net costs

  61.8

  23

  No equivalent information is currently available for 1997–98.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what proportion of the legal aid bill in 1996–97 and 1997–98 for personal injury cases was liable to VAT and resulted in a revenue to the Treasury. [45167]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested is not available since the Legal Aid Board is not required to account separately for VAT.

TREASURY

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances he was asked to leave the room during the Meeting of the Euro XI to discuss the single currency at Senningen Castle, Luxembourg on 4 June; and what factors led to the Austrian finance minister taking the chair. [46254]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: As President of ECOFIN, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was invited to attend the informal meeting on 4 June. The Chancellor took part in a constructive discussion of issues for consideration at the September meeting of Euro-XI which will involve all Member States. At an appropriate point, when issues falling within the specific responsibility of Member States joining the single currency were to be discussed, the Chancellor left the meeting.

  All meetings of Euro-XI will be chaired by the Presidency or, if the Presidency is held by a nonparticipating Member State, by the next Presidency in office. That is why Mr. Edlinger chaired the 4 June meeting.
  208
  These arrangements are entirely in line with Luxembourg European Council conclusions and were agreed by all Member States in advance.

  Registered Businesses
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many registered businesses in the United Kingdom he estimates have a value of £250,000 or less. [43612]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]On December 31 1997, there were approximately 1.11 million VAT-registered businesses in the UK with a turnover of less than £250,000.

  Lending Policies
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the United Kingdom representatives at the(a) World Bank, (b) IMF and (c) African Development Bank will ensure that the multilateral institutions pursue lending policies which take a realistic account of the ability of the debtor Government to repay. [43471]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK Government have played a leading role in encouraging the IMF, World Bank and the Multilateral Development Banks, including the African Development Bank, to pursue policies designed to promote sustainable economic growth and reductions in poverty. In particular, it attaches importance to ensuring that lending decisions are based on a careful assessment of a country's ability to absorb new lending and repay existing loans, to ensure that their debt burden is not increased.

  Pensions Mis-selling
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of progress made by pension firms in providing redress to the victims of mis-sold personal pensions. [46554]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The table shows the progress made in the period to end May 1998 by the 41 firms whose figures I have been publishing. Some 78 per cent. of all the cases these firms must review have now been completed.

  Many firms are now making good progress with their priority reviews. I expect the laggards to do their utmost to better the targets set for them by the regulators. I hope all firms will demonstrate the same commitment they have shown of late when they begin phase 2 of the review.

  I am still disappointed by the poor progress being made by many IFAs. On 10 June, PIA fined Financial Options Ltd. and Investment Options Ltd. a total of £400,000 for various failings, mostly related to the review of personal pensions. I expect IFAs to deal with their priority cases as a matter of the utmost urgency and hope the industry will continue to pursue the ABI's lifeboat initiative to help IFAs finance their reviews and process cases. Mis-selling damages the reputation of the entire industry. It is in everyone's interests to work together to complete the review.

  I am aware of criticisms by a number of IFAs of the FSA and PIA proposals for phase 2 of the review. Some

  209
  even deny that there is a problem while others try to pass the buck. Their poor attitude tarnishes those IFAs with integrity who are making a concerted effort to complete their case reviews.

  Progress by pensions firms in resolving cases of personal pensions mis-selling in the period to the end of May 1998

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  F

  G

  H

  Under 50% of cases resolved

  DBS

  1,889

  298

  259

  76

  183

  134

  7

  27

  Burns Anderson

  1,178

  308

  227

  128

  99

  82

  7

  44

  Financial options

  363

  121

  43

  20

  23

  19

  5

  44

  50–75% of cases resolved

  Gan

  11,598

  1,368

  5,434

  632

  4,802

  3,836

  33

  50

  Countrywide

  4,857

  2,239

  268

  166

  103

  79

  2

  51

  Lincoln National

  13,475

  1,774

  6,941

  1,114

  5,827

  4,856

  36

  57

  Windsor Life

  9,558

  3,332

  3,064

  291

  2,386

  1,896

  20

  58

  Abbey Life

  17,446

  4,551

  6,690

  1,015

  5,675

  4,798

  28

  59

  London and Manchester

  8,430

  1,271

  4,540

  537

  4,003

  3,603

  43

  64

  IFA Network

  333

  97

  120

  84

  36

  33

  10

  64

  Colonial

  8,421

  2,531

  3,598

  420

  3,178

  2,610

  31

  66

  Friends Provident

  6,964

  1,049

  3,948

  601

  3,347

  2,984

  43

  67

  Standard Life

  7,052

  780

  4,284

  999

  3,285

  2,932

  42

  67

  Hill Samuel

  6,114

  862

  3,678

  653

  3,025

  2,663

  44

  68

  Canada Life

  5,575

  340

  3,937

  588

  3,349

  2,893

  52

  69

  Royal & Sun Alliance

  16,109

  3,028

  9,953

  1,158

  8,795

  7,100

  44

  70

  NatWest

  15,085

  4,522

  7,211

  1,099

  6,122

  4,990

  33

  70

  CIS

  43,459

  4,912

  30,279

  13,196

  17,083

  13,256

  31

  72

  Sun Life of Canada

  27,720

  9,999

  11,681

  2,150

  9,531

  7,951

  29

  73

  Berkeley Independent

  173

  104

  22

  18

  4

  4

  2

  73

  Sedgwick

  16,064

  8,145

  4,061

  1,556

  2,505

  2,231

  14

  74

  Over 75% of cases resolved

  Albany Life

  2,950

  640

  1,974

  185

  1,789

  1,410

  48

  76

  Allied Dunbar

  19,197

  4,050

  12,176

  3,507

  8,669

  7,251

  38

  77

  M&E Network

  315

  173

  78

  26

  52

  48

  15

  78

  Equitable Life

  7,540

  1,856

  4,378

  1,629

  2,749

  2,459

  33

  79

  Guardian

  9,161

  1,260

  6,569

  974

  5,595

  5,017

  55

  79

  Legal & General

  36,804

  14,872

  18,372

  1,743

  16,629

  13,440

  37

  82

  Britannic

  19,639

  5,411

  12,313

  3,067

  9,246

  7,782

  40

  83

  Wesleyan

  4,178

  267

  3,378

  987

  2,391

  2,264

  54

  84

  Lloyd's TSB

  50,018

  12,382

  32,508

  6,281

  26,227

  23,855

  48

  85

  Hogg Robinson

  2,178

  807

  1,163

  399

  764

  651

  30

  85

  United Assurance

  13,252

  1,253

  11,066

  2,040

  9,026

  8,114

  61

  86

  Commercial Union

  7,887

  1,299

  5,849

  799

  5,050

  4,708

  60

  86

  Pearl

  46,814

  3,887

  39,356

  5,641

  33,715

  31,080

  66

  87

  Prudential

  72,172

  19,410

  52,681

  3,875

  48,806

  40,239

  56

  88

  Royal London

  12,806

  1,128

  11,470

  1,498

  9,972

  8,951

  70

  90

  Barclays

  17,035

  6,050

  10,293

  2,306

  7,987

  7,146

  42

  91

  Norwich Union

  7,464

  2,237

  4,763

  740

  4,023

  3,824

  51

  91

  AXA Equity and Law

  4,006

  764

  3,035

  618

  2,417

  2,301

  57

  92

  Godwins

  1,478

  114

  1,354

  455

  899

  839

  57

  95

  Midland

  4,862

  553

  4,196

  493

  3,703

  3,622

  74

  96

  Notes:

  A: cases identified as requiring review

  B: of A, cases where investor was informed that information gained during assessment excluded cases from review

  C: number of assessments completed

  D: cases where the investor has been informed that no redress is due

  E: cases where redress has been offered

  F: cases where redress has been accepted

  G: cases where redress has been accepted as a percentage of cases for review ((F/A) x 100)

  H: cases completed, including exclusions, as a percentage of cases identified for review (((B+D+F)/A) x 100)

  Alcohol and Tobacco Imports
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if personal imports of alcohol and tobacco from France are taken into account in calculating the RPI. [46459]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  210
  The FSA asked trade bodies and product providers to consider how they could help to ensure that, where appropriate, investors who had bought a personal pension through an IFA could receive speedy redress.

  Letter from John Kidgell to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 17 June 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on calculating the RPI.
  Personal imports of alcohol and tobacco from France are not reflected in the RPI either in the expenditure weights used to represent spending patterns or in the prices collected to form the index.

  Wages (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many(a) men and (b) women, working (i) full-time and (ii) part-time, in (1) Worcester and (2) Worcestershire earn less than (x) £3 per hour and (y) £3.60 per hour. [46112]

  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 M. P. G Pepper to Mr. Michael J. Foster dated 17 June 1998:
  In the absence of the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on earnings.
  Latest estimates of the percentage of employees in Worcester, and Worcester and Hereford earning less than the hourly rates you mention, may be obtained from the April 1997 New Earnings Survey which is based upon a one percent. sample of employees in the PAYE system. As such, the estimates which relate to low earnings and part-time employment should be treated with a degree of caution.
  Results are presented for the Worcester parliamentary constituency, and for the county of Hereford and Worcester. Worcestershire is no longer a statistically defined geographical area.

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

  Percentage of employees with hourly earnings (excluding overtime) less than:

  £3.00

  £3.60

  Worcester1

  Full-time men

  2.5

  2.5

  Part-time men

  2—

  2—

  Full-time women

  1.2

  3.5

  Part-time women

  4.7

  14.1

  All employees

  2.9

  6.8

  Hereford and Worcester Country

  Full-time men

  1.3

  3.2

  Part-time men

  1.9

  26.4

  Full-time women

  1.9

  6.6

  Part-time women

  7.4

  21.6

  All employees

  2.8

  8.9

  1 Parliamentary constituency

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

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43325]

  Dr. Howells
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.
  212
  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the cost of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  European Voluntary Service
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the sub-contracting of the pastoral supervision role of the European Voluntary Service to third parties; and if he will list the agencies his Department has approved for this purpose. [45316]

  Dr. Howells
  The Youth Exchange Centre is the national agency for the European Voluntary Service programme in the UK. Projects wishing to host young volunteers undergo rigorous scrutiny before being accepted into the programme. Provision for pastoral supervision is an important component of that scrutiny.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the merging of Youth for Europe and the European Voluntary Service after 1999.[46132]

  Dr. Howells
  Youth for Europe and the European Voluntary Service will conclude at the end of 1999. The European Commission has recently published proposals to establish a Youth Community Action Programme (2000–2004) incorporating both these programmes. The draft Decision will be considered by Member States with a view to enabling Council to reach a common position on the proposals in due course.

  Buddhism (Educational Material)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received concerning the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order and their educational material; and if he will assess the authenticity of the material on their website and its coverage of Buddhist traditions with a view to advising local authorities on the suitability of the material for schools. [45434]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received a letter from Lord Avebury concerning allegations on another website. The Department is investigating the allegations concerning religious education and will consider whether further action is necessary.

  New Deal (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements are in place for the ongoing ethnic monitoring of the progress of those placed on one of the New Deal options; and if he will make a statement. [45437]
  213
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  We have arrangements in place to provide comprehensive management information on the participation of ethnic minorities in New Deal. Our evaluation strategy will also enable us to determine the final destinations of all New Deal clients including those from ethnic minorities.

  School/College Transport (Essex)
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide additional financial support to Essex County Council to fund the retention from September of the current free home to school/college transport for pupils and students from the age of 16.[45473]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) on 8 May 1998,Official Report, column 524.

  Teaching (New Entrants)
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many new entrants into the teaching profession there were for the years 1979 to 1997. [45551]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The numbers of new entrants to full-time teaching, in the maintained nursery, primary and secondary sector', for the years 1979 to 1996, are shown in the table. New entrants to part-time teaching are shown for the years 1993 to 1996. Information for previous years is not readily available.

  Full-time entrants

  Part-time entrants

  1979

  25,490

  —

  1980

  21,650

  —

  1981

  16,280

  —

  1982

  13,190

  —

  1983

  13,270

  —

  1984

  12,810

  —

  1985

  11,140

  —

  1986

  11,900

  —

  1987

  12,600

  —

  1988

  12,580

  —

  1989

  13,950

  —

  1990

  15,240

  —

  1991

  14,900

  —

  1992

  15,440

  —

  1993

  16,120

  1,000

  1994

  17,800

  1,300

  19952

  19,300

  1,300

  19962

  19,300

  1,400

  1 Excluding sixth form colleges from 1994

  2Data for 1995 and 1996 are provisional

  New Deal for Schools
  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what criteria he used for the recently-awarded funding under the New Deal for Schools Capital Programme Phase 2 for the North Somerset council area; [45992]

  (2) what criteria are used for awarding funding under the New Deal for Schools Capital Programme Phase 2. [45993]

  Mr. Byers
  Applications for funding received from all Local Education Authorities (and the Funding Agency for Schools) under Phase 2 of the New Deal for Schools initiative were considered against the priorities and 214
  criteria set out in the guidance issued by this Department on 5 November 1997. A copy of the full guidance has been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assets were transferred to the Criminal Cases Review Commission on 1 April. [46642]

  Mr. Michael
  The Criminal Cases Review Commission has been notified that certain Crown assets have been transferred to it, effective from 1 April 1998. The transfer will be free of charge. The assets comprise:

  Assets

  Estimated value (£)

  Furniture and miscellaneous items of office equipment

  87,000

  Information Technology and communications equipment

  496,000

  Total

  583,000

  Sierra Leone (Asylum Seekers)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on asylum seekers from Sierra Leone. [46715]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on 1 July 1997,Official Report, column 78, that he had made a declaration under the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 that Sierra Leone had undergone such an upheaval that we would not seek to enforce the return of refused asylum seekers to that country for the time being.

  Since that time, the situation in the country has been carefully monitored, together with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. More information has become available since the liberation of Freetown by ECOMOG troops in February this year.

  The democratically elected President returned to the country in March and announced his new broad-based government. Although there is fighting in the east, the rest of the country appears secure.

  The information received about conditions in Sierra Leone enables me to make an informed assessment of the merits of asylum applications made prior to the upheaval and subsequently, in accordance with our international obligations. If an applicant is able to demonstrate that his fear of persecution is well-founded, then asylum will be granted. In other cases, if there are clear compelling humanitarian reasons not to require a person to return, exceptional leave to enter or remain will be granted. If asylum or exceptional treatment is not merited, the normal course will be to expect applicants to return to Sierra Leone. We will continue to monitor developments in the region.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the results of local bids for CCTV under round four of the CCTV challenge competition. [46096]

  Mr. Michael
  I have placed in the Library earlier today the results of round 4 of the Closed Circuit Television Challenge competition. I am pleased to be able to inform the hon. Member that a partnership in his constituency led by Warminster Town Council has been offered an award of £74,525.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance his Department is providing in the current financial year to London local authorities that wish to install CCTV cameras within their areas. [45519]

  Mr. Michael
  I have placed in the Library the results of round 4 of the Close Circuit Television Challenge competition. The awards offered to crime reduction partnerships in London boroughs under the latest competition, together with the balance of awards made to schemes under earlier rounds which have yet to be paid, are listed in the table. All awards have to be taken up in the current financial year.

  Closed circuit television expenditure for London (1998–99)

  Scheme

  Award

  Amount outstanding

  Round 2

  Church Street Village, Marylebone

  55,600

  37,100

  Wimbledon Town Centre

  96,500

  64,400

  Morden Town Centre

  81,000

  54,000

  155,500

  Round 3

  The Roding Valley, Barking

  56,205

  18,770

  Broadway West; Bexleyheath Town Centre

  61,088

  40,788

  Coopers Lane Estate and Purchase Street Open Space, Camden

  74,250

  49,500

  Southall Town Centre

  109,868

  73,245

  Woolwich Town Centre and Car Parks

  67,500

  45,000

  Greenwich Town Centre

  135,000

  90,000

  Hackney Housing Estates

  54,000

  36,000

  Pembury Neighbourhood, Hackney

  135,000

  90,000

  Broadway Market Neighbourhood, Hackney

  135,000

  90,000

  Charing Cross Hospital and Surrounding Area

  111,023

  74,014

  Hammersmith Hospital and Surrounding Area

  59,446

  39,630

  Station Areas & New Malden High Street, Kingston upon Thames, New Malden, Surbiton, Chessington, Worcester Park

  135,000

  90,000

  Streatham Town Centre

  103,500

  69,000

  South Wimbledon/Colliers Wood/Merton Abbey

  94,320

  62,920

  The Canons Leisure Centre, Mitcham

  52,313

  34,913

  Newham "Hot Spots"

  50,000

  15,000

  Knightsbridge and Lupus Street

  131,463

  43,000

  Paddington Recreation Ground

  75,600

  50,400

  1,012,180

  Round 4

  London Borough of Barking & Dagenham

  75,000

  Green Street Town Centre

  75,000

  London Borough of Lewisham

  18,500

  London Borough of Merton

  50,000

  London Borough of Brent

  74.710

  London Borough of Bexley—Control Room

  40,000

  333,210

  Local Authorities (Pilot Schemes)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the pilot schemes announced since 1 May by his Department that involve local authorities in a lead or partnership capacity; if he will list each of the local authorities involved in each case; and what revenue and capital funding each local authority will receive through the pilot in (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99, (iii) 1999–2000 and (iv) 2000–2001. [45335]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 11 June 1998]: As I 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, we have identified nine local authority areas in which, in principle, we would like to pilot the new youth justice measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].

  Four areas—the London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster (jointly); Hampshire, Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight (jointly); Wolverhampton; and Sheffield—have been identified to pilot the final warning scheme; the reparation order, action plan order, child safety order and parenting order; and youth offending teams.

  Five areas—the London Borough of Lewisham; Luton and Bedfordshire (jointly); Devon; St. Helens; and Sunderland—have been identified to pilot the child safety order and parenting order, together with youth offending teams.

  In addition, Blackburn and Northamptonshire are to pilot the final warning scheme and youth offending teams in the context of pilots of procedural changes recommended by the Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System, to which my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North also referred.

  We aim to establish the pilot projects from October 1998. The pilots will operate for a period of 18 months. We envisage that, in addition to funding for the evaluation of the pilots, some Home Office funding will be available to help the pilot areas put in place the programmes and forms of intervention needed to undertake work under the final warning scheme and the new court orders. Funding will also be available to support any seminars based on experience in the pilot areas run during the pilots for benefit of other areas. We will discuss with the selected pilot areas how available funds can be used most effectively within their area.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters have been issued to asylum seekers since November 1996 informing them of a refusal of their claim at the same time that the Benefits Agency have been informed of the decision; and how many asylum seekers have not been issued with such a letter. [45642]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Between 4 November 1996 and 29 May 1998, 3,023 such letters were issued to applicants or their representatives. Letters could not be sent in a further 516 cases as an address was not readily available.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in each police force are(a) female and (b) from ethnic minorities. [45645]

  Female and ethnic minority police officers As at 31 March 1998

  Police Force

  Police strength

  Female officers

  % Female officers of strength

  Ethnic minority officers

  % Ethnic minority officers of strength

  Avon and Somerset

  2,975,9

  389.9

  13.1

  34

  1.1

  Bedfordshire

  1,078.5

  189.5

  17.6

  37

  3.4

  Cambridgeshire

  1,291.4

  189.8

  14.7

  31

  2.4

  Cheshire

  2,035.9

  307.3

  15.1

  6

  0.29

  Cleveland

  1,483.4

  225.9

  15.2

  18

  1.2

  City of London

  824.9

  121.9

  14.8

  20

  2.4

  Cumbria

  1,163.5

  187

  16.1

  2

  0.17

  Derbyshire

  1,772.2

  226.2

  12.8

  37

  2.1

  Devon and Cornwall

  2,961.5

  454.5

  15.3

  5

  0.17

  Dorset

  1,110

  206

  18.6

  5

  0.45

  Durham

  1,514.8

  262.8

  17.3

  7

  0.46

  Dyfed-Powys

  1,002.3

  129.3

  12.9

  1

  0.10

  Essex

  2,928.5

  475.5

  16.2

  36

  1.2

  Gloucestershire

  1,103.9

  165.9

  15.0

  12

  1.1

  Greater Manchester

  6,948.7

  1,225.4

  17.6

  164

  2.4

  Gwent

  1,232.8

  178.8

  14.5

  13

  1.1

  Hampshire

  3,489.5

  569.6

  16.3

  27

  0.77

  Hertfordshire

  1,739.9

  311.1

  17.9

  20

  1.2

  Humberside

  2,021.2

  290.2

  14.4

  13

  0.6

  Kent

  3,251.8

  547.2

  16.8

  34

  1.0

  Lancashire

  3,258.1

  535.6

  16.4

  39

  1.2

  Leicestershire

  1,983.1

  320.4

  16.2

  89

  4.5

  Lincolnshire

  1,191.1

  151.5

  12.7

  6

  0.5

  Merseyside

  4,217.4

  667.4

  15.8

  72

  1.7

  Metropolitan Police

  26,192.7

  3,910.9

  14.9

  861

  3.3

  Norfolk

  1,429.6

  208.6

  14.6

  9

  0.63

  North Wales

  1,396

  199

  14.3

  1

  0.07

  North Yorkshire

  1,367.2

  193.2

  14.1

  7

  0.51

  Northamptonshire

  1,168.7

  181.4

  15.5

  31

  2.7

  Northumbria

  3,766.7

  563.4

  15.0

  33

  0.88

  Nottinghamshire

  2,322.6

  337.6

  14.5

  61

  2.6

  South Wales

  2,986.2

  354.2

  11.9

  29

  0.97

  South Yorkshire

  3,182

  497

  15.6

  70

  2.2

  Staffordshire

  2,292.1

  439.1

  19.2

  33

  1.4

  Suffolk

  1,185.8

  188.6

  15.9

  13

  1.1

  Surrey

  1,608.4

  242.9

  15.1

  20

  1.2

  Sussex

  3,037.7

  471.6

  15.5

  23

  0.76

  Thames Valley

  3,775.5

  633

  16.8

  78

  2.1

  Warwickshire

  924.1

  139.1

  15.1

  23

  2.5

  West Mercia

  2,011.8

  308.8

  15.3

  26

  1.3

  West Midlands

  7,180.5

  1,442.8

  20.1

  294

  4.1

  West Yorkshire

  5,154.7

  808.6

  15.7

  133

  2.6

  Wiltshire

  1,148.3

  166.3

  14.5

  10

  0.87

  Total

  124,710.9

  19,614.5

  15.7

  2,483

  2.0

  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase recruitment to the police force from those sections of society currently under-represented. [45710]

  Mr. Michael
  The responsibility for making appointments to the police service in England and Wales lies with the chief officer of each police force. It is also their responsibility, with the assistance of their police authorities, to ensure that their forces represent the communities they serve. This includes those people from under-represented groups, such as those from ethnic minority communities.
  218
  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is set out in the table. The figures are provisional and are subject to validation.

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary have issued two thematic inspection reports: "Developing Diversity in the Police Service" and "Winning the Race", copies of which are in the Library. Both reports offer advice on the recruitment of people from under-represented sections of society. The latter report includes "a guide to assist forces in the area of ethnic minority recruitment", which should provide a helpful checklist of action for forces to take. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he expects each police force in England and Wales to consider the conclusions of the latter report and to act on its findings during the course of 1998. Later this year, chief constables will be asked to report on action taken.

  Police (Medical Retirement)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many medical retirements of police officers there were for each police force area in each of the last 10 years. [45655]

  Mr. Michael
  Provisional figures for medical retirements from forces in England and Wales in 1997–98 are set out in the table. Similar data for the years from 1990 to 1996–97 are included in the report by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary "Lost Time: The Management of Sickness Absence and Medical Retirement in the Police Service", published in December 1997. A copy of the report is in the Library. Such information is not available for the period before 1990.

  Number of medical retirements from police forces in England and Wales, 1997–98 (provisional)

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  66

  Bedfordshire

  23

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  Cheshire

  n/a

  City of London

  6

  Cleveland

  8

  Cumbria

  20

  Derbyshire

  51

  Devon and Cornwall

  22

  Dorset

  10

  Durham

  17

  Dyfed-Powys

  11

  Essex

  29

  Number of police officers medically retiring England and Wales

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Avon and Somerset

  57

  52

  54

  68

  105

  29

  66

  Bedfordshire

  9

  15

  7

  9

  17

  14

  15

  Cambridgeshire

  23

  19

  9

  19

  18

  26

  20

  Cheshire

  20

  22

  34

  31

  33

  16

  19

  City of London

  13

  9

  10

  11

  8

  14

  7

  Cleveland1

  57

  56

  52

  40

  45

  25

  22

  Cumbria

  16

  14

  20

  26

  30

  9

  18

  Derbyshire

  39

  32

  55

  54

  38

  49

  39

  Devon and Cornwall1

  30

  35

  40

  49

  25

  27

  21

  Dorset

  19

  27

  12

  26

  13

  9

  11

  Durham

  23

  21

  21

  39

  42

  23

  23

  Dyfed-Powys

  12

  25

  22

  22

  22

  22

  12

  Essex

  26

  31

  27

  25

  32

  31

  29

  Gloucestershire

  14

  14

  15

  13

  13

  7

  11

  Greater Manchester1

  188

  165

  149

  162

  198

  168

  207

  Gwent

  6

  15

  23

  18

  29

  19

  28

  Hampshire1

  24

  39

  32

  40

  43

  31

  21

  Hertfordshire

  19

  20

  12

  19

  13

  22

  10

  Humberside

  22

  26

  26

  40

  47

  26

  19

  Kent1

  46

  63

  57

  80

  59

  46

  15

  Lancashire

  63

  87

  52

  86

  70

  56

  36

  Leicestershire

  34

  39

  46

  60

  55

  45

  29

  Lincolnshire

  12

  22

  24

  24

  35

  31

  11

  Merseyside1

  95

  102

  99

  132

  181

  195

  167

  Metropolitan Police

  224

  272

  310

  344

  454

  430

  457

  Norfolk

  13

  19

  15

  17

  20

  15

  15

  North Wales

  23

  34

  35

  39

  41

  36

  33

  North Yorkshire1

  42

  32

  30

  78

  44

  29

  39

  Northamptonshire

  26

  19

  26

  15

  44

  10

  14

  Northumbria1

  65

  105

  89

  97

  124

  123

  85

  Nottinghamshire

  46

  34

  56

  59

  62

  41

  34

  South Wales1

  48

  60

  29

  31

  41

  74

  43

  South Yorkshire

  40

  41

  64

  82

  48

  46

  33

  Staffordshire

  42

  52

  67

  74

  45

  30

  47

  220

  Number of medical retirements from police forces in England and Wales, 1997–98 (provisional)

  Number

  Gloucestershire

  n/a

  Greater Manchester

  199

  Gwent

  15

  Hampshire

  30

  Hertfordshire

  17

  Humberside

  27

  Kent

  n/a

  Lancashire

  27

  Leicestershire

  25

  Lincolnshire

  28

  Merseyside

  82

  Metropolitan Police

  n/a

  Norfolk

  15

  North Wales

  11

  North Yorkshire

  22

  Northamptonshire

  18

  South Wales

  n/a

  Northumbria

  n/a

  Nottinghamshire

  40

  South Yorkshire

  29

  Staffordshire

  66

  Suffolk

  20

  Surrey

  10

  Sussex

  23

  Thames Valley

  40

  Warwickshire

  18

  West Mercia

  27

  West Midlands

  81

  West Yorkshire

  n/a

  Wiltshire

  9

  Note:

  n/a = not available
  221

  Number of police officers medically retiring England and Wales

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Suffolk1

  10

  16

  19

  20

  14

  25

  22

  Surrey1

  28

  30

  19

  16

  40

  24

  24

  Sussex1

  26

  42

  38

  36

  29

  61

  42

  Thames Valley

  47

  45

  38

  30

  66

  58

  55

  Warwickshire

  7

  10

  10

  19

  12

  14

  10

  West Mercia

  22

  29

  28

  23

  41

  27

  39

  West Midlands

  45

  57

  67

  71

  176

  105

  86

  West Yorkshire1

  164

  127

  228

  150

  107

  48

  57

  Wiltshire

  5

  14

  8

  10

  8

  4

  11

  Provincial Total

  1,566

  1,716

  1,764

  1,960

  2,133

  1,720

  1,545

  England and Wales Total

  1,790

  1,988

  2,074

  2,304

  2,587

  2,150

  2,002

  England and Wales Average

  42

  46

  48

  54

  60

  50

  47

  Provincial Average

  37

  41

  42

  47

  51

  41

  37

  1Force visited

  Police (Ethnic Employees)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) black and (b) Asian people are employed in (i) West Midlands Police force and (ii) Leicestershire Police force; and at what grade. [45686]

  Mr. Michael
  It may be helpful if I provide tables showing the numbers employed and the percentage in that category of employment for (i) black people, (ii) Asian people and (iii) ethnic minorities.

  (i) Black staff—as at 31 March 1998 (provisional figures)

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  West Midlands Police

  Total number

  Percentage of total

  Total number

  Percentage of total

  Superintendent

  1

  5.6

  —

  —

  Chief Inspector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inspector

  1

  1.1

  —

  —

  Sergeant

  2

  0.8

  18

  1.8

  Constable

  22

  1.4

  114

  6.5

  Civilian staff

  3

  0.4

  102

  3.6

  (ii) Asian staff—as at 31 March 1998 (provisional figures)

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  West Midlands Police

  Total number

  Percentage of total

  Total number

  Percentage of total

  Superintendent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Chief Inspector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inspector

  —

  —

  2

  0.6

  Sergeant

  9

  3.5

  10

  1.0

  Constable

  36

  2.3

  111

  6.3

  Civilian staff

  29

  3.7

  81

  2.9

  (iii) All ethnic minority employees—as at 31 March 1998 (provisional figures)

  Leicestershire Constabulary

  West Midlands Police

  Total number

  Percentage of total

  Total number

  Percentage of total

  Superintendent

  1

  5.6

  1

  1.9

  Chief Inspector

  —

  —

  1

  1.5

  Inspector

  2

  2.2

  2

  0.6

  Sergeant

  12

  4.6

  38

  3.9

  Constable

  74

  4.7

  252

  14.4

  Civilian staff

  48

  6.2

  185

  6.6

  Total

  137

  5.0

  479

  4.8

  222
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to investigate claims of race discrimination in West Midlands police force. [45676]

  Mr. Michael
  No allegations of racial discrimination in West Midlands Police have been made to me. It would be a matter for the Chief Constable of West Midlands Police to investigate any such claims made to him or the police authority, in consultation with the police authority as necessary. In general, I would expect such allegations to be put direct to the individual police force.

  Police (Compensation)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much was paid out by the English police forces in compensation cases in the last year for which figures are available. [46015]

  Mr. Michael
  Payment of compensation by police forces, which is provided for in section 88 of the Police Act 1996, is a matter for individual police forces, and information about amounts paid out by individual forces is not held centrally.

  Police (CS Gas)
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue rules to police forces on the use of CS gas. [46014]

  Mr. Michael
  Any use of force is governed by section
  3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, which provides that a person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders. It must be remembered that the use of CS spray can prevent serious physical injury not only to police officers but also to bystanders and to the person who is being restrained. It is a form of force, but one whose effects are normally very short-term and transitory. Each individual police officer is responsible for his actions, and it is ultimately for the courts to judge whether the force used in any particular circumstances was reasonable. The Home Office has issued general guidelines to chief police officers on the use of CS grenades for dealing with serious public disorder. The routine carriage by officers of CS spray for self-defence is an operational matter and not something on which it would be appropriate for the Home
  223
  Office to issue guidelines. Operational guidelines, copies of which have been placed in the Library, have been issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will amend the Sunday Trading Act 1994 to prevent shops with a relevant floor area of more than 280 square metres from trading on Easter Sunday by conducting their transactions in the open air. [46190]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no plans to do so. The Sunday Trading Act 1994 prohibits large shops from opening on Easter Sunday for the serving of retail customers. Interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. I understand that a recent judgment by the High Court has upheld the conviction of a large store for trading from the external areas of its premises on Easter Sunday.

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what meetings he has had, or plans to have, with owners of large retail outlets with a relevant floor area of more than 280 square metres who open on Easter Sunday. [46214]

  Mr. George Howarth
  None.

  Fazakerley Prison
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions it has been necessary for neighbouring prisons to provide support to Fazakerley Prison; and in what circumstances. [46073]

  Ms Quin
  There have been no occasions on which neighbouring prisons have provided support to Altcourse Prison, Fazakerley.

SCOTLAND

  Solway Firth and Border Esk Rivers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce a decision on the fishing rights for the Solway Firth and Border Esk rivers. [45687]

  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have carried out a consultation on the management arrangements which should apply to the Border Esk. The responses, together with concerns that have been expressed about the future exercise of fishing rights in the Solway Firth, are being taken into account in the consideration of the provision at clause 100 of the Scotland Bill.

  Fisheries Research Services
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the key performance targets he has set for the Fisheries Research Services in 1998–99.[46644]
  224
  Mr. Macdonald
  My right hon. Friend has set the following targets for Fisheries Research Services:

  Delivery of Service

  To achieve 85 per cent. of the performance targets set in the schedules to the Service Level Agreement.

  To achieve 80 per cent. of the milestones agreed for Research and Development projects.

  To maintain, pro rata, FRS's publication output.

  Quality of Service

  To review the work of the Fish Cultivation Team at the Marine Laboratory through a visiting group and to report by December 1997.

  To submit by 1999/2000 the quality manuals and documentation which are required for the accreditation by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, of the monitoring programmes for algal toxins, microbiological contamination of shellfish, List II viral diseases of fish, and sampling of fish for residues of veterinary medicines.

  Efficiency targets

  To carry out the agreed programme for the Scottish Office within the agreed costs.

  To recover full economic costs from external customers.

  To restrict administrative costs to 18 per cent. of the total running costs.

  To restrict unit costs of fish farms inspection programmes to £320 per farm visit.

  To increase research vessels utilisation to 540 days, operating at a daily cost of £5,200 (Scotia) and £2,100 (Clupea).

  These various tasks should provide a sound basis for evaluating performance by establishing a time series for certain indicators and by requiring external scrutiny by external accreditors and scientific peers.

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library on a monthly basis a report on those archaeological discoveries his advisers assess to be(a) significant and (b) less significant in the course of excavations relating to work on the building to house the Scottish Parliament, together with relevant diagrams conveying information relating to each stratum uncovered of the Holyrood site. [44647]

  Mr. Dewar
  It would not be possible to provide meaningful information of the kind requested on a regular basis, because of the complexity of the project. However, I am arranging to have a copy of the desk assessment of the site placed in the Library and will be happy to place further reports there as significant stages of the archaeological work are completed.

  Radioactivity (Merse Sites)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the 1994–95 HMIPI study into radioactive doses received by people living or working on selected merse sites. [45863]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information referred to was published at Annexe E, in the final report of Her Majesty's Industrial Pollution Inspectorate for Scotland, for the period 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1996. I have arranged to have copies of the report placed in the Library.

  Radiation Monitoring Stations
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the radiation monitoring stations on the West Coast of Scotland between the English border on the Solway and Cape Wrath; and what factors underlie the siting of these stations. [45862]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The information can best be obtained from the report "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment, 1996". Copies of that report are held in the Library of the House.

  The factors underlying the selection of monitoring locations are given in the report at chapter 3 and sub-chapters 7.3 and 9.7.

  Leukaemia
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many leukaemias were(a) recorded and (b) expected in the 0 to 24 age group in the postcode sectors (i) DG5.4, (ii) DG7.1 and (iii) DG6.4 in the periods (a) 1980 to 1984, (b) 1985 to 1989, (c) 1990 to 1994, and (d) 1995 to present. [45864]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No cases of leukaemia were observed in the 0–24 age group in postcode sector DG5.4 and DG6.4 during the periods 1980–84, 1985–89, 1990–94 or 1995–96 (the most recent year for which information is available). There were two cases of leukaemia registered in residents of postcode sector DG7.1; one in the period 1980–84 and one in the period 1985–84.

  The numbers of cases observed and the expected number of cases of leukaemia, based on background rates in Scotland as a whole, for each of the postcode sectors are shown in the tables:

  (i) Observed and expected numbers of cases of leukaemia in age group 0–24 years in DG5.4

  Time period

  Observed number of cases

  Expected number of cases

  1980–84

  0

  0.22

  1985–89

  0

  0.24

  1990–94

  0

  0.26

  1995–96

  0

  0.08

  (ii) Observed and expected numbers of cases of leukaemia in age group 0–24 years in DG7.1

  Time period

  Observed number of cases

  Expected number of cases

  1980–84

  1

  0.24

  1985–89

  1

  0.26

  1990–94

  0

  0.28

  1995–96

  0

  0.18

  (iii) Observed and expected numbers of cases of leukaemia in age group 0–24 years in DG6.4

  Time period

  Observed number of cases

  Expected number of cases

  1980–84

  0

  0.24

  1985–89

  0

  0.25

  1990–94

  0

  0.27

  1995–96

  0

  0.18

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in respect of how many cases of hip joint replacement operations conducted in Scotland since 1980, patients have been readmitted to hospital for further hip replacement surgery within(a) five years and (b) 10 years of the original operation. [45775]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of discharges following total hip replacement operations in the years 1980 to 1990, and the number of patients readmitted within 5 years and 10 years following their original operation is provided in the tables.

  The number of readmissions do not directly relate to revision or failure of the original total hip replacement operations. Patients may be readmitted for operations on their other hip without any fault or problem with their earlier operation, if better or newer types of hip joint become available which would improve their quality of life.

  Table 1: Discharges following a total hip replacement operation and the number of readmissions within 5 years of the original operation

  Year of operation

  Number of discharges

  Discharges1

  Readmitted within 5 years

  Readmission2 rate (%)

  1981

  2,417

  2,032

  395

  19.4

  1982

  2,144

  1,746

  379

  21.7

  1983

  2,728

  2,248

  464

  20.6

  1984

  2,814

  2,305

  460

  20.0

  1985

  3,055

  2,526

  525

  20.8

  1986

  3,218

  2,636

  501

  19.0

  1987

  3,481

  2,887

  564

  19.5

  1988

  3,772

  3,149

  674

  21.4

  1989

  3,513

  2,931

  597

  20.4

  1990

  3,686

  3,076

  651

  21.2

  1If a patient has died within the 5 year period then the procedure prior to death has been excluded. No account can be taken of the migration of patients

  2 Readmission rate—number of readmissions within 5 years expressed as a percentage of the number of operations for total hip replacement (excluding patients who had died). This is NOT the total hip replacement revision or failure rate as for example the first operation could be the left hip and the second operation the right hip

  Source:

  ISD Scotland, SMRI linked database

  Table 2: Discharges following a total hip replacement operation and the number of readmissions within 10 years of the original operation

  Year of operation

  Number of discharges

  Discharges1

  Readmitted within 10 years

  Readmission2 rate (%)

  1981

  2,417

  1,623

  607

  37.4

  1982

  2,144

  1,399

  545

  39.0

  1983

  2,728

  1,814

  669

  36.9

  1984

  2,814

  1,830

  673

  36.8

  1985

  3,055

  2,060

  804

  39.0

  1If a patient has died within the 10 year period then the procedure prior to death has been excluded. No account can be taken of the migration of patients

  2Readmission rate—number of readmissions within 10 years expressed as a percentage of the number of operations for total hip replacement (excluding patients who had died). This is NOT the total hip replacement revision or failure rate as for example the first operation could be the left hip and the second operation the right hip

  Source:

  ISD Scotland, SMRI linked database

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Sudan
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the latest situation in Sudan. [46643]

  Clare Short
  The World Food Programme have reassessed the humanitarian needs in southern Sudan. They now estimate the numbers in need of assistance at approximately 1.226 million. This includes those in the Bahr-el-Ghazal region and is a significant increase on previous assessments.

  In response to this, my Department is committing a further £15 million of assistance to the relief operation in Sudan. £10 million will be provided immediately for food and logistics to support the World Food Programme's enhanced food distribution in southern Sudan. The remaining £5 million will be available to support the relief work of UN agencies and non-governmental organisations participating in Operation Lifeline Sudan and to support selected operations outside Operation Lifeline Sudan where new needs are emerging. This will bring our total assistance since February to £25.23 million and since 1991 to £160 million.

  As I have made clear since the beginning of the current emergency, we alongside other governments will provide the funding needed for the Sudanese emergency. The problem remains one of access rather than resources. The EU General Affairs Council on 25 May again called for a ceasefire for humanitarian purposes, which remains the most urgent requirement in order to provide help to the people in need.

WALES

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43314]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  National Insurance contributions are excluded from the figure but are paid under the same rules and at the same rates as for other civil servants. Information on the paybill costs for Special Advisers within individual Departments is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

  Information on the costs of employing Special Advisers in previous years was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 25 November 1997, Official Report, columns 472–73.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on class sizes in Wales. [45887]

  Mr. Hain:
  At January 1997, the average size of registered classes in primary schools was 25.9 pupils, the same as in 1996. Results from the January 1998 Schools Census are not yet available. No information is collected centrally about class sizes in secondary schools, however in 1997 the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools was 16.2, compared with 16.0 in 1996.

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for the North Wales Region of the WDA; and if he will make a statement.[45892]

  Mr. Hain
  The allocation of its resources is primarily an operational matter for the Welsh Development Agency to determine in the light of its overall budget, commitments and priorities. I will, therefore, ask the Agency's Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend with information on its funding for the North Wales area; and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what sums were allocated to assisted places in Wales in(a) 1990 and (b) 1997; and if he will make a statement.[45888]

  Mr. Hain
  The sums spent on assisted places in Wales in financial years(a) 1990–91 and (b) 1997–98 were £1,756,283 and £4,105,238 respectively.

DEFENCE

  Nerve Agent Pretreatment
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the impurities produced when Pyridostigmine Bromide is(a) exposed to intense sunlight,(b) subjected to large temperature variations and (c) stored for long periods under these conditions.[40142]

  Dr. Reid
  Between 1987 and 1992, the Chemical and Biological Defence Sector of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency conducted studies to assess the storage stability of the Ministry of Defence's Nerve Agent Pretreatment Set (NAPS) tablets, which contain pyridostigmine bromide (PB) as the active ingredient. The tablets were exposed to a range of temperatures between 5 and 41°C and storage times of up to 5 years.

  The only significant detectable degradation product of PB identified during these studies was 3-hydroxy1-methyl pyridinium bromide, which is also the major metabolite produced when PB is taken orally. The other known degradation products of PB, which were not detected in any long term stability studies due to their

  229
  transitory nature, are 3-hydroxy pyridine and pyridy1- 3-dimethyl carbamate. Neither of these, nor 3-hydroxy1-methyl pyridinium bromide, are known to be harmful to humans.

  My Department is not aware of any research having been conducted to investigate the way in which PB reacts when exposed to intense sunlight. However, the specification for NAPS tablets for use by UK forces requires that they are wrapped in lacquered aluminium foil which is light impermeable, and they would not therefore normally be exposed to sunlight until this wrapping had been broken open to allow the first tablet to be extracted for immediate consumption. As each packet of NAPS contains 21 tablets, one to be taken every 8 hours, a packet would normally be consumed within a week.

  Equipment Exhibition
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Royal Navy and British Army Equipment Exhibition. [45544]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 423.

  Project Horizon Frigate
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he estimates the first contract to build a Project Horizon frigate will be placed; [45846]

  (2) what is his estimate of the overall cost of Project Horizon; [45845]

  (3) how many Project Horizon frigates the United Kingdom will purchase; [45843]

  (4) what is his estimate of the (a) delivery date and (b) in-service date of the first Project Horizon frigate. [45844]

  Mr. Spellar
  The contract for completion of the design and build of the three first of class Horizon frigates, i.e. one for each nation, UK, France and Italy, is expected to be placed next year. The total project cost is commercially confidential. It is currently expected that we will order 12 ships, but any decisions will, of course, be subject to the outcome of the Strategic Defence Review. The current projected in service date of 2004 is subject to discussions and negotiations with industry.

  Defence Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 21 April 1998,Official Report, column 556, what is the value of defence exports against which his forecast that £56 million of commercial exploitation levies would be raised from defence export sales in the next financial year was made; and what is the levy income as a percentage of the export sales figure. [44433]

  Mr. Spellar
  The target figure for new defence export orders in 1998–99 is £5 billion. The forecast of £56 million is a broad estimate of the commercial exploitation levies that are likely to be raised against those exports which may attract such levies in financial year 230
  1998–99. There is, however, no direct correlation between this estimate and the overall export target for two main reasons. First, there is a delay between the agreement of export contracts and the receipt of commercial exploitation levies. Secondly, such levies are payable only on contracts covering the supply of equipment the development costs of which were funded wholly or partly by the Ministry of Defence. Contracts for the supply or equipment developed by the commercial sector, or for support, training and construction series, do not attract commercial exploitation levies. The rate of levy charged will vary for each item depending on the extent to which its development was funded by the MOD.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds for the last two years incurred by branches of his Department other than DESO in the promotion of British defence exports. [46110]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Riot Control Agents
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 March 1998,Official Report, column 324, on riot control agents, for what reasons his Department is currently reviewing the quantity of CS which it holds; when the review started; who is carrying it out; and when it is expected to be completed. [45312]

  Mr. Spellar
  Stockholdings of riot control agents are regularly reviewed as a normal part of the equipment management and procurement process. In addition, MOD began in March to review our future requirements. This review will assist us to decide on the planned disposal of certain stocks and the modernisation, as necessary, of others. The review is being carried out by MOD operational requirements staff. The aim is to complete it by the end of August.

  Service Men's Wives
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the payment to Army service men's wives of allotment was introduced; how many wives currently receive payment; and by what means the allotment has been paid throughout the period of its operation. [45631]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Shows and Trade Fairs
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of the attendance of(a) Ministers and (b) officials at defence and aerospace shows and trade fairs in each of the two years up to June 1998; what other costs were incurred in respect of such shows and trade fairs in each of those years; and which bodies have funded these costs. [46075]

  Mr. Spellar
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who has responsibility for carrying out seismic
  231
  assessments of suspicious events under the contract for a National Data Centre; and who has been carrying out assessments of nuclear tests in India and Pakistan under the same contract.[45525]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: The Atomic Weapons Establishment, AWE, at Blacknest have been carrying out assessments of the recent nuclear tests by India and Pakistan. This work is being carried out under an MOD contract for support to nuclear test ban verification. Establishment of the National Data Centre, resulting from the requirements of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, is a new task being carried out by the British Geological Survey under sub-contract to AWE.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Westland Lynx were(a) allocated to frontline Army units, (b) fully serviceable, (c) undergoing major maintenance and (d) held as in use reserve on 1 June. [44127]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Armoured Vehicles
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a)Challenger/Challenger II, (b) Sabre, (c) Striker, (d) Scimitar, (e) AFV432, (f) Warrior, (g) Spartan and (h) Saxon armoured vehicles were (i) in service with frontline Army units and (ii) fully serviceable on 1 June. [44128]

  Dr. Reid
  I will write to the hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Anthrax Vaccination
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what advice he has given to Her Majesty's forces personnel about their rights in the event that, having given written consent for vaccination against anthrax, they subsequently suffer illness directly related to the vaccine.[34515]

  Mr. George Robertson
  British Service personnel who were involved in the Gulf conflict have the same entitlement to claim compensation for negligence from the Ministry of Defence as any civilian employee has to claim against his or her employer. The fact that a Service person has consented to receive anthrax vaccination in no way affects that right; in view of this, no advice has been given to UK Service personnel about their rights were they to suffer illness directly related to the current programme of immunisation against anthrax.

  Year of award

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Distributing body

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  Total No. of awards

  Total(£)

  Sport

  0

  0

  1

  231,581

  1

  8,600

  0

  0

  2

  240,181

  Heritage

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  242,000

  2

  242,000

  Charities

  1

  3,000

  2

  194,579

  2

  352,899

  1

  337,739

  6

  713,097

  232
  All UK Service personnel serving in the Gulf region have been provided with comprehensive information concerning anthrax and the UK licensed anthrax vaccine. A package of documentation has been prepared which includes a description of the symptoms of the disease and an explanation that a vaccine exists to protect against it. This also explains that many doses of the vaccine are administered in the UK each year to a wide variety of people who may be exposed to the disease as a consequence of their occupations; and that such people include those who work in the tannery, leather and wool industries as well as those persons who may have direct contact with infected animals, such as veterinary surgeons. The documentation also explains the process of vaccination and its protective qualities, and make clear that in the past 21 years only minor side effects from the use of this vaccine have been reported in a small number of people.

  In addition, all Service personnel who are being offered anthrax immunisation are given an oral briefing on the vaccine by medical officers. Records have been kept of the individuals who received the oral briefing and the package of documentation, and of their subsequent decision whether to be vaccinated.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Arts Council of England
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will name the members he proposes to appoint to the Arts Council of England. [46692]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I announced this morning the new membership of the Arts Council of England. I have appointed Derrick Anderson, Deborah Bull, Antony Gormley, Anish Kapoor, Joanna MacGregor and Hilary Strong to the Council. In addition, I have re-appointed David Brierley, Christopher Frayling, Andrew Motion and Prue Skene.

  National Lottery Funding (Leigh)
  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, for each of the last three years, the number of awards and the total financial grant made, in each category of good cause, to organisations in Leigh constituency from proceeds of the National Lottery. [45515]

  Mr. Banks
  To date, the constituency of Leigh has received 15 lottery awards totalling £1.24 million. A breakdown by good cause is shown in the table. Information on the National Lottery awards is now available on the Department's website www.lottery.culture.gov.uk.
  233

  Year of award

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Distributing body

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  No. of awards

  Value(£)

  Total No. of awards

  Total(£)

  Millennium

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Arts

  0

  0

  1

  27,500

  4

  16,622

  0

  0

  5

  44,122

  Totals per year

  1

  3,000

  4

  453,660

  7

  378,121

  3

  579,739

  15

  1,239,400

  Sources:

  The table has been constructed using information from the distributing bodies

  Mr. Cunliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what funding his Department has granted to Sportsmatch projects in Leigh; and if he will list these projects.[45965]

  Mr. Banks
  Sportsmatch has made the following awards in Leigh: £1,000 and £3,000 to Wigan MBC for the preparation of the Wigan team for the Manchester Youth Games, in 1994 and 1998 respectively; £10,000 to Leigh RMI AFC for the appointment of a youth development officer in 1996; and £4,000 for Leigh Centurions Rugby League Club towards its community and schools development programme in 1996.

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (a) Terrestrial

  Olympic Games

  8.05

  —

  —

  —

  2.72

  —

  FIFA World Cup Final

  —

  —

  17.48

  —

  —

  —

  FIFA World Cup—other matches

  —

  —

  8.59

  —

  —

  —

  FA Cup Final

  12.33

  12.18

  11.76

  8.64

  13.33

  11.1

  FA Cup Final (Scotland only)

  n/a

  n/a

  0.67

  0.77

  0.90

  0.64

  Wimbledon—finals weekend

  n/a

  7.33

  7.15

  7.34

  7.31

  5.25

  Wimbledon—other play

  n/a

  2.78

  2.39

  2.22

  3.00

  3.51

  Home Test Matches

  2.59

  2.60

  2.04

  2.02

  2.15

  2.26

  Grand National

  n/a

  15.17

  16.72

  8.87

  11.24

  12.02

  The Derby

  n/a

  4.30

  4.30

  3.87

  2.03

  3.45

  Cricket World Cup

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  Rugby World Cup

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  —

  —

  European Football Championships Final

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  16.83

  —

  European Football Championships—other matches

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  9.48

  —

  European Football Championships—matches involving England

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  14.29

  —

  Commonwealth Games

  —

  —

  5.29

  —

  —

  —

  World Athletics Championships

  —

  6.12

  —

  3.89

  —

  n/a

  British Grand Prix

  n/a

  5.78

  4.88

  n/a

  5.59

  5.02

  Five Nations Rugby

  5.8

  5.19

  5.49

  5.79

  6.43

  5.55

  The Open (golf)

  3.08

  3.00

  2.07

  2.77

  2.37

  n/a

  The Ryder Cup

  —

  3.37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (b) Satellite

  Ryder Cup

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  —

  n/a

  The Advisory Group also considered the following audience figures, either in considering events for recommendation for inclusion on the list or for comparative purposes:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (a) Terrestrial

  Rugby League Challenge Cup Final

  4.37

  3.33

  3.2

  4.07

  n/a

  2.71

  GB Rugby League Internationals

  4.44

  3.36

  3.80

  n/a

  —

  —

  England Football Internationals—qualifying matches

  n/a

  7.21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  England Football Internationals—friendlies

  n/a

  8.40

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland Football Internationals (Scotland only)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.87

  0.64

  England Rugby Union Internationals (non-Five Nations)

  5.50

  6.36

  3.21

  4.24

  n/a

  n/a

  Scotland Rugby Union Internationals (Scotland only)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  0.80

  0.70

  England One-Day Cricket Internationals

  2.59

  2.85

  2.37

  —

  —

  —

  Cheltenham Gold Cup

  n/a

  2.20

  2.07

  2.30

  1.30

  2.00

  Listed Sporting Events
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the estimated viewing figures for television audiences for sporting events on(a) terrestrial and (b) satellite television which were taken into account by the advisory group on de-listing which reported to him in March. [46052]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  For the events included in the consultation exercise carried out last year, the Advisory Group on Listed Events took the following figures into account in making its recommendations to me (the figures are in millions, and averaged where necessary):
  235

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  (b) Satellite

  England Football Internationals—qualifying matches

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.67

  n/a

  England Football Internationals—friendlies

  —

  —

  1.29

  1.37

  1.52

  n/a

  England One-Day Cricket Internationals

  —

  —

  —

  0.23

  0.21

  n/a

  Audience ratings figures, although important, are not necessarily an accurate guide to the national importance of sports events. Guided by the criteria for listing that I announced last November, the Advisory Group took a number of other factors into account for each event that it considered:

  the significance of the event to those who do not usually follow the sport concerned;

  the position of the event on the national calendar;

  whether the event is pre-eminent in its sport;

  whether it involves a national team or participants;

  whether the event has a history of being broadcast live on free-to-air services;

  the practicality of live coverage of the event on general channels;

  the availability of secondary coverage;

  the effects of listing the event on the sport concerned and on the broadcasting market.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the European Commission over the listing of sporting events for terrestrial television. [46050]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  If it is to be recognised by other Member States, a national list of events protected for transmission on free-to-air television in a European Union Member State must be in accordance with Article 3A of the European Commission's 'Television Without Frontiers' Directive (number 89/552/EEC as amended by Directive 97/36/EC). I shall inform the Commission of any changes to the list when I announce my decisions. Meanwhile, my Department has discussed informally with the Commission how the revised regulatory framework proposed by Lord Gordon's Advisory Group might be applied in accordance with Article 3A.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he expects to make a final decision on the listing of sporting events for terrestrial television. [46051]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I shall announce my decision shortly.

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what sporting activities the National Endowment for Science, Technology and Arts will fund; and if individual sportsmen and sportswomen will be sponsored. [45564]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: NESTA' s responsibilities are to be in the fields of science, technology and the arts. Neither the promotion of sporting activities nor the provision of support for individual sports men and women fall within NESTA's remit. However, in
  236
  helping people turn good ideas into products and services, it would be open to NESTA to support the development of technological or scientific products or services for sports men and women. Decisions on how NESTA will go about meeting its statutory objects will be a matter for its Trustees.

  Libraries
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much public money was used to support the lending of(a) recorded music and (b) videos by public libraries in the last year for which figures are available. [45832]

  Mr. Fisher
  In 1996–97, public library authorities in England spent £6.3 million on sound recordings, and £3.8 million on video recordings. Information is not held centrally about the operating costs of music or video lending services, or about the specific level expenditure on music material other than recordings.

  Elgin Marbles
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his oral answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, columns 3–4 on the Elgin Marbles, what assessment he has made of evidence that the Elgin Marbles were damaged whilst in the care of the British Museum. [45369]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  It is not for me to make an assessment. However, I understand that the British Museum intends to host a gathering of experts from both the Museum and outside sometime next year. This will involve scholars from other countries, including the Hellenic Republic, to examine the evidence about the damage which it is claimed has been made to the sculptures. I very much welcome this initiative from the Museum.

  Mediaeval Church Buildings
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will instruct English Heritage to restore grants for the repair of mediaeval church buildings. [45830]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government continue to support historic church buildings through English Heritage. The joint scheme for places of worship which English Heritage has established with the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) is providing offers of £20 million in 1998–99 (£10 million from each body). English Heritage and the HLF have, however, stopped accepting new applications in this financial year because the scheme is massively oversubscribed. They will re-open the scheme later under revised guidelines.

  Departmental Objectives and Performance
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's Fifth report on the objectives and performance of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. [45893]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: We shall consider the Report carefully and respond to the Committee in due course.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts for the UK Sports Institute have been(a) put out to tender and (b) signed. [44727]

  Mr. Banks
  [holding answer 10 June 1998]: No contracts have as yet been put out to tender or signed for the development of the United Kingdom Sports Institute Headquarters. We anticipate the first contract being signed within the next two months.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives his Department has taken to promote millennium celebrations in southern England; and if he will make a statement. [45440]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In Bristol on 27 February, I launched a series of eight Regional Millennium Conferences, which culminated on 16 April in London. The conferences were designed to explain the Government's vision for the Millennium celebrations; publicise the Millennium Commission's various programmes, including the £100m nationwide Millennium Festival; give details of the New Millennium Experience Company's national programme of activities; provide guidance for events organisers on how to apply for funding under the various schemes; and promote co-ordination and the sharing of good practice. 82 organisations attended the South Western conference and 213 the South Eastern, a good coverage which effectively spread useful information about the Millennium to local authorities and other organisations throughout the South of England.

  The Millennium Commission (of which I am Chairman) has to date offered grant totalling nearly £210 million to capital projects in the South East and South West regions, ranging from international-scale projects like the Millennium Seed Bank in Sussex and the Eden Project in Cornwall, to small Village Halls from Ashurst to Avon.

  Football
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the decision of the Nationwide Football League and Football Association to arrange for the Division Three play-off between Colchester United and Torquay United to take place on Friday 22 May; and if he will make a statement. [45546]

  Mr. Banks
  My Department has received one letter on this subject, which is a matter for the Football League. I understand that the Football League's decision to stage 238
  the Division Three play-off Final on 22 May was taken following careful consideration of other venue and date options, and full consultation with all interested parties including the Football Association.

  Radio Stations
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if his Department has given guidance to the Radio Authority about the suitability of(a) topless darts, (b) bouncing dwarfs and (c) news-presenting rabbits on national radio stations; and if he will make a statement. [46278]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The Government have not given guidance to the Radio Authority on topless darts, bouncing dwarves, rabbits as news presenters or indeed any other animals in key roles. It is entirely for the Radio Authority to interpret the provisions of the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 and to determine their licensing procedures accordingly.

  Independent radio licensees are required by the Authority to ensure that their programme content meets a 'promise of performance', which forms part of their licence and which continues in force if ownership or control of the licence changes.

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport by what statutory or other criteria the Radio Authority would assess the suitability to hold an independent national radio licence of any company taking over the current holder of such a licence; and if he will make a statement. [46275]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The Radio Authority applies the restrictions on the control of national analogue radio licences set out in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. As such, the Authority must refuse to issue such a licence to individuals who, or companies which, are specifically excluded under that legislation. As well as restrictions on individuals from, or companies registered, outside the European Economic Area, licences may not be controlled by advertising agencies or by bodies whose primary purposes are political or religious. The authority must also refuse licences to applicants whose holdings in other sectors of the media exceed the limits set out in the Acts, or in cases where the Authority is not satisfied that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence.

  Media Ownership
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers(a) his Department and (b) the Radio Authority have to intervene in the take-over of one or more of the three companies holding independent national radio licences; and if he will make a statement. [46273]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The Radio Authority is solely responsible for licencing independent radio services in the UK. The Authority enforces the strict limits on the holding of national analogue radio licences by companies active in other sectors of the media, and the other restrictions on the holding of licences set by the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996. It may refuse to issue a national radio licence and has powers to rescind licences already issued.
  239
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what assessment he has made of the implications for plurality and diversity of ownership within the media industries of the proposed take-over by News International companies of Talk Radio UK Ltd; and if he will make a statement; [46272]

  (2) what plans he has to prevent further expansion in the United Kingdom broadcasting sector by News International and associated companies; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which such expansion is in the public interest; [46276]

  (3) what steps he is taking to promote plurality and diversity of ownership within the United Kingdom media industries. [46271]

  Mr. Fisher
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The media ownership controls included in the Broadcasting Acts 1990 and 1996 are designed to protect plurality and diversity in the broadcasting industry. I have no plans to introduce further legislation. One of the effects of the Broadcasting Acts is that, since its newspaper titles have over 20 per cent. of national circulation, News International cannot control a national analogue radio licence nor have a holding of more than 20 per cent. in a company which controls such a licence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Car Manufacturers
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will provide details of Government grants provided to car manufacturers to establish or expand car or component factories in the UK in each of the last five years. [46091]

  Mr. Battle
  Under the Regional Selective Assistance (RSA) scheme, grant offers totalling £210 million were made between 1 April 1993 and 31 March 1998 in support of 187 investment projects by motor vehicle manufacturers and component suppliers. Offers in each financial year were as follows:

  £ million

  Motor vehicle manufacturers (SIC 3410)

  Motor vehicle parts and accessories suppliers(SIC 3430)

  1993–94

  5.85

  13.70

  1994–95

  11.57

  11.26

  1995–96

  .54

  15.84

  1996–97

  60.34

  17.80

  1997–98

  65.97

  7.45

  Science Research
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to increase private funding for science research. [46218]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: The Government are looking at ways in which the private sector's contribution to science research can be increased. My Department has recently published, in conjunction with H.M. Treasury, a consultative document, "Innovating
  240
  for the Future: Investing in R&D" seeking views on this matter. This area is also being addressed in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

  It is also important to ensure that the private sector takes advantage of the output of the UK's highly rated Science Base and the recently announced "University Challenge" fund will assist in this process.

  Foresight Programme
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action she is taking to raise the profile of the Foresight programme. [45874]

  Mr. Battle
  There is substantial activity across a broad front. Shortly after the general election the President of the Board of Trade called for an audit of Foresight activities across Government. The audit provided a baseline against which future agendas could be set and progress monitored.

  In response to the audit, a group of Ministers with responsibility for Foresight in Government Departments was set up to provide top-level co-ordination of Foresight across Whitehall. The President of the Board of Trade requested regular progress reports. The first of these was published on 16 June.

  The progress report shows that Government departments and public sector organisations have substantially increased their involvement in Foresight over the last six months, to its highest level ever.

  The Foresight Steering Group has been restructured to broaden the range of interests represented in Foresight.

  The success of projects such as the Foresight Vehicle—which develops technologies for cleaner, greener, and safer cars of the future—and the Clear Zones initiative for innovative urban transport systems, highlights the contribution that Foresight is making to sustained competitive advantage and enhanced quality of life.

  The Foresight LINK Awards attracted 91 bids from consortia wishing to pursue projects addressing Foresight priorities. This builds on the earlier Foresight Challenge competition.

  Research Councils and Departments are supporting nineteen LINK programmes that reflect Foresight priorities, worth a total of £170 million.

  The first of the new SMART Foresight Awards, recognising visionary work in smaller firms, will be made on 17 June.

  Proposals for consultation on the next round of Foresight were published in March. Over 35,000 copies have already been distributed. Many of the early responses come from organisations which are new to Foresight.

  The next round of Foresight will include a number of cross-cutting themes which reflect the Government's high-level priorities. These include sustainable development, future cities, crime control, and the aging population. Early work to develop plans for particular themes is involving a number of departments.

  Eastern Electricity
  Mrs. Gordon
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on Eastern Electricity's Eco Power Pricing Scheme. [46232]

  Mr. Battle
  Specific schemes are for the companies concerned. Competition in electricity supply will provide suppliers with the opportunity to offer innovative tariffs and services throughout the country, including promoting green energy schemes. I welcome the fact that companies are beginning to take up this challenge—in particular those which support renewable energy projects.

  Internal Market Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which minister represented the United Kingdom at the Internal Market Council in Brussels on 18 May; and what was Her Majesty's Government's policy on the chocolate draft directive. [45669]

  Mrs. Roche
  Lord Simon chaired the Council. William Stow, Deputy Director General, Trade Policy and Europe, in the Department of Trade and Industry, represented the UK.

  In our Presidency, the Government continue to seek an agreed solution on chocolate which fully respects all established manufacturing traditions within the Member States. Whilst some progress has been made, agreement has been blocked by five Member States who object to the addition of non-cocoa vegetable fats to chocolate. Since the May Council there have been signs that some of these countries may be reconsidering their position, and our efforts to negotiate an acceptable common position are continuing.

  Metrication Policy
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if her reappraisal of metrication policy is complete; and when she expects to publish the results. [46142]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I expect the re-appraisal of metrication, including the obligation to use metric units of measurement for specified purposes, to be completed later this summer. The publication of results will follow completion of the re-appraisal.

  Wind Power
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans she has to encourage off-shore wind power generation; [45984]

  (2) what involvement her Department has in the exploratory work of Border Wind off the coast at Blyth in Northumberland; [45985]

  (3) if she will assess the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Administration's report on the failures of the Danish wind power programme. [45986]

  Mr. Battle
  I am currently reviewing policy for new and renewable sources of energy, including potential for offshore wind. From work undertaken so far, it seems that the achievement of 10%of the UK's electricity from renewables by 2010 would almost certainly require bringing forward technologies in addition to those proposed to be supported under fifth Non-Fossil Fuel 242
  Obligation (NFFO-05), including offshore wind energy, I plan to participate through our renewable energy programme in a European Union JOULE project to study the structural loading of a wind turbine off the coast of Blyth in Northumberland. We are aware of the Norwegian report to which my hon. Friend refers.

  Insider Dealing
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she has powers to re-examine, or cause to be re-examined by some other authority, closed DTI investigations into alleged insider share dealing. [46140]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  It is always open to the Secretary of State to appoint inspectors to investigate alleged insider dealing if there is evidence justifying such appointment.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice she has sought from the Government's Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee in respect of possible methods of handling the remaining irradiated spent fuel at Dounreay in the period of decommissioning the plant. [45450]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government believe that nothing is more important than safety in the management of nuclear facilities which is why we welcomed the investigation into the management of safety at Dounreay by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). I shall be considering the UKAEA's future proposals for Dounreay in the light of any recommendation by the HSE and SEPA and will consult with the Government's Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and other interested groups as appropriate.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken to implement Commission decision 92/194 EURATOM of 4 March 1992, in respect of remediation of waste management arrangements at Dounreay. [45873]

  Mr. Battle
  92/194/Euratom: Commission Decision of 4 March 1992 imposed a formal "warning" concerning the standard of the nuclear material accountancy and control procedures in a facility at Dounreay.

  To rectify the situation, modifications were made to the plant and to management procedures, and improvements were made to the accounting, measurement and associated record systems across the whole facility, including the relevant waste streams.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions she, other Ministers, and officials of her Department have had with(a) British Energy, (b) BNFL and (c) the UK Atomic Energy Authority in respect of the year 2000 millennium compliance of their computer systems. [45517]

  Mr. Battle
  Ministers and officials are in regular contact with British Energy, BNFL and UKAEA. Officials have raised with them the actions they are taking to address the potential impact of the century date change on their computer systems. All nuclear operators have
  243
  major programmes of work underway to address the matter, and are working in close co-operation with the relevant safety, security and environment regulators. I understand that all essential work is due to be completed by the end of April 1999. Through a specially formed liaison group involving all civil nuclear site licensees and the independent nuclear safety regulator, the Health and Safety Executive, the nuclear industry is exchanging information on the issue and trying to ensure the adoption of best practice in addressing it.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Sickness and Disability Benefits
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans she has to set up a forum to discuss

  Organisation

  Peter Adeane

  National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux

  David Behan

  Local Government Association

  Ian Bruce

  Royal National Institute for the Blind and co-chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium

  Jane Campbell

  National Centre for Independent Living

  Alison Cobb

  MIND

  Nicole Davoud

  Independent Disability Consultant

  Marilyn Howard

  Independent Disability Consultant

  Professor R. Grahame

  Chairman of the Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  Jill Harrison

  Carers National Association

  Rachel Hurst

  Rights Now!

  Brian Lamb

  SCOPE

  Margaret Lavery

  RADAR

  Carol Lee

  People First

  Colin Low

  National Federation of the Blind of the UK

  Brian McGinnis

  MENCAP

  Dr. Lotte Newman

  Former President of the Royal College of General Practitioners

  Lorna Reith

  Disability Alliance

  Roy Sainsbury

  University of York—Social Policy Research Unit

  James Strachan

  RNID

  Pauline Thompson

  Disablement Income Group

  Richard Wood

  British Council of Organisations of Disabled People and co-chair of the Disability Benefits Forum

  National Insurance
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if she will estimate the effect on Treasury revenue of abolishing the ceiling on national insurance contributions. [46134]

  Mr. Denham
  If the Upper Earnings Limit on employees' Class 1 contributions and the Upper Profits Limit on Class 4 contributions had been removed in 1998/99, estimated additional revenue of some £4.6 billion would have been raised in respect of earnings in that year.

  The figure assumes that the current 10 per cent. contribution rate would apply to earnings above the present Upper Earnings Limit and that the current Class 4 contribution rate of 6 per cent. would apply to profits above the present Upper Profits Limit. The figure also assumes that the Upper Earnings Limit would remain in place for the calculation of employee and employer contracted-out rebates.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.
  244
  sickness and disability benefits as outlined in The Green Paper, "New Ambitions for our Country: a New Contract for Welfare". [46714]

  Ms Harman
  I am pleased to announce the first meeting of the Disability Benefits Forum took place today. This is an important step forward to ensure a proper dialogue between Government and disability organisations.

  The terms of reference of the Forum are: To consider possible options for changes in the gateways to benefits for long-term sick and disabled people and carers, and how to ensure that help is directed to those who need it.

  The Forum will bring together representatives of disabled people and experts in disability issues, to conduct an open and detailed dialogue with the Government.

  The members of the Forum are:

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many special advisers, political advisers and other political appointees are working in his Department; at what annual cost to the public purse including recruitment costs, salaries, pensions and National Insurance contributions; and what was the position in the last full year of the last Government. [43323]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  For details of the numbers of Special Advisers and the annual cost of employing them, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Mr. Fox) on 11 June 1998,Official Report, column 664.

  Amsterdam Treaty (Asylum and Immigration)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what view the German Foreign Secretary expressed in his recent letter on Article
  245
  73K of the Amsterdam Treaty concerning the relationship of national legislation and community legislation in the field of asylum and Immigration policy. [45790]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The letter from the German Foreign Minister expresses the view that nothing in the Amsterdam Treaty provisions on immigration policy prevents national immigration rules as long as they are compatible with the Treaty. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House shortly.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence which has been exchanged with the German Government regarding interpretation of Article 73K of the Amsterdam Treaty. [45791]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Copies of letters on this subject from Chancellor Kohl and from the German Foreign Minister, Klaus Kinkel, which have already been made available to the German parliament, will be deposited in the Library shortly, together with a copy of the letter from the Foreign Secretary under which the German Foreign Minister's letter was circulated to other Member States.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what support his Department has provided to Gibraltar following recent incidents involving Spanish vessels in British waters. [46123]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Governor has assured the Royal Gibraltar Police of his full support, and that of HMG, in any measures needed to enforce the laws within the British waters around Gibraltar.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the United Kingdom's budget contribution to the Council of Europe with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. [46016]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The views of Her Majesty's Government on the UK's contribution to the Council of Europe budget are relayed to the Secretary General in meetings of Ministers' Deputies on a regular basis by our Permanent Representative in Strasbourg.

  Intergovernmental Authority on Development
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives were agreed at the recent meeting of the IGAD Partners Forum in The Hague; what role the United Kingdom Government will play in efforts to achieve peace; and if he will make a statement. [45960]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The IGAD Partners Forum in The Hague has yet to take place. It is due to meet from 17 to 18 June. I will represent the UK.

  The conference will provide an opportunity to reinvigorate the IGAD peace process by developing an action plan for consideration when the talks resume in Addis Ababa in August. The UK will play a full part in the meeting and will remain engaged thereafter.
  246
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the United Kingdom Government are planning to make to the IGAD members and the warring parties in Sudan before the forthcoming meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in August.[45961]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Partnership Forum, of which we are a member, has convened a meeting in the Hague from 17 to 18 June. The objective is to re-invigorate the IGAD peace process and to propose an action plan that will be put forward when the IGAD peace talks reconvene in Addis Ababa in August.

  All the Sudanese parties will be represented along with the members of IGAD and international partners. I will represent HMG.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support the United Kingdom Government have given for the IGAD peace talks; and to whom it has been given. [45963]

  Mr. Fatchett
  HMG have offered financial support to the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) for work on the Sudan peace process in the past. The offer has not been taken up.

  We are currently considering offering further material support in the context of discussions with IGAD and the Partners Forum.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will support the establishment of a permanent secretariat for the current peace talks on Sudan under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. [45962]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Intergovernmental Authority on Development already has a permanent secretariat.

  Youth for Europe
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the expansion of Youth for Europe to non-EU countries in respect of the themes of(a) developing European solidarity and (b) developing European awareness in such. [46072]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  One of the objectives of the "Youth for Europe" programme is"to promote exchanges with young people from non-member countries".

  We welcome and support action in this field.

  Panel 2000
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times Panel 2000 has met; and if he will list the agenda for each occasion. [46066]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been three plenary sessions of Panel 2000. These were held on 1 April, 6 May and 11 June. The agenda items for each meeting are set out in the list.
  247
  There have also been several meetings of five specialised subgroups in which members of the Panel have taken part.

  1 April 1998

  1. Paper by Demos Think Tank on the international projection of Britain

  2. Discussion of Key Messages and audiences

  3. Discussion of existing projection methods. Commissioning of four papers (see agenda for 6 May)

  6 May 1998

  1. Consideration of papers commissioned from the FCO by the Panel

  Inventory of Information Practice (an overview of international projection of the United Kingdom)

  International perceptions of the UK

  Implications of UK devolution for the international projection of the UK
  Specific promotional projects and events

  2. Strategy: Discussion of recommendations by Panel subgroups

  Subgroup 1: Key Messages about the UK

  Subgroup 2: The means of delivery

  3. Public Sector co-operation in projection: Presentation by the Director General of the British Council on the FCO/British Council/DTI new Images initiative in Australia

  4. Panel 2000 and Millennium events

  5. Further work, including preparations for Expo Hanover 2000 and new British Embassies in Berlin and Moscow

  11 June 1998

  1. Consideration of further sub-group reports:

  Public/private sector co-operation in promoting Britain abroad FCO communication at home and abroad

  Recommendations on further major promotional events

  2. Panel draft Interim Report

  Key Messages

  Recommendations

  3. Other elements of the Interim Report

  4. Arrangements for launch of Interim Report.

  India and Pakistan
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support membership of India and Pakistan of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty as nuclear weapon states. [46082]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The NPT defines nuclear weapon states as those which exploded a nuclear device before 1967 (before the Treaty existed). Notwithstanding their recent nuclear tests, neither India nor Pakistan has the status of a nuclear weapon state in accordance with the NPT. They cannot, therefore, accede to the NPT as nuclear weapon states.

  The UK continues to urge India and Pakistan to accede to the NPT as it stands and without modification. All NPT states parties commit to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and undertake to pursue negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government have taken to address the current problems in Kosovo; and what co-operation it has sought from other EU and European countries on this issue. [46055]
  248
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The UK has taken a leading role in coordinating international efforts to promote a peaceful resolution to the problems in Kosovo, both as a member of the Contact Group and as EU Presidency. With our European partners, we have taken a number of steps to register our concern at the gravity of the situation and to persuade the government in Belgrade to offer a meaningful political process to the Kosovar Albanian leadership, rather than to continue violent repression. Most recently, the European Council in Cardiff on 15 June agreed to take steps to impose a ban on flights by Yugoslav carriers between the FRY and EU member states. The UK has also been active in the contingency military planning taking place in NATO, and at the UN has proposed a Chapter VII resolution designed to meet the threat to regional security and stability. British aircraft also took part in a NATO exercise on 15 June designed to demonstrate NATO's ability to project airpower rapidly into the area.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the provision of further support from the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other financial agencies to Indonesia. [44225]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK will continue to support Indonesia, including through the international financial institutions, provided economic reforms continue to be implemented vigorously, and recognising that successful economic reform also requires continued progress on political reform. An IMF team is currently in Jakarta discussing Indonesia's economic adjustment programme, and lending may resume next month. The UK also recognises the economic hardship faced by the people of Indonesia and welcomes the steps being taken to alleviate the impact of the crisis on poor people.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pig Farming
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will visit Beverley to meet the editor of Pig World to discuss the future of the pig industry. [43000]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: 1 have no plans to visit Beverley in the near future.

  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what requests he has received to contribute an article for the magazine Pig World on the state of the sector and its prospects; and what response he has made. [43002]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: The hon. Member wrote asking if I would contribute an article for "Pig World", and I replied to him on 18 May.

  Periodicals
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy on writing and contributing articles for sectoral periodicals. [43005]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]: I take decisions on requests for contributions to periodicals on the merits of each individual case.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list for himself and each of his Ministers the agricultural shows and similar events which(a) they have attended in the United Kingdom so far this year and (b) they have made commitment to attend during the remainder of the year. [44871]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 8 June 1998]: So far this year, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has attended the Suffolk Show on 27 May and my noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has attended the Cornwall Show on 5 June.

  At present, I plan to attend the Royal Show on 6 July, my hon. Friend the Minister of State plans to attend the Three Counties Show on 16 June, the Royal Show on 6 July and the Westmoreland Show on 10 September. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be attending the Lincolnshire Show on 25 June, the Royal Show on 6 July, the Great Yorkshire Show on 14 July and the East of England Show on 22 July. My noble Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be attending the Royal Show on 5 July.

  Fishing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of fish caught at sea by British fishing vessels were(a) landed and (b) sold for human consumption in the last year for which figures are available. [46034]

  Mr. Morley
  In 1997, 89 per cent. of the fish landed by the UK fleet was sold for human consumption. Information on the percentage of fish which is caught but not landed is not available.

  Fish Quotas
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of their allocated cod quota French fishing vessels have caught in the English Channel in each of the past five years. [46038]

  Mr. Morley
  Catches of cod in the English Channel by the French fishing fleet, as reported to the EU, and their respective quotas are set out in the table.

  Catches and quotas for cod in the English Channel: France

  Quota and catch are in tonnes liveweight

  Year

  Quota

  Catch

  Uptake (per cent.)

  1993

  13,815.0

  10,702.0

  77

  1994

  12,832.0

  10,985.5

  86

  1995

  12,940.0

  13,596.1

  105

  1996

  15,030.0

  13,420.4

  89

  1997

  15,272.0

  15,372.4

  101

  Source:

  EU catch reports
  250
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of their allocated haddock quota British fishing vessels have caught in the North Sea in each of the past five years. [46039]

  Mr. Morley
  The percentage of the UK's haddock quota caught by British fishing vessels in the North Sea in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Year

  UK quota (tonnes)

  UK landings (tonnes)

  Landings as percentage of quota

  1993

  77,620

  70,779

  91.2

  1994

  91,820

  77,791

  84.7

  1995

  68,030

  67,005

  98.5

  1996

  67,830

  68,560

  101.1

  1997

  64,241

  64,434

  100.3

  Distant Water Fleet
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the tonnage of the British distant water fleet in each of the years since 1976. [46036]

  Mr. Morley
  The most recent available information, on a consistent basis, is set out in Table A2.2 of 'UK Sea Fisheries Statistics 1996', a copy of which is available in the Library. Comparable information prior to 1991 is not available.

  Food Safety
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies his Ministry has undertaken to compare the food safety requirements, animal welfare requirements and agrochemical safety requirements of the United Kingdom with those of each of the countries which export food to the United Kingdom. [45496]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: Legislation at EU and UK levels exists to ensure that food products entering the UK meet acceptable standards of safety. Developments in other countries are kept under general review and the Government are committed to improving standards of food safety and farm animal welfare at home and throughout Europe.

  Legislation
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) which of the requirements of the primary and secondary legislation relating to agriculture, fisheries and food currently in force within the United Kingdom are applicable only in the United Kingdom; [45498]

  (2) which of the requirements of the primary and secondary legislation relating to agriculture, fisheries and food currently in force in the United Kingdom are also applicable in other EU countries; and if he will publish the data his Department has collated on the cost compliance for each EU member state where the requirements apply. [45497]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 15 June I998]: The agriculture, fisheries and food industries are subject to legislation which applies generally, such as employment law, as well as that which is sector specific. Much of the legislation, which is the responsibility of

  251
  several Government departments, derives from EU requirements which apply to all other member states. The specific information requested could be supplied only at disproportionate cost.

  BSE
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next be asking SEAC to consider the need for maintaining the over thirty months scheme. [45499]

  Dr. John Cunningham
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: I recently met Professor Sir John Pattison, chairman of SEAC, to discuss a number of issues in relation to the future work of the Committee. The Committee advises Government on all issues in relation to the spongiform encephalopathy diseases and that includes keeping under review the measures currently in force to protect public and animal health. If the Committee considered, in the light of developments, that some measures were no longer necessary or could be altered while at the same time maintaining a proper degree of protection for public and animal health, I would expect the Committee to make such recommendations to the Government, but I have not specifically asked the Committee to review this legislation. I have always made it clear that our first priority must be to protect consumers and I will continue to operate on that basis.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine. [46641]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Chairman of the Advisory Group on Quarantine, Professor Kennedy, envisages a delay in the Advisory Group's report, which had been expected this month. It is important that all the evidence be considered most carefully, and given due weight, before the Advisory Group's report is submitted. I now expect that the report of the Advisory Group on Quarantine will be published in the summer or early autumn. A full public consultation will then be held.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of policing the Drumcree parade in each of the last three years. [44749]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of police manpower directly employed in policing the Drumcree parade for each of the last three years has been calculated as follows: £960,000 in 1995, £2,110,000 in 1996 and £680,000 in 1997.

  Confidence-building Measures
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on new proposals for confidence-building measures in Northern Ireland. [44750]

  Mr. Worthington
  We have taken a very close interest in measures to build confidence in all parts of the community in line with manifesto commitments.
  252
  Of course the Good Friday Agreement is the most substantial confidence building measure that any of us could have hoped for because it provides an agreed long-term basis for tackling the deep historical divisions within the community.

  Following the referendums the best way to go on building confidence is to implement the Agreement in a positive spirit and for all of us to use our influence to minimise tensions during what could otherwise be a difficult summer period.

  New Northern Ireland Assembly
  13. Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on arrangements for the first meeting of the Northern Ireland assembly. [44752]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the oral reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart).

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Government are taking to ensure maximum participation in the assembly election. [44740]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  Over 80 per cent. turnout for the referendum suggests a high turnout for the consequential Assembly elections. The Government sent every household in Northern Ireland a copy of the Agreement and an information leaflet stating where, when and how to vote for the New Assembly elections. Additionally, advertisements were placed in Northern Ireland newspapers on 24 and 25 May with details of application procedures for absent votes.

  Policing
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has for the future of policing in Northern Ireland. [44753]

  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on her Department's plans for the future policing of Northern Ireland. [44755]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government are committed to securing the best possible police service for Northern Ireland. The Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, currently under consideration in another place, is intended to improve efficiency, effectiveness and accountability arrangements, within the tripartite structure. It will also establish the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Work is in hand on implementing changes to police discipline and performance management systems, flowing from the Police (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Order 1995. Policing is also part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, and of the Cross Cutting Review of Criminal Justice, both of which seek improvements to service delivery and value for money. The Government recently published a consultation paper "Your Voice—Your Choice" on the community police interface and on the make up of, and method of appointment to, the Police Authority; we are considering the responses. In addition, the Belfast Agreement (Cmnd 3883) sets out principles for policing and terms of reference for an independent
  253
  Commission on Policing. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) on 3 June 1998, Official Report, columns 216-17.

  The Government will continue to work with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Police Authority to look for, and implement, improvements to the police service in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, if a peaceful society is achieved, then inevitably questions will have to be faced about the size of the police service. We are on the record as saying that any changes in this area will be handled sensitively and with generosity.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will facilitate the early release of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright following recent legal decisions. [44754]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State is currently considering these cases in light of the content of the recent judicial review judgment. The cases remain scheduled for further review by the Life Sentence Review Board in October 1998.

  Minimum Wage
  17. Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the effect on employment in Northern Ireland of a minimum wage of £3.60 an hour.[44756]

  Mr. Ingram
  With tax and benefit reform, the national minimum wage is part of the Government's range of policies to make work pay. It will, therefore, encourage people to move from dependence on state benefits into employment.

  Downe Hospital
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will undertake a review of the document entitled, "Securing the Future for Downe Hospital", issued on 29 May.[44757]

  Mr. Worthington
  A review of this document is not appropriate. The issues which it highlights reflect the consensus of medical advice across the UK. Since its publication the paper has attracted a great deal of support including that of a number of prominent Northern Ireland doctors.

  Secondary Schools
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans she has to provide a controlled secondary school in inner south Belfast. [44758]

  Mr. Worthington
  There are no plans to provide a controlled secondary school in Inner South Belfast. It is a matter for the Belfast Education and Library Board, in the first instance, to establish the need for such school provision and prepare suitable plans.

  Irish Language
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in establishing opportunities for the use of the Irish language in education in Northern Ireland. [44759]

  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made in establishing opportunities for the use of the Irish language in Northern Ireland education. [44762]

  Mr. Worthington
  In fulfilment of the commitment in the Good Friday Agreement a Draft Order in Council was recently laid before the House placing a statutory duty on the Department of Education to encourage and facilitate Irish-medium education. The Order also includes provision for day one recurrent funding of new Irish-medium schools and powers to fund a promotional body in line with current arrangements for integrated education. Seven primary schools and one secondary school currently receive 100 per cent. grant-aid for recurrent expenditure and these cater for 90 per cent. of the 1,400 pupils educated through the medium of Irish in Northern Ireland. In addition, plans to expand pre-school provision this year will include a number of places in Irish-medium settings.

  The teaching of Irish meets the foreign language requirement in the statutory curriculum and it is estimated that some 24,000 pupils are studying Irish at present in other secondary schools.

  Peace Process
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement about the development of the peace process. [44760]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Following the result of the referendum of 22 May when the people of Ireland, North and South, overwhelmingly endorsed the Belfast Agreement, I am confirmed in my view that we now have the best chance for a generation to bring lasting peace and political stability to Northern Ireland.

  Employment Equality White Paper
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responses she has received to the consultation on the employment equality White Paper. [44761]

  25. Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responses she has received to the consultation on the employment equality White Paper. [44765]

  Mr. Worthington
  Written comments on the consultation elements of the White Paper, "Partnership for Equality" were to be sent to Central Community Relations Unit by 12 June 1998. We have received 114 replies which are now being given careful consideration before taking further action.

  Victims of Violence
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to help the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [44764]

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to help the victims of violence in Northern Ireland. [44768]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer my hon. Friends to the oral reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble).

  Council of the Isles
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement on progress on establishing the Council of the Isles. [44766]

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to make progress in establishing the Council of the Isles. [44767]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Good Friday Agreement allows for the establishment of a British-Irish Council which reflects an earlier proposal for a Council of the Isles.

  We are currently making preparations for the establishment of all the various institutions prescribed by the Agreement. In the case of the British-Irish Council this will include consultations with the interested parties, including the Irish Government, to prepare for the inaugural meeting in shadow form later this year.

  Security Situation
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment she has made of the current security situation. [44769]

  Mr. Ingram
  Since the signing of the Agreement on 10 April there have been four murders. In addition several attempts have been made to detonate explosive devices, thwarted by excellent work by the security forces, north and south. Sadly a continuing threat exists from some terrorist groups opposed to the Agreement. The security forces remain alert to deal with this.

  Prisoners (Early Release)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations she has received concerning the early release of prisoners. [44751]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have received a number of representations from various political parties, groups and individual members of the public concerning the early release of prisoners.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the Government of the United States of America regarding the proposed employment by Sinn Fein of Ms Rita O'Hare in the United States of America. [46308]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the families and victims of the convicted paedophile W. J. McGarry were not informed of his release on 2 April. [45741]

  Mr. Ingram
  Mr. William John McGarry, who had been convicted on 4 April 1995 of 61 offences of assault and gross indecency against female children, was released from prison, time served, on 2 April 1998.

  In accordance with agreed joint protocols, the majority of which are contained in CIRCULAR HSS (CC) 3/96—a copy of which has been placed in the Library—the Prison Service served Mr. McGarry with a Notice detailing his requirement—in line with the provisions of the Sex Offenders Act 1997—to register with Police within 14 days of his discharge from custody and, on 2 April 1998, it notified the Police that McGarry was being discharged and was a person required to register.

  I understand that Mr. McGarry's release date was notified to the relevant Social Services authority shortly after his committal to prison under sentence in 1996 but that the usual reminders, which are generally issued three months prior to final discharge, were not sent and that is something that I very much regret.

  I must stress, however, that all the relevant authorities were notified of Mr. McGarry's release before he was discharged.

  Steps have now been taken to ensure that the agreed protocols are rigorously followed.

  I would remind my hon. Friend that, while the Prison Service has no liability to identify and notify the victims, or their relatives, of offenders discharged upon completion of their sentence, the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Probation Service Northern Ireland work very closely with the Social Services in the local area and are confident that the existing arrangements take account of both the needs of the Community and of the offender. Even so, an inter-agency working group is currently considering how best to improve the communication about and the management of the release of such offenders. I expect to receive their conclusions and recommendations shortly.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the RUC Case Unit was informed of the release of W. J. McGarry. [45742]

  Mr. Ingram
  The RUC CARE Unit, on inquiry, was informed by the Prison Service on 1 April of Mr. McGarry's impending release.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the normal procedures followed and the relevant agencies involved when the release of a paedophile is pending, including informing the victims and their families. [45743]

  Mr. Ingram
  Any person convicted of one of the sexual offences listed in Schedule 1 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997 is required, within 14 days of discharge from custody, to register with Police.

  The Northern Ireland Prison Service serves such prisoners, during their release interview, with a Notice detailing this requirement. In addition, the Prison Service

  257
  routinely and automatically notifies the Force Information Bureau of the RUC of the temporary or final release of every prisoner. In the case of Schedule 1 offenders, the FIB is additionally supplied with a copy of the Notice of Requirement to Register served on the discharged prisoner.

  As I indicated to my hon. Friend in an earlier reply, the Northern Ireland Prison Service, in addition to liaising with the Police, works closely with the Courts, Probation Service Northern Ireland and the relevant Social Services authorities as well as with Psychiatrists, Psychologists and other professionals involved in case management prior to the release of the offender.

  The Prison Service, in common with other agencies, remains seriously concerned that the unregulated release of information about persons convicted of sexual offences may prejudice the work of those agencies assisting the process of re-settlement and re-integration and may also lead—as in recently widely reported cases in England and Wales—to public disorder and the commission of crime.

  The Prison Service has, however, in co-operation with other Agencies, agreed procedures to manage the disclosure of information relating to the release of sex offenders where this is judged to be appropriate and is already dealing with such cases.

HEALTH

  Road Accidents (Payment for Treatment)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress on the recovery of NHS expenditure on the treatment of road accident victims from those responsible for the accidents in question; and if he will make a statement. [45522]

  Mr. Milburn
  The National Health Service recovers around £13 million per year towards the cost of treatment of the victims of road traffic accidents under the terms of the Road Traffic Act 1988. A draft Bill outlining a revised scheme will be introduced as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

  The intention in the Bill will be to improve the administration of collection and increase the amounts collected more closely in line with actual costs.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to further extend the recovery of NHS expenditure on accident victims from those responsible for accidents (i) in the workplace and (ii) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement. [45510]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are currently no plans to extend the recovery of the costs of National Health Service treatment, as provided for by the Road Traffic Act 1988, to other forms of accident. The suggestion that such an extension might be made, as raised by the Law Commission in their consultation document "Damages for personal injury: Medical, nursing and other expenses", is being considered.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners' staff have taken advantage of the NHS Pension Scheme. [45754]
  258
  Mr. Milburn
  It is not possible to calculate a precise percentage of practice staff in the National Health Service Pension Scheme as the figures available relate to different months. However, data from the NHS Pension Agency show 59,064 practice staff in the pension scheme at February 1998. Data from the General Medical Services Census show 60,579 whole-time equivalent practice staff at October 1997.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he will take to maintain a balance of interests within the make-up of primary care groups in the new NHS. [45483]

  Mr. Milburn
  Primary Care Groups will be established as a committee or sub-committee of the health authority. The chief executive of the health authority is the accountable officer and must ensure that proper arrangements are in place for ensuring that the Primary Care Group operates within the authority it has been delegated. The health authority will also ensure that arrangements are in place that meet the needs of the local population, within the terms of the health improvement programme. Governing arrangements of a Primary Care Group will include input from doctors and community nurses, and representation of social services.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms he proposes to ensure that medical justification is the prime motive for spending decisions within primary care groups in the new NHS. [45481]

  Mr. Milburn
  Medical justification will remain the prime motive for spending decisions in Primary Care Groups. Individual general practitioners will use their clinical judgment to decide, as they do now, what is best for the individual patient. Patients will continue to be guaranteed the drugs and the treatments they need. Participation by GPs within a Primary Care Group, or membership of a Primary Care Group board, will not interfere with their terms of service obligation always to refer and prescribe in the best interests of their patients.

  Varicose Veins (Operating Waiting Lists)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of hospital operation waiting lists in each health authority are accounted for by women waiting for varicose vein operations. [45751]

  Mr. Milburn
  The information requested is not available centrally, since waiting list information is collected only by medical specialty. Varicose vein operations are part of general surgery and not separately identified.

  Insulin Injection Pen Needles
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress he has made in consideration of whether general practitioners should be allowed to prescribe insulin injection pen needles on the National Health Service. [45545]

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

  Dental Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the current level of access to NHS dentistry; and what measures he is taking to increase access to dental healthcare. [45532]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]: We are aware that there are localised problems of access to National Health Service dental services in some areas of the country. That is why, in September 1997, we introduced the Investing in Dentistry (IID) scheme. We have made £19 million available through this scheme to help dentists to expand existing practices and to set up new ones in areas of the country where access problems are most acute. To date, we have received over 450 IID proposals from health authorities. In the longer term, we will be piloting the personal dental services which will provide health authorities with the flexibility to tailor dental services more closely to local need. I recently announced 15 pilot schemes, involving over 150 dentists, to be launched in October this year.

  Cystic Fibrosis
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the costs of introducing universal screening of children for cystic fibrosis. [45983]

  Mr. Boateng
  Research evidence about antenatal and neonatal screening for cystic fibrosis, which will include some estimates of costs, is due to be published shortly. The National Screening Committee, which offers Ministers advice about the case for introducing or changing individual screening programmes, will consider this evidence and offer advice about the next steps later in the year.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish details of the public appointments made by his Department; and if he will make a statement on the involvement of members of the local community on NHS boards. [46426]

  Mr. Dobson
  A report with details of all public appointments made to bodies sponsored by the Department of Health is published today. It contains details of 3,794 individuals appointed to 586 bodies at 1 March 1998. It relates to chairs and non-executives in National Health Service trust and health authority boards, members of Executive Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and, for the first time, contains details of those who serve on the 41 Advisory NDPBs which give specialist technical and professional advice to my Department.

  Of those people named in the report, around 1,000 have been appointed by me since 1 May 1997, predominantly to NHS trusts and Executive NDPBs.

  All these appointments have been made on merit to the exacting procedures laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, which ensure an open and transparent process and encourage people from all walks of life to come forward.
  260
  We have honoured the Government's commitment to increase the local accountability of NHS boards, by publicly advertising posts and by seeking nominations from local authorities and Members of Parliament. We have appointed people who live within the local community wherever possible and have substantially increased the participation of women and people from ethnic minorities. In the year to 1 May 1998, 36 per cent. of chairs, and 52 per cent. of non-executives appointed were women and 9 per cent. of appointees were drawn from the ethnic minority population.

  We have significantly changed the make-up of NHS trust boards to reflect the abolition of the internal market and the new local partnership which we expect NHS trusts to develop. Of those people appointed since 1 May 1997, over 30 per cent.—the largest single group—are NHS users, carers or voluntary workers.

  We intend to maintain this progress and are currently in the process of appointing around 300 people to serve on health authority boards. When completed, details of these new appointments will be placed in the Library and published on the Internet. Copies of the Department of Health Public Appointments Annual Report 1998 are available in the Library.

  Hip Operations
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in respect of how many cases of hip joint replacement operations conducted in England and Wales since 1980, patients have been readmitted to hospital for further hip replacement surgery within(a) five years and (b) 10 years of the original operation. [45776]

  Mr. Milburn
  There are currently no mechanisms within the data collection systems in England which allow hospital operations to be linked to individual patients. We are, however, discussing with the professions how we might get better information on the outcome of primary hip replacement operations. The table shows the number of primary and revision hip replacement operations carried out in England since 1990–91.

  Information about hip operations in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Total hip replacement and revision of hip replacement operations

  Year

  Primary operations1

  Revision operations2

  1990–91

  28,227

  2,489

  1991–92

  32,153

  2,843

  1992–93

  33,190

  3,111

  1993–94

  34,129

  2,939

  1994–95

  36,502

  3,330

  1995–96

  39,387

  3,693

  1OPCS4R codes W37-W39, W46-W48, excluding emergency admissions and episodes with a primary diagnosis of ICD-10 codes, 572.0, S72.1 and S72.2

  2OPCS4R codes W37.3, W38.3, W39.3, W46.3, W47.3, W48.3, excluding emergency admissions and episodes with a primary diagnosis of ICD-10 codes, 572.0, S72.1 and S72.2

  Note:

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

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

  Community Health Councils
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the role of community health councils, with particular reference to their independence vis-a-vis local health authorities and the regional offices of the NHS; and if chairmen and members of community health councils can be removed before their appointment period expires. [46133]
  262
  Mr. Milburn:
  Community Health Councils are statutory bodies which are independent of health authorities. Regional offices of the National Health Service Executive provide operational support to facilitate CHCs' fulfilment of their functions. Regulations provide that members, including chairmen appointments, can be terminated by resignation, failure to attend meetings for 4 months, and if the Secretary of State considers that it is not in the best interests of the health service for a person to continue as a member.

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

Quota-hopping
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards resolving the situation whereby foreign fishing vessels from European Union countries (so-called "quota-hoppers") are entitled to catch fish reserved for United Kingdom fishermen within the European Union quota system.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government have drawn up a package of measures designed to ensure that all British-registered fishing vessels, including foreign-owned ones, have a genuine economic link with populations in the United Kingdom dependent upon fisheries and related industries. We are currently pressing the Commission for confirmation that those proposals are compatible with Community law. Once we have that confirmation, an announcement will be made on the way forward.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply; he sent me the package last February. As today is the first anniversary of the now famous exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission on this subject, can the Government explain why they gave the firm impression, more than a year ago, that they could settle this pressing problem very quickly and without delay?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, this is a complicated issue. At the time we did not indicate that it was subject to rapid settlement. We first consulted the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry had diverse views. Having established the position based upon our consultation with the industry, at the beginning of this year we submitted our proposals to the Commission. The Commission considered them and came back to us on points of detail. We believe that we are close to an agreement.
However, I should say to the noble Lord, who supported the previous administration, that he and they will now understand why it is important to get the matter right and not do as they did in 1988 with their Merchant Shipping Act: that is, get it wrong. That Act was overturned; the vessels were re-registered and the Government were left with a potentially large charge.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, I acknowledge the difficulties involved in the fishing dispute and the need to protect British interests. But did the Government note
1558
the remark made by the head of the National Farmers Union that the reason progress is being made on BSE is because of the more co-operative attitude of this Government towards Europe? Will the Government on no account return to the discredited policies of the previous administration, which sought to blackmail the European Commission into concessions against our own national interests?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, with which I agree totally. It was apparent to those of us who went to Brussels from last May onwards that the hostile atmosphere created by the previous administration had been extremely unhelpful in the settlement of these matters. We believe that a more constructive atmosphere now exists, but that does not eliminate genuine conflicts of national interest. They must be resolved and that is the process that is now under way.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, unlike the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, who does not seem to know the difference between farming and fishing, perhaps I can refer to the fishing dispute. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, it is now a year since the exchange of letters which was supposed to sort out the issue. Are the Government aware that a year is 12 months and, if this was a horse at Ascot, it would still be running?
In January the proposals were put to the Commission. The Government chaired the Council of Ministers. They have now ceased to chair the Council of Ministers, so in six months they have done nothing. They have not delivered a single one of the promises that they made to the fishing industry when they said that this was an easy problem, that it was only the incompetence of the Tories that prevented it from being solved and that the Labour Party would solve it in the blink of an eye. When will the eye stop blinking and the fishermen see a solution?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I note the irritation of the noble Lord opposite, though his mention of Ascot was unfortunate. I have felt for some time that in future the noble Lord might choose a different week in which to table Questions of this nature.
One year is not long if we are to get this right, as I believe we will. Eighteen years was an extremely long time in which to get it wrong. In 1982 the previous government, in agreeing to the common fisheries policy, did nothing to protect us from quota-hoppers. When the Spaniards joined in 1985 we did nothing to negotiate protection for ourselves. It was under the previous government that the quota-hoppers were allowed to acquire licences, often for nothing. In 1988 they introduced that unfortunate Bill, which was overturned. In 1996 they put forward a ludicrous protocol which secured no support whatever in Europe. If we get it right in one year, in terms of the previous administration that will be a rapid settlement.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, on 14th May the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, stated that the Government were awaiting the Commission's final opinion on the

1559
British proposals and that he expected it to be received shortly. Can he now explain to us when the Government expect that final reply to arrive?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I think the word used previously was very appropriate. I have been around just long enough not to give precise dates on which I might later be hung. However, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham recently reminded Commissioner Bonino that we really do expect a settlement. We have no indications to suggest that the settlement will not be helpful.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend accept congratulations from me on the splendid rebuff he made to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in which he also gave the whole history of fishing since 1972 when the Conservatives sold us down the river? However, he might have added that last Thursday they had the opportunity to insist on an amendment which they had carried at Report stage about fishing but they did not do so. Does not the fact that they did not do so show that they really are not serious about this matter?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend's interventions are always interesting and often helpful. I can only say that I take note of what he said.

Road Fuel Gas: Duty
2.44 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will reduce fuel duty on natural gas as a road fuel.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are no plans to reduce the duty rate for gas used as road fuel. This includes liquified petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. The freezing of the rate since November 1996 represents a reduction in real terms which, taken in conjunction with increases in duties on other road fuels, recognises the environmental benefits associated with road fuel gases. The widened duty differential with conventional fuels offers a clear incentive for high mileage fleets, vans and buses to convert to cleaner gas power and will help offset the cost to motorists of vehicle conversion.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest as president of the Natural Gas Vehicle Association. Does he not agree that unless the duty is reduced to the EU minimum, as Germany has undertaken, on natural gas as a road fuel, it is unlikely that a large number of vehicles will convert to natural gas, with all the environmental benefits that that would bring?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that a number of European countries, notably the Netherlands, have lower fuel duties for
1560
natural gas. Perhaps the noble Lord would take back to his association the suggestion that if it wants to sell more compressed natural gas, one necessary prerequisite would be to increase the network of pumps available to sell it.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, can the noble Lord indicate whether the Government have carried out any studies to show what would be the reduction in undesirable emissions if there were further encouragement of the use of natural gas in vehicles? If they have not carried out such studies, will they please do so?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government do not doubt that there would be a decrease in pollutant emissions if there were increased use of natural gas. Indeed, they have been in talks with the Natural Gas Vehicle Association and have had access to studies which have been produced by experts in the field. There is no doubt that there would be a reduction. The question is: what is the most direct and cost-effective way forward? I would suggest to the noble Lord that he should consider whether or not the reduction of vehicle excise duties for lorries and buses, as announced in the July 1997 Budget, is not a more direct route to reducing pollutant emissions.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, why on earth should a reduction in excise duties for all vehicles encourage the increased use of fuel of one specialist type? That seems to be totally illogical.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that my answer was elliptical. What I meant was a rebate of vehicle excise duties for those converting to natural gas and liquified propane gas.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Government quite rightly wish to reduce the amount of air pollution caused by road vehicles, and as the noble Lord acknowledges that greater use of natural gas would do that, how is it that he maintains that it would not be convenient or in the public interest to reduce the duty on vehicles using natural gas?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not maintain that it would not be in the public interest. I said that we are reducing the duty in real terms by not increasing it in cash terms and that the differential between gas and other fuels is increasing as the duty for other fuels increases. I was arguing that a more targeted response in terms of vehicle excise duty is more effective. If I may add to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in addition to the rebate for gas powered vehicles, there is a complete remission of vehicle excise duty for those vehicles such as ambulances, fire vehicles and so on which are particularly suited to gas because they refuel at depots rather than on the open road.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that even if the duty on liquid petroleum gas was at the minimum level permitted by the European Union, the

1561
saving on running costs because of that remission of duty would still not be sufficient to pay for the very high initial capital cost required for conversion to LPG for each vehicle? Do the Government have in mind other incentives to try to persuade people to make the change, bearing in mind the great improvement, particularly in metropolitan atmospheres, that could result if the owners of fleet vehicles were persuaded to change?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already indicated the two ways in which the Government encourage the use of gas for road vehicles; namely, through the vehicle excise duty and the freezing of fuel duty. If the noble Lord has any other suggestions we shall be glad to listen to them.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is another way of encouraging the use of these and other experimental fuels? The Government could convert their own large fleet, much of which is in metropolitan London, to the new fuels. Do they have any plans to do that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, last week or the week before I answered extensively a Question on this subject. The Government car service is not a very large fleet. There is a policy of converting to dual use, both gas and petrol, as the vehicles are replaced over the next four years.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, in order to send the right signals, if the Minister decided to reduce the duty rate to the EU minimum, can he say how much duty the Government would forgo?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I should have an answer to that question, but I do not. I shall write to the noble Earl.

Building Societies: Special Deposits
2.52 p.m.
Lord Evans of Parkside Lord Evans of Parkside asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have received from building societies about being required to place special deposits with the Bank of England from 1st June.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bank of England Act requires banks and building societies to place cash ratio deposits with the Bank of England in order to fund the unrecovered running costs associated with its monetary policy and financial stability activities. Only institutions with more than £400 million eligible liabilities will have to place cash ratio deposits with the bank; so about two-thirds of all building societies will be exempt.
We received six representations from the building societies sector. A summary of all representations was included in the Government's response to consultation
1562
on cash ratio deposits published in April 1988. I have placed in the Library a copy of the response to consultation from the Building Societies' Association.
Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Will he confirm that this new requirement will cost the larger building societies many millions of pounds annually, which will have to be borne by the depositors and mortgage holders? Will he also confirm that the building societies have made representations that other financial deposit takers, such as insurance companies, contribute to the costs of the Bank of England thereby spreading the burden? Will my noble friend inform the House why such other organisations have not been invited to take part in the new scheme?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is right in that the larger building societies will have to contribute to the cash ratio deposits for the first time. I am sure he will recognise that as so many of them act as banks as well as building societies, it would be very difficult to discriminate between them. He is also right in saying that the building societies believe that alternative methods of funding the Bank of England should be examined. I believe that that has been done. They wrote to the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 22nd April and said,
"The overall outcome of the consultation, which has resulted in the exemption of small banks and building societies from the CRD scheme, will be viewed favourably by most societies".
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, the scheme is going to cost the building societies more money, particularly the large ones and that is going to affect the rate of return for depositors in building societies. In addition, it will add to the burden of borrowers. Does the Minister agree that it is a big mistake to charge the building societies, when they are trying to keep down the borrowing rate, because of the Government's disastrous policy as regards the base rate?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very selective in his argument. Building societies and banks are active in the mortgage market. It would be invidious to discriminate in that respect. In any case, the total burden of cash ratio deposits will fall. Between 1997 and 1998 the cost increased from £147 million to £182 million, assuming an interest rate of 7 per cent. The new cost, at the rate which has been announced under the Bank of England Act, will be only £129 million. I suggest that the effect on mortgages in total is likely to be positive rather than negative.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, perhaps I am widening the Question somewhat, but does the Minister agree that there must be concern that the recent increase in mortgage interest rates by the building societies and the

1563
new bank building societies is more likely to increase the likelihood of a hard landing for the economy as we move through the year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord is widening the Question more than slightly.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is it not increasingly apparent that there is a serious lack of co-ordination between the Government's monetary and fiscal policy? Can the Minister tell us whether the Treasury or the Bank of England is now responsible for controlling the money supply? In that context, does the Minister envisage that in future the deposits will be used to that end?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government are in charge of both monetary and fiscal policy. They chose to delegate to the Bank of England responsibility for short-term interest rates, but that does not mean any derogation of authority or responsibility.

Nuclear Weapons: Elimination
2.56 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will now urge the nuclear states to take serious steps towards the elimination of nuclear weapons in order to avoid further proliferation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, all states are aware of our commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons. The five nuclear weapon states have all signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We and the French have ratified it, and we continue to urge others to follow our lead. The five are committed to enter into negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty as the next step towards our goal.
We have to stop nuclear proliferation to attain our ultimate goal of a world free from nuclear weapons. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was an important step in the right direction. By testing, India and Pakistan have moved the other way.
We condemn these tests and urge both countries to sign unconditionally and move to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; enter negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty and accede to the non-proliferation treaty.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for reaffirming our manifesto undertaking on the global elimination of nuclear weapons. Does she agree that, to take further the Government's action, it would be useful if they were to encourage other members of the Security Council to
1564
envisage the same goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons so that we can begin to make real progress in the matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, all five nuclear weapon states are also permanent members of the Security Council. They are committed to nuclear disarmament; to a comprehensive ban on testing; and to combating the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Developments over the past few years have shown us that real progress is more likely to result from detailed negotiations for specific agreements than from work on an all-encompassing plan. We regard negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty as the next step in the process. Nationally and on behalf of the European Union, we have formally urged all parties to the non-proliferation treaty to press for the re-establishment in the Conference on Disarmament of an ad hoc committee on the fissile material cut-off treaty.
Lord Carver: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we and the other declared nuclear weapons states had not only taken seriously the report of the Canberra Commission, which was published nearly two years ago and which made a clear and unequivocal commitment to the eventual total elimination of nuclear weapons, but had also taken the immediate practical steps which the commission recommended to demonstrate that, the unfortunate recent proliferation in the Indian sub-continent might not have occurred?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. The reasons for what happened recently in India and Pakistan are not that straightforward. We have had an opportunity to discuss that in your Lordships' House in the past couple of weeks and many of your Lordships acknowledged that regional matters are among the reasons why those countries felt it necessary, unfortunately and much to our dismay, to take the steps that they did.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, has the Minister seen the report in today's newspapers that China, one of the countries originally possessing nuclear weapons, may be in the process of supplying very sophisticated systems, notably, "telemetry" systems, to both Iran and Libya so that those two countries can develop nuclear weapons? Is it not an underlying fact that, sadly, the proliferation of nuclear weapons throughout the world is relatively likely over the next generation? Should not the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty or the fissile material treaty be looked at again in order to consider how, in the real world, such proliferation can be avoided?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an interesting point. What I have said about the nuclear weapons states' actions and positions on the nuclear test ban treaty covers China also. However, it is not all bad news, as the noble Lord's question seemed to imply. South Africa, the Ukraine, Belorussia and Kazakhstan have all given up their nuclear arsenals, and Argentina and Brazil have shown a far more enlightened approach in this respect. We have to be cautious and extremely vigilant.

1565
I note what the noble Lord said about China. I have no knowledge of the specific point which the noble Lord raised in respect of a newspaper report today. I have not seen such a report. However, I must point out to the House that it is not all bad news and that some parts of the world are moving voluntarily towards not proceeding with their nuclear weapons development programmes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that speedy success in the present negotiations would help to discourage others who may now be on the periphery of developing nuclear weapons from doing so?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we do everything that we can. The House knows that this is a central theme of the Government's policy. It was a central theme in our manifesto commitments. Through whatever means we can—through the United Nations, the European Union and G8—the Government are taking what steps they can to urge those who have not signed up to these important treaties to do so.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, further to what my noble friend has said, does she agree that the two treaties that she has mentioned are not the ultimate objective, but the next step, because until then there will be individual instances of proliferation? You cannot stop an avalanche one rock at a time.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we must be clear about the ultimate objective, and I hope that I have made it clear. Indeed, I believe that the Government's election manifesto made it clear. I also hope that I have made it clear to the House that the Government have a strategy on this issue, which is not necessarily one of going for an entire comprehensive all-in-one position. The Government are proceeding with consideration of the current discussions in Geneva on fissile material. I hope that I have made it absolutely clear to the House that that is the strategy that we are pursuing.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, on 1st June, the Minister informed the House that five members of the Security Council were meeting in Geneva that week to discuss the implications of the nuclear testing by India and Pakistan. What was the outcome of that discussion? Perhaps I may remind the Minister that she also mentioned then that the G8 Foreign Ministers were also meeting in London to discuss the dialogue with India and Pakistan. What further developments have there been in that respect?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the United Nations Security Council has encouraged all states to prevent the export of equipment, materials or technology that could assist programmes in India and Pakistan in relation to nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles capable of delivering such weapons. The Group of 8 has condemned the tests and agreed to work for postponement in consideration of loans not needed to meet basic human needs from the World Bank and other international financial institutions. The House may like to know that the General Affairs Council declarations of 25th May and 8th June set out the steps that the EU wishes
1566
to see India and Pakistan take to halt their arms race and to reduce tension. European member states have agreed to work for a deferral of consideration of loans from international financial institutions.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is not a matter of whether we are in favour of a comprehensive approach or a pragmatic approach, but that the pragmatic approach, if successful, is the evidence of the commitment to the comprehensive approach? If we are to achieve progress in the world as a whole, there is a credibility problem. Unless the major nuclear powers, including ourselves, can demonstrate all the time that we are, above all, committed to the elimination of nuclear weapons, it will be difficult to gain convincing support across the world because we shall be telling people to do as we say rather than as we do.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree that it is important that we demonstrate that we are serious about our aim of nuclear disarmament. I think that we have demonstrated that by decommissioning our free-fall bomb, as we did at the end of March this year. I do not think that there is any doubt in this House or elsewhere about the commitment to nuclear disarmament of Her Majesty's Government. In trying to attain that goal, we must have a strategy. I hope that I have been clear in setting out for the House the Government's steps towards successfully achieving that strategy.

Business
3.6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today, my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the Cardiff Summit. I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification and that noble Lords who speak at length do so at the expense of others.

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(The Earl of Lindsay.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Scotland Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Scotland Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill, which establishes a Scottish parliament and a Scottish executive, is part of the process of creating a new Union—a union not based on uniformity, but one which recognises and celebrates the diversity of the United Kingdom.
Through this Bill we seek to establish an enduring, fair and stable settlement—one which recognises the essential value of devolution: the ability to provide local solutions to local problems against a framework of locally defined priorities. We are also about building a more decentralised, plural society in which real power is dispersed and the political process becomes more accessible to our citizens and in turn more inclusive.
We are equally determined that these advantages should be obtained while securing and strengthening the Union that is the United Kingdom—a union that is more than the sum of its constituent parts. On 1st May last year the Government were elected on a mandate to enact legislation as soon as possible to allow people in Scotland to vote in a referendum on proposals for a Scottish parliament. We kept that promise. The referendums Bill was published within two weeks, our proposals were set out in the White Paper published on 24th July and the referendum was held on 11th September. Once we had the overwhelming support for our proposals we kept our word and introduced legislation to implement them before the end of 1997. The Bill has now completed its four-month passage through another place which allowed no less than 80 hours of debate on the Floor of the House according to a timetable agreed by all parties. There is no question that the Bill has not received the scrutiny it merits.
We may be at the beginning of our deliberations in this House, but the journey has been a long one with quite a few alarms and diversions on the way. Many have played a part in bringing us to where we are today. It is appropriate to mention the invaluable work done in the period leading up to the last general election by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. The convention brought together different political parties and interests across Scotland and gave us a sure foundation upon which to base our legislative proposals. It is right to pay tribute to two Members of this House who worked long and hard as the joint chairs of the convention: the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford. I am well aware of the extent to which within my own party my noble friend has been the advocate for and guardian of the convention's
1568
proposals. I trust that both noble Lords are well satisfied that the Bill before us today gives legislative effect to the convention's plans.
I have said that the journey has been a long one, and not all parties in this House have travelled by the same route to reach our common destination. That destination is a parliament that will work, and work well, for the benefit of Scotland, the United Kingdom and the Union.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the Official Opposition. At the time of the referendum the party opposite took a different view from that of the Government. I recognise and applaud the way in which, in a mature and deliberate way, they have accepted the democratically expressed will of the Scottish people and are now committed to securing a parliament that works and is a success. I congratulate them on that. I look forward to that constructive approach continuing through the weeks that lie ahead of us. All parties in this House have the common aim of ensuring the success of the devolution settlement. But there are those who have a vested interest in undermining the settlement and doing what they can to make sure it is not a success. They do so out of a desire to break the Union and set off down the path to separatism. That is not some devolution-plus; it is the very denial and antithesis of devolution which itself values both unity and diversity. We can perhaps show in the way we debate this Bill how the Parliament of the United Kingdom can welcome both the diversity of devolution and the continuing unity and strength of the Union.
In this House in the weeks to come we must not forget what has gone before. This Bill was a central plank of the Government's manifesto encapsulated in the White Paper, endorsed in the referendum and now approved in another place by a majority of Members representing constituencies in all parts of the United Kingdom. The proposals before us thus come with a triple democratic endorsement. Nobody claims that the Bill as it stands is perfectly crafted. It is quite proper—indeed, it is the duty of this House—to scrutinise this Bill. This House can, and I am sure will, make a valuable contribution to improving the Bill. But there is a world of difference between legitimate scrutiny and obstruction. Given the acceptance by all parties of the democratic endorsement that the Bill has already received, I do not expect that there will be obstruction. I stress that the main features of the settlement are simply non-negotiable, but there is nevertheless scope for this House to express its wishes in other areas, and this Government will listen and reflect upon what is said.
We presented the White Paper in this House almost 11 months ago. We said that the devolution scheme laid out in it was right for Scotland and the United Kingdom. The people of Scotland agreed with us. The overwhelming referendum votes in favour of a parliament with law-making and tax-varying powers demonstrated a new confidence. It showed that Scots wanted to live in a country with significant autonomy but that they also wanted to remain with a strong and stable United Kingdom.

1569
The people put their trust in the Government and we have repaid it. The Scotland Bill gives effect to all the commitments to legislate which we made in the White Paper. The Bill reads rather differently from the White Paper. That is the nature of legislation. However, the guide to the Bill which we have published shows precisely how the proposals in the White Paper have been carried through into legalisation. The key point is that the White Paper is all here in the Bill. We are committed to establishing a substantial and powerful parliament in Scotland. This Bill will deliver that commitment.
I shall now explain the key elements of the Bill. Clause 1 provides that there shall be a Scottish parliament and goes on to provide for how its members are to be elected. We said in the White Paper that the electoral system would enable us to build a parliament based on fairness. That is what we have achieved in Clauses 1 to 17 of the Bill. The principal features of the system will be: the parliamentary term will be fixed at four years, although there is provision for elections before that period in exceptional circumstances; electors will be able to vote twice in the elections to the Scottish parliament, once for a constituency member and once for a regional member; regional members will be drawn from a list submitted by a registered political party or individuals standing in their own right; and regional members will be returned on a corrective basis which reflects the proportion of votes cast for the party or individual while taking account of seats already gained in the constituency ballot. These arrangements will ensure both a strong constituency link and a closer relationship between votes cast and seats won.
I should like to highlight the provision which will allow independent candidates to stand as regional members. This is an advance on the proposals in the White Paper. It reflects our commitment to open the doors of the parliament as wide as possible and allow in new blood, possibly from outwith the so-called political establishment. I hope that many able people will seize the opportunity provided by the Bill.
The provision of separate constituencies for the Shetland and Orkney Islands also reflects our firm commitment to making this a parliament for all of Scotland. We want to ensure that we have an inclusive parliament which represents the diversity of Scotland. There have been suggestions that the parliament will be dominated by the central belt. That is simply not so. The system will ensure that the more remote areas of Scotland will be properly represented in the parliament. In absolute terms there will be about the same number of members from the Highlands and Islands and the South of Scotland as from the Lothians and Glasgow. The electoral system will ensure that all the voices of Scotland will be heard.
We promised that the parliament would have wide-ranging legislative powers. That is what we have delivered. Clause 27 of the Bill gives the Scottish parliament the power to make laws for Scotland while acknowledging the position of the United Kingdom Parliament. Clauses 28, 29 and Schedule 5 effectively
1570
set out the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament and list the matters which will be reserved to Westminster.
This approach will help to achieve clarity and stability and by allowing for amendment of the list of reserved matters by agreement between Westminster and Edinburgh will provide flexibility for the longer term.
Everything that is not reserved is devolved. This will give the Scottish parliament the power to make laws for the Scottish people over a wide range of matters. These powers will be exercised by members elected by and directly accountable to the people of Scotland.
The Bill also provides for all powers under existing Westminster legislation to be transferred to the Scottish executive where these concern matters which are not reserved; and for certain specified powers in reserved areas also to be devolved to ministers of the Scottish executive by order, a draft of which will be made available shortly.
The Scottish parliament will be specifically entitled to make laws about Scots private law and Scots criminal law, even although they may affect reserved matters. This will allow the parliament to maintain and develop the distinctive traditions of Scots law. The legitimate interests of the United Kingdom in any direct impact of changes in the civil law of Scotland on legislation concerning reserved matters will be protected.
The Bill ensures a fair and open system for resolving any disputes about the vires of the parliament. The Law Officers of either the UK Government or the Scottish executive will be able to refer a Scottish Bill to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council if they have any doubts about its vires. The Judicial Committee will for these purposes be composed of those who are or have been Lords of Appeal in Ordinary or who otherwise hold or have held high judicial office in the United Kingdom.
This is, I believe, an important advance on the proposal in the White Paper which would have restricted membership to the 12 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. It will mean that there will be a bigger pool of potential members to draw upon, with judicial experience from throughout the UK.
The Bill will also enable public authorities with a remit which covers devolved and reserved matters to continue to operate broadly as now while giving the Scottish parliament and ministers important rights to be consulted on and to question their activities in relation to devolved matters in Scotland.
I turn now to Part II of the Bill. The Scottish executive will be headed by a first minister appointed by the Queen following nomination by the parliament. It will also consist of Scottish ministers and the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland. The first minister will be able to appoint junior Scottish ministers to assist Scottish ministers in their duties.
The executive will be a powerful body able to exercise executive functions in devolved areas. The Government also intend to give it wide-ranging powers to act in reserved areas within Scotland by means of executive devolution under Clause 59.

1571
The executive will be fully accountable to the parliament. No one will be able to hold office as first minister, a Scottish minister or a junior Scottish minister unless their candidature has been approved by the parliament. They will be required to resign in the event of a vote of no confidence.
The Bill provides that the Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General should be members of the Scottish executive. It also envisages the appointment of a Scottish Law Officer to the UK Government to occupy the new post of Advocate General for Scotland. It also protects the independence of the Lord Advocate in relation to the prosecution of crimes and investigation of deaths, and gives him and the Solicitor-General the right to decline to answer questions in parliament about individual criminal cases in certain circumstances.
Taken together with the electoral arrangements the provisions for the administration pave the way to a new era of partnership between the executive and legislative branches of the state in Scotland. The nature of the arrangements will, we believe, promote consensus and good government. 'There will need to be more give and take; more listening; and more co-operation. I believe that this new and fresh approach to politics will bring real benefits to the people of Scotland.
And let me mention here another central feature of the constitution—the judiciary. Unlike in the 1970s we believe it is right that responsibility for the judicial and court system should be devolved, and the Bill provides this. At the same time it is important that safeguards to protect the position of the judiciary should be built in. The Bill therefore provides that judges and tribunal members cannot be summoned to give evidence to the parliament.
While Clause 89 confirms that Scotland's two most senior judges will, as now, be recommended for appointment by the Prime Minister but chosen from nominations made by the first minister, the first minister will recommend the appointment of other senior Scottish judges. Dismissal of a judge will be possible if two-thirds of the members of the parliament vote in favour of it, subject to careful safeguards on the exercise of this power.
The Government promised in the White Paper that the Parliament would be established on a sound financial basis. Clauses 61 to 68 fulfil that commitment. They set out the financial arrangements for the parliament and the executive. The centrepiece is the provision for a Scottish Consolidated Fund into which the UK Government will make payments.
The Government have published a paper setting out the principles which will govern determination of the block budgets for the Scottish parliament and the national assembly for Wales. It explained that the tried and tested arrangements associated with the Barnett formula will continue to operate under devolution, with only minor adjustments. Like the Barnett formula itself under successive administrations over the past 20 years, the formula by which the Scottish parliament's budget will be calculated will be an administrative arrangement which does not need to be prescribed in legislation.
1572
The Bill will transfer to the Scottish parliament the maximum freedom to determine its own expenditure priorities and will ensure that those who make the decisions are accountable to the Scottish people who will be affected by them.
Subject to the outcome of the referendum the Government promised to give the Scottish parliament a limited power to vary the basic rate of UK income tax in Scotland by up to 3p. Clauses 69 to 75 fulfil that commitment.
These clauses and the power itself have been the subject of very considerable debate, and rightly so. The powers, if exercised to the full, would allow the parliament to increase or decrease its income by something over £400 million per annum at today's prices. This is, of course, only about 3 per cent. of the current Scottish block but is nevertheless a substantial sum. In our view, and clearly that of the people of Scotland, too, it represents an important fiscal flexibility which is entirely appropriate for the sort of mature parliament which we are establishing.
As the White Paper foreshadowed, the conduct of relations with the European Union is necessarily reserved to the United Kingdom Government because the United Kingdom is the member state. But the Bill gives the parliament and the Scottish executive the full powers they need to observe and implement European Community obligations in so far as they relate to the devolved areas. The parliament will be able to scrutinise relevant EU proposals and legislate to give effect to Community obligations for Scotland. And Schedule 5 also provides that the Scottish executive will be able to play a role alongside the United Kingdom Government in negotiations. The Bill therefore does everything that is needed to give effect to our proposals on Europe as set out in the White Paper.
Much has been made in another place of the omission from the Bill of a right in law setting out exactly when ministers of the Scottish executive will participate in meetings of the European Council of Ministers and other negotiations. I have explained that the Bill contains enabling provisions to make clear that they may take part in such negotiations. But the UK is the member state; we must have a common UK position and a single UK delegation. The emphasis in negotiations will continue to be on working as a UK team; the delegations will be led by a UK lead minister who will retain overall responsibility for the negotiations, the same as now.
European negotiations are often fast moving and the emphasis must be on flexibility in deciding who best should speak for the UK in councils in the light of the business under discussion.
We envisage that these matters will be covered by concordats between Edinburgh and London, but we are firmly of the view that it would neither be sensible nor appropriate to try to prescribe the detail of who should speak when on the face of the legislation. The Bill contains the necessary provision to enable Scottish ministers to take part in negotiations when relevant, but it must be in the context of arrangements which will provide for sensible co-operation between the UK and Scottish administrations.

1573
A central theme of the White Paper was that, while the devolved parliament and executive would have a considerable degree of autonomy, Scotland would remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the White Paper made it clear that good communication systems between the UK Government and the Scottish executive will be vital. Without them devolution will be less effective, and both administrations would suffer as a result.
So it is in the interests of both sides that constructive, day-to-day working relationships are established between departments right from the outset at both ministerial and official level. It is also important that the relationships should be flexible and dynamic. We are, after all, in the UK context, entering uncharted territory. The United Kingdom will remain firmly intact, but devolution to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast will change for ever the way in which it operates. It is important that the working relationships between all four capital cities are able to adapt as the new institutions bed down over the next few years.
Inter-departmental concordats, or mutual understandings, will be an important part of this non-statutory machinery of co-operation. They will make it clear that relations between Edinburgh and London will be based on consultation, consent and co-operation within the framework established by the Scotland Bill. Corcordats will be sensible administrative tools on which working relationships will be based. They will not, as was claimed by some in another place, be a backdoor device for either giving more power to Holyrood than is provided for in the Bill, or clawing back powers that will have been devolved. They are quite simply a means of ensuring good, effective, day-to-day working arrangements between the two administrations.
No provision for concordats is required or made in the Scotland Bill. As with negotiations over Europe, legislation in this area could actually hinder relationships which will evolve naturally. It would be counterproductive to give them the degree of inflexibility that inevitably flows from statutory prescription.
The Scotland Bill is a substantial as well as a far-reaching piece of legislation, running to 117 clauses and 8 schedules. In recognition of the complexity of the Bill and its interaction with so many other enactments, I am making additional information available to Members. I have already placed in the Library of the House copies of the guide to the Bill. I shall also place in the Library shortly a compilation of extracts from enactments which the Scotland Bill proposes to amend. Before the beginning of the Committee stage, I shall also be publishing comprehensive notes on clauses.
I commend the Bill to the House. It is a bold, innovative piece of legislation. It is also part of our far-reaching constitutional programme designed to bring the processes of government closer to the people. The elements of this programme are well known. We are establishing a parliament in Edinburgh together with assemblies for Wales and Northern Ireland, an elected assembly and mayor for London, the incorporation of
1574
the European Convention on Human Rights and a more constructive approach to the European Union. These all demonstrate this Government's commitment to the modernisation of the United Kingdom. Our aim is a more pluralist, outward-looking democracy which is confident in itself and in tune with the modern world. We want to build a system of government which people can access easily, feel part of and take part in. We want a more inclusive politics—to bring a wider range of people into the political process.
In 1999, a Scottish parliament will sit in Edinburgh for the first time in 292 years. Yet this will be a very different body from that which united with the English Parliament in 1707. It will be a thoroughly modern, forward looking parliament. It will be a parliament fashioned in Scotland, for Scotland, and able to build a better Scotland.
We are on the threshold of completing the unfinished business of which John Smith spoke, and of giving effect to the settled will of the Scottish people. Let this project be his lasting political legacy to the United Kingdom and to Scotland.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sewel.)
3.36 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, for his introduction and arguments in favour of the Bill. I found it interesting that there was no word of explanation as to why your Lordships are being asked to give a second reading to the Bill, which I understand is the flagship of the Government's programme, so late in the Session. At the turn of the year, when I looked at my new diary, I thought that we would start the Bill shortly after Easter and that we would now be in Committee. I cannot yet understand why the Government are taking the Bill at such a leisurely pace. We could have had the Second Reading a fortnight ago and the Commons could certainly have finished its Report stage very much more quickly. One day a week is slow going in the other place.
I must say to the Minister and to his colleagues in Government that I do not want to hear any complaints here or in the press via the usual spin doctors that we are dragging our feet on this Bill. Starting now, there is simply no chance of finishing a Bill of this magnitude by the Summer Recess. It is the Government's business management, in both Houses, which is responsible for that.
We have an important job to do here, both next month in Committee and in the spill-over period on Report and Third Reading, because it is vital we ensure that this Bill delivers a sensible and stable devolution package. It is the delivery of that stable and sensible package which will be our ambition on these Benches as we probe, question and suggest amendments.
It is no secret that I am a reluctant convert to devolution. The reason for my conversion is simple. It is not the argument which I listened to again from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, but it is that I am a democrat.

1575
My fellow Scots made it abundantly clear at elections and in the referendum that they want a devolved parliament and government within the United Kingdom.
The debate in Scotland has raged for some time and has ranged over the status quo, devolution and independence. One of the principal arguments used against the status quo by the advocates of devolution—there was a hint of it in the Minister's speech today—has been that if we do not respond to the desire of the Scottish people for some limited change we will drive them into the hands of the Scottish National Party. That view is well illustrated by Mr. George Robertson, now Secretary of State for Defence, who when he was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, said:
"Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead".
Perhaps I might repeat that for your Lordships:
"Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead".
Mr. Donald Dewar, when introducing the White Paper in the other place on 24th July, said in response to SNP leader Alex Salmond:
"I believe, however, that the reform package that we have announced today, implemented with good will and spirit, will make his [Alex Salmond's] task a bit more difficult".—[Official Report, Commons 24/7/97; col. 1049.]
On the same day, in my response in your Lordships' House to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, I said that,
"the Government believe that what they are doing here will strengthen the Union. I earnestly hope that they are right. However,…'I hae ma doots'".—[Official Report, 24/7/97; col. 1535.]
I did not think for one moment that those doots would be confirmed quite as speedily. But, in poll after poll, the demand for independence, far from fading away, has grown and grown. In the most recent ICM poll in the Scotsman, 52 per cent. said they wanted independence. In last week's poll in what I still like to think of as the Glasgow Herald, in response to a question as to how people will vote for the Scottish parliament, the SNP lead Labour by a staggering 44 per cent. to 36 per cent. That is some burial; some own goal. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his colleagues must feel as bad as poor Tom Boyd did when he saw the ball fly over his head into the back of the Scottish net. At least he can be forgiven. His was just one of those unfortunate incidents which occur in a fast-moving game in a crowded goal mouth. Not so Labour's own goal.
It is a temptation to say, "I told you so", and I shall not resist it. I did tell the Government so. But we cannot sit back, watch and enjoy Labour being force-fed humble SNP pie. We must try to stop that happening. We must try to keep this Kingdom united, yet at the same time we must deliver what the Scots want—a workable, devolved government. In many ways, we must prove our forebodings wrong.
Against that background, we shall look carefully and critically at all aspects of the Bill. I wish to highlight a few of them this afternoon: the electoral system, the financial arrangements, the legal and constitutional framework, the issues to be devolved and those to be retained here at Westminster, the number and role of Scottish MPs, the so-called West Lothian question.
1576
I shall start with the easiest matter, at least for me; which is the legal and constitutional issues. It is easy for me because they will be dealt with by my noble and learned friends Lord Mackay of Drumadoon and Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. Therefore, I shall not say any more about them. I should not use the expression because the lawyers will not like it, but why should I have such eminent noble and learned friends and still try to do the barking myself?
As regards the electoral system, I am unashamedly in favour of the first-past-the-post system. Through one-member constituencies, first-past-the-post provides a clear one-to-one relationship between the citizen and his Member of Parliament. It allows the electorate to punish a party which has lost touch with its own supporters. More often than not, it delivers a clear result with one party winning. It makes for stable and directly answerable government.
I know that I shall be told that my party has suffered grievously because of that system and that some form of proportional representation would be to our advantage. I understand that. I see that—if I may use that dreadful expression—at this moment in time, that may be true. But electoral systems should not be chosen for one moment in time. They should stand the test of time. Our system has done that. In comparison with many countries which have chosen one of the many variations of PR, we can boast a long thread of democratic government uninterrupted by many of the horrors visited on our less fortunate friends on the Continent.
That pass may already have been sold as regards the Scottish parliament, but we shall certainly wish to look carefully at the many varieties of fiddled voting systems we are offered here. For example, I am extremely concerned about the power that the closed list system chosen for the second top-up ballot gives to the party political machine—a power taken away from the electorate completely. I shall want to know why the closed list system has been chosen and why we cannot have one of the more open list systems. I hope that, unlike on the Welsh Bill, the Liberal Democrats will get up off their knees, humbly begging for crumbs at the Government's table, and will stand up for the more open system which I thought they believed in.
I am concerned also at the possible manipulation which could occur between the first and second vote. The principle of the second vote and its list is to top up the first-past-the-post seats to bring the seats gained into close proportionality with the votes cast in the second ballot. If a party does extremely well in the first-past-the-post section, it will find that it will have very few of the top-up seats.
One way round that would be for a party which does well in the first-past-the-post seats not to stand in the second vote but to allow an alter ego party to stand, one which does not stand for any of the first-past-the-post seats and thus has no seats. That alter ego party can clean up the second vote and the whole object of proportionality can be defeated.
In case anyone thinks that that is just a product of my fevered mind, I should tell your Lordships that the idea comes from Mr. Michael Dyer of Aberdeen University

1577
and has been taken up by Mr. Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for Glasgow Pollok, who, interestingly enough, was judged to be of sufficiently high quality to be a Member of the other place but not of sufficiently high quality even to be allowed by the Labour Party to have a possible attempt at the Scottish parliament.
Perhaps I may illustrate my concerns with the City of Glasgow results at the last election. Labour would gain all 10 seats in the first-past-the-post system, as it did. In the seven top-up seats, using the system in the Bill, it would gain only a further two seats. My party would gain one seat, the SNP would gain three and the Liberal Democrats would gain one. If the Labour Party decided not to stand in the second ballot but the co-operative party registered, as indeed it could, to stand in that second ballot, Labour voters in Glasgow would have no difficulty in understanding what was going on. I suspect that they would approve of the ploy. They would vote heavily for the co-operative party in that second ballot. In that event, the top-up seats would fall six to the co-operative party, one to the SNP and none to the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Therefore, Labour and its co-operative allies would enter the Scottish parliament with 16 seats from Glasgow, four seats to the good. We shall explore ways of preventing that happening.
I turn now to finance. We shall wish to explore the continuation of the Barnett formula and the impact of the comprehensive spending review on the Scottish block. None of us expects financial distributions to be set in concrete. But there are enormous dangers that the now triennial negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish government will become a focus for discontent and disruption within the Union.
Interestingly enough, this morning in the Glasgow Herald, there is a report on an academic study in which those problems emerge. It is an academic study by, among others, Professor Colin Munro of Edinburgh University. Many of the study's seven co-authors used their contributions to highlight the growing likelihood that rows over money will regularly put Scotland in conflict with Westminster. Therefore, our duty, consistent with the principal objective that I have set for the Opposition in this Bill, is to find ways to minimise that potential dispute.
We shall want to explore also the question of the extra 3p in the pound. On whom will it be levied? That is an issue which is still fairly uncertain. In the words of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland, the seven clauses which relate to the tax-raising powers are overly complex, poorly drafted and costly to implement.
How does the 3p in the pound relate to the £450 million which is also pledged? That is a kind of double pledge for the Scottish parliament. What will happen if the 3p does not raise that amount of money? How will the difference be raised? That is not a difficult question but it seems to be impossible for the Government to answer it because they have so far failed to do so. However, I shall try to help them.
The financial relationship between the Scottish parliament and local government finance, council tax, business tax and capping will all need exploration and clarification.
1578
I turn now to what is to be devolved and what is to be reserved. This Bill tackles that matter in a totally different way from the Welsh Bill. As the Minister said, here we have a list of those issues which are reserved. I believe that that is a neater way in which to approach the matter. However, it does not mean that on each issue the Government have made a clear and unambiguous decision. I have no problem as regards where Scottish law should fall and where health, education and local government should fall. Those matters should be dealt with by the Scottish parliament. Equally, I have no problem about foreign affairs, Europe, defence and trade and industry. Those matters should be reserved. But there are grey areas which we shall wish to explore.
For example—and the Minister failed to convince me again today—before the CAP and the CFP, I should have had no great problem with agriculture and fishing being devolved. But today, with so much of our agriculture and fishing policy determined at a European level—and we had a good illustration of that at Question Time today—I believe that Scottish agriculture and fishing should not be separated from that of the rest of the United Kingdom and should possibly remain the responsibility of the UK Government, who are and will remain the government negotiating at Brussels. Ministers conducting the negotiations should be answerable to Scottish Members of Parliament and, through them, to those involved in those two important industries. If they are devolved the Ministers in this Parliament will not be answerable and yet they will do the negotiating, while the Ministers in the Scottish parliament who will be answerable will not be involved in any of the negotiations because they will not—and I emphasise the word "not"—be able to represent those industries where it matters; namely, at meetings of the Council of Ministers of the member states of the Union.
I have explored this aspect in some detail during the proceedings on the Welsh Bill, but have received no satisfactory answer from Welsh Ministers. I am still waiting for just one example of where a member state of the Community, on an issue encompassing the whole member state, is represented at that negotiating table by a Minister from a provincial parliament—either a German Länder or one of the provinces of Spain. I await that promised letter. As I said, not a single example has been given in all the times that this issue has been raised across this Dispatch Box.
Equally, and still on countryside matters, I am not really convinced that the Forestry Commission, which is a UK body, will gain by being split into three and being answerable to three different masters.
When I look at my old department, the Department of Social Security, I can see why the contributory benefits have to be kept on a UK-wide basis, but I am not so sure about the non-contributory benefits—cold weather allowance, disability living allowance and child benefit. Why should they not be devolved? After all, it was the Labour Party which, winter after winter, made a great song and dance about the fact that we should consider Scotland differently from the rest of the UK because it has a colder and wetter climate. However, judging by this June, I am not entirely convinced that that holds true.

1579
I have one more example in this category in the moral field; namely, why is abortion not devolved? I can see no good reason why it should not be, especially when I see that euthanasia is devolved. After all, in the words of Donald Dewar, the parliament is to be,
"a grown-up Parliament with grown-up responsibilities".
My last main point relates to the relationship between Scotland and England after devolution. When the Treaty of Union was negotiated back at the beginning of the 18th century, it was acknowledged that there was a disparity in size between the two partners and that Scotland's representation at Westminster should be greater than proportional. That position has rightly remained and, in some respects, has actually grown. Scotland has 72 Members in the House of Commons, and the average electorate in Scotland is 55,000 as opposed to 69,000 in England.
That disparity will be indefensible after devolution. Scottish MPs will see most of their workload and responsibility shift to that Scottish parliament, and the arguments in favour of roughly equal electoral numbers north and south of the Border will become unanswerable. Some argue that we ought to go further. But I do not, for exactly the same reason as the negotiators concluded 300 years ago.
Not only is this equitable; it will also reduce the chance, although not completely, of the so-called West Lothian question becoming an issue between us. With fewer Scottish MPs it is less likely that the political complexion of the UK and thus of the Government of England—for that is actually what we are talking about—on all these devolved issues would be at variance with the electoral result in England.
As we start these new arrangements, it is my belief that we should also have new, equal electoral quotas and that the number of Scottish Members should be reduced to, say, 58 for the next election. I understand that that view is shared by the Government, but they do not want it to come into effect until after the next election.
Just as that reduction would go some way to solving an English problem, it would, as the Bill is written, create a Scottish problem. As the Bill is framed, the number of seats in the Scottish parliament is determined by the number of seats at Westminster—reduce the one and you reduce the other. I can think of nothing worse than, in the first session of the new Scottish parliament, for Westminster to reduce the number of Scottish MPs and say automatically to the 129 MSPs, "Sorry, 21 of you will need to fall on your swords". I trust that the Government will do something about that during the course of the Bill's passage in this House. If they do not, I hope that we shall.
These five issues, the electoral system, finance and taxation, devolved and reserved powers, the West Lothian question and the legal and constitutional interplay between this Parliament, the Scottish parliament and the judiciary, along with a number of other issues, both large and small, will give us many interesting hours in Committee. Indeed, not only will that process be interesting; it will also, I trust, be productive. I thought I heard the Minister say—at least
1580
I hope so—that the Government want to be constructive during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look at our amendments, and indeed those from any other part of the House, with some sympathy and understanding.
The Minister actually said that the Government would,
"listen and reflect on what is said".
I hope that we have a little more reflection than we have had on the Welsh Bill where the only person who has achieved any success is my noble friend Lord Balfour, who has had the tiniest of amendments accepted by the Government. In every other case, it has been the Welsh equivalent of "No, no, no". I know that my fellow Scotsmen will do a little better than that, but I trust that the Government will be prepared to listen to the arguments and, where necessary, accept them and agree to amendments.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, I believe that we can all work together during the proceedings on the Bill for what are, despite our disagreements on some issues and despite the fact that we have disagreed on this particular issue in the past, shared aims. I believe that those aims are shared by all parties in this House, and I am quite sure that that also includes those on the Cross Benches; namely, to create a viable, working parliament in Scotland which serves Scotland but, at the same time, very firmly retains her place in the United Kingdom. That will be the objective of Her Majesty's Official Opposition in this House during the weeks ahead.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I seem to be fated to follow my old and noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in these debates. He began by telling the House that he was a convert to the cause of devolution—some convert! I have no doubt that the right reverend Prelate will agree with me that in our experience converts are usually more enthusiastic than those who are original believers. However, I failed to detect any sign of enthusiasm in the speech that we have just heard. I believe that the noble Lord is a convert by the head but not yet by the heart. Let us hope that our deliberations during these debates will bring him to full conversion in the recognition that what we are doing is not only sensible but long overdue.
Indeed, listening to the noble Lord's speech, I could not help but recall the words of Mr. Gladstone that:
"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence [while] Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear".
There was a strong element of fear running through much of what the noble Lord said. Having accepted the overwhelming vote of the Scottish people in the referendum last autumn and the May wipe-out of the Conservative Party—nul point, as they would say in the Eurovision Song Contest—as far as concerns the Scottish election results, there is still a reluctance to accept that what we are doing today is fundamentally and absolutely correct and that we must proceed with it with all possible dispatch.

1581
During the past few weeks we have been commemorating the hundredth anniversary of the death of Mr. Gladstone. Therefore, it is right that I should begin from these Benches with a quote from a speech that he made in 1887 when he said:
"It is the recognition of the distinctive qualities and the separate parts of great countries and empires which constitutes the true basis of union, and to attempt to centralise them by destroying those local peculiarities is the shallowest philosophy and the worst of all political blunders".
That was the political blunder of the Conservative Party in Scotland over the past few years, for which it paid a very heavy price.
I thank the Minister both for the clarity of his introduction to the Bill and also for the kind words that he said about the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, will agree with me that both he and I were really just the decorative figures at the head of the convention—well, at least he was—and that the real work was done by the executive and its sub-committees which toiled not over three or four but over five or six years to produce the blueprint upon which the Government are now legislating. I pay tribute to them.
I listened to a great number of the debates in the House of Commons during the passage of the Bill in the other place. Those parts I did not hear myself I read in the Official Report. I must quarrel with the complaint of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, as regards the business management of this Bill. In the other place both the Government and my party were perfectly agreeable to the proposal that this Bill should be sent upstairs to a committee for detailed, line-by-line analysis. However, at the wish of the Conservative Party, it was discussed on the Floor of the House during tedious days on a voluntary timetable. As a result some parts of the Bill were not examined at all. Therefore I believe that there is at least some obligation on the part of the Official Opposition to recognise that the late arrival of the Bill here is due in part to following their wishes as well as to any slowness on the part of the Government.
Listening to those debates I was struck by one peculiarity; namely, that the Bill was debated in the other place without any representatives of the Official Opposition who came from Scotland. Mr. Michael Ancram at least knew what he was talking about because he had been a Scottish Office Minister even though he now represents an English seat. However, most of the other contributions from the Official Opposition were lamentable. We had Members who assured us they had grannies in Auchtermuchty, or uncles with shooting estates in the Highlands. The more intellectual of them had visited the Edinburgh festival. We were treated to endless speeches of a nonsensical variety.
I wondered at the enthusiasm of some of those Members to participate in debates on a Bill which had little effect on them. However, towards the end of the debates we discovered the secret; namely, they had been promised that if they made good speeches on Opposition amendments they would get a "shot" at moving an amendment at the Dispatch Box. Sweeteners of that kind would not work in this place. One can hardly envisage
1582
the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, or the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, queuing up to stand at the Dispatch Box in this House. We shall have the advantage in this House when we reach the Committee and Report stages of the Bill in having home grown Scottish Peers who know what they are talking about and who will bring constructive criticism to our proceedings. That will be a great advantage.
We have a job to do and that is to examine this Bill. Members of my party will table between half a dozen and a dozen amendments, all of which will have the effect either of improving the Bill in accordance with undertakings given by the Government in the other place or of reducing the list of reserve powers. That is a matter on which I may find myself at last in some agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
There is one difference perhaps in vocabulary between my party and the Government, and that is in describing what they call the creation of the Scottish parliament and which I prefer to describe as the restoration of the Scottish parliament. I say "restoration" for a good historical reason, not because I want to restore the kind of parliament that we had before 1707 but to emphasise an important point. The debates that took place in Scotland in the period leading up to the Act of Union were not discussions for and against the principle of the Union—as is widely assumed—hut discussions on whether in the course of that Union (which was broadly agreed 100 years after the Union of the Crowns) the Scottish parliament should be retained as the internal legislative body in Scotland. That argument was lost through bribery and persuasion of various kinds.
The SNP as a party is historically incorrect when it tries to present the debates of 1707 as arguments for or against the Union. Fletcher of Saltoun, whom that party often quotes, said wisely,
"That London should draw the riches and government of the three kingdoms to the south east corner of this island is in some degree as unnatural as for one city to possess the riches and government of the world".
He had never even heard of the Millennium Dome! He was very much ahead of his time. As I argued in the debate on the referendum Bill, the 1707 Act of Union has never been politically accepted in Scotland among the population at large right from the year after it was passed. The noble Lord talked about unfinished business. Many noble Lords are talking about unfinished business from the Parliament Act of 1911 as regards reform of this House. But Mr. Asquith's Government were wholly committed to introduce a Bill to establish a parliament for Scotland. Indeed in 1914 a Liberal Bill passed through the House of Commons. Incidentally that Bill would have given women the right to vote too, so advanced were we in those days north of the Border. However, the outbreak of the First World War put a stop to all of that and my party never regained power. However, since 1914 there have been 19 Scottish parliament Bills. This is the 20th and it is the best. It is time we got on with it.
I believe that, if passed, this Bill will have two important effects. First, I am absolutely convinced that it will improve the economic climate in Scotland. I say

1583
that because over recent years I have made three or four visits to Catalonia to talk with the Government there. There is every evidence that since the death of Franco and the recreation of the Parliament of Catalonia an economic boom has been experienced there in the wake of gaining political control over their own affairs. However, it is important to note that that has been achieved because that wise old fox, Mr. Jordi Pajol, the premier of Catalonia, has used the phrase over and over again—he did so when he was my guest in Edinburgh at a seminar two years ago—of non-secessionist nationalism. That is an important phrase. I believe that the determination of the SNP to create a separate entity is not only politically damaging but also economically damaging to Scotland. I believe there is a fair comparison with the Parti Québécois which wins power in the state of Quebec in Canada but which fails all the time to win a majority in favour of separation because people draw back from what is an economic and political nonsense.
I do not rule out the possibility of holding a referendum at some point on independence if there is a demand for it. However, it would be a fundamental mistake for the Scottish parliament to start its life with further constitutional debates and requests to the Scottish people to go to the ballot box yet again. I believe that the economic climate of Scotland will be healthier through having our own political control north of the Border. Secondly, I have absolutely no doubt that it will make government more accountable to the people. It is often not understood by Members south of the Border that the Secretary of State for Scotland at present has ministerial responsibility for the equivalent of nine Whitehall departments. It does not matter whether the Secretary of State is the Archangel Gabriel; no one who is the Minister of Education, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Housing, the Minister responsible for the Police and for other matters can possibly be as on top of his Civil Service as the nine Ministers who share those responsibilities south of the Border. The same is true of the junior Ministers in the Scottish Office. I believe that ministerial control over the policy and administration of departments will be improved in future by having Scottish Ministers who are responsible for individual departments in the Scottish administration.
The same is true as regards the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. Again I find that English Members of the House of Commons often do not understand that while they can table Questions on Monday to the Minister of Housing, on Tuesday to the Minister of Education, on Wednesday to the Minister of Health and so on, the Scottish Members have to wait for our one chance a month to table our one Question on one of these topics to the Minister responsible. Parliamentary accountability of Ministers will be enormously improved as a result of the recreation of the Scottish parliament.
In the other place the Opposition spent an entire day debating the West Lothian question. I fear that that will happen here too. There is no answer to the West Lothian question. So long as we do not have a true federal
1584
structure, there will be anomalies. The question that must be addressed is: can we ameliorate these anomalies? We could reduce the number of Scottish Members in the other place as is proposed. We could, for example, have an English Grand Committee which deals with Bills relating purely to England, or have English and Welsh Grand Committee Bills to deal with Bills that do not apply to Scotland, and from which the Scottish Members in the other place are excluded. All of those things can be done, but there is no final answer to the West Lothian question.
The real issue we have to face is the following. Are the anomalies which this Bill creates, and which are inherent in it, greater or fewer than the anomalies that exist now? I have no hesitation in making a plea to your Lordships' House. Here we are talking about a future situation where 73 Scottish Members—out of 650 Members—might interfere in matters which do not affect their constituents. But what happened in relation to the poll tax was that 475 non-Scottish Members imposed it on Scotland. When later it came to imposing it on England, some of those same Members rebelled and said it was a nonsense. They were quite happy to shuffle it off on to their non-constituents, but for their own constituents they said no. The anomaly there is far more outrageous than the tiny anomaly that will be left when we pass this legislation.
Finally, I return to the historic basis of the recreation of this Parliament and the issue of Scottish sovereignty, and to the difference between the English and Scottish constitutional view as to where sovereignty lies. In the previous debate on the referendum I believe I quoted Lord President Cooper's 1953 judgment. I shall not do so again, though no doubt it may crop up in later proceedings. I simply remind the House that, whereas we had Mary "Queen of Scots", Elizabeth was "Queen of England". There were kings and queens "of England"; never kings and queens "of the English". There were never kings and queens "of Scotland"; they were always kings and queens "of the Scots". Why? Because in Scotland there was a more limited monarchy of the people. The monarch was not a lord or owner of the land. That is why sovereignty north of the Border has always lain with the people. That was the basis of the Claim of Right which we all signed in the constitutional convention. It is the fundamental basis on which this legislation rests.
I believe that we shall see a new and lively parliament operating in new ways. It will be a fixed-term parliament. It means that governments will not resign if they are defeated. They will have to go back and think again. That is not a bad idea. It will be in a hemicycle, so the adversarial system will go. We might even have electronic voting instead of trooping through Lobbies. We shall have an electoral system which will not lose, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested it might, the advantage of the constituency relationship of a Member. The additional members system is copied directly from the system that we inflicted upon Germany after the war and has proved very successful there. There is no reason why it should not prove more successful in Scotland. It will mean a more co-operative style of politics. I very much look forward to a new system of legislation, where

1585
pre-legislation committees will be more important. That will be an innovation; we do not have it fully in Westminster Parliament.
This is an exciting time. People in Scotland who were excited at the time of the referendum will be excited again when the parliament comes into being. It is our job to get on with the legislation, and so ensure that government—which we have always recognised should be of, by and for the people—is near the people as well.

The Cardiff Summit
4.12 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the meeting of the European Council which he chaired in Cardiff on 15th and 16th June. My right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and my honourable friends the Minister of State at the Foreign Office and the Economic Secretary, were also present. Copies of the conclusions have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Statement is as follows:
"I should begin by thanking the City Council and the people of Cardiff for their warm welcome and hospitality. I congratulate them wholeheartedly on the arrangements for the summit, which were universally admired. Cardiff itself looked marvellous and did great credit to Wales and this country.
"This European Council had four main themes: economic reform and employment; enlargement and the necessary accompanying policy reforms; the future development of the EU; and foreign policy issues, notably Kosovo. We also discussed a range of other questions which touch the lives of ordinary people: the environment, crime and drugs, the millennium bug. The Finance Ministers issued a statement on the world economy, a copy of which is attached to the conclusions.
"We had an important and valuable debate on the economic reform programme needed in Europe if the single currency is to succeed. There were four aspects to this: first, employment. At Luxembourg last November, the European Council agreed a set of employment guidelines aimed at promoting a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce and flexible labour markets responsive to economic change. Under the UK presidency, all 15 member states have submitted national action plans putting these guidelines into effect. We agreed at Cardiff that the next steps were concrete measures on life-long learning, with a particular emphasis on older workers; strengthening equal opportunities; promoting new ways of organising work; revising tax and benefits systems to improve incentives to work; and developing a culture of entrepreneurship. The need now is to implement the national plans. The guidelines themselves will be revised in December.
1586
"Secondly, the European Council endorsed broad economic guidelines to co-ordinate national economic policies. These incorporate commitments on macro-economic stability but also commitments on structural reforms of the labour, product and capital markets—essential if member states are to promote growth and employment and remain competitive in the face of globalisation. The guidelines also emphasise the need for reform to remove regulatory burdens on businesses. We established a process to exchange best practice and monitor progress to ensure that these commitments are lived up to.
"Thirdly, the single market. Good progress has been made on strengthening the single market during the last six months, for example through agreements on telecoms and gas liberalisation injecting genuine competition into these markets. The European Council agreed that the Commission should work on an extended scoreboard containing indicators of effective market integration and price differentials, as a tool for benchmarking progress in creating a genuine single market. The existing scoreboard has already helped implementation of single market measures by member states to improve from 73 per cent. to 82 per cent. in the last six months. We invited the Commission to table an action plan to improve the single market in financial services, and emphasised the need to promote competition and reduce distortions such as state aids. These are important commitments. Perfecting the single European market is vital for trade and investment.
"The fourth area was the need to promote competitiveness and entrepreneurship. We were all fully agreed on the vital role of small companies in creating new jobs and wealth; and on the need for action to produce the best possible environment to encourage entrepreneurs. This means in particular increasing access to capital and cutting unnecessary regulation. Action in these areas was agreed.
"Fundamental economic reform is essential if member states are to be able to compete and create jobs in the global market-place, and therefore essential for EMU. The measures agreed at Cardiff represent a new strategy to achieve this. I would draw the House's attention to two points: the degree to which this strategy reflects British thinking about competitiveness and the direction of reform, and the unanimity across Europe that this is the right way forward.
"Our second major theme was enlargement and the policy reform needed for this. Enlargement negotiations and the accession process were successfully launched in March. The Commission also tabled then a package of proposals on the reform of EU policies and their financing—the so-called Agenda 2000. These proposals would, for example, reform the common agricultural policy and save the consumer at least £1 billion per year in lower prices. The European Council agreed a deadline of March 1999 for reaching agreement on the package, with final adoption before the European Parliament elections next June.

1587
"A crucial part of the negotiations will concern the EU's future financing. There has been a good deal of press speculation about the position of the German and other governments over their net contributions to the budget. No doubt member states will continue to make their case for change in one direction or another. For our part, I made it clear that I will maintain the UK budget rebate, which cannot be changed without the agreement of the Government and this House.
"As part of our enlargement debate, we discussed Turkey. The UK presidency has worked hard to restore positive EU/Turkey relations following the down-turn at the end of 1997. The Cardiff conclusions re-emphasised that Turkey's candidature to join the EU must be treated on the same basis as those of other candidate countries and endorsed a new strategy towards Turkey. The Commission has now said it will come forward with proposals for financing to overcome the existing impasse in this area. It is too soon to say definitively, but I believe this will help put this important relationship back on the rails and provide a basis for future progress.
"On the foreign policy side, we issued a strong declaration on Kosovo, condemning the use of indiscriminate violence by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbian security forces. If President Milosevic does not take steps to comply with our demands on dialogue, refugees, international monitoring and an end to violence, he should be in no doubt about our united resolve. We wait to see whether his discussions with President Yeltsin yesterday lead to the necessary changes on the ground. Meanwhile NATO planning and UN Security Council consultation continue.
"We also discussed our serious concern about the Middle East peace process, where the EU remains supportive of US efforts. We called on India and Pakistan to take early steps to adhere to the international non-proliferation regime. We expressed support for Indonesia, provided a credible economic reform programme is followed, and underlined the need for an acceptable solution to the problems of East Timor, including the early release of political prisoners.
"The European Council gave its support to the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement, and agreed that the EU should continue its active role in promoting peace and prosperity there.
"We also discussed the environment and crime and drugs. We agreed on the need to implement the Amsterdam Treaty provisions on integrating environmental protection into EU policies. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister has begun this process during the UK presidency by bringing the work of the Transport and Environment Councils together, and ensuring that the next three presidencies are committed to an agreed programme. I am also delighted that one hour ago the Environment Council in Luxembourg concluded the EU's burden-sharing arrangements to implement
1588
the legal obligation agreed at Kyoto for greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important step towards a cleaner world.
"In Cardiff we welcomed the excellent progress made in implementing the action plan on organised crime. We endorsed the key elements of the EU drugs strategy for the period 2000 to 2004 and asked the Council and Commission to develop a comprehensive plan for action.
"Heads of Government also had a wide-ranging discussion of the future development of the EU. We face big challenges: the introduction of the euro; enlargement; tackling unemployment and social exclusion; combating organised crime; giving the Union an effective voice in the world. There was agreement among EU leaders that, if the Union is to meet these challenges in a way that has the confidence of our citizens, it must ensure that people feel less remote from the political processes and institutions of the EU; that they can support European solutions to shared problems without fear of losing their national identity. This means increasing the democratic legitimacy of the European political process and making a reality of subsidiarity—being ready to co-operate where that is the right way of solving common problems, while reassuring our peoples that Europe will not encroach on national or regional freedom of action in areas where the state or indeed local authorities can best take responsibility.
"There was widespread acceptance that the solutions do not simply lie in more centralised decision-making and that we need to find a more effective relationship between Europe's institutions and our national governments and parliaments. We now have to take those principles and make them the centrepiece of future European reform. The informal Heads of Government meeting in Austria in October will begin that process.
"We also agreed that, once the Amsterdam Treaty is ratified, we will move on to the institutional issues not resolved at Amsterdam—notably the size of the Commission and vote re-weighting. Finally, we asked the Commission and Council to pursue work on improving their efficiency and organisation and to report on progress in the next presidency.
"I was also delighted to welcome Nelson Mandela to Cardiff, to join my European colleagues in paying tribute to his extraordinary leadership in South Africa, and to take the opportunity to discuss with him the prospects for completion of an EU/South Africa co-operation agreement. We are agreed now to complete the negotiations by the early autumn. I understand that only 1 per cent. of the issues still remain to be resolved.
"I believe the Cardiff European Council marked a solid step forward towards a more effective and better accepted European Union. We agreed, without rows or drama, on a series of substantive points to equip our countries and peoples better for the future.

1589
"At the start of the UK presidency I outlined five objectives: building support for a third way in Europe—economic reform, combining economic dynamism with social justice; launching EMU; getting enlargement off to a good start; taking forward common action on crime, drugs and the environment; demonstrating that Europe could be a force for good in its relations with the outside world. These objectives have been met. As important as anything else for Britain, after years of negative and destructive posturing that isolated Britain in Europe but did not advance our interests, we have re-established strong, positive relations with our EU partners. Those relations, not before time, are transformed and for the better.
"That is good for Britain, for Europe and for Britain in Europe. Cardiff was the proof of that."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.24 p.m.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, the whole House will, as usual, be grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. It is in many ways a Statement of which I suspect many of us hoped for great things. After all, it marks the end of the British presidency.
Perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House whether he regards the last six months as a success. In answering that question he may want to bear in mind a number of matters. For example, first, a growing number of commentators are worried that the economic events in the east will spread westwards and that we may shortly have to face economic difficulties, both in Europe and America. Secondly, he will bear in mind that the number of trouble spots around the globe is proliferating and those trouble spots are both potential and actual. They include, self-evidently, parts of central, southern and eastern Europe, right on the borders of the European Union. Thirdly, he should bear in mind that proliferation of nuclear weapons is now a serious reality and that civil nuclear power stations in eastern and central Europe are an increasing cause for concern; and, finally, that the European Union faces the problem of endemic unemployment and the need, in the interests of political as well as economic stability, to ensure that that endemic problem is attacked.
Will the Leader of the House also accept, in answering that question, that we on this side of the House are pleased to see that the communiqué acknowledges the importance of those matters and, indeed, in 97 paragraphs and two appendices, catalogues a good few of them? Will he also accept that in particular we welcome the continued commitment to enlargement, to fighting organised crime, to budgetary discipline, to the completion of the single market, to job creation, to the environment, to small business, to reform of the CAP, to market access for Third World economies, to subsidiarity and to the expressions of good will for the resolution of virtually every regional crisis we can think of?
But what has the British presidency actually brought to a conclusion? As I so often follow the advice of the Leader of the House, I looked beyond the Statement to
1590
the communiqué. All we have in the communiqué is expressions of good will and assurances that progress is being made. The Prime Minister said the:
"people's agenda was jobs, the economy, crime and the environment".
What has happened on those fronts? On jobs, in this country the Government seem to have adopted the former European Union agenda: the social chapter, the minimum wage, more public spending and more union power. Is it surprising that today, with what I can only describe as delicious irony, the Government have announced the first rise in unemployment for 26 months? Can the Leader of the House advise us as to why the European Union proposes to reverse the problem of unemployment by the adoption of what are after all rather old-fashioned methods? All the communiqué talks about is action plans which will "require further evaluation". Can the noble Lord tell us of one decision, as opposed to merely a report on progress, which will create one more job as a result of the Government's six months of hard work?
On the economy, of course we welcome the assurance on the Budget rebate and look forward to supporting the Government in their battles which will no doubt come to pass on that front. Does the Leader of the House think that the fudged criteria which enabled the 11 joiners to sign up to EMU is a sound basis for stability? That is, after all, a quality much hoped for in the communiqué. Does the noble Lord really think that in, say four years, the economies of the 15 will have converged, or will they have diverged?
Should we take it from the Prime Minister's remarks in Cardiff that he is now in favour of joining EMU as soon as he thinks that he can get away with it, by getting a yes vote in a referendum? May we have an assurance that the Treasury will not try to shadow currency movements in Europe meanwhile?
Can the Leader of the House say what are the Government's plans for tax harmonisation with our European partners? Is it the Government's aim to work for and achieve that? If so, on what basis?
On crime, we welcome the commitment in the communiqué, but I see that the European Union is again waiting for reports—this time from the United Nations. I hope that the urgency of the language will be mirrored in action.
On the environment we welcome the announcement that is in the Prime Minister's Statement, but clearly not in the communiqué, of what is happening in Luxembourg in adhering to the Kyoto agreement. The language of the communiqué covers a remarkable paucity of achievement with fine sentiments. Friends of the Earth called the summit's work
"not much greener than a multi-storey car park."
Does the Leader of the House agree?
We see nothing of substance on enlargement. Does the noble Viscount agree with the Finnish Prime Minister that enlargement has become more problematical in the past six months, not less? However, I agree with the Leader of the House that the communiqué"s language on Turkey is a great deal more reassuring.

1591
As the European Union is clearly against independence for Kosovo, what will the Government do if there happens to be an overwhelming majority vote from Kosovos for independence? Perhaps that is the great question that we should never raise, but it is one that ought to be envisaged and addressed.
I could find no mention of NATO in the communiqué although the Prime Minister rightly mentioned it in his Statement. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us that the entire European Union, whether or not members of NATO, supports the actions that NATO is taking.
The communiqué covers a pretty poor performance over the past six months. Is it any wonder that the European Parliament voted down a Motion praising the British presidency? That seems a remarkable event, coming from an assembly dominated by the Prime Minister's ideological allies.
I wonder whether your Lordships recognise the following words:
"We are on the brink of the new millennium, where radical, modernising programmes of reform are the only way to achieve decent modern societies for all our people."
Here we recognise the authentic voice of the Prime Minister. They are fine sentiments with which none of us could disagree, using words chosen by focus groups, serving as a substitute for action and a mask for increasing failure. Does it remind the Leader of the House just a little of the style of the communiqué?
4.33 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I too thank the Lord Privy Seal for making a Statement to the House. I know that he will understand that I say with no disrespect that the Statement could have been written in advance of the Cardiff meeting. Most of the events over the past two days, if events there have been, have already been well reported overnight. I confess that those who participated in the conference will remember it most for the surprise and pleasure of being in the great city of Cardiff and for the fringe event of the visit by Nelson Mandela—each of which provides the top or tail of the Statement.
The meeting was marked more by aspirations than decisions. I share in that respect many of the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. I looked carefully under the heading of economic reform and employment but could identify nothing that represented a real decision with measurable consequences. I was particularly struck by this sentence in the statement:
"We established a process to exchange best practice and monitor progress to ensure that these commitments are lived up to."
That phrase could have been repeated at almost every stage in the statement. The Lord Privy Seal shakes his head but I believe that he would be very hard pressed to point to any clear decision, the consequences of which will be plain. On the other hand, although that is typical of the Statement as a whole, it is an honest Statement, in so far as it refers to the two days in Cardiff as being a solid step forward. Those of us with experience of Westminster and Whitehall know that is
1592
Whitehall-speak for marking time. This was a marking time European Council at the end of a rather lacklustre presidency. While we welcome a number of aspects of the Statement and its more open and positive tone—very different from under the previous Government time and time again—the Government were mistaken to raise expectations that they could not wholly fulfil.
Certain elements or points in the Statement appear to have been agreed at Cardiff, although with uncertain consequences. We can applaud, for example, the references to democratic legitimacy and subsidiarity. We can take some comfort from those passages. The truth is—and I hope that the Lord Privy Seal will comment upon this—that there will be a diminishing role for Britain within the European Union as long as we are sidelined by our inability to decide when and in what circumstances to join the EMU. It is a strange matter that in the past six months of Britain's presidency a major historic decision was made to launch the euro, yet we were standing aside when we should have been participating and playing our part.
Does not the Lord Privy Seal agree that on the difficult but central question of the development of the European Union, were the Government to make a firm decision to set a clear timetable for joining EMU, we would find—as we did on other occasions in the past—that public opinion would swing to believing that that is the right way for Britain to go and that Britain should go in that direction as soon as possible?
4.37 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. When I listen to the noble Viscount on these occasions, I feel sometimes that there is a slightly farcical air to our proceedings. As I repeated the Statement made by the Prime Minister half an hour after he had made it, the noble Viscount had the opportunity to witness the Statement being made either in the Chamber or on television, and then to repeat his leader's response in the other place. All the quotations from the Prime Minister of Finland that the noble Viscount threw at me were those that Mr Hague saw fit to use in the other place.
For every quotation about the British presidency the noble Viscount can throw at me, I can provide a thicker file of foreign opinion that the British presidency has gone rather well. The noble Viscount asked whether we had had a good six months. In all candour I believe that we did, for three major reasons. We have re-established decent working relations with our European partners. After the history of the past decade that is a major achievement, to put it mildly. We have seen the successful launch of European monetary union. To get that off the ground successfully in the past six months is, again, a major achievement. Thirdly, we have seen enlargemet off to a flying start. Again, I have to say that that is a major achievement. So, if the noble Viscount asks what are the major achievements of the past six months, those are.
The noble Viscount asked a number of detailed questions. The main one of substance seemed to be: what has the summit achieved except for words? That

1593
was repeated to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. In relation to jobs, for the first time in the history of the European Union—at one time I had some modest responsibility for trying to look after employment throughout the affairs of the then European Economic Community—national plans to deal with unemployment were brought forward by each member state.
In relation to the decisions at Cardiff, the agreement on reinforcing the development of a skilled and adaptable workforce and so forth was agreed unanimously. It was said,
"Orientations which guide our future work on employment shall include: reinforcing the development of a skilled and adaptable workforce, including through lifelong learning; particular attention should be paid to older workers; strengthening action on equal opportunities by ensuring that equality between men and women is mainstreamed in all employment policies … tackling discrimination against the disabled … promoting new ways of organising work, where necessary by reviewing the existing regulatory framework at all levels, to combine flexibility and security; reviewing tax and benefit systems to make it easier for employers to create new jobs and more attractive for employees to fill them; developing a culture of entrepreneurship and encouraging the growth of smaller businesses".
That is what all the members states signed up to. In addition, the Council agreed that the Commission should monitor progress in those directions. That is new. In my experience it has not happened before that specific commitments have been made in that way, endorsed unanimously by the European Council and to be monitored by the Commission.
The noble Viscount had a certain amount of fun with the Government saying that everything had been put off. But he misunderstands the nature of the European Council. The object of the Council, at the end of the presidency, is to review the progress being made on a number of ongoing issues. In our view, as I set out at the beginning of the Statement, the important ones are the economic reform policy, to which everybody signed up; the centrality of unemployment in national and economic policies; progress on enlargement; and progress towards EMU.
At a European Council meeting of this nature, though I was not there and do not know exactly what happened, they seem to try to review past progress and give those measures an encouraging push in the right direction. I do not accept for an instant that our presidency has been the sort of failure characterised by the noble Viscount, nor has it been as padded as the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, seemed to characterise it. We have achieved the aims that we set for ourselves at the beginning of the presidency and the Government deserve credit for that.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I am not disappointed with the six months presidency—primarily because I was not expecting too much. My noble friend referred to improvements in the single market. Does he accept that the greatest improvement was for 11 member states to recognise that a single currency would provide the greatest improvement to a single market. My right honourable
1594
friend the Prime Minister is quoted in the press as having made one or two significant statements in Cardiff which implied some improvement in our position. Can my noble friend tell us whether there has been any significant change in what the Prime Minister said and in our position on the single currency?
Lord Richard: My Lords, my noble friend tweaks me, not for the first time. In answering questions in another place this afternoon, the Prime Minister was asked a specific question. He repeated government policy in plain and unmistakeable terms and said that it had not changed.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, will the Leader of the House acknowledge that perhaps it was a mistake, at the beginning of the presidency, to puff up the prospects in the way that was done? Will he accept that it is not possible for anyone, simply by taking the chair of the Council of Ministers for six months, to lay the foundations for a new heaven and earth, as was advertised at the beginning of the presidency? Is it not inevitable, since those were empty flourishes—the Leader of the House knows this perfectly well—that some disappointment and criticism are now inevitable, as evidenced not just in what my noble friend said, but also in the objective description reported in the Herald Tribune today?
In particular, can I press the Minister on enlargement? Is not the timetable for enlargement receding rather seriously? It is not so long since the Poles were told that they would be in by the year 2000. So much has to be done by existing methods in this round of enlargement on agriculture, on the budget and on institutions, which has not been done. Can the Leader of the House give some indication, if all goes well, of when we might expect the five candidates in what is called the first wave to achieve entry?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that I can give a date. However, I agree with the noble Lord about the nature of the presidency of the European Union. Of course we cannot achieve a new heaven and earth in six months. That is not a contradiction; we may be able to achieve the foundation of what might in time become a new heaven and earth. One can move things along so that progress in that direction is intensified and accelerated. With respect, when one looks at the whole of the six months, certain major achievements took place in European development under the British presidency. I am not claiming that it was necessarily all due to the British presidency, but I totally disclaim the allegation that it happened despite rather than because of it.
In relation to enlargement, the UK presidency successfully implemented all elements of the remit from the Luxembourg Council. Cardiff welcomed those achievements and looks forward to further rapid progress. What happens next? Progress will inevitably continue. The EU will provide targeted aid for countries where they need it. We will regularly monitor their progress. We will continue working on the negotiations for the next stage. It is now for the applicant countries

1595
to submit their detailed negotiating positions. That has not yet happened. The EU must then decide how to react. In our view it is vital that we maintain the momentum of this process.
Cardiff did not perpetuate the divisions that emerged at Luxembourg which, after all, established an all-inclusive process within which individual countries could advance on merit. In relation to the targets, it confirmed them and looks ahead to the first of the regular reports on each candidate's progress towards succession.
I played a minor part in the Commission at the time that Spain and Portugal were negotiating their entry. It is an extraordinarily complicated process and on this occasion it is even more complicated because of the changes that will take place in the policies and in the structures of the Union as well as in the necessary processes and adaptation that have to take place in the applicant countries. No one should underestimate the difficulties of the process. We got off to a solid start. The negotiating process started and we look forward to maintaining that momentum.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, perhaps I can ask one or two questions of my noble friend. First, I am glad that there has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy on the single currency. I wonder whether the Prime Minister had a few words with M. Chirac on the Frost programme when he said that the euro would topple the United States dollar as the main currency in the world. Is not that a little xenophobic? Perhaps M. Chirac should be told that that does not go down well in this country.
It has also been reported that the Prime Minister said that the United Kingdom would be prepared to relinquish further areas of policy to qualified majority voting. Is my noble friend able to give some further information about that? If that were the case, would it not further reduce the powers of Westminster, and therefore the power of the people, to whom our Prime Minister wants power returned?
With regard to financing the European Union and enlargement, the understandable desire of Germany to reduce its large net contribution was presumably discussed. This must affect enlargement, especially if existing member states which are net recipients see their largesse from the EU being severely reduced. Was that discussed and were any conclusions reached which are perhaps not in the report?
Finally, there is an item in the report about reviewing tax and benefit systems. What does that mean? Does it herald yet more power even over taxation for the institutions of the European Union?
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I think I had better answer my noble friend Lord Stoddart before I answer his clone on the other side, if I may put it not unkindly—unless he is going to ask the same questions. I do not know what President Chirac said. I do not know whether my
1596
right honourable friend the Prime Minister knows what President Chirac said. And I certainly do not know what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister would have said about what President Chirac was supposed to have said had the Prime Minister known about it. So I cannot answer my noble friend's first question.
The euro may well become a reserve currency. There is little doubt about that. But it is not a question of challenging or competing with the dollar. As I understand it, there was no discussion of QMV at Cardiff. Certainly, there is nothing in the conclusions. There was a general discussion of the financing of the Community in which various countries set out their positions. The communiqué is extremely guardedly careful about the way in which it sums up that discussion—"no decisions were taken". As far as I know, nothing was discussed at Cardiff about reviewing tax and benefit policies.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for describing me as a clone of his noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I at least regard that as considerably flattering. I must apologise to the House because I had forgotten that the Leader of the House takes each question in turn. I thought that he took them all in one lump.
May I press the noble Lord on the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Cranborne to which I did not detect an answer in his reply to my noble friend? He asked whether, as part of the economic reform programme which is required for successful EMU, whatever that turns out to be, tax harmonisation will be very much on the agenda. Is that so, and what is the Government's view on it?
I find it extraordinary that the Leader of the House can say that enlargement has got off to a flying start, because it clearly has not. I think the noble Lord will agree that for enlargement to take place considerable reform of the common agricultural policy is necessary. He mentioned that there would be a deadline in March 1999 for that. Perhaps I may put one very specific question to him. Does Germany support such reform of the common agricultural policy, without which enlargement will be impossible?
Finally, the noble Lord said that the Prime Minister is rejoicing in his project of making a reality of subsidiarity. Surely he must agree that the reality of subsidiarity is in the wording, and that is what makes it a fraud. If the noble Lord will refer to our debates on 21st May (at cols. 1778–1803 of Hansard) on the Third Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill he will see that subsidiarity was exposed precisely as such a fraud and that it cannot possibly do the job which the Prime Minister in his charm offensive with Brussels appears to think that it can. It was a fraud when it started. To realise that one has merely to concentrate on the first 10 words which allow subsidiarity only to apply in areas which are not in the Community's exclusive competence. The Amsterdam Treaty has made that worse. It underlines the acquis communautaire and it underlines Article 6.4 of the treaty. Is it not time that the Labour Government realised that subsidiarity always was and is still a fraud?
Lord Richard: My Lords, if I may say so, that comes ill from a noble Lord who at one time was passionate

1597
about the concept of subsidiarity. As I recall the discussions that took place over the Maastricht Treaty, in which he played a prominent part—I had a modest role in getting the Bill through the House—subsidiarity was a concept that was coming vigorously from the other side of the House. If I am wrong about what the noble Lord's views were, I apologise to him.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Yes.
Lord Richard: Very well, my Lords, I have got it wrong.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to put that in writing? If he consults Hansard for the entire process of the Maastricht debates, he will see that I never believed in subsidiarity, that I was always against it and that I divided the House against it on more than one occasion.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in that case, I apologise. He asked whether I would do so in writing. I will send the noble Lord tomorrow a copy of the Hansard in which my apology appears.
I was asked whether part of economic and monetary union is tax harmonisation. As far as I know, that was not discussed at Cardiff. What I am doing is making a Statement about what was discussed at the European Council in Cardiff. The noble Lord said that enlargement had not got off to a flying start and asked, "What about the CAP?" I put back to him, "What about Agenda 2000?", which is well on the Community agenda and, one hopes, will be resolved in the course of the next 12 months—by March 1999, if I remember rightly.
The noble Lord also referred to subsidiarity and asked whether it is a fraud. He thinks it is a fraud. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister does not think it is a fraud. He believes that it is perfectly possible to devise a relationship between the European institutions and the member states in which more decisions are taken by the member states and fewer—but, in the words of M. Santer, perhaps better decisions—are taken at the centre. That seems to be a sensible concept and one which I hope will gain the approval not only of a majority of this House but indeed of the country as a whole.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I wish to make three points of a non-controversial nature on the Statement delivered by the Prime Minister in another place. I found it a little remarkable—this has been a matter of concern to all members of all parties—that there was no mention at all of the prevention of fraud in Community institutions—I would emphasise that—or any incisive statement that there is a real determination among the institutions and in the member states to deal with fraud. It is relegated to about three words in paragraph 56 of the President's conclusions, which are made available together with the speech of the Prime Minister.
My second point arises on the British contribution. I had rather hoped that the Prime Minister would take a slightly more robust attitude than he in fact did towards the British net contribution and the abatement
1598
arrangements that are made. I would have liked him to say that the position on the United Kingdom's abatement is not negotiable and that there will be no concession on that.
Finally, I was a little worried about Annexe 2 to the presidency conclusions relating to Kosovo. I noted with some regret that the remainder of the member states did not take the more incisive view backed by action taken by our own country together with the United States with regard to the operation of NATO over the question of Kosovo.
Lord Richard: My Lords, as regards the last point, I believe that my noble friend is wrong. My information is that there was unanimity on the question of Kosovo. The European Union is not a military organisation. If action is to be taken, clearly it would have to be done by NATO.
As regards the first point made by my noble friend about fraud, the communiqué does not bear out his strictures. It says,
"The European Council stresses the importance of sound financial management and fraud prevention. In particular, it calls on the institutions to ensure that the opportunities provided by policy reform are used to introduce policies and procedures which are as fraud proof as possible and which encourage a high standard of financial management. It also underlines the importance of preparing the enlargement candidates to participate in the Community's finances".
I would have thought that the Government's position on fraud is pretty well known. As far as I know, it was reiterated at Cardiff. I cannot accept my noble friend's strictures concerning the UK budget rebate. Perhaps I may repeat two sentences from my right honourable friend's Statement. He said,
"There has been a good deal of press speculation about the position of the German and other Governments over their net contributions to the budget. No doubt Member States will continue to make their case for change in one direction or another. For our part, I made it clear that I will maintain the UK budget rebate, which cannot be changed without the agreement of the Government and this House".
I would have thought that that was fairly clear and unequivocal.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the discussion about bringing the institutions closer to the people means accentuation of the role of national parliaments rather than the transfer of further powers to the European Parliament?
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not believe that there was any discussion at Cardiff which would lead to the conclusion or implication that the European Council was in favour of transferring more powers to the European Parliament. The discussion that took place with the president of the European Parliament in Cardiff was more concerned with looking at the terms and conditions that the members of the European Parliament possess at present rather than contemplating that it should be given greater powers.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, will my noble friend the Leader of the House be surprised to hear that there is at least one noble Lord on the Back Benches who believes that the six-month presidency was rather a good one under the circumstances? Does he not agree that the March 1999 deadline for completing the deal on the Agenda 2000

1599
package of reforms necessary for enlargement is a very ambitious one? Does he further agree that that is an absolutely necessary deadline because if it is not met there will be very serious slippage?
Does my noble friend also agree that as regards what the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, said concerning slippage, there are two very good reasons why the enlargement process will take longer than originally contemplated? The first is that nothing will happen about reform until after the German elections. Secondly, the candidate countries themselves are now beginning to realise, as they enter the negotiations, just how complex they are and that they would rather they took longer and got it right than that the negotiations were rushed and they got it wrong.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is quite right on his first point. When the European Union is taking decisions it is very helpful to have a deadline to which it has to work. Therefore, the imposition of the deadline for Agenda 2000 does two things; namely, it concentrates the minds of those who have to take the decisions and, secondly, it makes the decisions themselves more likely.
Concerning the second point made by my noble friend, he again is quite right. The enlargement process is extremely complicated and more so than some of the others. I believe I said a little earlier this afternoon that we have to look not only at the ways in which the enlargement countries adapt to the Union, but also at the ways in which the Union will have to adapt to them. What is extremely significant in some ways about enlargement is that decisions on it have been taken at all because the complexity of the issue is immense. However, the political and economic advantages of an enlarged Community are also immense and therefore worth the complexity and the difficulties of the process.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, my noble friend—
Lord Carter: My Lords, time is up.

Scotland Bill
5.5 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Buchan: My Lords, I hope to address noble Lords on the subject of Scotland after the ex-Cardiff pronunciamento from the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I am at some double disadvantage here. I had confidently expected to be number 20, 30 or 40 in the enormous list of speakers, but having to bat at number four means that I am deprived of the right to make a short speech along the lines of, "Everything that could be said about this Bill has been said by other noble Lords", followed by a quick return to the seat.
This is a reprehensible Bill because it will lead to the independence of Scotland. As a hereditary Scottish Peer, shortly to be executed, I feel that I still have a duty to
1600
take part in important debates and at least to try to be original, which attempt shall be left until five minutes has elapsed, or at least to the end of my speech.
A strong believer in the Union by training and by sentiment, I look with horror on the work of an Administration apparently determined to mutilate the Union and then stand by, presumably, lamenting and wringing its hands as it watches its dismemberment. As a direct descendant of a member of the old Scottish parliament—unkindly dismissed by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, in his speech—who spoke at the time against the Union, but voted for it but was not one of the Peers who were richer as a result, I believe that, by inheritance, I have a claim to fair-mindedness.
My objection to the Bill is not merely prejudice or bias. It is just that it is hard to decide whether the "doing" of the Bill is worse than the deed itself. By the "doing", I am in fact referring to the Bill rushed through last summer, when no details at all were given on the subject of devolution for Scotland. I have already referred to the deed.
There may be Members of your Lordships' House who, like me, from habit or better reasons, read the Murdoch Sunday broadsheet. They may have spotted an article on Scots, the essence of which was that all Scots do not love all other Scots all the time, contrary perhaps to impressions given by spin doctors from Millbank when they are talking about Ministers in another place who, apparently, disagree with each other.
The title of the article was, "Aye, Jimmy, it's a grand sport is pulling the legs off a coo". It purported to be a review of a book by an Englishman entitled Bloody Scotland. Its merit was that it reminded one that from time to time Scots can be quite horrible to each other—Highlander versus Lowlander, and both against those in the Borders.
In the article, which I cannot believe no noble Lord read, there was a reference to a 14th century Earl of Buchan. I must digress on this. It recorded him as having set fire to a forest; driving out the animals and the inhabitants; killing the animals and eating them; killing the inhabitants and allowing them to be eaten by wolves. My family feel strongly that that is a libel. According to our records, the man in question most definitely had a social conscience. He might even have supported the Equal Opportunities Commission. He was a man in advance of his time. We believe that he was merely trying to conduct a census. In encouraging the inhabitants to come out of the forest, they over-reacted and afterwards everyone said, "It seemed like a good idea at the time".
Reverting to the serious point of the article, it served as a reminder of the violent things that Scots can do to each other in good causes. I have already referred to the Highlanders versus the Lowlanders. Let us hope that after independence, unable to blame the Union for its troubles, Scotland does not revert to endless squabbling.
Your Lordships may well ask why I talk about independence for Scotland in the context of a devolution Bill. It is because, although I deplore it, I think that one will produce the other—unless, that is, the Scots come to their financial senses. Sage and savant Billy Connolly

1601
probably got it right when asked "How can you spot a Scottish football fan?" he answered, "It is the one with the pocket calculator". Let thinking Scots do their national and international sums, therefore: no Korean subsidies for industry and no money from the Union any more.
Perhaps noble Lords will be familiar with the two rather dry figures that I dug out of a report, which emphasise what Scotland gets out of the Union. Per person, government expenditure in 1996–97 in Scotland was £4,826 whereas in England it was only £3,885. Where is the difference to come from? Not, incidentally, from oil. Therefore, perhaps I may offer a tiny word of advice to the Minister: how about using as a slogan for those who do not think that independence is right, "Vote for independence and be poorer"?
The point of this small speech is to ask what we are to do. If the Union between England and Scotland dissolves, rending apart monarchy and state with all its ramifications, and if we are removed from our fealty to the Crown, what should we do? I shall set about establishing my proper claim to the throne of Scotland, which I believe is the only legitimate Stuart claim, based on the wishes of James VI in 1625. I hope that I shall not have to establish that claim, but I believe that I will.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, was his ancestor by any chance "The Wolf of Badenoch"?
The Earl of Buchan: Yes, my Lords.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, with almost 70 speakers on the list for today and tomorrow, it behoves most of us who will take part in this Second Reading debate to be reasonably brief—and I intend to follow my own injunction in that regard.
However, before I make a few comments about the Bill, perhaps I may claim your Lordships' indulgence for a moment to engage in a measure of personal reminiscence. It was 20 years ago, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—whose name is on the Speakers' List but who I note has not yet arrived—and I were, if I may put it like this, the Lords Sewel and Hardie of our generation. We are now, of course, 20 years older, but not a lot wiser. I recall that there was then vigorous opposition to the provisions, led by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, with very strong support from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy; the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Gray, whom I particularly remember because his skill at threading amendments into the schedules was well noted by the Scottish Office. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, had from time to time in those days to deal with rapier-like legal thrusts from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. So, some of us are still around 20 years on as we consider a different Bill.
The Bill of 20 years ago was introduced by the then Labour Government, who were in a minority position and who did not have a manifesto commitment to that end but who knew that their support, particularly in
1602
Scotland, demanded some action. The position is different with regard to this Bill. It was a clear manifesto commitment of the present Government. A referendum has been held in Scotland and we all know the outcome. If there was perhaps a hint of illegitimacy about that first Bill, I think that I can claim that this Bill is, politically at least, entirely legitimate.
In the Bill of 20 years ago, a serious attempt was made to define each of the functions which stood devolved. It was not an entirely successful procedure, leading to much disputation and considerable legal disagreement—at least in this House. The present Bill, defining as it does in Schedule 5 the reserved powers—all else being within the competence of the devolved parliament—is a construction which should be more readily grasped by most of us.
Perhaps I may point out that this Bill has only eight schedules; the last Bill had 17. One consequence of that—I hope that it will not happen this time; indeed, I am sure that it will not—is that a number of breakfasts were held in this House, with people moving about—if not with vigour, then at least with some purpose—half-way through the night. I suspect that there is less chance of that happening on this occasion.
Clause 21 of this Bill, which is linked to Schedule 3, relating to the regulation and content of standing orders, might, with profit, be probed somewhat in Committee. I happen to know that my noble friend Lord Monkswell intends to discuss the matter in Committee. Those of us who live in Scotland would do well to recall that recently the Lord Provost of Glasgow survived an attempt to remove him from his provostship. Glasgow council attempted to change the standing orders to that end. However, the Lord Provost was able to deploy the argument that nothing in standing orders permitted any change to be made to the standing orders and therefore the meeting called was invalid. So, the question of standing orders, as introduced into a new parliament, is important and we must tread with considerable care.
It is important that we notice that Clause 26 will enable the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General to take part in the proceedings of the new parliament, but without the right to vote if they are not members. I believe that Clause 28 should require Committee scrutiny, given the protection afforded under European Community law and rights under the European Convention on Human rights.
I have, however, two reservations. The first concerns the power to vary income tax by 3p in the pound up or down. In my view, it is minimalist in effect. It is mainly cosmetic—or is seen to be so—and such a limited financial freedom allows virtual total control of the supply provision to remain with the other place. That is the present position. The Secretary of State is able to move allocations between departments, although there are limits. Such movement does not occur with great openness at the moment. Presumably, the Scottish parliament would hold Ministers to greater public account than is presently the case. But expectations that an Edinburgh parliament can deliver improved social and infrastructure facilities, properly heightened by the attitudes of the members, which reflect the public

1603
representations made to them, will be constrained by the PSBR to be set nationally. I understand why these financial shackles are to be applied but I believe that they can be more loosely fitted.
My second reservation is that, although the pre-legislative scrutiny will undoubtedly occur and can be developed, new concepts in a new parliament can be arranged. The lack of provision in the Bill of a revising chamber of any kind is a weakness. I do not need to belabour that point to Members of this House. All noble Lords can recall the many legislative second thoughts that governments of all persuasions have offered to this House for further consideration.
That said, I very much welcome the Bill. It is a new dynamic to Scottish public life and it has been created to that end. A wider cross-section of the public than is usual appears to be willing to contest the election under an entirely new electoral system. It is my fervent hope that the outcome will prove to be more democratic than past results and hence more transparently accountable.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, I take part in this debate with a real sense of foreboding because I cannot remember a Bill being laid before Parliament that brought with it so much potential for division and damage to the fabric of our nation. Modern cinema is full of action films in which to underline the horrors of some particularly destructive or explosive episode a slow motion technique is often used. Here I sense the opposite: an uncontrolled acceleration towards disaster. We are all blandly assured of the Government's benign and enlightened intentions and invited to join the consensus. They say that it is going to happen and so we should make the best of it.
I am not part of that consensus. Of course we must do what we can to make it work, but let that not be mistaken for acquiescence. I believe this to be a thoroughly bad Bill. It does not even serve the evident self-interest of its promoters, born as it was of appeasement out of panic when nationalism first threatened Labour's Scottish heartland over 20 years ago. Since then Labour politicians have fed and nurtured the very demand to which they now claim to be responding. After all that time their proposals are still half-baked.
Many of us argued for years that a devolved parliament for Scotland within a sovereign state with no federal structure could not remain stable in the long term; that it would unbalance the United Kingdom; that it would lead to friction and conflict: and that with no chance of going back once the process had been started Scotland could only move by fits and starts towards separation. Before this Bill has even completed its passage through Parliament we see that process gathering pace. We used to speak of the slippery slope. There is no slippery slope. If recent opinion polls are to be believed we are now in free fall towards separation. I do not believe that the process will move as fast as the polls suggest, but there is no doubt that it has started.
1604
The path ahead will be one of rows, concessions, botched deals and further rows until Scotland is separate in all but name and eventually separate altogether.
If the Government wonder why they have so seriously miscalculated, part of the reason is that they have been singing so loudly the song of nationalism. One cannot outbid nationalism. In trying to do so one simply endorses it. It is no good uttering homilies about the Union at the Dispatch Box here or in another place, as the noble Lord the Minister has again done today while his colleagues in Scotland are out proclaiming the nationalist message and we are invited to enact a measure that will create the separatist vehicle.
Devolution of power is not in itself an alien creed. To my party it is a concept with which its philosophy is entirely comfortable. It is a means of defending individual liberty against centralisation and socialism, and it inspired many of our policies when in government. But we have always attached a higher priority to the maintenance of our nation's constitutional integrity. Against that background, and in the light of all that we said on this issue over many years in defence of that fundamental principle, it was incomprehensible that my party, the Conservative and Unionist Party, failed to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill in another place.
I recognise that under the conventions of this House and in the light of the Salisbury doctrine noble Lords cannot oppose a measure that has reached them with such strong endorsement. However, I hope that noble Lords are as deeply suspicious as I am of the cynical and pernicious use of that insidious instrument, the pre-legislative referendum. I accept that we must confine ourselves to warning of the dangers that this legislation poses and seeking to persuade the Government to accept amendments to mitigate them. They are many and they are serious. The Bill contains more flashpoints than the Gaza Strip. It is full of gaps, inconsistencies and contradictions and it ducks and fudges the hard choices. Further, it cheats the people of Scotland who have been promised self-government that this Bill does not deliver. The West Lothian question has not been answered but has simply been ignored, yet it remains central to the viability of the relationship between a devolved parliament within a unitary and sovereign state and the Parliament of that sovereign state.
How can the MP for Dunfermline properly vote at Westminster on housing or health issues that affect Devizes or Doncaster when he cannot vote on them for Dunfermline? How can he as Chancellor of the Exchequer decide on taxation levels in England when a separate parliament decides taxation levels that affect his constituents in Scotland? That is not just unfair but unacceptably unfair, and it will soon be seen as such.
Many of us have warned for years about how Scotland's interests as well as those of the whole of the United Kingdom would be damaged by the measures in this Bill. We were ridiculed. We pointed out that the Cabinet post of Secretary of State for Scotland would wither and die, if it were not actually abolished. We also warned that Scotland's share of MPs at Westminster,

1605
sustained since the Act of Union, could no longer be justified and that Scotland's higher share of Treasury funding which recognised Scotland's particular needs and problems would be challenged and reduced. We were told that we were scaremongering. Yet before the ink is dry all of these things are happening. There is even a provision in Clause 81 of the Bill for a reduction in numbers of MPs. The only remaining issue to be decided is precisely how large the reduction will be. The Treasury has so spiked the taxation provisions in Clauses 69 to 75 as to insert a one-way valve: Scotland will pay more if its parliament puts up taxes but it will not be allowed to be better off if its parliament reduces them.
As money will be at the root of many of the conflicts ahead I should like to say a little more about it. The issue here is not the Barnett formula, about which so much has been said and written. The issue is the Scottish block: the overall level of central government spending in Scotland through the Scottish Office. Spending per head in Scotland has historically been higher than in England, as it has also been in Wales and Northern Ireland, to recognise local circumstances and needs. More recently, those greater needs have moderated in relative terms, not least because of the substantial gains that have been made by the Scottish economy over the past two decades. But only the undertaking of a new, thorough needs assessment could measure that accurately and strike a fair new level in relation to England. And who can blame the English now for seeking one?
The Barnett formula, agreed in the late 1970s by the then Chief Secretary and Bruce Millan as Secretary of State for Scotland, already recognised the need for an adjustment. It was a straightforward formula designed to ensure that future increases to the already higher spending levels in Scotland would be at a lower percentage rate per head of the population than in England so that Scottish spending, far from being protected as some have understood it, would be gradually brought down in the direction of the English level.
It was a formula for gradual convergence. But it failed in its objective. It failed because the formula did not apply to all spending. It did not apply to in-year changes; and above all it failed because successive Secretaries of State for Scotland were able to negotiate special deals outside it with the Treasury and win battles in Whitehall that protected Scotland's interests. That, of course, will no longer be possible.
Indeed, in this and in most other respects, the new first minister will have considerably less power to look after Scotland's interests than the Secretary of State for Scotland does at present. And now it will be not the formula for annual increases, but the actual Scottish block itself—the very bone and marrow of the United Kingdom Treasury funds spent in Scotland—that will come under attack; and Scotland will be powerless to influence that reappraisal at the heart of government, powerless to protect those spending levels; and, with its pitiful and peripheral tax-raising powers, the Scottish parliament will be powerless to replace them.
1606
Indeed, what the Bill proposes for taxation is the worst of all worlds, for it concedes the principle without allowing the substance. Sadly, finance is only one of the areas of near certain conflict. There are many others, such as the arrangements for dealing with Europe where Scottish ministers may "assist" the British Government Minister in negotiations but it will be with the British Minister that other countries and the Commission will negotiate. It will be he who will cast the United Kingdom vote; and it will be his party's policies that govern his attitude, not that of the ruling party in Scotland. How will Scotland's farmers, with their distinctively different set of problems, feel as they lose the influence that they have had in European negotiations with Scotland's ministers reduced to the role of observers?
How long will the shared powers between Edinburgh and Westminster in such sensitive areas as industrial assistance survive without a serious rift to the disadvantage of our inward investment policies? Every time the Government are challenged over the handling of disputes between Edinburgh and Westminster, they fall back on the concept of something known as a concordat. We heard about it today from the Minister. This is the new panacea. The dictionary definition of a concordat is an agreement between Church and state. I do not know whether the fact that the Scottish parliament will initially meet on The Mound has gone to its head, or whether it is just hoping to get by on a wing and a prayer. To me a concordat is a second cousin of a compact—something of which we heard much in the 1970s as the cure-all then for Britain's industrial relations problems. The late Sir Nicholas Fairbairn defined a compact then as,
"a small flat container, full of powder and puff'.
That to me sums up the value of this Government's concordats. How can deals patched, I understand, not by Ministers but by officials in smoke-filled rooms, and without the force of law, possibly form the basis of a stable and durable relationship between the two parliaments?
What of the time bomb in Clause 27 of the Bill when after detailing in grand style how the Scottish parliament may make laws to be known as Scottish Acts of Parliament, it adds at subsection (7) that none of this affects the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland?
It has truly been said that power devolved is power retained, but that is not how the Government portray their proposals, and it is not how the people of Scotland understand them. If, after raising expectations of all that the Scottish parliament can do, it were to be overruled and overridden by this clause the whole venture would be doomed overnight. But it is Labour who have been telling us for years of the need for a Scottish parliament, as they claim, to put right the democratic deficit, and to make up for the lack of accountability. Thus are all the special privileges Scotland enjoys in this place dismissed in those two empty glib phrases. I refer to the higher share of MPs; the Scottish Grand Committee; the Scottish Select Committee; the Scottish Standing Committees; the territorial department of state; the Cabinet Minister and his four junior Ministers; the

1607
higher spending levels; the special Scottish legislation; not to mention the Scottish MPs serving as Ministers in United Kingdom departments, and the substantial number of active Scottish Peers in this House. That is not a democratic deficit. Indeed, there are many English who might consider that that is closer to being a democratic surplus.
Nor has there been any lack of accountability. Indeed, the capacity of our constitution to adapt and develop in an organic way within a unitary system to strengthen that accountability was demonstrated not many years ago by the new powers that I was able to secure for the Scottish Grand Committee to hold Question Time sessions, to pass Scottish legislation, to sit in Scotland, to move throughout the whole country of Scotland, and to do almost anything in fact that this new Scottish parliament can do, except raise taxes.
All the parliamentary benefits that have accrued to Scotland over the years will now be lost. There will be fewer MPs. They will soon become second class, part-time, shadowy figures as English Members understandably start to find ways to exclude them from their business. Scotland's funding will come under attack, but its ministers and members will no longer be able to take on the Treasury. Scotland's voice may be loud in Edinburgh but at Westminster and Whitehall it will be reduced to a whimper.
The power of a Secretary of State for Scotland is very considerable, not just in Scotland where he controls a territorial department with just about the most comprehensive range of powers anywhere in government, but, more importantly, at the heart of the United Kingdom's Government where he has a seat in Cabinet and the ear of the Prime Minister. I make this point not in a party sense, still less in a personal one. But Secretaries of State can defend Scottish interests at the centre of government, and with the weight of a major government department behind them they can win battles for Scotland, and over the years they have done so.
Power is easier to measure when it is lost—a matter which some in my party may now have cause to reflect upon at greater leisure. The tragedy is that it is only once the Scottish Office is corralled up in Edinburgh, its civil servants cut off from the mainstream of government, and its Secretary of State reduced to a cross between an errand boy and a ceremonial cypher, that the full extent of the loss of Scotland's power will become more apparent.
But perhaps the worst feature of this whole business—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill—is that Scotland's parliament will have no second chamber. Bicamerality is, and has been for centuries, a central pillar of our parliamentary democracy. Yet the new Scottish parliament will have no revising chamber, no chance for second thoughts, no pause for reflection. Every piece of legislation for which I had responsibility over my nine years as a Scottish Office Minister benefited from its passage through this House. If the Government wish to speak of democratic deficits, that is where they should look. It is a glaring yet wilful omission that Scotland will come to regret.
1608
Those are only some of the reasons why I feel about this Bill a despondency that is close to despair. Scotland is being diminished. England is being ignored. The United Kingdom is being undermined. The Scottish parliament, after the initial fuss and fireworks, will do Scotland no favours. It will not advance the cause of democracy. But it will weaken all of us. The only ones to benefit will be those whose agenda is the destruction of the United Kingdom. We must hope against hope that the Government will listen and make changes even at this late stage, because as it stands this is a Bill that will break the back of Britain.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, there are many difficult issues to be resolved in connection with the Bill. I was startled by the apocalyptic tone of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, in relation to the Bill. I found it hard to remember that he was one of the Secretaries of State in a Conservative government which, I suppose, could be regarded as probably the most disastrous in relation to the interests of Scotland during my time in politics. The Bill creates a system of devolution within a Scottish parliament as against the kind of separatism which the noble Lord, Lord Lang, put forward. If any party created a sense of separatism in Scotland it was the Conservative government and their operations. During those years, for example, a Secretary of State for Scotland allowed Scotland to be used as a guinea pig for a poll tax which, as my noble friend Lord Steel mentioned, was imposed on Scotland by the votes of the majority of the English Members of Parliament. The anomalies of running the political system in the United Kingdom are not confined to the difficulties created by the Bill but are inherent in the United Kingdom system.
In one sense I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lang. This is a major constitutional Bill. It will give Scots exciting opportunities for a democratic control over their domestic affairs which is impossible in the crowded timetable of Westminster. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, largely glossed over that.
Beyond that, the Bill will have momentous consequences for the United Kingdom as a whole. Speaking as the current chairman—at least for a few more days—of the Scottish Peers Association, I find that the Bill contains a certain irony. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, in saying that our Members from all quarters of the House—life Peers and hereditary Peers alike—will no doubt demonstrate the revising qualities of this second Chamber at its best in seeking to improve a Bill which creates a Scottish parliament without the advantage of a second chamber. If there are not the revising operations of a second chamber after the publication of a Bill, it will make all the more important the proposals in the Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny and, equally, for the new proportional electoral system.
The Government, with their massive majority, deserve great credit for their courage in putting forward electoral arrangements which will prevent any massive Labour majority in the Scottish parliament. It is of course the best protection against the problems of one

1609
party domination which have disfigured local government not only in Scotland and not only in the Labour Party. It will be possible for the new Scottish parliament to pioneer a pattern of less adversarial party politics which I hope the rest of the United Kingdom will find useful to imitate.
The creation or, after 290 years, the recreation of a Scottish parliament throws up many problems and apparent anomalies for us to tackle in the later stages of the Bill; for instance, the West Lothian question, the Scottish role in Brussels, non-statutory concordats, which have been mentioned, and so forth. There are no perfect answers to any of those problems, but I take comfort from the fact that the British pragmatic experience has been that it is unwise to push logic too far in politics. Logic carried to extremes often reduces itself to absurdity. A little untidiness in public affairs is no bad thing. It would be curious for any of your Lordships who are content with the present rather eccentric structures of this House to go too far down the West Lothian road of logical democratic legitimacy.
I regard the Government's proposals in the Bill not only as meeting Scottish popular demand for greater self government but, equally important, as part of the sensible modernisation of the British constitution to meet the changing circumstances in Europe and in the world at large. It is part of the blueprint of a wide range of constitutional changes which we espouse on these Liberal Democrat Benches, recently spelt out by Robert Maclennan, the president of the Liberal Democrats. We are members of a European Community in a world where technology has created a global economy. In the face of such forces, we need the strong countervailing force of democratic devolution, not merely administrative devolution, to drive decision-making downwards wherever practicable to the national, regional or local community level.
I have a deep sense of being Scottish in terms of my national identity. Yet I am proudly British in terms of legal citizenship and strongly European by political conviction. I do not find any contradiction between those three positions. Independent national sovereignty in the 19th century sense of the term either for Britain or for Scotland is an anachronism for the 21st century. The Scottish nationalism of the SNP is dangerously out of date, as is the British nationalism of the Tory Eurosceptics. A look around the world shows that we suffer from too much nationalism, not too little. The United Kingdom is a success story of a rather untidy political, economic and monetary union of three, or three-and-a-half, nations, riddled with its own anomalies. Since political and economic union has not made the Scots noticeably less Scottish or the Welsh less Welsh, it should reassure us about developing a closer European Union without undermining our diverse national characteristics and a proper sense of national pride.
To have resisted the desire of the Scottish people for their own devolved parliament, as the Conservatives sought to do, would have fed the forces of separatism in Scotland, as indeed did their attitude when they were in government. The change in approach which we heard today from the Opposition Front Bench, as distinct from
1610
the speech of a former Secretary of State for Scotland, is welcome. It makes possible, not agreement on all the details of the Bill and the efforts to deal with some of the problems, but an underlying consensus about making a success of devolution.
The way the United Kingdom has evolved has produced a decent, tolerant, civil society and it has given the Scots, the Welsh, the English and those in Ulster a weight and an influence in the European Union and in world affairs generally which none of them could possibly enjoy separately. The best way to preserve that is to make a success of the devolution plans in the Bill.
For all the froth of public opinion polls which we see in the Herald and the Scotsman, I do not believe that the Scottish people will want to slide into the disruption and deep damage of separation. Once the new parliament is in place, what would be best for both Scotland and the United Kingdom is a period of stability while the new and difficult system settles down rather than a fresh round of feverish argument about a further referendum and separation. That would hardly serve the interests of the Scottish people.
It will be a major challenge to the political leadership of all the major parties in both Scotland and Westminster to make the new machinery work well, with its new voting system and untried concordats. However, it will give the Scottish people and members of the Scottish parliament the chance to devote parliamentary time to housing, education, law reform and job creation and to do so in depth, which has never been possible within the Westminster timetable. That is where the real interests of the Scottish people lie, rather than in a fresh round of constitutional turbulence.
5.50 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, as secretary of the Scottish Peers Association, I am very happy to find myself speaking between my present distinguished chairman for the next six days and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, a previous distinguished chairman of the association.
In common with about 50 other Peers speaking in this debate, I have an interest to declare. I am a Scot and my home is in Scotland. In common with the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, whose speech I enormously enjoyed, I too am about to have my hereditary head cut off.
I have made an attempt to read the Hansard reports of the various stages of the Bill's passage through another place, which is extraordinarily difficult because, unlike in this House, every sensible speech is constantly interrupted by people trying to score cheap, party-political points. At the end of the day, most of the really important issues, or many of them, have not been resolved and will affect the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster. The potential for conflict in many areas is enormous.
I shall not repeat a list of those areas because that has been done already by the noble Lords, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Lang of Monkton. But there are one or two remarks which I should like to make. There appears to be no agreement or no definite ruling as to whether the Scottish parliament would or would not

1611
have the power to organise a referendum on Scottish independence or whether that could be something which would remain with the Westminster Parliament.
That is very important because I envisage that if a referendum were to be organised by the Scottish parliament, it would be because there was a majority of Scottish Nationalists there. Therefore, it would appear to me that if they were going to organise the referendum, they would have the power to load the question in their favour. That matter really needs to be looked into.
But most important—and I make no apology for reiterating it—there is the vagueness with which the question of finance has been treated, because there is nothing in the Bill to ensure that the proportion of the United Kingdom revenue allocated to Scotland will not be reduced or that Scotland's needs will be taken sufficiently into account. Nothing will contribute to the disaffection of the Scots with the Union quicker than finding that they have to make do with a reduced standard of service from both local and national government or that they must pay a lot more in council tax to make up for the shortfall in the Holyrood parliament's grant to local government caused by a reduced block grant from the Treasury.
I know that the Government say that they will not reduce Scotland's funding and I believe them. But some of their English Back-Benchers and their constituents have other views. Also, one must remember that no government can bind a future government. Governments do change. The Scottish National Party is just sitting, waiting happily for that to happen.
There is also the question of the accountability of the Scottish parliament to Westminster as regards how the block grant is spent and there is the question which has already been raised of who will be eligible to pay any extra 3p tax and all the problems which that will cause.
While I am sure that we are all agreed that money is not the only important thing in life, I am sure that we are also all agreed that it is extremely important and that lack of it is a very serious matter.
Those matters are important and they should be written on the face of the Bill and not left to committees, concordats or just to luck. I fear sadly that devolution is not really workable except in a federal context and the opinion polls suggest that the Scots, who are not fools, are well aware of that.
They are also deeply disappointed because they thought that the Government whom they helped to elect, would wave a wand and give them everything they wanted at once. They wanted old Labour as they knew it and they do not really like new Labour at all. There are many disappointed people out there, particularly in relation to such matters as public sector pay and the national minimum wage. Perhaps I may add that most of them do not want a modern parliament building. They wanted the fine, old, dignified High School.
The result is that I am afraid that the Scots will not vote Labour again and they will certainly not vote Conservative. They will vote SNP. The Scottish
1612
National Party's star is rising very rapidly and one cannot just discount the opinion polls. It is rising so rapidly that it may very well win the first election for the Scottish parliament, although it may not have an overall majority. The Government say merrily that most people in Scotland do not really want independence. What makes them think so? Is it the fact that the people of Scotland voted for them over a year ago? If a week is a long time in politics, a year is a very long time indeed, quite long enough for an electorate to change its mind. I believe that that "it will be all right on the night" attitude is extremely unwise. While there is not a lot they can do about it, they could at least accept amendments to this Bill offered in good faith which would give the Scottish parliament a better chance of success.
So far in another place, the Government have been extremely deaf and inflexible. Their arrogance in thinking their Bill is perfect and not capable of improvement except by themselves on comparatively trivial matters is likely to prove a very big nail in the coffin of the United Kingdom. We are not trying to wreck the Bill. We accepted the results of the referendum and our only concern is to make this measure work. I hope that in his rather patronising opening speech, the Minister was not implying that anybody in this House has a vested interest in making sure that the Scottish parliament does not work. I am not aware of any such person among your Lordships and I do not believe that there is any. After all, as I have already indicated, the majority of the speakers in this debate live in Scotland and have a strong interest in making sure that it works. But as the Bill stands, I fear that its chances of working are slender unless the Government will open their mind and ears to a number of important amendments.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, when political parties want to make constitutional changes such as are proposed in the Scotland Bill, the first requisite is that they should establish that that is what the people of Scotland want. I suggest that before this Bill was put forward, that was done. The general election returned Members from three political parties in Scotland each of which wanted change of some sort—either devolution or independence. Not a single opponent of change was returned in Scotland.
The Government then went on, having achieved the mandate which they sought in their manifesto, to produce a White Paper. After the White Paper, there was a referendum. There were predictions in this House that perhaps less than 30 per cent. of the people of Scotland would be prepared to vote in favour of the parliament and in particular the tax position. That was proved wrong. There were overwhelming majorities as regards both parts of the referendum.
Therefore, the Bill was produced in the form in which it came before the House of Commons, with complete legitimacy. I was interested to consider the changes at the time that the Scottish Parliament was done away with. Many noble Lords will have watched the play "The Three Estates". The three estates of the Scottish

1613
Parliament were the nobles, the barons and the burgesses. The nobles formed one-quarter of the parliament but each of them had his adherents among the barons and the burgesses so that the nobles effectively ran the Scottish parliament.
It is interesting to find that out of 60 nobles who were able to take part in the vote to ratify the treaty, only three-quarters actually took part. Twenty-nine of them voted for ratification and 15 voted against. We talk about percentages being necessary, so I should point out that 45 per cent. of that Scottish Parliament voted for ratification.
I was particularly interested in the speech made by the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, especially in his claim to be the rightful King of Scotland. As I said, 29 nobles voted for ratification while 15 voted against. One of the nobles who voted against was the noble Earl's predecessor, the Earl of Buchan. Perhaps he did so because he was afraid that, with the abolition of the Scottish Parliament, his claim to the kingship would be diminished.
I move on now to the points raised by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Lang, regarding the powers and the composition of the parliament. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for 37 years. I doubt whether the number of Bills which originated in the House of Commons and which were passed without any amendment accepted from this House would get into double figures for that period. Therefore, I do not think that I am happy about the Scottish parliament being a single chamber. I say that because, if there is no second chamber, it will, with the best will in the world, become a legislative fort which will require subsequent legislation to put right. It will be within the powers of the Scottish parliament to remedy that.
I got in touch with the Norwegian Embassy today to find out exactly how the Storting works there. People are elected to a single chamber. One of the first things that they do is to decide that 25 per cent. of the members should form an upper house and that 75 per cent. should form a lower house. All legislation which goes through the Norwegian Parliament is only passed in the first place if it is approved by both houses. If there are differences between the houses—that is to say, if one house approves legislation but the other does not—they meet together and the majority then decides what to do. I commend that to my noble friends on the Front Bench as a possible way in which they could, within their powers, decide to do something of that nature. I do not necessarily recommend that my noble friends should do so right away because, obviously, the first thing to do is to find out whether single-chamber government works. I do not think that it will be proved to work completely satisfactorily. I suggest that in the second parliament they might perhaps decide to follow the Norwegian example.
I was very disappointed with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Lang. He obviously speaks as a totally unreconstructed Scottish Tory. Judging by all the evidence from Scotland, I am glad to know that the noble Lord does not represent the views of Tories in Scotland. Indeed, if you want to find out who is
1614
expressing the views of Scottish Tories, you should listen to Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I say that because Sir Malcolm Rifkind and any other Tories who are now talking there are doing so on the basis that they will do the best that they can to make the Scottish parliament work. That is a reasonable point of view. They will be represented in the Scottish parliament because of the way in which people will be elected.
Many people are talking like the noble Lord, Lord Lang, but they are really making themselves propagandists for the Scottish National Party. If they are going out of their way to show that a Scottish devolved parliament cannot work, they are really saying, "You must look for an alternative to the Scottish parliament". But what are the alternatives? They are nationalism or the status quo. The state of the Tory Party in Scotland does not give any guarantee that the people of Scotland will ever want to return to the present situation.
I am glad that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Scottish Tories will be working for a successful devolved parliament. I agree with one comment that was made from the other side of the House: I believe that an independent Scotland would not be in the interests of Scotland. Much has been said about the opinion polls, especially as regards the Scottish Nationalists doing so well at present. I do not believe that that will be the situation in a year's time. It has been inflated in the first place by the nonsense about the knighthood for a Scottish actor whose name escapes me for a moment. I wonder whether anyone has ever asked him if he would have accepted a knighthood proposed by Michael Forsyth. Indeed, he has never said that he wanted one; it is other people who have said that he has been refused.
I see that I am pretty near my time limit in this debate, but I shall have much to say in Committee. I have in mind in particular Schedule 5 which runs to 20 pages and lists all the things that the Scottish parliament will not be allowed to do. I am afraid that I am not likely to accept that every one of those things should be excepted from the parliament. However, there is one good thing in Schedule 8. Indeed, I was surprised to see among the deletions the words,
"with the consent of the Treasury".
I never expected to see that in an Act of Parliament.
6.7 p.m.
Viscount Weir: My Lords, perhaps I may, first, make it clear that I speak as a Scottish Unionist. I define the word "unionism" as the belief that the preservation of the Union is a far greater and more valuable principle than the lesser disagreements which divide our political parties. I voted "No" in the referendum simply and solely because I felt that the consequences of devolution would, in the end, endanger the Union. But, equally, many Scots voted, "Yes" because they sincerely believed—as the Government argued—that, unless we had devolution, the Union would be weakened. Therefore, under my wide definition of unionism, I must class such people as fellow Unionists, even if I totally disagree with their reasons for favouring devolution.
When we look at the Bill, we must not focus only on its detail; beyond that, we must also ask whether the parliament will succeed in holding the Union together.

1615
However, before coming to the Bill, perhaps I may dwell for a moment on the referendum process which was its father. I do so simply because much that was said in the referendum campaign, and the manner in which the campaign was carried out, established some of the expectations in Scotland about the new parliament and also partly set its likely tone.
The whole affair was pushed through with undue haste to catch the ongoing tide of the election result. That may have been pragmatic politics, so I suppose it was quite acceptable to those who, unlike myself, are politicians. But it did not really leave enough room for any considered debate as to what was the best solution for our country.
The suppression during the campaign of any dissenting opinion in the Labour Party also showed an unfortunate disdain for democratic debate on what was surely a national rather than a party issue. But most obnoxious, however, was the formal campaign alliance between Labour and the SNP, in spite of the fact that each wanted devolution for totally opposite reasons. In this context some noble Lords may recall the jolly photographs in the Scottish press at the time of a pleasure boat proceeding up the River Forth containing Gordon Brown and Sean Connery. To say this scene brought to mind the biblical reference to the ox lying down with the ass is no harsher a description than the total cynicism that political pact deserves.
But it was not merely a cynical exercise, it was also a poorly judged one, which I believe was important in setting the adversarial tone of the referendum campaign which, for much of the time, seemed little more than the political equivalent of an ill-tempered England/Scotland football match. Believe me, that rather nasty tone—particularly from the SNP—continues to disfigure Scottish politics and will be a feature of the new parliament.
Where, then, is the new parliament likely to lead? I start with the reasonable assumption that the first Edinburgh government is likely to be a Labour-led coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and that this administration is likely to have an activist outlook towards expenditure. I say this because, on the Labour side, Scotland remains at heart distinctly more old Labour than new. Moreover, the Scottish parliament will be intimately involved in local government issues, and the history of Labour local government control in Scotland has consistently been one of trying to solve problems by enthusiastically throwing public money at them, often in a thoroughly reckless way, as Donald Dewar seems to have discovered only in the past few weeks.
I imagine the attitude of the Liberal Democrats in such a coalition might reflect the fact that it was the only party at the previous election to advocate increased taxation. Just as I foresee a Scottish parliament—or a Scottish administration rather—which will want to spend, so there is certainly no shortage of problems on which to spend. One can, of course, fairly remark that the financial appetite of a worthy social conscience is usually limitless.
1616
We can be quite sure therefore that extra income tax will be levied. Business rates will also go up, although hopefully not to produce the absurd disparity between equivalent businesses in England and Scotland which used to exist—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Under which government?
Viscount Weir: My Lords, certainly under a Labour government. No doubt the somewhat opaquely described powers to develop other methods of tax to finance local government expenditure will also emerge. I do not want to exaggerate the actual economic effect. Higher income tax will reflect itself in some higher pressure on wages, and increased rates will not help, particularly for smaller businesses. As for the other taxation possibilities, they are hardly likely to be encouraging.
The overall effect may be somewhat marginal, but even marginal cost increases, at a time when competition is so intense, are difficult. However, it is perhaps the impression given by marginal increases in taxation which is more economically damaging than increases themselves. I think it is the potential damage to business confidence and the business climate in Scotland which concerns me most. It could distinctly change for the worse.
I am half Canadian and I am much involved in business there. I dread a situation emerging analogous to that which now prevails in Quebec. I remind noble Lords that there are the same ingredients there. Independence or separatism is a live issue there, actively promoted by a strong party, and may well become the subject of a further referendum. The effect on Quebec has been most unfavourable. Montreal is no longer the business centre of the same importance as Toronto that it once was. Many leading Canadian companies have moved their headquarters out of Montreal. Investment in the province has been poor. All this is not because of actual independence, but simply because the possibility is so endlessly discussed and debated there. Why should the results of a similar political situation in Scotland be any different? The external perception of Scotland, particularly by potential inward investors, would undoubtedly suffer, as it has in Quebec.
In practice I believe all noble Lords know well that whenever there are problems in Scotland, the SNP will simply say that it would all be quite different if only Scotland had independence, and a full control of its destiny. That will be fed by the simple, regular and popular expedient of blaming England or Westminster. If the Barnett arrangements are changed so that Scotland ceases to be disproportionately favoured, it will all be far worse. Such, then, are some of the ways in which dissent and friction will in practice be fostered.
There is a different and a fundamental question which the Bill raises. There must be minimum requirements for any state to continue to be defined as a unitary one. Is it possible that, in spite of the reserved powers, a Scottish parliament could legislate for change in such a way, and on such a range of subjects, that eventually the accepted definition of a unitary state no longer applied to the United Kingdom? For example, many

1617
people would accept that one of the required definitions of a unitary state is that common rights to property exist across the breadth of the state, and to the equal benefit of everyone in it. If that is so, beyond what point might legislation by a Scottish parliament on rights to property effectively breach this unitary principle? Perhaps it is better and more simply expressed by just asking whether in our United Kingdom it would ever be reasonable that a Scotsman enjoyed lesser property rights than an Englishman or a Welshman, or vice versa.
Clearly there are other examples of this kind which might occur to your Lordships. However, the basic question remains of how far a Scottish parliament should be properly allowed to go on legislating change, so that gradually, over time, we lose the features of a unitary state, and we drift into becoming, de facto, a federal one? There are other shortcomings of this Bill worth mentioning. I happen to think that the United States' system where people of ability can be brought into the Cabinet, although they have not been elected, has much to commend it. When a Scottish administration will have to draw its Ministers from a fairly small number of people, it seems to me that a good chance to introduce better talent has been missed.
I also have some difficulty with the question of the element in the parliament who will be elected by proportional representation. I am not so much against the principle as a whole—with which I have much sympathy—but against the undemocratic opportunity which it gives parties to stuff their lists with the more amenable of their supporters. The suggestion is that that is already happening.
I conclude with two or three questions that the Government need to ask themselves. First, as an English backlash develops, and will develop further, how do they propose in practice to deal with Scotland's disproportionate share of funding? Secondly—and this is perhaps not such a serious question—in a few years' time will it be acceptable to the English to have a Scot as Prime Minister? Thirdly, does the current level of support for the Scottish Nationalists indicate that we have at last started down the slippery slope? Finally, if the Government had had the foresight to envisage today's political situation in Scotland, would they ever have started down this road in the first place?
In trying to answer such questions, I commend to the Government this story. When St. Peter showed the Scottish sinner the stairway down to Hell, the sinner said, "But I didnae ken, I didnae ken". St. Peter said: "Ah weel, ye ken noo".
6.20 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I rise to give my support to this Bill. It is undoubtedly historic and is a brave measure to change the constitution of the UK. I say that immediately since, as many noble Lords will know, I was not always in favour of devolution. In fact, in the other place during the 1970s I opposed the initial proposals when they were laid before Parliament and campaigned for a "No" vote in the referendum at that time.
1618
My objections were twofold. The powers in the first Bill were far too narrow and limited. Secondly, the absence of revenue-raising powers meant that the body that would have been produced would have had fewer powers than a major local authority in Scotland. I was concerned not so much by the apparent rise of the SNP, but by its vicious anti-English rhetoric, its election tactics and its philosophy. I certainly did not want to make any concessions to the SNP.
I recall one election when members of the SNP were fondly under the delusion that they would beat me in my North Aberdeen seat. I was approached with mock sympathy. I was told that they were very sorry to see me go because we were really brothers under the skin; we were really all socialists—the only difference was that they were national socialists. The kindest thing I can say is that those comments were made out of gross ignorance. However, they sent a chill down my spine, and still do.
I do not resile in any way from my words and actions in the 1970s. However, I do not approach this Bill with the excessive zeal of a new convert. In the 20 years that have passed, I have become increasingly concerned at the relentless accretion of power to central government which was the hallmark of each of the Conservative administrations during their all too long period in office. Throughout a whole Parliament, the Scottish Office could not be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because the then Tory Back-Benchers from Scotland refused to serve on it. When they did finally agree to serve on the committee, they showed very little independence. They slavishly followed the Conservative Party line and voted down every proposal that was critical of government, even though the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour. I shall not go into detail. Anyone who wishes to look up the record of the Select Committee will find that the Division lists are there and the record is clear.
During that period of centralisation of power, local decision-making was squeezed, and that drove local government councillors to distraction. It is easy to criticise local government and to make local councillors the whipping boys. Heaven knows, they have made mistakes. I do not know whether those mistakes are large in comparison with those of central government. However, I believe that, properly organised and properly funded, local government can probably do more for the people in the localities than we can, either in the other place or in this House. We destroy local government at our peril.
Therefore my approach to devolution has evolved over the years in a pragmatic and practical way. The Bill before the House solves the problem of lack of power. The reserved powers are defined, and the rest is left to the Scottish parliament. The Bill is a powerful tool. It is an engine for change. I fully support the tax revenue powers contained in the Bill. It was always essential, in my view, to have rights and responsibilities enshrined in statute. Whether or not the proposal to vary by 3 per cent. is adequate, or whether it is the right mechanism, is beside the point at this stage. No doubt

1619
the matter can be debated seriously in Committee. In any event, once the parliament is up and running, that debate will continue.
I say in passing, although the matter is not for us to decide, that I do not think it would be wise for the political parties in Scotland to state as a manifesto commitment at the first election that they will not use this power during the lifetime of the first parliament. The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly in the referendum for both the parliament and the tax-raising measures. They want a parliament which is innovative and which will produce visible signs of improvement in education, health, social services, the environment and so forth. I concede at once that money by itself does not necessarily guarantee progress. However, it seems to me inconceivable that progress can be made without spending money. For a new parliament to put itself in a straitjacket of that kind does not make much sense.
One of the issues that have dominated the debate on devolution was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, and the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. The question at the centre of the debate has always been: will the establishment of a Scottish parliament inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom? At one stage I frankly thought that it would. While I believe that it is not inevitable, much depends on how the new parliament functions and how it behaves.
My own view is that for a nation state to survive, it must have social cohesion. The 18 or 19 years of Conservative government did much to damage the social cohesion of the United Kingdom. If there is no social cohesion, then frankly a nation state cannot survive; nor does it deserve to survive. The problem is—and this is a message that we must send out loud and clear—that when modern nation states disintegrate because of a lack of social cohesion, social cohesion in the individual constituent parts often disintegrates even faster. So there are perils. Separatism frequently brings its own problems.
The rhetoric of the SNP has been somewhat toned down, at least in public, and its members deny that they are separatist. It is inescapably a separatist party. Its attitude towards a Scottish parliament clearly demonstrates that. It will give no promise to work constructively within the parliament for the good of the Scottish people. Its stated aim is that, if it gets control, there will be a referendum on independence. I am not entirely a fan of referenda, but they seem popular at present. Many claim that it is a respectable position. I recall, as my noble friend Lord Ewing will remember only too well, the late Norman Buchan, myself and some others arguing that a referendum should put three questions, including that of independence. In a sense there is nothing disreputable about holding a referendum on independence. What is disreputable is that the SNP will accept only one result.
I saw one of its spokesmen on television about 10 days ago. He was asked: "If there was a referendum on independence, would you accept a 'No' result?" "Certainly not", he said. "We will continue to have referenda until we get a 'Yes' vote". So if every year for the next 99 years we have a referendum to which
1620
the answer is always "No", the party will not accept it. But if there is one referendum vote saying "Yes", everyone else must accept the result. That is arrogance in the extreme and it is to the detriment of the Scottish people. Anything and everything is grist to the SNP mill.
Those of us who are politicians need to start blowing the trumpet of the good which is being done by government. I will not say that I agree with everything that has been done, but perhaps politicians are like this: we tend always to criticise and never praise. It is time we had some praise.
For example—the grist to the SNP mill—there is the reasonable proposition that the present Government should look at oil revenues and oil taxation. What is wrong with having a look at it? But it is presented by the SNP as an anti-Scottish measure, made worse, it says, by the fact that the Chancellor is a Westminster MP and a Scot.
The SNP will brook no opposition. I ask the people of Scotland this. I do not suppose they will bother to read the debate but I hope some people may mention it to them in passing. I shall not name the company because I do not believe in free advertising. But an insurance company spoke its mind and said that it was prepared to speak out in terms of the economic effects of independence. What did the SNP do? It said that what was necessary for Scottish people was to boycott that institution and withdraw their funds. It was conveniently glossing over, even if it had ever thought of it, that people who draw their money out of insurance policies before they mature lose a lot of money. So that was detrimental to the Scottish people, but the SNP did not bother about that. Of course, it back-tracked: it was the office boy who was employed to make the tea who wrote this little thing by accident. It is strange with parties and governments—and this applies to all governments—that whenever there is something patently bizarre, it is always the office boy who did it.
However, there is a serious point here—the back-tracking did not come immediately, nor was the suggestion denounced immediately. There are sinister forces around. Some people are extremely gloomy about the prospects of the result of the first elections, especially since the voting system under the Bill guarantees or intends to guarantee that no one party can govern on its own. I cannot say that I am or ever have been a great supporter of proportional representation, but there is some merit in a system which will not lead to the elective dictatorship which characterised the Thatcher years.
Any voting system is only effective if the parties taking part show responsibility once they are elected. I am not pessimistic at all about the first elections. I believe that the present public opinion polls are false. All that matters is the real election itself.
There were many in Scotland 18 months ago, especially in the media and even some within the ranks of the Labour Party in Scotland, who did not believe that the manifesto commitment on a strong and vibrant Scottish parliament would be delivered. They have been

1621
proved wrong. The Bill does precisely that. I give it a fair wind and hope that your Lordships' House will also give it a fair wind.
The eyes of the nation will then turn from the Westminster Parliament to those elected to serve in the new parliament. They will have an immense responsibility which I trust they will discharge effectively.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, this Second Reading of the Scotland Bill is a truly historic moment for anyone who is a Liberal, a Democrat and a Scot, as I am. As a Liberal, I believe that it represents the realisation of a policy and a principle which, as we all know, we have held dear ever since Gladstone first enunciated his big idea of "Home Rule all round" in 1879 to the good citizens of Dalkeith during his Midlothian campaign.
I am neither well qualified enough, nor is there time in this enormously long debate to indulge in too much historical scene-setting. But I am proud to recall the words of my grandfather, Sir Archibald Sinclair, in a debate in the Commons in 1932, shortly after he had ceased to be Secretary of State for Scotland. He said:
"There is a demand growing insistently from the Scottish people that they should be given the right, which they believe is theirs inalienably, to control their own domestic affairs".
Further, prophetically, he said:
"if this demand is frustrated the extremists will seize and exploit their opportunity".
Not only does that illustrate the settled long-standing wish of the Scottish people to control their own domestic affairs, but he foresaw the dangers which accompany procrastination and delay which could become an issue for us today.
The Bill is the realisation of this essentially Liberal policy and the Government are to be congratulated on having followed our lead and presented a Bill which reflects so closely the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention's proposals and the subsequent White Paper which the Scottish people endorsed so unequivocally and resoundingly in the referendum last year.
It is as a Scot who lives in Scotland that I welcome it too. The need for the Scots to have more control over their own lives and affairs is very real and rule from Westminster has, perhaps unwittingly, over the years, eroded Scottish self-confidence. So many talented people have gone away to spread their wings and realise their potential, while others at home feel frustrated or inadequate. By the end of the Tory era, we were being governed by a party which had no mandate in Scotland and who apparently could not heed or hear Scottish wishes or needs.
As the only party with a narrow unionist policy the Tories were, as a result, wiped out politically last year in Scotland. They have, of course, done a 180 degree turn, having been forced to face the new reality of both the Scottish decision and their own political situation. Having done such a U-turn, it behoves them to be as
1622
constructive and positive as possible, so that what is delivered to Scotland through the Bill is the best possible system.
As a Democrat, I also welcome the Bill. Indeed, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who was in his wiser youth a Liberal as well, in particular I welcome the proportional system of representation that is at the heart of the selection and election procedures to the Scottish parliament. This is another of the long-held beliefs of my party. I am delighted that MSPs will be elected as both first-past-the-post candidates from the current constituencies and on a proportional basis from regional lists. There are issues that we will want to raise at a later stage in the passage of the Bill on the detail of the arrangements, particularly on the question of open lists, to avoid the risk of political placemen on the lists, but the principle is there and greatly to be welcomed.
Indeed, it is as a Democrat that I also welcome the fact that it is through this system, and this system alone, that the Conservative voice will be heard again in Scotland. I did not feel happy that after the last election some 20 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland had no voice in Westminster. It is only right that they too should be represented.
This Bill is a good one. It is a good constitutional document which is, by and large, comprehensive, well structured and clear in its terms. That view is endorsed by distinguished constitutionalists and the Law Society of Scotland, among others, with no political axe to grind. That is not to say that it is perfect as a document and it should be improved. Senior professionals too in Scotland, such as those in education and the criminal justice system with which I have been involved over the years, look forward with positive anticipation to what a devolved parliament can bring in those fields. They already have their own distinctive Scottish character, but they welcome the opportunity to bring a better coherence and a new strategic approach to the enactment of policies, with more time for proper, informed discussion and decision making.
In the entire last Session of the previous Parliament, only 13 hours were devoted to debating Scottish education on the Floor of the other place. In future, such vital matters can be fully and openly addressed in a Scottish context, with the needs of our own children and young people in mind—avoiding sectoral politics. I am currently involved in a Scottish Office committee that is examining post-school provision for young people with special needs. That committee intends to have recommendations ready for the new parliament's consideration at an early stage, and with the chance of proper consideration this is exciting for all concerned. There is the chance for a fresh look at the criminal justice system and proper parliamentary time for modern criminal justice legislation—perhaps a 21st century Prisons Act to underpin a 21st century system could be considered. We already have the children's panel system to address the problems of young people in trouble, which is second to none. In future, its view will be addressed by a government who are familiar with and understand the system better than it has ever been

1623
understood by Westminster legislators. The optimism of the top people in all those fields is hugely important, and it is something upon which we can and must build.
Of course there are technical and practical concerns. It would be extraordinary if that were not the case, where major constitutional change is involved. I know that the Bill will receive the closest possible scrutiny. We will have our part to play. One clearly articulated fear is of over-centralisation by the Scottish parliament and the squeezing of local authorities in education, for example. Those issues must be addressed. Given the openness and accountability built into the new structures, I trust that they will be addressed.
People with fundamental concerns about the Bill—and I have no doubt how deep and genuine many of them are—take the view that almost any change from the status quo is wrong and that the Union unchanged is, ipso facto, best. Their attitude is, "Never leave a hold of nurse for fear of finding something worse." But for most of us, holding on to nurse is the one thing worse than leaving hold of her. She no longer offers what is needed and the status quo is no longer acceptable—as the ballot box has demonstrated. Fears of the slippery slope to separation from the UK that many noble Lords mentioned are exaggerated. Current support for the Scottish National Party is a concern and cannot be ignored, but it has everything to do with disillusionment in Scotland with the new Labour Government. It has little to do with separation or the break-up of the UK, as recent polls have also shown. Whose judgment are we to trust? The realistic optimists or the messengers of doom?
The Scottish people at Holyrood are at least as capable of managing their domestic affairs as the Parliament at Westminster. As a Scottish Liberal Democrat, I believe that the Scots with their own parliament as defined in the Bill can leave nurse behind and will emerge strongly and confidently from under the skirts of Westminster. Scotland is indivisibly part of the family of the United Kingdom and must ever remain so. With its identity properly asserted through the Bill, the whole family will be strengthened and the integrity of the United Kingdom assured.
6.44 p.m.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I will begin my speech back in time, but possibly not as far back as my noble friend Lord Buchan. A forebear of mine and forebears of a number of other noble Lords taking part in this debate were so opposed to the Act of Union that they voted against it and generally showed dissent whenever they could. My forebear—I am indebted to the Library for this information—was,
"very wild, inconstant and passionate. Does every things by starts. Hath abundance of flashy wit. Hath good interest in the country…gives himself liberty of talking when he is not pleased with the Government".
Those dissents and protests were genuinely felt but they probably had a lot to do with perceived loss of influence. My forebear was still hereditary Earl Marshal of Scotland, our Jacobite indiscretions still being a few years ahead. If my forebear was protesting because he
1624
thought the Union would not work, he was wrong. Apart from the Jacobite rebellions, the Union has been a considerable success. But we must move on.
Scotland is to have a parliament in Edinburgh with some power devolved to it and some reserved at Westminster, with the judicial committee the final arbiter that the Scottish parliament is acting within its powers. At present, Scots enjoy over-representation at Westminster. Under the Bill, provided that a constituent knows whether a matter is reserved or devolved, he can have both an MP and an MSP working for him in place of just one Member of Parliament. If some or all of the regional members can be called upon, the over-representation will be overwhelming. One solution could be to reduce the numbers of MSPs. However, assuming that more powers are devolved than are reserved and that we are trying to establish a successful Scottish parliament, the answer is probably to reduce quite significantly the number of Scottish seats at Westminster—leaving of course enough to preserve the Union.
Following exchanges in debates on the Government of Wales Bill, I am a little nervous of my next point. I understand that the Westminster Parliament should not direct the Scottish parliament as to how it should work, but I hope that it is in order to inquire whether there has been consultation regarding the working of the new parliament. Given its location in Edinburgh, quite a few of its members will be involved in a great deal of travelling, particularly from the north. I assume that activities on Mondays and Fridays will allow for that. I envisage a very busy first parliament for MSPs, but once the parliament is up and running MSPs may find that they can meet in parliament less often, thereby giving them more time to work in their constituencies.
When the results of the referendum for a Scottish parliament were announced I was in America, involved in Scottish work as the Chieftain of the New Hampshire Highland Games. An estimated 40,000 visitors, mostly American, came to admire my knees. Americans, who feel strong kinship with Scotland, told me that they thought the referendum was a vote for separation. I disagreed and said that the vote was a strong signal from the Scots for their own parliament in Scotland but with Scotland remaining an integral part of the United Kingdom. I hope sincerely that my interpretation of events is correct.
6.48 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I rise as the first English person to speak in this debate. I make no apology for that because there is an important English dimension to this issue and it is a matter that affects the whole United Kingdom.
The Bill is one of four constitutional Bills in this Session of Parliament but it is the most far reaching and important and it takes us, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, into uncharted waters. We have not been down the devolution route in this form before.
Constitutional Bills are different from other Bills. They are about making long-lasting settlements—one hopes settlements that are stable and enduring;

1625
settlements that cannot be easily changed or altered, unlike, for example, the education Bill, in which I have been recently involved. That again is an important Bill that can be changed, but constitutional Bills fall into a different category.
I believe, therefore, that it is extremely important that we take great trouble to get it right. We have had some warning recently from overseas experience. If we look to New Zealand, it had extensive debate and a referendum, but is now having second thoughts on proportional representation which has not worked out as it was thought it would.
Many noble Lords referred to the question of Quebec in Canada. I recognise that independence for Scotland is not the point of the Bill but, as almost every speaker referred to independence, the warning from Quebec is a real one. It has dominated Canadian politics; it occupies a great deal of national debate and national time and, as my noble friend Lord Weir said, it has had devastating economic consequences and a satisfactory solution has not yet been found. I suspect strongly that when the Government introduced this Bill in another place, they never expected that a few months on the Scottish National Party would be leading in all the polls in Scotland. These matters can have unexpected outcomes and it is important that we recognise that and face up to it as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships' House.
I turn next to the English dimension. The Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom and I hope that in Scotland there is no doubt that that is the case. No one will argue about the outcome of the referendum—certainly I shall not—even if none of the important issues raised in the Bill was actually put to the Scottish people when they voted. Now that we have the Bill, we must all want to make devolution work for the benefit not only of the Scots, but also for the benefit of the United Kingdom. But the Bill must be seen to be fair to all parts of the United Kingdom if it is to endure.
The English dimension is serious. For the first time in my political life I have heard English people say that we would be better off if Scotland became independent. I would not be entirely surprised if the issue were raised during the London mayoral elections next year. It would be an easy argument to advance. Why should so much more money go to Scotland—we had the figures set out earlier—instead of being used on the poorer parts of London? I have heard it said, nearer to where I live, why should we spend the money on the Scots when we could put it into our local hospital? What worries me in relation to some of the comments being made today is that the more the Scottish nationalist feeling is hyped up, the more we will get a contrary feeling in England ready to be hyped up when anyone wants to do that.
I do not subscribe to those views. But I share the view so well put by my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton that we could, as a country, spend a lot of time tearing ourselves apart when, for hundreds of years, Celts, Anglo-Saxons and now newcomers, have lived together amicably. We have prospered together. We have had an influence on the world in which the Scots have played an enormous part, far greater than either our population or geographical size would suggest. In modern parlance
1626
I believe it is called "boxing above our weight". What I hope we will not do is simply turn that to boxing one another. The English dimension, though still relatively quiescent, if not dealt with, could damage not only our country but our standing in the world as a whole.
I want to turn to the role of the House of Lords because the Bill is before us and we are predominantly a revising Chamber. I accept, and believe that my noble friends do also, in the principle of the Bill and wish for a successful devolution. I hope that, as a revising Chamber, we may make improvements, as my noble friend Lord Mackay made clear in his remarks earlier this afternoon.
We must then consider the West Lothian question, which cannot be left aside. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said "Quite frankly, we have no answer to that". But that is not good enough and a lot of people will feel that it is not good enough. If they are quiet now, they will not be quiet next year or the year after. No one has stated more clearly and more consistently the West Lothian question, the whole question of the Scottish block grant and the Barnett formula, than the honourable Member, Mr. Tam Dalyell. When the English wake up to what they are spending on the Scots, I can see how the arguments could come into play in a most unhappy way.
I want to make one further point in relation to the whole West Lothian question. It may be thought that having English regions can be a substitute for dealing properly with the West Lothian question, but that is a complete non-starter. Only in the North and South West is there any sense of regional allegiance. There is no demand for regions and, in any event, they would not have anything like the comparable powers of the Scottish parliament.
The Bill raises other enormous problems. The relationship of the Scottish parliament and the European Union was touched on briefly as well as the list that my noble friend Lord Mackay read out. They are big issues. They cannot be brushed aside. We must address ourselves to finding a solution if we are serious about wanting to make this work and wanting to keep the Union. We must recognise that, should we fail to keep the Union, it would be not only Scotland that would be diminished; England, Wales and Northern Ireland would also be diminished. If we look at our standing in the world, where would we be in the United Nations? Where would we be in the European Union and in the Commonwealth? Those are all big, international organisations in which we have, and always have had, an influence. The stakes for which we are playing therefore are extremely high.
My final point is that I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his colleagues will listen to the arguments put forward in this House. And perhaps I can offer a general piece of political advice. I have found that governments do better when they listen to the House of Lords than when they just listen to their own parties. That applies both to the present Government and to my own party when we were in power. There is a great deal of wisdom and experience in your Lordships'

1627
House. There is a great will to try to resolve those questions. Unless we resolve them, we will be faced with a doubtful and possibly dangerous situation ahead.
6.59 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Young. Over many years, with her great experience of the political life of the whole of the United Kingdom, she has been a good friend of Scotland. I agree with every word she said, although I shall speak from a somewhat different perspective.
The noble Viscount, Lord Weir, asked whether the Government would have started down the route they are now going down if they had known what was going to happen. When I first entered the local government political scene, the Lord Provost of Dundee at that time gave me a good piece of advice. He told me, "In politics, the golden rule is never to get yourself on a hook you cannot get off'. It has always seemed to me that this Bill is the result of the Labour Party in Scotland forgetting that golden rule. When all those years ago, fearing the Scottish National Party, it set up with the Liberals its Scottish Constitutional Convention and told it to invent a devolution scheme and sell that scheme to the people of Scotland—there was not mention of the United Kingdom at the time—that was done. It was done with great efficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, who is not in his place at the moment, has, alas, taken his name off the list. I hoped that he was going to tell us his views about that. But it was done and the effect of a lengthy and well-publicised exercise was such that, as the years went by, there was no escape.
It was all right for a party in opposition but then, come May last year, it was not possible, I suspect, for Labour to implement its new and more up-to-date instincts. This Bill was virtually unavoidable. The Government were impaled on a hook and they could not get off. Now, as other noble Lords have said, the law of unintended consequences has taken over. The SNP is high in the polls, Donald Dewar's personal rating has collapsed and the Liberals share bottom place with my party in the polls.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that the new parliament would improve the economic climate. I imagine that he has observed, as I have, that businesses based in Scotland are becoming somewhat unnerved. General Accident has merged with Commercial Union and is moving its headquarters south. Scottish Widows and Standard Life, both based in Edinburgh, have expressed grave anxiety. Policy holders of Scottish Widows, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, told us, have been receiving rather unpleasant letters. Watson and Philip has added its warning. The chairman of the Bank of Scotland has said a good deal over the years about his fears for what higher taxes would mean in Scotland. Yesterday a survey was published of 150 small businesses. Three-quarters of them expect higher taxes under a Scottish parliament and 83 per cent. are concerned about the effect on their business.
1628
In these circumstances, how should noble Lords view the Bill? We have heard a number of angles on this. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish who said in his opening speech that it would be easy for some of us to shrug our shoulders and say "I told you so" and take little interest in the proceedings from now on. It would be easy for some—we have already heard a few voices talking in that way—to feel that amendments are likely to make little difference, that the Scots are heading for separation anyway and that the rest of the United Kingdom may be better off without us. If I may say so, I believe that is totally unjustified pessimism. I firmly agree that this House should put a lot of energy and its best skill into looking carefully at the Bill, particularly at the parts that are likely to lead to most controversy, and that we should do all we can to get the parliament to work as smoothly and fairly as possible so that it becomes stable and works to the satisfaction of all concerned. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that that must surely be in the interests of every United Kingdom citizen, not just the Scots.
There are a number of controversial areas. Noble Lords have already said a good deal about them and much more will be said. I would simply refer to two aspects of the Bill which have not yet been mentioned. There is the obscurity of the drafting of Part IV of the Bill, which deals with the parliament's tax varying powers. The original simple idea of plus or minus 3 per cent. has now become very complicated indeed as the Bill attempts to cater for every possible change in tax structure that the Treasury might invent. There is also a complicated arrangement for the Scottish parliament setting a percentage tax variation and then having to change it. How will business, how will individuals and how will charities which depend on covenants understand this and plan ahead with any certainty? The Association of Chartered Accountants in Scotland is very concerned about the lack of clarity of these clauses and thinks that Clause 71, which defines who is a Scottish taxpayer, must be removed and totally rewritten or the Bill will not work at all. We must look carefully at that.
Another point which has not been completely covered is that the proposed procedure for the drafting and consideration of Bills is somewhat incomplete without some kind of second chamber. The potentially controversial mechanisms for ensuring that they are within the parliament's competence and do not contravene existing or impending UK or European legislation are somewhat difficult to understand. We must be very sure that they are foolproof. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, may have interesting things to say on this point when he comes to speak. I hope that noble Lords will pay great attention to what he says.
There are many other key aspects that need our careful scrutiny. We must indeed all hope, as my noble friend Lord Mackay said, that the Bill does not prove to be another own goal for Scotland but that it operates reasonably smoothly and fairly, to the advantage of us

1629
all. I believe that your Lordships, if you put your shoulder to the wheel—and the Government willing—can ensure that.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the Bill we are considering today is probably the most important that we shall study in the life of this Parliament. It has the most far-reaching implications for the future of the United Kingdom and, as such, it must be examined not only as a means of devolving power from the centre but as providing a ready-made jumping-off point from which Scotland could become independent. I found myself almost in complete agreement with what my noble friend Lord Lang and my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the Front Bench had to say. The only excuse I can make for repeating many of the points which they made is that I feel that they are of such importance that they cannot be uttered too often.
Thus it could well be that the break-up of the United Kingdom could become a reality in something less than a decade. Let us make no mistake. Once this parliament is operating, its frustrations, when it is unable to achieve certain of its desires, will lead it to blame Westminster, and the constant bickering which will follow will set up a very dangerous relationship between it and Westminster from which only nationalists will take comfort. Indeed, it is arguable—and it is likely that the nationalists would use such an argument—that any future long-term relationship between Scotland and England might actually benefit from Scotland becoming independent sooner rather than later thus avoiding the niggling arguments and resentments which could sour relationships over the next decade, making the eventual settlement of terms, in the event of independence, much more acrimonious than might otherwise be the case.
Then there is the demand, which has been mentioned by a number of speaker this afternoon, for a referendum on Scottish independence. After all, the Government were very happy to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Scottish National Party in order to obtain a yes vote in the devolution referendum, so why are they so bashful about trying to find out if the people of Scotland wish to proceed further along this path? If the Government feel squeamish at the thought of this, then the new parliament may well make it a priority itself, particularly if the nationalists win a majority of seats as seems quite possible. For all those problems and uncertainties the Government have nobody to blame but themselves. Everything which is happening was predictable. Labour has let the genie out of the bottle and it must take the consequences.
I have never argued the case against nationalism on the basis of Scotland not being able to survive on its own, but purely on the basis of the Union being much more beneficial to Scotland. My fear is that attitudes in Scotland will harden against the Union. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lady Young had to say about some of the attitudes which are developing in England as far as concerns the Scots.
In my view the Scottish parliament will stimulate resentment rather than pacify feelings. I doubt very much if there still remains within Scotland a majority to
1630
retain the Union; a situation brought about largely by those who have been preaching for some years now the gospel of devolution and playing right into nationalist hands. But what is certain is that pretending that the setting up of the Scottish parliament will change everything is quite wrong and is really another way of putting off the evil day and at very great cost.
Perhaps the only way left to save the Union is by creating a parliament in England for the English and establishing a federal parliament for the whole of the United Kingdom, for which the Liberals have been asking for ever and ever. Perhaps they are simply accepting this measure as a stepping stone. However, that seems to me a most costly and over-elaborate way of resolving a problem brought about principally by a failure adequately to explain and highlight the enormous advantages of the Union to all its members. In any event, it is doubtful whether even that will satisfy—
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is not the noble Lord being a little defeatist? If the advantages of the Union are such, surely he can explain them to the people of Scotland.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord did not have a lot to contribute. I am sorry that I gave way. In any event, it is doubtful whether even that will satisfy the appetite for independence, which wells up not very far below the surface in Scotland today. The polls indicate a massive swing to nationalism which, had it been reflected in the heavily populated central belt in the way in which it flourished in rural areas in 1974, might have given the SNP power in Scotland at that time. Now, for the first time, nationalism is reflected in the central belt of Scotland. That situation, taken along with sleaze oozing from Labour-controlled councils at an alarming rate, is causing a degree of panic in Labour circles in Scotland which is quite understandable.
My noble friends on our Front Bench have indicated that we must accept the reality of the situation and move forward to ensure that the new parliament is a success, and I accept their judgment. Of course, when the Bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an Act of Parliament, it will be the duty of all law-abiding citizens to respect its integrity, but that should not inhibit us from criticising it at this stage or at the later stages, but particularly at Second Reading.
I profoundly dislike any legislation which endangers the Union and I dislike this Bill in particular because I disagree with the philosophy behind it. I am undoubtedly one of a minority in Scotland at the moment, but a sizeable minority which does not relish what this Bill will do eventually. It gives us no pleasure to see our predictions of a couple of years ago beginning to happen already as far as nationalism is concerned.
I doubt very much indeed if this legislation will provide the people of Scotland with anything more than they already have through the Scottish Office and it is open to question whether those functions will be provided in as acceptable a form as at present. We already have a wealth of devolution in Scotland administered by a Secretary of State and his Ministers. The Scottish Office is the envy of many UK

1631
departments because so many problems can be resolved within the Scottish Office itself without constant reference to other departments, which is the lot of UK ministries. And what of the Secretary of State? He or she will become a very minor voice in Cabinet and a nonentity in Scotland.
The costs of establishing and operating a Scottish parliament are as yet uncertain, but if the initial costing of the creation of a parliamentary building is anything to go by, they will be much higher than forecasts indicate at present and that is merely a foretaste of what lies ahead.
Regarding the details of the Bill, we shall have ample opportunity to debate them in the months ahead. Much remains still to be questioned despite the scrutiny already given in another place. However, there are three areas which give cause for particular concern. The first was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, but tonight I do. That is—
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I am glad that we do not often agree with each other.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, that was well said. The first is the fact that Scottish Bills are to be denied the benefit of scrutiny by a second chamber. This is a mysterious decision since in principle the Government must agree with the existence of a revising chamber or they would simply do away with the House of Lords in its entirety. Also, since new members of the Scottish parliament are likely to include a large proportion of inexperienced members, it is particularly inappropriate for there not to be any method of having a second look at Scottish legislation.
The second problem relates to the method of election. It seems to me that having a mixture of constituency members and listed members will create two classes of member. The listed non-combatant, as I care to call him, will always be the poor relation. He or she is unlikely to command the same authority as a constituency member. Furthermore, if he or she becomes a Minister without any parliamentary or constituency experience, life will be difficult in the extreme for that individual.
The third area which gives me cause for concern is the preference that the Government have shown in Committee in another place for concordats. There is really no substitute for writing in requirements on the face of the Bill. Concordats at best are vague and at worst they are merely provided to get the Bill through Parliament, appeasing Members for the time being.
Finally, I am concerned about the status and the future of the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland. A third Law Officer is to be appointed. I think that the Government owe us a more detailed explanation in due course of how the relationship between the Lord Advocate and the new Law Officer will be regarded. Who is to be the senior? Is the Lord Advocate still to be the senior Law Officer, or is the Scottish Law Officer who will be operating at Westminster to be senior to him, or to be considered senior to him? I do not propose
1632
to dwell on those or other legal subjects because there are distinguished luminaries in the legal profession who will no doubt look into those matters in much greater detail and who have much more knowledge of the subject than I do.
I look forward very much to the further stages of this Bill, but I shall need a lot of convincing that it will one day be to the benefit of Scotland.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Russell-Johnston: My Lords, I have three things to say. First, I want to pay homage to a man who was a Member of your Lordships' House and who would have been very happy to be present on this day. For all his political life, in much less sympathetic times than now obtain, he fought for home rule. As a tribute to him, I shall quote from the end of his maiden speech, which he made, unusually, on the day of his Introduction, 6th December 1967. But then, John Bannerman, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, was an unusual man. He said:
"there can be nothing surer in this life than the truth which we Liberals proclaim; and that is that the growth in stature of man depends on the extent to which he can control his own destiny. This is equally true of nations: and Scotland is a nation. That is why Liberals advocate federalism to replace the present form of centralised … government in Britain, so that all parts of Britain may be helped … That is not a selfish ambition. This is an ambition which we are determined is better for the United Kingdom".— [Official Report, 6/12/67; cols. 708–9.]
John followed a long Liberal tradition, to which reference has already been made, which was rooted, as we are reminded by the exhibition in Westminster Hall, in Gladstone's efforts for home rule in the last century, continued in the federal United Kingdom Bill of the Asquith Government, which, as my noble friend Lord Steel said, fell only because of the outbreak of World War I. As my noble friend Lady Linklater reminded us, between the wars Sir Archibald Sinclair held the torch. The Covenant Movement, after the Second World War, was the natural heir to that tradition. Its driving force, John MacCormick—"King John", as many people will remember—was of course a Liberal candidate in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, the seat formerly represented by my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood.
I am proud to have made my little footnote in that record when, on 30th November 1966, in the other place I introduced the first home rule Bill since the war under the ten-minute rule. I said:
"we are not seeking separation from the United Kingdom, but sensible and effective devolution within it".
I was barracked for that and the Speaker had to intervene. That is most unusual on a ten-minute rule Bill. Now I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, almost exactly the same words—and from the same Government Benches, and so the wheel turns. I went on to say:
"Nor is there any contradiction or conflict between wishing to see this and wishing to see the United Kingdom join the European Economic Community. Indeed, I would aver that the larger the grouping the greater the need for devolution within it".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/66: col. 458.]

1633
I say all this mainly because I happen to continue to think—although I suspect that it is not a general view—that consistency in politics, which seems these days to be a very rare commodity, as pragmatism, often linked to opportunism, conquers ideology, is a merit, a virtue and a valuable thing. On these matters, Liberal Democrats have stood up for what they believed in foul weather and fair. Those who have toiled long and hard in the vineyard have contributed to the quality of the fruit.
My other two points are relatively brief, but they are related to "the quality of the fruit". I refer secondly to the West Lothian question. My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said frankly that there was no clear answer to this question and that although there are weaknesses here, they are less than the weaknesses of the existing system.
After all, the Government's proposals worked out, as my noble friend Lord Steel said, consensually in conjunction with the Scottish Constitutional Convention, are founded in the belief that in Scotland a co-operative approach can now work and that it is unquestionably better than the confrontational approach which is the essence of the Westminster system. I very much hope that that is so; I want it to be so although some of the speeches that we have heard do not entirely suggest it. However, I continue to believe that in the end, as the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, suggested, the only sensible and logical answer to Tam Dalyell is federalism—a clear division of entrenched powers in a constitutional frame. Federalism remains a clear option, which may solve future problems, but I recognise that we are not talking of it now.
Thirdly, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who has vanished, with whom I worked long ago in the Scottish Liberal Party—
"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
But to be young was very heaven"—
I strongly and warmly support the Government's acceptance of a proportional element in the voting system. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said, "fair". The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, put the argument against one-party domination on a minority vote. But the essence is the desire to produce in the legislative assembly a fair reflection both of the distribution of political opinion within the country and the interests of the different regions, such as the north-east, the Highlands and the Borders. That is something which is accepted pretty well all over the rest of Europe.
I get tired and angry with those who pomp and prate about democracy, but who are, and have been, happy to sustain a system which is blatantly unfair; with those who governed Scotland without a mandate and without very much regard for what the Scottish people felt—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned the poll tax—yet listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, it is clear that the Conservatives still do not realise that they have been quite the best recruiting sergeants for the nationalism that they condemn. Indeed, they have produced the nationalism that they condemn.
1634
I was saddened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. I hope that that did not reflect general Conservative views. I believe that it was the former Lord Provost of Dundee who remarked that perhaps Sir Malcolm Rifkind was a better guide to what was going on in the Conservative Party. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, sounded like a man with a closed mind which was continuing to close. He seemed never to have heard of Catalonia and Bavaria or regional developments in France and Italy. It is true that for this change to work we need open minds, tolerance, a commitment to success and patience with one another. That is what Scottish people want and also deserve from their politicians.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I have listened with great attention, as have all other noble Lords present, to the debate tonight. I wish to speak to a fairly narrow business point having worked all my life in Scottish companies in Scotland. For much of that time I had some responsibility for disbursing taxpayers' money to industry through various government bodies.
I have been struck by the unity on all sides of this House on one point: concern about the Union. That has come through from every single speech. If that unity is reflected outside this House in the political parties and in Scotland it should start to influence Scottish public opinion during the debates and in the run-up to the Scottish parliament and those who are persuaded by a populist, perhaps a "Braveheart", point of view. I suggest that collectively through all three political parties and the independents we must put across the facts. I believe that in business terms the Scottish national case is a dud prospectus. The balance sheet does not add up, nor could it. If Scotland went into that situation it would be the equivalent of a business going into receivership.
I shall finish with four brief light-hearted points. I ask noble Lords to attend to a little arithmetic. I apologise for elaborating these facts but they are true. As a percentage of GDP, public expenditure in the UK is about 42 per cent. Scottish expenditure as a percentage of Scottish GDP is 50 per cent. The overall Scottish GDP is about 8.5 per cent. of the UK figure. The population of Scotland is about 8.8 per cent. and public expenditure exceeds 10 per cent. Scottish expenditure exceeds the revenue collected from taxes in Scotland by about £7.4 billion. Even if one allocated all the oil revenues—it is inconceivable that any government would be willing to do so—that deficit would still be about £5 billion. The Scottish block vote is just over £14 billion.
This leads me to my second point. Of that £14 billion, about 40 per cent. (£5.2 billion) goes to finance local authority expenditure. The balance of local authority expenditure comes from self-financing. Most of that comes from the council tax. That produces about £1.2 or £1.3 billion and adds up to total local authority expenditure of £6.3 billion.

1635
I am sorry to bore noble Lords with those figures. However, all of us who believe in the Union should try to get across in the manifestos and the process that leads up to the parliament the fact that the nationalist separatist policies do not add up. Scotland would be infinitely the poorer. If the budget were to break even taxes would have to go up by a fantastic amount. I suggest that all of us need to put across that point because it is not understood by the 52 per cent. of people who voted for this proposition.
That leads me to my concerns about the financial arrangements under the Bill. I believe that 3p in the pound resulting in £450 million is of mind-boggling irrelevance in relation to the potential gap in taxation. This is entirely covered in Part VI of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum:
"Self-financed public expenditure—i.e. spending not financed by UK taxpayers as a whole—may increase or decrease depending on how the Scottish Parliament elects to use its tax-varying powers and how it decides to treat self-financed spending by Scottish local authorities".
I suggest that there is the rub. If, as we have heard from so many noble Lords, there is a belief that the Westminster parliament is extremely unlikely under tight public expenditure control to increase the block grant—it could be decreased and would be very unlikely to go up—and the Scottish parliament is to work as it must for Scotland and Scottish business, there will be a great appetite for programmes and policies that require cash. The cash will not be there. In another context we have heard about "leaving nurse". There is perhaps a feeling that the effect of the thumbscrews applied by both the present and previous administrations to local authority expenditure may be less under a Scottish parliament. There will be a great appetite for local authority expenditure.
If the Scottish parliament has discretion and in its wisdom decides to pass responsibility for non-domestic rates to local authorities, the amount raised by that means will be £1.4 billion. That is equal to the amount raised by council tax and is included in the £5.3 billion. That would be subject to great pressure. There would be no more money from central government. The council tax could not be raised because the parliament would have to report to the electorate. Once again the tax would fall back on business. That is a major concern to business. I hope that the Government will consider an amendment to place some form of cap on the tax to be raised on business.
On Monday I attended a conference in Edinburgh to hear what the political parties had to say about business. The Labour view was put by Henry McLeish, the Liberal Democrat view by a distinguished industrialist and the SNP view by one of the Ewing dynasty. Perhaps I may run through those views quickly. Labour said that there was no point in having a parliament if it disadvantaged business and the economy; business must be involved; business policies must have priority; there must be a stable economic framework; inward and domestic investment were of equal importance; there should be strong emphasis on small companies etc. The Liberal Democrat Party spoke about wealth creation and
1636
investment in people and capital; there must be a sensible structure for business rates; tax stability was essential in the first four years; and there should be lower taxes if possible, certainly not higher than the rest of the UK. Well done to both of them.
The SNP said that a favourable business climate was essential; Scotland would succeed only if business succeeded; the Government created work and business created jobs; and no power should be given to local authorities to raise non-domestic rates above the English level. I point out that the SNP is saying to the public and to business something I wanted to hear.
I have spoken long enough. However, I express my concern that if there is no further amendment to the Bill the power that will be reserved to the Scottish parliament and ultimately to the Treasury to cut local authority expenditure if it becomes too high is not enough. Some further amendment at Committee stage of the Bill will be needed if business confidence is to rise. It is important that business plays its part.
Perhaps, with the greatest respect, I may correct my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I was deputy chairman of General Accident. My noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton is a director. On Tuesday we shall both be at the same dinner saying farewell to General Accident. We were both heavily involved in all those discussions. I have to say that that decision had absolutely nothing to do with devolution or a Scottish parliament. It was entirely about the ability to create a UK champion in the insurance industry which can compete worldwide and to protect Scottish jobs and investment in Scotland.
The Scottish parliament will sit where I had my office in Scottish and Newcastle. I hope that when they have a spare moment, all the MSPs will enjoy looking out, as I used to do, at King Arthur's seat and seeing the fulmars nesting.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord. However, he has drawn attention to the site of the Scottish parliament. Can the noble Lord confirm rumours that are circulating that because it is being built on the site of the present brewery it will shortcut the planning process, and that no change of use permission will be required?
Lord Nickson: My Lords, I should love to be able to answer the Minister on that point. However, as I retired as a non-executive of Scottish and Newcastle over five years ago, I am looking far into the past and have no current knowledge.
The Minister will be disappointed if I do not raise this point because he thinks that I cannot stand on my feet without talking about salmon. I just wish to thank him for Clause 100 which allows Her Majesty by Order in Council to produce regulations for Tweed and border Esk. He will understand why I thank him for that.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister for the fact that I was unable to be present to hear his opening remarks due to business elsewhere in the House. I shall look forward with great pleasure to reading them tomorrow in Hansard.

1637
I should like to say a few words about the constitutional aspects of the Bill and to comment on the provisions which it makes with regard to the appointment, removal and functions of the judiciary. For reasons which I shall attempt to explain in a moment, I believe that the new constitutional settlement for Scotland will have major implications for the work which judges do and for the way in which the work done by the judges affects the conduct of government. I also believe that insufficient attention was paid to that aspect of the devolution process when it was being explained to the people of Scotland during the referendum campaign. In the result, it is far from clear, despite all the enthusiasm which they have shown for it, that the people of Scotland have yet really understood the nature of the change in their parliamentary arrangements which will be an inevitable consequence of devolving legislative power to Holyrood from Westminster.
We all know the result of the referendum and we share a wish to see the best and most stable form of devolution that can be achieved. But if that end is to be achieved, it is essential that we should all have a clear understanding of the nature of the fundamental change which is being proposed.
One can best approach the first point I wish to make by looking at the issue of sovereignty. Much has been said about that issue in another place. It seems to have been approached by some of the Government's critics—I refer in particular to the Scottish National Party—on the basis that there was a choice between retaining parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster and transferring parliamentary sovereignty to the people of Scotland in their own Scottish parliament. That certainly is how the argument has been presented in Scotland, and I suspect that there is now a widely held belief—encouraged no doubt by the fact that the new legislature is to be called a parliament and not an assembly—that the Scottish parliament will enjoy the same sovereignty, and all the privileges which go with sovereignty, as the Parliament here at Westminster. But such a belief, if indeed there is such a belief, would be profoundly mistaken. In that mistake would lie the risk of dissatisfaction, and thus of instability, as the true nature of what has happened was revealed when the work done by the Scottish parliament was brought under scrutiny in the courts.
The fact is that there is to be created for Scotland a new kind of sovereignty. It is not parliamentary sovereignty but constitutional sovereignty. Parliamentary sovereignty will continue to reside here at Westminster. That is made absolutely clear in Clause 27(7) of the Bill. But even if the clause had been silent on the matter, there would have been no choice about this. A devolved parliament cannot be a sovereign parliament in the sense that Parliament here is sovereign. The essential characteristic of a parliament which enjoys parliamentary sovereignty is that its power to legislate on whatever matter it chooses cannot be called into question before the courts. But the essential characteristic of a devolved parliament is that it can only legislate within the powers which have been devolved to it. Any legislation which is enacted outside those
1638
powers is vulnerable to attack on the ground that it is ultra vires. My point is this. It is the judges, not the devolved parliament nor even the executive, who will have the last say as to whether or not it is within the powers of the parliament.
On one view it might seem that a new arrangement which subjected Scottish legislation to judicial scrutiny was an imperfect arrangement. After all, the position today is that Scottish legislation enacted here in this Parliament enjoys all the benefits of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. Except in so far as a question may arise under European Community law, and, when the Human Rights Bill is enacted, under convention law, such legislation is beyond challenge once it has been enacted. There is no uncertainty. Public money can be expended and arrangements can be entered into privately in complete confidence that what has been enacted by this Parliament is the law. That will not be the position when legislation has been enacted by the Scottish parliament.
One has only to look at the devolution issues listed in paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to see the scope which will exist for challenges to be made. No time limit is set for the making of those challenges. As has been pointed out by several noble Lords, there is to be no revising chamber. So in theory at least—I stress the word theory—subject to the exercise of the powers given to the court in Section 93 to vary retrospective decisions, legislation by the Scottish parliament could be set aside as not being within that parliament's competence long after it had been put into effect. In the wrong hands that could be very damaging.
But there is an entirely different side to this matter which we should properly recognise. The situation in which the Scottish parliament will find itself is the same as that in which parliaments or national assemblies of almost all the countries, states and provinces both in Europe and in the Commonwealth—Catalonia and Bavaria have been mentioned—which have written constitutions enact their legislation within the constitution. The United Kingdom is unique within the European Union in that it alone operates under the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. In all the other countries it is the constitution which is sovereign and binding on the legislature. The same is true in most Commonwealth countries, which see the principle of parliamentary sovereignty as outdated and even dangerous—nowhere more so than in South Africa. So on one view it can be said that the new arrangement which will apply in Scotland is a truly modern, state of the art, arrangement. Indeed, in another place the Secretary of State for Scotland said that this was a decisive step in the fight to modernise our constitution. In that respect, I agree with him. He also said that the objective was a new covenant with the people. That also is true, in the same sense as in all those other countries it is the constitution which is the covenant with the people. But the fundamental point which needs to be understood is that both the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive will be have to respect and live within that covenant, and that it will the responsibility of the courts in the last resort to ensure that they do.

1639
That brings me to the judiciary. This is not the time to go into detail; I can make only three or four general points. The first is the most important. It is that absolute confidence in the independence of the judges will be crucial in the working out of the new arrangements. That will have to work in two ways. The public must have complete confidence in the independence of the judges from pressure of any kind at the instance of those over whose actions they will have to adjudicate. And the judges themselves must have complete confidence in their independence if they are to do their job properly. Where devolution issues are raised the courts and tribunals before which they are raised will be brought more than ever before in Scotland into the arena which until now has been reserved for politics and the legislature. So independence from pressure from both the executive and the legislature will be essential if the covenant with the people is to be upheld.
The second point is related to the first. It will be necessary to look very closely at the provisions in Clause 89 about the appointment and removal of judges. We must ensure that what is enacted there will provide the best possible arrangement. In the past, this was left to practice and convention. Nothing was written down. Now we are to have a code for dealing with these matters. That is right and necessary, but the code will need to be complete and it will need to guarantee independence. The arrangements should be entrenched so that they will not be capable of being altered, or even modified, by the Scottish parliament. And the system for removal will need to take account of the protections which are available under convention law to ensure fairness and due process to the individual. As the Bill stands, the prospect of a challenge in the courts by a judge to his removal on convention grounds cannot be dismissed as fanciful. The position of the sheriffs, for whom a procedure for removal already exists in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971 but who are not mentioned in this respect in the Bill, will also have to be clarified as they, too, may have to deal with devolution issues.
The third point relates to the procedure for judicial scrutiny, including the provisions for references and appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Some of this ground is already being covered in the debates on the Government of Wales Bill. But in the context of a Scottish parliament which will enact primary legislation, the importance of getting these arrangements right is absolutely paramount. For example, I hope that Ministers will give consideration to increasing the number of holders of high judicial office in Scotland who are made Privy Counsellors. We must recognise that at present the only Scottish judges who are made Privy Counsellors and who become members of the Judicial Committee by virtue of their judicial office are the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Justice-Clerk.
In England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, the position is different. All members of the Court of Appeal are made Privy Counsellors on their appointment to the Court of Appeal. In the result, there is a large pool of serving and retired judges in England
1640
and Wales and Northern Ireland who can sit on the Judicial Committee with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Under the present arrangements, the different position in Scotland is not important because the Judicial Committee is not required to adjudicate on Scots law. But that will change with devolution, so account will need to be taken of that—and of the future of appeals from the Court of Session to this House, as these appeals provide the only reason why Scottish judges are appointed to sit here as Lords of Appeal in Ordinary—in looking at the composition of the Judicial Committee for the purposes of this Bill.
The ultimate safeguard in any constitution is the separation of powers as between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The part to be played by all three branches is brought under scrutiny in the Bill. Perhaps for understandable reasons, the third branch, the judiciary, received little attention in the debates in another place. I know that that will not happen in your Lordships' House and I look forward to the examination of this part of the detail during the remaining stages of the Bill.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, despite my anxieties about the huge constitutional change which the Bill brings about, I must try to be constructive and confine my main remarks to three aspects of the Bill which I believe will cause trouble and need to be examined. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would be open-minded when considering points as the Bill goes through the House and will not resort to what I would call "resist tactics" all along the line.
As a result of the Bill being enacted, the structures of our UK constitution will never be the same again. Implicit in that remark is that in the Government's eyes change will be for the better. I have to say that it will be for better or worse, richer or poorer, for longer than any of us will live. As has been said so often, the referendum result was decisive and clear. However, what is not so clear is whether the support for the Union in Scotland is as clear cut as true unionists such as myself would wish. This is the challenge which all three unionist parties in this House must face in Scotland in the years ahead.
The Government, having passed this Bill, cannot walk away from the knock-on effects in the United Kingdom of lopsided arrangements which have brought about the West Lothian question. It will have to be addressed if not by this Government then by a successor in the future. Being constructive, I hope that the Minister will see sense in instituting a review of the appropriate functions and powers of Scottish MPs at Westminster after the Bill has been passed and publish it during the course of this Parliament. If that does not happen, I believe that they will rightly stand accused of putting the cohesion of the United Kingdom at risk.
The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that there was no answer to the West Lothian question. However, like my noble friend Lady Young, I believe that that is not an excuse for not trying to find a better solution than we have at present. Having had experience as chairman of

1641
the Conservative National Union Executive Committee, which covers the whole of the United Kingdom, I agree only too wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lady Young that there are stirrings in the camp in England. I know that once that fire begins to flame things will get very serious indeed for the unity of the United Kingdom.
The first issue of concern in the Bill, which the nationalists would have no difficulty in puncturing, is the concordat arrangement for the Scottish parliament in dealings with Europe, particularly in farming and fishing, which for some years I had the honour to represent in the Scottish Office. As the Minister knows, fishing is a very complex issue. It is more important in Scotland as to its size than it is south of the Border. So our Scottish voice is very important in the Council of Ministers.
While the Ministry of Agriculture takes the lead, it is not always easy for territorial Ministers—I am sure the Minister will agree with this—albeit from the same party, to reach a united view in order to put their case. I suggest that that will be even more so if the Scottish parliament and UK Ministers represent different parties. If there is no statutory framework governing Scottish participation in the Council of Ministers on those subjects, what is to prevent the National Farmers' Union of Scotland or Scottish fishermen's federations and others bypassing the Scottish parliament and dealing direct with the lead Ministry? If that were to happen, I believe that we should be handing to the SNP remarkably good ammunition and we must do our best to ensure that that does not happen.
Secondly, the Bill is not sufficiently explicit on tax-raising powers. As has already been said by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has written to many of us suggesting that it is concerned about how Part IV is meant to interact with the basic rate of income tax and other parts of the system. It says:
"It is a fundamental point because it illustrates a lack of clarity in primary legislation designed to implement constitutional change".
It goes on:
"If the tax raising powers are brought into disrepute this will have a knock on effect on the credibility of the new Parliament".
I hope that in Committee, we shall consider those matters and in particular the view of the Inland Revenue, as I understand it, that it would prefer the SVR to be treated as a levy rather than as at present an extension of the basic rate tax. Why on earth did the Government abandon the 183-day rule on residence for something far more obscure and difficult to comprehend?
Scottish industry is watching developments most closely in those areas as the success of this parliament is so vital to its survival. It will no doubt be encouraged by the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that real economic success—or did I hear the word "boom" mentioned?—may come as a result of the new parliament. But I have some doubts and was somewhat alarmed by statements from another place from the Liberal Benches which said that the funding settlement gets us off to a good start. However, we shall have to revisit that issue.
1642
There is widespread talk in Scotland of the Scottish parliament, either directly or indirectly through local authorities, raising such taxes as the tourist tax—I think Councillor Geddes mentioned that—a local sales tax and higher business rates. I, for one, worked extremely hard for several years to try to bring down those business rates in line with England. We succeeded because a lot of money from the Scottish block had to go into that. But I do not regret a penny of it because we in Scotland, in industry, can compete on a level playing field with those south of the Border. Woe betide any government, whether in Scotland or at Westminster, who try to undermine that arrangement because the net result will be that industry in Scotland will suffer and some of it could easily move elsewhere.
As I understand it, as presently drafted, the Bill does not prevent extra taxes being levied if 3p does not raise the necessary sums. Furthermore, it does not prevent additional revenue being raised through local taxes. I hope that those matters will be studied carefully in Committee.
I am in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and, surprisingly the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, on the question of the unicameral Scottish parliament. It may be because they, like me, have had to pick up the pieces from the other end of the corridor as regards legislation on several occasions. I cannot conceive of legislation coming from a unicameral Scottish parliament which will be any different from that which came from the other end of the corridor, from whichever party is in office. I hope that this matter will be looked at. I know that there is no easy solution. I was extremely impressed that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had taken the trouble to find out what happened in Norway to see whether a solution could be found.
The most important thing that we must do is to try to make this Bill better than it is. I hope that we shall succeed. I hope that the Scottish parliament will live up to the people's great expectations of it. Like my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, I hae my doots but like a good marriage it will take hard work to make it work by those who really truly believe in the Union.
8.5 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, in view of the long list of speakers, I shall confine myself to one principal issue. It was an issue raised by the Minister in his opening remarks. But despite the assurances that he sought to give us then, it remains a concern for my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and other noble friends and noble Lords who have spoken since. I refer to the policy formulation and decision-making processes which will attach to agriculture, fisheries and environmental policy in Scotland after this Bill is enacted.
I should remind the Minister that concerns expressed by my noble friends and others during the debate are felt also by various organisations in Scotland. It is undoubtedly an area where more reassurance and clarity is required.
The effect of the Bill devolves legislative competence for agriculture and animal welfare, fisheries, the environment, natural heritage, pollution, water and so

1643
on to the Scottish parliament. But the critical decisions affecting those areas are, as many noble Lords know, determined largely at EU level. Hence the obvious sense for Scotland in the current arrangements whereby UK policies regarding such issues and the subsequent negotiation within the European Union are formulated jointly by Scottish Ministers, as UK Ministers, along with the appropriate Whitehall and other territorial Ministers.
Annex C of the very useful guide to the Bill points out that the Bill reserves all EU matters to Westminster, while at the same time, the new Scottish Ministers will lose the formal role which they currently exercise as UK Ministers in the surrounding policy-making process.
Thus as regards agriculture, fisheries and the environment, Scotland may well be gaining legislative competence and no doubt there will be opportunities where that new competence can be put to very good use. In opening, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, welcomed the prospect of local solutions to local problems; and so do I. However, some of the very real problems which exist in those areas and their respective solutions are far from being local.
As regards the interest of Scottish farmers, fishermen and all those with an interest in Scottish environmental policy, the principal policies and measures which the new parliament will implement will not be initiated, negotiated or decided by Scottish Ministers or a Scottish parliament, but they will be initiated, negotiated and decided through a process that no longer has any formal role for Scottish Ministers.
The loss of formal competence in UK policy matters and EU negotiations will be a high price to pay. Neither the opening remarks of the Minister nor Schedule 5 provide much guaranteed comfort in that respect.
I regret that the future input of Scottish Ministers to the meetings and deliberations of EU Councils of Ministers will at best be rendered ambiguous. Along with many other Scottish Office Ministers in this House, many of whom have spoken already in the debate, while I was the agriculture and environment Minister, I attended more than a dozen agriculture Councils and four or more environment Councils. Although I was a Scottish Minister, my status as a UK Minister enabled me to speak regularly during the formal Council proceedings. Such occasions sometimes reflected agenda items that were of particular interest to Scotland, but that was by no means always the case. For all or most of two Agriculture and two Environment Councils, I was the only UK Minister attending. I thus led for the United Kingdom on the entire agendas and spoke for the UK on them as a Scottish Minister. Will that be possible in the future? From the Minister's opening remarks it appears that it will clearly not be, as he said that UK Ministers would always lead at EU Councils of Ministers. In future, Scottish Ministers will not be UK Ministers; in other words, they will not be Ministers of the Crown.
Further, with what ease and frequency will Scottish agriculture, fisheries and environment ministers be able to speak and contribute to EU Councils of Ministers in
1644
the future? When a Council of Ministers goes into closed session and only member state Ministers are allowed to remain in the room, how easy will it be for devolved Scottish Ministers at that moment to stay with their Minister of the Crown colleagues? Indeed, will Scottish Minsters be confined to the public areas of the Brussels and Luxembourg Council buildings, except where, under the provisions outlined in Schedule 5, they are providing assistance to a Minister of the Crown? Will Scottish Ministers be allowed to access the Council buildings and the Council chamber as and when they wish, even when their assistance has either not been sought by a UK Minister or has actually been refused by a UK Minister?
The Minister approves of the brevity of the reference in Schedule 5 to those areas in that he feels that it will deliver flexibility. However, brevity may also deliver uncertainty in such areas. Although it may sound far-fetched to some, if there are different parties in government both north and south of the Border it could well be that Ministers from both sides would be pursuing very different policies. Therefore, it is possible that the UK Minister in London could actively seek to prevent a Scottish Minister from attending a certain Council of Ministers. He may fear parallel press conferences from different Ministers in the UK preaching different messages on the same issues.
The latter are not nit-picking questions, because EU policy has such an immensely significant impact on Scottish agriculture, fisheries and environmental concerns. Rightly, therefore, it is the Scottish Ministers who currently decide when they want to go to Brussels, which Councils they wish to attend, whether or not they want to attend inside the Council chamber and whether, with the agreement of fellow UK Ministers, they actually want to speak. At present, Scottish Ministers are in no way confined in either their appearance or indeed in their movements during Councils of Ministers. That is an important prerogative that Scottish Ministers should retain. During later stages of the Bill, I hope that we will receive some reassurance and clarity from the Minister in that respect.
As has been said by various other former Ministers who have had experience of such Councils, there is often tension between Scottish Ministers and their Whitehall colleagues at these Councils, even when Scottish and London Ministers are of the same political party. We must make allowances in the future for the fact that those tensions might be very much worse where Ministers from either side of the Border come from different parties.
The current ability for a Scottish Minister to attend in his own right and of his own volition is, I believe, important for two further reasons. First, there is the fact that the haggling and late night horse-trading that an EU Council decision will often require can leave pre-arranged policies in tatters. The pre-agreed negotiating positions are unavoidably subject to adjustment and compromise. According to my first-hand experience, such last minute alterations can have significant implications for Scottish interests. In addition, there are also useful opportunities for Scottish Ministers to pursue valuable lobbying and diplomacy

1645
during a Council meeting outside the Council chamber itself—in other words, in and around the surrounding corridors, the surrounding offices and the surrounding watering holes. Such opportunities are vital to Scottish Ministers, especially when they are pursuing issues which are not actually on the formal Council agenda.
I do not want the advocacy of Scottish interests in Europe by Scottish Ministers in charge of agriculture, fisheries and the environment to be side-lined. Therefore, I derive no reassurance from the fact that, despite the innumerable hours that I spent in and around Council meetings, I never once met—nor, indeed, did I ever hear any reference to the presence of—a Minister from Catalonia, Bavaria or from any other devolved region. I do not want Scottish Ministers to be, as it were, reduced to a silent and non-speaking status.
I shall conclude with a brief reference to three other points. The first point is one which no doubt will be clarified as the Bill progresses. I seek clarification regarding the proposed devolution of legislative competence for food standards and the relationship that is envisaged between the Scottish parliament and the Food Standards Agency. My second point is particularly appropriate for the Minister. I believe that the Bill offers a very good opportunity for an explicit reference to the promotion of sustainable development in Scotland through the powers and procedures of the new Scottish parliament. I accept the argument that it is implicit, but I also recognise the fact that Scotland has often taken the lead in the past in such matters. Indeed, it was Scottish legislation that first included sustainable development on the face of a UK Act. I believe that there is good reason for Scotland to take the lead once again, and to do so to its own credit and advantage.
Finally, I turn to a point which has been well covered by various noble Lords; namely, the extent to which single chamber government can incorporate the same kind of scrutiny, revision and counter-balance in its operation as a second chamber would normally provide in most other governmental arrangements. I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
8.17 p.m.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, I have expressed occasional sceptical views in the past about certain aspects of devolution. The fact is that I have previously questioned such matters, but I am now satisfied that what the Government propose adds up to good legislation. Of course, it is a Bill which results from a long-standing aspiration of the Labour Party and the people of Scotland, as has been said repeatedly. Indeed, it received massive support in the referendum.
The Bill also has the support of all Scotland's great institutions, including the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Trades Union Congress. I mention those in particular as they are the two mass membership organisations in Scotland today. Devolution is supported by all the political parties that are represented by election at Westminster and in the European Parliament.
I was pleased to see that Mr. Hague had called on his supporters in Scotland to make a success of the new parliament. I am sure that the Opposition Front Bench
1646
will forgive me if I say that we will judge that on the Government side of the House by the approach taken to the business of opposition during the passage of the Bill. However, for the moment we assume that there is something of a consensus surrounding the issue; indeed, that is how it should be.
I believe that how our people are governed is a matter upon which consensus should be sought among all Members of this House and the other place, as well as the political parties in the country. If we can agree on that, as I believe we have in the past, we underpin the political stability of our country which has been such a positive factor in our long history. I support the Bill because I believe the country is ready for another advance in democracy. Our structures of government are not set in stone. They have to change and develop. The judgment we have to make is how far-reaching change should be and that what is done is always with the consent of the people. I believe therefore that this Bill is the right measure.
The Bill is about extending democratic control over those measures already administratively devolved to Scotland. The powers and functions that are properly the responsibility of the United Kingdom are retained.
The Bill recognises the right of the Scottish nation to insist on the devolution of, and control over, those matters that have always been the preserve of Scotland through the terms of its treaty with England. The Scots have preserved their right to determine their own system of education which was developed out of events having their origin in the Reformation. The Scots want control over health and over social policy including law and order. The Bill serves those ends and strengthens historic commitments.
The Bill brings government closer to the people. In doing so it reinforces an essential quality in the make-up of the Scots that authority is derived from the will of the people and from nowhere and no one else. I told the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland last month that such principles were the very stuff of being a Scottish Presbyterian and the very stuff of being a Scot. I am a unionist. I recognise the great benefit of the Union over the past three centuries. The Labour Party is unionist and this Bill seeks only to devolve existing power. I believe the House understands very well the relationship between the parliaments. Time does not permit me to reiterate the arguments.
I am proud to be a Scot. I am a true patriot but that is very different from being a nationalist. I, too, want to say something about Scottish nationalism because the fear is often expressed by the opponents of devolution—we have heard much of that today—that this Bill will lead to separation.
Nationalism seems to me a small idea. The Scottish variety is no different. My right honourable friend George Robertson said it had a darker side. We know that to be true. Nationalism is exclusive. Its bottom line is surely that it says to minorities, "You are not one of us." That fact is expressed today in many of the former communist countries of eastern Europe with tragic consequences.

1647
I do not believe such things could occur here, but there have been sad and unacceptable happenings in Scotland, not, I stress, at the hand of the SNP but as a consequence of the licence given to excesses by the rise of a nationalist ethos. Disparaging the English, even hating the English, has been fostered by films like "Braveheart". It was meant as entertainment—it was supposed to be cowboys in kilts—but it has been used to build a nationalist ethos.
In recent times there have been excesses that have horrified all decent people in Scotland. Those events, one tragic, are well documented in an article by Lawrence Donegan in the Scotsman of 6th June. If Members of your Lordships' House read the article they will understand the grounds for the deep worries and concerns many of us feel about nationalism's darker side. As I said, nationalism is a small idea not worthy of the Scots.
But, of course, there is worry about opinion polls. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland made the point that when the Bill is implemented the arguments of the Scottish nationalists, and their appeal, will diminish. However, I am not inclined to take advice from the Conservative Benches about opinion polls because in real polls the Conservative Party in Scotland has lost all its seats. However, all the seats held by the Scottish National Party are seats formerly held by the Tories. Someone must explain to me how Conservatives and unionists can become nationalists. I have never understood that. However, that is what has happened. I do not think that those on the Benches opposite should give us advice about shifts in public opinion or what that may mean. The Bill will not lead to—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. At the risk of giving him a piece of advice, I hope I may tell him that for four years up until last May a certain political party said that it did not believe the polls. That did not turn out to be the case, did it?
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, I am not saying that I do not believe the polls. I certainly believe that the polls as of today's date represent a shift in opinion. What I am saying is that I do not believe that this Bill when enacted will see those polls translated into reality at the ballot box. That is the difference between us. I am sceptical about taking advice from my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
The point I was making is that I do not believe this Bill will lead to the break-up of the Union. It will build on our traditions of democracy, freedom and tolerance. I believe that it will defeat nationalism because it will rob it of its sense of grievance, and nationalism in Scotland is built on a sense of grievance, and that alone. The Bill expresses the settled will of the Scottish people, as has been said before. I hope that the House will give the Bill its full support, improve it by all means but at the end of the day enact it.
8.26 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, I feel particularly privileged to be able to speak on the Second Reading of this Bill. In declaring an interest I admit, like many other speakers, to one in my ancestry, my residence and my livelihood. Perhaps speaking with a little more relevance, I should say that this year I am president of the Royal Highland and Agricultural Society of Scotland, whose remit takes in all rural affairs.
A couple of weeks ago I took an ancient sword to be displayed in an exhibition commemorating the 700th anniversary of the battle of Falkirk. The sword's history can be traced back to Sir John de Graham, the historical right-hand man of Mel Gibson—I beg your Lordships' pardon; the noble Lord, Lord Hogg, has misled me. I meant to refer to the right-hand man of Sir William Wallace. I say that to illustrate how easy it is for the public to become confused as to whether facts stem from Hollywood or from history. Sir John was killed in that battle. The names of many succeeding generations of my family appear in numerous aspects of Scottish history from the Declaration of Arbroath to the Act of Union and beyond. I am tempted to pick a bone with the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, for his rather sweeping statement about the part that bribery played in the passing of the Act of Union. However, I do not think that would advance our cause tonight.
At the present moment ordinary Scots find themselves surrounded by salesmen for devolution in all their beguiling colours. I hear little outside this Chamber of what used to be regarded as one of our great assets, the universally recognised "canny Scot". We hear little of how Scottish pride and independence of character can contribute to the associations and institutions of the whole country to which we as a nation belong.
I was glad to hear the Minister mention that this legislation is taking us into uncharted waters. We are offered new institutions, voting procedures and ways of drafting legislation with almost the same assurance as if they were new washing powder or wallpaper. Those products are at least the result of scientific and market testing. We have been offered some explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and we have heard the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as to the existence of those concepts elsewhere. But the public might have a better understanding of what we are about to undergo if they were described as novel or (dare one say it?) experimental arrangements.
Together in these British Isles we have developed institutions and traditions, industries and economic influence which have at times been an inspiration to the world. I would liken the United Kingdom to a family of brothers. We still need to consider our joint responsibilities for our past, as we do our potential for the future. For one member of the family simply to say, "I am leaving", would not negate our common parentage nor be sufficient to deny all that has gone before, and I personally hope that there is still greater strength in our all continuing to move together.

1649
It would appear that a great many of the issues to be raised in relation to the Bill have inevitably been thrashed out in this House as part of the debate on the Welsh Bill. I noted in particular those raised by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell about the accountability and career implications for civil servants.
Having spent over 30 years in active farm and countryside management, including eight years on the council of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, my concern over this proposed legislation has focused on how it will affect agricultural and rural affairs. In terms of fundamental finance for Scotland, this looks like being the area where the greatest changes will be felt.
Scotland is familiar with the block grant from Westminster as it now stands. But the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department has a budget this year, outside the Scottish Office block grant, of £509 million. Under the arrangements outlined in the White Paper it would appear that £173 million will no longer be negotiated with the Treasury by a UK Minister devoted to Scottish rural and environmental affairs. Is that sum simply to be added on to the present Scottish block grant, or will the sums of money devoted to similar areas in England be totted up together and, by the use of the Barnett formula, whose future cannot be guaranteed, a sum be added to the Scottish block? The agricultural and rural interests, which rely on that funding, will then have to bid, along with all the other demands of the Scottish economy, for what are bound to be fairly scarce resources.
I have spoken to some of those in agricultural education and research who are extremely worried about how what could become a relatively haphazard flow of resources could undermine their long-term viability. That leaves aside the impossibility of knowing for some time yet what the initial sum will be. Just yesterday I was talking to someone in this building who pointed out that that money provides the core funding for a world class biological research industry that provides 10,000 jobs in the Scottish central belt alone.
Other Members of your Lordships' House, notably my noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Sanderson, dealt with the question of Europe. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I return to it briefly. My noble friends spoke of the pitfalls that are likely to be encountered in putting across the case that is required to secure the remaining sum of approximately £360 million of support which it is anticipated will come to Scottish agriculture this year from Europe. That is a not inconsiderable sum. In some ways it bears comparison with the sum which it is thought will be raised through an extra Scottish tax.
Almost by definition, within the European Union at present it is extremely unlikely that agriculture and the environment would ever be seen as matters of sufficient subsidiarity to be devolved to the Council of the Regions. But unless that happens, the Scottish minister for these matters will always been seen in European circles, in whatever role he is asked to speak, as the monkey rather than the organ-grinder.
The fact that there has been very little comment on the devolution proposals from those who represent agriculture in Scotland is perhaps just a symptom of the
1650
crisis that the industry is in at the moment. The drop in farm incomes, coupled with increased environmental and animal health regulations, leaves them without much time to consider many other aspects. However, it is revealing that when I talked to one of those responsible for one of the representative organisations he seemed to think that the best channel left for seeking to promote Scottish interests would be an attempt to persuade the English NFU to adopt the policies that would be most favourable to the Scottish context. Never an easy task! Is that not an indication of just how remote Scottish interests will be from the seat of influence under the proposed arrangements?
It is evident that the Government expect there still to be a Secretary of State for Scotland. One or two noble Lords have hinted at the fact that, given the very few responsibilities left, it is uncertain whether they would be adequate to justify a continued place in the UK Cabinet. Will the Minister consider what role that position could still play, and spell it out in rather more detail than is presently being revealed? That is surely the area where more muscle could be available for agriculture, as for other industries already mentioned, which are both Scottish and national industries and whose future is governed from Europe. They might be better served if some aspects of their administration were reserved in the first instance to such an office.
8.36 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, since I shall speak about history and the future, I ought to mention that among my predecessors were those who negotiated the Union of the Crowns and of the Parliaments and who raised the first rebellion against the Union.
The arrival of this Bill signifies the recognition that the constitution of the United Kingdom is unfair and in danger of breaking up. The main problem is the domination of the United Kingdom Parliament by representatives from England. By that, I mean that representatives from Scotland can be outvoted on Scottish domestic matters, the outcome being that democracy exists only at local level in Scotland. The Bill sets out a means of returning some aspects of national government to Scotland and introduces democracy at national government level for the first time.
The treaty of 1706 was signed between two sovereign, and hence equal, states. Therefore, one must conclude that Scotland entered the Union on a voluntary basis, at least de jure. On the face of it, that is fine. But the reality was that the English state had achieved all that it had dreamed of—the annexation of Scotland in all but name. The Bill puts in place a national parliament and in so doing rights a wrong that has been festering for the past 293 years.
The treaty is in tatters. It has been violated many times and is in need of renegotiation. The Scots of the 18th century made the mistake of seeing the treaty as a written constitution. The catalogue of violations starts with the abolition of the Scots Privy Council and the Scottish Mint in 1708, the imposition of the malt tax a few years later, and the abolition of the post of Secretary

1651
for Scotland in 1746. I acknowledge that that post was wisely re-established in 1885. Scots who had fought for the Stuart cause were hunted down and subjected to genocide following the defeat at Culloden—genocide, because their wives and children were killed as well. All that must remain in the past.
The question for Scots today is this. Is Scotland best served by being in a reformed British multi-national state, or by withdrawal and becoming a small European state? I am happy to accept either verdict so long as my compatriots come to a mature decision about it. It would be wrong to equate the SNP vote, either in an opinion poll or at a general election, with a vote on independence.
This is not a call for a referendum—at least not yet. I am keen that the Bill be implemented and allowed to bed down. I want these reforms to be well tested and therefore I am keen that there be no referendum on United Kingdom membership for at least 10 years. That provides an incentive to prove either that the reforms are the improvement hoped for or that the experience and confidence gained from this limited exercise of national government leads to a desire to take the consequences of sovereign government. It was helpful to have the statistics provided by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson.
Before moving on to the Bill, I have to say that the government of a United Kingdom does not have to be as narrowly defined as it is in the British constitution. There is no reason that there has to be a parliamentary union. The United Kingdom could also be a social, linguistic, economic and defence union. There could be a tax-gathering parliament in Scotland under the crown. That was exactly the negotiating position of the Scottish Parliament in April 1706. It is equally valid now.
So to the Bill. It introduces a devolved parliament to Scotland with this Parliament retaining the right to pass Scottish domestic legislation. That is enshrined in the obscure sounding Clause 27(7). Elsewhere, the Bill gives the right to any Secretary of State to overrule the Scots parliament if it appears that reserve powers or European legislation are being affected by Scottish legislation.
Those powers of the Westminster Parliament I regard as inevitable. It is a scheme of devolution after all. The question everyone will watch for is this: how will this Parliament and its government approach the use of those powers? Will confrontation be sought with the undoubtedly junior Scottish parliament or will the process be one of diplomatic negotiation? A process of advice prior to the third reading of a Scottish Bill would seem to me the best route ahead.
I hope to bring forward amendments concerning the funding of the parliament's environmental responsibilities. These are of greater proportion than the human population would imply. A needs-based assessment rather than a population-based formula is needed. I shall also raise the subject of children's rights-proofing of all legislation and, further to that, raise the subject of remote areas-proofing.
1652
While canvassing to be a candidate for the Scottish parliament in the far north constituency, I came to realise that the anxiety felt in north-west Scotland about the domination of the parliament by the central belt would best be met by a remote areas standing committee, with the task, among others, of commenting on legislation in a rural and remote context.
I also mention my reluctance to see the membership of the parliament reduced in numbers, especially if it affects proportionality. One of the hidden safeguards for the remote areas is that the 129 members, and especially the regional members, give the remoter areas a disproportionately better representation than the central belt. This I approve of. It is a satisfactory way of counter-balancing domination by the more urban and populated areas.
The Bill is designed to define how the Westminster Parliament will act in the governance of Scotland. Therefore, I accept that the way the Scottish parliament will proceed is largely left to the membership to determine. I am surprised that the list of reserved powers includes broadcasting and abortion. In their own different ways, I feel that these are domestic issues and that they should be devolved. Not to have the power to summon the broadcasters to give evidence to parliament just because Clause 24 does not extend beyond the Border seems a travesty, especially when one considers the effect that they can have on the behaviour of the population.
In conclusion, this Bill contains the hopes of the Scottish people. Its enactment will probably reform the United Kingdom sufficiently to satisfy popular demand for Scottish autonomy within British solidarity. Meantime, it will certainly allow the people of Scotland to be seen in a different light in European circles as a re-emergent nation.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I must declare an interest as being Scottish, having lived nearly all my life in Scotland, where I still live, been to a Scottish school, a Scottish university and my family, the Drummonds, although originally Hungarian refugees, have lived in Scotland for nearly a millennium. I must also admit that my ancestors intermarried with Welsh, Irish and even English so I can claim unequivocally to be a member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
As your Lordships may be aware from previous debates, I, like my ancestor who was a member of a Scottish parliament before 1707, have both believed fervently in a united parliament of the United Kingdom. I have always been very much against going back. I voted "No" in the referendum and I am not a convert.
One of the ladies standing outside Errol School with a large placard saying, "Vote 'Yes"", said to me, "I voted for Scotland". "So did I", I said. However, I also believe very strongly in democracy and as a large majority in Scotland voted for a separate parliament—though no one did from my local hairdresser, post office or dentist—I reckon it is my duty to help try to make it work.

1653
Once I was making a special steamed pudding for a lunch party for my grandmother when unfortunately the water got in and turned it all into porridge. However, I drained it a bit, put it in a flat dish in the oven with butter and sugar on top and said it was a sort of crême brulée. It was not as good as it should have been originally, but it worked. I expect King Alfred got away with the burnt cakes by saying that they were a new form of intensive cooking. Indeed, I have often wondered whether the burn in Bannockburn was not referring to a stream, or warriors, as in Anglo-Saxon beorn, but to some culinary disaster with the oatcakes.
Many of your Lordships have referred to current areas in the Bill which will need sorting out in order to make it work. The main problems are, of course, financial, because a new parliament, with the appropriate buildings, infrastructure and salaries of the members as well as their supporters, will all cost money. Some of this money may be raised by taxation in Scotland. There is a suggestion that some may be raised by cutting NHS spending in Scotland.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland has also very serious reservations about the drafting of the tax clauses. And, of course, with heavier taxes to pay, new businesses will be less keen to invest in Scotland. It makes sense not to invest in a place where everything is going to cost you more. Already there has been difficulty about Mitsubishi shutting down its TV plant in Haddington. This may be just the tip of the iceberg and nobody who lives in Scotland and loves her wants her to turn into a "Titanic".
There is further the question of land reform. There is a strong bias in the Government's paper against private ownership of land. Having just returned from Bulgaria, which is finding its way out of communism and public ownership, I am very well aware of how public ownership does not work well. I am also aware of the efforts which private owners put into owning and managing land or any other assets. With public ownership, the feeling of personal duty and obligation is very much lessened.
Another area which certainly requires teasing out is that of Scotland's relationship with the European Union. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said when he referred to an enabling commission, Scottish Ministers must continue to attend the EU Council of Ministers as of right so that they do not lose their voice in Europe. My noble friend Lord Lindsay put that point much more pertinently. Agriculture, fishing and development funding are all things that we in Scotland need to discuss at first hand in Europe. They are all vital to our well-being. There is not as yet statutory provision for Scotland to set up a representative office in Brussels or to continue our veto on policies affecting farming and fishing.
Finally, there is the West Lothian question. As my noble friend Lord Weir said, there may in future be dissatisfaction about having here in England a Scottish Prime Minister, Scottish Chancellor of the Exchequer, Scottish Foreign Secretary and Scottish Minister of Defence. Even if the number of Scottish Members is reduced in the English Parliament, the question is still
1654
relevant. Flying around our dovecote at home are four beautiful white fan-tailed pigeons given us by the honourable Member for West Lothian. I can only hope that his metaphorical pigeons do not come home so easily and so persistently to roost.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, apart from the distinguished exception of my noble friend Lady Young, I do not believe that any of the previous speakers comes from England. On Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill, my noble friend Lord Crickhowell mentioned English dogs that bark in the night. One or two of them may have been placed rather far down the list, to speak when most people have gone home.
In all the devolution debates in which I have taken part over 20 years, I have always spoken as a UK Unionist. I am 100 per cent. English but always pro-Scots. I speak as one who is increasingly concerned as to whether there will still be a United Kingdom a decade from now. I am not reassured by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
In this Bill and that for Wales, we are debating not just the constitution of Scotland and Wales but that of the UK, which includes England. The Scotland Bill must be one of the most fundamentally important since the war because it vastly changes the way that this country is to be governed and effectively ends our unitary state. It seems important that some speakers from England should express a view.
Scotland is of course perfectly entitled to vote for its own parliament or even for independence, but I believe the vast majority of the population of the UK would view the latter course as an unmitigated disaster and tragedy. It is unbelievable that one has even to contemplate a break-up of the UK, which has been a force for good over two or three centuries, during which time the Scots have greatly contributed in so many ways—one could say, to a disproportionate extent given their small population. That is why, up to now, Scottish over-representation at Westminster and extra expenditure under the Barnett formula have been generally accepted.
I hope and trust that Scotland will not break away, but this Bill is seen by many as another, and so far the worst, example of a politically motivated constitutional innovation in the absence of any clear and considered idea of just where, how far and in what form that process may end for the UK. The Quebec situation has been mentioned. Can one imagine the hair-raising cliffhangers in a few years if that were to happen in respect of Scotland? Whatever the merits or otherwise of devolution, it must be durable. There is no point in bringing forward proposals that are not fair to all concerned—and the proposals are not fair to England. The English not only expect fairness but are just as entitled as the Scots, Welsh and Irish to express their national identity.
The irresponsible weakness of the Bill is that it builds up potential conflict between Scotland and England. The role of the Secretary of State and his influence in Cabinet will be greatly reduced, which will mean that

1655
the position of Scotland in the UK and within the Council of Europe will be much diminished. Worst of all, the Bill utterly fails to address the English dimension and the UK as a whole. Any concern expressed evokes absolutely no response from the Government. The problem for the Government is that there is no answer, or at any rate no palatable answer. They continue to adopt an ostrich-like stance, which will catch them out in the end.
Government policy has already been rumbled. The idea was to give Scotland a parliament in such a way that it would stop the Scottish National Party in its tracks, but all indications are to the contrary. Devolution has been described as a stepping stone to independence but, judging from recent opinion polls, it is more like a rocket. At the same time, the Government's idea is to shore up their strength at Westminster by using Scottish votes on English legislation and perpetuating the over-representation of Scotland as long as possible. The derisory sop of the potential reduction of 10 or so MPs at some time well into the next millennium—not at the end of this Parliament but at the end of the one after that—is pathetic. In any case, that will only alleviate the problem and, as Mr. Tam Dalyell and others have pointed out, the West Lothian problem goes much deeper than just voting on exclusively English legislation.
An even more serious dilemma is that Scots MPs could in due course determine the political complexion of English Secretaries of State responsible for education, health, the environment and so on. The Scotland Bill, like the Government of Wales Bill, highlights the problem that the Government will not face—how to balance the constitution of all four parts of the Union when they will have a different form of government. Scotland and Wales will be over-represented in comparison with England, and both Scotland and Wales will receive a higher proportion of government spending than in England.
The nightmare scenario of the Union will in all probability arise in five years. I hazard a guess that the SNP will not quite succeed in next year's elections for the Scottish parliament but, after a stultifying four-year period of a Scots parliament run mainly by Scots Labour, it will be a different matter. By that time, there will be the danger of rampant nationalism in Scotland. The Government will have a war on two fronts. By then, it will be blatantly obvious to the poor old English, who are normally so quiescent and slow to be aroused, that their affairs are being unduly and adversely influenced by Scots MPs. Sooner or later, simmering resentment will explode, when a hospital is closed down in Watford or wherever. The problem will initially be disguised by the large Labour majority in England but the Government should not assume that state of affairs will necessarily be the case after the next general election.
The Scotland Bill and Government of Wales Bill are widely seen as part of the Government's policy of fragmenting the UK—moving closer to a Europe of regions and away from the concept of nations. Regional assemblies for England as the Government's answer to the English problem is nonsense. At least the Welsh
1656
assembly and the Scottish parliament will be constructed on historic national borders and identities. No regional assembly in England would be comparable, but it would need to be so if the West Lothian problem is to be solved.
Many other ideas must be found if the UK is to survive. Any reduction in Scottish MPs merely alleviates or dilutes the problem; it does not solve it. The possibility has been raised of an English grand committee and so-called "English days" which might work temporarily, but they are riddled with anomalies and great difficulties could arise when, as is often the case, there is a Conservative majority in England but a United Kingdom which is Labour.
I was glad that my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin mentioned the possibility of an English parliament. But he said that that would be extremely costly and complicated and should certainly not be taken lightly. I have a little doubt in my mind that we will need an English parliament and the formation of an appropriate federal structure. Anyone reading the speeches on devolution in another place and the many articles in the press, will be struck by the increasing and substantial support that this has attracted—by no means just from Conservatives. Moreover, there would appear to be a growing acquiescence from the more enlightened Members of other parties that at least only English Members should vote on English matters.
Moving towards a federal structure will mean parliaments in England, Scotland, Wales and, hopefully, Northern Ireland—though were I a Northern Ireland Unionist I would worry whether there would be a UK to which to belong a few years from now. There would be a much reduced role for the UK Parliament which would have reserve powers similar to those proposed under the Bill before us. As has been pointed out, the predominant part—namely, England—would comprise over 80 per cent. of the whole. It has been pointed out that there has been no successful precedent for an arrangement whereby the main participant of a federation was so large. But, equally, so far as I know, there has been no unsuccessful precedent either. Such an arrangement would be more radical, more logical, more understandable and workable than the Labour constitutional quagmire of mishmash which is neither credible nor sustainable.
It may well come to pass that such an arrangement will be the last chance—the long stop, as it were—to save the Union a few years from now. It will certainly be a question of whether the will and determination exist to make it work. As matters stand, I fear that all the seeds of destruction of the Union lie within the Bill.
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, most of the activities of Her Majesty's present advisers can be regarded by most of us with a certain amount of approbation. Their start has been much better than that I remember of, say, Harold Wilson, or the back end of Edward Heath's term. It is fair to say that most generous minded Tories would say that the victory of the last election, even if over large, was not undeserved, perhaps because the victors

1657
were neither socialists nor Labour. However, there is one dreadful exception to that general approbation; that is, the desire of Her Majesty's present advisers to tinker with the British constitution.
The Welsh have been cajoled into a half-baked assembly. There is talk of changing the voting system in such a way that never again will the British electorate be able to chuck out their masters. There is a promise to further engorge the powers of patronage of the First Lord of the Treasury by allowing him to handpick the second Chamber. Now there is this Bill. I am afraid that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, was full of pious platitudes, laden with meaningless phrases such as "concordat", and it certainly showed a lack of the intellectual vigour with which I normally associate him.
What I have to say will probably have less influence on Her Majesty's Government than did Laocoön on the wooden horse of Troy; the process has already started and is already decided. However, it is worthwhile pointing out that the Union of Scotland and England produced over the past 300 years a political unit which was probably the most successful, the most enlightened and the most beneficial to humanity than has been known since the days of the Antonines.
Before 1707 Scotland was poor, fractious and murderous. Mary Queen of Scots was temporarily Queen of the Scots only because the writ of the Scottish Crown was not writ large. England turned down three requests for an Act of Union. The English attitude can be summed up by that of Edward Gibbon who said of Scotland:
"The masters of the fairest and most wealthy climates of the globe turned with contempt from the gloomy hills, assailed by winter tempests, from lakes concealed in a blue mist and from cold and lonely heaths over which the deer of the forest were chased by a troop of naked barbarians".
Only in 1707 after the death of Queen Anne's last child did the Union succeed because there was grave concern over the possible splitting of the two crowns, with all the terrible dangers that that would present.
What happened next was magic for both England and Scotland. The two countries added up two and two and made five. The Scots governed England. They produced the Edinburgh Enlightenment and the great engineering and industrial might of the 18th century, the Adam brothers, Adam Smith, Raeburn, and a Scottish Peer who could and did outbid the Vatican for the contents of the Orsini Library. Had there been no Union the plains now rich with harvest would have remained barren moors; waterfalls which now turn the wheels of immense factories would have resounded in wilderness; New Lanark would still have been a sheep walk and Greenock a fishing hamlet. Those are not the words of an Englishman, but the words of Lord Macaulay—the greatest of all Scottish historians.
If this Bill goes through and devolution happens—as I regret it will—the Scots will not be able to choose their government; it will be done in an unholy alliance cobbled together by party bosses as a result of proportional representation. There could even be such an unnatural animal as an alliance between the Scottish Tories and the Scottish Nationalists, just to ditch the other lot. That is what happens with proportional
1658
representation. Thank goodness for my noble friends Lord Ellenborough and Lady Young. Finally, the English question is beginning to be put. Somehow I thought that the 87 per cent. of the United Kingdom—judging by the Government's speeches, some of the speeches of the Liberal Democrats and even from my own Front Bench—did not exist.
There will be tension between England and Scotland if the Bill goes through. Five years ago one never saw a cross of St. George flying in the street. One now sees it quite frequently. Like the noble Earl, Lord Mar, even though he does not admit it, I am British by country. My country stretches from Cape Wrath to Kent, to Cornwall and to Lough Foyle. I am proud of it and I hope that it stays like that as long as it possibly can. By blood I am a bit Irish and a bit Welsh. I certainly have some Jamaican blood in me and a bit of Devonian blood. I live in England but I am British and proud of it and long may that stay so.
To change the constitution for the benefit, imagined or otherwise, of less than 10 per cent. of the population at the behest of only those 4 per cent. who voted is hardly democratic. England has had no say, and judging by the debate in your Lordships House today, when the vast majority of speakers have been Scots, perhaps she is not yet interested. But, unfortunately, she will wake up and the consequences could well be an English nationalism as petty and mean-minded as that of the SNP.
The West Lothian question does not arise in a unitary state. Nor does it matter that the British Parliament pays £777 more per head to the Scots than it does to the English; nor does it matter that the Scots are over-represented in the British Parliament; nor does it matter that they pay less in taxation; nor does it matter that they get greater subsidy. That is what central and unitary government does. What does matter—this is where my own party has gone wrong and I see no sign of the party presently in government putting it right—is that governments of all parties fiddle about with the height of kerb stones in villages and boss schools about. There is no real local democracy in local taxation and in local authorities. It is that which has caused this unhealthy bout of Scottish nationalism.
After devolution, can it be possible for Robin Cook's successor as British Foreign Secretary to represent a Scottish constituency any more than someone representing a Northern Ireland constituency has held any office of importance in the British Government since partition in 1922? Can one imagine a Scottish Member of Parliament acting as Home Secretary, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, or as Secretary of State for Defence? The English simply will not put up with it. That will be a cause of Scottish resentment and the English will be poorer by it. I do not mind the "Jockocracy" under which we are governed at the moment because it is "Jockocracy" of the Union.
This Bill is a seed bed of secession and of the destruction of the Union. If the present First Lord of the Treasury presides over the destruction of that great Union with his normal elfin insouciance, then his high crimes will be worse than those of Stafford and his misdemeanours worse than those of Montrose.
9.11 p.m.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to begin on a slightly personal note. It is 20 years and three months ago to the day that I had the honour and privilege of replying to the debate on the Second Reading of the then Scotland Bill. I am delighted to see that most of your Lordships are too young to remember that occasion, but those who do, like the noble Lords, Lord Mackie of Benshie and Lord Campbell of Croy, whom I am delighted to see here, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, have hardly changed. The three months that followed that debate were for me perhaps the most stimulating and exciting of my entire life. It was a period during Committee and on Report when this House did itself an enormous amount of good in terms of its reputation for examining legislation. I hope that your Lordships will find the next few months as stimulating as we found those few months in Committee and on Report.
In January 1985 I became a judge of the Court of Session in Scotland and since then, as all will acknowledge—perhaps not all—I have been out of politics. For that reason I have to return to Edinburgh before the end of the debate and I tender my apologies to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for that. I cannot properly join in the full debate, but I want to say something which is a matter of some importance. It echoes to a degree what was said by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. It relates to the appointment and removal of judges.
I have no particular interest in this matter now because I shall retire round about the end of the millennium. I thought I might sit once in the new millennium and condemn someone to death, just to go out with a bang! So I have no direct interest in the matter and I do not suppose I shall be removed under the provisions of the Bill. The 1978 Bill, which resulted in the modest little document, the Scotland Act of that year, contained no provision about the appointment or removal of judges.
Every schoolchild knows that the independence of the judiciary is a vital ingredient of a mature democracy. As my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead said, the effect of this Bill and this scheme on the administration of justice has hardly figured in the public debates. That is hardly surprising; one cannot expect people to get excited about the removal of elderly judges. The advantage of this House is that it can remedy that. I hope that it will approach this matter as thoroughly as the many other matters of detail about which your Lordships have spoken.
As a result of this piece of legislation, taken along with the Human Rights Bill 1998, the obligation of judges to step into what has hitherto been the political field is greatly increased. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead mentioned Schedule 6. He is right to say—and your Lordships should note—that the devolution issues are very widely defined. The judges will have to determine delicate and difficult questions which the legislature cannot possibly foresee about where the boundaries are to be drawn between the legislative competence of a devolved parliament and that of Westminster.
1660
Similar questions arise in relation to the acts of the executive and that includes the first minister. He or she is bound to be exposed to the same temptation as American presidents have been exposed to for the past 200 years and particularly this century. Even a man whom we all admire, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, sought to pack the Supreme Court of the United States because that court was striking down as unconstitutional legislation which he wanted to hurry through. He did not in fact succeed, but all modern presidents have packed the court with their nominees who reflect their political and philosophical views. That temptation is bound to face Ministers. It may lead to politicisation of the judiciary.
We have a strange situation at the moment for this perhaps the most mature and liberal of all the democracies in relation to the appointment of judges. They are appointed by the political power, pure and simple. I meet many lawyers from around the world. Some of them have come to me and said, "We want to tell you about the terrible scandal in our country: judges are appointed by the political power". I have to admit shamefacedly that that is exactly the situation that we have in this country. It seems to work moderately well, but as we advance in a constitutional sense I should have looked in the Bill for some provision whereby that power was diminished. But far from that being the case, it has in fact increased.
At present the judges of the Court of Session are appointed by the Secretary of State for Scotland on the recommendation of the Lord Advocate. When I was Solicitor-General for Scotland and Lord Murray was the then Lord Advocate, we found that the then Secretary of State, William Ross—later Lord Ross of Marnock—was proposing to appoint judges with a kind of minor consultation with the Law Officers. I can say this now. We threatened to resign if that happened. The matter was worked out between the Secretary of State and ourselves. The end result was that the Lord Advocate recommended the name of the judge. He has always had a tremendous independence from the normal political executive. The Secretary of State had the right of veto and that was as far as it went. There was elaborate consultation with the Lord President and perhaps, in certain circumstances, with the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.
Under this Bill the Lord Advocate disappears from the process altogether and the first minister simply appoints judges of the Court of Session. I hope that this matter will be looked at carefully by the Government and that we are able to return to it in Committee.
The other aspect of the matter is even worse in a democracy and that is the removal of judges. At the moment nobody knows how to remove a judge of the Court of Session. It has never been done. It is thought that one possibility, based on the English model, is to have a resolution passed in both Houses of Parliament, but nobody knows whether that has any validity. Another method would be for the Lord Advocate to present a petition to the Court of Session itself and ask it to exercise its supereminent power the nobile officium. That might work and it might not. In practice, of course,

1661
one would expect people to twist the arm behind the scenes and make the offender an offer that he could not refuse. That is how it would be done.
The relevant provision in this Bill is Clause 89(6), which simply provides that the first minister can remove a judge. There are two safeguards. First, the first minister must specify the ground of unfitness as inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour. He does not have to prove it; merely to specify it. There then has to be a vote in favour of that Motion by two-thirds of the membership of the parliament. One can imagine circumstances in which the first minister would not have great difficulty in commanding two-thirds of the membership of the parliament. He might thus have considerable power.
At the moment, even for sheriffs and sheriff principals, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, under Section 12 of the 1971 Act—in fact, the provision dates back to previous decades—a sheriff cannot be removed unless the Lord President and the Lord Justice-Clerk conduct an investigation into whether or not there has been inability, neglect of duty or misbehaviour. They make a judgment on the basis of unfitness and if, but only if, the judges decide that the sheriff is unfit may the Secretary of State put an order before both Houses of Parliament. Each House has the right to annul that order. There is thus the involvement of a bicameral legislature and a powerful investigation, independent of the Executive. Under this Bill those elements will disappear. It is a curious feature of this Bill that, as it stands, the protection afforded to sheriffs survives, but the judges of the Court of Session may be removed by the method that I have described.
I consider that it is of the greatest importance that before the first minister lays before the parliament a Motion for the removal of a judge, whatever the majority he may need to pass that Motion, there has to be an independent investigation. There may be good reasons why the Lord President and the Lord Justice-Clerk are not the right people to conduct that investigation because they deal with the judges every day. At the moment we have half a dozen excellent people who could conduct that investigation, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a retired Scottish judge; Lord Ross, the former Lord Justice-Clerk and a member of the Privy Council, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, and Lord Keith of Kinkel. Indeed, there are several other judges who could carry out such investigations, some of whom are so young that they are younger than myself. As I have said, there are at least half a dozen, any two or three of whom could be selected by the first minister, just as the Secretary of State today selects judges for such tasks, who could conduct the investigation. If, and only if, they report that there is an unfitness for office should the first minister then remove that judge, following a vote in the parliament.
Those are issues of great constitutional importance. While I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, this House has always prided itself on concerning itself with constitutional issues because it has a strong sense of the constitution. I hope that, even if I am unable to
1662
be present on the occasions when I should like to be present, others will at least pick up this point and make the Government think again. I am grateful for your Lordships' attention.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, this Bill is the result of a referendum in which all those resident in Scotland and on the electoral register there were entitled to vote. People born in Scotland but registered elsewhere were not so entitled; nor were people registered in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That decision by less than 45 per cent. of Scottish residents will have an enormous impact on the rest of us. That is an interesting figure because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, it is the same as the percentage of noble Lords from Scotland who signed up to the Union. We must ensure that the resulting legislation is not only good legislation but that it contains adequate safeguards to protect the Union which is the United Kingdom. This Bill threatens that Union and UK Members have a duty to seek answers to the questions posed by it.
Twenty years ago Tam Dalyell first raised the West Lothian question, as so many noble Lords have said. We are assured in the press that Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, has determined that the extra representation granted to Scotland will be withdrawn, but that still leaves the problem of Scottish MPs who can vote on English home affairs when English MPs have no reciprocity. No one should doubt that the West Lothian question will return to haunt us over and over again unless we remove it now. An article in that most Scottish of newspapers the Glasgow Herald stated that to cut the number of Scottish MPs might dilute the West Lothian question but would not solve it. The probity of our legislature is in doubt if the Government use their present majority to ensure their future control of English home affairs by insisting that, while only the Welsh assembly and the Scottish parliament will enact legislation for their respective countries, all Westminster MPs may vote on English matters. This is not fair to the vast majority of the people of the Union and must be addressed.
The raising of taxes is an unpopular activity at the best of times. When they are not raised universally, and with the approval of a mere 38 per cent. of the affected population, they rankle, and eventually resentment spills over into action. Our history books are full of it. Scottish income tax, which is certain to be about 3p in the pound, will be levied on all those present in Scotland at the beginning or the end of the day for four or more days in a week. That leads to some anomalies.
I take the hypothetical case of A who lives and works in Scotland and obviously pays Scottish tax and the case of B who lives in England, works day shifts in Scotland and will not pay the tax. Let us take the case of C who lives in England, works permanent nights in Scotland and does not pay the tax either. However, if D lives in Scotland and has a sales territory which means that he is in northern England for, say, five days and four nights but is present in Scotland on Monday morning and Friday evening, he is deemed to be in Scotland for four days and is liable to pay the tax. We then consider the

1663
case of his boss. Let us say that his wife and children spend all week in the south of Scotland and live in a house registered in her name. His office is in Liverpool where he has digs to which he drives late every Sunday evening and from which he returns every Friday afternoon. He does not pay the tax.
One wonders how long such a state of affairs will subsist before there is an exodus south of the Border. How long before house prices in Berwickshire go up? How long before overseas companies find it preferable to locate elsewhere? How long before it becomes obvious that 3p in the pound no longer returns £450 million per annum? Will we not soon see people moving across the Border to live, thus adding to the problems of the Government, who, quite rightly, wish to reduce the amount of commuting by the people of this country? Will the tax also be applied to UK servicemen who as part of our Armed Forces are required to live on bases in Scotland? Will they have to pay it and claim it back from the MoD at a later time?
That takes me to the liability of Westminster to underwrite the Scottish experiment. Will the Treasury have to fork out if the tax yield is less than the target? Will it have to fork out if the target is found to be too low? Further, will it have to fork out if the revenue is on target but the Scottish parliament is spendthrift, similar to some west coast local authorities? Should there be a boom in Scotland resulting in a return of some of the £450 million, will the Secretary of State slice the extra from the block that he pays to Scotland?
Noble Lords have already referred to the Scottish block grant. Every Scottish resident receives approximately £4,505 a year compared with the English equivalent of £3,604. In 1996–97 the block grant for Scotland amounted to approximately £14.3 billion. Government spending per head was 23 per cent. higher than in England. I calculate that if that difference were removed, the Exchequer would have a further £2.7 billion to spend on, say, transport the building of hospitals or giving students their grants back. That was most adequately pointed out by my noble friend Lady Young.
Finally, I turn to a matter about which I am most concerned. In an echo of that once loved radio game, I am an English animal with strong Scottish connections—or perhaps I should speak of a UK animal. I am proud to be a member of the United Kingdom. But while I believe that we should recognise and honour the desire of the Scots to have a greater control over political matters Scottish, I am adamant that we should act to sustain this union. It is likely that the Labour representation in Edinburgh will be less than that of the SNP on its own, and highly likely that it will be less than the SNP coupled with the Conservatives and/or the Liberal Democrats. The central plank of SNP ideology is independence for Scotland; and its favoured method of attaining it is a referendum. I have already quoted Tam Dalyell. He is an arch critic of devolution and was quoted in the Guardian last August as comparing the Scottish Parliament to,
"the entrance to a motorway, without exits, to a separate Scottish state".
1664
In contrast Donald Dewar, arch proponent of devolution, wrote in the Scotsman in May this year that the parliament,
"will, if nationalists have their way, be dominated by infighting and their never-ending demands for further upheaval. It is a recipe for constitutional chaos".
A straw poll of some university trained business people from Dublin yielded the opinion that within 10 years Scotland will be in the same shape as Ireland in the 1930s. In the face of that consensus I fear that legislation could become a Petri dish for the culture of the bacterium of civil unrest. My unease is worsened by the concurrent experiment with proportional representation which in other countries and at other times has brought vigorous minorities to the fore. I was somewhat uncomfortable with the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Monifieth, who spoke of devolution democracy. I understand there to be closed lists, and I can only see it as a second rate democracy. Should I be comforted by the Minister talking about people having "access easily"? How can one have "access easily" with concordats and closed lists?
The Bill must contain safeguards to ensure that no Scottish parliament can destroy the union of our nations by voting internally for independence. If that were to happen, this Government would be responsible, and future generations would hold them accountable for the consequent suffering and dislocation. Scotland's place in the Union is deeply valued. There is no evidence that the remainder of us wish the UK to be fragmented. Forty-five per cent. of Scotland has decided to have a larger measure of control over its own affairs; and so be it. But in doing so its people should acknowledge the pre-eminence of the Union, confirm their continuing allegiance to the monarchy and acknowledge the mutual dependence of the nations of this United Kingdom.
9.33 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, in my opinion this Bill, along with the other measures being brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, such as the proposed emasculation of your Lordships' House, is a step in a process which will result in the dismantling of the United Kingdom. It took many hundreds of years of terrible and destructive wars to lead our forebears, Scottish and English, to the conclusion that it would be best for this island to be united under one flag and one parliament. In 1707, some including my predecessor, the second Lord Belhaven, disagreed with that. But that was then. It is open to question what their views would be now. What can be said is that one of the most successful and benevolent constitutions which the world has even known is now in grave danger.
We should not have let Europe influence us in these particular decisions, but we have. In that regard, we do not need to take any lessons from France, which has had nine constitutions since 1789. We do not need any from Germany, which has had four constitutions since 1918, or from Spain, which is only just settling after a bloody and horrible civil war. I shall not mention the others. I say only that if the intention is to divide up this island on the basis of the German länder, we are asking for trouble.

1665
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that those who disagree with the Government's present policy are working against the Union. I find that an astonishing statement. It seems to me that it is a classic example of turning the facts upside down. It is the Government who are breaking the Union, not those of us who disapprove of this legislation.
However, given the present state of popular opinion in Scotland, something had to be done by whichever party was elected in the election last year. There is clear dissatisfaction with the status quo in Scotland. It is mistaken in my view, but undoubtedly it exists. I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Tebbit that the referendum should have been on independence. To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, when a man is to be hanged in the morning he concentrates his mind wonderfully.
A clear option would have been fairer to the Scottish people—and I say that because I believe that this Bill will lead to independence. I realise that my noble friends, such as Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, who live in Scotland are now rightly dedicated to making the unworkable work and I wish them well. But as an independent Member of your Lordships' House, I have to express my view that it is unlikely to work.
I have always thought that there were only two consistent options for Scotland; independence or the status quo with as much devolution as the system can bear, which is more or less what we have had until now. In my view, this Bill should make provision for a further referendum on independence. If the vote is against independence it will, it is to be hoped, calm the wilder elements in the Scottish parliament. And if it is for independence we know where we are going and half the Cabinet will have to resign.
I regret all this. In 300 years our two nations have become very closely intertwined. How many English people have your Lordships met who confessed to having a Scottish grandmother? Very many, I guess, if their experience is the same as mine. Many people will find themselves living on the wrong side of the Border, as happened in Czechoslovakia. I am of their number, having lived in England since 1981. I do not think of myself as a foreigner here and English people living in Scotland ought not to think of themselves as foreigners there. Independence for small nations reduces the independence of the individuals who live in them. It may be fun for the politicians and nationalistic idealists, but it is a good deal less fun for the rest of us; a fact which most Scottish people have yet to grasp. It should be brought home to them.
Perhaps I may point to one possible consequence of the Bill which may not be all that far in the future. At present the Labour Party enjoys an unprecedented majority in the other place. But let us suppose that the Government are returned to power in the next election purely because of the Scottish vote. That means that England will have a Conservative Government but for the Scots. What happens then? Are English matters to be overridden by the Labour majority while the Scots have their own opt-out in the event of a Conservative Government? I realise that the English are the most tolerant people on earth and slow to wrath, but there are
1666
limits and I fear that we may see what those limits are sooner than Her Majesty's Government and others expect.
What I fear most is that that movement towards separation will create enmity between the Scottish and the English, an enmity which died nearly 200 years ago. For the first time in my life, I sometimes feel it is better, when living here, not to say that I am Scottish.
I notice also something which my more parochial and inward-looking fellow Scots might have missed: that is, the growth of English nationalism referred to by my noble friend Lord Onslow. The St. George's Cross is seen more and more in place of the Union Jack. In case no one has noticed, that is a direct response to the growth of Scottish nationalism and with the past few days in mind, I should say that English nationalism is not the explicit preserve of football hooligans. Many of my English friends and neighbours who have no interest in football are becoming increasingly nationalistic; and I do notice that.
The new assembly is supposed to bring government closer to the Scottish people. One must hope so. It will certainly increase the size of government bureaucracy under which the Scottish people will be expected to live. Every Scot will have two MPs—a privilege denied to the English and a doubtful privilege at that. On top of that, there will be Brussels. So I am wrong. There will be three MPs. I hesitate to give advice as to who to write to and which surgery to attend. But I congratulate the Scots. Surely in the whole of history no one has had such a galaxy—or should I say trinity?—of representatives. Whether that brings government closer to the people or on top of the people, only time will tell but it will undoubtedly be expensive.
Then there are the local councillors. All those men and women bring a huge baggage of bureaucrats and hangers-on, all paid, with them. I realise that my noble friends who live in Scotland must decide to make the best of a bad job and to try to make this work. From the southern side of the Border, while I wish them well, I cannot for the life of me see how it can work. In the end, it will please no one, north or south, and then we shall see.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am one of the few Members from the English regions who has dared to test the waters in this debate. I should say immediately that although I am a former leader of Manchester City Council and a former Leeds MP, I am not speaking in that capacity. I am presenting my own views as I see them.
I am rather concerned. In some respects, I was hurt by the fact that I am supposed to support a measure of this importance without having a say in it until it reached your Lordships' House. Any move which can dismember the Union in which I have grown up is a matter for 50-odd million people, not 5.5. million people.
I am rather annoyed that I am supposed to march through the Lobbies in this House and vote for a measure on which I was denied the right to vote when

1667
the referendum was brought before the people. That is rather a strange way of treating the majority of people whom this issue will affect: by not providing them with the franchise to express their opinion.
Your Lordships may ask why I have a gripe about that. I shall tell you. Nobody has yet said what this exercise will cost. Perhaps I may return to an exercise which the last government undertook, if your Lordships would like some relevant costs to look at. Those costs are much less than the ones we are talking about here. Mr. James Prior, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, instituted a Northern Ireland assembly. Let us look at what was paid to each member of that assembly. Most twin-tracked and were Westminster Members and also members of the assembly. It was decided to pay them two-thirds of a Westminster Member's salary, two-thirds of his expenses and two-thirds of everything else. We ended up with the most peculiar situation whereby the highest paid man in Parliament was the late Mr. James Kilfedder, because in addition to twin-tracking and therefore receiving one and two thirds salary and expenses as a Member of the other place and as a member of the assembly, he received also two-thirds of the Speaker's salary because he was the Speaker of that assembly.
I do not know what the total cost of that exercise was but it will have been much less than this exercise will cost. I believe that the House is entitled to know what is envisaged. There is nothing in the Bill about what people will be paid and what will be available for them to draw. I could, of course, concur and ask, "Well, what's it got to do with me?"—but I shall tell noble Lords what it has to do with me.
In opening the debate, my noble friend the Minister said that there was no intention to interfere with the present financial arrangements. But what did he mean? Was he referring to the equation for last year, or what will be paid next year as the block grant? Does he mean that the costs for this exercise will come out of that block grant?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, perhaps I may assist my noble friend and shed some light on the matter. The answer is, yes.
Lord Dean of Beswick: But, my Lords, that can only mean a diminution in the services in Scotland; indeed it cannot mean anything else. I believe it is a conservative estimate that the whole process will probably cost about £100 million. Therefore, £100 million less will be spent on hospitals and schools in Scotland. I do know a little about local government finance, but we have been given no guarantee in that respect.
Much has been said about the Barnett formula. I do not know what that formula is, nor indeed does anyone else, except for my noble friend Lord Barnett, who is not present in the Chamber. He was the architect of it. I suspect, and only suspect, that there may have been a case at some time in the past for the differential contained within the Barnett formula. However, it is possible for differentials over a period of time to become completely irrelevant and to go out of control.
1668
I believe a young Member of the House on the Opposite Benches gave us an outline of what it means in terms of the hard facts of life. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave that information, but I quoted sometime ago in your Lordships' House the actual differential per capita of payment between Scotland and England as being £871. I also calculated that if we take the English as being about 50-odd million up to that level, it would cost over £300 million. That is the sort of money that we are talking about.
For the life of me I cannot see that the English regions will accept the situation when they get to hear about it. Some of the MPs in another place have been rather slow to react. That is perhaps because some of them are new to Parliament and do not know the system. If this thing goes through, and it means that those south of the Border will be called upon to contribute substantial sums of money to this exercise, I suspect that when the Government cut the cake it will mean less cake for the other regions. I am not going to sit here and swallow that because I think that the Scots have done very well. Indeed, they are getting rather greedy because they have done so well.
I live in a city which could do with a lot of money being spent on it. In fact, parts of it are like a desert. No one talks to me about finding extra money for that, but extra money will be found for this exercise. If my noble friend the Minister says to me that it will come out of the block grant, it will not be the block grant within the existing ratio; it will be the existing grant with a "plus-age". If we divide up the national cake taking the biggest slice for England, the next slice, which will be a small one, will be for Scotland. However, in ratio it will be much bigger. It will mean that the only areas from which that extra money can come will be the English regions.
I have a suggestion to make which noble Lords may think rather foolish. If the Government propose to continue with the Barnett formula, I should point out to them that my noble friend has said that it is already out of date. So he must know what is wrong with it, even if the Government do not. It might be feasible to appoint a Select Committee of both Houses at this stage, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Barnett, to look into the question of the Barnett formula and bring it up to date so that its application will be fair to all people. That would take the politics completely out of the matter. I do not suggest, of course, that the over-abundance at present in another place—I stress the words "at present"—of Ministers from north of the Border (the ratio at the Treasury is 3:1 in this regard) would result in any bias being shown whatsoever! However, if they wish to win the next election and retain their seats, they will not want to be regarded as the people who started to give money back to the English. Let us face it, this measure is a gift-horse to the SNP.
Every morning i1n the Library I am asked by Scots whether I have seen the public opinion polls. I reply, "If that applied to England, I would be frightened". They say, "We are frightened too". I cannot conceive that the Government's intentions for this Bill can be fulfilled. The SNP believes that it will carry everyone before it.

1669
An aspect of this matter that interests me is that of Europe. I believe I am right in saying that the Scottish assembly will have no direct access to Europe and will have to gain access to Europe through Westminster. Can your Lordships conceive of a situation where the SNP was to become a powerful voice or win the elections? God forbid that that should happen, but according to the opinion polls it could happen. If the SNP were to become such a powerful voice, do your Lordships believe that it would sit back while Ministers in another place say, "We will tell you what to do as regards Europe"? In my opinion that is a recipe for disaster.
I shall not vote against the measure, but I shall certainly not vote for it at this point in time. I believe it is too fraught with difficulty for everyone concerned. I do not believe it has been clearly explained what ordinary people in Scotland will lose. If I had my way I would re-organise the financial aspects to give a fair deal to all. Those people who are lighting bonfires and waving the nationalist flag in Scotland will quickly sober up when they realise that money will be taken out of their pockets. If we "butter up" these people, that is only another incentive for them to continue their present behaviour.
I do not know what the outcome of the elections in Scotland will be. I do not think anyone does. As I have said, I believe this process is fraught with difficulties. The matter in the Bill that interests me deeply is that of finance. At the Committee stage of the Bill I shall scrutinise that aspect line by line.
9.53 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, follow that, especially if you have a somewhat modest locus standi in this matter! I declare I was born in Dunoon.
I wish to approach the debate from a totally different direction. I take the opportunity to raise two tourism topics. That is a subject which has been close to my heart for many years, as many noble Lords will be aware. The first concerns the present and future relationships between the Scottish Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The second concerns the threat of a tourism tax, which is implicit in tax raising powers.
I start with the BTA/STB relationship, pausing only to take my hand out of my pocket, for which I apologise. This was governed from 1969 by the Development of Tourism Act, which gave the BTA the duty of promoting Scottish tourism overseas. Many years later, political pressures—that is what we are here to discuss tonight, to a certain extent—led to the Tourism (Scotland) Act, which gave the Scottish Tourist Board some overseas promotional powers.
The Bill before us devolves tourism to the Scottish parliament. I have no quibble with that at all. The Tourism (Scotland) Act specified that STB's overseas activities should complement or supplement rather than clash head on with the BTA's work. The Secretary of State has a role to play. I hope that that will continue. What I would like to see in the future is the BTA and the Scottish Tourist Board playing their separate roles, with the STB continuing to be complementary, providing the best of Scottish tours.
1670
The Bill as it stands gives Scotland the best of both worlds. Perhaps I may quote a press release issued yesterday by the Scottish Office. It noted that:
"BTA had promoted Scottish tourism well".
It is nice to know that after all the years of slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.
"The fact that the industry in Scotland is able to call on BTA's experience and world-wide resources is a real benefit which we will retain".
The words in the press release are attributed to the honourable Member for Cunninghame South, the Scottish Tourism Minister—someone with whom I have fought over the years, not necessarily face to face, but side by side, on transport, and someone for whom I have great admiration. He states that the Scottish Tourist Board should be politically accountable to the devolved parliament—I have no quibble with that—but that the Scottish tourism industry should also recognise the importance of the BTA in ensuring that Scottish interests are represented on a much wider scale than STB itself could aspire to. Those words are music to my ears. They articulate the future to which we must aspire. They are a tribute to the fact that from Ravelston Terrace (which, coincidentally, has a former BTA staff member as its chief executive), to Thames Tower and to the Scottish Office itself they are speaking with one voice.
I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, whom I can see on the Front Bench, will have to respond to over 60 speeches tomorrow evening. However, I hope that he will find time to join me in congratulating all those concerned on evolving a practical and a strong way of ensuring that Scotland's vibrant tourism industry continues to go from strength to strength.
I have just mentioned a vibrant industry. But it is also an industry of fragilities. I refer particularly to seasonality. I hesitate to quote my own words, but once upon a time I said that no tourist goes to Scotland after the end of September, because there is nothing to do. The reason there is nothing to do is that no tourists go to Scotland after the end of September. It is not a perfectly strong industry. It is the second strongest in the British market. The biggest subject on which my former colleagues in the BTA receive questions is London—naturally, because it is a gateway. The second biggest is Scotland. So we have a vibrant, or potentially vibrant industry.
It is also a fragile one, if it is an industry at all. Perhaps I may quote the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Responding to his first tourism debate on 18th June last year (col. 1332) he said that rather than call it an industry, we should regard it as a number of "interdependent sectors". He mentioned the hotel sector, the hospitality sector, the entertainment sector, the transport industry and many others. I could restate his sentiments from my own experience: a Scotrail sleeper to Inverness; breakfast in what I believe was called "the Porridge Court Hotel" by Compton Mackenzie (some noble Lords will remember the Station Hotel at Inverness); a hired car; John O'Groats; a delightful bed-and-breakfast near Dounreay; the boat to Cape Wrath, and all the other things that are so good in

1671
Scottish tourism. And that is just the first 40 hours from Euston. For four of us, it was the start of a delightful experience and one that was very much value for money.
However, were we to repeat the trip in a couple of years hence, and the tax-raising powers were in place, such a trip could be a soft target for a bed tax. I should find that a nightmare. I believe it would turn a vibrant industry into a potentially very fragile one. A tax could raise costs substantially. Four of us spending a week following the Scottish coastline and paying, say, a tax of £2 per person a night, would mean that we would have to find another £56. We might well be able to afford that, but I wonder whether the Glasgow citizen heading for a holiday camp in Ayr would not find it a very penal infliction indeed. I feel that it would be a discriminatory tax, not least for that reason. It would be a painful tax and a serious threat to the Scottish tourism industry which I value and support, not just because I was born in Dunoon.
The accommodation sector is not the only sector that would be hurt. Let me refer again to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the many sectors within the tourism industry. Should we penalise one to the advantage of the many, perhaps to rescue the local tourism structure in Scotland? It has its problems. That is not a question for the Minister to answer, but one which those voters who work in the Scottish tourism industry, as well as their elected representatives, would do well to think about twice, if necessary, and then reject.
10 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, there will be no vote on the principles of this Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, has already told us that he suspects those who speak against its principles of ulterior motives. One thing is certain: the Government will pay no attention to those who complain about the principles of the Bill.
I feel rather like a member of a ship's crew wrecked on a desert island in the middle of a vast sea of political opportunism, who is reduced to putting messages in bottles and throwing them into the sea, in the hope that at some stage in the future someone will realise that there were people who thought the Bill was wrong in principle.
I share with many other noble Lords the misgivings that devolution will foster the growing trend towards tribalism and violence that is so much in evidence today and will ultimately lead to a demand for independence. However, I wish to address my remarks this evening to the subject first brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and very admirably by my noble friend Lord Lang: the lack of financial independence caused by the block grant.
It is a delusion that the democratic aspirations of the people can be satisfied by giving them votes to elect bodies that have power only over how a given sum of money can be spent, but have no responsibility for how much that sum amounts to or for how most of the taxation is raised to pay for it.
1672
It is the reduction in the responsibilities of local authorities, the substitution of block grants for local taxation and the capping of local authority expenditure that has led to the centralisation of power in Westminster. This and the transfer of power to Europe have helped cause disaffection with the Westminster Government and encouraged the widely held conviction that there is a democratic deficit which can be solved by creating new assemblies. But these new assemblies incorporate the same defects.
The very serious question of the connection between taxation and government expenditure, the management of the nation's money, the part it plays in the democratic process and its contribution to the concept of sovereignty has been brushed aside. It is fundamental to the debate on economic and monetary union, therefore the Government do not want to discuss it. They have deliberately avoided discussing it.
In the debate in Committee on Clause 22 of the Government of Wales Bill concerning the transfer of powers to the Welsh assembly, the question was raised by noble Lords as to whether powers should be retained to withdraw functions given to the assembly if it went astray. In resisting the amendment, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, asserted that they were convinced that, constitutionally, Westminster remained sovereign. Although I did not hear him, I am told that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also made that point this evening. I agree with them, but for the prime reason that Westminster will still hold the purse strings.
In Scotland, since English taxpayers contribute to the Scottish block grant which confines the ability of the assembly to spend as it would, the condition of Scotland will be rather like a child on an allowance from its parents. Financial waywardness in the assembly will be countered by the threat of a cut in subsidy.
This has to be. When countries share a currency and, in effect, join their bank accounts, autonomy has to be limited in this way. Imagine the situation if, to satisfy the expectations which will be fuelled by having their own assembly, the Scots were allowed to be a high tax, big spending economy. Sharing the same currency and language, businesses and people would flock to England where costs and taxes were lower and Scotland would be left impoverished.
It is necessary to make that obvious point about England and Scotland because, according to the opposite point of view, the freedom to spend and tax within a 3 per cent. budget deficit is claimed to be the essence of economic sovereignty within the single currency. It is a freedom that we could not exercise. Therefore, we find the Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing in his Budget that he is the guardian of the people's money. He is, and he still will be the guardian of the people of Scotland's money after the formation of the Scottish parliament. By that means, Westminster will retain its ultimate sovereignty over Scottish expenditure. If we join the single currency, that function will be transferred to Frankfurt and Brussels, but still not to Scotland.
The proposals will not and cannot reconnect the vital democratic link so that votes for expenditure have their counterpart in taxation for the Scottish parliament. The

1673
inevitable shortage of money will still be blamed on Westminster. It panders to tribal and nationalistic instincts without tackling the real problems caused by an unaffordable welfare state and the breakdown of the ability to finance local responsibilities from local taxation. The hard choices must still be made in Whitehall and the buck stops there.
The Bill will not for long improve relations between Scotland and Westminster, which I imagine is its main purpose. It will in time rebound on its perpetrators for having deceived the Scottish people into volunteering for a bad experiment. It is also an important constitutional change and a rotten idea. The Bill is misguided in principle and no amount of amending will change that.
10.6 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister has brought before your Lordships' House perhaps the most far-reaching constitutional reform for 300 years. One of the reasons that I have the privilege to sit in this place is what happened more than 300 years ago, when the first Earl of Stair helped to bring to fruition the Act of Union of 1707. He died during the night following the last debate in the then Scottish Parliament, having had a hard battle persuading all parties to agree the terms of that Act. I hope that the same fate does not befall this Earl of Stair.
I am not only a Scot but a full-time resident of Scotland and I believe strongly that the United Kingdom can only be strong on both the world and European stage if the two countries remain united. This island is too small to divide into even smaller countries. I hope that even after the Bill has passed, the Government will fulfil their obligations to Scotland, both as a self-governing country and as part of a strong United Kingdom.
The referendum last September produced the conclusive result that the people of Scotland wished a devolved parliament, although the national turnout to vote of 74 per cent. was perhaps a little low for such an important decision. Galloway, an area that swung from a majority in favour of the Union in the last government to a majority of in favour of independence under this Government, managed a turnout of only 63 per cent. Perhaps the Government should have taken a forewarning of their present standing in Scotland.
I look forward to the passage of the Scotland Bill and hope that the Government will heed the many amendments needed to ensure the success of the new Scottish parliament. There is a danger that a parliament with legislative power over areas currently covered by regional councils may result in decisions in Edinburgh taking local government further from the electorate. I am thinking particularly of planning matters in this instance.
This Bill is in some places vague and glosses over some important divisions of responsibility between the devolved parliament and the Parliament in Westminster: first, on the matter of defence, which is a reserved item. However, due in many cases to the scarcity of the population and to the terrain, the majority of Scotland is classified as a low-flying area. For similar reasons,
1674
many units of the Army exercise in Scotland. The new Scottish parliament will have legislative powers, according to the White Paper, over many areas of the environment and some aspects of the air space. Will the Scottish parliament be able to legislate against or make very awkward the training use of Scotland for the reserved Armed Forces in the event of public pressure being applied to the members of the Scottish parliament?
The Scottish parliament will also have devolved responsibility for civil defence and emergency planning. Recently there was a serious breakdown in the water supply to areas of Glasgow and, even before that, serious flooding in Perth. In both cases the Army—both territorial and regular—was involved in relief work and assistance. Under the new devolved system, the question is not only who will authorise military aid but also who will pay for the use of the reserved equipment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, referred in his opening to the Forestry Commission. Financial arrangements have been based on the receipts of the commission being split fairly between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom, the financing of the commission's activities being controlled by the Scottish executive. As long ago as 1947 the land use for forestry in Scotland and England was nearly 7 per cent. and nearly 6 per cent. respectively; it is now split almost 15.5 per cent. in Scotland and 7.5 per cent. in England. Consideration will be needed to ensure that the fair division of funding allows for the often extra environmental costs of establishing woodland in Scotland. That is particularly relevant if the devolved parliament can legislate for planning and environmental matters. We need an assurance that the fair provision of funds for Scottish forestry referred to in the White Paper will allow for the extra costs and can be flexible in the event that new plantings, and particularly replanted clearfells, do not carry extra costs which penalise Scottish forestry in the future.
Finally, speaking from these Benches, I am pleased that there is to be provision for non-aligned individuals to stand for seats in the regional lists. However, if sufficient of the electorate vote to enable an independent candidate to take one of the seven regional seats, then that seat should remain occupied by an independent for the duration of the parliament. Under Clause 9—page 5 of the Bill—if a seat belonging to a registered political party becomes vacant, it is automatically filled from that party's list by another candidate and remains vacant only if there are no more candidates from that party. The procedure is simple. The returning officer merely notifies the presiding officer of a change. However, if a seat becomes vacant that was occupied by an independent, it must remain unfilled until the next election. That omission could easily be overcome by allowing the next independent candidate with the highest share of votes to fill the vacancy on the same basis as a registered political party. In constituencies the size of the Scottish regions the deficit of one independent member is liable to leave a large proportion of the non-aligned electorate unrepresented.
10.13 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, it is a privilege to be the 35th speaker in this wide-ranging, informative debate on this historic Scotland Bill. If I had not suffered the good fortune to come just before my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, I would have been tempted to retire in silence on the basis of the dog having his evening stroll and, on reaching the 12th tree, finding there is nothing left. It is impossible not to repeat at least one of the many issues raised. I shall therefore, as a matter of brevity, leave my noble friend to stir us with his usual forceful and penetrating speech to complete the first leg.
Like other noble Lords, I worry about the framework under the Bill for the Scottish parliament. I appreciate that the Government have sought a framework with a light touch, relying on good working relationships between Edinburgh and Westminster. I believe that they are dangerously over-optimistic. Almost as night follows day, there are bound to be conflicts. There is bound to be resentment on both sides.
I give one example of a potential resentment. It concerns the Scottish fishing industry. I must declare a small interest, having served for 20 years with the Fishermen's Mission, which looks after fishermen and their families at fishing ports, particularly at times of tragedy. That happens all too frequently, as indeed we witnessed last Sunday. The Scottish fishing industry represents 66 per cent. of the entire UK fishing quota and it is a vital and important industry to Scotland. What is likely to happen when it comes to the common fisheries policy being renegotiated in Brussels? Will there be a Scottish voice leading the negotiations for the United Kingdom? Almost definitely not, as no one other than the Secretary of State will be serving at that time in the national Cabinet, and it looks as though he will be stripped of most of his powers by then.
Of course it will be said that the British negotiations will be a team effort. But that still denies, I suggest, the Scottish hopes raised by Scotland having its own parliament and its own voice, not deflected by some alternative issue such as Greek olive oil, brewing in Brussels, or some trade-off.
I should like to raise another issue—the potential confusion for the Scottish people as to whom they should consult in the future if they feel there is an injustice. Should it be their Member of Parliament at Westminster; should it be their constituency Scottish Member of Parliament in Edinburgh or their regional Member of Parliament in Edinburgh; or even the Secretary of State or the first minister? I hope that the Government will iron out such a confusion and publish clear guidance for the Scottish people as to their rights.
Finally, I worry about the future of the Scottish parliament and where it will lead. Resentments and conflicts between Westminster and Edinburgh caused by the inherent imbalance between the subordinate parliament and Westminster are bound to lead in future to the talk of independence. Like others, I would regard the break-up of the Union as wholly damaging. I hope that the Government will confirm that in no way are they
1676
contemplating in the future a referendum for independence and that it will not be achievable by a Scottish parliament alone under the Bill.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I may be speaking at the end of the day but it is not yet the end of an old song. I am sorry that the Government have chosen not to provide a "winder-upper" this evening but it gives me the greatest pleasure to be able to wind up on behalf of the Opposition and to be the last speaker of the day. It is now late but it surely justifies the decision that was taken to have two days on this Second Reading. Otherwise we would have been here all night. I am just sorry that it took the Government quite so long to reach their decision.
If anything, this debate has proved that the Scotland Bill is better than the new drug Viagra in keeping the House of Lords active and awake with this record number of speakers. But what happened to the Labour Party today? Why were there so few representatives of the people's party speaking on the Second Reading of this, their flagship Bill? It has become very fashionable in government circles to name and shame. I shall resist that temptation except to say this. It is a long time since I have spoken on a Bill to do with Scotland without seeing some old and good friends on the other side who are sadly absent. I hope there is no truth in the rumour that because some of those noble Lords disagreed with the Government's policies they were asked not to speak up today. That would be truly shameful.
My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in his opening words talked a little about the timing of the Bill. He pointed out the rather leisurely pace at which it has gone through Parliament. I welcome that because it means that the Scottish Office and its Ministers will have an opportunity to re-write it during the Summer Recess when they have realised the wisdom of your Lordships who will wish to make amendments. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that he would listen carefully, I hope that meant that he will accept some of the amendments put forward. There is certainly no reason to rush. This Bill will be delivered in good time for the new Session some time at the end November.
The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said a number of interesting things, but one thing of particular interest. He said that the Bill was part of a far-reaching constitutional programme. I agree with that as far as it goes. He spoke about the Scottish Bill and the Welsh Bill, the new mayor for London and other things. But one thing he did not mention was reform of the House of Lords. I have a question for him. Was he on or off message on that? Did he inadvertently make a great constitutional declaration or was he simply showing his own prejudice that there are more important things to do than worry about this House?
More importantly, is it really part of an overall vision, a design for constitutional change that the Labour Party is taking through involving Scotland, Wales, London, the Human Rights Bill, the independence of the Bank of England and all the other matters that we have heard so much about over the past 12 months or so? I do not believe it is. What we are witnessing is a rag-bag of constitutional policies tacked together here and there with no coherence

1677
apart from one thing and that is that every Bill passed through this constitutional package removes power from the House of Commons. If that is the intention, why is it that this Government are incapable of saying so?
The intention for this Bill was entirely political. It was nothing to do with better government for Scotland, but simply to provide different government. In what I thought was an uncharacteristically cheerless and ungenerous speech, the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, blamed everything on the last 18 years of Tory misrule in Scotland. In particular, he complained of the experiment of the poll tax. What is this Bill if not a constitutional experiment on the people of Scotland?
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Bill may be a constitutional experiment, but the people of Scotland agree to it. That is the difference between this legislation and the poll tax.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am so glad the noble Lord mentioned that, because the Scottish people were asked in a pre-legislative referendum. I would expect the Liberal Democrats to agree with the whole concept of such legislation, but we did not and we still do not now. The motivation for the Bill was entirely political. It was for the parties of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which the Liberal Democrats played an important part, to take as much power as possible and stop the nationalists. That was the political motive.
I do not know whether the Bill is going to work or not. I do not know whether a Scottish parliament will work. I wish it every success. But I am certain about one thing. The evidence so far is that this legislation is not the settled will of the Scottish people. In the course of the past six months all it has done is to push people further and further towards the arms of the nationalists. I wonder what those who promoted this idea so much think of it now.
Perhaps I may turn to a more parochial issue. I refer to the unicameral nature of the Scottish parliament. My noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton, in an excellent speech, talked about bicamerality and said—I think that I quote him correctly—that it is central to parliamentary democracy. He is right. In their discussions, Scottish Office Ministers must at some point have deliberated whether or not there should be some kind of second Chamber, or senate for the Scottish parliament—and decided not to have that. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate winds up tomorrow, I should like to know why the Government took that decision—and why they took that decision for Scotland but not for the Westminster Parliament. They have said time and time again that they want to have a second Chamber for the Westminster Parliament. Why is a second Chamber being kept for the English but not for the Scots? Does the noble and learned Lord believe that that will lead to better legislation—or to worse legislation—for the people of Scotland?
Anybody listening to this debate will have been impressed by the number of Peers who referred to the relationship between the Scottish parliament and Europe. Those listening to the debate will have been particularly impressed by the number of noble Lords who spoke from real experience. I believe that over half a dozen Members
1678
of this House who have spoken today have practical experience of being a Minister in the Scottish Office with responsibilities for dealing with Europe. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, and his colleagues have worked hard to find a solution to the problem of how to pretend to devolve power on such issues to the Scottish parliament while at the same time retaining that power for the nation state of the United Kingdom, Ministers of which will have power in the Council of Ministers. That will not do. The industries which depend so much on the decisions that are taken in Brussels, such as the agricultural and fishing industries, must not be fobbed off by the idea of concordats, especially when they have no legislative base and we have no idea how they will work in practice.
I urge the Minister during the Summer Recess to discuss this, widely and cross-party, to try to find a solution to this problem, otherwise the people who will lose out will be the farmers and fishermen of Scotland who depend for such a large part—not just of their income, but for the policies which dictate the way in which they do business—on the decisions that will be taken by people over whom the Scottish parliament will have no authority. The speech of my noble friend Lord Lindsay was particularly powerful and convincing on that point.
This Bill was intended to be the flagship of the Labour Party programme, but the flagship has proved not to be a flagship, but a fireship—and now the wind has turned, just as some of us warned that it would. It is driving the fireship, Labour-lit, towards the heart of its own fleet. There is, I think, a faint feeling of panic in the ranks of the Scottish Labour Party. I cannot say that I sympathise too much, but let us hope that the wind does not rise into a gale that could engulf the Union itself.
Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have fallen into the nationalist trap. That trap was set some 20 years ago in the 1970s. It has now become fashionable to "bash the Nats", but that will not work; it never has. What has to be done is to make a very clear case for the Union, for the United Kingdom. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the Labour Party about the benefits of this United Kingdom than we have heard over the past few years. Labour Members use and play the language of nationalism against us. One of the reasons for our decline and eventual doom last year was precisely that.
The Labour Government will be judged on this single issue—on whether this manages to keep the United Kingdom together. If they have unleashed the forces of separatism in the United Kingdom, the electorate will never forgive them for taking us all down this road. This is the last time that the House will have a major Second Reading debate on Scotland. Let us hope that if we ever return to this subject it is not to debate the "Scotland Independence Bill".
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at half-past ten o'clock.

  Local Authority Nuclear Free Committees
  Local Authority Nuclear Free Committees
  Marine Science and Technology: Inter-Agency Committee
  Marine Science and Technology: Inter-Agency Committee
  Department of Health: Public Appointments
  Department of Health: Public Appointments
  Alcohol "Tsar"
  Alcohol "Tsar"
  Alcohol Misuse
  Alcohol Misuse
  Disability Benefits Forum
  Disability Benefits Forum
  Fish Quotas
  Fish Quotas
  Biodiversity Convention: Conference
  Biodiversity Convention: Conference
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Medway Secure Training Centre
  Firearms Licensing: Home Office Circulars
  Firearms Licensing: Home Office Circulars
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Sierra Leone: Asylum Seekers
  Sierra Leone: Asylum Seekers
  Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice: Prosecutions
  Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice: Prosecutions