Sitting of 18 June 1998

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
LLOYDS TSB BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 25 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  The President of the Board of Trade was asked—
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Energy Policy
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: When she expects her Department's review of energy policy to be completed. [45049]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry(Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The review of energy sources for power generation is expected to reach conclusions soon, and we shall announce those conclusions in due course.
    Mr. Cunningham: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her approach to the whole question of energy. This Government are looking for a long-term policy for energy, whereas the previous Government were very much about the short term. As my right hon. Friend carries out her review, will she bear in mind the fact that the mining industry needs a fair and level playing field? When is the review due to be completed?
    Mrs. Beckett: I hope that it will be very soon indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He is entirely right to say that the mining industry, and indeed energy policy as a whole, needs a level playing field in which there is fair competition so that the consumer gets the maximum benefit. Of course, that is not what we inherited from the Conservative party.
    Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the Secretary of State assure my constituents in Shoreham, where a development for a gas-fired power station in Shoreham harbour is blocked by the Government's refusal to issue a section 14 consent, that that consent will be issued as soon as possible, because
    490
    the development is in any case on the site of the previous power station and will bring much-needed jobs and investment to the area?
    Mrs. Beckett: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the review which, as soon as it is possible to do so, will be put before the House. I have heard his comments about the position in his locality, and he will know that the Government have always said that they will consider every circumstance carefully.
    Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the President of the Board of Trade ensure that there is an early announcement, because the current coal contracts run out on 30 June? Despite reports to the contrary, will she ensure that the coal industry gets fairness, not favours, and has the ability to compete over the long term with other industrial sectors?
    Mrs. Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's long track record of work in this area. I share his view that it is vital for Britain's long-term future that we have a fair and level playing field and that we take a long-term strategic view of energy sources and resources. I assure my hon. Friend that that has motivated the Government throughout the review.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: In this climate, in which Ministers have to deliver at least one leak a day, can the President of the Board of Trade help us a bit with her conclusions? Will she tell the House whether, in an effort to save up to 5,000 mining jobs, she is prepared to put at risk many billions of pounds of investment, and the construction jobs that go with them, and to risk the effect that it would have on energy prices for the consumer? If she does decide after all to go for the pro-mining option, does she feel confident that the Government can meet their Kyoto obligations and their even more stringent domestic emissions targets?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that you would be the first to object, Madam Speaker, if I were to take the step urged on me by the hon. Gentleman—which, of course, is not a course that I ever follow—of leaking things in advance, and especially leaking things before a statement is made to the House. I strongly advise the hon. Gentleman not to take too seriously many of the things that he reads. I have seen entirely contradictory as well as quite extraordinary suggestions about the conclusions that might be in the Government's review. Certainly the Government are mindful of employment considerations in respect of energy and of the environmental considerations that lie behind the Kyoto targets. All these will be taken into account. The Conservatives left such a mess that it is taking time and proving even more difficult than we had feared to clear the situation up and come to conclusions in our review.

    Airbus A3XX
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What is the forecast United Kingdom content of the proposed Airbus A3XX; and what assistance she is giving to British Aerospace to aid its development. [45051]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The Government have already had preliminary discussions with British Aerospace and its Airbus partners about the planned development of the A3XX. Any application for launch investment for the project will be considered on its merits.
    Mr. Prentice: That is heartening news. I pay tribute to the Government for the help that they have given to Rolls-Royce for the development of the Trent engine and for Airbus. Is my hon. Friend aware that, over the next 20 years, passenger air traffic is expected to increase by a factor of three? The Airbus A3XX will carry 650 passengers in double-decker fashion. We need larger, quieter aircraft. That is another reason why the Government should support British Aerospace in developing the new aircraft.
    Mr. Battle: I thank my hon. Friend, who has a track record of championing the industry on behalf of his constituents. We are well aware of the prestige and value of the project, which will take the industry much further forward technologically. It is too early to forecast sensibly the possible UK content of Airbus development, but there are major potential benefits for UK industry and I hope that our companies will be well represented in the project.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Although it may be too early to forecast the UK content, is it not the case that, the more substantial the British launch aid, the more likely it is that British Aerospace and other British companies will have a significant share of the work on the aircraft? The A3XX is the only gap in the full range of aircraft offered by Airbus to the civil market that remains to be filled. Will the Government look more favourably on any application for the A3XX than on any for the future large aircraft?
    Mr. Battle: Requests for proposals on the future large aircraft have been issued to Airbus, Turkish Aerospace Industries, Alenia of Italy and Flabel of Belgium on a provisional basis, pending the formation of the Airbus military company. Any application for launch investment for the A3XX will be considered on its merits, subject to rigorous appraisal and monitoring to ensure that projects do not undertake or duplicate work that could be done elsewhere. No one is in any doubt about the significance of the project.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Some 3,600 of my constituents make the wings for all European models of the Airbus family and they hope to make the wings for the new super jumbo jet. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when he visited the factory in my constituency on Monday, he saw a modern, progressive, productive and loyal work force? They appreciated the ceremony that he carried out.
    Mr. Battle: I was particularly impressed by the technical excellence of the work of the internationally competitive, leading-edge work force. That is encouraging. Airbus already provides £1 billion a year to the UK's trade balance, representing 1·5 per cent. of UK manufactured exports. We are doing well in that manufacturing sector and we hope to continue to do well for many years.
    Mr. David Chidgey: I am sure that the Minister realises that this is wider than a
    492
    single-constituency issue, although I cannot fail to mention Aerostructures Hamble, which does a magnificent job overseas in the same markets. The British aerospace industry has a record of high added value and high skills, putting it among the leaders in British manufacturing. It is a world-class industry. Exports account for 75 per cent. of the production of our aerospace industry. That has been achieved through long-term investment over the past 30 or 40 years. Is the Minister aware that, over the past 15 years, the Government's partnership investment in the industry has declined to a fraction of the levels known in the 1980s? Does he agree that, if that continues, in 10 years' time we shall be in the sorry state of having no British ownership of the aerospace industry? What will he do about it?
    Mr. Battle: To some extent, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. We do not want to be complacent. We want to ensure that there are skills to back up the industry and that there is private sector investment in the long term. All I would add is that the Government agreed public-private partnerships with British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce that were worth £320 million of investment last year. That is not an insubstantial investment to move the industry forward.
    Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously launch aid is important. The world needs this generation of aircraft. I hope that the Government will back it and look favourably on the military version of the Airbus for the FLA.
    Mr. Battle: As I commented in answer to an earlier question, the requests for proposals have been issued. The formation of the Airbus military company is pending. The Government are discussing with our partners when requests for proposals will be issued to potential suppliers under, of course, competitive arrangements. A procurement decision will be made in the light of the conclusions of the strategic defence review. My hon. Friend's points were clearly made and will be taken on board, along with those of other colleagues.

    Bribery
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: If she will make a statement about combating bribery in international trade. [45053]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): The Government played a leading role in bringing negotiations on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development bribery convention to a successful conclusion in December. We are playing an active part in the negotiations that are under way on anti-corruption measures in the European Union and the Council of Europe. We are determined to combat bribery in international trade. Corruption distorts competition and constitutes an unfair barrier to trade.
    Mr. Bayley: Does my hon. Friend agree with Adair Turner of the Confederation of British Industry, who said:

    493
    "Corruption's become a big issue because it just costs business so much more these days"?
    Will the Government examine the arguments for amending the law, as proposed by the Law Commission, to provide for the prosecution of United Kingdom citizens when they commit offences of bribery abroad?
    Mr. Griffiths: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is examining the need both to clarify the statute on corruption and to bring up to date anti-corruption legislation. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention.
    Sir Sydney Chapman(Chipping Barnet): Has the Minister estimated bribery and corruption by British companies abroad or, indeed, British personnel who work for foreign companies or multinationals—if, indeed, there is any? What powers do the Government really have to stop foreign personnel or foreign companies indulging in bribery and corruption? I know that we all want an end to it.
    Mr. Griffiths: That is why we played our part in negotiations on the OECD bribery convention. I am not aware of any reliable estimates of the cost of bribery, which I know the whole House will condemn as anti-competitive and corrosive to the countries or their enterprises which may seek to offer bribes and to those who choose to take them.

    Automotive Industry
    Ms Margaret Moran (Luton, South): If she will make a statement about the future prospects for the automotive industry. [45055]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): Car production in Britain is increasing. This year alone, we have had announcements from Rover, Toyota and Honda, involving approximately £1 billion of new investment and creating more than 2,700 new jobs. In addition, Vauxhall's recent announcement that Luton will be one of the manufacturing locations for the replacement Vectra model should safeguard 4,000 jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Ms Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Do he and the rest of the Department of Trade and Industry accept my heartfelt thanks, and those of the whole work force, for their efforts to ensure the long-term future of Vauxhall, Luton? Is he aware, however, that there is a skills gap in some parts of the automotive and engineering industries? Will he outline what measures he intends to take to ensure the on-going competitiveness of plants such as Vauxhall and the automotive industry generally?
    Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of her constituents. She is in regular contact with the Department and often brings her constituents in to meet representatives of the Department; they should be well pleased by her activities on their behalf. I take the skills gap seriously. My Department is working with the industry to identify such gaps, and we work with other Departments, including the Department for Education and Employment, to ensure that the training and skills needed to back up the industry are available. We work in
    494
    partnership with industry in trying to identify its needs, especially in the metal industries, because we want to ensure that traditional skills are not squeezed out at precisely the same time as there is expansion in the industry. Britain currently has a productive and competitive car industry and we do not want it to be jeopardised by a lack of skilled labour.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware of the damage done to the British automotive industry by unfair pricing practices and differentials and by the difficulty of making parallel imports to this country, which leads to higher prices in this country than elsewhere? Is he monitoring the impact on the automotive industry of the designs directive, especially the repairs article? That will impose a monopoly on spare parts for up to seven years, which will have damaging effects on the entire industry in this country.
    Mr. Battle: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Action against anti-competitive behaviour elsewhere in Europe is a matter for the European Commission. We welcome both the action which has been taken and the current active discussions, because we do not want our industry to be priced out unfairly. We have a strong industry: the UK is the fourth-largest car manufacturer in Europe, with eight international companies, and the sector employs 719,000 people. It is a major sector of our economy, so we do not want unfair competition to undermine it.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: I am sure that it was an oversight, but my hon. Friend did not mention the substantial investment by Ford in producing the new executive Jaguar at its Castle Bromwich plant in my constituency. I hope that he will find time to visit the plant in October, when it goes into pre-production. Will he say a word about the efforts made by Jaguar and other motor manufacturers to meet the properly tough and even more stringent emissions standards? What progress is being made by the group chaired by Ian McAllister of Ford?
    Mr. Battle: Our Department participated in the setting up of the cleaner vehicles task force precisely to address that matter and to work towards ensuring that cars and other vehicles have a low environmental impact. The task force programme has been developed in partnership with the industry. I did not mention the Jaguar investment—£400 million in the new medium saloon car, the X200, which is to be produced in my hon. Friend's constituency—but that is because the sector is so productive and so much investment is going into it that, had I read out the whole list, you would have ruled me out of order, Madam Speaker.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: How is the Minister's support for the car industry consistent with the Government's general approach towards the car and motorists? The Government have imposed about £9 billion of extra taxes on motorists and a new £25 first registration tax on every new car sold, yet the Minister purports to be in favour of the car industry. Will he tell his colleagues in the Department of the Environment,

    495
    Transport and the Regions that, if we have cleaner, safer and more fuel-efficient cars, there is nothing wrong with having more of them?
    Mr. Battle: In welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box after a period of absence, I seem to recall that the last time I crossed swords with him over the Dispatch Box was when I was an Opposition spokesman and the hon. Gentleman was the champion of the poll tax. However, I welcome him back, even though I cannot pretend always to agree with his analyses. The car industry itself is talking about low environmental impact and wants to contribute to our environmental targets. We see no contradiction in having environmental targets and an industry that works to match them to ensure cleaner air in our towns and cities.

    Foresight Programme
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What progress is being made on the foresight programme. [45057]
    The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): The aim of the foresight programme is to develop a practical vision of the future challenges, opportunities and needs and identify means of reaching them. It was set up by the previous Administration and we are working with the grain of the programme to use it as a catalyst for action. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade initiated a full audit of foresight activities across Government. In response, I called together a group of Ministers responsible for foresight from all Departments to provide top-level co-ordination throughout Whitehall and to drive the programme forward in Government.
    Dr. Gibson: The foresight programme is clearly important for driving bridges between industry and the science base. How are Government Departments using the results of foresight to form their strategies in relation to research programmes?
    Mr. Battle: Previously, the purpose of the foresight panels, which were set up in 1994, was to tackle the relationship between industry and academia. We have moved the programme in-house and, on 16 June, the President of the Board of Trade published the first full interdepartmental progress report, spelling out how each Department is getting involved in the programme. I referred earlier to the cleaner vehicles project, which is headed up by our colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and is one example of the way in which foresight will be carried into Departments to knit into the themes that are their concerns. There is a connection between Departments through the ministerial foresight group, so that the theme of foresight can be brought into our principles, practices and ideas for future action as a Government.
    Rev. Martin Smyth(Belfast, South): Does the Minister accept that there have in the past been complaints from industry that, although it was moving forward, the Government were lagging? Does the recent audit state that the Government are keeping pace with industry in the foresight plans?
    Mr. Battle: The idea is to work together. In March, we launched a full consultation on the next stage of foresight,
    496
    to find out where it would go. We spelled out key themes, including sustainable development, future cities, crime control, skills training and the shortages emerging there, as well as consideration of aging. We have put those topics forward for consultation with industry to ensure that the Government and industry keep together. That is part of an exercise to tackle the themes together, listening to the needs of industry, recognising the potential of academic research and ensuring that we translate ideas into practical action—into products and processes that deliver an improved quality of life and new jobs, as well as generating wealth.

    Low Pay Commission
    Mr. David Watts: If she will make a statement about the work of the Low Pay Commission. [45058]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will make a statement to the House later this afternoon. The Low Pay Commission presented its recommendations on the national minimum wage to the Government on 27 May. The Government are grateful to the commission for its report and recommendations. The national minimum wage, along with other measures such as the working families tax credit, is part of a strategy to make work pay.
    Mr. Watts: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and look forward to hearing the full statement from the President of the Board of Trade later. Does he agree that the introduction of minimum pay will start to end poverty pay? Does he also agree that the Conservative party has a lot to be held accountable for, bearing in mind the fact that the Conservative Government delivered low pay and low skills to Britain and that this Government are trying to change that process in the short period of 12 months?
    Mr. McCartney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, I must tell him that I have not yet been made right honourable, but I will pass his suggestion on to the Prime Minister—that was a joke.
    I will feel great pride and achievement when my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gets up at 3.30 pm. When she finishes her statement, the only people in Britain who will be losers are Conservative right hon. and hon. Members who, even at this late stage, still oppose the principle of a national minimum wage. Wherever one is in Britain, they have left us the legacy of a huge level of low-paid, unskilled, undignified labour. My right hon. Friend's statement at 3.30 pm will start the process of changing that for ever.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman, in again coming to the Dispatch Box and ranting on in the way we all love, clearly has sight of what will be announced at 3.30 pm—it will not fulfil his commitments to the House and to his hon. Friends. Has he written his letter of resignation yet, as he clearly will not be able to stand there and look us in the eye on this matter?
    Mr. McCartney: I will stand on a box at any time and look the hon. Gentleman in the eye. I can see only one

    497
    person in the Chamber today who went to a Prime Minister to resign—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). The difference is that, when I see my Prime Minister, I always come out with agreement. He did not, and look at him now—a mere shadow of his former self.

    Sterling
    Mr. David Kidney: What assessment she had made of the impact of the current strength of sterling on the competitiveness of United Kingdom exports. [45059]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government understand exporters' concerns about the level of sterling and appreciate the difficulties that it is causing them. However, the level of sterling is not the only factor affecting the competitiveness of UK exports. In particular, business needs a stable macro-economic environment in which it can make long-term decisions. We are working in partnership with business to improve that and all aspects of British competitiveness.
    Mr. Kidney: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Two weeks ago, I attended the first of a series of briefings at the Foreign Office, jointly hosted by the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry, for Members of Parliament and representatives of exporters in their constituencies. The presentations that evening were excellent, especially those by the exporters, large and small, and I was left with the distinct impression that the support services for our exporters are first class. However, it was no surprise when one of the exporters raised the question of the strong pound, asking, "How are we expected to win contracts abroad when our competitors have a price advantage simply because of the differences in the value of national currencies?" How can my right hon. Friend and her Department best help British exporters to be competitive in such a climate?
    Mrs. Beckett: I, too, have had many similar conversations with people in the business community, particularly exporters. They are aware of the Government's view that a stable and competitive exchange rate is what will be most beneficial to them in the long term; they are also aware that we have taken steps that we—and, indeed, the markets—believe will produce such an outcome. Of course we all recognise that, in the short term, the level of sterling can cause problems, although its effect, as shown in the trade figures, is more patchy than one might expect.
    Our competitor countries have undergone similar experiences of a strong currency, in some cases for many years. We believe that the best way to tackle exchange rate problems is to strive to compete on the basis of quality, as our competitor countries did. That is what the Government continually urge British business to do in any case, as we believe that it will produce the best outcome for Britain in the long term.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is it not both extraordinary and encouraging that, at a time when many of the most successful exporting countries are desperately anxious about the weakening of their currencies,
    498
    we should be more concerned about the strength of ours? Is that not an enormous endorsement of the great success of the previous Government's policies?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman arrives at the conclusion in his final sentence. I certainly agree that, in the past, people have bemoaned the weakness of sterling—it is always a moot point whether a high or a low exchange rate is good or bad. Given what I know to be the breadth of his experience, however, I think that he is likely to share the view that a stable exchange rate is often the most beneficial, as it enables business to plan for the long term—we are certainly working to achieve that.
    Mr. Derek Foster: A few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend intervened speedily and decisively to win 350 extra jobs in my constituency at Black and Decker, a world-class manufacturer and exporter, but is not she a little worried that the present excessive reliance on interest rates is undermining what I assume would be her preferred economic strategy of growth being driven by exports and investment rather than consumption?
    Mrs. Beckett: It has certainly been the aim of successive Governments to achieve growth driven by investments and exports. We take the view that our policies will, in the long term, bring about such an outcome. We are continually working with the business community, and we held discussions at a series of seminars, co-sponsored by the Treasury and ourselves, to try to deal with the long-seated problems that the previous Government so plainly failed to overcome.
    Mr. John Redwood: The President of the Board of Trade is quite right to say that high sterling is not the only threat to jobs and businesses in manufacturing. Wage inflation is up; taxes are massively up; regulatory costs, imposed by the Government, are up; interest rates are up; and, yes, sterling is up as well. What is her Department's forecast of the likely number of job losses in steel, automotive development, textiles and all the main areas of manufacturing in the next couple of years?
    We left all those industries in good heart after the recession of the 1990s, but the Government's policies are destroying them. The Government are losing control of the economy and doing enormous damage to manufacturing. They are creating not stability, but bust in manufacturing and an inflationary boom in everything else.
    Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that, if industry had been in as good heart as he says, he would be on the Government, not the Opposition, Benches. The picture that he presents is not one that anyone would recognise. We are aware of the concerns that have been expressed in some parts of manufacturing about interest rates, but we inherited a legacy of inflationary pressures and of failure to raise interest rates when it would have been right to do so, in the run-up to the general election. We hope and believe that, over time, we shall be able to overcome that legacy.
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is not the real task for British industry to become world class? We need

    499
    more world-class companies. The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce spent three or four years designing a working toolkit for tomorrow's company. Is it not about time that we gave it a hand to ensure that every small, medium and large enterprise can implement that toolkit, becoming innovative and successful in exporting?
    Mrs. Beckett: I know of the tremendous amount of work that my hon. Friend has done, including in some cross-party groups in the House, to promote the cause of British companies and manufacturing. I certainly agree that it is enormously important to continue to discuss what can be done to improve competitiveness and to encourage people in businesses large and small to learn from each other, to benchmark the best and to spread understanding of what will best promote the competitiveness of individual companies and hence of Britain as a whole, and I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind.

    Part-time Workers Directive
    9. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): If she will make a statement on the implementation of the part-time workers directive. [45060]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): The directive was extended to the United Kingdom on 7 April. We now have two years to implement it. During that period, we shall consider the options for how best to do so and, in particular, to ensure that both employers and employees enjoy the benefits of the directive and that the status of part-time jobs is improved. We intend to consult extensively on the best way of achieving that.
    Mr. Brady: Is it the Minister's view that the terms of the directive should apply equally to casual workers as to other part-time workers, and, if so, has he made any assessment of the likely cost in casual jobs?
    Mr. McCartney: The hon. Gentleman raised the same point in the Education and Employment Sub-Committee, on 1 June, when I made it clear that the directive has the potential to cover forms of casual work. The most important point about the directive is that 90 per cent. of employers have already expressed support for the principle of ensuring flexibility in business through part-time working. In addition, part-time work gives flexibility to many workers, including those who have child responsibilities, and gives them the opportunity to continue to make a contribution to an enterprise. The directive will assist competitiveness and provide good employment rights and standards in the workplace.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is not the Government's implementation of the directive a clear message that the Labour Government believe that the growing number of part-time workers are entitled to fair conditions, while the Conservatives could not care less about their conditions?
    Mr. McCartney: When we got rid of the previous Government, second-class citizenship for part-time workers went with them. Every worker in Britain will now have the same rights. There will be no more
    500
    second-class citizens. We want people to make a contribution to the United Kingdom economy, and we shall ensure that they do.

    Small and Medium Businesses
    Miss Melanie Johnson: What steps she is taking to promote innovation in United Kingdom small and medium enterprises. [45061]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Department is committed to the promotion of innovation, particularly within small and medium companies. On 11 June, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade launched the 1998 round of "Smart", the grants scheme for innovation and development in small firms. Many more of the Department's schemes, such as the teaching company scheme, also operate in that area. Innovation and technology counsellors in business links also have an important role in enabling small and medium enterprises to innovate.
    Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. May I tell her that Otodynamics, a company in Hatfield, recently won the Queen's award for technological achievement for its portable equipment for testing the hearing of small babies? That equipment can be used in many locations around the world because no computer or other equipment is needed. It was produced by a company begun by a husband and wife a few years ago, in conjunction with University college, London. Will my hon. Friend comment on how we can promote further projects that are likely to lead to worldwide success in technological development among small businesses? How can we promote further the use of our universities to support and help such development?
    Mrs. Roche: I congratulate the business mentioned by my hon. Friend, which is a good example of what can be done when the barriers between business, finance and the academic and science side are broken down, and when the transfer of technology is encouraged. The Government are examining this area, believing that small and medium businesses, especially in the high-tech sector, have the ability to win for Britain. We are working closely with universities, financial institutions and businesses.
    Mr. John Bercow: In seeking to promote innovation in small and medium enterprises, does the Under-Secretary agree that the European Commission's proposals for bureaucratic national works councils for companies with as few as 50 employees will offer no help to those companies, and could be a great hindrance to them? Does the hon. Lady agree that, when the President of the Board of Trade was challenged by John Humphrys on how she would cope with the Commission, her response of, "Well, er, we shall see how things go," was spectacularly feeble?
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that I have heard the same tired old rhetoric from him before. He cannot answer the points that regulation increased under the previous Conservative Government, and that it is the Labour Government who have sought to tackle excessive regulation. The hon. Gentleman will

    501
    recall that, during the UK presidency of the European Union, we set up the Best committee, chaired by the well-known British entrepreneur Chris Evans, who has dealt with cutting back European regulation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to congratulate the Government on our achievement.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend have regard to the fact that mining areas now rely on small and medium businesses to create well-paid jobs; the Tory Government destroyed the mining industry and well-paid jobs? Will she do all that she can to help small and medium enterprises in Yorkshire and Humberside to develop science and technology, so that skilled and well-paid jobs can return to our area?
    Mrs. Roche: I agree with my hon. Friend that small and medium enterprises are a good example of things that are helping to regenerate areas where industries have disappeared and new industries are coming in. What is good about those high-growth, high-skilled industries is that they are based on the skills that are in those communities in abundance. We shall do all that we can to support those industries, and I am delighted that recent polls show that the small business community is feeling very confident about what this Government have achieved so far.

    Sterling
    Mr. Bob Russell: What steps she is taking to safeguard jobs in manufacturing industry to take account of the current strength of sterling. [45062]
    The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government recognise the difficulties that are created for exporters and manufacturers by a strong pound. The Bank of England has taken those into account in deciding the level of interest rates, and the whole purpose of the Government's strategy is to deliver a stable macro-economic framework in which business will be better able to plan and to secure competitiveness for the long term. Ultimately, however, our ability to compete in world markets depends on Britain producing high-quality goods and services. We are working in partnership with business to develop measures that promote the competitiveness of British firms and we shall publish a White Paper in the autumn.
    Mr. Russell: In the real world, there will be a feeling that that was a somewhat complacent response, as was the right hon. Lady's response to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). Would the President of the Board of Trade care to comment on the fact that, this month in my constituency, Paxman Diesels had to make 10 per cent. of its work force redundant? We all know what happened under the previous Government, but many of us were hoping that a change of Government would lead to better things. Discussions with her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence in relation to the placing of orders would benefit Paxman Diesels, as would discussions with the privatised railway industry, where orders for locomotives seem to be lacking. Discussions between the President of the Board of Trade and other members of the Government might help my constituents.
    Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware, as I expect that the hon. Gentleman is, that the diesel industry has been undergoing
    502
    difficulties for some years. I share his view that part of the aftermath of the long-drawn-out privatisation of rail was a dearth of orders of a variety of kinds in the manufacturing industry, which affected my constituency as well as his. I assure him that I am in continual contact with colleagues who deal with other policy areas that impinge on those matters. We are all anxious to see British manufacturing succeed and we do work with such companies to try to achieve that.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Is not the simple truth that, if we had not tightened the fiscal stance—if we had followed the policies of Conservative Members—we would have had a higher exchange rate and higher interest rates?
    Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is, as so often, entirely right.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Earlier this week in my constituency, one of the most modern and efficient saw mills in the country made an entire shift redundant due to difficulties that had been caused by the level of sterling. In reply to an earlier question, the President of the Board of Trade said that what was necessary was stability in exchange rates. Would she be happy with exchange rates being stable at their current level? Is that what she seeks?
    Mrs. Beckett: No. If the hon. Gentleman will recall, what I said was that the Government would like stable and competitive exchange rates but, of course, difficulties do arise from time to time and no one is more concerned than Labour Members when, as a result, people lose the opportunity of employment. However, it is our determination and wish to make this economy more competitive. That, in the long run, is to the benefit of all.
    Mr. John Redwood: Will the President accept that, when manufacturing industry is struggling with the higher taxes, higher sterling and higher wage inflation that she will do nothing about, it should at least be able to expect stability from the DTI on regulations and competition law? Is she aware that her original Competition Bill produced much fear and diversion of effort in industry? While the Opposition welcome the four fundamental concessions that Ministers have made to improve the legislation, it is still wrong. Will she look again at this muddled and meddlesome Bill to help give industry more certainty? Above all, will she consider the absence of teeth against monopolies and public sector activity that is another extraordinary feature of the Bill and that will not help business to become more competitive against this miserable background for industry?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry—I almost interrupted the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He accused me of being responsible for higher wage inflation that I would do nothing about. Wage settlements are very much a matter for employers in manufacturing and outside. I am interested that he thinks that the Government should be doing something about them. I look forward to hearing more. On the Competition Bill, I am never sure whether he is mischievous or just incompetent. If he paid attention to the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and in

    503
    another place, he must know that the amendments to which he referred were flagged up by the Government and that we had said that they would need to be made from the beginning. Indeed, he has been complaining about the absence of some of them for weeks.

    Public Sector Workers
    Dr. Brian Iddon: How many groups of public sector workers, when dismissed unfairly, cannot appeal to an industrial tribunal. [45063]
    The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian McCartney): Public sector employees with a contract of employment are generally able to complain of unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal, subject to any qualifying period of continuous employment that may apply. Groups in the public sector who cannot do so include members of the armed forces and office holders who are not employees, including those in the police and the registration services.
    Dr. Iddon: I declare an interest as the unremunerated patron of the National Society of Registration Officers. I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he consider correcting, in liaison with the Economic Secretary, who is responsible for registration officers, the anomaly whereby registration officers cannot go to an industrial tribunal when dismissed? The registrar-general himself appears to favour reform.
    Mr. McCartney: We want a system of fairness, transparency, clear standards of decision making and proper redress. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall consider the matter with my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary in the positive context in which he approached it.
    Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the Minister confirm that people in the public sector, in addition to being able to go to industrial tribunals, can usually go to the Civil Service Appeal Board? Will he seek to ensure that, when the board recommends that a person be reinstated, that person is reinstated and the recommendation not ignored, as appears to have happened in several institutions, particularly the Prison Service?
    Mr. McCartney: I take on board what the hon. Gentleman says. I cannot go into individual cases. An independent assessment is made of disputes and that should remain independent of ministerial responsibility.

    Balance of Trade
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: What assessment she has made of which Government policies have had the greatest impact on the balance of trade position since 1 May 1997. [45064]
    The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Government want to create the right environment to ensure that British business can thrive in both domestic and overseas markets. The most important steps that we have taken to create that framework are those to implement a new framework for macro-economic policy to secure long-term stability
    504
    on the basis of low inflation and sound public finances. That should generate growth, provide employment and help trade.
    Mr. St. Aubyn: The fact is that, since the Government came to power, the balance of trade has suffered a sharp and steepening decline. Does the hon. Lady not realise that the Government's high taxes have been the spur to higher wage costs and the Government's higher interest rates have cut the sort of investment that raises productivity? Will she at least concede, in the climate that the Labour Government have created, that this is no time to be implementing the minimum wage proposals; and that those who wanted to implement the proposals of the Low Pay Commission in full were extremely foolish?
    Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his well-considered diatribe, but he appears to have forgotten a few things. The first is that about four fifths of sterling's appreciation occurred under the previous Government. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House then, so perhaps that passed him by.
    The picture that the hon. Gentleman paints is not one with which industry would agree. Large and small businesses alike know that this Government are good for business, unlike the previous Government, who went from boom to bust. We are trying to establish a climate of stability and certainty—unlike the one created by the Tories.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Resisting the temptation to launch into a diatribe, may I ask the Minister to consider putting in the Library an assessment of the impact on British trade of American-led sanctions against Libya and Iran?
    Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend, whom no one would ever accuse of launching diatribes—he is one of the most courteous Members in the House. I also note what he has to say. We shall accept any recommendations from him and carefully consider them.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: In assessing the impact of Government policies, has the hon. Lady looked at the 3i enterprise barometer, seven tenths of whose respondents are exporters? It is now negative for the first time since the end of 1992. The companies surveyed say that the
    "climate is now less favourable to starting a new business or expanding existing business activity than it was a year ago."
    Mrs. Roche: I do not know what it is about the Conservative party, but Tory Members seem to have terribly selective memories for facts. They forget that the CBI still expects extra volume growth. Barclays' start-up figures for the first three months of this year are more encouraging than ever; and the Lloyds bank survey has found that most businesses and new businesses say that they have enjoyed a much better macro-economic climate under this Government. I do not know what is happening to the Tory party, but I am certain that some medical expertise would come in useful.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Ian Stewart: What further steps she intends to take to give support to businesses preparing for EMU. [45065]
    The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Nigel Griffiths): I am pleased to announce that, among the further steps taken, my noble Friend the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe this week published some explanatory fact sheets to support businesses in preparing for the euro; 15,000 of them have been distributed to organisations representing businesses, and to individual firms—especially small and medium enterprises.
    Mr. Stewart: The Government's pragmatic approach to European monetary union is the correct one: we should join only if and when that is in Britain's interests. Will the Minister comment on the statement by Commissioner Leon Brittan last month, that the attitude and approach of the Leader of the Opposition to European monetary union is fundamentally flawed—a shrill and emotional reaction to it? Will he also join me in asking the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) whether he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition or with Sir Leon Brittan about speaking up for British interests in Europe?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, and I shall also give the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redmond), the
    506
    shadow Secretary of State, the opportunity to agree with John Entwistle, the president of the British Chambers of Commerce, who said yesterday,
    "We are for the euro."
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Is the Minister aware of the advice that has been given to the President of the United States that it is absolute folly for the countries of the European Community to form a single currency within 12 months of trying to deal with the problems associated with the millennium bug? Will he take notice of those people in this country who are advising that, if one of those two problems could be postponed, it would be sensible to do so?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is very brave of the hon. Gentleman to raise the subject of the millennium bug when the record of his party in the previous Government shows that it did nothing about it. By contrast, this Government took the necessary action and appointed Don Cruickshank to head the committee that is ensuring that business is properly prepared for the millennium. We welcome any support that can be given, however belatedly, by Conservative Members.
    Mr. John Redwood: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order after statements, and we have three statements today.

National Minimum Wage
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): Today, the Government publish the report of the Low Pay Commission and spell out how, in our response to that report, we shall begin to end the scandal of poverty pay.
In the labour market that we inherited just over a year ago, many workers received such excessively low rates of pay that they were driven to work long hours simply to make ends meet. We all know the examples: a homeworker paid as little as 35p an hour, a cleaner paid £1.30 an hour or a security guard paid £2.35 an hour—and bring your own dog!
In addition, such low levels of pay mean that taxpayers provide massive sums of income subsidy and businesses, large and small, which are striving to compete, as Britain must, on quality and value for money, see their position undermined, not by fair competition, but by cut-throat cowboys.
With the lack of any fair and basic minimum standards at work, the gap between real hourly earnings of the lowest and highest-paid almost doubled in the past 20 years. That was the outcome of the strategy of the previous Government—Britain aimed to be merely the cheapest rather than the best, and was no longer the workshop of the world, but the sweatshop of western Europe.
This Government believe in decent minimum standards, as a spur to competing sustainably on quality, to tackle social exclusion and to make work pay. We have already made substantial progress. The working families tax credit will guarantee an income of at least £180 a week for families working full time. No family with weekly earnings of less than £220 will pay tax. Reform of national insurance contributions will reduce barriers to work. The new deal will help the young and the long-term unemployed to move from welfare to work. The "Fairness at Work" White Paper and the work of the social exclusion unit are all part of the wider strategy to reshape Britain.
The national minimum wage is a key element in that range of policies. It will help to create a better rewarded and more committed work force, itself a force for driving up standards and helping competitiveness. Experience elsewhere shows, too, the likelihood that staff turnover will be reduced and investment in training encouraged, which itself improves productivity.
We were determined from the outset that the national minimum wage must be introduced sensibly and in accordance with prevailing economic conditions. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission, with George Bain in the chair, after only 90 days in office. The commissioners were publicly recruited following Nolan principles and drawn from among employers, employees and independents, each serving in an individual capacity.
Their work is impressive. I pay tribute to George Bain and the other commissioners, who have done a quite remarkable job. As well as studying 500 written submissions, they took oral evidence from a wide range of organisations, and held more than 200 meetings throughout the United Kingdom.
508
The commissioners heard from large and small employers, trade unions, individual employees including homeworkers, and a range of other interested organisations. I whole-heartedly commend their immense hard work, energy and willingness to give so freely of their time for this important task.
As we made clear in our evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the Government were particularly concerned to ensure that our national minimum wage should be set at a level that avoided the risk of adverse effects on employment, inflation and the PSBR.
We have been particularly mindful of the need to protect the position of young people. It is, in our view, essential that we avoid reducing the relative attractiveness to young people of staying on in education and training, and avoid discouraging employers from providing training for those in work. Those concerns have guided our judgment on the decisions in response to the commission's recommendations.
The Government welcome the report, and support all the commission's key recommendations, subject to consultation on some of the practical details. In particular, we accept a main rate of £3·60 per hour before deductions, with effect from April 1999. When combined with the working families tax credit and other benefits, for a one-earner couple with two children, that means an effective wage of more than £7 per hour. We accept that all those aged 16 and 17, or on formal apprenticeships, should be exempt, and we also accept the proposal to institute a development rate.
The commission proposes that that minimum rate should apply at £3·20 to all 18 to 20-year-olds, and to all workers starting a new job with a new employer and receiving accredited training. We are, however, at a critical point in the economic cycle. The Government are determined to proceed with all due caution with the introduction of that rate, especially for the crucial group of those aged 18 to 21.
We have therefore decided, for this group, to phase in the rate in two stages, with an initial transitional rate of £3 from April 1999, which will increase to £3·20 in June 2000. However, we are asking the commission to review the position of 21-year-olds again in 1999, following the implementation of the £3 transitional rate, and then to provide a further report on whether, in the light of experience to that date, the commission reconfirms its advice that 21-year-olds should be covered by the main adult rate.
I am pleased also to announce that we shall be asking the commission to continue its work monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the minimum wage.
Introducing the minimum wage at the levels that I have announced today will help some 2 million workers escape from poverty pay, without adverse effects on jobs or inflation. That will include 1·4 million women; more than 1·3 million part-time workers; some 200,000 young people; about 110,000 homeworkers; approximately 175,000 lone parents who work; and some 130,000 ethnic minority workers.
The remaining Low Pay Commission recommendations deal with such technical matters as the composition and reference period for calculating the minimum wage, the handling of benefits in kind and its application to homeworkers and pieceworkers.

509
We fully and carefully considered those recommendations and accept them in principle, subject to consultation on the practicalities and detail of their implementation when formulating the regulations implementing the national minimum wage.
Today marks a further milestone in implementing the Government's manifesto commitments. The introduction of a national minimum wage would never have taken place under a Conservative Administration.
Several hon. Members indicated assent.
Mrs. Beckett: I am glad to see Conservative Members nodding.
From the outset, the Government's approach to the minimum wage has been that it must be approached in an atmosphere and a framework of partnership. The Low Pay Commission has shown that that approach was the right one. It is clear from its work that there is now an overwhelming welcome for the principle of the minimum wage. Among the few people out of step appears to be the Conservative party. I challenge the Conservatives today, on behalf of the 2 million people benefiting from these proposals, to say whether, if returned to office, they will seek to reverse the steps that we take today.
The minimum wage, with our other policies such as the working families tax credit, will help to remove the worst cases of exploitation in the workplace—cases which had a place under the Conservative party, but which have no place in a modern Britain. I commend the report to the House.
Mr. John Redwood: This week, we have seen prices up, mortgages up, wage inflation up—and now the Government wish to throw more petrol on those inflationary fires. If one employee gets a pay rise, others, including well-paid ones, will want one, too.
No wonder the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been out to sabotage this wages policy, because he at least knows that inflationary pay awards make no one better off. They are fool's gold. As the Government take us back to the strikes and the inflation of the 1960s, they give us a mods and rockers Government. The mods, led by the Prime Minister, believe that you can do it all with soundbites. It is as effective as putting go-faster stripes on a scooter. The rockers, led by the Chancellor, spend their time trying to break up the manifesto promises. For this statement is an act of betrayal by the Government. In the election—[Interruption.] Labour Members ought to listen to this, because they know that it is true. In the election campaign, Labour psromised—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Redwood: I am grateful, Madam Speaker.
In the election campaign, Labour promised a decent minimum wage for all. Today, the Labour Government tell us that no one under 18 will benefit from these proposals. They tell us that 18 to 21-year-olds will receive only a lower rate. They tell us that their idea of a decent rate is as little as £3 an hour. They even tell us that the tips put on to credit card payments will be included in the calculation. Perhaps they intend to give yet more encouragement to the black economy, outside the clutches of both the tax man and the soon-to-arrive minimum wage inspector.
510
We have warned the Government throughout that a minimum wage policy will not work. We have consistently argued for a minimum income rather than a minimum wage—with benefit top-ups for families that need the extra. Will the President now confirm, as I think she implied, that she agrees with our approach? Does she agree that benefits will still be needed for many people to top up these minimum wages, and will she confirm to all those people that their benefits will still be paid? Is not the beneficiary of this proposal the Government, not the person on a low income?
We told the President that she would be forced to exempt young people—otherwise, she would destroy their jobs, or their chances of a job. Will she confirm that young people are being left out of her proposals, or offered less money, because the Government now agree with us that their jobs are at risk?
Will the President tell us what forecast the Government have made of how many jobs would be lost if everyone was given the promise of £3·60 an hour, and how many jobs will be saved by treating 16 to 21-year-olds differently? She must know the figures. The report of the Low Pay Commission confirms that jobs will be lost, and prices will go up. She should tell the House and the nation how many jobs are now at risk.
Does the President agree with her right hon. Friend—at least, I thought he was her right hon. Friend—the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that wage increases destroy jobs? Does she now understand that her Low Pay Commission is a complete waste of time and money, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes the decisions whatever the commission may say? Will she, for once, accept my sympathy that she has been forced to eat her words and break her promise of the same minimum wage for all? Indeed, would she not be better off taking a holiday, or praying for an easier job in the reshuffle, given the way that the Chancellor interferes with the present one?
We left the Government a golden economic legacy. Today, the Government are doing their best to destroy it. The Bank of England has warned them against this policy. The Government blunder on. In their nostalgia for the 1960s and 1970s, they are taking us back to the strikes; back to the inflation; back to the bad old ways; back to the bad old days.
Mrs. Beckett:I challenged the right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party to tell us whether they would repeal the minimum wage, but the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be torn between complaining that it did not apply at the full rate to everyone from age 16 and complaining that it applies at all. He did not tell us anything about the Opposition's proposals.
The fact of the matter is that the minimum wage is a hugely important step. As I said in the statement, it will benefit 2 million people. I should be very surprised if the right hon. Gentleman or anyone else expected that such a wage would apply to 16 and 17-year-olds. In any event, the Low Pay Commission spent a great deal of time studying those matters and it firmly believes that 16 and 17-year-olds should be exempt, as should people on formal apprenticeships. It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman apparently disagrees, and we shall certainly bear that in mind when he talks about the impact on inflation. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman still asks why, so clearly that is a fruitful topic to pursue.

511
The simple fact is that, because we have a Labour Government, 2 million people will begin to be released from poverty pay. The fact is that the Low Pay Commission will continue its work and continue to monitor the implementation of the steps. The minimum wage will not cost jobs or lead to high inflation: it will give the most exploited people in this country some relief from exploitation that clearly would have continued in perpetuity under the Conservatives.
Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every Labour Member will regard the introduction of the minimum wage as a huge leap forward in the Labour party's historic crusade against unemployment and poverty? She deserves the congratulations of the whole House. Is it not ironic that the arguments for minimum pay were recognised by Churchill in 1909? Is it not obvious what an uphill task the Tories face in modernising their party?
Mrs. Beckett: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct. A sad feature of recent years is that the Conservatives have lost all sight of the principles of fairness and social justice. That is part of what put them on the Opposition Benches, and will no doubt help to keep them there.
Mr. David Chidgey: It is nice to hear Sir Winston Churchill's name again mentioned with reverence from the Government Benches. Times have not changed too much.
The President of the Board of Trade will know that we support many aspects of the Low Pay Commission's work, and we welcome its report in that regard. However, I wish to raise some differences with the right hon. Lady. Does she accept the concept of the longer-term linking of the development rate for 18 to 21-year-olds only with formal education and training? What are her views on that subject? In talking about the continuing role of the Low Pay Commission, does she mean that it will be a permanent body? Will its duties include not just monitoring but recommending on future rates?
Is it not true that the Low Pay Commission has discovered that there is a need for flexibility in the national minimum wage and has used the development rate as a means of achieving that? Would it not have been better if the Low Pay Commission had been permitted in the first place to look at the variations that exist in the economies of the south-east of England and London, and the rest of the country, and examine and report on that phenomenon—the President knows that that is in the report—rather than simply concentrating on a development rate for young people?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions. He asked initially about linking the development rate only with accredited training. I am afraid that I could not tell from his phrasing of the question whether he was for or against it. However, that is certainly the view of the commission. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Gentleman is for it. We accept the commission's view and take it very seriously. We shall continue to explore those issues.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the continuing role of the commission. That body will continue to monitor the implementation of the minimum wage and we
512
shall continue to seek its advice. I know that it is difficult to follow all the details when statements are made quickly, and the hon. Gentleman may not have taken on board the fact that we have already sought further advice from the Low Pay Commission about the rate for 21-year-olds in June 2000.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked me about allowing the commission to pursue the issue of variations between regions. The Government set their face for a national rate because of the complications of defining regional boundaries, what happens to benefit rates, and so on. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman will not have had much opportunity to study the detail of the report, but it is interesting to see from the commission's conclusions that it found in its hearings that there were far greater variations within regions than between regions. That shows just how difficult it would be to have rates that vary according to geographical location. It is partly why we share the view that there needs to be a national rate.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nobody can deny that on a day like today the political high ground is on Goverment Benches? That is more than evidenced by the response from the shadow President of the Board of Trade. Will she have another look at the 20p difference for young people? Will she also bear it in mind that every group of workers receives payments in kind of some sort? Will payments such as tips and the rest be taken into account? If such payments were taken into account for everyone, Ministers would be in serious trouble.
Mrs. Beckett: I must confess that my hon. Friend has taken me slightly by surprise—I have no recollection of being tipped, but I look forward to it.
The Low Pay Commission has recommended that payments based on output, productivity or performance should count, and that payments based on results, bonuses, tips and gratuities and so on should be taken into account if they are paid through the payroll, but not otherwise. That should reassure not only my hon. Friend but many who are slightly puzzled about the details of those matters. Obviously, there is no intention that the ordinary tip that someone leaves in, say, a restaurant will be taken into account.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the right hon. Lady answer questions to which many of those who may be affected want to know the answers?
First, if, in a year's time, the underlying rate of inflation remains at 3 per cent., will the extra 10p an hour be added to the £3·60 rate?
Secondly, if the rate is £3·60 or £3·70, can the right hon. Lady confirm what the Chancellor knew last night when he spoke at Great George street on the 60th anniversary of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research: that the proposed rate will have the effect of losing some 1 per cent. of employment–250,000 jobs? How is that compatible with the right hon. Lady's assertion that it will have no impact on jobs?
Finally, if someone receives an increase in pay of 30p an hour—the right hon. Lady said that basic earnings may be £7 an hour, with the extra £3·40 from benefits—how much of that 30p will be lost in terms of lost benefit? How much will the person gain from the extra 30p?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of detailed questions, which will arise during discussions

513
on the proposals and in the consultation. I shall simply pick out two of the major points. He asked what will happen to the rates in, say, the year 2000. The Government will take that into account as we approach that time, but we shall not make a decision about those matters now. I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman's description, but he quoted some supposed calculations about the effect on employment. The Government do not believe that the proposals will have a disadvantageous effect. Indeed, we very much believe that they will be beneficial in stimulating productivity and stability in the work force.
I am interested and slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman' s comments, as he has always claimed to be a friend of people on low pay.
Mr. David Borrow: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? The 2,700 constituents of mine who will benefit from her announcement will also welcome it, and will note the comments of the Conservatives—the party of poverty pay.
Can my right hon. Friend assure me that when the Low Pay Commission reviews the implementation of the minimum wage, all aspects will be reviewed, including whether there needs to be a lower rate for young workers, what that should be in relation to the adult workers' rate, the effect on industry as a whole and whether there should be a rate for young workers under the age of 18?
Mrs. Beckett: 1 thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for identifying the fact that many people in his constituency, as in all our constituencies, will benefit from these proposals. I can certainly assure him that when the Low Pay Commission undertakes its review, it will, of course, review all aspects of the implementation and handling of the minimum wage, including wage rates and the handling of the development rate. By then, it will have the benefit of practical experience of how the introduction of the rates has worked.
Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether she plans an audit of the burden of red tape that will be put on small and medium-sized enterprises by the national minimum wage? What advice has she received from the better regulation unit on that subject?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady seems not to be aware that, as I understand it, the better regulation task force has congratulated the Government. As for red tape, when the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to study the Low Pay Commission's report in more depth—something which I quite understand she will not have had—she will see that it makes several proposals that should greatly simplify the administration of the national minimum wage and make it easy for people to see clearly how it works and what the impact will be in their place of work.
Dr. Lynne Jones: Having been elected to the House in 1992 on a promise of a £3.40-an-hour minimum wage, and having seen what has happened to the salary of Members of Parliament since then, I have to say that I find today's proposals—and even more so, the failure to implement the Low Pay Commission's proposals in full—bitterly disappointing.
514
I notice that my right hon. Friend said that today's measures would be the beginning of the end of poverty pay. When does she expect that we will end it for good?
Mrs. Beckett: Anybody who tried to answer that question would be treading in very dangerous waters indeed. Of course I understand my hon. Friend's concern and her disappointment, but I am sure that she recognises the need to introduce the minimum wage at a level that will minimise the impact on employment and— [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I do not know why Conservative Members are making so much noise. When the Low Pay Commission was set up, the Government recommended that it should take these issues into account. We have always recognised that it would be possible to set the minimum wage at a level that could have an impact on employment. That is why we are confident that that is not what we are doing today.
The figure to which my hon. Friend refers was a figure reached by the deployment of a particular formula. The Government have long since come to the conclusion that it was better to proceed by means of social partnership and by practical discussions between representatives of employers of varying sizes and of the work force, and to come to an agreed view about the most practical and sensible way to implement the national minimum wage. The Government decided long ago that that was the right path to pursue. With deep respect to my hon. Friend, she fought the last election on that policy.
Mr. Eric Forth: If the work of the Low Pay Commission was as wonderful as the Secretary of State said, why did she reject some of its key recommendations?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly not been paying attention. We have accepted the commission's key recommendations.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that this is a good day for those of us who believe in the redistribution of wealth and that the proposals will make a big difference to many of the people I represent? In Sunderland, many people struggle on a wage rate of £2 an hour, and the lowest rate of which I am aware is 89p an hour. Will she confirm that the most important issue is not the rate that is set, but the vigour with which it is enforced? Will she give the House an assurance that the rate that she has announced will be vigorously enforced?
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I thank him for his remarks and the information that he has given the House. I notice that, for once, he silenced Conservative Members—although no doubt not for long. The national minimum wage will be implemented with vigour. As I told the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the Low Pay Commission has already turned its attention to how to ensure that everyone is clear about what the national minimum wage means for them and how they can judge whether they are receiving the proper rate of pay. The Government certainly have that in mind.
Mr. Roy Beggs: While I support the principle of decent minimum standards and the desire to

515
end poverty pay, I ask the President of the Board of Trade to take account of the fact that Northern Ireland, which has been identified as a low-wage economy for too long, has had increasing employment opportunities. Will she assure me that her proposals will not damage those continuing employment opportunities, and that areas of high unemployment throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, will be closely monitored to determine the impact of the proposals?
Mrs. Beckett: I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the commission took fully into account the circumstances of areas such as Northern Ireland. The commission visited Northern Ireland and took evidence. The commission is confident, as are we, that its proposals, which we have accepted, can be implemented to the considerable benefit of people in the Province and throughout the United Kingdom.
Mr. David Winnick: I have some reservations about the rate for young people. No doubt there will be opportunities to pursue that. Is it not sickening that Members of Parliament with substantial incomes in addition to their parliamentary salaries should be so passionate in favour of starvation wages? Should we not take every opportunity to tell the electorate that Tory Members were willing for us to stay up all night on 9 March to fight for a principle that they believe in so passionately—that people in this country should continue to have starvation wages?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. It was difficult to detect a consistent theme from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) or from Conservative Back Benchers, but it is clear that, at the next election, the Conservative party intends to threaten 2 million of our poorest fellow citizens with wage cuts.
Mr. Philip Hammond: The right hon. Lady is not the only person to have had to eat a good portion of humble pie in these proceedings. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), launched a scathing attack on Conservative Members in Committee when we suggested that tips should be taken into account in calculating whether the minimum wage had been paid. The right hon. Lady has told the House that tips will be taken into account when they are paid through the payroll. Has her hon. Friend offered his resignation? Now that the rate and the details of the applicability of the minimum wage are known, what figure has the Treasury model given her for the number of jobs that will be lost as a result of its introduction?
Mrs. Beckett: I have already dealt with the issue of tips. My hon. Friend was right to say that tips will not be included. They will not be included unless they are part of proper remuneration, not a random figure. The hon. Gentleman says that I should feel humble today. I strive always to feel humble, because that is better than suffering from the conceit and arrogance of the Conservatives. Despite my efforts toward humility, what I feel today, standing at the Dispatch Box to advance and defend the national minimum wage, is pride.
Mr. Huw Edwards: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? It represents the most
516
important advance in employment rights since the Equal Pay Act 1970, which was also systematically opposed by the Conservative party. Will she join me in congratulating all those who campaigned for a national minimum wage—trade unions and organisations such as the Low Pay Unit—and the Ministers who took the legislation through Committee in the face of the Conservative party's continual opposition?
Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend, who is entirely right. He is probably too young to remember the introduction of the Equal Pay Act, but I vividly remember it, I remember what the Conservative party said about how it would harm employment and how people would lose their jobs. I also remember that, at that time, I was living in the household of a lone parent who did not receive equal pay. The introduction of the Act by a Labour Government made a big difference to our standard of living.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: Can the President of the Board of Trade tell us whether the party Whips have identified the Minister who was quoted in today's edition of The Guardian, who said that the Government's proposals were unacceptable because they failed to protect those who have least, while allowing very high rates of pay and increases in pay at the top level? Would it not be easier to stomach some of the Government's arguments if they were prepared to increase the higher rate of tax to bring greater resources into the public sector to provide the quality services and social investment that we desperately need? Is not it astonishing that a Labour Government are not prepared to bite that bullet?
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has strayed rather far from the issue of the minimum wage; he is talking about the general issue of taxation policy. I hope that he, like all of us on the Labour Benches, very much welcomes, for example, the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to introduce the working families tax credit. The hon. Gentleman is talking primarily about the public sector. He must surely have observed that large numbers of the 2 million people who will benefit from the introduction of a national minimum wage work in the private sector. That is where the worst exploitation takes place.
Mr. John McAllion: Everyone accepts that young people undergoing training cannot expect to be paid the rate for the job, but few would accept that young people should be discriminated against simply because they are young people. Already, under-25s are paid a low rate of income support and are subjected to the injustice of the single-room rent allowance simply because of their age. Now, 18 to 21-year-olds will be paid a lower national minimum wage simply because of their age. How can young people take seriously our talk of trying to tackle social exclusion when we exclude them from the rights of every adult citizen simply because of their age?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's concern to draw young people into the community and to avoid social exclusion. In a variety of ways, the Government are seeking to offer young people good training opportunities to try to ensure that they can

517
secure jobs. That is very much the key to their prosperity. I do not share my hon. Friend's view that it is particularly damaging to young people to be offered a development rate of the national minimum wage. As I said earlier, the Low Pay Commission looked very carefully at the area. I am confident that, despite his concerns, he has not overlooked the fact that very many young people—some 200,000—will benefit from today's announcement even at the rates that we are proposing.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will the minimum wage be index-linked to inflation?
Mrs. Beckett: That has not been proposed by the Low Pay Commission; nor, indeed, is it proposed by the Government. Despite having, as I understand from the Register of Members' Interests, some seven paid jobs, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is showing concern for the low-paid.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: May I ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at tipping? Does she agree that when a customer tips for service, that customer does not expect the employer to skim off money for costs that ought to be paid from the profits of the business; and that if the employer is doing that, he is robbing the employee of money that the employee should have? If so, are we not getting into dangerous waters to count tips at all? Should they not be considered a top-up to a basic wage, whatever that basic wage happens to be?
Mrs. Beckett: I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's concern, and I can tell her that that is what is going to happen. It is intended that commissions, tips and gratuities paid through the payroll will be taken into account in assessing the national minimum wage, in the same way that they are now taken into account for taxation. That is the way these issues are handled at present, and they will continue to be handled in that way in the application of the national minimum wage.
Mr. James Paice: Will the President publish and tell the House now of any assessment that she or the Chancellor has made in respect of the restoration of differentials and the impact of her proposals on other pay?
Mrs. Beckett: The Low Pay Commission looked at the issue of the restoration of differentials and, from its careful assessment and its deep, detailed studies in the labour market, it believes that the impact on differentials would be minimal. I remind the House that, with great respect to those who are theoretical economists, the commission was not making a theoretical assessment, but was operating and taking evidence from those who have practical experience in the marketplace. It is on that basis that the commission made its observations.
Mr. John Cryer: What guarantee can my right hon. Friend give that 16 to 18-year-olds will not be exploited?
Mrs. Beckett: There is a whole range of other measures that apply to 16 to 18-year-olds, including rights to training, which we believe will be beneficial to them. I can only say that we do not take the view—nor, if I may
518
remind my hon. Friend, did the Low Pay Commission—that 16 and 17-year-olds should be included in the structures of the minimum wage.
Gillian Merron: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's announcement, Labour Members share her pride in seeing the arrival of the first ever national minimum wage in this country; it has been consistently opposed by the Conservatives. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House about anticipated savings in the welfare benefits bill? We have heard about the benefits to the 2 million low-paid people and the benefits resulting from the boost to the economy, but the taxpayers of this country and others will also benefit. Can my right hon. Friend give us an estimate?
Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I know that she is one of those who, night after night, valiantly bore the heat and the burden in the Standing Committee on the Bill to get the legislation on the statute book. She is right to say that one of the beneficial effects of the legislation will be substantial savings to the taxpayer. I noticed that the shadow Secretary of State chose to dress up, in references to an overall minimum income, a call for substantial taxpayer subsidies to people who exploit by paying poverty wages. We do not share that view.
I have to tell my hon. Friend that I am not in a position to give the estimates for which she calls. It may be possible over time for people to do some calculations, but 1 have no figure before me for savings on the tax bill. However, we all know that, at the present time, the subsidy from taxpayers for low pay is about £1·5 billion, and we expect that substantially to reduce.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Are the Government slightly embarrassed that the Government of the Republic of Ireland have recently proposed a minimum wage there of £4·40 per hour?
The Low Pay Commission's recommendation that the national minimum wage should be £3·70 in 2000 is the very first recommendation in its report, which seems to signify that it is seen as a key recommendation. How does the right hon. Lady square her non-acceptance of that with the fact that she says that the Government are accepting all the key recommendations?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the Republic of Ireland has different structures and different pay rates, but, if its Government were having to introduce a minimum wage today, cold, on the basis of a labour market that had been exploited and neglected as ours was under the Conservatives, I am not at all sure whether they would choose to introduce it at that rate. It is the Government's concern to get the right rate and level of introduction.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the recommendation on the development rate. I repeat that the Low Pay Commission made a small number of key recommendations, which we have accepted. We have said that we will phase in that recommendation for that group in the first year.
Mr. Tony Baldry: Will the President of the Board of Trade accept that if the minimum wage rate is set at or below the market rate, it will simply be otiose and, if it is set above the market rate, it will simply lead

519
to a loss of jobs? Has the right hon. Lady estimated how many jobs will be lost, has she simply not estimated that, or has she done so but is not prepared to share the estimation with the House?
Mrs. Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman is worried about employment levels, he could give up one of the six jobs that he has. He has made that point before ad nauseam and there is nothing more nauseous than listening to well-paid Conservative Members defending a system in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) pointed out a few moments ago, some people receive sums as low as 89p an hour. I am disgusted that the Conservative party defends that.
Mr. Chris Pond: While not wishing to undersell my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), may I point out that cases of 49p an hour are not uncommon? That is why Labour Members welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is she aware that her pride in it will be reflected in the welcome that it will receive throughout the country? Many people will think that the statement by the shadow President of the Board of Trade that the minimum wage is fool's gold is adding insult to the injury that the Conservative party created for the low-paid for so many years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Low-Pay Commission is asked to reconsider the appropriate rate for 21-year-olds, it will also be asked to consider the appropriate rate for 18 to 20-year-olds in relation to the adult rate?
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course, all hon. Members—certainly those on the Labour Benches—are aware of the long and honourable record that my hon. Friend has in campaigning on the issue. I am sure that he is as pleased as we are that we are so close to achieving the introduction of a national minimum wage. He asked about the proceedings when the Low Pay Commission reconsiders the rate for 21-year-olds. We are anxious for it to begin that reconsideration during 1999, and to make early recommendations. Of course, it will be its role in general to monitor, keep under review and, from time to time, advise on rates and, indeed, the process and pattern of what is happening as we introduce the national minimum wage across the board.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Thank you, Mrs. Beckett. I am bringing this statement to a close.

Business of the House
4.17 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 22 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 23 JUNE—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 24 JUNE—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
That will be followed in the afternoon and evening by consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] (third allotted day).
THURSDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day (14th allotted day).
Until about 7 pm there will be a debate on a sittings motion for Friday 3 July in the name of the Liberal Democrats, followed by a debate on Government strategy on social welfare on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
FRIDAY 26 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows.
MONDAY 29 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th allotted day). The subject will be announced.
TUESDAY 30 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 1 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be the usual debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House followed by completion of remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
THURSDAY 2 JULY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Human Rights Bill [Lords] followed by the remaining stages of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 3 JULY—Private Members' Bills.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving next week's business and the provisional business for the following week. In addition to the business that she has announced for next week, it is likely that there will be further ministerial statements. In the light of what happened today—not for the first time, the contents of a statement were widely trailed in the press and the media—will she bring to the attention of fellow members of the Government paragraph 27 of the Ministerial Code, which was revised by the Prime Minister last July? It makes it clear that
"When Parliament is in session, Ministers will want to bear in mind the desire of Parliament that the most important announcements of Government policy should be made, in the first instance, in Parliament."
The right hon. Lady announced that, on Monday, the House is to consider a range of amendments to the Crime and Disorder Bill, some of which relate to the age of consent. Has she seen the points of order raised by two Labour Members yesterday—in column 386 of Hansard—pressing for changes in the way in which the Business Committee operates so that the House can vote

521
on amendments that have been selected by Madam Speaker but have not been reached? Does she have sympathy with those points of order?
Two weeks ago, in response to a business question, the right hon. Lady said that the House would not sit on Saturdays for "normal business". Will she confirm that, like the establishment of an assembly in Wales and of a Parliament in Scotland, the establishment of an assembly in Northern Ireland is, indeed, the normal business of the House and that there is no question of inviting the House to sit on a Saturday to deal with it?
The House will be expecting the Government to have completed a number of reviews shortly, including the strategic defence review, the comprehensive spending review and reviews on the Child Support Agency and on pensions. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that statements will be made to the House on each of those? Will she give some idea of when they will be made, especially the statement on the comprehensive spending review? Furthermore, when can the House expect the long-awaited and much promised foreign affairs debate?
Finally, those who work in the House—and, indeed, many Labour Members—will want to know more about the plans for the summer recess. Will she shed any further light on when the House will rise for that event?
Mrs. Taylor: I shall deal first with the right hon. Gentleman's point about statements. I hope that he is not suggesting that it is only under this Government that there has been a great deal of press speculation about the contents of statements that are to be made to the House. I know that Ministers take steps to try to ensure that speculation does not get out of hand and that they are careful about what they say in advance of statements. As he is pressing for more statements, he will know that there is speculation, not least by Conservative Members, about the contents of some of the reviews. We cannot stop all speculation, but it is right that Ministers should not be party to the early release of information and that they should make relevant statements to the House—that is the procedure that we try to follow.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill on Monday and the points of order that were raised, which, I believe, concerned genuine issues. We shall have to look at how the Bill is dealt with on Monday. The Business Committee is taking on board those issues; it is trying to ensure that there are votes on Monday evening on the relevant amendments selected by Madam Speaker. Those discussions are continuing and I intend to ensure that all hon. Members know the exact order of votes on Monday—we shall try to make that factual information available to all hon. Members in advance of any votes that are called.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about reviews. I said that we will have statements, not necessarily on all the subjects that he mentioned, but on all the more important issues. They will be made, I hope, some time next month, although I cannot give dates in advance.
The right hon. Gentleman again asked for a foreign affairs debate. I have said that I hope to find time later in the Session for one. We arranged for a full day's debate on European matters last Thursday, but it was poorly attended, especially by Conservative Members, and collapsed earlier than we had expected, so I am not sure that there is always as much interest in the subject as people think.
522
I answered the point about sitting on Saturdays some time ago. It is not my intention that the House should sit on Saturdays, but we all have a responsibility to ensure that if there is an occasion on which the House can make special arrangements to help advance the peace process in Northern Ireland, we should do so. I do not expect anything specific, but we should always be careful about what we say on Northern Ireland issues and the responsibilities of the House in that respect.
I genuinely cannot answer the question about the recess, not least because the dates will depend on the progress of the business that is currently being conducted. The right hon. Gentleman will know from our discussions through the usual channels that not all the details have yet been agreed.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When does my right hon. Friend expect there to be a debate on the report by the Low Pay Commission and the Government's response to it? Will she ensure that, in such a debate, there will be an opportunity to amend the Government's proposals on the rates of pay and the youth rates of pay, and that separate votes will be taken on each of the elements proposed in the package?
Mrs. Taylor: The next stage will be for the regulations to be laid. That will be done, but not in the immediate future, and I do not think it right to anticipate when such a debate might occur. I shall, of course, bear my hon. Friend's points in mind.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the Leader of the House give us an assurance that in the discussions on the Crime and Disorder Bill there will be a full opportunity to debate the Government's proposals on dealing with football hooliganism? As a Cornishman, I am totally objective in the matter, as I believe that real men play rugby. I know that the right hon. Lady disagrees with that, but I wonder whether she has taken note of the comments made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark), who seems to think that the flower of England's youth was defending the nation's honour. Does she accept that such a debate would allow the full range of Conservative Members' points of view to be expressed?
There are disturbing rumours—I wonder whether the Leader of the House can confirm that discussions have taken place through the usual channels—that the Conservative Opposition propose to break the bipartisan approach on Northern Ireland. Has she had any assurances from Conservative Front Benchers? Will she reaffirm her intention to try to preserve the all-party approach on such important matters?
Will the Leader of the House reiterate, on behalf of the whole House, the respect that we all have for the accuracy, integrity and independence of the House of Commons Library? She will have noted that yesterday the Prime Minister appeared to question the statistics on taxation provided by the Library. Will she acknowledge that on some occasions the Library is correct when her colleagues are wrong? For example, will she acknowledge that in the Library note of 15 June provided to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce),

523
the Treasury's recent document on spending is shown to be wrong and that the Government have been overgenerous by 25 per cent.?
Mrs. Taylor rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We are discussing next week's business. Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is seeking a debate on Library publications? Otherwise, he is abusing this period of discussion of next week's business.
Mrs. Taylor: I am tempted to say, "Not next week."
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his comments yesterday, he was raising the issue of the presumptions that had been fed into the questions that were asked to obtain that information.
On the serious point about bipartisanship on Northern Ireland, we all have significant responsibilities. The Prime Minister's statement at Question Time yesterday reinforced that extremely well and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should heed his words.
On the subject of football hooliganism, I should emphasise that it was hooliganism by English supporters; we should not include the Scots. I was alarmed, outraged and amused to a ridiculous extent that anyone could come out with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). He clearly was not speaking along the same lines as his own Front-Bench team, with whom it may be possible to have an element of bipartisanship—if the right hon. Gentleman is excluded.
Mr. Joe Ashton: May I thank the Leader of the House and you, Madam Speaker, for her and your generous protection of the interests of Back Benchers as regards Monday's business? I raised a point of order yesterday on whether the Business Committee could make it possible, when the age of consent clause is moved, for time to be allowed for other Back-Bench amendments. I was glad to hear the Leader of the House say that that will be considered and it is good to know that our rights will be protected.
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot guarantee that all amendments will be voted on, as that will depend on selection, but we shall try to arrange matters so that as many significant issues as possible are voted on. I shall try to ensure that all hon. Members are properly informed of the sequence of votes.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Can the Leader of the House describe the terms of reference of Sir Thomas Legg's inquiry into the arms to Sierra Leone affair? In particular, do they allow him to look into the arming of Nigerian soldiers, who were the main part of the so-called peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone? It is possible that those arms were later used to keep down the people of Nigeria after their President died.
Mrs. Taylor: I do not believe that we will have a debate on that matter in the near future. When the terms of reference were set out, my right hon. Friend the Foreign
524
Secretary said that if Sir Thomas Legg wanted the terms extended to cover any other relevant point, he could ask for that to happen. It is therefore clear that relevant information will not be denied to Sir Thomas Legg.
Mr. John McDonnell: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider timetabling a fuller debate on the "Fairness at Work" White Paper? She will be aware that I have raised industrial relations issues confronting several of my constituents in recent weeks, particularly in a dispute at Noon's. I have been visited by a group of constituents who work at American Airlines, where fairly intensive intimidation has been waged against them by the management team of Paul Mallard, Janice Cowell and Beniot Perignon. It has involved intimidation of people on sick leave, accusations of petty dishonesty and manipulation of the staff relations handbook to ensure that staff are slimmed down before a merger with British Airways. I urge an early debate on industrial relations so that that matter can be exposed in full.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has consistently raised matters affecting his constituency. I know from other interventions that he has pursued these cases vigorously. I cannot promise him the debate that he wants for reasons that he well understands. Perhaps he might apply for an Adjournment debate. I also remind him that there will be a three-hour open Adjournment debate just before the summer recess. If he has not found time to raise the matter before then, that might be a suitable occasion on which to do so.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The usual channels have been mentioned. It is possible that on Monday 29 June the Government may wish to make a statement on the Northern Ireland elections. Bearing it in mind that since the referendum there has been no contact with the Ulster Unionists Whips Office before 12 noon and that it is impossible to travel across in time for a statement after that time, would it be possible to give us early notice, not just through the usual channels, but directly?
Mrs. Taylor: It is impossible to inform every hon. Member directly when a statement is to be made, but I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I shall bear them in mind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: When the shadow Leader of the House asked for a foreign affairs debate, it was with some justice that my right hon. Friend referred to the poor attendance at Thursday night's debate on Europe. As one who took part and asked questions about Kosovo, may I ask whether we may have a statement before there is any idea of an air strike or military intervention and before British service men are in any way committed, rather than waiting until it is a fait accompli? Can we have an undertaking that there will be no action other than under the authority of the United Nations and with the acquiescence, at least, of the Russians?
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend has a long-term interest in such issues. I recall his asking me that the House be kept informed of the possible activity of British troops in another area. I cannot give an absolute undertaking that

525
an oral statement will be made before any decision to deploy troops but, obviously, we take keeping the House properly informed of any decisions very seriously. We will always endeavour to give the House information at the earliest possible opportunity.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May we have a statement early next week from the Deputy Prime Minister on London Underground? Since he made his last statement, has not uncertainty about the future of the system grown rather than diminished—no one knows who is going to take on the franchises to operate the infrastructure? Were not Londoners seriously inconvenienced by industrial action on Monday and Tuesday largely because of that uncertainty, created by the Deputy Prime Minister himself?
Mrs. Taylor: I do not accept that that is the reason for the problems. All hon. Members and everyone who uses the tube in London are aware of the vast problems of underinvestment over many years when the hon. Gentleman's party were in government. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has kept the House informed and I do not see any prospect of an early debate.
Mr. Ivor Caplin: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend, through the usual channels and before next week's Opposition day debate, can say why the Liberal Democrats chose just two of the private Members' Bills that are listed for 3 July and perhaps did not consider the Bills that came above those two in the ballot.
Mrs. Taylor: That, of course, is a question that the Liberal Democrats will have to answer. I understand the concerns of hon. Members who have worthy private Members' Bills that have been excluded from the Liberal Democrat motion, but the Liberal Democrats will have to answer for themselves. However, I hope that no one is under any illusion that Thursday's business will guarantee the passage of any individual private Member's Bill. That is not the case.
Mr. John Bercow: Given the Government's support for a statutory right of interest on the late payment of commercial debt and Ministers' professed belief in justice and equity, why can we not have an early further statement from the President of the Board of Trade, which would give her the opportunity to explain what she failed to explain today—why the Government opposed amendment No. 41 to the National Minimum Wage Bill? That amendment would have given employees the right to claim interest on minimum wages that were not paid or paid late—an amendment that I tabled and the Government failed to support.
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration if he cannot always get in to ask every question that he wants to ask, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's statement was comprehensive and well received.
Mr. John Cryer: I should like to add my voice to the requests for an early debate on the Low Pay Commission report and the Government's recommendations. It will include, I hope, an opportunity to amend the national minimum wage legislation. I urge
526
my right hon. Friend to take no notice of the comments of the Conservative Front Bench about the Government's treatment of the House. The shadow Leader of the House was a member of a Government who treated this place with absolute contempt for 18 years, who trailed legislation before anyone knew about it and whose general record on the treatment of the House of Commons was lamentable.
Mrs. Taylor: Many Conservative Members have very short memories. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the previous Government's track record on ignoring the House. We try to make statements on important issues here—in line with established convention.
Mr. Andrew Stunell: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on early-day motion 1264 on the Nationwide building society?
[That this House regrets that the Nationwide Building Society has again been forced to ballot its members on its future as a mutual so soon after the last attempt to convert the society to a bank was rejected by its membership; recognises that building societies are widely trusted by consumers, and notes that they provide essential diversity on the high street, accounting for a growing share of the market; further notes that, as they do not have to pay dividends to external shareholders they can offer cheaper mortgages and better returns on savings; and urges the members of the Nationwide Building Society once again to vote to retain its mutual status.]
Will the right hon. Lady ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to explain to the House whether the Government will take the necessary measures to stop the annual round of predation by those who are trying to destroy the mutual sector?
Mrs. Taylor: I understand the interest many hon. Members take in this matter. We recognise that there must be diversity and competition in the savings and loans market. I cannot promise the debate that the hon. Gentleman wants. I am sure that, with the ingenuity that he has quickly developed as a new Member, he will find other ways to raise the matter.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We read in the press today that Britain is to slash its nuclear arsenal and will not buy seven new Trident warheads at a cost of £100 million. That is immensely heartening, but even if the reports are untrue is there not a case for an early debate on nuclear proliferation, especially given what has happened in southern Asia? If we cannot have a debate, surely a statement would be in order, especially if the reports are true.
Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend refers to speculation about the possible final outcome of the strategic defence review. I have just said that I do not think that Ministers should talk about such issues in advance of statements, but I understand why he puts the matter in the context of southern Asia. I cannot guarantee a debate in the near future, but I have said previously that we will spend time debating defence matters in this Session.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the right hon. Lady aware that many tens of thousands of commuters were put to the most gross inconvenience this week by

527
the irresponsible, selfish attitude of employees of London Underground? In view of the Government's intimate relationship with the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, will she allow a debate on some of the extraordinary Spanish practices—and bad working practices—of union members in London Underground so that we can find a way to encourage a more liberal attitude to work?
Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by a more liberal attitude to work. Industrial relations are a matter for London Transport. It would not be right for the Government to intervene directly in negotiations between London Transport and the unions.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Following the news that the Government's views on quarantine regulations will probably not be announced until the autumn, is there not a need for an urgent debate on these cruel, unfair and irrational rules, which are more likely to bring disease into the country than the reformed system used in other countries, such as Sweden? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight of many people who do not wish to inflict quarantine on their companion animals? In the past 25 years, not one quarantined animal has been discovered with rabies, but 13 people have come into the country with rabies. It would be more rational to put holidaymakers into Strangeways when they come from abroad than to continue with the present system.
Mrs. Taylor: I can see that that appeals to some Opposition Members. A consultation on quarantine rules is taking place. It is a serious subject. Concerns have been raised on both sides of the issue. The Agriculture Committee has published a significant report. It is right that Ministers should consider all the evidence. The House will be kept informed when decisions have been taken.
Dr. Evan Harris: In the light of the collapse late yesterday of the prosecution case against nine of my constituents—asylum seekers at
528
Campsfield house—because of what could politely be described as the incompetence and inconsistency of the Group 4 prosecution witnesses, will the Home Secretary make a statement early next week on the Government's recent decision to extend Group 4's contract and the award for good practice given by a Home Office Minister to Group 4 at Campsfield? Could the statement include the Government's position on the use of prisons for asylum seekers, which has been condemned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Sir David Ramsbotham? To my horror, five innocent asylum seekers have been sent to prison, where they are being detained while their cases are determined.
Mrs. Taylor: The decision to mount prosecutions against nine defendants was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service after an investigation by Thames Valley police. It is right that the accused should be acquitted if the evidence presented in court is insufficient to support a guilty verdict. I understand that after the collapse of the trial, Group 4 will review the evidence that emerged and conduct, if appropriate, an inquiry into what went on. It is best that I leave it there at this stage. There are no plans for an immediate statement from the Home Office.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: As I tabled a second group of amendments for the debate on the age of consent, may I join the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in thanking the Leader of the House for her consideration for Back Benchers in respect of Monday' s debate? What is her best estimate of when we will get the information that she said she would make available about when the votes will be taken?
Mrs. Taylor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. I remind him that I said that we could not guarantee a vote on any specific issue. That depends on other people and, thankfully, is not in my hands. On making the information available, once the Business Committee has completed its work and selection is concluded, it will be possible to make the information available. I imagine that it will available early on Monday afternoon and certainly quite soon after the debate starts.

Bristol Royal Infirmary
4.47 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): With permission, I should like to make a statement on children's heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary.
I promised that once the General Medical Council had completed its disciplinary proceedings against the three doctors concerned, the Government would establish an independent inquiry into children's heart surgery at the infirmary. On 29 May, the GMC announced that it had concluded that many of the charges against the doctors were proved. It has taken further time to consider what action to take against the doctors concerned. Today, it has struck off two of them, Mr. Wisheart and Dr. Roylance, and censured Mr. Dhasmana. I have therefore taken the earliest possible opportunity to come to the House to announce that I have decided to set up a public inquiry into children's heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary.
The inquiry will be established under section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977. I hope that everyone concerned will co-operate with it. The inquiry will be chaired by Professor Ian Kennedy, professor of health law, ethics and policy at University college London. He is an eminent lawyer and expert in medical, legal and ethical issues. He has written extensively on problems arising from the care of severely disabled new-born babies. He has chaired the expert advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation and the advisory group on rabies and quarantine. He was a member of the expert advisory group on AIDS.
Under the National Health Service Act 1977, as chairman of the public inquiry, Professor Kennedy will have the power to require witnesses to attend the inquiry, to give evidence on oath and to produce documents. Criminal penalties are available against any who refuse to do so.
I intend to announce the other members of the inquiry and its detailed terms of reference very soon. Today I can make it clear that the inquiry will examine all aspects of what went wrong at Bristol. It will identify any professional, management and organisational failures and make recommendations to safeguard patients and their families in future.
I have had three meetings with the representatives of parents of children who died or suffered brain damage following heart surgery at Bristol royal infirmary. I was deeply impressed by their grief at what had happened to their children, by their dissatisfaction with how they—the parents—had been treated since, and by their disillusion with the clinical, professional and management arrangements which failed to deliver the standards of treatment and care that everyone has come to expect from the national health service. We owe it to them to ensure that the public inquiry gets to the bottom of what went wrong in Bristol—that all the facts are exposed and responsibility is identified. We also owe it to them to try to complete the inquiry within a reasonable period so that they can make a new start in their lives. We owe it to them and everyone else in our country to make sure that lessons are learned so that such a tragedy never occurs again.
The Government are not going to wait for the outcome of the inquiry before taking action to put in place new machinery for setting and maintaining clinical standards
530
in the national health service. As we spelled out in December in our White Paper, "The New NHS", we are introducing a whole range of measures.
We will establish a national institute for clinical excellence to set national standards. No such organisation exists at present. We will place a duty of clinical governance on NHS trusts. They do not have such a duty at present. To make sure that the new national standards are being met, we will establish a commission for health improvement. There is no such organisation at present. We will require all hospital doctors to participate in national external audit. There is no such requirement at present.
We will enable all patients and their GPs to get information on treatment success rates at their local hospital. They have no such right at the moment. All those measures have been welcomed by the Bristol parents. They have been welcomed by the medical, nursing and midwifery professions. They will be included in our forthcoming national health service Bill. Where legally possible, we will proceed with some of the changes even before the Bill becomes law.
As I said when I met them last Friday to the representatives of the Bristol parents, the measures already in train and any further changes which result from the public inquiry will be too late to save their children; but I think I was speaking on behalf of us all when I expressed to the parents my hope that they would gain at least some small consolation from the knowledge that the lessons learned from what their children had suffered should mean that nothing like it ever happens again.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: The Opposition broadly welcome the Secretary of State's statement and the measures that he proposes to take. In particular, we welcome the speed with which he is setting up the promised independent inquiry. We also wish to extend our sympathy to the parents and relatives of all the children who died; and I can assure the Secretary of State that the Opposition will assist in any way we can in preventing such a tragedy from occurring again. I of course accept that neither he nor anyone else can give absolute guarantees.
I have some specific questions which I hope the Secretary of State will accept in the spirit of co-operation that I have just outlined. The role played by the chief executive of the hospital gives rise to concern. Recently, the Secretary of State said that under future auditing arrangements doctors will have to share their results with their senior colleagues—but who will guard the guardians? Clearly in this case such a procedure would not have worked.
The right hon. Gentleman has already announced his intention to publish mortality rates for hospitals, another measure that the Opposition have broadly welcomed. How is it intended to interpret such results, to make that interpretation comprehensible, and to make it available to the public? Transparency is essential—we welcome it—but by itself it is no use, unless it is backed up by the choice to allow patients to go elsewhere. Given the Secretary of State's arrangements for primary care groups and for the ways in which doctors will have to follow the contract patterns laid down by PCGs, how will he maintain the choice which must follow transparency?
The right hon. Gentleman will also, I am sure, accept that many agencies, not just the doctors or the hospital, were involved in this case—among them the health

531
authority, the Department of Health, whose advice was apparently disregarded, and the Royal College of Surgeons. Will the inquiry examine the role played by each and every agency and body involved in this case; and will it then consider the appropriateness of self-regulation?
For how long is the inquiry expected to sit, and roughly when may we expect its results? Will the inquiry be able to recommend disciplinary action, if appropriate, except in the cases of those who have already been the subject of the General Medical Council inquiry?
The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that one issue thrown up by the case concerns due information being available to parents or other responsible adults, but clearly they must know not just the success rates at their local hospital but the success rates elsewhere for equivalent operations with equivalent chances of success. Will he make the giving of that sort of information absolutely mandatory for surgery of this order of magnitude?
Mr. Dobson: The chief executive in this case is one of the doctors who was subject to disciplinary proceedings, so, to some extent at least, his role as a medical practitioner has been dealt with by the GMC. His roles as chief executive and as a doctor will be the subject of investigation by the inquiry.
The right hon. Lady asked whether hospital arrangements would be adequate and whether people would, in effect, police themselves. I thought that I had made it clear in my statement that that would not happen. For the first time in the history of the NHS, we shall place a duty of clinical governance on the chief executive of every trust. Mr. Roylance did not have that duty before. We will put in place a system of national audit for all doctors' activities in every hospital, and establish a commission for health improvement which will ensure that national standards, once set, are kept. For the first time in the history of the NHS there will be people outside the hospitals checking—that is a step forward.
It is only right and proper from everyone's point of view that mortality statistics should be sensibly comparable. A system that compared mortality rates for standard operations with rates for extremely difficult, complex operations—often carried out on patients who are profoundly ill for other reasons—would be extremely foolish. That is why we have sought throughout our considerations to carry with us the people in the medical profession who are determined to raise standards.
The statistics will be available, for the very first time, to patients and GPs, who have never before had access to the figures. There will thus be greater choice and better-informed choice than ever before.
The inquiry will be able to look at every aspect of what happened in Bristol and come up with recommendations in respect of Bristol—including disciplinary proceedings if that is thought right—and in respect of ensuring more generally that such incidents never happen again.
Finally, Professor Kennedy and I would like to keep the proceedings of the inquiry as short as possible, commensurate with doing a thorough job. I hope that the lawyers involved in it will bear it in mind that one of
532
the inquiry's objectives is to draw a line under all this so that all the families involved can start their lives over again.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: On behalf of the people of Bristol and the south-west, I thank my right hon. Friend and welcome his statement. I assure him that this sad, sorrowful and, in some respects, sordid affair has been of great concern to patients and parents in my constituency and other parts of Bristol. We should not forget to congratulate Steve Bolsin, one of the anaesthetists concerned, who played a great part in bringing the affair to public recognition.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that public inquiries sometimes take far too long, to the benefit of no one except, perhaps, lawyers? Will he assure me that he will try to ensure that the inquiry reports as soon as possible and that its terms of reference are drawn accordingly? Does he agree also that the Government's policies on external clinical audit, quality consultation and a commission for health improvement will ensure that such tragedies will be much less likely to occur in future?
Mr. Dobson: I welcome my hon. Friend back to the House after his illness, and I hope that he will maintain his usual rude health.
I share my hon. Friend's concern, which I have already expressed, about the possibility of the inquiry dragging on at enormous length. The chairman of the inquiry will have to exercise discipline, but there must be a great deal of self-discipline from the legal advisers of those who are represented. I repeat that we must get on with the inquiry as quickly as possible—provided, at all times, that people have the opportunity to have their say in the matter. One of the objections of the parents all along is that they have not been able to have their say.
I welcome my hon. Friend's support for our proposals for raising quality of performance in the national health service, which we have been discussing at length and in great detail with the representatives of the medical, nursing and midwifery professions. They share our hopes and aspirations that we can make sure that the arrangements in the national health service augment those in the professions, and that the professions' arrangements are considerably smartened up.
Dr. Evan Harris: The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the statement and warmly welcome the announcement of the public inquiry and the choice of its chairman.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who has been intimately involved in dealing with the families' concerns on this matter, is at the General Medical Council with his constituents and regrets that he cannot be here. He has asked me to pass on his thanks for the setting up of the inquiry.
Is there some way of ensuring that the inquiry has a smooth progress so that, at each stage, there is an end in sight for bereaved families and so that there is no doubt about whether their concerns will ever be heard? If the national audit is to be made compulsory for medical staff, will there be support in terms of resources, particularly extra staff and consultants, in the light of the British Medical Association's warning yesterday about the shortage of consultants and the stress and pressure under which medical staff work?

533
Do the Government have any plans for specific protection for medical whistleblowers, such as the anaesthetist involved in this case, because there is still, I regret to say, a culture of fear, particularly among junior medical staff, about expressing concerns about the competence of their seniors? It would reassure many families, as well as NHS staff, if the Government could demonstrate that they are aware of that problem and will tackle it.
Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the appointment of Professor Kennedy. It has been my object since I have had contact with the parents to try to make sure that any process of inquiry satisfies them and—however hurt they may be by what has happened to their children—in the end leaves them feeling that at least they have had the opportunity to be heard and to find out what happened to their children and who was responsible.
External audit has the support of the medical profession. The hon. Gentleman jumps too quickly in asking for further resources. Doing things properly is cheaper than doing them badly. If the operations in Bristol had been a success, millions of pounds would have been saved, as well as the lives of the children concerned.
Staff should no longer be too frightened to speak out—other than those at the top who may be trying to stop people speaking out—because we have told all health authorities and trusts that they must not apply the gagging clauses on staff that were introduced when the previous Government were in power.
Dan Norris: The General Medical Council's inquiry heard that, on at least three occasions, senior civil servants in the Department of Health were informed of the tragedy that was unfolding. Despite those warnings, the then Secretary of State was not informed and the operations continued. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the public inquiry, which is very much welcomed, will leave no stone unturned in finding the truth, even if that means that stones must be turned in the Department of Health?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his point, and I know that some of the parents concerned would like to thank him for his actions on their behalf. The inquiry will be failing in its duties if it does not identify shortcomings wherever they occurred, including at the highest or lowest level in the Department of Health. The inquiry is independent; it must examine all aspects of what went wrong because, if we are to prevent mistakes in future, we must identify what went wrong this time and make sure that the new arrangements will prevent it from happening again.
Mrs. Angela Browning: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement. He will know that it will be particularly welcomed by parents in my constituency.
My question concerns the inquiry's remit, particularly with regard to whistleblowers. Because of the nature and severity of this case, the GMC has taken specific action. When the conclusions are brought before the right hon. Gentleman, will he take into account the need for a system whereby the information on staff records, particularly
534
those of doctors at all levels—which one hopes would be made available as a result of such an inquiry—will also be made known when they apply for jobs in other hospitals and other areas?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady has raised that point with me in relation to the failure of the breast cancer screening system at the Royal Devon and Exeter hospital. We hope to deal with that matter in the measures that we are introducing to improve clinical standards in the national health service. The present arrangements for checking the background of doctors who move from one hospital to another have proved to be inadequate in several cases, and that clearly needs to be sorted out.
We need to ensure that professional credit is gained by all concerned seeking to secure the highest clinical standards, so that it is clear that the ethics of the profession are to consider, first, the interests of the patients and, in all circumstances, not to allow that ethical obligation to be overwhelmed by any sense of loyalty to colleagues or concern about the reputation of the hospital. That seems to have been a problem in Bristol and other areas.
Ms Jean Corston: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and hope that it will bring to an end the sorry tale surrounding paediatric cardiac surgery in Bristol. Does he agree that the remit of the inquiry should include the future position of chief executives of health care trusts? One of the difficulties that many of us had was that we knew that the then chief executive was part of the same group of surgeons, who were acting in a self-protective way.
Reference has been made to whistleblowers. As long as I live, I shall never forget the look on the face of Dr. Steve Bolsin, the anaesthetist in the case, when he came to see me and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo)—who is in her place—and said, "If you were going to put a child to sleep tomorrow, how would you feel if you felt pretty certain that the child would not wake up?" He is not simply a whistleblower; he is the one person to emerge from the case with any credit. The great tragedy is that his undoubted skill and commitment have been lost to this country, because he was squeezed out of anaesthetics in the United Kingdom and has had to earn his living in Australia.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents sending their children for paediatric cardiac surgery at Bristol now need have no qualms, because of the excellent work of Dr. Ash Pawade and his team?
Mr. Dobson: On the principled stand of the anaesthetist to whom my hon. Friend referred, he is, as she says, one of the few people who comes out with any credit. I hope that his role and the question of how he came to be pushed out will be adequately covered by the inquiry, and that those responsible for pushing him out will be identified.
With regard to the future position of chief executives, it is our intention to place on all health trusts an obligation of clinical governance, so the chief executive will have that personal obligation. I hope that that will strengthen the position of chief executives and break any

535
relationships with former colleagues. They will have to stand separately on clinical standards, as they do on finance. That can only benefit patients.
Mr. Ian Bruce: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's statement. The most important point for the future relates to medical and clinical audit. Will the right hon. Gentleman examine the scheme that was introduced by the previous Government but which sank without trace, and learn from the apparent mistakes in that system? He may know that for many years, on behalf of my constituent, Dr. Pull, I have been trying to get clinical audit set up. Will he look into the matter of resources? He said that more resources were not needed, but unless he grabs hold of some resources and makes sure that they are used for medical audit, that money will simply go into direct patient care. In the long term, clinical audit will save money and lives.
Mr. Dobson: It is the case that the previous Government set in train arrangements for clinical audit but, as the hon. Gentleman said, little came of that and it cost a large sum of money. There is clinical audit at present in the health service. Some of it is improving, but most of it is voluntary. It is consuming large sums, and is not well organised or comprehensive. That is why our proposals for changes in clinical governance, the establishment of the commission for health improvement and the other measures that I mentioned in my statement should improve matters, introduce better organisation and ensure that the money going into medical audit is spent to some effect, rather than being frittered away, as has happened in the past.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one of those who has met Professor Kennedy in another context, may I welcome the establishment of an inquiry and his headship of it? It will be important not just to Bristol, but nationally. May I, however, sound a note of caution? Let us hope that what happened in Bristol will not spill over and become a disincentive to surgeons to undertake risky operations. That is a worry of some of my distinguished surgeon constituents working in Edinburgh.
Let us be cautious about the idea that there has been great success in Scotland for the publication of hospital mortality rates. Some of us think that league tables are better suited to football than to mortality rates in hospitals.
Finally, can my right hon. Friend comment on the attendance of a member of his Department at the lecture at the Royal Society of Medicine by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton on medical negligence? I have sent my right hon. Friend a draft of the lecture, in the hope that the issue of medical negligence will be opened up in the light of the lecture by Sir Philip Otton, who probably has more experience on the subject than anyone else in Britain.
Mr. Dobson: As ever, my hon. Friend raises a number of cogent points and identifies dilemmas that we all face. It is not intended that the publication of mortality or other performance figures should deter doctors from performing risky operations, if such operations are needed. Our intention—and our discussions with the medical profession suggest that doctors agree—is to ensure that
536
any statistics that are published properly distinguish between the relatively simple operation on a relatively healthy patient, and the immensely complex operation on a relatively unhealthy patient. That can be done, provided that the analysis is confined to cardiac surgery. We cannot compare hip joint replacements with cardiac surgery, as some people in the consumer movement seem to suggest.
We all have doubts about publishing information about the outcomes of operations but, if the medical profession and the management of hospitals are to have the information available to them as part of the process of raising standards, it is only legitimate to allow general practitioners and patients also to have access to that information.
Mr. Dalyell: It all depends on who does the interpretation, and how it is done.
Mr. Dobson: We must remember that no patient gets access direct to a surgeon; patients' access is only through a general practitioner, who should be able to conduct the necessary interpretation. I share my hon. Friend's concern about that.
On my hon. Friend's separate point about medical negligence, I am profoundly concerned at the growing involvement of the legal profession in medical negligence matters related to the national health service. The bills keep soaring and we must act. First, we must try to reduce the number of legitimate complaints. That is one of the reasons why we are trying to raise quality. Next, we must put in place arrangements to ensure that, if something goes wrong, patients get a prompt explanation and apology and, if there has been negligence on the part of people in the national health service, patients receive legitimate compensation without having to resort to the courts. It is worth putting it on record that when people have resorted to the courts in cases of medical negligence and there is a judgment by the court, 80 per cent. of the cases are lost. In eight out of 10 cases, people were told by lawyers that they stood a good chance, but when the case came to court, it failed.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speed with which he has reacted, which I am sure will go some way to assuage the anguish of the parents of the children involved in this tragic case. I also warmly congratulate him on the steps that he has taken to ensure more effective and transparent clinical monitoring. Does he agree that it is very important that people realise that this case, although a terrible tragedy, is very much not the norm, and that the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) need to be well taken? Does he agree that, generally, the doctors involved in such surgery in this country are absolutely brilliant and do a fantastic and remarkable job, for which we should all be very grateful?
Mr. Dobson: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. It is indeed the case that most people in this country, rightly, have confidence in the quality of treatment and care that they will receive in the national health service. That is of immense credit to all the people who provide that care; we want to help them improve it.
I would not wish to do anything that made people feel that they were at greater risk than they really are, but I should make a further point. In the nature of things, major

537
operations are risky. Things do sometimes go wrong. They will always continue to go wrong. We have a duty to put in place a system that very quickly picks up when things are going wrong and does something about it. That attribute was singularly lacking in Bristol.
Mr. David Drew: May I, like other hon. Members, very much welcome my right hon. Friend's statement? I am sure that he is aware that the impact of the tragedy goes well beyond the immediate Bristol area, and affects the whole of the south-west. One of the criticisms voiced about the GMC inquiry was that the parents who were able to give evidence came from a fairly selective group. Will he ensure that parents who have perhaps been unable to give evidence get the opportunity to talk to the inquiry?
Mr. Dobson: Yes, I certainly shall. Having talked to representatives of the parents three times, I know that they are greatly concerned to ensure that all those parents who wish to have a say, have a say, and in some cases to find out in considerable detail what happened to their child. But there are other parents who positively do not want to go into the detail of what happened to their child. We must try to ensure that, at the end of the inquiry, all the parents feel that they have had a fair say, and that the inquiry has got to the truth. If we can do so, it will be a very useful achievement, and I hope that it will bring some comfort to the parents.
Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. However, as a parent of a child who died of cardiac surgery during the time of the Bristol cases—although, fortunately, not in Bristol—and who tried at the time to get performance data on the centre where the operation was performed and failed, and indeed was refused; and who subsequently in the House has tried to get general performance data on the national health service in general and failed, may I say to my right hon. Friend that the Bristol case, although appalling, has wider lessons for the national health service?
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there has been a conspiracy of silence, involving both the professionals and the politicians, on the issue of clinical performance? Will he therefore ensure that the terms of the inquiry that he announced today are broad enough to deal with that issue? Finally, as an immediate response to the Bristol case, will he today put in place provision to ensure that the performance data for all the centres performing paediatric cardiac surgery are now made available to parents?
Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been aware of his family circumstances, and I know the efforts that he has been making in this matter. To some extent there has been a conspiracy of silence. I believe that, in many cases, it has been an unconscious conspiracy of silence, in that people have felt, "We never gave the figures in the past; why should we give them now?" However, in fairness to the medical profession—certainly since we came to power—my ministerial colleagues and I would say that the profession has never been as committed as it now is to raising performance standards, recognising that targets will have to be set and agreeing to put in place arrangements to ensure that those targets are met.
538
In the end, we must depend on the surgeons to set the standards. It is no good asking anyone else, "What is the best way to do a liver transplant?" The only person one can get the standard from is the person who does liver transplants. Having set the standard, though, they must maintain those standards; that is the important point.
I cannot agree casually, at the Dispatch Box, to release figures for children's heart operations throughout the country, partly for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) gave. If the material has not been prepared in a form that is properly comparable, it could be extremely misleading. I want to ensure that the information is put together in a properly comparable way and made available, but I must take great care to ensure that the idea of assembling and publishing that information is not brought into disrepute by publishing misleading figures early in the process.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I thank my right hon. Friend on behalf of the many families in south Wales, including my constituency, who were bereaved in this dreadful way. The worst part of their torment is the belief that their child's life may have been sacrificed to improve the skills of surgeons who were semi-competent and never became competent.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) asks who will guard the guardians. The sad fact is that we do not even have guardians in our health service now. For many years many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright), have been asking for systems of audit, of examination, and of transparency, similar to those that are available in Scandinavian countries, to be set up in our health service.
I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the fact that, throughout the health service, we have that information. We have information on, for example, the number of drugs used and the dreadful over-prescription of drugs among elderly people. I urge him to channel all his energies in that direction and not to be distracted by some of the other superficial measures of the efficiency of the health service, because it is in transparency that the greater reforms will take place.
Mr. Dobson: I think 1 can safely say to my hon. Friend that my ministerial team and I have devoted a huge amount of effort, thought and time to consulting the professions on how best to assemble accurate and useful data which will lead to raised standards of performance in the health service, and which will be meaningful, and not misleading, to members of the public—and to general practitioners. We have put a great deal of effort into that, and we intend to continue to do so. Generally speaking, the statistical system within the Department of Health is deplorable; that is one reason why we need to take great care in publishing almost any information that it has, because it could be very, very misleading.
Mr. Robert McCartney: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary of State on the measures that the Government have undertaken to take to deal with this very important problem. As someone who, for more than 30 years, has practised in medical negligence cases, I endorse his observation that some 80 per cent. of legal medical negligence cases fail. However, those who grant legal aid in many such cases

539
are under a duty merely to determine whether the evidence shows not a case that is bound to win, but a prima facie case. Many members of the legal profession sometimes encourage litigation when it is not altogether justified.
In relation to the issue of league tables, it is very important that we compare like with like. Not simply cardiovascular surgery but other operations within that specific discipline vary greatly in the degree of expertise that is necessary to ensure success. One could easily find that the centres of absolute excellence are engaged in the most high-risk surgery and are at the frontier of surgical progress. One would hesitate to engage in any measures that brought about the practice of defensive medicine or defensive surgery. That point must be kept carefully in view.
Mr. Dobson: I welcome the views of any lawyer who is willing to accept that, the more we can manage to keep lawyers out of the health service, the better. There are several hospitals in my constituency, including Great Ormond Street hospital for sick children. For many sick children, it is the hospital of last resort. The surgeons at that hospital sometimes operate on children who have had two or three operations at one or more other hospitals and they frequently do not succeed in preserving the health or saving the lives of the children concerned. Therefore, I have always been acutely aware of the necessity, when looking at any production or publication of figures, of ensuring that the complexity of operations and the state of the patients are reflected properly.
The president of the Royal College of Surgeons and the immediate past president support our proposals. I believe that we are proceeding fairly quickly and making substantial efforts to carry with us the people who, in the end, must do the operations. The last thing I want is for surgeons in the operating theatre to be thinking, "What will the lawyers or the jury think?" They should be thinking only, "What is best for the patient, here and now?"

Point of Order
5.32 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Wednesday 6 May, during Prime Minister's questions, the Leader of the Opposition sought to gain an undertaking from the Prime Minister in relation to the Government's intentions as far as the release of prisoners was concerned. Column 711 of Hansard shows that he asked:
"Does he"—
that is, the Prime Minister—
"agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
A Press Association report of the Prime Minister's response shows that, early in his response, he said:
"The answer to your question is, yes, of course it is the case that both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and the early release of prisoners".
Those words are not contained in the Hansard of that day's proceedings. I checked with the video recording unit of the House, and I found that it is the Press Association report and not Hansard that is accurate.
The words that are important and significant have been expunged from the record of the House. Clearly, someone acting for, or on behalf of, the Prime Minister has tampered with the record of proceedings in the House. Is it in order for such a serious extraction and deletion from the record of proceedings to take place by the Government, or indeed by any other Member of the House?
Sir George Young: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) has raised an important issue that could impact on the peace process in Northern Ireland, and which could have implications for the integrity of our proceedings in the House. As the stakes are quite high, is not the best way to proceed for you, Madam Speaker, to ask the Editor of Hansard for a full report into the issue that has been raised, and for you then to report back to the House?
Madam Speaker: I intend to do just that. We shall now proceed.
Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: No, I have given a ruling. I am very grateful to the hon. Members who have raised the matter with me. I have the documentation, and I intend to look at it as soon as I am able to do so.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
  As amended (in the Committee), considered.
  Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
    Clause 3

      APPLICATIONS
      5.34 pm
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 40, at end insert
      'in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
      `(e) has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.
      Marjorie Mowlam: Amendment No. 2 touches on the factors that the Bill requires me to take into account in deciding whether an organisation should be designated under clause 3(8). The four factors in clause 3(9) translate into the Bill the four factors set out in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Balmoral in Belfast during the heart of the referendum campaign on 14 May. He promised that the Bill would contain them, and it does.
      The amendment follows helpful discussions between the Government and the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and his party. The right hon. Gentleman has put the point to the Government quite fairly that, while the four factors currently set out in clause 3(9) fully reflect the Prime Minister's speech, an addition to clause 3(9)(d) could helpfully put it beyond any doubt that the full co-operation referred to there was
      "in implementing the Decommissioning section"
      of the Good Friday agreement.
      The Government have made it clear all along that we take a flexible approach to the Bill. We want to proceed, as far as possible, on the basis of consensus—as we always sought to do in supporting the previous Government. When there are amendments that are consistent with the agreement, we shall naturally want to consider them carefully. This was such a point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann for raising it in a helpful manner. We can respond to amendments in line with the agreement, but we cannot add to or take away from the agreement, or insert preconditions or tests that are not there.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Marjorie Mowlam: I shall finish this point; then I shall certainly give way.
      542
      That would be to do exactly what we had told others cannot be done: to pick and choose among those bits of the agreement we like and those that we do not like. The fact is that all sides have bits they like in the agreement and bits that they do not like.
      Mr. Hunter: In light of her comments about amendments that are consistent with the agreement being essentially acceptable to the Government, I fail to understand why, last Monday, amendment No. 1—which quoted paragraph 3 of page 20 of the decommissioning section of the agreement more or less exactly—was found unacceptable. It was virtually a quotation from the agreement.
      Marjorie Mowlam: The key word is "virtually". The hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone that words make a difference in politics in Northern Ireland. When there has been consistency between amendments and the agreement, we have accepted them—in fact, we have accepted three or four amendments in the past week. When there is no such consistency, we have made that clear.
      The whole agreement is what is important—cherry-picking is not a possibility. Therefore, I think that the only way forward is to see progress in implementing the agreement in toto. People can then see that, although they may find some parts of the agreement difficult—everyone faces some difficulties—progress is being made in implementing all elements of the agreement. It is very important that everyone knows that there must be progress in implementing all sections of the agreement. I hope that the amendment standing in my name makes that clear.
      Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. Amendment No. 21, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble)—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):Order. We are not considering amendment No. 21, because it has not been selected. Therefore, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) cannot mention it.
      Marjorie Mowlam: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      It may be helpful if I say something about how I intend to approach the operation of clauses 3(8) and (9). The agreement requires:
      "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements."
      That test is reproduced in clause 3(8)(b).
      Clause 3(9) requires me "in particular" to "take into account" four separate factors. That fully reflects what the Prime Minister promised in his Balmoral speech on 14 May, when he said:
      "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."
      He then set out the four factors now reproduced in legislative language.
      Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the phrase, "take into account", albeit the very language used by the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign. In reaching the overall judgment required of me under the

      543
      Bill on which terrorist organisations to designate, I shall treat the four factors in clause 3(9) extremely seriously. As the Prime Minister said in his Balmoral speech:
      "These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgement—a judgement which will necessarily become more rigorous over time."
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can the Secretary of State help the House by saying what her approach will be as regards subsections (8) and (9)? She will know that the powers are permissive. Is she in a position to give the House an undertaking to the effect that, if the organisations are, in her judgment, terrorist organisations within the criteria set out in subsection (9), she will then specify them as terrorist organisations? As she will appreciate, the Bill does not impose an obligation on her to do so.
      Marjorie Mowlam: I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. What I am doing is specifying those organisations that are on ceasefire. By default, those that are not part of that are not on ceasefire, and their prisoners will not he considered for release.
      Mr. Hogg: I think that the right hon. Lady is taking my point, but it would be enormously helpful if she could tell the House that, if she concludes that the organisation in question offends against the criteria set out in subsection (9), she will specify it as a terrorist organisation.
      Marjorie Mowlam: Let me be straight with the right hon. and learned Gentleman: he is trying to return to the debate we had last week on proscription. That is not what the amendment is about. Proscription relates to the emergency provisions Act and the prevention of terrorism Act; the amendments relate specifically to the ceasefire.
      The fact that the four factors are set out clearly in the Bill means that I cannot and shall not ignore them. I shall treat them with the seriousness and weight demanded in reaching a decision on whether a particular organisation has or has not established a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. I shall do so not just because the factors are in the Bill, and not just because the Prime Minister expects it, but above all because the people of Northern Ireland rightly expect the most careful examination based on those factors, to establish whether violence has indeed been given up for good.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Marjorie Mowlam: I have already taken a fair number of interventions.
      The decision will be for me, and me alone. However, it will clearly be appropriate for me, bearing in mind the four factors set out in the Bill, to listen to the advice of the Chief Constable, the General Office Commanding and my other security advisers. I shall also take into account any relevant reports from the International Commission on Decommissioning. It may be helpful if I make it clear that the Bill does not give the International Commission on Decommissioning any new function or deciding role in relation to the release of prisoners. It is for me to make judgments in those areas, taking into account the available information on a range of factors.
      544
      As the Good Friday agreement states, the International Commission on Decommissioning already has the task of monitoring, reviewing and verifying progress on the decommissioning of illegal arms, and reporting to both Governments at regular intervals. My judgment will be informed by those reports as well as by a wide range of other information, but the decision on which organisations to designate as terrorist organisations for the purposes of the Bill is mine alone. It cannot be shared with another body.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: The Secretary of State has stated that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. As she would know, an organisation called Direct Action Against Drugs is very much involved in violence in west Belfast. Has she been advised by the RUC that Direct Action Against Drugs is a front for, or in any other way involved with, the IRA? If she has, will she take that into account?
      Marjorie Mowlam: We have made it clear a number of times in the House that discussing specific security information is not helpful. As I have stated on numerous occasions, if I have information from my advisers—security, GOC, or Army, I will act in line with the factors in the agreement. I have just stated forcefully that that is what I intend to do. I will not shirk from that responsibility. I have taken those decisions in working up to the Good Friday agreement.
      We have said that, if organisations breached the ceasefire, we would throw them out of the talks. Two of them did so, and I did. Thus, those actions have been taken, and we shall take them again. The hon. Gentleman's example of a terrorist organisation using proxy organisations is stated as one of the four factors, and it is on the face of the Bill.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Marjorie Mowlam: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to make a little more progress. I have taken a lot of interventions and we have a three-hour debate before us when hon. Members will have time to speak.
      The tough decisions that I have just stated will be taken. I shall be prepared to take them in line with the factors that I have outlined in the Bill.
      I shall resume my seat so that others can participate in the debate. I commend the amendment to the House.
      5.45 pm
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the advance that the Government have made, which has been brought about because of the pressure maintained in the House and elsewhere. It would be wrong of me not to welcome it. We understand the points that the Secretary of State has made. However, I believe that we have not gone far enough.
      During our debate on Monday, we were told that we should take the Bill as an act of faith—I thought that we were debating an Act of Parliament. In an Act of Parliament, the regulations and demands should be clear so that there are no misunderstandings. Therefore clarity, as well as flexibility, is extremely important in dealing

      545
      with an agreement. At times, I felt that the Government had adopted as their motto that old adage that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive. We must clarify some of our thinking.
      My hon. Friends and other hon. Members have tabled an amendment that strengthens the Government's hand, and makes it abundantly clear what is required of people. I have been disappointed with some of the ministerial replies, particularly during yesterday's debate, when there was a tendency to use an argument ad hominem, dealing with the person who was speaking rather than the issues. That is always a sign of a weak argument.
      As a result, we have come full circle: this evening, issues about security have been raised—they were not specific, but asked for direct understanding—and we have been told that the Government are not in a position to discuss the advice that security chiefs give. We were dealing with our understanding of what was happening in the community, which is widely known. Books have been written about it.
      The Minister of State appears to disagree with me. Perhaps he is unaware that two members of public in Northern Ireland are engaged in a lawsuit in the United States over libel appearing in a book from Sinn Fein sources.
      To suggest that people do not know what is happening implies that the Minister is living on a different plane from the rest of us. We have lived with it for 30 years, and we know what is happening. We are aware of the tragedy. We have only to look around the House to see a coat of arms to remind us of what has happened over the 30 years. We will not take that kind of lecturing.
      I do not know whether I am misreading the situation, but it seems that we have a Government who wallow in leaks as the spin doctors go to town to try to mislead and confuse the electorate, and that, when we raise issues in the House, we are simply discounted. I should therefore like to underline why we believe it is necessary to strengthen the legislation.
      Some hon. Members will know the acronym TUAS—tactical use of the armed struggle. Some years back, the official IRA realised that it was going nowhere with the armed struggle, and decided that it would specialise again in the political arena. It did not say, however, that it was doing away with its weapons; it said that they were not useful at that moment, and that the political arena was where it could advance most.
      Significantly, the weapons have been used over the years for intimidation, violence and fund raising for the official IRA. It moved its political front from republican clubs to the Workers party, and then had to change again to the Democratic Left when it was revealed that the Workers party was being funded by some of the night work of the official IRA, using intimidation and weaponry. It is because of our experience that we believe it is important that the legislation should be strengthened.
      I pay tribute, and have paid tribute, to members of the Workers party who have paid a tremendous price for their attempt to move into the political arena. I welcome any movement in that direction, but we have to have evidence that it is more than a glib assurance that they are moving into the political arena.
      546
      That is why, in September 1993, when Sinn Fein-IRA were telling the Government of the time that they were standing in the way of peace, I challenged Sinn Fein-IRA, if they really wished to take the path of peace, to take the first steps, because the Government were not waging war on the people of Ireland, any more than the Government are waging war now. We have always talked about criminal terrorism, but those involved said it was a war. I challenged Sinn Fein-IRA: if their members wished to become bona fide politicians, they had to turn away from the use of weapons and become like the rest of us, using the tongue and our other facilities to advance our case.
      Four and three quarter years later, not one weapon has been handed in, because, we are told, it looks like surrendering. Those involved need not hand one weapon to the British Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. They can hand weapons back where most of them already are, in the Republic of Ireland. They can hand them back to the Garda Siochana or to the pan-nationalist front which co-operated in bringing them into the political field, or to those who, through TACA, at an early stage helped to raise funds for and arm the Provisional IRA. There is no need to surrender; they can hand the weapons back. However, no one can tell me that ground-to-air missiles and Semtex are defensive weapons; they are weapons of offence.
      If Sinn Fein-IRA were going down the road of peace, this resolution would help them to move forward. I should have liked the Government to go further than the rather wide terms of the amendment, as we were told at an earlier stage that the resolution was already in the Bill. They have now tabled the amendment, perhaps as a varnish to please certain people, so that, as the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) says, they believe that they have gained a concession as a result of the pressure applied within and outside the House.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall speak to amendment No. 1 which stands in the name of the Unionists and some of their colleagues in the Conservative party. It makes the position absolutely clear. It deals with the issue up front, so that ordinary people can understand what we are about. It states that the Secretary of State shall take into account whether an organisation
      "has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000."
      The spokesman for the official Opposition asked the Minister twice yesterday whether he could say that, under the terms of the Act, as of 22 May 2000 it could be the case that not one weapon had been handed back. We go to all this trouble in the House to put the legislation together and enact it as an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, yet the Minister was not prepared to say what is a fact—that, as at the year 2000, all the prisoners will be out but not one gun need have been surrendered.

      547
      There has been much argument in the House about what the Prime Minister did or did not say, but what is important is the question he was asked. The Leader of the Opposition asked him:
      "I also welcome the assurances that he has given in the past about the conditions to be attached to the early release of prisoners. Does he agree that prisoners should not be released early until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons?"
      According to Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
      "It is essential that any agreement is signed up to in full. The only organisations that can qualify to take seats in the government of Northern Ireland and can expect the early release of prisoners are those that have given up violence for good."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
      I went to the archives of the House today and listened to what the Prime Minister did say. What did he say? In answer to the question, he said:
      "The answer to your question is, yes".
      What was that question? The question referred to substantial decommissioning of weapons. The Prime Minister added:
      "of course it is the case that both in respect of taking seats in the government of Northern Ireland and the early release of prisoners".
      He said that organisations could not take seats until there was substantial decommissioning, and that prisoners could not be released until there was substantial decommissioning.
      Why has that disappeared? Why do the Government not stand by what the Prime Minister said? They went to Northern Ireland to campaign, and wrote on the walls what would happen. We all know that no such thing could happen. We had an agreement, which cannot be altered. It is a multi-party agreement. It cannot be altered by the Prime Minister or by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It stands, and it has to stand. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but what he has said in the House on this issue is right. The agreement cannot be changed.
      In the referendum, people were asked to vote on the strength of promises made by the Prime Minister. We now find that the Prime Minister could not meet those promises, and they disappeared from Hansard.
      6 pm
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows that Madam Speaker is looking into that matter. We shall not come to any conclusions until Madam Speaker reports back to the House.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: With respect, I have a right in the House to say what I know. If people say that what I have said is not right, they can look at the video and hear the words. As a Member of Parliament, I have a right to go to the archives, listen to the tapes and say what I saw. I am glad that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I do not want to take any rights away from him, but I appeal to him. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) raised a point of order
      548
      with Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker is going to look into the matter. Why do we not leave it until a conclusion is arrived at? That is all that I am saying.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am happy to accept what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to refer to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, who is telling the people of Northern Ireland that he has secured concessions. He and his hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) put out a statement—
      Mr. Peter Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the significance of the subject matter about which he was speaking is that the words in the amendment are the same as those uttered by the Prime Minister? We could have the absurd situation of the Government voting against the words that the Prime Minister used in his undertaking.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend has put it concisely, and has struck the nail on the head. Statements were put out last night in Northern Ireland by Members of Parliament who are not here, just as they were not here on Monday or yesterday. If they want to make a case, this is the place to argue it. This is the debating chamber of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They cannot come to defend what they are telling the people of my Province. My people are entitled to know the truth. Where does the truth lie? The people of Northern Ireland know that many of them were conned at the referendum, because they voted for things that were promised but could not be delivered.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect the question that I asked the Prime Minister? As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, we are dealing with a multi-party agreement that cannot be altered, varied or amended without the consent of all the parties. The Prime Minister's answer was a complete fudge. There was a suggestion that the Government could do that which they are now saying they cannot do.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. and learned Friend is correct. Surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to know the truth. We are told that what the Prime Minister said can be carried out under the agreement.
      Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, during his look through the archives of the House, he also looked at Hansard of 15 June, when the Minister said:
      "The important thing is that what we are proposing is wholly compatible with the discussions surrounding the agreement, with what was said by the participants to the agreement and with the undertakings given at that time."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 45-46.]
      That must mean that the Government amendment is compatible with the undertakings given at that time—to whomsoever they may have been given—and that the clear statements in amendment No. 1 are not.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, I take that argument. The Government say that they are doing nothing new, but they are adding an amendment to the Bill. The right hon. Member for Upper Bann and his friends are saying that

      549
      they have won a tremendous concession which means that we can all lie happily in our beds, there will be decommissioning, it will be radical, and before one man leaves prison, all will be well.
      It will not be so. We know the evidence that came before the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs yesterday. We know that the Maze prison is going to close. We know that prisoners are already being allocated a time to leave. Everybody knows that. The Secretary of State might say that that is not happening, but she has said before that things would not happen and they did. This will happen.
      The agreement on decommissioning does not say anything about what the Government say it means. The participants at the talks do not claim to be members of illegal organisations. Of course we know that some of them front such organisations, and we do not believe what they say. All they are asked to do is
      "to continue to work constructively".
      That means that they must have been working constructively in the past. They never got any guns, but they were working hard and breaking sweat
      "constructively and in good faith with the Independent Commission".
      They are also asked
      "to use any influence they may have".
      They are not asked to use the influence that they have, but
      "any influence they may have".
      The agreement almost admits that they have no influence. Why do they not say, "We will use the influence we have"? It is all up in the air. The men will come out of the prisons, the arsenals will be there, and if they do not get their way, they will go to the arsenals. Some of us will then have the sad duty of attending the funerals.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) said the reality about what we are going through in Northern Ireland. We are going through an agony. People are realising that the murderers of their kith and kin may be out in a few months. What comfort can we give those people? The only comfort we can give them is to keep those who murdered their kith and kin behind the walls.
      Mr. Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that families of the victims of violence in Northern Ireland are already receiving phone calls from republicans telling them that the murderers are coming out, and are coming for them next? That is a frightening, terrible situation that those families have to suffer. The Minister may not like the fact, but I have such families in my constituency.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) is an experienced Member of Parliament. We have two amendments before us about decommissioning, not about people staying in gaol or getting out of gaol. We should not go any wider than that. Third Reading is coming up, when hon. Members may want to go wider, but they should not do so when debating the amendments.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall satisfy you, Sir; I have finished what I have to say. I am sure that everybody will be happy. All I can say is that these things run into the
      550
      very quick of people in Northern Ireland. Sometimes people in the House do not realise that. They would if they had experienced our circumstances over the past 20 years. I was in the House when Labour Members spoke with great passion about the tragedy in Birmingham. Why should we in Northern Ireland be judged for speaking passionately, as we must if we are to be faithful to the people who sent us here to represent them?
      Mr. Hogg: As you have reminded us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are two amendments before the House, and I shall say something about them both.
      It would be wrong to accept amendment No. 1, to which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke so passionately. If it is put to the vote, I shall oppose it. Although amendment No. 2 is of very little value, it is consistent with the language of the agreement and, on that basis, I shall not oppose it.
      We are concerned with the relationship that should exist between the process of decommissioning and the release of prisoners. Several right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to create an explicit linkage between the process of decommissioning and the release of prisoners. I have a great deal of sympathy for the attitudes, thoughts and passions that underlie that argument. The release of prisoners, many of whom have committed the most odious of crimes, is very difficult to stomach. However, I take a somewhat different approach.
      The House should first ask itself what is in the agreement—to identify the terms. Then, the House needs to ask itself whether the Bill is a fair reflection of the terms of the agreement. I commend that process to the House. It is all the more important that we should do just that and no more because the people of the Province were asked to vote in a referendum on the terms of the agreement.
      It is true that the Prime Minister put a gloss on the terms of the agreement. I agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim that the gloss was implausible. I think that the Prime Minister was trying to persuade people to vote for the agreement by purporting to support an interpretation of the agreement that does not lie on the face of the agreement. I do not think that that was a respectable thing to do. That said, all of us who read the agreement knew full well that there was no linkage in it between decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that a fundamental and persuasive element in achieving the yes vote for the agreement, which everyone is said to support, was the behaviour of the Prime Minister in suggesting and implying that he could do something which, consistent with the terms of that agreement, he could not do? That was a fraud.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
      Mr. McCartney: I withdraw that remark.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman please sit down? First, he has a habit of going on for far too long in an intervention. Secondly, he should not associate a right hon. Member of the House with

      551
      the term "fraud". The Prime Minister is a Member of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows the courtesies of the House. If he is going to attack anyone, he must use moderate language and should at least notify the hon. Member concerned.
      Mr. McCartney rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has finished his intervention.
      Mr. Hogg: If I may, I should like to respond to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). It is right that the Prime Minister placed an interpretation on the language of the agreement that is not to be found in the agreement. It is also likely that a number of people—but not the majority—to whom he was speaking misunderstood the nature of the agreement as a consequence of what he said. Truth to tell, anybody who read the agreement knows full well that there is no linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Robathan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I am listening very closely, agree that the agreement had to be all-embracing and a little vague so that everyone would come on board? The decommissioning part is very clear; I know that it is not specifically linked to prisoners. None the less, the document needs interpreting. I need it interpreting to a certain extent. Interpretation can surely come from no better person than the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Hogg: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that the agreement was couched in somewhat ambivalent language—and that was intentional. The only provision on prisoners is to be found in paragraph 2 on page 25 of the agreement. There, there is linkage between a ceasefire and the release of prisoners, but there is no linkage between the release of prisoners and decommissioning. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is not right. He should look to the paragraph that deals with decommissioning, which is to be found on page 20. He will find in paragraph 3 that it was contemplated that the process of decommissioning would go on for an extended period. There can be no question in the agreement of decommissioning being a condition precedent to the release of prisoners. I for one—and I hope the House, too—will not try unilaterally to vary the agreement by importing new terms. If we do that, the House should be sure that others will, particularly the IRA and other terrorist organisations. I am against such a process, although I understand and respect the motives.
      I say to Ulster Members, with whom I have the greatest sympathy and often associate myself, that the House should not create conditions precedent that are not verifiable. Amendment No. 1 refers to substantial decommissioning as a condition precedent. What is meant by that? More particularly, how does one verify it? It is true that there are intelligence reports on how many weapons or explosives that this or that group may have, but there is no way of determining as a fact whether
      552
      decommissioning has happened at all or whether it is substantial or slight. It would be an absolute nonsense to put on the statute a condition precedent that is incapable of verification.
      Mr. David Winnick: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I, and everyone else, agree that, so far as possible, decommissioning should take place, and we want it to take place. Even if, as we all hope, the IRA—we have every reason to question this—decides to decommission arms, would not the response, certainly of those who are opposed to the agreement, and perhaps ourselves, be to ask: how do we know what is left? If it decommissions 10 or 15 per cent., opponents—including ourselves for that matter—would obviously say that 85 per cent. was left. Verification is indeed very important.
      Mr. Hogg: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think that there is any difference between us on that point. The issue is not capable of definition in any meaningful sense.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's own leader used that, so he should have an argument with his leader. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said to the Prime Minister:
      "until the organisations to which they belong have substantially decommissioned their weapons".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
      What does that mean? The right hon. and learned Gentleman's own leader should tell him what "substantially" and "radically" mean.
      Mr. Hogg: I owe it to the House to give my best interpretation of the law and of the facts as we have to face them. That is what I am doing. I am telling the House—the hon. Member for North Antrim in particular—that the phrase "substantial decommissioning" is incapable of verification and, for that reason, among others, should not be put on the face of the statute. My own belief is that, although decommissioning may follow a cessation of murder and violence, it cannot be a precondition; it may be a condition subsequent, but it will never be a precondition.
      Amendment No. 2 is a pretty harmless amendment. For at least two reasons, I think that it achieves virtually nothing. It may not be meant to, and I am prepared not to oppose it on that basis, but let us be clear that it achieves nothing. We are determining here the designation of terrorist organisations. The provisions in subsections (8) and (9) are permissive, not mandatory: there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to designate as terrorist an organisation that falls foul of subsection (9). I asked the Secretary of State to give an undertaking to the House that she would designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it fell foul of subsection (9), but she pushed me aside and failed to give that undertaking.
      In any event, the phrase "have regard to"—or "take account of'; they mean the same—means nothing in legal terms. It merely means that the Secretary of State must consider the point, not that she is bound by factual conclusions that flow from it. I concede that her amendment is consistent with the spirit of the agreement, but let us plainly state that it adds nothing whatsoever to

      553
      the Bill. I shall not oppose the right hon. Lady's amendment, but I am bound to say that it is of little weight.
      Mr. Robathan: I always listen to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) with great interest. He made an eloquent and logical speech, but it was overly legalistic, given that the issue is one of interpretation. We must look closely at the interpretation of the agreement. I suggest that, in the referendum, the voters of Northern Ireland were looking to the interpretation given to them by the Prime Minister. In my opinion—the Secretary of State might disagree—they believed that there must be a linkage between prisoner releases and decommissioning.
      I have read the agreement closely and I should like to quote one line, from paragraph 1, on decommissioning:
      "the resolution of the decommissioning issue is an indispensable part of the process of negotiation"—
      "the resolution", not the start of the process. Of course people can hide a pike in the thatch and of course there are illegal weapons—there are illegal weapons scattered across the United Kingdom and, regrettably, they are used in crime every day—but we can make a sensible stab at knowing how much decommissioning has taken place. So far, nothing has taken place.
      On 1 September 1994, the IRA declared a ceasefire. We were all pleased, because it must be better that there is peace than that there is war; but, on 9 February 1996, it ended. Then, there was another ceasefire; but, come the end of last year, two people were killed and the ceasefire ended again. For the deaths of those two people, the IRA was given three weeks out of the talks. That was not a particularly fierce punishment. Sinn Fein is still part of the process and is likely to take part in elections and to have representatives elected to the assembly in the near future.
      During the whole process, there has been no end to the punishment beatings, nor an end to the use of weapons in those punishment beatings and in other violent incidents. It is not only the IRA—we know that some loyalist organisations are involved. In response to an intervention from me, the Secretary of State said that she had expelled Sinn Fein and the UDP—I think it was the UDP—from the talks, but that was not sufficient and they have continued their violence. It had no impact on the violence committed by paramilitaries.
      I put it to the Secretary of State that peace requires firm foundations and that there is a fudge on the issue before us. In her heart, she knows—I am sure that she has been told—that Direct Action Against Drugs is a proxy organisation in west Belfast for the IRA. Everybody else thinks so and, if the right hon. Lady does not believe me, she should go and ask people on the streets of west Belfast, because they will tell her the same thing. I do not merely call the Secretary of State a right hon. Lady, for I believe that she is an honourable, well-meaning and well-intentioned person, but if she does not accept that I am speaking the truth, she is deluding herself.
      There has been no decommissioning. How can we pretend that the IRA has given up violence when it has kept up its violence and kept its weapons? The Secretary of State has said that the IRA and Sinn Fein are inextricably linked. The IRA has said throughout that it will use the ballot box and the Armalite, but it cannot use
      554
      both in a democratic society; it must give up the Armalite and that is what the clause is all about. We should be saying, "Give up the Armalite and then your prisoners can be released—at the same time, if necessary."
      The allegation made by the hon. Gentleman from the DUP is so serious that it strikes at the heart of this institution. If it is true, I am ashamed of the Government of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To which allegation is the hon. Gentleman referring?
      Mr. Robathan: You may not have been in the Chamber, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there has been an allegation that Hansard has been tampered with.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was here and Madam Speaker stated that she would look into the matter. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked if Madam Speaker would look into it, it is being looked into and Madam Speaker will report back to the House. Let us leave it there. It has nothing to do with the amendment that we are debating—the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) was in the Chamber when I spoke to the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson).
      Mr. Robathan: Is it your ruling that we may not refer to points of order on that issue?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is my ruling that the matter is being looked into by Madam Speaker. Let us leave it at that. The hon. Gentleman should not mention an allegation that has been put before Madam Speaker and that she has promised to look into.
      Mr. Robathan: So is it your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that one may not refer to something that is being looked into by Madam Speaker?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling is that the hon. Gentleman should be quiet on that matter and get on with discussing the amendment. I cannot make it any simpler than that.
      Mr. Robathan: The Prime Minister has stated—
      Mr. Winnick: Grow up.
      Mr. Robathan: The hon. Gentleman, who shouts from a sedentary position, should examine his conscience carefully on the issue. If the allegation is true, he should hang his head in shame.
      The Prime Minister stated, in the past and again yesterday, that decommissioning is a vital part of the process and we all know that that is true. Everybody in the House believes that peace should come to Northern Ireland, but the Bill is currently a fudge—a con is being played. Yes, decommissioning is a vital part of the process, but it is not in the Bill. I hope that decommissioning will take place and that weapons will be handed in. If that does not happen, there will be no peace in Northern Ireland and we shall have to revisit the issue time and again. Peace cannot be built on a fudge or a con, but, without decommissioning appearing on the face of the Bill, I fear that that is what we are trying to do.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall deal first with the legal propositions advanced by the right hon. and learned

      555
      Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), which appear to be excessively dependent on legal interpretations of the agreement. Most hon. Members would accept that the agreement is not only a document whose meaning can be interpreted legally, but a highly political document. It is the political aspects of the document on the issue of decommissioning that form the subject matter of amendment No. 2.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and it is my submission that whatever the agreement means—it is open to interpretation—cannot be altered, varied or amended by any single party, because it is a multi-party agreement. Of course, that does not deal with what the agreement actually means. I take issue with claim of the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that the people of Northern Ireland, who are the subject of this agreement, knew what it was all about. Frankly, very few people in Northern Ireland know exactly what it is all about and I suggest that it was never intended that they should know. Perhaps there was a golden age of the English language, when its purpose was to convey nuances and meanings in the clearest possible terms, but the agreement is an example of how language can be used to obscure and obfuscate meaning.
      The question as regards amendment No. 2 is whether there is any linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. The Bill provides for the release of prisoners on certain terms. The object of the amendment is to introduce a new term or condition—that they may be released only if the organisation that they represent
      "has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms".
      It is my belief and legal interpretation—I am at one with the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and the hon. Member for Hull, North on this—that decommissioning cannot be made a precondition or linkage for the release of prisoners.
      6.30 pm
      However, the real issue is whether the people of Northern Ireland were persuaded by the pledges of the Prime Minister that that was exactly what the agreement meant. Indeed, it can be suggested that, in the last two days before 22 May when the referendum vote was held, enormous pressure was put on the electorate in Northern Ireland to accept and believe, first, that decommissioning would take place in its entirety within two years and, secondly, that it would have to commence before members of Sinn Fein could take their places in executive posts in government and terrorist prisoners could be released. That is what they believed and that is what substantially swung the vote.
      What is the Government's present position? What are they going to do? Are they going to observe the strict terms of the agreement and refuse to alter it—to say that we cannot cherry-pick and must accept it as a whole and that decommissioning cannot be linked to the release of prisoners, which is one side of the coin—or, will they honour the Prime Minister's pledges, which effectively secured a large yes vote on the basis that he and his Government could deliver what they are now suggesting that they cannot? That is the real issue and it is a moral as well as a legal issue for the House.
      556
      A point of order has been raised, which Madam Speaker has accepted and will rule upon. She will rule upon the propriety of the conduct that gave rise to it. I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that does not prevent hon. Members from referring to the factual circumstance. The propriety or otherwise is a matter for Madam Speaker and she has properly reserved that decision to herself. It is not for us to comment or even speculate on what she may or may not do, but it is open to hon. Members to speak factually of what is known and it is known that, on the face of the Hansard record for the appropriate date–6 May—the Leader of the Opposition asked certain questions and the Prime Minister gave certain answers. On the basis of what the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) stated, it is open to the House to know that, having gone to the archives of the House, listened to the tape and seen the video, he made a factual statement that the Prime Minister then said that decommissioning—and substantial decommissioning—would be necessary prerequisites to either Sinn Fein members taking their place in executive posts in government or prisoners being released.
      The propriety of the conflict is indeed a matter entirely for Madam Speaker. However, those are the facts and they illustrate vividly and dramatically the essential issue—is the agreement a multi-party agreement that cannot be altered? I believed that to be the case and that is the basis on which I put question after question to the Prime Minister at the time. I believe that that is the true basis of this agreement.
      The Prime Minister entered into a truly Faustian bargain when, in the two days before the referendum vote in desperate circumstances, he gave pledges that he is now called upon, like Dr. Faust with Mephistopheles, to deliver upon. The Government, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and concerned Ministers must now address themselves to that.
      Marjorie Mowlam: At the beginning of the debate, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) talked about information and the question of security in an answer that I gave earlier. I listened to what he said, but I do not change my view. Security is very important in Northern Ireland and, if there is any question of the first job that I have, which is to give people security, I am afraid that I shall stick to that position. He also asked for clarity and I support what he said. There is not a fudge between democracy and terror. The Prime Minister's words and what we have put on the face of the Bill make it very clear.
      The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) also raised that point. If we are talking of fudges, he said that we ought to be clearer in our position on Sinn Fein-IRA and then talked about the previous Government. In 1995, that Government continued to release prisoners when the ceasefire stopped. Did they change their position when they were not even on ceasefire? No, so if we are talking about consistency, let us consider it across the board.
      The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked whether all the prisoners would be out in two years without any decommissioning. As has been said a number of times in the House this week, not all the prisoners will be let out, only those associated with an organisation on ceasefire. A number of stringent safeguards are attached. In addition, I have powers to vary the two-year cut-off

      557
      depending on the circumstances. As we have said on numerous occasions, we shall make a judgment. I cannot prejudge it, but it will be made.
      Therefore, I must make it clear that we cannot accept amendment No. 1, which is not consistent with the terms of the agreement. I am sorry, I forgot to mention the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Even though I do not agree with the thrust of his remarks, he made some important statements.
      We cannot accept amendment No. 1 and, in commending amendment No. 2 to the House, I would say to the official Opposition that I well understand the anxieties that they have expressed in Committee and why, as a result—despite wishing the Good Friday agreement well—some Conservative Members may find it impossible to support the legislation. However, we should never forget that the real authors of the agreement are not us—not the Government—but the parties and people of Northern Ireland. They negotiated the Good Friday agreement, for which the arrangements were a key element, and they endorsed it in a referendum. In so doing, they knew the difficulties ahead. It is not for us to turn round to them and say, "You got it wrong—go back and think again."
      Now that the parties and people of Northern Ireland have decided to grasp their future and to mould it themselves, difficult as that task is, they are looking to hon. Members on both sides of the House to support them where we can, not to exploit for political advantage their chance for a peaceful future.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at end insert—
      '(e) has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.— [Rev. Ian Paisley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 12, Noes 260.

      Division No. 309]

      [6.40 pm

      AYES

      Beggs, Roy

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Brady, Graham

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hunter, Andrew

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robathan, Andrew

      Rev. Ian Paisley and

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Mr. William Thompson.

      NOES

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Ainger, Nick

      Beard, Nigel

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Alexander, Douglas

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Allan, Richard

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Allen, Graham

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Ashton, Joe

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Banks, Tony

      Best, Harold

      Barron, Kevin

      Betts, Clive

      558

      Blackman, Liz

      Gorrie, Donald

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Boateng, Paul

      Grocott, Bruce

      Borrow, David

      Grogan, John

      Brake, Tom

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hancock, Mike

      (Dunfermline E)

      Hanson, David

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Burden, Richard

      Harvey, Nick

      Burgon, Colin

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Burnett, John

      Healey, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Heppell, John

      Byers, Stephen

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Hoey, Kate

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Casale, Roger

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Caton, Martin

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Chaytor, David

      Hurst, Alan

      Chidgey, David

      Hutton, John

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ingram, Adam

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Jamieson, David

      Clelland, David

      Jenkins, Brian

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Coleman, Iain

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Colman, Tony

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Cotter, Brian

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Cousins, Jim

      Kemp, Fraser

      Cox, Tom

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Cranston, Ross

      Khabra, Piara S

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cryer, John (Homchurch)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Cummings, John

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Darvill, Keith

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Laxton, Bob

      Davidson, Ian

      Leslie, Christopher

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Levitt, Tom

      Denham, John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Dismore, Andrew

      Linton, Martin

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Livingstone, Ken

      Doran, Frank

      Lock, David

      Dowd, Jim

      Love, Andrew

      Drew, David

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McCabe, Steve

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Edwards, Huw

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McDonnell, John

      Fisher, Mark

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McIsaac, Shona

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Flynn, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Follett, Barbara

      McNulty, Tony

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McWalter, Tony

      Fyfe, Maria

      McWilliam, John

      Galloway, George

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gapes, Mike

      Mandelson, Peter

      Gardiner, Barry

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Martlew, Eric

      Godsiff, Roger

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Goggins, Paul

      Meale, Alan

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Merron, Gillian

      559

      Michael, Alun

      Sheerman, Barry

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Milburn, Alan

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Mitchell, Austin

      Skinner, Dennis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

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

      Mudie, George

      Soley, Clive

      Mullin, Chris

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Spellar, John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Norris, Dan

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Stunell, Andrew

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      (Dewsbury)

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Pearson, Ian

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pendry, Tom

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pike, Peter L

      Todd, Mark

      Plaskitt, James

      Touhig, Don

      Pollard, Kerry

      Truswell, Paul

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Vaz, Keith

      Purchase, Ken

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Radice, Giles

      Wareing, Robert N

      Raynsford, Nick

      Watts, David

      Rendel, David

      White, Brian

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Rogers, Allan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Willis, Phil

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Roy, Frank

      Winnick, David

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Salter, Martin

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sawford, Phil

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 3

      SENTENCES PASSED OUTSIDE NORTHERN IRELAND
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 13, line 38, at end insert—
      'or certificate under paragraph 9 of Schedule 12 to that Act (transitional provisions);
      ( ) any certificate issued by the Lord Justice General in relation to the prisoner under section 16(2) of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997 or paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (transitional provisions);
      ( ) any order made in relation to the prisoner under section 2 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 (duty to release designated life prisoners);'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Ingram: The amendments are technical, and I hope that I will not need to expound on them at any great length, but I am prepared to do so if hon. Members want to have a debate.
      560
      Amendment No. 3 amends paragraph 6. The present effect of the paragraph is that the commissioners must have regard to different information from that set out in clause 7 when they are considering the release of life prisoners transferred to Northern Ireland from Great Britain. In such circumstances, the commissioners must have regard to any direction of the Parole Board for the release of a discretionary life prisoner, any other information that the Secretary of State submits, such as information about the tariff of a mandatory life prisoner—[Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The general buzz of conversation is making it difficult to hear the Minister. I would be grateful if hon. Members would listen to him. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Ingram: I thought that I heard someone saying, "Thank goodness for that," because it was better not to be able to hear me. I was about to say that the commissioners must have regard to that extra information as well as to their previous decisions.
      Amendment No. 3 simply provides the equivalent Scottish provisions to those already referred to in paragraph 6 for England and Wales. That means that the commissioners must have regard to the same sort of information in respect of life prisoners transferred from Scotland to Northern Ireland as for those transferred from England and Wales to Northern Ireland. That is logical and fair and I commend the amendment to the House.
      Amendment No. 4 amends clause 12(4), which is an interpretation provision providing that references in the Bill to a sentence of imprisonment for life include references to a sentence of detention at the Secretary of State's pleasure. Amendment No. 4 simply adds the equivalent provision for Scotland.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 4, in page 13, line 47, at end insert
      'or detention for life or without limit of time under section 205(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995.'.—[Mr. Ingram.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.53 pm
      Marjorie Mowlam: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      The debate in Committee and on Report clearly showed the genuine concerns of many right hon. and hon. Members about the operation of the scheme. Before the Bill was published, I had meetings with representatives of several parties to discuss issues raised by the Bill. Those discussions were helpful to me and, I hope, to those whom I met.
      Many right hon. and hon. Members tabled amendments that were considered in Committee and on Report. In each case, our careful consideration was on the basis that any amendments must be fully consistent with the Good Friday agreement, which was endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland. We cannot and should not rewrite that agreement, but when points have been made that are helpful and could improve the terms of the Bill, we have certainly taken them on board.

      561
      Tonight, we considered on Report a Government amendment that was suggested by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who expressed the hope that the legal terms of the Bill might be able to reflect more of the language that the Prime Minister used in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May. I accepted what the right hon. Gentleman said and tabled the amendment. I also tabled a Government amendment in response to arguments that he made on Second Reading about the operation of clause 8. I accepted those arguments and I believe that the Bill has been improved as a consequence of his contribution.
      The right hon. Member for Upper Bann said:
      "We must take the Stormont agreement as a whole, and should not pick and choose."—[Official Report, 16 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1096–97.]
      That is right. If we cherry-picked and wrote extra provisions into the Bill that were not in the agreement, we would be departing from that agreement and would lose all moral authority to hold others fully to the commitments that they have made.
      I also accepted amendments tabled by members of other parties. For example, Lord Alderdice asked for the Bill to allow victims to ask for information about releases, and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) spoke on that issue on Second Reading. We added a new clause in Committee to address their concerns.
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) spoke in favour of an amendment to require that a lawyer appointed to the sentence review body should have a United Kingdom qualification, and of another to require the procedure for varying the two-year cut-off period to be subject to affirmative resolution. Again, we accepted those amendments on the basis that they improved the Bill and were consistent with the agreement.
      Under the Bill, I am given powers to say which organisations have not established, or are not maintaining, complete and unequivocal ceasefires. With the agreement of the House, I can move forward or back the two-year cut-off date. I also have powers to suspend the scheme entirely. Hon. Members have asked about the circumstances in which I might use those powers. As I said, I cannot prejudge such decisions now, but I shall certainly face them squarely in the future.
      In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) asked about the position of prisoners who allege that they have been the subject of miscarriages of justice. As the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram), said, the matter is not covered by the Bill; he has written a letter today covering the other matters that were raised, and a copy has been placed in the Library.
      In Committee, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked whether the Bill gave adequate protection to sensitive material. Given the sensitivity of security information and the requirement to protect individuals, that is an important matter, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to reflect on it. Having considered the issue, I can assure the House that there is no doubt that the requirement in clause 11 for the commissioners to give reasons is qualified by paragraph 5(1)(e) of schedule 2 and that a rule made under the schedule will give protection to sensitive information such as that to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
      562
      Much of our debate has been dominated by assertions that the Bill failed to reflect commitments given by the Government in advance of the referendum on 22 May. As I have said repeatedly, there is not a single shred of truth in that accusation.
      As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, we have done
      "precisely what we said we would do."—[Official Report, 17 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 363.]
      That being so, I want to express my disappointment that the bipartisan approach that has served the process so well for many years may be in doubt tonight. I hope that it will not be ended. As an Opposition, we were always determined to ensure that the search for peace in Northern Ireland was not made even more difficult by arguments and by confusing signals being sent across the Floor of the House. I know how much the previous Government valued the stance that we took, as I did theirs. I am sorry if that approach is on the way out, as we have been constructive and open in our approach to the Bill, particularly on proposals that enhance and improve the Bill within the terms of the Good Friday agreement.
      The Bill contains serious provisions and I shall take my responsibilities very seriously in putting them into practice. On 22 May the people of Northern Ireland decided to grasp their future and to shape it. They look now to both sides of the House to see what we can do to support them. I am sure that they will welcome our determination to implement the agreement—their agreement—in full and in good faith.
      7 pm
      Mr. Andrew MacKay: From my time as the parliamentary private secretary to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the 1980s through to my present responsibilities as shadow Secretary of State and official Opposition spokesman, I have shared the view of the Secretary of State that there should, wherever possible, be a bipartisan approach to matters concerning Northern Ireland. That is in the interests both of the Province, and of a lasting settlement.
      I hope that the House will agree, however, that no Opposition can give a blank cheque to a Government. Certainly, when we were in government, the Opposition did not give us a blank cheque. The House will recall the number of occasions on which the Opposition voted against or failed to support the prevention of terrorism Act. In my view, that was regrettable, and it damaged the peace process at that time.
      I do not lightly advise my colleagues to vote against Third Reading. In so doing, therefore, I want to stress to the Secretary of State in particular, and the House in general, that we wish wherever possible to support the Government, and to continue the bipartisan policy. She has that assurance from me across the Floor of the House. Our voting against what we believe to be a fatally flawed Bill tonight will in no way stop our supporting the Government in their search for a lasting settlement.
      I want to explain why we believe the Bill to be fundamentally flawed. We have one objection to it, and one objection only. However, it is a fundamental objection that goes to the root of the legislation. As drafted, and without the amendment that I unsuccessfully moved on Monday, the Secretary of State and her successors have only to "take into account" whether

      563
      paramilitary organisations are decommissioning. In the Bill's words, with which I do not quarrel, the Secretary of State should "take into account" whether they are "co-operating" with the decommissioning commission. That means that prisoners could be released without that co-operation. To put it at its worst—I hope, pray and believe that this would not happen under the present Secretary of State, but it could happen under the Bill—every terrorist prisoner could be released in Northern Ireland without one single gun being decommissioned, and not one ounce of Semtex being handed in.
      Our amendment was modest, constructive and moderate. It did not say, as some of our critics would have liked, that there should be decommissioning before any prisoner is released. Instead, we said simply that paramilitary organisations must satisfy the Secretary of State that they are co-operating with the commission before any prisoner is released. That is reasonable and fair, but it was rejected. The only ground that the Secretary of State gave for rejecting that moderate amendment was—she said—that it goes beyond the agreement. If that were so, I, as a supporter of the agreement, would not have moved it. My interpretation of the part of the agreement that concerns the release of prisoners is that there was a direct linkage between early release and total renunciation of violence. I have always maintained that any reasonable person would believe that total renunciation of violence must include decommissioning.
      I do not want the House to take my word on that point. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition posed exactly the same question on Wednesday 6 May to the Prime Minister. I shall not dwell on the point of order made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), because Madam Speaker is quite rightly looking into that, and we shall have an urgent report on how there appears to have been a strange change in Hansard.
      Mr. Ingram: Only alleged.
      Mr. MacKay: The Minister of State speaks from a sedentary position. Let me say to him that I have listened to the recording, because I did not believe that that could possibly have happened. I have listened to and seen the video, and I can tell him that it did happen.
      Let me quote from another answer given that day by the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
      "Opposition Members will argue strongly that the IRA cannot have prisoners released if it does not give up its guns and explosives."
      The Prime Minister replied:
      "Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence. Decommissioning is part of that".—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
      I agreed with the Prime Minister then, and I agree with him now. The Prime Minister and I believe that that was the correct interpretation of the agreement.
      More importantly, what the Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House on 6 May was widely and rightly reported in the Province in every newspaper. It was
      564
      because of the Prime Minister's welcome assurance that the people of Northern Ireland voted yes in the referendum. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were campaigning for a yes vote during the crucial last days of the referendum, and we heard large numbers of ordinary, decent people in both communities say, "Now we have the assurances on decommissioning and prisoner release, we are prepared, at this late stage, to support the referendum and vote yes."
      This has become a matter of trust. Politicians should do as they say. In particular, the Prime Minister, when at the Dispatch Box, knowing full well that his words would be very carefully listened to by the people of Northern Ireland, who were about to vote in the referendum, should have given assurances that would be translated into legislation. That did not happen, and the Bill is fundamentally flawed.
      Sir Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He and I have talked formally and informally about these matters on many occasions, and we share an on-the-record support for the agreement and a concern that it is not robust enough on prisoner release and decommissioning. Can he help me with a point about his argument? Is he inviting the Opposition to vote against Third Reading because the Bill accurately reflects the agreement, and he thinks that the agreement is inadequate? Or is he asking us to vote against it because the Bill does not accurately reflect the agreement, and he thinks that it should? In either case, we are being asked to vote against a Bill that puts into law an important part of the agreement—neither he nor I are happy with that part of it—but he says that by voting against it, we will not be voting against a bipartisan approach. Will my hon. Friend clarify the position?
      Mr. MacKay: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, whose experience and record in serving his country in Northern Ireland as a Minister and as parliamentary private secretary, like me, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King)—in fact, I succeeded him in the 1980s in that role—is second to none in the House. I am very happy to answer his question and to put a little more flesh on the bones of my brief speech on Third Reading. My interpretation of the agreement that linked explicitly the earlier release of prisoners, which we are talking about in this legislation, to the complete renunciation of violence was that that included decommissioning. As I have said, that is not just my view; it was the view of the Prime Minister in answer to a series of questions on the Floor of the House on 6 May.
      Therefore, I am not asking the House tonight in any shape or form to break the agreement that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) and I strongly support. Nor am I suggesting that, if my amendment were passed, it would be outside the agreement; I believe that it would not be. That is vital.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire asked a further question about the bipartisan approach. He and I are firm supporters of, wherever possible, maintaining a bipartisan approach on these matters. As I said at the outset of my remarks, wherever possible, we will do so, but we do have a duty to the House as an Opposition and we do have a duty to the people of Northern Ireland. If we believe that the Bill

      565
      is fundamentally flawed and that there is a breach of trust—I do not like saying this, but I happen to believe that it is true, if we read Hansard, that there has been a breach of trust by the Prime Minister—we are obliged to vote against the Bill. We hope that the other place amends it and that, when it is amended, the Government will have had time to reflect and be able to see that what we are trying to do is constructive and realistic within the agreement and in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bill.
      7.11 pm
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with sadness to the speech of the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), who speaks for the Opposition, because I believe two things. First, he is seeking radically to alter, by his attitude and by the amendment that he has tabled in the House, the terms of the agreement that was made on Good Friday. In doing that, it is possible that he is opening a Pandora's box. If he were to be successful, every party to that agreement would be able to say, "It is not robust enough here, it is not strong enough there. We want this concession. We did not really mean this. We really meant that. The Prime Minister said this. The Leader of the Opposition has said that." We are having textual criticism upon textual criticism in attempts to improve the whole situation.
      That is a very dangerous thing to do because there are parties that are not represented in the House which are parties to that agreement, which signed it in good faith and which felt that they were able to turn to their supporters and say, "On the basis of this, we can give up involving ourselves in violence. On the basis of this agreement, of what we have been shown and of what we were shown in the briefing paper on this issue at the time, we can give up violence." To seek to alter it now would be a very dangerous thing.
      Secondly, I feel sad about the speech of the hon. Member for Bracknell because I remember other occasions when Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland were engaged in very delicate negotiations and things happened that the Opposition could, if they had wished, have had a great deal of fun with; they could have caused much embarrassment to the Government of the day. I can think of at least one occasion involving the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who was attacked by the Unionist parties over a particular incident. I got up and said that, as far as we were concerned, this was in no way a resigning matter because the object of those parties' criticism was not the particular thing that had happened, but a desire to delay or to prevent peace talks from going on.
      I remember other occasions when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now Lord Mayhew, suffered much criticism in this House, particularly when it was revealed that, despite the Prime Minister of the day saying that talks with the IRA would have turned his stomach, he and the then Secretary of State were, in fact, talking with the IRA. On that occasion, we refused again because we felt that the peace process was even more important than that.
      The hon. Member for Bracknell will say that we voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. That is true; we did. We voted against it because we did not think that it
      566
      was helping the peace process, but there is a world of difference between seeking to wreck the Government when they are involved in peace talks and dealing with matters on which this party had had a particular fixed position for well over a decade.
      I want to finish on just two points. It is a question of trust. The question is now: can we trust the Leader of the Opposition on this matter? I do not think so, but I want to talk briefly about a situation in which a Conservative Government were engaged because it is a precedent. It concerns Rhodesia.
      Following the Rhodesian peace talks, the Zimbabwe Act 1979 contained this statement:
      "No criminal proceedings … shall be instituted … in respect of
      any act done on or after 11th November 1965 in the conduct or on the orders of any organisation having the purpose of resisting, frustrating or overthrowing the administration purporting to be the Government of Rhodesia or
      any act done … for the purpose of resisting or combating any such organisation".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has made his point. He is now straying rather too wide of the Third Reading.
      Mr. McNamara: The point that I am seeking to make—I listen carefully to what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is that this Bill places restrictions on the release of prisoners and their acts. When the Opposition were in government, they gave a complete amnesty to all who were concerned in some of the worst atrocities that had been committed in that area. That amnesty also applied to acts helping the rebel regime in this country, and many people from that regime were seeking to break the provisions that had been made by the United Nations and the Government at that time.
      Therefore, I make the point that, at that time, there was no criticism from the then Opposition, but every applause and support of the Government of the day in making the peace process. The conduct of the Government when they were in opposition, and the action of the Opposition over Zimbabwe and elsewhere should be emulated because peace is far too important to be put at risk by cherry-picking in this way. If we consider the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland, the thing that they put top of their list is not decommissioning. It is not release of prisoners. It is peace.
      7.18 pm
      Mr. Phil Willis: Having come to this portfolio fairly recently, it has been most interesting over the three days to hear about the experience in terms of the Bill of so many right hon. and hon. Members.
      It is an extremely important Bill, in more ways than one, because this is the first real challenge to the spirit of the Belfast agreement. People in Northern Ireland expected that the agreement would be put into operation by the Government and would be supported, largely with debate, by right hon. and hon. Members.
      I must put on record the position of the Liberal Democrat party and speak for our Alliance party partners in Northern Ireland. We whole-heartedly support the Belfast agreement, not simply because our friends were involved in the process but because the people who spent

      567
      two years arguing to get it supported it, and 71 per cent. of the people supported it in a referendum. We support it on the basis that there is no cherry-picking and that it is a complete document. Hon. Members have made that point time and again. The Secretary of State went to great pains to make it. We support it on that basis, not on that of the Prime Minister's comments at Balmoral or anywhere else. The Prime Minister is right to comment on any legislation or agreement. The people of Northern Ireland expect that. It would have been impossible for him to go to Northern Ireland during the peace process or referendum and keep his mouth closed. To have expected that would have been ludicrous.
      The position of some hon. Members and political parties is interesting. Democratic Unionist party Members and some official Unionist Members were honest and honourable throughout the process. They read the documents and the agreement and they opposed it. During the referendum, they went on to the streets, knocked on people's doors and said, "This is our interpretation of the document. Do not support it." They had several reasons for that. I said in an earlier debate that I was in Northern Ireland soon after the referendum and met republicans from the Province and the Republic of Ireland who had voted no. They had done so honourably because they did not believe that the agreement could be put into operation. However, I do not believe that the official Opposition have done themselves justice with the position that they have taken.
      The hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) campaigned in Northern Ireland during the referendum. I take my hat off to them. They campaigned on the basis of the Belfast agreement. That was what they were telling people to support. That was an honourable position. We must accept that when they campaigned for it, that was what they believed. Understanding the agreement, they realised that that was what would be put into legislation.
      We believe that the Belfast agreement is reflected in the Bill. Even those hon. Members who have so vigorously opposed the Bill accept that the Belfast agreement is interpreted accurately in it. If the Conservatives were prepared to campaign for a yes vote—I believe that this is the point that the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) was making—on the basis of the Belfast agreement, why are they threatening bipartisan agreement by telling their Members to vote against it? We must conclude that they have decided, for reasons best known to themselves, to take a hard line on the release of prisoners, linking it inextricably to decommissioning. They must know that demanding full or partial decommissioning before the release of prisoners would stop the peace process in its tracks.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was right. The word "partial" cannot be interpreted in law because it is impossible to define. Without a known starting point, it is impossible to ascertain who has given up what and whether it is substantial. I earnestly hope, in view of the conciliatory comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell in his Third Reading speech, that the Opposition will think again. I hope that many Conservative Members will use their conscience on the matter and not follow the leadership.
      568
      The key issue for us is not decommissioning. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) rightly noted that the statement on prisoners says:
      "Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements."
      Without a complete ceasefire being maintained, we do not have a peace. Irrespective of decommissioning and the idea that weapons could all be taken out, if peace breaks down and people return to armed struggle, then as the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland has often said, there could be rearmament within weeks or months, with more sophisticated weaponry than before. It is peace that will make the gun, the bullet and the Semtex redundant. It is the good will of those who signed the agreement and who voted in the referendum that will make them disappear from Northern Ireland. Unless we believe that, this House is merely part of a charade or game and we are deceiving ourselves and the people of Northern Ireland. Some people do not believe it.
      Mr. Robathan: Would the hon. Gentleman say that he is not concerned about the possession of illegal weapons, whether on the mainland or in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Willis: With respect, that is one of the most stupid comments that I have heard.
      Mr. Robathan: Then answer it.
      Mr. Willis: I shall answer straightforwardly. Of course I am concerned.
      Mr. Robathan: He said that he was not.
      Mr. Willis: No. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time to speak today. He is in disagreement with virtually all his colleagues. He should listen to what I am saying. The reason why the bipartisan agreement must not break down is that it is the road to peace that is important. The fact that we have got so many people to rally round the Belfast agreement is important. If the Bill reflects the Belfast agreement, why throw it away?
      We are grateful to the Government for including clause 14. There are those who feel that notifying victims is not a good idea. We do not share that belief. There are clearly problems, and we trust that the Government will use the clause sensitively.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) said:
      "Contrary to what he said, the IRA has not been defeated in any manner—many of us in Northern Ireland suspect that that is because no real effort has ever been made to defeat it."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 57.]
      I took great exception to that comment, as I am sure do other hon. Members. I see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is in his place. I hope that he will reflect on that in his speech. According to the research paper that we were given for the Bill, 955 members of the RUC or the armed forces have been killed in the struggle and more than 14,600 have been injured. To say that successive Governments have not been determined to defeat terrorism is a slur on their names. I trust that he will reflect and withdraw that remark.
      7.28 pm
      Mr. Winnick: I am glad that the Government have acted swiftly to implement part of the Good Friday agreement. The Bill was absolutely necessary as a precondition of implementation.
      I have no wish to minimise the terrible terrorist crimes committed by those held in prison in Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain. We in the west midlands have also suffered from terrorism. I need not remind the House that, on 21 November 1974, 25 people, around half of them under the age of 25, were butchered there by the IRA. We understand terrorism as well as anyone else—although I concede that Northern Ireland has borne the brunt of the terrible atrocities over the years.
      I take the view that the real division, here and in Northern Ireland, is between those who are for the agreement and those who are determined to wreck it. Some hon. Members were against the agreement and against the negotiations—they campaigned in that fashion before the referendum. They have no wish to see the agreement succeed; they think it a bad agreement and they want it destroyed. But I believe that the overwhelming majority in the House, including the official Opposition, take a different view.
      Mr. MacKay indicated assent.
      Mr. Winnick: Like us, the Opposition believe that this is the best chance for Northern Ireland for a very long time—I would say, since partition in 1920. The danger in voting against the Bill is that it will send all the wrong signals to the people of Northern Ireland and give encouragement to those who want to wreck the agreement.
      The Belfast Telegraph agrees that this is the best chance for peace, even though it finds flaws in the agreement. It warns, too, of the dangers of sending the wrong signals, concluding:
      "Whatever flaws the agreement has, it represents Northern Ireland's best chance of securing a lasting peace."
      It goes without saying that the official Opposition are not about to change their minds tonight. Despite that, I continue to hope that the bipartisan approach will not be destroyed. Time and again during our 18 years of opposition, people outside asked us why we always seemed to agree with the Conservative Government on Northern Ireland. We replied that we believed that that Government's policies on Northern Ireland were right: to combat terrorism, just as the previous Labour Government had done, and just as we will continue to do if terrorism returns. We saw the problem as a conflict between democracy and terrorism. There was no doubt where Labour stood—we were on the side of democracy. Even though we may have been misunderstood at times, I have no regrets about our support for the Conservative policies in combating terrorism during those years.
      Despite the Conservatives' voting intentions tonight, I hope that, in the days and months ahead, we will remain a largely united House of Commons on these issues. The future will be difficult; however much we favour the agreement, its implementation will be fraught with difficulty. If it is to be successful, we need a continuing bipartisan policy. There are no guarantees that the agreement will work, but we must all do our utmost to bring to Northern Ireland the lasting peace which its people deserve.
      7.33 pm
      Mr. Donaldson: Like the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), my party believes the Bill to be fundamentally flawed. I say that not because I voted against the agreement, as a resident of Northern Ireland, but because the Bill is fundamentally flawed in terms of the agreement that was reached.
      I shall confine myself in this speech to decommissioning, which, once again, the Government have fudged. The requirements that the Bill places on the Secretary of State are riddled with ambiguity. Throughout these debates, my party has sought to find out what the Government mean when they say that they will try to determine whether these organisations are "co-operating fully" with the decommissioning body. The Secretary of State and the Minister have failed lamentably to tell the House what that means.
      I remind the Government that they are accountable to the House of Commons. The Secretary of State has been charged, under the Bill, with responsibility for ensuring that the terrorist organisations deliver peace. She is thus accountable to the House, and, in the weeks, months and years ahead, we will certainly hold her to account. If she fails in her responsibility to deliver the aims of the Bill, weak as they are, we will ensure that that is brought to the attention of the House. And if, as I suspect will happen, prisoners are released and no guns are handed over, we will bring that to the attention of the House time and again—until the Government live up to their responsibilities to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that the guns are actually decommissioned.
      Mr. Tony McWalter: What does the hon. Gentleman have in mind—two tonnes of Semtex by Tuesday? That at least would be a lot more specific. The Secretary of State is trying to assess the bona fides of these organisations, not just to examine the material manifestations. She is concerned with whether an organisation ever intends to return to violence, and that can be established only in much more subtle ways.
      Mr. Donaldson: I participated in the talks process from beginning to end—
      Mr. McNamara: And walked out.
      Mr. Donaldson: I did not walk out. The talks had concluded when I left—the hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. 1 did not support the agreement, and I am entitled not to, as were the many in Northern Ireland who shared that view. This is, after all, a democratic society.
      When the IRA's representatives were invited to the talks on the basis of a so-called unequivocal ceasefire, it was breached on numerous occasions—even murders took place. It was only when my party brought that to the attention of the Government, and after much delay, that the Government finally decided that Sinn Fein should be put in the sin bin—for a mere two weeks for two murders.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the first party to be put out of the talks, the UDP, was put out only after the UFF, which it was fronting, had committed three murders, and after the Chief Constable had publicly stated that that organisation was responsible for the murders?
      Mr. Donaldson: That is indeed an accurate assessment.
      I hope that Members understand why we are extremely dubious about the Government's ability to deliver in terms of holding terrorists to account. Throughout the talks process, the Government's record of holding terrorists to account was lamentable. I repeat that if there is no decommissioning while prisoners continued to be released, we shall return to the House and ask the Secretary of State what, in her opinion, represents full co-operation with the decommissioning body, in the terms of the Bill. I hope that in future the Secretary of State will be able to answer that question because, to date, we have not received an answer.
      I hope that hon. Members understand that, in the absence of a definition of what represents full co-operation with the decommissioning body, we have to remain sceptical about the Government's intentions in holding the terrorist organisations to account. We have been told that we cannot cherry-pick the agreement. Well, decommissioning is an integral part of the agreement. The IRA has said publicly that it will not decommission its weapons, yet, by the end of the summer, IRA prisoners will have been released as a result of the Bill, and no weapons will have been handed over. There is an inequity there, and it is the terrorists who will cherry-pick the agreement.
      It is the terrorists who will enjoy the benefits, have their prisoners released and get seats in the Government of Northern Ireland. Yet they will renege on their part of the agreement. Will the Government hold them to account? Can the House be sure that the Government will insist that the terrorist organisations deliver on their part of the agreement? Nothing that I have heard from the Government in the past few days convinces me that they will do so. I regret that we have not been able to secure the clear linkages that are necessary.
      We hear much talk about peace. I live in Northern Ireland and represent a constituency that, like many in Northern Ireland, has experienced terrorist violence. Indeed, only recently, during the referendum campaign, a large bomb was planted in Lisburn in my constituency. I am grateful to the security forces for defusing it before there was loss of life and damage to property.
      The threat of violence remains. The threat of terrorism remains. We need to be convinced that we shall have real peace. Hon. Members argue that what is necessary to obtain real peace is the bona fides of the terrorist organisations. The people of Northern Ireland do not accept the bona fides of terrorists, because terrorists are those who sneak up in the dark and shoot people in the back. How can one take the word of such people?
      The House and the Government have a responsibility to the people who live in Northern Ireland, whom they govern and for whom they legislate, to ensure that terrorism is held to account and that when people obtain the benefits of the democratic process, they give up violence for good. That must include the decommissioning of their weapons. My party will watch with interest how the Government, particularly the Secretary of State, fulfil their obligations under the Bill. We shall look to them to hold the terrorists to account, and if they do not, we will hold the Government to account in the House of Commons.
      7.42 pm
      Mr. Clive Soley: The first point that I want to make to Tory Members, although it is probably too late, is that they should think again. They are doing themselves no good by giving a slap in the face to the Secretary of State and her team, who have done so much not only to build and deliver an agreement in Northern Ireland, but to build on the work started by the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). A number of Back-Bench Conservative Members, including the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), must know that the Tory party is deeply damaging itself tonight.
      The Unionists, in arguing against the Bill tonight and tabling amendment No. 1, which was voted down, have at least consistency on their side. I wonder why Conservative Members did not vote with them, given that the amendment asked for the decommissioning of weapons. They are not even being consistent. The Unionist Members who have spoken tonight spoke, campaigned and voted against the agreement. The tide of history will leave them behind, and people will find it difficult to understand why they could not compromise, but, by God, at least they will not go down as being grossly inconsistent and giving a slap in the face to people who have worked so hard to deliver the agreement that, in no small part, was started by the previous Conservative Secretary of State and Prime Minister.
      Mr. MacKay: Let me explain clearly to the hon. Gentleman that we supported the Government on Second Reading on the principle of the Bill, which we assumed would be amended in the modest way that we wanted. It is totally consistent and right for us to have voted for Second Reading and now to vote against Third Reading because our amendment was not accepted. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to understand that, and I suggest that he does not try to play politics.
      Mr. Soley: That is a pathetic playing with words on a matter that is far too important for such comments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the previous Government were struggling to survive during their last few years in office. As I said on a number of occasions, the previous Prime Minister and Secretary of State made a brave effort to deal with the Northern Ireland problem. My colleagues will remember the leak of the framework document, caused by a Unionist to damage the Conservative Government. What a wonderful opportunity that was for the Labour party. We could have torn into that document, ripped it apart and caused the Tory party a great deal of damage. We did not.
      What about the exposure of the secret talks? Hon. Members will remember the great promises by Conservative leaders at the time that they would not talk to the IRA. But they did so again and again. The Labour party could have made hay with that and done enormous damage to the Tory party, but it did not do so.
      What about the release of prisoners—the very issue which we are discussing tonight? That was started by the previous Conservative Government and Prime Minister. The peace process came to an end, and the prisoners continued to be released—the very action that

      573
      Conservative Members tell us they will vote against tonight. The Conservative Government continued to release prisoners and we supported them because we put the people of Northern Ireland before our personal interest, even though, at that time, if there had been an election, we would probably have won it with an even bigger majority than we have now, if that is possible.
      Hon. Members have been saying that the people of Northern Ireland have been conned. Every single household in Northern Ireland received a copy of the agreement. I have met people from Northern Ireland over many years. At times, they have been badly led—and badly misled—and significant minorities of both communities, Unionist and republican, have indulged in killing. One point that some hon. Members need to remember about language is that the killing has been almost equal between Unionist and republican paramilitaries. In the past five years, Unionists have been killing significantly more than republicans.
      Mr. William Thompson: Unionists?
      Mr. Soley: Yes, the Unionist paramilitary groups, as they call themselves.
      Mr. McWalter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Soley: Not at the moment. They call themselves Unionist paramilitary groups. [Interruption.] I am content to know that they have killed in the numbers that they describe and that we all know to be true—between 110 and 120 people have been killed by Unionist paramilitary groups in the past five years.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member deliberately to mislead the House? There are no Unionist paramilitary groups.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for their own speeches.
      Mr. Soley: I am content with the words that I am using. About 80 people have been killed by the republican community. That is why we have to be very careful with our language. Every time we condemn terrorism, it is not only—as one or two Conservative Members would like—the IRA that we must condemn, but all killing. If one is killed by a terrorist, the blood one spills is human. We must condemn it all.
      We must remember that when the Northern Irish people got the document through their door, they read and understood it and, more importantly, they knew that one of the most difficult issues would be prisoner release. However, they voted for it because they wanted to leap ahead out of the darkness of the past. They did that, and we should support them tonight. The Tories should make it clear that they will support the people of Northern Ireland and stop playing politics with the lives of other people.
      7.49 pm
      Mr. Hogg: I am afraid that tonight I cannot accept the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), and I want to explain why.
      574
      I do not oppose the Bill; on the contrary, I support it, because it is a fair reflection of the agreement that was made between many parties, and which was supported in a referendum. I do not agree with the argument that the agreement provides for linkage as between the process of decommissioning and the release of prisoners.
      Mr. Donaldson: The Bill does.
      Mr. Hogg: The Bill does not provide for an explicit linkage because there is not an explicit linkage. There never was a linkage in the agreement. That may be a pity. It is extremely unpalatable that prisoners who have committed the most odious offences are to be released early. I find that as odious as any other hon. Member, but that is the price that the people of the Province agreed to pay in order to secure the prospect of murder and violence ceasing.
      I am reluctant to support any unilateral variation of the agreement. If we do that, others will start to unpick the agreement—in particular, the terrorist organisations—and that will bring about a destruction of the agreement, and thus the end of the prospect of violence and murder ceasing.
      I spoke briefly on linkage on Report. It is suggested that we should create an explicit linkage between decommissioning and the release of prisoners. I do not believe that we should do that because, as I said on Report, we cannot verify—
      Mr. MacKay: We have not said that.
      Mr. Hogg: That is an interpretation that I placed on what my hon. Friend said.
      Mr. MacKay: My right hon. and learned Friend is putting the wrong interpretation on what I said and clearly was not listening as attentively as usual. I shall explain exactly what my amendment proposes, because he was not here when I moved it on Monday. The paramilitary organisations will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are co-operating with the decommissioning commission. That phrase is taken directly from the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that that is not the same interpretation as he has given, and I am sure that he would want to put that right for the House.
      Mr. Hogg: I am being asked today by my hon. Friend to do a different thing, which is to say that because the Bill does not provide explicitly for decommissioning, we should oppose the Bill. According to his construction of paragraph 2 on page 25, the concept of unequivocal ceasefire incorporates within it the process of decommissioning. That is the argument that he advanced to the House. I understand the intellectual process; I simply do not agree with it.
      The commitment that is provided for in the agreement, in so far as there is any linkage to the release of prisoners, is the commitment to a ceasefire, not to decommissioning. Paragraph 3 on page 20 deals in greater detail with decommissioning. There, the obligation is on the parties to the agreement to use their best endeavours to bring

      575
      about a decommissioning within a two-year term—in other words, an extended period—which is quite different from what we are being asked to support.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have followed the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend carefully. In paragraph 2 on page 25 the word "unequivocal" is used. What does "unequivocal" mean in the context of the agreement? Does he agree that it is at least arguable that, in the context of the agreement, which must be taken as a whole, "unequivocal" must also cover any act that would tend to detract from the validity of the ceasefire, which must include participating in the decommissioning process?
      Mr. Hogg: It is not that I do not understand the arguments, and my hon. Friend has advanced his in an extremely attractive manner. I see that if there was an active preparation of the weaponry, there would be no unequivocal ceasefire.
      However, the fact that there is an accumulation of weaponry does not, of itself, show that a party is not committed to the ceasefire. The question is whether the weapons are buried under the ground, or are being burnished up for use. If the latter, there is not an unequivocal commitment to a ceasefire.
      My argument is, first, that there is no linkage in the agreement, and I am against unilaterally varying the agreement. Secondly, the point that I was making when my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell intervened on me—I make no complaint—is that the concept of decommissioning is impossible to verify. There are intelligence reports about how much weaponry and explosives individual terrorist organisations may have, but it is not possible to determine at any stage whether there has been a substantial or a partial decommissioning. One cannot prove that.
      Therefore, such a condition should not be made a condition precedent to the cessation of murder and violence. It may follow. We all hope that peace will be maintained, and decommissioning will follow. The error is to make of the concept of decommissioning a condition precedent, because that is not verifiable; nor will it be delivered.
      I hope that, by our vote tonight, we will not do anything that puts at risk the prospect of the people of Northern Ireland seeing an end to murder and violence.
      7.56 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am delighted to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), because I agree with some of the conclusions that he reached.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to say in his earlier remarks that the people of Northern Ireland received copies of the agreement and that they read it, but he stretched matters a little too far when he suggested that having read it they immediately understood it and voted on that understanding. He may well reach that conclusion with his legal knowledge and his background in the House, but on the doorstep, over and over again, it became apparent that many people did not understand the legalese and Northern Ireland Office-speak in the document.
      576
      During the referendum campaign, the interpretation of the document became important. Many hon. Members recognised during the passage of the Bill that a significant feature of the outcome of the referendum was the undertakings given by the Prime Minister to the people of Northern Ireland. I read the document and came to precisely the same conclusions as the right hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members about what it meant. I informed the people of Northern Ireland what I believed the Government meant for their future.
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) suggests that those of us who asked people to vote against the agreement will be left behind by history. I owe more to those who elect me than simply to follow the view that 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland may hold. When they elect me, they elect me to exercise my judgment on these matters. My judgment is that the agreement will not provide peace and stability for the people of Northern Ireland.
      As a democrat, I have to accept that 71 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland concluded otherwise, but they concluded otherwise because of assurances given to them by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. I know that not only because of our doorstep canvassers and the distinct change that took place in the week before the referendum.
      The Northern Ireland Office knows that what I am saying is true because its polls and focus groups were telling it precisely the same thing. The very last polls that it received showed that up to 40 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland might vote against in the referendum because of the issues that we are discussing tonight. The Northern Ireland Office knew that things were moving in that direction. Something had to be done and the Prime Minister was wheeled into Northern Ireland to give assurances to the people of Northern Ireland so that they might vote in favour of the agreement.
      What assurances were given? I do not want to tangle with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not go into the detail of the matter that I raised as a point of order earlier. Suffice it to say that press reports make it clear that the Prime Minister, in this House, made a clear and unambiguous statement that before any early release took place there would have to be substantial decommissioning. That is what he said. I have watched the video; that is clearly what the Prime Minister conveyed. Not only was it in the video and in the press report, but the editorial of one of Northern Ireland's leading newspapers used the Prime Minister's remarks to argue in favour of a positive response in the referendum. So, clearly, that was one of the factors that the people of Northern Ireland took into account when they voted.
      It simply is not good enough, therefore, to say, "The people had the agreement; they understood it—or should have—so the vote is on the basis of the agreement." They voted on the agreement as it was interpreted to them. As I believe we all know from politics, there are few scripts that cannot be interpreted in different ways by different people, and who else would the people of Northern Ireland have listened to, to discover how the agreement would be implemented, but the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—the very person who would have to introduce the legislation to implement it?

      577
      The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush is right to say that the Bill accurately reflects my interpretation—and his—of the agreement, but it does not accurately reflect the interpretation of the agreement as given to the people of Northern Ireland by the Prime Minister. Therefore, those pledges have been broken. The people of Northern Ireland have a right to believe that they were conned—betrayed—by the Prime Minister. If they have been conned on that first issue arising from the agreement, they have a right to be in fear and trepidation of what will happen when the settlement Bill is introduced to deal with the other issues.
      We therefore tabled a series of amendments to test the Government's credentials. We tabled an amendment that asked that terrorists should renounce violence before they were allowed out of gaol. The Government would not allow that amendment to be made. Just imagine it: terrorists are allowed to be released from gaol early, with years of their sentence to be completed, without ever renouncing violence.
      We tabled an amendment to make into reality another pledge given by the Prime Minister—the one he signed his name to on a poster hoarding—that violence was over for good. We wanted to include the word "permanent" in relation to the ceasefire. Again, the Government did not accept that amendment.
      We advanced the proposition that before anyone was released, actual decommissioning had to be in progress; the Government voted against that. We asked that if a prisoner was released but their organisation returned to violence, they should be recalled to prison; the Government voted against that as well.
      What changes have the Government made? Some people—admittedly very few—in Northern Ireland are jumping for joy, spinning it to the people of Northern Ireland that something significant has happened. One newspaper had the audacity to report that there had been an arms coup as far as these people were concerned—that something great had happened; that the Government were making significant changes. The changes that they have made are anaemic, watery and meaningless. They do not go to the key issues of the Bill and will not protect the people of Northern Ireland in any way.
      For all those reasons, if it is not already obvious, I shall vote against the Bill's Third Reading.
      8.4 pm
      Mr. Grieve: The Bill's purpose is to implement one part of the agreement. I subscribe to and support the agreement. As I have said, I have supported it on the basis that it is the best agreement that could be achieved and it might lead to peace. I have also supported it on the basis of the Government's repeated utterances—which have not been challenged or departed from in any way—that the agreement is to be looked at as a whole.
      The area of dispute between us is whether we are allowed, in passing the legislation necessary for the release of prisoners, to have regard to the totality of the agreement, starting with the ringing declaration about the abandonment of the use or threat of force, and carrying on through the various sections that include an explicit requirement to carry out a decommissioning process over a two-year period.
      In the run-up to the debate, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's words on a number of occasions about how the agreement might properly be interpreted. I say to
      578
      the Secretary of State that he left me in no doubt, until yesterday, when he answered a question I asked him at Prime Minister's Question Time, that the interpretation of the agreement that could be used in passing legislation for the release of prisoners included safeguards to link it to decommissioning.
      In some ways, the issue is narrow. The Secretary of State retains a discretion—which she has, properly, placed in the Bill—that enables her to look at the totality of the agreement in deciding whether prisoners should be released and whether they qualify for release. It is an important safeguard and I have had every occasion, in the debate and previously, to respect her judgment and integrity on that issue. Nevertheless, ultimately this is a parliamentary matter. The question is, is this a matter for the discretion of the Government through their Ministers, or is this a matter where Parliament, looking at the agreement and interpreting it properly, incorporates the safeguard explicitly itself?
      It is a narrow point and I very much hope that, over the next two years, it may turn out to be a point of merely academic interest. I, for myself, shall continue to support the Government along the peace process path, however difficult that may be, in the implementation of the agreement, but when it comes to the narrow issue of whether this Parliament and this House should introduce the safeguard itself, I am fortified, if by nothing else, by the words of the Prime Minister on several occasions and—this is where I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—by my interpretation of what is possible in the scope of the agreement. We are not in a position to refer the agreement to a judge to decide whether I am being creative or my right hon. and learned Friend is being too narrow, so I must follow my judgment and my conscience.
      I am mindful of the fact that the issue has been a key issue in the Northern Ireland referendum campaign. Perhaps surprisingly, it became an important issue and raised its head, toward the end, as the real stumbling block to achieving consensus. It must therefore be especially important for the House to ensure that the safeguards that people expected, and which they were given every indication would be there, are in the Bill if at all possible.
      Sir Robert Smith: I think I partly understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but whereas he said that it was quite important that Parliament should reflect the agreement, some of his colleagues seem to want Parliament to reflect the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement. Surely it is far more important that Parliament reflects the interpretation of the agreement that many hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to think is not in accord with what the Conservative party would like to do tonight.
      Mr. Grieve: My interpretation of the agreement, in light of the fact that it was agreed by all parties that it must be considered as a whole, is that it is open to the House to put in the explicit link. The Government tell me that that is not so. All I can say is that, prior to the debate, the Prime Minister gave every indication that it was possible to do that. Whether the Prime Minister was mistaken and has changed his mind or whether some other interpretation may be placed on the issue, I know not.

      579
      I must follow my own judgment, and I believe that, if the House wished, it could introduce the link without breaking the agreement.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the four days prior to the vote on the agreement, the Government—and the Prime Minister specifically—were acutely aware that the two issues that would change the voting pattern were decommissioning and the release of the prisoners and that those two issues were linked?
      Mr. Grieve: Yes, I am aware of that. I listened to the speeches and I read the transcript of debates in the House. I cannot say any more than that: I believe that we may do it if we wish.
      At the end of the day, the Opposition's goal may be achieved through the Secretary of State's exercising her discretion in the matter. However, it will be at her discretion and outwith our control. That is the narrow issue of disagreement. The Secretary of State may rely on my support in trying to carry through the peace process. However, as I think that it is my duty to introduce the safeguard in the House, I regret that I cannot support the Government tonight.
      8.11 pm
      Mr. Laurence Robertson: I approach the matter from the fundamental position of objecting to the creation of a new category of prisoner in the United Kingdom. That is one of the main reasons why I shall vote against the Bill tonight.
      I would have liked the Bill to link decommissioning with the release of prisoners for two reasons. First, I believe that the electorate in Northern Ireland have been misled—I shall not go into that issue more deeply as it has been covered already. Secondly, if we are releasing prisoners, I believe that this is the best opportunity that we shall have of securing decommissioning. The Minister said last night that he hoped to see decommissioning in the future. What will we trade at that point to secure decommissioning—the Government will have surrendered their ace without receiving anything in return?
      The Government may claim that they are getting something in return: ceasefires and peace, but they are of value only if they are genuine and permanent. I invite hon. Members to cast their minds back to an earlier IRA ceasefire when the Sinn Fein president reminded a crowd who had gathered that the IRA had not gone away. Would he have said that, and would his remarks have been relevant, if the IRA had decommissioned at that point? I suggest that if the IRA had decommissioned, the ground would have been swept from under him and he would not have been able to make statements such as that.
      Why would any organisation want to retain arms? There can be only two reasons: either it wants to use the weapons again in the future or it intends to use them as a threat to move Northern Ireland further down the road to a united Ireland—which I believe this agreement takes us some way towards.
      8.13 pm
      Mr. Graham Brady: I oppose the Bill and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) in so
      580
      doing. I had not intended to speak, but I believe that some of the remarks that have been made cannot go unchallenged. I refer to the suggestion, made by several Labour Members, that those who oppose the Bill are attempting to seek some party advantage. That is the most disgraceful allegation that they could make.
      I am proud that the Conservative party intends to vote against the Bill tonight, but I would not vote for the Bill even if my party was. That is not a position that I adopt lightly. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) challenged Conservative Members to vote according to their consciences. That is what I shall do. In all conscience, I cannot vote for a Bill that will lead to the release of some of the most evil murderers—from either side of the divide—who have committed appalling crimes. I would find it difficult to vote for the Bill even if it linked their release to the decommissioning of weapons. I cannot, in conscience, vote for a Bill that will allow such people back on the streets of the United Kingdom when the weapons are still available for them to use.
      Many hon. Members have implied that there is only one side to the issue. I ask them to consider carefully, as I believe this is the most important Bill to be debated in my short time in this place. If I am here for a great many years, I dare say that it will still be the most important matter that we have debated.
      Tonight we are considering whether we should release people who live in a free, open and democratic country but who, instead of resorting to democracy, have chosen to resort to murder and to torture. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) was quite mistaken to draw an analogy with the situation in Rhodesia, where people were not living in an open and free democracy. We are talking about people who had a choice to participate in our democracy, but turned their back on it. I have no confidence that if they are released following the passage of this Bill—when there are still many tonnes of weapons hidden in Northern Ireland and available for their use—they will not return to that path of murder and torture.
      8.16 pm
      Mr. Ingram: We have had a very detailed debate following a series of detailed discussions about specific amendments. I shall deal with the fundamental point at issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), the official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. He told us that he is calling upon his party to vote against the Bill. In so doing, the Opposition are voting against the implementation of the element of the agreement with which the Bill deals—despite the fact that the agreement was negotiated by the Northern Ireland parties and endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland.
      The official Opposition will be joined today only by those Northern Ireland Members who have consistently opposed the agreement. Those Northern Ireland Members are entitled to carry their opposition into the House—they, at least, have been consistent. The official Opposition claim to support the agreement yet, in voting against implementing this part of it, they will not be supported by a single Northern Ireland Member who supports the agreement. Mark this, Mr. Deputy Speaker: those who negotiated the agreement and who campaigned in Northern Ireland for its endorsement are not opposing the

      581
      measure tonight. The official Opposition have isolated themselves from those who support the agreement. Tonight they will share the Lobby only with those who voted no.
      The hon. Member for Bracknell also raised the spectre of every prisoner being released before any weapons are decommissioned. We are talking about a two-year period. Other hon. Members have referred to 1995, when the Conservative Government introduced legislation as part of the process of moving forward the peace package. That legislation has resulted in the release of 240 terrorist prisoners, but not one ounce of Semtex or one bullet was handed in and not one gun was decommissioned. The Conservative Government continued with that legislation when the ceasefire had broken down and when they had the power, under the legislation, to rescind the order. They did not do so. Did the Labour party in opposition criticise them? No, we did not, because we understood the sensitivity, difficulties and complexities of moving the peace process forward.
      The thrust of the Opposition spokesman's argument and the position that he and his party now adopt are based on naked political opportunism and a blatant attack on the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman puts party interest before the interests of peace; whenever he has risen to speak from the Dispatch Box—to move amendments or on Third Reading—he has attacked a Prime Minister who has given untold time and energy to putting together a peace package, who has assisted in brokering that peace package, and whose efforts brought about a massive yes vote on 22 May.
      Those who campaigned for a no vote in the referendum have said that the Prime Minister conned the people of Northern Ireland. Are they saying that their constituents are easily conned and do not understand that we are dealing with a very difficult issue? Is the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) the only person who can pick up the document and explain it on the doorstep to all the simple people who seem unable to read it for themselves? I have been a Northern Ireland Minister for more than a year now, and I have met many intelligent, ordinary working people. I understand what they are saying, and I know that they understand what the Government are trying to achieve. I think that they also understood that the previous Prime Minister gave his support during the referendum, and campaigned for a yes vote alongside the present Prime Minister. That was important in achieving the overwhelming yes vote on 22 May.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) set out his background—the dealings that he had when he was Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland. He knows the depth and level of support that the Labour party gave previous Administrations during his time in office. That applied also to previous shadow Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. All those who have been engaged in the process know how difficult it is. They know that difficult decisions have had to be taken, and that if the wrong word is said or the wrong action taken, everything could be thrown off the rails. Everyone who has ever been engaged in these matters knows that peace is not an event but a complex process. It is not just about people voting in a referendum, or just about an agreement being signed by the parties. It is about trying to implement aspects of the agreement, taking it forward bit by bit, and linking together parts that must be linked together.
      582
      We are at the very first step of dealing with the agreement. In many ways, this Bill is the most complex piece of legislation because it strikes an essential chord in the minds and hearts of the people of Northern Ireland. We all recognise that. No one thinks that the Bill is easy. It is incredibly complex and difficult, but it rests on the integrity of Ministers to take it forward. That may be challenged by some in the House, but I doubt whether it would be challenged by the official Opposition—they have not yet stooped to that level in their criticism of Ministers.
      However, another important key element is the fact that we live in a democracy where accountability applies. The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power and discretion to interpret those aspects that are set forth, and to make the decisions. In dealing with the issues on which she has made a judgment, she will be held accountable to the House of Commons. Accountability comes into play once the whole package has been implemented—not just the Bill but the agreement as a whole.
      I am sorry that hon. Members from Northern Ireland have made it their determined wish and will to stop the agreement.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does the Minister accept that the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) voted against the Bill on Second Reading? What does he think has happened between Second Reading and Third Reading which would have induced the right hon. Gentleman, who supported the agreement and campaigned valiantly for it, to change his mind?
      Mr. Ingram: I have attended all the debates on the Bill and I have not noticed the hon. Gentleman's presence very often. If he were genuinely interested in the flow of the debate, he would know that some of the amendments that have been debated were important. He would also know that some of the amendments had been brokered with the Ulster Unionist party and its leadership to deal with the difficulties that they highlighted in the Bill, and that those amendments resulted in changes to the Bill. In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out the changes. I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's presence in the Chamber when the opening speech was made. I may be wrong; if the hon. Gentleman was here, clearly he has not been listening.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North told the House about the support that the Labour party in opposition gave to the Conservative Government. I highlighted one good example—the 1995 Act on the early release of prisoners.
      May I deal with some of the other comments that have been made in the debate? I thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) for his continued interest, and that of his party. He articulated some of the arguments advanced by the Liberal Democrats to try to bring about changes to the Bill. We have made a major change to the Bill to deal with the sensitive issue of victims.
      I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley). Because of their

      583
      long-standing interest in Northern Ireland affairs, they made telling contributions to the debate.
      The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) was supposed to be the main spokesperson for the Ulster Unionist party in opposition to the Bill. As the debate progressed, however, other hon. Members tried to take on that mantle. He, too, seems to want to play politics with peace. He has set himself up as a "no" man, and his party decided to say no to him over the assembly. Thus his own party has cast judgment on him.
      I pay tribute to the reasoned and powerful case advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who pointed out the deep dangers of cherry-picking from the agreement. He also pointed out the fundamentally flawed reasoning of the Opposition spokesman. I only hope that other right hon. and hon. Members listened to his reasoned arguments. Clearly, those who have experience in the House and deep knowledge of what has happened and can happen in Northern Ireland have listened carefully to the debate, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Bracknell will not get all his right hon. and hon. Friends into his Lobby this evening. He already knows one of his very experienced colleagues who has decided not to join him.
      Mr. MacKay: How did the Minister vote on the prevention of terrorism Act?
      Mr. Ingram: I have been asked that before. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks at the voting records—[Interruption.] I shall not debate with hon. Members who call from a sedentary position. I have discussed the matter in previous debates. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has put peace first and said that on this occasion his party must come second.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked who makes the judgments in this matter. As I said earlier, the initial judgment rests solely with the Secretary of State, based on the detailed advice that she will receive from a variety of sources. Clearly, we are talking about matters that cannot always be easily shared at the time with the House, or, indeed, with any hon. Members who may be interested, but, at the end of the day, once the judgment has been taken and the die is cast, the House has a right to hold the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to account for their actions. Neither of my right hon. Friends has ever shirked that. We have held ourselves accountable at the Dispatch Box on the agreement and in taking forward this Bill.
      I believe that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is a genuine seeker after truth. He has probed and pushed as the Bill has progressed. I am sorry that he has not accepted the reasoning behind the legislation and what we are trying to do through it, but I hope that he will listen to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham and that, before he enters the Lobby, he may just change his mind. If he is a genuine seeker after truth, he still has time to identify what the truth is and what the right judgment is.
      The Bill has been debated in the House four times in eight days. Many right hon. and hon. Members have been present throughout and have spoken many times.
      584
      Each time those opposed to the provisions of the Bill have set out their arguments, either my right hon. Friend or I have responded. We have sought to give full answers to the questions put to us, and we have sought to explain the Bill in full. We have never ducked any question. The answers that we have given may not have been acceptable, but we have set out the reasoning behind the legislation and the difficulties associated with it.
      We have accepted Opposition amendments and tabled our own amendments, based on the arguments that have been advanced. In a sense, that is not what the debate has been about. It has been about whether the British Government should seek to implement in full the Good Friday agreement. Let me leave the House in no doubt that it is my intention and that of the Government that the agreement will be implemented in full. The agreement was negotiated in good faith and will be implemented in good faith. The people of Northern Ireland voted on a complete document, and we shall implement the complete document.
      I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 116.

      Division No. 310]

      [8.31 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Corbett, Robin

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Alexander, Douglas

      Cotter, Brian

      Allan, Richard

      Cox, Tom

      Allen, Graham

      Cranston, Ross

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cummings, John

      Banks, Tony

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barron, Kevin

      Darvill, Keith

      Bayley, Hugh

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Beard, Nigel

      Denham, John

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Doran, Frank

      Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

      Dowd, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Drew, David

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Edwards, Huw

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Brake, Tom

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

      Flynn, Paul

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Follett, Barbara

      Burden, Richard

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Burnett, John

      Galloway, George

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Gapes, Mike

      Byers, Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Cable, Dr Vincent

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Caplin, Ivor

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Casale, Roger

      Grocott, Bruce

      Caton, Martin

      Grogan, John

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Chidgey, David

      Hancock, Mike

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Clelland, David

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Heppell, John

      Colman, Tony

      Hesford, Stephen

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      585

      Hoey, Kate

      Pearson, Ian

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pendry, Tom

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pollard, Kerry

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pond, Chris

      Hurst, Alan

      Pound, Stephen

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Ingram, Adam

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jamieson, David

      Rendel, David

      Johnson, Miss Melanie

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Ruane, Chris

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Salter, Martin

      Kemp, Fraser

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Sawford, Phil

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Sedgemore, Brian

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kingham, Ms Tess

      Skinner, Dennis

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Smith, Miss Geraldine

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Laxton, Bob

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Levitt, Tom

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

      Linton, Martin

      Soley, Clive

      Livingstone, Ken

      Speller, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Lock, David

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Love, Andrew

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McCabe, Steve

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Stunell, Andrew

      McDonnell, John

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Timms, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Todd, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      McWilliam, John

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Vaz, Keith

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Watts, David

      Martlew, Eric

      White, Brian

      Merron, Gillian

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Milburn, Alan

      Willis, Phil

      Mitchell, Austin

      Wills, Michael

      Moffatt, Laura

      Winnick, David

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Woolas, Phil

      Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Mudie, George

      Wyatt, Derek

      Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)

      Norris, Dan

      Olner, Bill

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      O'Neill, Martin

      Mr. Greg Pope and

      Organ, Mrs Diana

      Ms Bridget Prentice.

      586

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Amess, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Letwin, Oliver

      Arbuthnot, James

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Lidington, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Beggs, Roy

      Loughton, Tim

      Bercow, John

      Luff, Peter

      Blunt, Crispin

      McCartney, Robert (N Down)

      Boswell, Tim

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Brady, Graham

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Brazier, Julian

      MacKay, Andrew

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Burns, Simon

      Moss, Malcolm

      Butterfill, John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Page, Richard

      (Chipping Barnet)

      Paice, James

      Chope, Christopher

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Clappison, James

      Paterson, Owen

      Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

      Pickles, Eric

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Prior, David

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Randall, John

      Cran, James

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Day, Stephen

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

      Duncan, Alan

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Evans, Nigel

      Ruffley, David

      Faber, David

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Flight, Howard

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Forsythe, Clifford

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Fraser, Christopher

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger

      Spring, Richard

      Garnier, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Gibb, Nick

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Green, Damian

      Thompson, William

      Greenway, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Grieve, Dominic

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Viggers, Peter

      Hammond, Philip

      Wardle, Charles

      Hawkins, Nick

      Waterson, Nigel

      Hayes, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Whittingdale, John

      Horam, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Woodward, Shaun

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Johnson Smith,

      Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Mr. Oliver Heald and

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Mr. Tim Collins.

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

  National Institutions Measure
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): I beg to move,
  That the National Institutions Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.
  The Measure effects a transformation in the national institutions of the Church of England. The object is to enable them better to serve the work and mission of the Church, as reflected in parishes and dioceses throughout the land.
  The origin of the Measure lies in the recommendations of the Archbishop's commission on the organisation of the Church of England, chaired by Bishop Michael Turnbull, now Bishop of Durham, which reported in 1995. The commission examined the central structures of the Church against the background of the financial difficulties then facing the Church Commissioners, from which they have now happily recovered. The assets of the commissioners have increased from £2·1 billion in 1992 to £3·5 billion in 1997.
  However, the Turnbull commission found that there had been a significant loss of confidence in the Church's national organisations, which were characterised by fragmentation of effort and a committee-bound culture. There was no focal point where responsibility lay for enabling the Church to meet the challenges and the opportunities facing it. The Turnbull commission recommended the establishment of a national council to provide such a focal point. It also recommended a reform of the organisation of the Church Commissioners and a redistribution of responsibilities between them and the proposed council, with the creation of a unified staff capability to serve all the national Church bodies.
  Since the Turnbull commission's report was published, the recommendations have been the subject of widespread consultation and debate in the Church, involving many people throughout all dioceses, as well as Members of this House and of another place. The process included consideration of the related recommendations of the Social Security Select Committee under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field).
  Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does not the Measure go beyond the recommendations of the Select Committee?
  Mr. Bell: The Measure incorporates the Select Committee's proposals, but it derives from the report of the Bishop of Durham.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead for his work as Chairman of the Select Committee. His consistency and firmness of purpose, and the clarity with which his Committee framed its recommendations, have been a source of enlightenment and encouragement to the Church and to me. My right hon. Friend is not with us tonight, because he has an engagement in Leeds as Minister for Welfare Reform.
  The Measure provides that the Archbishops Council shall determine the application of sums made over by the Church Commissioners in accordance with mutually
  588
  agreed plans should the council or the commissioners so request. That means that the council and the Church Commissioners will be able to assure themselves that expenditure is compatible with the purposes of the commissioners' trust, in particular for the making of additional provision for the cure of souls in poor parishes. That is in clause 8.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman's and his successors' answerability to the House on such matters be affected by the transfer of responsibility?
  Mr. Bell: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated my remarks. I shall deal with that point shortly.
  Clause 8 meets one of the main parliamentary concerns on the Turnbull report by ensuring that the commissioners retain ultimate control over how their income is spent. The other concerns of parliamentarians were that the balance of Church and state in the composition of the commissioners should be maintained, and that the accountability to Parliament for functions bestowed by Parliament should be protected.
  The balance of Church and state in the composition of the commissioners has been maintained. The Measure provides for six state commissioners and 27 other commissioners. The accountability to Parliament has also been maintained. Indeed, that accountability has been strengthened by the appointment of a statutory audit committee with a duty to report to the state commissioners on any matter relating to the functions and business of the commissioners which causes the audit committee grave concern. That may be found in schedule 4(4)(c)(e).
  The Measure provides that the commissioners are to retain their functions in respect of asset management and support for bishops and cathedrals, although any proposal to transfer any of their other functions to the council—including, most importantly, their quasi-judicial functions under the Pastoral Measure 1983—may be effected only after consultation with the Prime Minister and the commissioners, and with the agreement of the General Synod.
  Any such proposal must then be laid before Parliament, and, if relating to the Pastoral Measure or allied functions under the Dioceses Measure 1978, will be subject to debate and the approval of both Houses. Any other proposal is subject to the negative procedure. That provision may be found in clause 5. There has been much concern in the Church about accountability, both to the new Archbishops Council and of the Church Commissioners. I hope that what I have already said about the commissioners will reassure right hon. and hon. Members that there will be sufficient accountability.
  The Archbishops Council will have a majority of elected members. That provision is to be found in schedule 1. The archbishops will be able to appoint up to six people to the council, but the General Synod will have to approve such appointments. The Archbishops Council will require the approval of the General Synod and of the diocese in order to achieve anything at all. The autonomy of the dioceses is unaffected by the reforms.
  On the council, there is a careful balance among bishops, clergy and laity. One of the benefits of the provision for appointed members is the opportunity to ensure that the necessary expertise, skills, and interests

  589
  are properly represented. There must also be regular reporting to the Synod on the work and proceedings of the council. That provision is to be found in clause 4(1).
  I hope that what I have said shows the carefully balanced nature of the package before the House. The package offers many benefits to the Church. Those include the creation of the Archbishops Council, which will provide a focal point for policy and strategic thinking among the Church's national organisations. In particular, it will bring together financial and policy responsibility, which are currently separate. It will create a stronger partnership, which will evolve, between bodies that work nationally on the Church's behalf. There will be greater clarity and transparency over the apportionment of central costs and the allocation of central support. Dioceses, and through them deaneries and parishes, will be brought more effectively into decision making at the national level. The Church will thereby be helped better to respond to the challenges of mission.
  When the Measure was considered by the Ecclesiastical Committee, a major concern that was evident in the questions of witnesses from the Synod was the relationship between the Archbishops Council and the Church Commissioners, and, in particular, the desire to maintain through the commissioners an independent element in decision making at the central level, subject, of course, to parliamentary accountability—the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). It will be seen from the committee's report that it believes that the Measure secures that objective. Members of the committee were satisfied that the Measure provides appropriate mechanisms for the various issues to be satisfactorily resolved.
  The General Synod gave final approval to the Measure, with large majorities in all three houses. They may not read like football scores from the World cup, but they are significant none the less: bishops, ayes 36, noes 0; clergy, ayes 181, noes 11; laity, ayes, 175, noes 27. The Ecclesiastical Committee has also resolved that the Measure is expedient. I hope that the House will approve it.
  The work and witness of the Church throughout this land should be supported by effective and accountable national institutions. This Measure should help deliver them.
  8.55 pm
  Sir Patrick Cormack: It was very good to see the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) moving the motion—and from the Front Bench. That underlines the fact that he is a member of Her Majesty's Government. His sitting on the Front Bench exemplifies the very proper link between Church and state.
  I should begin by declaring two interests, and by stating my position in this debate. My interests are that, since 1995, I have been an elected member of the General Synod, of which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is an ex-officio member. Since 1971, I have been a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee, to which I was appointed very shortly after being elected to the House 28 years ago today. So, I have reasonably long experience of Church legislation.
  My position—I must be honest with all Members—is that I was not wildly enthusiastic when the Turnbull report was first unveiled. As the hon. Member for
  590
  Middlesbrough said, the Turnbull commission was established in the wake of what one might almost call a crisis of management in the Church of England. There was great disquiet over the management of assets, and it was felt necessary to appoint a commission to look into the form and structure of the Church of England.
  The commission came up with proposals which went far beyond the initial cause for concern. My initial reaction was that there was a danger that the Church was becoming too involved in introspection. I was not persuaded that all the far-reaching changes were necessary, or that they would improve the standing or enhance the mission of the established Church.
  I stress that I speak as a very strong believer in the virtues of establishment. I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough is entirely in accord with me on that. It is important that we maintain our national established Church. I think that it is of inestimable value that every man, woman and child in England lives in a parish of the Church of England and is entitled to the ministrations of the incumbent and to the services of the Church. I should hate to see that change.
  Arch-romantic that I tend to be, I am strongly wedded to the idea of a national Church. I am an unrepentant traditional Anglican, and I have been greatly concerned for a long time by the diminished influence of the Church in many areas and in many aspects of our national life.
  It seems to me that that diminution in influence has coincided with the advent of synodical government and the abandoning of our traditional liturgy, which themselves coincided with a seeming reluctance on the part of Church leaders at all levels to enunciate as unequivocally and clearly as I would like some of the unchanging verities of the Church. I happen to think that the average man and woman expects those in positions of moral authority to give clear and unambiguous guidance on the great issues of one's personal life, and to comment—perfectly legitimately—on great issues of state. I have never criticised bishops for talking about political issues, although I have sometimes hoped that they would stick more closely to religious issues.
  Tonight, I want to put aside and not emphasise my initial fears and prejudices—we all have prejudices—because I willingly acknowledge that the Measure before us is in many ways different from, and better than, the original proposals of Turnbull. In that spirit, I welcome it, and I am glad to add my voice to that of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough in commending it to the House. However, my endorsement is based on the hope that our two archbishops will be able, through their new council, to renew their authority and to give that clearer guidance about which I spoke, because it is renewal that the Church of England needs as we approach a series of significant Christian anniversaries.
  We all have the millennium very much in mind, and it is important to take every opportunity to stress exactly what the millennium is about and what is at its heart—the commemoration of 2,000 years of Christianity. However, there are other anniversaries: 2008 is the 450th anniversary of the Elizabethan settlement; and 2012 is the 300th anniversary of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which gave us a liturgy the like of which no other Church in the world is privileged to enjoy. With the new institutions that we are being asked to approve this evening, the aim must be to reach out, to touch and

  591
  to influence the lives and the conduct of those who are growing up in as great an ignorance of the Christian message as those to whom Wesley and Wilberforce reached out more than 200 years ago.
  That is a great and a daunting task, so I trust that the Archbishops Council will not spend too much time on further restructuring and reorganisation. However, I hope that it will give careful consideration to making Synod more what it ought to be—the true representative voice of the Anglican in the pew.
  The reason for my saying that, and for my slightly critical earlier comments about Synod, is a simple one: I do not believe that General Synod is really representative of the ordinary Anglican in the pew. I believe that for one reason above all others: there is a very small electorate. I should like everyone who is on the electoral roll of any church in the Church of England to be eligible to vote for his or her synodical representative. That would bring a new interest and a new legitimacy to General Synod, and it is a matter which I hope the Archbishops Council will consider.
  I trust that the hon. Gentleman, whom I am pleased to call a friend in every circumstance other than the parliamentary, will use his influence to persuade the council to look into that issue. It is important and it needs to be addressed early. I hope too that he will forgive me for making those comments rather than merely following him. He gave us a lucid and admirable exposition of the Measure and outlined its provisions, so I am merely highlighting a few points.
  Mr. David Drew: I very much support the hon. Gentleman's idea of opening out the electorate, but does he agree that one reason why that electorate and Church rolls have declined of late is the mismanagement of the Church Commissioners in recent times? So many benefices have had to be combined because of lack of cash. If nothing else, the Measure will, I hope, lead to streamlining, and will concentrate minds on what really needs to happen. The Church needs to be run efficiently as well as with the proper Christian basis.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, and I am sympathetic to the thrust of his thinking, but without wishing to offend him in any way, I must say that he has telescoped a few things.
  Until the unfortunate blip occasioned, perhaps, by an injudicious emphasis on investing in property at a particularly unfortunate time, the record of the Church Commissioners in managing the assets of the Church of England was quite good. We do not face some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred, such as the amalgamation of benefices and so forth, because of bad management by the commissioners over a long period. There has been a decline in vocations, and we have to deal with many issues.
  I cannot think that the House will divide on this Measure. I sincerely hope that it will not—it might be embarrassing if it did, given the number of hon. Members in the Chamber, so I trust that the Government payroll vote is on hand if needed. Let us use the passing of this Measure to give a new emphasis and sense of direction to the Church of England. Let us give the Archbishops Council every support and encouragement, but let us also point it in certain directions.
  592
  That was very much at the back of the minds of many of my colleagues on the Ecclesiastical Committee who took part in the questioning. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough said, and the report shows, they expressed certain concerns about the relationship of the council to the commissioners. They stressed the need to maintain an independent element in decision making at national level and one that was subject to parliamentary accountability.
  That was expressed particularly clearly in the three points put forward by and quoted in the document before us this evening by the Minister for Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He has made such a signal contribution to the Church of England, and we very much miss him this evening, although we fully understand that his ministerial duties prevent his being here. He has been a doughty champion of the establishment and of proper parliamentary accountability.
  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough symbolises that accountability, and comes before the House—not perhaps as often as I would like, but that is not his fault—to answer questions regularly and reasonably frequently. His very presence and his being here to do that emphasise the national nature of the Church of England.
  I do not want to detain the House, and I understand that other hon. Members would like to contribute briefly—I hope that they will do so—so I shall conclude by saying that, whatever misgivings some of us may have had, let us put those behind us and look upon this as a new opportunity for the Church of England. Let us use it to the best possible advantage by giving the Archbishops Council every possible support.
  At the head of the Church of England, under Her Majesty the Queen, we have two extremely talented men in the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was plunged into the job but has grown into it, and the Archbishop of York, who is a representative of what he calls "the other integrity"—we have tensions within the Church of England, and it must be representative of both integrities. The two are working together extremely constructively—may they do so even more through the council. I wish the Measure parliamentary approval, and Godspeed.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), for the way in which he presented the Measure, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) on the way in which he responded—it demonstrated, as I said at the Ecclesiastical Committee, the importance and validity of the adaptation of the rules for Church Measures.
  For all the faults of the system—they were acknowledged by many members of the Synod—I believe that it is better that the Synod should take the early stages of legislation, so that we avoid having Second Reading and Committee stage in the House of Commons and in another place.
  The Ecclesiastical Committee has sometimes—although not in this case—taken too long to decide whether a Measure is expedient. I share the views of successive archbishops and others in the Church of England, but I believe that moving to a synodical method has, on balance, proved better than retaining all stages of consideration in Parliament. However,

  593
  that depends on the good will and the ability of hon. Members and Members of another place to understand that compromise means, at best, agreement.
  In the presentation to the meeting of the Parliaments, which is fully recorded in the report, and in the Ecclesiastical Committee, those who seemed to discuss the residual issues that Members of Parliament wanted to raise did a service both to the Church of England and to this country. It is important that those people—I am not one—who have doubts about improvement, change and adaptation, should be fully heard, but it is reasonable to expect others who think that some of the doubts and arguments are wrong to meet them halfway. That is part of the notion of compromise, on which I put some store.
  My declaration is that I tried, both in a by-election and in a general election, to be elected to Synod, and failed—I am a member of the General Synod, failed. To balance that, I spent some years as a trustee of Christian Aid and, for a time, served as the chairman of the Church of England Children's Society, which overlaps with the established parts of the Church of England, even though it is not one.
  I believe that we need to learn from those from outside our Churches—I try to describe myself as a Christian (Anglican), rather than say that being Anglican is more important. I believe that perhaps the most significant change in the 23 years during which I have had the privilege of serving in the House is that the Churches have come together in a way that is remarkable, somewhat unexpected, and a result of the deliberate efforts of many people in the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of England and the free Churches.
  I pay tribute to the leaders of each of the denominations—they deserve more credit than they are usually given. Many matters that are beyond the usual realms of the Church and that spread into politics owe something to the insight and perspiration—as well as the inspiration—of our leaders.
  The Measure deals with issues that one might call Church management of resources and assets—it does not in any way represent a substitute for our responsibilities on spiritual leadership. The leadership comes not only from archbishops and bishops, but from the laity and those who are ordained as deacons and priests. The Measure will help them to concentrate on bringing together—and bringing in—those who regard themselves as members of the Church and those who usually do not.
  I mention two events that have made an impression on me in recent years. The first occurred in my previous constituency of Eltham. When six teenagers tragically died in a car crash, the local vicar opened his church, which provided the children's contemporaries with a sense of congregation and an opportunity to express their grief. It was plain that about half the young people at one of the memorial services had never had to open a hymn book, let alone a prayer book. That illustrates the failure of those of us who take seriously the work of the Church.
  The second event that affected me was when James Noble, who represents, and created, the group known as A Company of Speakers said that, when the Japanese prisoner-of-war camp in which he had suffered was liberated and the guards had gone, an Australian chaplain got into the stand where the commandant used to stand, and said, not that it was a matter for celebration but that people had a second chance to start doing something with their lives.
  594
  That is roughly equivalent to the challenge that William Temple issued in Oxford in the 1930s, when he asked what people intended to do with their lives, and not only in their work and with their families. He asked what would really matter most if and when people had the chance to know in advance that they were about to die, and whether they had done things that required some sacrifice and understanding and were for the greater good; that is one part—not the only part—of the Christian message. It is part of the nonconformist and the established traditions, and part of the universal Church, which is what the Roman Catholics would lay claim to.
  For all that to happen, there needs to be a system of Church use of resources, and that is where the Measure comes in. We in Parliament need to understand that, if a Measure has the overwhelming, if not unanimous, support of the bishops, the clergy and the laity, we need to have extremely strong reasons to challenge their decisions. We should not allow anything through on the nod, and we should pay attention, but we should also understand that those who came to bear witness or to answer questions deserve respect. I want to thank those people for the preparation and the presentation that they have offered us.
  9.16 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the very kind remarks of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). There is no greater honour in the House than to call an hon. Member from an opposing party a friend. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's friendship, which I have enjoyed for many years, since I first became a Member of Parliament. He said that it is 28 years to the day since he came into the House, and 18 June 1970 is also engraved in my memory: I flew all the way back from New York to see a Labour victory, and when the first results came in, I turned off the television and went to bed. I slept soundly.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): You missed all the fun.
  Mr. Bell: In fact, the fun began after the election. I remember the day as though it were yesterday.
  The hon. Member for South Staffordshire spoke pertinently and eloquently, and I congratulate him on his speech about the relationship between Church and state. He said that I am at the Dispatch Box not because it is a convenient place to rest my notes but because there is a firm, strong, definable relationship between Church and state. He mentioned the established Church, and said that I was firmly in favour of it, and that the Prime Minister had made it known clearly that it is not his or the Government's intention to take any step in any other direction. It is appropriate to put that on the record tonight, and for it to appear in Hansard.
  The Measure is the Church's response to the need for change and modernisation. That important point was touched on by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), who also made an interesting contribution, on which I congratulate him. He talked about Churches coming together and the ecumenical and inclusive nature of the Church. The Measure shows the Church coming to terms with the modern age. It is implementing the modernisation and change that the Government welcome and want to bring about.

  595
  The Church is doing that for itself, so there is no need for any move towards disestablishment to introduce modernisation or change, because the Measure represents the change in the direction of the millennium to which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire referred.
  We read a lot in the newspapers about negative elements of the Church. The controversial elements appear day in and day out, but the Church is a confident Church, with a confident message that has stood the test of 2000 years. The hon. Member for Worthing, West mentioned Archbishop Temple's views in the 1930s, and the values of that time are as pertinent today as they were then. In this confident Church of ours in 1997, ordinations were up for the third year running, covenanted giving went up to more than £6 a person, and, while 24 churches were made redundant, 23 opened, excluding the new informal congregations.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Church is strong enough to take on the chin headlines claiming that training budgets are overstretched, which is merely another way of saying that more people than expected have come forward for ordination? I hope that he will also convey the House's good wishes to the Lambeth conference—perhaps it should be called the Canterbury conference—when bishops from all over the world will come together for their 10-yearly gathering.
  Mr. Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am sure that his remarks will be noted by the Lambeth conference, which will, as he says, open in Canterbury. The fact that the Lambeth conference takes place in Canterbury is in the nature of our business.
  The Measure represents a new opportunity to go forward with confidence and focus. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Church has broad shoulders, as do the Church Commissioners who have to respond to the weekend press. I said, almost frivolously, that they had to do so day in and day out, but although that is not so, we must live with controversy, constant attacks and constant carping. We should remember the facts that I have given the House, which record the way in which the Church is moving forward towards the millennium, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said.
  I welcome the consensus that we have heard tonight, which will be of great encouragement to the Church, and to the Synod when it meets in July. Our unanimous view, as the hon. Gentleman said, is that the Measure has a good wind behind it. Godspeed to it. I hope that this day will begin a new era in relationships for the Church, and new structures in which the dioceses, the Synod, the laity and all those who believe in the Church's doctrines and teachings can come together with a sense of confidence.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the National Institutions Measure, passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent in the form in which the said Measure was laid before Parliament.

  Civic Amenities Sites (Northumberland)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
  9.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Atkinson: I am glad to be able to raise a matter of considerable concern to my constituents, and grateful to the Minister for being here to respond to my remarks, and those of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who may wish to take part in the debate. I realise that Thursday nights are not popular with Ministers who have to attend Adjournment debates, and I shall be as quick as I can.
  The background to the debate is a decision by Northumberland county council to close nine of its 15 civic amenities sites as a means of saving £400,000 a year. That decision will cause problems to residents of Northumberland, and it poses the threat of fly tipping to the landscape of a county that is one of the most beautiful in the United Kingdom. To ensure that my argument is fully understood, let me say that what we mean by "civic amenities sites" are the tips where people take rubbish in the back of their cars. They can dump large items of furniture, garden waste and other things that dustbin collectors will not take away.
  Northumberland decided on the cut as a panic measure following the Government's decision to loot the budgets of rural shire counties in England and Wales so that they could switch the money to suburban and urban areas. Despite denials from Ministers that that is so, the fact of that raid on the budgets of shire counties is confirmed by Unison in its newly published document, "Financing our future: putting the case for a fair deal for local councils", in which it lists 19 local authorities in crisis. Thirteen of them are rural shire counties, including Northumberland, which, unusually, is Labour-controlled.
  Before the election, the Labour party trumpeted its plans to attack the funding of Westminster and Wandsworth councils as part of its "soak the rich" policy, while at the same time planning this raid on rural shire counties. Northumberland was the worst victim of that. As it happened, despite the cuts in their budget, Westminster and Wandsworth both set the lowest council tax levels in this country. In fact, Wandsworth cut its council tax level by 25 per cent. It is illustrative to note that, in Wandsworth, people living in a band D house pay £322 a year—that is in an affluent part of Greater London—while in Northumberland, council tax payers in an equivalent band of house pay between £812 and £833, so one can see the difference.
  I could allow myself a certain wry smile at that because, in previous years, when the Conservatives were in government, every year that Northumberland county council received a rise well in excess of inflation, it used to complain that it was not enough. The local authority's public relations machine went into action to fill residents with horrors about cuts. I remember one local newspaper talking about all school meals being axed because of Conservative Government cuts. However, in the first year of this Government, Northumberland county council has received its worst-ever settlement—0·39 per cent., which was the worst of any local authority.
  Three issues emerge from this decision. The first is whether the action by Northumberland county council in closing the nine sites is illegal. If it is not illegal, it is

  597
  certainly against the spirit of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which says that civic amenity sites—tips—should be reasonably accessible to the people whom they are intended to serve.
  The second point that emerges is that there is no real saving, certainly not for council tax payers. Although the decision may clear £400,000 from Northumberland county council's budget, it adds costs to all the district authorities, which are now having to put in different schemes to avoid a rash of fly tipping throughout the county. The third important issue that emerges is that there is a difference of opinion between the Government and the Environment Agency. In the agency itself, there appears to be some confusion about the regulations that surround the manning and operation of civic amenity sites.
  Northumberland is a sparse county. It has a small population, which is widely scattered. For example, the closure of the civic amenity site at Haltwhistle means a round trip of 30 miles for people who live in that town to dump rubbish in the site at Hexham. In Allendale Town, it means a 20-mile round trip to dump rubbish. In West Woodburn, the area of the north Tyne, again, it means a further 20 miles. One of the larger settlements in my constituency, Ponteland, which has more than 11,000 inhabitants, has also lost its tip. That means that those people now face a round trip of around 15 miles to dump rubbish. How on earth can that be called "reasonably accessible", as required by the Environmental Protection Act?
  As a result of the closures, there has already been a rise in the amount of fly tipping in the county. In particular, farmers have complained that they are the ones who are having to pick up the bill for illegal tipping on their land.
  Local councils, particularly Tynedale district council in my constituency, are looking at alternative schemes to make good the shortfall that has been created by the county council. They have a system of putting amenity skips in parishes throughout their area, all of which will be costly to operate. Therefore, the county council's decision has simply transferred the cost from its budget to council tax payers through district council rates. Council tax payers are getting a double whammy out of this decision.
  I move to the third point: the difference between the Government and the Environment Agency on the question of how the tips are operated. One of the points that I made in a letter to the Minister when the decision was first announced, was that it seemed that the rules and regulations that apply to the manning of rural tips were excessive.
  For example, a tip such as the one that has been closed in Allendale should not require staffing every hour that it is open. It is a rural area in the north Pennines. The risk of vandalism or of dangerous chemicals being deposited must be low. The Minister gave some comfort in her letter to me in February that the Department was considering revising the guidance given to the Environment Agency about that but the agency subsequently said that it would under no circumstances allow any tip to be unmanned in any area. In a letter to me, it made it clear that it believes that there are risks in having unmanned tips.
  Citing the risks show how ridiculous they are when applied to rural areas. Tips could be set on fire. People could put engine oil, asbestos or lead acid batteries into
  598
  them if they were unsupervised. Sites could be subject to scavenging by totters. For sites in one of the most remote parts of the United Kingdom, the Allen valley, that is extraordinary.
  While in urban areas there could be such risks, in rural areas they would be minor. There would be a chance to catch any dangerous chemicals when the rubbish was resorted at the waste transfer station. There is a risk of car batteries being dumped into skips on civic amenity sites. It is better to take such a risk when the waste would end up in a properly designed landfill site than to risk allowing it to end up in a ditch or water course in a wood or behind a hedge. The confusion should be sorted out by the Minister. There should be scope for rural sites to have less frequent staffing. There are opportunities for video surveillance of sites. Physical barriers can be installed to stop trade waste being left by builders with lorries if there is a particular worry about that.
  Ironically, while the Environment Agency nationally says that it will not countenance such arrangements, locally, where it has to cope with the legacy of the problem, it has been running around advising my local council that it is all right to put amenity skips in rural villages which would be equally vulnerable to having illegal waste discharged into them. It suggests that parish councils should assist in policing skips to prevent abuse. It is ridiculous to expect parish councillors to stand guard over amenity skips while saying that fixed sites in other rural communities need to be staffed whenever they are open. The mere fact of staffing put up the cost to Northumberland county council and was one of the reasons why it decided to make the cut.
  I urge the Minister to intervene with Northumberland county council to point out that no one could say that a 30-mile round trip made a site reasonably accessible. I want her to put pressure on the Environment Agency to sort out the guidance and regulations that affect the manning and running of civic amenity sites. I want her to tell the Environment Agency to reconsider the possibility of allowing some rural sites to be unmanned for some of the week so that they are available for local people to use and the threat of dumping rubbish, litter and dangerous chemicals in the county of Northumberland is reduced.
  9.33 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) has secured this debate, and I agree with his plea for something to be done. I do not think that Northumberland county council realised what outrage would be engendered in the rural parts of the county by the closure of the tips. In Wooler and Seahouses, this has aroused more fury, and given rise to more campaigning, than almost any local issue I can remember for a long time—especially now that people are becoming ever more conscious of the environment.
  The distances involved for my constituents are even greater than those referred to by the hon. Member for Hexham. People going from the Wooler and Seahouses areas to Berwick face a 40-mile round trip, which does not constitute reasonable accessibility under the terms of the Act. They have to go to Berwick or a place south of Alnwick to find their facilities. That is too far to expect people to travel; every car journey involves the burning of fossil fuel, thereby adding to pollution of the environment. Fly tipping follows in the areas of the tips and elsewhere, and it is Berwick borough council and the district councils which have to pick up the costs.

  599
  The background to the problem concerns the financial position of the county council. The problems did not begin with the present Government; for the past seven years, the county has had adverse local government settlements—although the Labour leader of the county council has written to me pointing out that this year's settlement, from this Government, is the worst of any to date. I hope that the message will go back from Ministers dealing with those problems that Northumberland county council has been left in an unreasonable financial position.
  However, none of that excuses this decision, with all its consequences. When I suggested to the Minister some weeks ago that she try to help, she responded by saying that the Environment Agency should reconsider its approach to the manning of tips—that was her opinion expressed in a parliamentary answer. Since then, the agency has thrown out her suggestion, claiming that it could not contemplate such a change. In a letter to me, the agency stated that it would be unacceptable to have unmanned tips.
  I find this attitude obscurantist and mistaken. I am fortunate to live within half a mile of a waste transfer station. When I have bulky waste, it is not difficult to take it there, but when I go at weekends, I never see the man managing the tip, because he is busy inside the building sorting materials with his bulldozer. I just deposit my rubbish—paper, metals or whatever—in the appropriate receptacle. I do not see him, he does not see me. He is doing a useful job, but it is not necessary for him to be there the moment someone arrives at the site.
  There needs to be some flexibility in rural areas—some means of ensuring that facilities are not completely withdrawn just because it is impossible to provide a Rolls-Royce service in every remote community. The real problem is that people make decisions at their desks in London or Leeds on the basis of what works in urban areas, without considering what happens in rural areas.
  Now that the Environment Agency has thrown the idea back at the Minister, I must ask her what options she is going to encourage. I submit that the tips can be run unmanned, or manned only part time with supervision only at certain times of the day; or they could be opened only on certain days of the week.
  Our tips used to be scavenged by totters, who did quite a bit of constructive recycling. Indeed, more recycling was carried out by the totters than goes on under the more bureaucratic current arrangements—they had uses for many of the materials deposited. The only danger was that a person could tip a load into a skip without realising that there was someone else in it at the time—I have known that to happen. Still, they performed a useful recycling function.
  Another option is that the authority should develop the sites constructively with occasional manning, given the latitude to do so, and with more sorting and more recycling. People campaigning to get the tips reopened are keen to participate in a scheme that would increase the amount of recycling, thereby reducing the county's landfill bill. It would be far better if the tips were practically organised in a way suited to rural areas, and that ensured that more recyclable material was actually recycled and less went into landfill. That would result in the payment of less landfill tax.
  600
  I plead with the Minister to help us to persuade the county council to apply itself to a solution; to persuade the Environment Agency not to stand in the way; and to help us find an answer to what has become a very difficult problem.
  9.39 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Angela Eagle): I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate. The subject is clearly of great local concern and raises important issues.
  I shall begin by outlining the legislative background to the matter. A number of controls are in place to ensure that waste is managed safely and recovered or disposed of without harming human health or the environment. As the hon. Member for Hexham said, the main controls are set out in part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which fulfils the UK's obligations under the amended European framework directive on waste. As one can see from the date of the Act, those arrangements were formulated under the previous Administration.
  Under section 51 of the Act, the county council, as a waste disposal authority, has a duty to arrange
  "for places to be provided at which persons resident in the area may deposit their household waste"
  and to ensure that those so-called civic amenity sites are—as was mentioned in the debate—"reasonably accessible". Clearly, that means that they must be within the area of the authority responsible, be open at all reasonable times and be available for residents to deposit their waste free of charge. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether the council's action is legal, I have to tell him that the definition of reasonably accessible is a matter for the courts. He may want to pursue that.
  The Environment Agency is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the licensing system, and I have no reason to suspect that Northumberland county council is not fulfilling its statutory duty. However, as I said, the definition of reasonably accessible is crucial in that instance. The Act does not stipulate what is reasonable in terms of the number and location of civic amenity sites to be provided. That is quite properly a matter for the county council to determine, which the Government would not want rigidly to dictate at national level, partly because of the fact, which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned, that local circumstances can differ. It is difficult to make hard and fast rules that apply to every civic amenity site in every location, whether it is in an area of rural sparsity or the middle of a bustling urban conurbation. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that needs can vary in those different places.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will appreciate that neither I nor my Department has powers to intervene and dictate what is reasonable provision in any given area and would not want to do so. We therefore have no plans to issue guidance on the matter. I am sure that my Department could come to a view on the matter, but it would have no particular legal

  601
  force, since the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. We need to be wary of encouraging central Government to make such arbitrary rulings.
  I understand and have considerable sympathy with those bodies and individuals, including the hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who have written to my Department and the Environment Agency expressing concern about the possible effects of the closing of nine of the 15 local civic amenity sites that were being operated by Northumberland county council, such as the ones in Allendale, Wooler and Seahouses. However, I am informed that the remaining six still take over 15,000 tonnes of waste per annum, which is more than 50 per cent. of the total civic amenity site waste in the county and that the hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed each have two sites in their respective constituencies.
  The hon. Member for Hexham and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have pointed out some of the difficulties that closure of sites has caused people, particularly those in rural areas, in their constituencies and the area of the county council. I understand that the county council has met the district councils in the area with a view to determining how their collection services may be further utilised to ameliorate the effects of the closures. From those discussions, it has been confirmed that the closures are temporary, which may represent a little light at the end of the tunnel.
  The Environment Agency has already been understanding in its enforcement of the regulations, so I hope that the hon. Member for Hexham will realise that there is a little more flexibility than he might have imagined. Since the publication of statutory guidance in waste management paper 4 in 1994 regarding the operation of civic amenity sites, a phased programme to enforce compliance was agreed with Northumberland to facilitate the adjustment to the new regulatory demands.
  In addition, a number of options have been suggested by Environment Agency regional staff to assist Northumberland in the provision of civic amenity facilities sites. Those include charging for use by commercial customers to offset part of the cost of operating the site; part-time opening, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed suggested, to reduce operational costs; and the provision of amenity skips, which the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned in his contribution.
  I understand that the agency has written to Tynedale district council, for example, regarding the placing of publicly accessible amenity skips in each of its parishes. If certain precautionary measures are undertaken, the agency would allow such a scheme to proceed. Similarly, mobile collection vehicles could be provided, as they are in other rural areas.
  My Department and the Environment Agency are also considering the possibility of unstaffed civic amenity sites. Whatever the local office might have told the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, those are under consideration.
  602
  Current statutory guidance in waste management paper 4, to which the Environment Agency is required to have regard in the discharge of its licensing functions, states that
  "the licensee"—
  of civic amenity sites—
  "should have the site manned during opening hours".
  Recent consultation on the subject raised the question whether the particular needs of rural and remote areas make the cost of staffing civic amenity sites disproportionately high for small sites, and force their closure.
  There are still outstanding issues raised by the Environment Agency about possible public health implications arising from untended equipment, vandalism, arson and the disposal of potentially hazardous waste at such unmanned sites. Perhaps a car acid battery would not create a major problem, but asbestos might. Such issues require careful consideration, which the Environment Agency is undertaking.
  It may be possible, for example, to provide the agency with the discretion to license unmanned civic amenity sites in rural or remote areas where, in its view, the environment and public health could best be protected by the provision of such sites. That raises the question of balance, which the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned in relation to fly tipping. Aspects such as capacity and numbers of skips, the types of waste and the frequency of collection of waste would have to be taken into account.
  Before we proceed with any such revision, it is important that we are satisfied that its terms will provide adequate protection to the environment and human health. However, I am anxious to conclude the issue as quickly as possible, and we hope to make a final decision on any revision of waste management paper 4 soon.
  I understand the concern about possible increases in fly tipping. I can confirm that Northumberland county council and its contractor remain obligated under the waste management licence provisions for the closed sites and their environs. They must therefore deal with fly-tipped rubbish there. More generally, the responsibility for monitoring illegal tipping, clearance of the wastes involved and pursuing offenders lies with a number of organisations, including local authorities, the police and the Environment Agency.
  The Environment Agency is continuing to monitor the situation closely throughout the country, not just in Northumberland, and is working with local authorities to monitor and control fly tipping and prosecute offenders. An emergency hotline number, which I shall give the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen so that they can issue it to their constituents when the need arises—0800 607080—has been established and widely published so that vehicles and individuals involved in fly tipping can be reported.
  When the landfill tax was introduced, it was accepted that it would cause local authorities extra costs in the disposal of household waste. The hon. Member for Hexham will remember that, as the tax was introduced by the previous Administration, whom he supported.
  It is, however, important that councils should have the same encouragement as businesses to look for more sustainable ways of dealing with their waste—to look

  603
  at the whole life cycle issues of waste, not just deal with the initial problem. When the local government finance settlement for 1996–97 was made, the previous Administration claimed that the extra costs of the landfill tax had been "taken into account" in the settlement.
  In his March Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the landfill tax would be increased from £7 per tonne to £10 per tonne from April 1999. The delay in the increase is intended to allow local authorities and others to budget for the extra costs; clearly, discussions with local government on the financial settlement for 1999–2000 will need to cover the extra costs imposed by the tax.
  The hon. Member for Hexham will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment recently issued a consultation paper on the future waste strategy, entitled "Less Waste, More Value." In that, we floated suggestions for possible improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of current grant arrangements for local government waste management services. For example, we raised the idea of a possible change to a system whereby districts—as waste collection authorities—receive grant in support of waste management, and are charged by counties' waste disposal authorities on the basis of tonnage of waste delivered for disposal. Government encouragement for public-private partnerships is also available, for example, in the form of private finance initiative credits, and we shall consider how such investment, for example, in new recycling facilities, perhaps in supra-district facilities for the disposal of rubbish in a more environmentally sensitive way, could be developed. Hon. Members need to bear in mind the forthcoming landfill directive from the European Union, which will force a change in the way that rubbish is disposed of.
  604
  The consultation document makes it clear that we are concerned about the risk of increased waste transport. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was right to point out that there is an environmental cost when waste is transported long distances by road. Local authorities should think carefully about the full range of implications of their decisions on waste, not just the initial cost and the direct impact on the environment of waste disposal, but factors such as emissions from transport of waste in council lorries. "Less Waste, More Value" also recognises the importance of encouraging households to think carefully about what they throw out, and about how their patterns of consumption can lead to increased waste.
  One possible way of making households more aware of their environmental impact is to legislate to allow councils to charge for waste collection and disposal on the basis of the amount that each household throws out, instead of including the cost in the council tax, as at present. However, that type of scheme would work only if households had real alternatives for dealing with their waste—in particular, local recycling facilities, or even separate collection of recyclable materials.
  Of course we realise that recycling poses particular challenges in rural areas, and we are also interested in ideas such as scrap schemes, which are a slightly more organised version of the totter that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned.
  We need to look long and hard at any proposals for rural areas, to ensure that they are fair, especially for families with children and for poorer households. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham on obtaining tonight's debate, and I hope that I have been able to give him some reassurances on this especially worrisome issue.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ogden Tables
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps he proposes to take to require the courts to receive in evidence and apply the new edition of the Ogden Tables in personal injury and fatal accident cases. [45436]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Lord Chancellor will take note of the result of the appeals to the House of Lords in Wells v Wells, Thomas v Brighton Area Health Authority and Page v Sheerness Steel, and consult interested parties, before exercising any powers which may affect the calculation of awards in personal injury claims. I understand that the appeals have now been heard. It is expected that the outcome will be known in the near future.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received from Cumbria on his proposed reforms to legal aid. [45654]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since the announcement of these reforms in October last year we have received many hundreds of letters about the reforms and, more recently, some 238 responses to the consultation papers "Access to Justice with Conditional Fees". These letters and responses have not been recorded by the geographical location of the sender and this information could be obtained only disproportionate cost. However, it has been possible to establish that, since October last year, the hon. Gentleman has forwarded five letters about these reforms from organisations and individuals in his constituency to my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is his estimate of the cost to legal services of asylum seekers whose application has not been resolved in the last year for which figures are available. [45540]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information requested, in so far as it relates to costs to the legal aid fund, is not available, because this information is not recorded separately on the Legal Aid Board's computer database.

DEFENCE

  RAF Northolt
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received requesting an increase in commercial operations at RAF Northolt. [45708]

  Dr. Reid
  The Ministry of Defence has frequent contracts with established casual and regular civil users of RAF Northolt. In addition, since 2 May 1997, MOD has received specific unsolicited representations from the following business aviation users about utilising spare capacity at RAF Northolt:

  Heathrow Executive Jet Operators' Association

  Operational Support Services

  Magna

  Granada Group

  Servant Transport Consultants

  Glasgow Prestwick International

  Luftair Aviation

  Virgin Executive Jets.

  Most of these approaches were of a tentative nature. Only one explicitly mentions an increase in commercial operations at RAF Northolt over the limits currently in place.

  "Shaping the Future Together"
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to his Department of the production and distribution of the annual report on defence activity 1997–98 entitled "Shaping the Future Together". [46139]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Seventy-five thousand copies of the annual report on defence activity were produced at a cost of 21.53 pence per copy. Copies of the Report were distributed to all Members of Parliament and to Members of the House of Lords with a particular interest in defence issues. The report is available to members of the public on request from the MOD Directorate of Information Strategy and News and on the MOD Touring Exhibition which visits outdoor shows over the Summer. A number of copies have already been distributed to journalists and other members of the public at a cost of approximately £50 in postage.

  Prisoners of War
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the extent of the deductions made from the pay of protected personnel in enemy prisons during the Second World War; and what is his policy on compensation for those affected; [46195]

  (2) what representations he has received from Second World War protected personnel who had their pay deducted. [46193]
  265
  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) on 24 July 1997,Official Report, column 720 and to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) on 9 March 1998, Official Report, column 41.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of the anti-personnel landmines in the possession of United Kingdom armed forces have been destroyed since 1 May 1997. [46135]

  Mr. George Robertson
  438,727 anti-personnel landmines have been destroyed since 1 May 1997. This represents 45.6 per cent. of the total number of such landmines held by the UK.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he is taking to ensure that the landmines in the possession of the United Kingdom armed forces are destroyed before 2004 in accordance with the Ottawa Convention. [46136]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 8 June 1998,Official Report, columns 423–24.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Ms Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the financial relationship between the Ministry of Defence and National Air Traffic Services. [46444]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence and National Air Traffic Services Ltd. collaborate closely in the provision of air navigation services in United Kingdom airspace. Costs are shared, by agreement, broadly in proportion to the services supplied.

  Bulldog Training Aircraft
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Private Finance Initiative Project to replace the Bulldog training aircraft. [46914]

  Current armed forces awards

  Pre-October 1993

  Current non-combatant awards

  Level 1

  Victoria Cross

  George Cross

  Level 2

  Distinguished Service Order Gallantry Cross

  Conspicuous Conduct Distinguished Conduct Medal(for Army) Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (Flying) (for RAF)

  George Medal

  Level 3

  Distinguished Service Cross (for RN), Military Cross (for Army), Distinguished Flying Cross (for RAF)

  Distinguished Service Medal (for RN) Military Medal (for Army) Distinguished Flying Medal (for RAF)

  Queen's Gallantry Medal. Air Force Cross (for aircrew of RN, Army and RAF)

  [Air Force Medal—Pre October 1993] (for aircrew of RN, Army and RAF)

  Note:

  The pre-October 1993 awards were subsequently discontinued following a Joint Service Review of Honours and Awards
  266
  Dr. Reid
  I am pleased to announce that Bombardier Services has been selected as the preferred bidder for the Royal Air Force's planned Light Aircraft flying task contract. The contractor will supply Grob 115D aircraft. The aircraft will be owned and maintained by the contractor who will provide flying hours and support services to the University Air Squadrons and the Air Cadet Air Experience Flights at 13 locations across the UK.

  The planned contract will provide the RAF with a modern aircraft that is ideally suited to the training role it is required to perform. The aircraft is quieter and significantly cheaper to run than the aging Bulldog aircraft it will replace.

  The choice of aircraft was narrowed down to the Grob 115D and the Firefly M260. The Grob 115D better meets our particular requirements for the University Air Squadron and Air Cadet tasks and in particular its cockpit size and ergonomics offer a better teaching environment. Moreover, the Grob is quieter and operating costs are significantly less than the Firefly. Taking all factors into account it offers better value for money on this occasion.

  Subject to final negotiations, the contract is expected to result in savings in excess on £30 million over its ten-year life, compared with the cost of running-on the Bulldog. It is also cheaper than our assessment of the cost of a conventional procurement of a new aircraft fleet.

  The service is to be procured in line with the Private Finance Initiative, demonstrating the Government's strong resolve to achieve value for money in Defence support. Appropriate risks will rest with the contractor and the contract will contain suitable incentives to ensure the RAF receives a high quality service.

  Gallantry Medals
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many gallantry medals were awarded to members of Her Majesty's Forces serving in(a) the Falklands war, (b) the Gulf war and (c) peacekeeping operations in former Yugoslavia; and if he will list the class of gallantry medals awarded. [45394]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Awards for gallantry are published in the London Gazette, copies of which are placed automatically in the Library of the House. The first three levels of gallantry awards are recognised by the granting of a medal, and are as follows:
  267
  Gallantry Medals were awarded to Service personnel for service in the Falkland War, the Gulf War and the former Yugoslavia, as follows:

  The Falklands War

  Level 1

  Level 2

  Level 3

  Total

  RN/RM

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  15

  55

  70

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  3

  10

  13

  Army

  Armed Forces Awards

  2

  12

  38

  52

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  RAF

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  —

  6

  6

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  5

  5

  The Gulf War

  Level 1

  Level 2

  Level 3

  Total

  RN/RM

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  1

  10

  13

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Army

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  8

  26

  34

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  6

  6

  RAF

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  5

  13

  18

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  4

  4

  Former Yugoslavia (March 1992–December 1997)

  Level 1

  Level 2

  Level 3

  Total

  RN/RM

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  2

  2

  Army

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  9

  14

  23

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  13

  13

  RAF

  Armed Forces Awards

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Non-Combatant Awards

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Royal Armoured Corps
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the average manning levels as a percentage of peace-time establishment in(a) the regular Royal Armoured Corps as a whole and (b) the Second Royal Tank Regiment; and ho many (i) Territorials, including S type and (ii) regular reservists are included in those percentages. [45851]
  268
  Dr. Reid
  Average manning levels as a percentage of peace time establishment are 96 per cent. for the Royal Armoured Corps as a whole and 94 per cent. for the Second Royal Tank Regiment. 43 Territorial Army soldiers are currently serving in the Royal Armoured Corps. No Territorial Army or Regular Reservists are currently serving with the Second Royal Tank Regiment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  European Parliament
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reason she attended a question and answer session at the European Parliament on the Northern Ireland peace agreement. [45292]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I had the honour of addressing a special plenary session of the European Parliament which had been called to debate a resolution welcoming the Belfast Agreement. I took the opportunity to thank the Members for the positive contribution which the EU has made towards creating the climate necessary for the Agreement.

  Military Complaints Procedures
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she intends to lay before Parliament the annual report of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. [46724]

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she intends to lay before Parliament Mr. Jim McDonald's annual report as Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland. [46807]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I have today arranged for the Fifth Annual Report of the Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland to be placed in the Library of the House. I note that, following Mr. McDonald's first year in office, he is of the firm view that the complaints procedures and their operation continue to be given proper attention by the Army and, although there has been an increase in non-criminal complaints compared with the previous year, I am heartened that the Assessor concludes that this is at least in part a reflection of increased public confidence in the effectiveness of the complaints system.

  The report provides welcome reassurance to the Government and to the public that the Army's complaints procedures stand scrutiny.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how she intends to monitor the effects of the decision not to waive fourth-year fees for eligible Northern Irish students at Scottish institutions. [46298]

  Mr. Worthington
  We shall continue, as now, to monitor the number of applicants domiciled in Northern Ireland who apply for degree courses at Scottish institutions.

SCOTLAND

  Higher Education
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his policy on the future of the four-year honours degree at Scottish universities. [46296]

  Mr. Wilson
  It will continue to be for higher education providers to determine the length of course required for students to attain the standard of academic achievement appropriate to the award of an Honours degree. The Government support educationally worthwhile change and, in the context of lifeline learning and the proposed Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework, would expect institutions to make decisions on course length, and suitable entry/exit points, which reflect both the learning needs and prior attainment level of students, the changing requirements of employers and the need to maintain rigorous academic standards.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how he intends to monitor the effects of(a) the abolition of grants, (b) the introduction of tuition fees and (c) the decision not to waive fourth-year tuition fees for English, Welsh and Northern Irish students, on the (i) age, (ii) gender, (iii) domicile, (iv) ethnicity, (v) socio-economic background and (iv) total number of students at Scottish institutions. [46295]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Scottish Office regularly receives and publishes information on Scottish student award holders and on all students studying in Scottish higher education, including information on age, gender, domicile and total number of students. The Government are currently considering what further information can be collected and made available on ethnicity and socio-economic background.

  In addition, in response to the Garrick Report, the Government have asked the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council to provide advice on issues arising for higher education in Scotland including the implementation of the reforms, in consultation with all those who have an interest in education. The Scottish Office has also asked SHEFC to undertake a survey of access by different socio-economic groups in Scotland and to work with partners in developing a national strategy to widen access.

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what period of notice teacher training institutions in Scotland will be given before an inspection; and what reasons underlie the decision on the giving of notice. [46294]

  Mr. Wilson
  HM Inspectorate will be developing the framework for inspection of teacher education in consultation with interested parties. Details such as period of notice have not yet been addressed, but HM Inspectors' normal procedures for inspection provide for giving reasonable notice—usually at least nine weeks. I would expect the position to be similar for inspection of teacher education.

WALES

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) female and (b) male appointments he has made; and if he will make a statement. [44600]

  Mr. Ron Davies
  Since 1 May 1997, I have made 96 new appointments. Of these, 36 were women and 60 men. I have also approved the re-appointments of existing members (23 women and 79 men) where they met the criteria.

  The proportion of women in public appointments in Wales has risen from 26 per cent. in December 1997 to 29 per cent. in June 1998. We are making progress but I am not complacent. I have pledged to redouble our efforts to encourage more women to come forward so that I can balance, wherever possible, the numbers of men and women appointed.

  Chernobyl
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what areas of Wales remain contaminated by radioactivity as a result of the Chernobyl disaster; and how many sheep are affected. [45757]

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  The area of land under restriction in North Wales as a result of the Chernobyl accident is now approximately 530 square kilometres (131,000 acres) and about 180,000 sheep are affected. These restrictions cover areas within the Unitary Authorities of Gwynedd, Conwy and Powys.

TREASURY

  Foreign Earnings Deductions
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the abolition of foreign earnings deduction announced in the Budget on(a) companies employing British subjects overseas and (b) the competitiveness of British consultants working overseas. [40484]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In reaching the decision to end the general foreign earnings deduction, full consideration was given to all likely practical consequences. It would, however, be wholly misleading to look at one aspect of tax in isolation. The Government believe the best way to support business is by generating a stable economic environment and through broadly based relief.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to UK aid agencies of the proposed changes to the foreign earnings deduction regulations announced in the Budget. [40918]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Based on information provided by the agencies, any such cost will be very low. There are a number of measures built into the tax system which are designed to provide support for charities. Foreign earnings deduction (FED) was not one of these. The majority of aid agency employees abroad will not be UK resident for tax purposes and so will be unaffected by the FED changes.
  271
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the foreign earnings deduction regulations announced in the Budget on the UK staff of overseas aid agencies who are employed on contracts overseas. [40917]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Most aid agency employees working abroad will not be UK resident for tax purposes and so will be unaffected by the FED changes. The small number of aid agency employees affected by the FED changes will be left in a position similar to that of other UK resident charity employees, and new relief will be available to them for travel and accommodation.

  Savings and Investments
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to adopt proposals by the European Commission for a minimum tax on income from savings and investments; and what other measures of tax harmonisation are being considered. [43746]

  Dawn Primarolo
  We support international co-operation in taking effective action against tax evasion in a way which does not damage EU financial markets. We shall be studying the draft directive carefully and consulting on its implications.

  A draft directive on cross-border payments of interest and royalties between associated companies is also under consideration.

  Budget Measures
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend Table 1.3 in the 1998 Financial Statement and Budget report entitled, "The Budget Measures", to each of the tax years 2001–02 indexed and 2002–03 indexed. [43987]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]The effects of Budget tax and spending measures are reflected in the fiscal projections set out in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" (HC620). However, the cost of individual Budget measures on an indexed base shown in Tables 1.3 and C.1 are not routinely estimated beyond 2000–01 and any estimates would become increasingly speculative in later years. For measures where revenue effects are expected to be substantially different from those in Tables 1.3 and C.1, information is already published in FSBR appendix C.1; other estimates would be disproportionately costly.

  EU Code of Conduct Group
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the(a) dates and (b) venues of future meetings of the European Union Code of Conduct Group. [43573]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]Given that paragraph 12 of the Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998 states that the Council"agrees that the work of the Code of Conduct group shall be confidential",

  the Government cannot give the dates and venues of meetings. However, paragraph 10 of the same conclusions provide that
  "the Group shall meet not less than twice a year".
  272
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list and place in the Library copies of papers and reports prepared for forthcoming meetings of the European Union Code of Conduct Group; [43574]

  (2) if he will list the subjects for discussion at the next meeting of the European Union Code of Conduct Group. [43571]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 1 June 1998]Paragraph 12 of the Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998 states that the Council"agrees that the work of the Code of Conduct Group shall be confidential".
  The Government are not, therefore, at liberty to place papers before the Group in the Library of the House, or to comment on the issues for discussion. However, the Government will place in the Library reports from the Group to the Council which are published, and inter-institutional Communications on harmful tax competition will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way.

  Post Office
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the total payments received by the Treasury from the Post Office (a) in corporation tax and (b) under the external finance limit, in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the amounts the Treasury will receive in this and the following two financial years. [44677]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  Payments received for corporation tax and contributions via the external financing limit (EFL) are shown in the table for each of the last 10 years. No Government estimates of future corporation tax revenue for individual bodies are made. The Post Office's EFL for 1998–99 is £-335 million, before any adjustment resulting from end-year flexibility. The Post Office's financial regime for the two following years is under discussion in the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Post Office review.

  £ million

  Contribution via EFL

  Contribution via corporation tax

  1988–89

  102

  52

  1989–90

  102

  42

  1990–91

  0

  71

  1991–92

  74

  69

  1992–93

  80

  84

  1993–94

  182

  81

  1994–95

  235

  103

  1995–96

  245

  150

  1996–97

  285

  145

  1997–98

  1338

  215

  1Provisional outturn

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Post Office operates under the same public sector borrowing requirement rules as its EU equivalents. [44678]

  Mr. Geoffrey Robinson
  As long as the Post Office remains in the public sector the Government will need to ensure that there are adequate controls on its borrowing in order to protect the taxpayer's interests. Control is
  273
  currently exercised via the external financing limit rather than public sector net borrowing. A variety of different arrangements apply in other EU countries.

  Tax Demands
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions the Inland Revenue has sent out under the self-assessment initiative(a) more than one demand to the same person, (b) demands where no tax was due, (c) demands containing computational error and (d) penalty notices to taxpayers who filed in time. [44949]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Under self-assessment, the Inland Revenue issues taxpayers with Statements of Account (not demands) which are a statement of the individual's tax position and include a payslip to enable the taxpayer to make payment if one is due. It is therefore possible that a taxpayer would receive a statement of account showing no tax to pay.

  The Management Information System for Self Assessment, whilst recording the number of Statements of Account issued, does not record whether more than one had been issued to the same person or whether any have been issued containing computational errors. Nor does it record the number of penalty notices issued to taxpayers who filed on time but the Inland Revenue do know that some penalties were incorrectly issued where returns were not recorded as received. Incorrect penalty notices will of course be cancelled.

  The Inland Revenue will, in the second year of live service for self-assessment, be looking at improved guidance to staff and the development of quality monitoring processes to ensure continued improvement to a system that has performed well in its first year.

  Propane (Vehicle Fuel)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax incentives exist to encourage the use of propane as a vehicle fuel; if he will extend tax incentives to encourage propane use; and if he will make a statement. [45128]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This year the duty on road fuel gases (liquefied petroleum gas (propane) and liquefied natural gas (methane)) has been frozen for the second Budget in succession. This has increased the differential in favour of road fuel gases in recognition of their environmental benefit and more than fulfilled the pledge to maintain the duty differential with more conventional fuels for the lifetime of this Parliament.

  Duty rates on the main road fuels are now as follows:

  Road fuel gas: 21.13 pence per kg (approximately 2 litres)

  Ultra low sulphur diesel: 42.99 pence per litre

  Unleaded petrol: 43.99 pence per litre

  Conventional diesel: 44.99 pence per litre

  Super unleaded petrol: 48.76 pence per litre.

  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. As a further incentive to use road fuel gas, the cost of converting a vehicle to run on gas will not be taken into account when calculating any income tax car benefit change.

  Diesel Duties
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenues which will be obtained by the Treasury under the new definition of ultra-low sulphur diesel in the Finance (No. 2) Bill; and how this compares with the revenues that would be received if no changes were made. [45300]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The decision to change the definition of ultra-low sulphur diesel was made solely for environmental reasons. No separate estimate was made of the revenue effect. It was assumed that the effect on ULSD clearances of the new definition would be broadly offset by the increased demand for ULSD created by simultaneously widening the duty differential with conventional diesel from 1 to 2 per litre.

  Duty Free
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what circumstances United Kingdom ferries will be able to sell duty free after 1999. [45661]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission has set out in a working document its view, based on interpretation of Community law, of the arrangements which should apply to sales on board ships following the abolition of intra-EU duty-free sales after 30 June 1999. They express the view that (i) duty-free sales of goods to be carried away will be allowed only on journeys which touch the territory of third countries; (ii) duty-free sales of goods to be carried away will not be allowed on voyages directly between Community ports—even if part of a ship's voyage is in international waters; and (iii) duty-free sales of goods for consumption on board will continue to be governed by the national provisions of member states until the Council adopts Community provisions on stores for boats and aircraft. Commission chaired discussions at official level are now underway in Brussels to work out the detail of these proposals.

  Smugglers' Vehicles
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the value and number of the vehicles confiscated from smugglers and bootleggers of tobacco and alcohol in each financial year since 1994; and how the vehicles have been disposed of. [45789]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that figures on the value of these seized vehicles are not available.

  In the past four financial years, Customs seized the following numbers of vehicles used in the carriage of smuggled alcohol and tobacco:

  1994–95: 600

  1995–96: 1,446

  1996–97: 2,002

  1997–98: 2,929.

  Most vehicles seized are restored upon payment of a fee. In cases where restoration is not appropriate, vehicles are sold at auction or for scrap at their trade-in value; a small number may also be appropriated by Customs for operational use.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what differences there have been in the types and characteristics of vehicles confiscated from smugglers
  275
  and bootleggers of tobacco and alcohol during the last year compared with those confiscated in previous years; and if he will make a statement. [45788]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I regret that no central record on the types and characteristics of vehicles seized from excise smugglers is kept by Customs.

  Alcohol Duty
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on Treasury revenues of a reduction in beer duty of 10 per cent. [46047]

  Dawn Primarolo
  HM Customs and Excise estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer in a full year through a 10 per cent. reduction in the level of excise duty for beer is £335 million.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the effect on revenues of each 10 per cent. reduction of tax on wine, beers and spirits. [45958]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]HM Customs and Excise estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer in a full year through a 10 per cent. reduction in the level of excise duty for each of the product types set out is as follows:

  Wine: £110 million

  Beers: £335 million

  Spirits: £80 million.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans has he made to equalise the tax on wines and spirits following the abolition of duty free. [45956]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]The Chancellor keeps duty rates under regular review. The abolition of intra-EU duty free sales from 30 June 1999 is unlikely to raise any new policy considerations.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the duty lost through smuggling of wines and spirits from the Continent to United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [45957]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]:HM Customs and Excise estimate of the revenue lost to the Exchequer through cross-channel smuggling of wines and spirits in 1997 is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Product type

  Excise duty

  VAT

  Total

  Wines

  35

  15

  50

  Spirits

  20

  5

  25

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been independently rounded to £5 million

  2. Figures for estimates revenue losses use Customs assumptions that 70-80 per cent. of smuggled alcoholic drinks substitute for similar purchases in the UK.

  The above estimates exclude any amounts for revenue lost on wines and spirits involved in commercial fraud or smuggling in freight consignments. There are no official estimates for the extent of these activities.

  Tax Collection
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual cost of collecting income tax in each of the five tax years prior to the introduction of self-assessment; and what was the estimated cost in the first year of self-assessment. [45341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The annual cost of collecting income tax in each of the years referred to in the question was as follows (all figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million):

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98 (first year of SA)

  1,030

  1996–97

  960

  1995–96

  1,000

  1994–95

  1,020

  1993–94

  1,030

  1992–93

  1,070

  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff were employed in collecting income tax in each of the five tax years prior to the introduction of self-assessment; and what was the number in the first year of self-assessment. [45342]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The number of staff employed in collecting income tax in each of the years referred to in the question was as follows (all figures are rounded to the nearest 100):

  Man years

  1997–98 (first year of SA)

  37,200

  1996–97

  38,800

  1995–96

  41,000

  1994–95

  43,900

  1993–94

  44,700

  1992–93

  47,000

  Frozen Assets (Iraq)
  Mr. Derek Twigg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning applications for the release of Iraqi frozen assets to cover legal fees. [46915]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Since 29 October 1997, any application for Iraqi frozen assets to be released to cover legal fees has had to be considered by Ministers. In the taking of decisions, there is a presumption against the release of the assets.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  West Coast Main Line
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received about the upgrade of the West Coast Mainline from rail users in Northampton. [45317]
  277
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The West Coast Main Line remains a high profile rail infrastructure project which attracts a high level of public interest. On 7 April, I met a delegation from Northampton to discuss service issues for Northampton. As part of the consultation process I understand that the Rail Regulator consulted both local authorities (County and District) and the RUCCs on the WCML upgrade.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation there has been with rail users in Northampton over the proposed upgrade of the West Coast Mainline agreed by the Rail Regulator. [45318]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I understand that the Rail Regulator consulted both local authorities (county and district) and the Rail Users Consultative Committees on the West Coast Main Line upgrade.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact on Northampton's train services of the West Coast Mainline upgrade agreed by the Rail Regulator. [45320]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director has considered the impact of the PUG2 scheme when completed for services between London and Northampton. He has satisfied himself that Railtrack will be able to maintain the existing journey times for peak services, and also maintain the current number of such services. The Regulator has taken this advice into account in approving the PUG2 agreement.

  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what access trains serving Northampton will have to the fast lines on the West Coast Mainline following the upgrade agreed by the Rail Regulator. [45319]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Railtrack has indicated that it will be able to maintain the existing journey times for the fast peak Northampton services which currently use fast lines.

  In addition, the upgrade will provide for some spare capacity on the fast lines for operators other than Virgin, which could potentially include faster services via Northampton.

  Rural Development and Countryside Commissions
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the projected public expenditure settlement for(a) the Rural Development Commission and (b) the Countryside Commission for each of the next two years. [45667]

  Mr. Meacher
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 27 March 1998,Official Report, columns 289-91, that the Countryside Commission will merge on 1 April 1999 with that part of the Rural Development Commission which is not to be incorporated into the Regional Development Agencies.
  278
  Spending plans for the rest of the Parliament will be announced as part of the outcome of the Comprehensive Spending Review which will be reported to Parliament before the summer recess. Detailed plans for individual programmes will follow.

  New Zealand Flatworm
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to limit the damage caused by the New Zealand flatworm. [45665]

  Angela Eagle
  The New Zealand flatworm was added to Part 1 of Schedule 9 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on 17 March 1992, making it an offence to release or allow it to escape into the wild. In 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued a `Code of Practice to Prevent the Spread of Non-Indigenous Flatworms' and an identification guide. The status of this species continues to be monitored.

  Local Agenda 21
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many local authorities have(a) promoted local air quality schemes and (b) published information on the implementation of local Agenda 21 schemes; and if he will make a statement. [45521]

  Angela Eagle
  Information about the number of local authorities which have promoted local air quality schemes is not held centrally.

  The new Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) system, however, came into effect at the end of December 1997. Under this system, district and unitary local authorities are currently reviewing the quality of the air within their area and assessing it against statutory objectives in the UK National Air Quality Strategy for seven key pollutants.

  Localities must be designated Air Quality Management Areas where the review and assessment shows that national measures will not ensure that an objective (or objectives) are likely to be achieved by the end of 2005. The relevant local authority must then prepare an action plan in pursuit of the objective(s).

  The LAQM guidance which the Government have published to assist local authorities is listed in Environment Circular 15/97 (Welsh Office Circular 63/97) and is available in the Library.

  The Local Government Management Board (LGMB) monitors progress by local authorities in adopting and implementing Local Agenda 21 strategies. "Local Agenda 21 in the UK-the first five years" published by the LGMB in July 1997 showed that 55 per cent. of UK authorities were in the process of putting a Local Agenda 21 strategy in place. In July this year, the LGMB will be publishing the results of a new survey of local authorities undertaken in April. This will indicate the number of authorities which have now published Local Agenda 21 strategies and how close we are towards meeting the Prime Minister's target that all local authorities should have a strategy in place by the year 2000.

  Rented Accommodation
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a system of guarantees on deposits for rented accommodation. [45799]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government 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 these 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.

  My Department's Housing Investment Programme guidance encourages local housing authorities to consent setting up rent and deposit guarantee schemes where tenants on low incomes have difficulty gaining access to private rented accommodation. These schemes provide a guarantee to the landlord to cover unpaid rent or the cost of damage to the property where the tenant cannot afford to pay a deposit. Over 100 local authorities now operate schemes and schemes are also run by voluntary bodies. The Department provides funding under section 180 of the Housing Act 1996 to voluntary organisations setting up such schemes and is also part funding a project by CRISIS called SmartMove, which aims to develop a network of voluntary schemes in partnership with local authorities in areas with significant levels of homelessness.

  Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if regional development agencies will be required to consider housing demand and need as part of their regeneration strategies. [46013]

  Angela Eagle
  The main vehicle for considering regional housing demand, and for planning for its provision, will continue to be Regional Planning Guidance (RPG). Regional Development Agencies will need to have regard to RPG, and to development plans, in formulating their regional economic strategies and in carrying out their regeneration functions.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the regional housing statement currently being drawn up by Government offices of the regions and regional offices of the Housing Corporation will be coordinated with the formulated strategy and activities of relevant RDAs. [45955]

  Angela Eagle
  The regional housing statements produced by some Government Offices for the first time in 1998, in association with the Housing Corporation and other regional partners, are intended to supplement national guidance to local authorities on Housing Investment Programmes, by highlighting issues specific to individual regions. We are assessing their value and considering whether to extend them to all regions. If they are produced for future years, they will need to take account of the work of RDAs, and where appropriate, of RDA's regional strategies.

  Packaging Waste
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the reports on the review of the Producers Responsibility Obligation (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. [46106]

  Angela Eagle
  The recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Packaging following its review of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 are expected very shortly. As soon as they are submitted, a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Once Ministers have considered all the issues, a consultation paper setting out any proposals for amendments to the Regulations will be published as soon as possible.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 1 June 1998,Official Report, column 6, under what statutory authority the holder of a consent to conduct experimental trials concerning genetically modified seeds under the deliberate release regulations may delegate third parties to conduct releases on their behalf. [46207]

  Angela Eagle
  Under the Genetically Modified (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992 (as amended in 1995 and 1997), the consent holder is authorised by the Secretary of State to conduct trials in accordance with the conditions of the consent. Therefore, if the consent imposes conditions which permit or require that the trial be carried out by a third party, the consent holder is authorised by the Secretary of State to carry out the trial in this way. In all cases, the consent holder is legally responsible for ensuring that the trial is carried out in accordance with the conditions and limitations of their consent.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1998,Official Report, column 418, if he will make a statement on the locations, references, holders and dates of, and the crops and the modified traits covered by, the release consents for (a) the site of 494 acres and (b) the commercial seed production site covering 17.5 acres. [46206]

  Angela Eagle
  (a) the consent holder for the release covering 494 acres is John K. Kings and Sons Ltd., reference number 98/R28/3. Consent for this release was granted on 17 March 1998, and is for oilseed rape modified for increased lauric acid production. The applicant has consent to release this material from 1 March 1998 to 1 November 2000. The total area covered by this release is not more than 200ha (494 acres), and is proposed to take place at 15 sites. This release is currently taking place at the following sites—

  Whitehouse, Newcastle, Monmouthshire, (18.14ha)

  Painslack Farm, Wetwang, East Yorkshire, (10.93ha)

  Littledean Farm, Ayton, Eyemouth, Berwickshire, (13.92ha)

  Awbridge Farm, Union Lane, Tryscull, Wolverhampton, (17.00ha)

  Tythope Park, Kingsey, Thame, Buckinghamshire, (13.94ha)

  Manor Farm, Crux Easton, Newbury, Hampshire, (12.12ha)

  281

  Bussey Stool Farm, Tarrant, Gunville, Blandford, Dorset, (12.14ha)

  Hall Farm, Toftrees, Fakenham, Norfolk, (10.94ha)

  Fenton Barns, North Berwick, East Lothian, (17.40ha)

  Norcote Hall Farm, Northchurch, Berkampsted, Hertfordshire, (37.51 ha)

  Hunsley Hall, High Hunsley, Cottingham, East Yorkshire. (6.07ha)

  Dunkirk Park, Bridge of Earn, Perth, (10.88ha)

  Total area 181ha

  (b) the consent holder for the release covering 17.5 acres for commercial seed production is Plant Genetic Systems, reference number 94/M1/1. Marketing consent was granted for this crop on 28 February 1996 under EU Directive 90/220/EEC. As such the applicant is not required to inform the DETR where the GM material is planted. However, the conditions of the marketing consent were for commercial seed production only, and the GM material cannot therefore enter the food or feed chain. Consent for this has not yet been issued by the French Competent Authority. The crop is a hybrid oilseed rape consisting of three different modified lines: a male sterile line, a fertility restoration line, and a combination of both lines expressing restored fertility.

  Open Government
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to paragraph 2.19 of his Department's annual report, what was the nature of the four requests made to his Department under the Code of Practice on Open Government in the past year which were refused. [45872]

  Angela Eagle
  The four requests made under the Code of Practice on Open Government which were refused by my Department in 1997 were:

  a. A request for details of submission made by the Commission for the New Towns to the Department to dispose of a site in Milton Keynes to a private developer.

  b. A request for details of a Ministerial Direction relating to a scheme of redress for those who had experienced exceptional hardship from generalised blight as a result of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link before the final route was fixed.

  c. A request for information on the A5036(T) road scheme identification study.

  d. A request for a list of Ministerial Directions to accounting officers made since 1990.

  Motorcycles
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to review the regulations and law affecting learner motorcycle riders. [46189]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We will shortly be issuing a consultation paper to obtain views on the duration of provisional motorcycle licences. In addition, we will be considering, as part of the work on the new road safety strategy and targets, what further measures might be necessary to increase the safety of learner motorcyclists.

  Biodiversity
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has evaluated to maintain the current level of biodiversity. [46227]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The UK Biodiversity Action Plan and UK Biodiversity Steering Group Report contain the measures aimed at maintaining and enhancing biodiversity within the UK. Principal among these measures is the development of costed action plans for priority species and habitats. Some 116 species and 14 habitat action plans were published as part of the Steering Group report and are now being implemented. A further 56 species action plans were published on 2 June and copies are available in the Library. It is expected that by the end of the year over 400 species and 38 habitat action plans will have been published.

  Sewerage
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what is the Government's policy on the draft water industry specifications for plastic sewage pipes; and what representations they have made on this matter; [45194]

  (2) what discussions have taken place between his Department and the water companies on the draft water industry specifications for plastic sewage pipes; [45195]

  (3) what representations his Department has received on the draft water industry specifications for plastic sewage pipes; [45196]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]My Department has received 33 letters on the draft water industry specifications for plastic sewage pipes. Such specifications are matters for the sewerage undertakers, and my Department has not commented on them nor had any discussions with the undertakers.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the British Standards Institute will be consulting on Part 1 for a European standard for plastic piping systems for structured wall non-pressure underground drainage and sewerage systems. [45197]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The European Standard is currently being considered by the European Committee for Standardisation. I understand that it will be distributed for comment later in the year at which point the British Standards Institution will consult relevant parties.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many water companies have been prosecuted for polluting groundwater with sewage for each year since 1990. [45198]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]Environment Agency records show that there have been no such prosecutions.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the Environment Agency has to prosecute water companies for polluting groundwater with sewage. [45199]
  283
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]It is an offence under section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to cause or knowingly permit any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter or any solid waste matter to enter any controlled waters (including groundwater). The Environment Agency may bring a prosecution for this offence under section 85.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the Environment Agency monitors sewage leaking into groundwater. [45200]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]Most data on general groundwater quality are obtained from water companies' and private industrial and agricultural abstractions. The Environment Agency also monitors specific sites where it believes there is potential for pollution but does not monitor specifically for the effects of sewage leakage.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action the Environment Agency is able to take against jetting contractors who damage sewage pipes with high-pressure water jetting. [45201]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]If pollution were to occur as a result of a contractor damaging sewage pipes, the sewerage undertaker would be liable. Any prosecution by the Environment Agency would be in line with section 85 of the Water Resources Act 1991. Enforcement action could be taken against the contractor or the sewerage undertaker depending upon the evidence available.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how his Department measures leakage from small holes in underground sewer pipes. [45202]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The Department does not measure leakage from sewers. Under section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakers are responsible for the effectual drainage of their area and for maintaining their pipework.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the current targets for reduction in leakage from sewer pipes; and how these are measured. [45203]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]No targets have been set in relation to leakage from sewer pipes.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how his Department monitors the effectiveness of the code of practice for removing blockages in sewer pipes which limits the pressure of the cleaning jet. [45204]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]The code of practice for removing blockages in sewer pipes which limits the pressure of the cleaning jet was produced on a voluntary basis by the manufacturers. As such, the Department does not monitor its effectiveness. It would be for the sewerage undertaker to specify compliance with a code of practice in any contract with contractors.
  284
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has conducted into the damage done to thin-walled plastic sewer pipes from the use of high pressure water jets to remove blockages; and what account his Department has taken of the extent to which recent design changes in jets prevent damage to the pipes. [45205]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]My Department has not undertaken any research into this area, which is the responsibility of the sewerage undertakers.

  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has evaluated into the infiltration of groundwater into sewer pipes and its impact upon the working of the sewer network. [45206]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]My Department has not undertaken any research on this issue. I understand that UK Water Industry Research Limited (UKWIR) are carrying out research on behalf of Water UK into infiltration into and exfiltration from sewers, the results of which are expected by April 1999.

  Recycled Plastics
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to develop and promote research into and incentives for the recycling of plastics. [45987]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]We are committed to an increased level of recycling, and are currently reviewing our national waste strategy. This is aimed at reducing the amount of waste produced and ensuring its environmentally sound management. The recycling of plastics will be covered by the new strategy.

  We have held discussions with a number of organisations involved in plastics recycling to ascertain what further measures can be taken by both industry and Government to increase recycling.

  Plastics constitutes a significant proportion of packaging waste. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 aim to double the amount of packaging waste (including plastics) recovered to around 50 per cent. by 2001. The Regulations also impose a material-specific recycling target of 16 per cent. for each packaging material — including plastic packaging—to be achieved by 2001.

  Diabetic Drivers
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the discussions he has had with the British Diabetics Association concerning driving licences for diabetics. [46281]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]My noble Friend the Minister for Roads met representatives of the British Diabetic Association in February to learn at first hand their concerns about the legislation preventing insulin-treated diabetes sufferers from driving medium-sized lorries and minibuses. She undertook to consider the review of medical evidence which they presented. The Department's Advisory Panel on Diabetes and Driving examined this and other
  285
  evidence, in the light of which they recommended a limited modification to the present restrictions. The Government are currently consulting on a proposal which would allow, subject to meeting the qualifying criteria and stringent annual medical checks, those who have driven medium-sized lorries to renew that entitlement.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what plans he has to reduce liquid discharges from the Sellafield plant; [45866]

  (2) what account the Environment Agency is taking of the levels of technetium 99 in (a) seaweed and (b) lobsters in the Solway Firth in setting discharge authorisation levels for the Sellafield plant; [45867]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the relationship between current levels of radiation from technetium 99 in the Solway Firth and EU intervention levels; [45868]

  (4) what steps he intends to take to reduce radiation levels arising from technetium 99 in the Solway Firth. [45869]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]The Environment Agency is currently considering the responses received from a recent public consultation into the application by British Nuclear Fuels plc (BNFL) for variations to the discharge authorisations for the Sellafield site. In determining these applications, all relevant factors will be taken into account. We have reiterated to the Environment Agency that we wish to see progressive reductions in discharges and discharge limits at Sellafield, and this includes technetium-99. The Agency has proposed substantial reductions in the discharge limits for technetium-99 and a legal requirement on BNFL to develop abatement technology for this radionuclide. A number of requests have been made for the Secretary of State to call the applications in for his own determination. These requests are under consideration.

  Community Food Intervention Levels are intended for use only in the event of a nuclear accident or emergency when the health impacts may be very uncertain.

  Dolby Stereo (Cinemas)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will examine the aural safety of the Dolby stereo system, used in cinemas. [44988]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]I am advised that the Health and Safety Executive is not aware of any aural safety implications of the Dolby stereo system.

  Moorside Drift Mine
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement about the fatal accident at the Moorside Drift Mine, Eckington, Derbyshire, on 4 June. [45056]

  Angela Eagle
  I am saddened to hear of the accident at Eckington and would like to take this opportunity to extend my sympathy to the families of the two men who were killed.
  286
  An investigation into the accident is currently being carried out by the Health and Safety Executive's Mines Inspectorate. I will write to my hon. Friend when the investigation has been completed.

  Throckmorton Airfield
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letter of 5 March from the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire about the planning status of Throckmorton Airfield. [46465]

  Mr. Caborn
  I signed a reply to the hon. Member's letter some time ago, but it has clearly gone astray. I can only apologise and I sent a further copy yesterday.

  Coalfield Taskforce Report
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he intends to publish the Coalfield Taskforce's report. [46104]

  Mr. Prescott
  I warmly welcome the publication today of the Coalfields Taskforce's excellent report "Making the Difference: A New Start for England's Coalfield Communities". Copies of the report will be placed in the House Library.

  Last year, I gave a commitment to help regenerate communities devastated by pit closures. I wanted to ensure that every option open to us was explored so that those communities could get the help and support that they need and deserve. That is why I set up the Coalfields Taskforce last October, under the chairmanship of Paula Hay-Plumb. I want to thank Paula and her team for their hard work and dedication in producing their excellent report.

  The taskforce's report is comprehensive in its approach. It includes many promising practical proposals. I want to ensure that our response is equally comprehensive, and that careful consideration is given to the detail of all the recommendations. I will give our initial response at the conference to be held at Ollerton Miners Welfare, North Nottinghamshire on Monday 13 July. I will announce a detailed programme of action for the former coalfield communities in the Autumn.

  We all agree that we must redress the decline of our former coalfields communities. Government cannot do this alone. All partners—central and local government, the voluntary and private sectors, and the communities themselves—must make a firm long term commitment if we are to make the difference.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions his Department is taking to ensure protection of(a) existing sites of special scientific interest and (b) potential sites. [46696]

  Angela Eagle
  The Government are currently considering how best to improve the protection and management of Sites of Special Scientific Interest. This will involve examining the powers available to English
  287
  Nature, who are responsible for notifying potential sites. Officials are preparing a consultation paper seeking views.

  Water Abstraction
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what changes he proposes to make to the water abstraction licensing system in England and Wales. [46985]

  Mr. Meacher
  Together with the Welsh Office, my Department has prepared a consultation paper, setting out a wide range of proposals which will ensure that abstraction licensing and related arrangements in England and Wales provide full protection to the water environment while enabling fair and flexible measures for meeting properly managed demand for water resources. I shall place copies in the Library of the House tomorrow morning, coincident with the paper's publication.

  Private Coach Hire Companies
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will review the operation of the tour operators margin scheme in respect of private coach hire companies. [45456]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  HM Customs and Excise last reviewed the Tour Operators Margin Scheme in 1996 and undertook a comprehensive consultation exercise. Coach operators contributed to the review and full account was taken of their representations. Progress on implementing certain of the recommendations of the review has been constrained by EC law, but a case currently before the European Court of Justice may clarify further the legal interpretation. In the light of the outcome Customs will look again at the possibility of simplified treatment for businesses such as private coach hire companies.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Development Assistance
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what official development assistance was provided by the United Kingdom in 1997 as a percentage of gross national product; and how this compares with the performance of other members of OECD's Development Assistance Committee. [46808]

  Clare Short
  Precise figures are still to be calculated but the UK's expenditure on official development assistance in 1997 is estimated to have been £2,058 million, representing 0.26 per cent. of GNP. This is slightly lower than the 1996 figure of 0.27 per cent. The UK was the fifth largest bilateral aid donor in 1997 in volume terms. The average for all OECD DAC Member Countries in 1997 was 0.22 per cent. of GNP, its lowest ever level. The average for the European Union was 0.33 per cent. of GNP. These figures exclude financial flows to countries in transition in central and eastern Europe and more advanced developing countries as defined in the Development Assistance Committee list of aid recipients.
  288
  There is a clear need for more investment in developing countries to tackle poverty and social exclusion. This government are committed to playing their part, including by reversing the decline in UK development assistance as we promised in the manifesto.

  World Bank
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to what extent the objectives laid down by the donors for IDA 11 have been realised by the World bank. [44929]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The IDA 11 deputies' report—laid in the Libraries of both Houses in February 1998—sets out over 20 areas of action on a range of policy issues, e.g. covering efforts to strengthen the performance-based allocation of the International Development Association (IDA); improving the World bank's country assistance strategy process; encouraging the participation of affected people and non-governmental organisations, and the completion of poverty assessments. Important progress has been made in a number of these policy areas including improvements to the quality and coverage of poverty and environmental assessments, and overall improvements to the quality and impact of the IDA portfolio of projects. A copy of a matrix report dated April 1998 detailing the action taken on the implementation of this framework of policy issues will be laid in the Library of the House.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parc Prison
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the findings of the recent inquiries into serious disorders at Her Majesty's prison Parc; what assessment he has made of safety, security and order at that establishment; and if he will make statement. [44713]

  Ms Quin
  There have been three inquiries into recent events at Parc prison. Two were into acts of concerted indiscipline which took place on 6 May and 14 May, and the third was an investigation into a self-inflicted death which took place on 5 May. All these inquiries were conducted by senior managers in the Prison Service. In addition, I asked the director general of the Prison Service for a report on the current situation at Parc.

  It is not current Prison Service policy to publish the findings of internal inquiries of this nature because of security considerations and issues of personal confidentiality. The management of the establishment is kept under regular review and it is working towards an action plan agreed with the Prison Service to deliver improvements in the operation and security of the establishment. I am in receipt of monthly reports on the establishment's progress towards achievement of the action plan. The action plan will be reviewed to take account of the recommendations contained in the recent inquiries and will be monitored closely by the Prison Service.

  Zero Tolerance Policing
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to implement zero tolerance policing as a formal policy; [45641]
  289
  (2) what assessment he has made of the cost implications of introducing a policy of zero tolerance policing; and if he will make a statement. [45617]

  Mr. Michael
  "Zero tolerance" is a term which has been interpreted in different ways by different people. Ministers have used it to indicate an approach which involves early intervention to discourage crime and disorder at an early stage rather than waiting until anti-social activities have reached a serious level. We are clear that "zero tolerance" does not mean intolerance or indiscriminate crackdowns by the police against the wishes of the community. It means action for, and with the consent of, the community to address the sort of anti-social behaviour which adversely affects people's quality of life.

  Many forces have adopted effective strategies to tackle those local crime and disorder problems which impact on the quality of life of their local communities. We have given our full support to such strategies, whether they operate under the term "zero tolerance" or not. The findings of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's thematic inspection report on police community and race relations, published in October 1997, showed that there is strong support for policing which involves effective targeted action on quality of life issues.

  The Home Secretary's key objectives for the police in 1998–99 include tackling local problems of crime and disorder in partnership with local authorities, other local agencies and the public. The Home Office Police Research Group is conducting an evaluation of the range of approaches to counter anti-social behaviour, with a view to developing key indicators on reducing anti-social behaviour. Meanwhile, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is carrying out a thematic inspection of the policing of disorder.

  Performance against key performance indicators by prison, 1997–98

  Prison name

  Category A escapes (KPl 1)

  Escapes (KPl 1)

  Assault rate (KPl 2) Per cent.

  Positive random drug testing rate (KPl 3)Per cent

  Purposeful hours per prisoner (KPl 5)

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked less than 10 hours on weekdays (KPl 6)

  Offending behaviour programme completions (KPl 7)

  Sex offender programme completions (KPl 7)

  Cost per Place2(KPl 8)£

  Average training days per staff member(KPl 9)

  Acklington

  0

  1

  0.9

  29.0

  25.5

  Yes

  50

  29

  13,376

  6.5

  Albany

  0

  0

  1.4

  7.5

  24.0

  Yes

  143

  51

  19,625

  7.5

  Aldington

  0

  0

  0.7

  23.1

  30.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,845

  7.5

  Altcourse

  0

  0

  21.3

  5—

  24.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  6—

  Ashwell

  0

  1

  1.1

  39.9

  32.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,646

  10.2

  Askham Grange

  0

  0

  0.0

  13.9

  41.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,512

  6.6

  Aylesbury

  0

  0

  45.4

  12.7

  22.6

  No

  44

  0

  23,592

  6.9

  Bedford

  0

  0

  11.0

  36.1

  25.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,141

  6.3

  Belmarsh

  0

  1

  14.3

  8.1

  11.8

  No

  0

  0

  29,864

  7.2

  Birmingham

  0

  0

  6.3

  32.8

  10.9

  No

  0

  0

  20,792

  5.1

  Blakenhurst

  0

  0

  14.2

  46.0

  20.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,247

  6—

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0.0

  5.6

  34.2

  Yes

  36

  0

  17,709

  8.3

  Blundeston

  0

  0

  6.5

  25.9

  23.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,948

  5.8

  Brinsford

  0

  0

  28.2

  17.9

  15.3

  No

  0

  0

  18,256

  7.2

  Bristol

  0

  0

  7.2

  26.7

  20.1

  No

  35

  0

  30,593

  11.4

  Brixton

  0

  1

  8.9

  14.9

  17.1

  Yes

  81

  23

  21,603

  4.7

  Brockhill

  0

  0

  16.3

  30.5

  30.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  27,394

  4.6

  Buckley Hall

  0

  1

  4.5

  38.4

  32.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,957

  6—

  Bullingdon

  0

  1

  6.8

  34.6

  20.9

  Yes

  7

  0

  16,358

  10.8

  Bullwood Hall

  0

  0

  21.3

  20.0

  21.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  30,183

  10.7

  Camp Hill

  0

  0

  5.6

  31.9

  20.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,843

  3.8

  Canterbury

  0

  0

  6.0

  18.5

  17.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  34,433

  6.0

  Cardiff

  0

  0

  7.6

  27.0

  22.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,940

  6.1

  Castington

  0

  0

  21.2

  10.9

  23.4

  No

  11

  11

  18,577

  6.6

  Channings Wood

  0

  0

  1.5

  20.0

  29.6

  Yes

  53

  39

  15,403

  6.7

  Chelmsford

  0

  0

  12.0

  24.0

  16.0

  No

  0

  0

  19,256

  5.4

  Colchester

  0

  0

  14.4

  19.4

  433.93

  No

  0

  0

  31,300

  11.8

  290
  We are also taking steps to tighten the law in a number of areas. The Crime and Disorder Bill will ensure that the criminal justice system is better equipped to deal with anti-social and disorderly behaviour, including petty criminality amongst young offenders. First anti-social behaviour orders will provide protection from harassment and neighbourhood disorder. They will prohibit specified conduct, and may be made on anyone over the age of 10. If their terms are breached, criminal sanctions will be available.

  Secondly, joint responsibilities will be placed on the police and local authorities in every area to work in partnership with other agencies and in consultation with the local community to develop and implement strategies to reduce crime and disorder. Thirdly, the Bill includes a range of measures to prevent and tackle youth crime, including powers for local authorities to establish night-time curfews on children under 10 and a statutory police reprimand and warning scheme to replace cautioning for youngsters and ensure a swift, effective response to their offending.

  Prison Service
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the results achieved by the Prison Service on each of its key performance indicators in each prison for the last available year; and if he will make a statement. [45555]

  Ms Quin
  The performance of each prison on the Prison Service's key performance indicators is listed in the table.

  The overcrowding KPI is formulated in terms of overall Prison Service capacity and population levels; therefore, the performance of individual prisons cannot be meaningfully related to the KPI.
  291

  Performance against key performance indicators by prison, 1997–98

  Prison name

  Category A escapes (KPl 1)

  Escapes (KPl 1)

  Assault rate (KPl 2) Per cent.

  Positive random drug testing rate (KPl 3)Per cent

  Purposeful hours per prisoner (KPl 5)

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked less than 10 hours on weekdays (KPl 6)

  Offending behaviour programme completions (KPl 7)

  Sex offender programme completions (KPl 7)

  Cost per Place2(KPl 8)£

  Average training days per staff member (KPl 9)

  Coldingley

  0

  1

  2.4

  29.3

  38.1

  Yes

  64

  0

  22,013

  6.7

  Cookham Wood

  0

  0

  9.6

  6.7

  23.6

  Yes

  14

  0

  25,391

  10.4

  Dartmoor

  0

  0

  6.9

  16.8

  18.8

  No

  104

  26

  20,259

  8.2

  Deerbolt

  0

  0

  21.0

  15.1

  21.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,740

  506

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  19.2

  22.8

  16.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  19,475

  6—

  Dorchester

  0

  0

  13.9

  44.6

  16.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  28,696

  7.7

  Dover

  0

  0

  21.0

  16.6

  21.7

  No

  0

  0

  17,463

  6.5

  Downview

  0

  1

  0.3

  5.0

  31.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,714

  10.6

  Drake Hall

  0

  0

  1.1

  17.9

  35.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,092

  6.0

  Durham

  0

  0

  5.2

  31.5

  16.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  27,588

  6.2

  East Sutton Park

  0

  0

  0.0

  7.5

  38.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,749

  6.4

  Eastwood Park

  0

  0

  24.3

  9.4

  19.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  25,453

  13.0

  Elmley

  0

  0

  5.9

  13.5

  19.0

  Yes

  41

  0

  16,838

  12.7

  Erlestoke

  0

  1

  0.3

  28.4

  29.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,593

  5.2

  Everthorpe

  0

  0

  3.3

  27.0

  25.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,158

  5.2

  Exeter

  0

  1

  8.1

  34.8

  17.9

  No

  0

  0

  31,266

  4.1

  Featherstone

  0

  0

  2.9

  40.4

  23.7

  Yes

  10

  0

  17,541

  2.6

  Feltham

  0

  0

  33.2

  20.9

  19.6

  No

  25

  18

  17.995

  8.2

  Ford

  0

  0

  0.4

  9.9

  33.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  10,974

  6.5

  Foston Hall

  0

  1

  12.2

  13.5

  21.3

  Yes

  0

  0

  31,685

  13.8

  Frankland

  0

  0

  14.1

  36.0

  17.0

  No

  13

  13

  38,078

  9.8

  Full Sutton

  0

  0

  4.8

  6.4

  18.0

  No

  77

  25

  33,594

  9.8

  Garth

  0

  0

  3.4

  17.4

  21.0

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,483

  12.7

  Gartree

  0

  0

  1.7

  30.7

  26.5

  Yes

  18

  0

  22,496

  7.8

  Glen Parva

  0

  0

  35.3

  20.8

  16.5

  No

  0

  0

  15,429

  8.7

  Gloucester

  0

  0

  22.7

  35.3

  21.6

  No

  0

  0

  27,651

  6.5

  Grendon

  0

  0

  1.2

  17.4

  33.3

  No

  0

  0

  19,592

  6.7

  Guys Marsh

  0

  0

  5.1

  33.9

  30.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,741

  9.7

  Haslar

  0

  0

  2.1

  4.3

  21.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,617

  6.9

  Hatfield

  0

  0

  9.9

  13.5

  37.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  21,601

  5.4

  Havering

  0

  1

  1.8

  16.2

  33.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,351

  10.1

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  0.5

  15.3

  41.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,667

  3.6

  Highdown

  0

  0

  13.6

  25.2

  15.7

  Yes

  50

  11

  22,250

  11.3

  Highpoint

  0

  0

  4.2

  24.8

  17.7

  No

  0

  0

  17,046

  13.9

  Hindley

  0

  0

  24.1

  35.6

  20.1

  No

  0

  0

  19,389

  5.1

  Hollesley Bay

  0

  0

  13.4

  22.9

  28.1

  No

  0

  0

  23,231

  3.6

  Holloway

  0

  0

  30.9

  24.1

  18.7

  Yes

  21

  0

  36,903

  10.5

  Holme House

  0

  0

  3.9

  19.2

  16.0

  No

  34

  0

  15,236

  6.2

  Hull

  0

  0

  9.3

  20.7

  18.6

  No

  0

  0

  21,583

  7.5

  Huntercombe

  0

  0

  15.4

  17.8

  25.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,008

  12.2

  Kingston

  0

  0

  0.9

  10.9

  28.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,943

  6.0

  Kirkham

  0

  0

  0.2

  25.3

  54.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,380

  6.0

  Kirklevington

  0

  1

  0.6

  5.7

  48.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,463

  6.2

  Lancaster

  0

  0

  0.9

  36.8

  22.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,792

  6.6

  Lancaster Farms

  0

  0

  20.1

  5.1

  22.4

  Yes

  54

  0

  19,115

  7.0

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  0.0

  14.5

  72.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,031

  8.3

  Leeds

  0

  0

  9.0

  24.1

  15.5

  No

  0

  0

  17,400

  10.5

  Leicester

  0

  0

  11.0

  32.2

  21.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  36,690

  7.2

  Lewes

  0

  0

  13.1

  27.1

  18.5

  No

  0

  0

  18,603

  5.6

  Leyhill

  0

  0

  0.3

  13.3

  38.6

  Yes

  33

  33

  16,619

  5.3

  Lincoln

  0

  0

  5.0

  34.6

  19.6

  Yes

  18

  0

  24,438

  4.2

  Lindholme

  0

  0

  2.1

  23.3

  25.3

  Yes

  31

  5

  17,801

  5.1

  Littlehey

  0

  0

  3.0

  16.9

  29.8

  Yes

  21

  21

  14,020

  8.2

  Liverpool

  0

  1

  4.9

  18.9

  16.5

  No

  0

  0

  19,071

  7.7

  Long Lartin

  0

  0

  9.5

  22.7

  15.6

  No

  26

  0

  34,242

  7.3

  Low Newton

  0

  0

  35.5

  41.3

  21.7

  No

  0

  0

  27,644

  4.7

  Lowdham Grange

  0

  0

  6.9

  15.8

  3—

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  6—

  Maidstone

  0

  0

  2.3

  14.6

  22.5

  Yes

  66

  28

  17,872

  8.8

  Manchester

  0

  0

  6.0

  18.2

  29.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  24,460

  6.5

  Moorland

  0

  0

  19.1

  10.8

  25.3

  Yes

  106

  0

  18,507

  8.5

  Morton Hall

  0

  0

  1.5

  9.3

  39.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  12,224

  4.6

  Mount

  0

  0

  2.6

  28.0

  18.4

  No

  0

  0

  13,839

  10.5

  New Hall

  0

  0

  16.9

  8.0

  22.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  21,682

  6.1

  North Sea Camp

  0

  0

  0.0

  23.5

  42.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  14,978

  4.8

  Northallerton

  0

  0

  8.9

  16.3

  14.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  30,431

  5.3

  Norwich

  0

  0

  9.3

  24.1

  18.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  20,548

  5.8

  Nottingham

  0

  0

  6.9

  31.1

  18.1

  No

  0

  0

  20,517

  7.5

  Onley

  0

  0

  32.7

  4.7

  20.0

  Yes

  22

  0

  15,595

  9.0

  Parc

  0

  0

  12.3

  57.1

  3—

  Yes

  0

  0

  1—

  6—

  Parkhurst

  0

  0

  4.3

  6.7

  20.1

  Yes

  58

  0

  22,530

  7.6

  Pentonville

  0

  0

  10.6

  31.9

  19.6

  No

  40

  0

  19,177

  10.7

  Portland

  0

  0

  11.7

  10.2

  29.4

  Yes

  7

  0

  16,664

  7.1

  Preston

  0

  1

  11.2

  18.8

  17.4

  No

  0

  0

  27,967

  6.3

  Ranby

  0

  4

  3.0

  15.9

  30.2

  Yes

  26

  0

  17,631

  6.8

  Reading

  0

  0

  18.8

  24.2

  24.2

  No

  0

  0

  24,395

  7.0

  292 293

  Performance against key performance indicators by prison, 1997–98

  Prison name

  Category A escapes (KPl 1)

  Escapes (KPl 1)

  Assault rate (KPl 2) Per cent.

  Positive random drug testing rate (KPl 3)Per cent

  Purposeful hours per prisoner (KPl 5)

  Are standard/enhanced regime prisoners unlocked less than 10 hours on weekdays (KPl 6)

  Offending behaviour programme completions (KPl 7)

  Sex offender programme completions (KPl 7)

  Cost per Place2(KPl 8)£

  Average training days per staff member (KPl 9)

  Risley

  0

  0

  8.8

  24.5

  22.7

  No

  28

  28

  18,554

  5.2

  Rochester

  0

  0

  12.5

  4.4

  18.7

  Yes

  29

  29

  18,303

  6.4

  Send

  0

  3

  0.0

  30.2

  35.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,807

  12.8

  Shepton Mallet

  0

  0

  0.9

  47.3

  23.7

  Yes

  0

  0

  24,285

  4.2

  Shrewsbury

  0

  0

  3.1

  15.7

  21.4

  Yes

  0

  0

  30,202

  6.8

  Stafford

  0

  0

  5.3

  20.1

  25.0

  No

  0

  0

  16,527

  3.5

  Standford Hill

  0

  0

  0.9

  11.8

  33.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,891

  7.0

  Stocken

  0

  0

  3.9

  33.6

  27.1

  Yes

  25

  0

  15,950

  6.1

  Stoke Heath

  0

  0

  29.9

  8.2

  21.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,591

  13.5

  Styal

  0

  0

  11.0

  24.4

  28.6

  Yes

  0

  0

  22,617

  6.2

  Sudbury

  0

  1

  0.4

  11.1

  47.2

  Yes

  0

  0

  13,283

  7.4

  Swaleside

  0

  1

  5.2

  19.4

  22.0

  No

  17

  0

  18,275

  11.5

  Swansea

  0

  0

  9.0

  52.6

  15.0

  No

  0

  0

  24,555

  4.4

  Swinfen Hall

  0

  0

  13.5

  14.3

  25.5

  No

  80

  15

  24,421

  8.8

  Thorn Cross

  0

  0

  10.4

  25.7

  50.3

  Yes

  100

  0

  19,112

  8.6

  Usk

  0

  0

  1.4

  7.8

  35.5

  No

  38

  38

  20,794

  8.1

  Verne

  0

  0

  0.7

  36.2

  30.9

  Yes

  0

  0

  15,044

  6.2

  Wakefield

  0

  0

  3.5

  2.9

  17.8

  Yes

  110

  33

  24,189

  8.2

  Wandsworth

  0

  0

  6.1

  3.6

  22.0

  No

  47

  26

  16,193

  11.2

  Wayland

  0

  1

  2.5

  33.3

  24.6

  Yes

  72

  33

  14,004

  10.3

  Wealstun

  0

  0

  0.7

  26.6

  33.7

  No

  0

  0

  15,561

  7.3

  Weare

  0

  0

  3.0

  28.0

  419.8

  Yes

  0

  0

  17,402

  21.6

  Wellingborough

  0

  4

  5.0

  33.2

  25.1

  Yes

  0

  0

  16,665

  7.4

  Werrington

  0

  3

  59.3

  5.7

  36.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  23,165

  7.2

  Wetherby

  0

  1

  23.9

  4.0

  29.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  18,535

  10.4

  Whatton

  0

  0

  1.3

  5.4

  30.6

  Yes

  86

  70

  16,980

  4.3

  Whitemoor

  0

  0

  8.4

  12.8

  18.5

  Yes

  0

  0

  34,319

  7.8

  Winchester

  0

  0

  8.1

  29.1

  17.2

  Yes

  8

  0

  24,587

  4.1

  Wolds

  0

  0

  5.8

  18.1

  31.0

  Yes

  18

  0

  20,606

  6—

  Woodhill

  0

  0

  13.7

  25.3

  20.9

  Yes

  20

  20

  25,294

  13.6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  0

  0

  8.1

  16.4

  13.6

  No

  54

  0

  17,267

  6.4

  Wymott

  0

  0

  3.3

  19.9

  34.4

  Yes

  72

  46

  16,171

  6.5

  1Cost per place performance figures for HMP Parc, HMP Altcourse and HMP Lowdham Grange cannot be provided on a comparable basis because available data include an element for capital repayment

  2Cost per place figures are provisional because final expenditure figures are not yet available. Final figures are not likely to be significantly different

  3 Purposeful activity performance figures for HMP Parc and HMP Lowdham Grange are not available for the financial year 1997–98, but will be available for 1998–99

  4Purposeful activity data for HMP Weare and HMP Colchester are provisional

  5Random drug testing started at Altcourse in April 1998

  6 Private prison contractors do not supply training figures because they are treated as commercial in confidence

  Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women were on rule 43 in prisons in England and Wales on 1 June. [45444]

  Ms Quin
  The most recent available provisional information is for 30 April 1998. On that date, the number on inmates held on prison rule 43 or young offender institution rule 46 were:

  Good order and discipline

  Own protection

  Males

  421

  1,211

  Females

  7

  21

  Total

  428

  1,232

  Members of formula working group 1998

  Members

  Ms Lynda Lockyer—(Chair)

  Home Office, Police Resources Unit

  Mr. Jim Bradley

  Home Office, Police Resources Unit

  Mr. Andrew Honeyman—(Secretary)

  Home Office, Police Resources Unit

  Mrs. Liz Curry

  Home Office, Police Resources Unit

  Mr. Simon Field

  Home Office, Resource Analysis Unit

  294
  Prisoners who are held for their own protection are generally held in separate units offering a normal regime. Prisoners held for the purposes of good order and discipline are normally held in segregation units.

  Police Funding Formula
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names of those serving on the police funding formula working party; and if he will indicate those aspects of the formula currently under review. [45668]

  Mr. Michael
  The members of the allocation formula working Group are as follows:
  295

  Members of formula working group 1998

  Members

  Dr. Ian Williamson

  Home Office, Resource Analysis Unit

  Dr. Phil Emmott

  Home Office, Resource Analysis Unit

  Mr. Robin Dickens

  Home Office, Finance Unit

  Mr. Barry Coker

  Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary

  Mr. Andrew Presland

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Mr. Justin Vetta

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Mr. Steven Marshall

  Welsh Office

  Chief Constable Barry Shaw

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Deputy Chief Constable Malcolm Cairns

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Assistant Chief Constable Tony Lake

  Association of Chief Police Officers

  Deputy Assistant Commander Roy Clark

  Metropolitan Police

  Mr. John Parker

  Metropolitan Police

  Mr. Alan Meyrick

  Metropolitan Police Committee Secretariat

  Mr. Mike Heiser

  Association for London Government

  Mr. Malcolm Watson

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mr. John Street

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mr. Howard Springthorpe

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mr. Bill Wilkinson

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mr. Derek Smith

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mrs. Catherine Crawford

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mr. Richard Tettenborn

  Association of Police Authorities

  Mr. Mike Grealy

  Association of Police Authorities

  The main areas being considered currently by the working group are: the question whether there are additional costs associated with policing in sparsely populated rural areas and/or difficult urban areas; the pensions component; the area cost adjustment; and some technical issues.

  I have decided to commission two pieces of external research into whether there are additional costs associated with policing in sparsely populated rural areas and/or difficult urban areas. I hope that the results of this work will inform the 2000–2001 police funding settlement.

  Police (Health)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will introduce annual fitness tests for police officers; [45656]

  (2) what research he has evaluated into the cost to police authorities of police officers being unavailable for duty due to illness related to a lack of physical fitness. [45657]

  Mr. Michael
  Annual fitness tests and the monitoring of sickness absence are matters for individual chief police officers to consider. Many forces do require officers in specialists units, such as firearms units, to undertake regular fitness tests. The Home Office has not undertaken any work as to the causes of sickness absence due to a lack of physical fitness, but has issued police forces with advice on the management of sickness absence, together with training booklets for managers in the police service to try to improve sickness levels amongst police officers. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has carried out a thematic inspection of sickness in the police service, and has made a number of recommendations for improving the way in which sickness absence and ill health retirement are dealt with. A copy of the report is in the Library. One of the report's recommendations is that all forces should calculate the cost of their sickness absence to a common formula, a format for which is provided in the report.
  296
  We will be collecting information from all forces on the way they have responded to that report, and will ask them to provide information on local practice in respect of regular fitness tests.

  Chief Police Officers
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the selection procedure for chief officers of police. [45679]

  Mr. Michael
  The responsibility for making appointments and for managing the procedures for the selection and appointment of chief officers of police in England and Wales rests with police authorities.

  On 2 December 1996, the Home Office issued guidance to police authorities following consultation with representatives of the then police authority associations, Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the police staff associations and the Equal Opportunities Commission.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the income for each year since its formation of the Chief Police Officers Staff Association; what is the membership fee for each member; what amount is contributed from public funds; and if he will make a statement; [46085]

  (2) if the Association of Chief Police Officers will be subject to the Government's proposed freedom of information legislation; [46115]

  (3) if he will place in the Library copies of the accounts for the Association of Chief Police Officers for each of the last five years for which they are available. [46108]

  Mr. Michael
  Under the current proposals, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland would not be subject to the proposed legislation. ACPO is not a public body within the terms of the proposals. However, much of the information which is supplied by ACPO and which would be held by public bodies such as police forces, or the Home Office, would fall within the scope of the proposals.
  297
  The Chief Police Officers' Staff Association is a private, voluntary organisation whose activities are entirely financed by membership subscriptions. The levels of those subscriptions are entirely a matter for the internal management of the association, which is not accountable to the Secretary of State. No public funds are provided to CPOSA to support its activities, although its members may claim expenses in relation to their representative functions on the Police Negotiating Board and the Police Advisory Board. The Home Office has allocated £2,000 in 1998–99 to the staff side in respect of expenses in connection with CPOSA's duties as part of the staff side of the Police Negotiating Board.

  I have arranged for copies of the accounts for the Association of Chief Police Officers for the years 1992–93 to 1996–97 to be placed in the Library.

  Drivers (Sentences)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons were(a) convicted and (b) jailed for (i) driving with excess alcohol and (ii) driving while disqualified, in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [46236]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is in the table.

  Persons convicted of offences of driving while disqualified and driving after consuming alcohol or taking drugs England and Wales

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Driving while disqualified

  Persons convicted

  24,167

  24,394

  23,246

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  8,395

  9,581

  9,483

  Driving etc. after consuming alcohol or taking drugs

  Persons convicted

  78,005

  81,464

  85,012

  Persons sentenced to immediate custody

  3,243

  3,443

  3,529

  Notes:

  Figures for 1997 are not yet available

  Protection from Harassment Act
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many persons have been prosecuted under sections 1 or 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and how many prosecutions have resulted in a conviction; [46229]

  (2) how many complaints have been received by the police in respect of section 1 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; and if he will make a statement. [46231]

  Mr. Michael
  Sections 1 and 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 came into force on 16 June 1997. Section 1 refers to the prohibition of harassment with section 2 advising that a person who pursues a course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of a summary offence.

  Provisional court proceedings data for 1997 show 504 prosecutions under section 2 of the Act, which resulted in 247 convictions. In addition, 171 cautions have been recorded provisionally for the offence.
  298
  Figures for complaints received by the police in respect of this Act are not collected centrally. However, the British crime survey is collecting information on levels of harassment reported by respondents.

  Air Guns
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases of deaths and personal injuries resulting from air guns have been recorded in England and Wales over the last five years. [45787]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is contained in the table. The information is confined to notifiable offences recorded by the police in which air weapons were reported to have been used. Corresponding figures for accidental deaths or injuries are not available.

  Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which air weapons were reported to have been used in England and Wales, by injury

  Year

  Fatal injury

  Other injury

  1992

  —

  1,718

  1993

  —

  1,572

  1994

  —

  1,580

  1995

  1

  1,400

  1996

  —

  1,203

  Figures for 1997 are not yet available.

  Cricket
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what discussions he has had with the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding crowd disturbances at test matches following the game against South Africa at Edgbaston on 4 June; [46042]

  (2) what discussions he has held with the England and Wales Cricket Board regarding its plans to control crowd behaviour during the cricket world cup in the United Kingdom in 1999. [46049]

  Mr. Michael
  My right hon. Friend has not had any discussion with the England and Wales Cricket Board on these matters. The Association of Chief Police Officers is responsible for co-ordinating policing arrangements for the cricket world cup. In October 1997, the association held an initial meeting with the tournament organiser appointed by the England and Wales Cricket Board. A co-ordinating group consisting of the organiser and representatives of the 17 forces involved in policing arrangements for the cricket world cup met in January and April, and further meetings are planned. One of the purposes of these discussions is to ensure that there is a consistent approach by stewards and police officers to the behaviour of spectators. West Midlands police held discussions with Warwickshire country cricket club before, during and after the Edgbaston test.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the total number of cricket-related arrests in each of the past 10 cricket seasons, broken down by(a) test matches, (b) one-day internationals, (c) Sunday league, (d) Benson and Hedges, (e) Nat West and (f)county championship games. [46048]

  Mr. Michael
  The Home Office collects information on the total number of arrests but it is not possible to determine those which are cricket-related.

  Police (Minimum Height)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set a minimum height requirement for police officers. [45839]

  Mr. Michael
  An earlier minimum height requirement was removed by the previous Government in 1990 on the advice of the Police Advisory Board. We have no plans to reintroduce it.

  Vehicle Fleets (Fuel)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police and fire authorities have converted their fleets, in whole or in part, to run on compressed natural gas, LPG or electricity. [46125]

  Mr. Michael
  The information requested is not held centrally. However, a number of police forces are currently engaged in trials of alternative fuels, the results of which will be disseminated by the National Association of Police Fleet Managers. We are not aware of any initiatives within the fire service to trial such fuels.

  Closed Circuit Television (London)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many closed circuit television schemes have been installed by each London borough council. [46370]

  Mr. Michael
  We do not have a record of closed circuit television schemes which have been funded by local councils. The number of schemes within London boroughs which have received awards under the Home Office CCTV challenge competition are shown in the table. These schemes are sponsored by local crime reduction partnerships, most of which involve the local authority.

  CCTV challenge competition round 1: 1994–95

  Borough

  Number of successful bids

  Total amount awarded

  Bexley

  1

  50,000

  Harrow

  1

  50,000

  Hillingdon

  1

  14,000

  Hounslow

  1

  50,000

  Islington

  1

  12,400

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  50,000

  Total

  6

  226,400

  CCTV challenge competition round 2: 1996–97

  Borough

  Number of successful bids

  Total amount awarded

  Brent

  1

  250,000

  Camden

  1

  71,000

  Croydon

  4

  296,500

  Ealing

  2

  253,600

  Hackney

  2

  236,005

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  106,200

  Haringey

  1

  130,300

  Harrow

  2

  156,880

  Hillingdon

  1

  12,703

  Hounslow

  l0

  485,299

  Islington

  1

  71,000

  Kensington and Cheslea

  1

  84,306

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  154,500

  300

  CCTV challenge competition round 2: 1996–97

  Borough

  Number of successful bids

  Total amount awarded

  Lewisham

  1

  250,000

  Merton

  2

  177,500

  Newham

  6

  553,800

  Redbridge

  1

  200,000

  Richmond upon Thames

  1

  13,305

  Southwark

  1

  145,000

  Sutton

  1

  63,000

  Wandsworth

  1

  66,500

  Westminster

  2

  133,600

  Total

  44

  3,910,998

  CCTV challenge competition round 3: 1997–98

  Borough

  Number of successful bids

  Total amount awarded

  Barking and Dagenham

  5

  519,968

  Bexley

  1

  61,088

  Brent

  1

  135,000

  Camden

  1

  74,250

  Ealing

  1

  109,868

  Greenwich

  2

  202,500

  Hackney

  3

  324,000

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  170,469

  Harrow

  1

  35,000

  Hounslow

  1

  135,000

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  135,000

  Lambeth

  1

  103,500

  Merton

  2

  146,633

  Newham

  2

  185,000

  Southwark

  3

  238,725

  Tower Hamlets

  2

  186,008

  Uxbridge

  1

  74,529

  Waltham Forest

  1

  130,793

  Wandsworth

  2

  117,620

  Westminster

  3

  342,063

  Total

  36

  3,427,014

  CCTV challenge competition round 4: 1998–99

  Borough

  Number of successful bids

  Total amount awarded

  Barking and Dagenham

  1

  75,000

  Bexley

  1

  40,000

  Brent

  1

  74,710

  Lewisham

  1

  18,500

  Merton

  1

  50,000

  Newham

  1

  75,000

  Total

  6

  333,210

  Restriction Orders
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those British citizens arrested in France in the past month(a) are now or (b) have previously been the subject of a restriction order. [46447]

  Mr. Michael
  None.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of those convicted of eligible offences in the last five years are currently the subject of restriction orders. [46448]
  301
  Mr. Michael
  There are currently 71 people subject to restriction orders under the Football Spectators Act 1989. This is an increase of 62 sin0ce the start of the year. The number of convictions for football-related offences in the five years 1992–93 to 1996–97 was 19,969.

  Football Hooligans (France)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps the Government have taken to ensure that those arrested for committing football offences in France are tried there. [46449]

  Mr. Michael
  The policing of the world cup and decisions on dealing with people who are arrested are matters for the French authorities. British and French police officers have worked together extensively in the run-up to the world cup, and are continuing to do so during the tournament. We have made it clear that the French authorities have our full support in ensuring that spectators are policed firmly and effectively and in taking proceedings against those who are arrested.

  Racial Abuse
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals the Government have to combat the chanting of racial abuse at sporting events. [46100]

  Mr. Michael
  Under section 3 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991, it is an offence for two or more people to take part in racist chanting at football matches. In May, the Government accepted a recommendation by the football task force that the 1991 Act should be amended to make racist abuse by individual supporters an offence. The Government will amend the 1991 Act as soon as legislative priorities allow. In the meantime, the Home Office has written to all chief police officers in England and Wales reminding them of existing powers under the Public Order Act 1986.

MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister without Portfolio if he will list the committees involved in the millennium experience indicating their membership and the number of meetings each has held in 1998. [44447]

  Mr. Mandelson
  The New Millennium Experience Company has a board of 10 non-executive directors: Bob Ayling (chairman); Sam Chisholm (deputy chairman); Ian Ash; the hon. Mrs. Sara Morrison; Sir Brian Jenkins; Councillor Len Duvall; David Quarmby; Sir Alan Cockshaw; Michael Grade; Ruth Mackenzie; and three executive directors: Jennie Page, chief executive; Liam Kane, managing director; and Steve Brown, finance and corporate services director. The board meets once every month and has met six times in 1998. In line with normal company practice, the board has established a number of committees, with specific delegated responsibilities, to act on its behalf:The executive committee (chaired by Sam Chisholm; members are Michael Grade, Jennie Page and, co-opted members, David Chance and Matthew Freud). The terms of reference provide for the chairman to decide the frequency of meetings. The committee has met 13 times in the 1998 calendar year to date.
  302
  The audit committee (chaired by Sir Brian Jenkins; members are Ian Ash and Len Duvall). The terms of reference provide for the committee to meet not less than twice each year and otherwise as any member may require. The chief executive, in her role as accounting officer attends the meetings of this committee, as does the finance and corporate services director. The committee has met four times in the 1998 calendar year to date.
  The remuneration and recruitment committee (chaired by Bob Ayling; members are Sir Brian Jenkins, the hon. Mrs Sara Morrison and David Quarmby). The terms of reference provide for the committee to meet not less than twice a year and otherwise as often as the members may require. The Committee has met twice in the 1998 calendar year to date.
  The health, safety and environment committee (chaired by David Quarmby; members are Sir Alan Cockshaw and the hon. Mrs Sara Morrison). The terms of reference provide for the committee to meet at least four times a year and otherwise as often as any member may require. The committee has met once in the 1998 calendar year to date.

  In addition the NMEC has established two advisory groups:
  The advisory group on accessibility (chaired by David Phillips—holiday care services; members are Paul Bush—TFA consortium; Stephen Bradshaw—Spinal Injuries Association; Peter Holland—Disability Partnership; Peter Parker—VRNIB GDBA; David Bonnett—Access for England; Claire Goodridge—RADAR; Brian McGinnis— MENCAP; Sue Peace—Buro Happold; Andrew Berry—SCOPE; Sara Langton— Lockton—CAE; Carol Thomas—Disability Wales; Robert Pickles—Disability Scotland; Fiona Hill—South East MIND; Andrew Bradock—London Transport; Monica Wilson—Disability Action Northern Ireland; Ken Whittingham RNID; Wendy Dibdin—Greenwich Association for Disabled People; Orla McCann—Disability Action Northern Ireland; Bob Benson—Disability Scotland). The group held its first meeting in June 1997. During 1998, three meetings have been held to date.
  The creative strategic review group—the "litmus group" (chaired by Michael Grade— board member and chairman, First Leisure Corporation plc; members are Ruth Mackenzie—board member and general director, Scottish Opera; Floella Benjamin—Floella Benjamin Productions; Sir Neil Cossons—director, the national museum of science and industry; Mike Davies—Richard Rogers Partnership; Professor Christopher Frayling—rector, Royal College of Art; Simon Jenkins—millennium commissioner and journalist; Michael Jolly, chairman and chief executive, the Tussauds Group and chairman CBI tourism action group; Lord Puttnam—chairman, Enigma productions; Lord Rogers—chairman, Richard Rogers Partnership; John Sorrell—chairman, the Design Council; and Alan Yentob—Director of Television BBC). The group was established in December 1997 and has met eight times in 1998 to date.

  The NMEC liaises closely with other groups and committees established by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, notably the Lambeth group. The company also attends the new millennium experience co-ordinating group set up by the Minister without Portfolio, who is shareholder of the company on behalf of Government, and which is also attended by representatives of the Millennium Commission.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Lottery
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what guidance he has issued to the Arts Council on the priority to be accorded to the likely popular appeal of films in determining whether to grant them national lottery funding. [45834]
  303
  Mr. Fisher
  In accordance with section 26(1) of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, on 1 June 1998, the Secretary of State issued a direction to the Arts Council of England that, in distributing its share of the net lottery proceeds, it must take account of the needs of projects relating to film and moving image. It is for the Arts Council to draw up the detailed criteria for lottery funding.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what powers he has to recover national lottery money from film companies when a grant has been obtained on a false prospectus. [45831]

  Mr. Fisher
  Responsibility for the recovery of lottery moneys obtained by fraud is a matter for the issuing national lottery distributing bodies.

  Millennium Commission
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of Millennium Commission money has been apportioned to Wales. [46289]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to my hon. Friend in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Journalists in Europe Project
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations his Department has made to ensure political impartiality in the Journalists in Europe project concerning European integration; and if he will make a statement. [45273]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Journalists in Europe organisation runs an annual training programme for young journalists from around the world, focusing on the EU and on political, economic and social developments in Europe. This Department has no role in determining the activities of this organisation and we have made no representations about them.

  European Commission of Human Rights
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which cases are currently pending before the European Commission of Human Rights; and if he will make a statement on the nature of each case. [45671]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  As of 15 June 1998,375 applications against the United Kingdom pending before the European Commission of Human Rights had been registered but not yet put before the Commission, 2 had been adjourned, 26 had been communicated to the United Kingdom Government with no request for observations for the moment, 109 had been communicated to the Government with a request for observations, and 53 applications had been declared admissible and were awaiting examination of the facts and arguments of the parties by the Commission. It would not be practicable for the Government to make a statement in respect of all these cases.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive Sir Thomas Legg' s report. [46028]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]Sir T. Legg said that he will complete his investigation and report as soon as possible. He is currently interviewing witnesses and examining evidence.

  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what point in the drafting of United Nations Security Resolution 1132 the unambiguous reference to the arms ban applying to both the Government-in-exile of President Kabbah and their replacement was replaced by more general terminology; which Governments moved the amendment; what was the position of Her Majesty's Government; if the documents relating to such will be made available to Sir Thomas Legg QC; and if he will make a statement. [46277]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]At no stage during the drafting of Security Council Resolution 1132 did the draft under consideration in New York refer to the arms ban applying to both the Government in exile of President Kabbah and their replacement. The earliest and all subsequent drafts referred only to a ban on the sale or supply of arms and related material to Sierra Leone. Sir Thomas Legg has access to all documents germane to his investigation, including those relating to the drafting of Security Council Resolution 1132.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Baroness Symons was informed by officials of alleged United Nations sanctions breaking by Sandline International. [46021]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]I refer to the answer given by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Baroness Symons, to a Private Notice Question from Lord Avebury in another place on 15 June 1995,Official Report, House of Lords, column 1287–89.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the advice he has received on the legal interpretation of UN Resolution 1132 provided by the United Nation's lawyers. [46062]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]Our interpretation of SCR 1132 was set out in my reply to a question from the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) 4 June 1998,Official Report, columns 345-46. The legal advice on which this interpretation is based has been made available to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Government's interpretation has not been affected by the advice sent to the Chairman of the Sierra Leone Sanctions Committee of the United Nations by the UN's Legal Counsel. Subsequent discussion in the Sanctions Committee revealed that different member states held differing views on the Legal Counsel's advice.

  Mochovce Power Plant, Western Slovakia
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to provide assistance to the management of the Mochovce power plant in Western Slovakia. [45967]
  305
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 15 June 1998]: None.

  Intergovernmental Authority on Development
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals there currently are to increase transparency in respect of the IGAD peace talks and subsequent activities. [45964]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The level of transparency in the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) peace talks is determined by the IGAD members themselves. At the conclusion of each round of talks, the Ministerial Subcommittee of IGAD produces a communiqué which describes the ground covered, the agreements reached and the recommendations on how to proceed. We believe this is an adequate arrangement.

  EU Youth Forum
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the organisations belonging to and (b) the events hosted by the European Union Youth Forum funded by the European Communities; and what representations (i) he and (ii) his colleagues, have received from that organisation. [46070]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Questions about the membership and activities of the European Youth Forum should be addressed to that organisation. I received a delegation from the EUF on 14 June to hear a report of a conference they had held on youth unemployment.

  Intelligence
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his oral answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), on intelligence, on 12 May 1998,Official Report, column 159, was based on oral or written briefing that he had received. [46279]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  I received oral briefing to the effect that no intelligence reports were seen by Ministers that referred to Sandline, or companies associated with Sandline, and to the supply of arms or military equipment.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of,State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set in hand an examination of the structure of the Government's arrangements for export promotion. [46963]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade, with the approval of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have asked the Secretary to the Cabinet to lead a review with the following terms of reference:To examine the arrangements for providing official support and promotion for exports (other than defence goods and services) and investment abroad, having regard to the importance of continuing close interaction between business and the DTI on all aspects of business performance, and maintaining the close integration of all aspects of support by diplomatic posts for the full range of British interests overseas, and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the President of the Board of Trade.
  306
  Sir Richard Wilson will be assisted by a panel whose members are:

  Sir Ronald Hampel (Chairman, ICI plc)

  Mr. David John (Chairman, BOC plc)

  Mr. Eric Peacock (Chief Executive, Hertfordshire Business Link)

  Mr. Martin Henry (Chairman, Lastolite Ltd.)

  Mr. John Shepherd (Deputy Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

  Mr. Tom Harris (Director-General of Export Promotion, Department of Trade and Industry)

  Mr. Harry Bush (Enterprise and Growth Unite, HM Treasury).

  Sir Richard expects to report by the autumn.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ms Yvonne Davies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when she proposes to answer the letters from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside of the 30 September 1997, 20 March 1998 and 24 April 1998 on behalf of Ms Yvonne Davies; and if she will make a statement. [46300]

  Mr. Keith Bradley
  A reply was sent to my hon. Friend on 17 June.

  The delay, which was caused by an administrative error, is regretted.

HEALTH

  Drugs Treatment
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the current average waiting list for NHS drug treatment services. [43849]

  Ms Jowell
  We currently have no comprehensive systematic national data on waiting lists for drug treatment services. However, early returns from work being carried out on behalf of the Department by the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse suggests that the average waiting time for access to drug services in the statutory and non-statutory sectors is 14 weeks. Returns were received from around half the agencies in England. These agencies were broadly representative of the pattern of services nationally in that they were equally divided between the National Health Service and the voluntary sector and community-based and residential services.

  One of the key performance targets in "Tackling Drugs Together to Build a Better Britain", which sets out our 10 year anti-drugs strategy, is to reduce the number of drug misusers being denied immediate access to appropriate treatment. Over the next few months, we will be considering what changes are necessary to meet this key aim and what systems will be required to monitor progress towards the target.

  NHS Pension Scheme
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the exclusion of general practitioners' staff who are part of a co-operative from participating in the NHS Pension Scheme. [45755]
  307
  Mr. Milburn
  The current extension of the National Health Service Pension Scheme, which has recently been agreed with the profession, is intended to include staff employed under a contract of employment by a general practitioner or practitioners. We have no plans to open the NHS Pension Scheme to staff who are not directly employed by GPs, including staff employed by GP co-operatives.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have been de-listed by GPs(a) in the West Midlands Region and (b) nationally in the last three years. [45554]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest available information is contained in the "General Medical Practitioners Census Additional Data Collection 1995/1996", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what controls there will be on the relative expenditure on staffing and other budget heads imposed on primary care groups in the new NHS in the next financial year. [45480]

  Mr. Milburn
  Each Primary Care Group will have available its population's share of the available resources for hospital and community health services, prescribing and general practice infrastructure. Within this single cash limited envelope, the group will have the opportunity to deploy resources and savings to strengthen local services and ensure that patterns of care best reflect their patients' needs.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations he has had with groups representing GPs in respect of the establishment of primary care groups in the new NHS. [45484]

  Mr. Milburn
  We have had a number of consultations about Primary Care Groups with groups representing general practitioners, including the General Medical Services Council, the National Association of Fundholding Practices, the Association of Independent Multifunds, the National Association of Commissioning GPs (which has been renamed the National Health Service Alliance), the Royal College of General Practitioners, the National Association of Non-Principals and the National Association of GP Co-operatives.

  NHS (Patient Satisfaction)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national framework for measuring patient satisfaction in the NHS. [45448]

  Mr. Milburn
  As stated in our White Paper "The New NHS", we propose to carry out an annual survey of patient experience of the National Health Service. Work to plan and design the first of these surveys is currently in progress.

  Female Consultants
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many consultants currently in post are female; [45803]

  (2) how many female consultants are currently in post in (a) pathology, (b) obstetrics, (c) paediatrics and (d) psychiatry. [45805]

  Mr. Milburn
  The latest information on the numbers of female consultants currently in post in National Health Service hospitals, including numbers by specialty group, can be found in the Department's statistical bulletin: "Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Service Medical and Dental Staff in England: 1986–1996", copies of which are available in the Library.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the cases of food poisoning caused by the consumption of meat in each of the past 10 years, indicating the number of people who(a) were affected and (b) died in each case. [46124]

  Ms Jowell
  Information on individual, sporadic cases of food poisoning is not available. The Public Health Laboratory Service's (PHLS) current surveillance system for food poisoning outbreaks was introduced in 1992. Information on the number of outbreaks associated with meat where the suspect vehicle is known is in the table. Also included in the table is information on(a) numbers affected and (b)the number of deaths. The PHLS collects data on outbreaks involving multiple cases and publishes quarterly information in its Communicable Disease Review, copies of which are available in the Library.

  General outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease associated with the consumption of poultry or meat and meat products England and Wales 1992–96

  Number of outbreaks

  Number affected in outbreaks

  Number died in outbreaks

  1992

  82

  2,410

  2

  1993

  62

  1,515

  2

  1994

  51

  1,224

  1

  1995

  61

  1,859

  6

  1996

  60

  1,134

  12

  Notes:

  Data are provisional

  Other vehicles may have been implicated in each outbreak

  Number affected is those with diarrhoea and/or vomiting with or without any other symptoms. Not necessarily laboratory confirmed

  Source:

  PHLS Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre

  Gastrointestinal Diseases Section

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 30 March 1998,Official Report, column 434, what steps the Government are taking to combat tuberculosis. [46213]

  Ms Jowell
  Steps have been taken to strengthen the surveillance, prevention and control of tuberculosis, including drug resistant tuberculosis, within the United Kingdom. The main measures for dealing with tuberculosis include: promptly identifying cases, treating
  309
  them and examining their contacts; the routine immunisation of children in schools; screening people entering the UK from countries where the incidence is high and arranging Bacille-Calmette-Guerin immunisation or treatment where necessary; immunising the new-born infants and children of immigrants from areas with a high incidence of TB and monitoring the population to keep up to date with trends in incidence. A report was sent to health authorities last year highlighting the importance of monitoring TB and summarising key messages and pointers for practice.

  Direct Payments
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 June 1998,Official Report, columns 687-88, concerning direct payments, if the Greater London Forum for Elderly People will be consulted. [46309]

  Mr. Boateng
  A general invitation has been issued to all interested parties to comment on the implementation of the direct payments legislation. Any comments that the Greater London Forum for Elderly People wish to make will be welcomed and considered in the review.

  Table 2: Prevalence of cigarette smoking among secondary school children 11-15 by sex, and smoking behaviour

  Percentage

  All pupils

  Boys

  Girls

  Year

  Regular smokers

  Occasional smokers

  Regular smokers

  Occasional smokers

  Regular smokers

  Occasional smokers

  1982

  11

  8

  11

  7

  11

  9

  1984

  13

  9

  13

  9

  13

  9

  1986

  10

  5

  7

  5

  12

  5

  1988

  8

  5

  7

  5

  9

  5

  1990

  10

  6

  9

  6

  11

  6

  1992

  10

  7

  9

  6

  10

  7

  1993

  10

  8

  8

  7

  11

  9

  1994

  12

  9

  10

  9

  13

  10

  1996

  13

  9

  11

  8

  15

  10

  Notes:

  1. Regular smokers are defined as those who smoke at least one cigarette a week, occasional smokers are classified as those who smoke less than one cigarette a week

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics Smoking Among Secondary School Children, 1982 to 1996.

  Health Services (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will decide on the plans developed by Worcestershire Health Authority for the restructuring of health services in Worcestershire; and if he will make a statement. [46464]

  Mr. Milburn
  We are aware of the decision taken by Worcestershire Health Authority, at the meeting which took place on 11 June 1998, to approve its preferred option for service reconfiguration. We are also aware that support for this option has been received from two of the three local community health councils within Worcestershire.

  On the basis that the Kidderminster and District Community Health Council has formally objected to the

  Smoking Trends
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the smoking trends for all categories of young people below the age of 30 years in each of the last 15 years for which figures are available. [46483]

  Ms Jowell
  The information is not available in the form requested. The prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16-34 and school children aged 11-15, in England, in 1982–1996, is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Prevalence of cigarette smoking among adults aged 16-34 by sex and age group—England 1982 to 1996

  Percentage

  Men

  Women

  Year

  16–19

  20–24

  25–34

  16–19

  20–24

  25–34

  1982

  31

  39

  40

  31

  39

  36

  1984

  28

  39

  39

  31

  35

  35

  1986

  30

  41

  37

  31

  38

  35

  1988

  28

  37

  37

  27

  37

  33

  1990

  28

  39

  37

  33

  39

  34

  1992

  29

  39

  35

  24

  37

  32

  1994

  28

  42

  34

  28

  38

  30

  1996

  25

  43

  38

  32

  37

  33

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics General Household Survey, 1982–1996

  proposals, a submission will be made to Ministers. We will give it careful consideration and make a decision in due course.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Heads of Information
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost to public funds of compensating those departmental heads of information who have been replaced since 1 May 1997. [46097]

  Dr. David Clark
  Of the 10 changes at departmental Head of Information level since 1 May, five have been on early retirement terms. In line with the practice of successive Administrations, information on the cost of compensating the five individuals is not provided in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the school teacher starting salary (mainscale/spinal point O) for each of the years 1979 to 1998, in(a) cash terms and (b) 1998 real values. [45552]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information is as follows:

  School teacher starting salary (main scale/spine point 0)

  (a) Cash terms

  (b) 1998 real values1

  April 1979

  3,231

  9,014

  April 1980

  3,972

  9,366

  April 1981

  4,653

  10,004

  April 1982

  4,932

  9,899

  April 1983

  5,178

  9,932

  April 1984

  5,442

  9,939

  April 1985

  5,817

  10,072

  April 1986

  6,423

  10,795

  October 1987

  7,600

  12,128

  April 1988

  7,920

  11,846

  April 1989

  8,394

  11,735

  April 1990

  9,000

  11,650

  April 1991

  10,212

  12,426

  December 1991

  10,404

  12,659

  April 1992

  11,184

  13,060

  April 1993

  11,244

  12,759

  April 1994

  11,571

  12,935

  April 1995

  11,883

  12,926

  April 1996

  12,342

  13,043

  December 1996

  12,462

  13,170

  April 1997

  12,711

  13,080

  December 1997

  12,873

  13,246

  April 1998

  13,131

  13,131

  December 1998

  13,362

  13,362

  1Using GDP deflator

  Physical Education
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what provision his Department currently makes for teacher training in physical education; [46101]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the requirements for physical education in teacher training programmes. [46102]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  In November 1997, the Government gave the Teacher Training Agency a target of 1,450 trainees to be recruited to specialist physical education initial teacher training courses in 1998–99.

  The Secretary of State's requirements for courses of initial teacher training set out the standard of knowledge, understanding and skills all trainees must demonstrate in order successfully to complete a course of initial teacher training and be eligible for Qualified Teacher Status. It is for individual providers of initial teacher training to decide how physical education is covered in their courses in order to ensure that these standards are met.

  Skills Mismatches
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the extent of skills mismatch on a regional basis. [45854]
  312
  Dr. Howells
  In early Spring this year, each English Region held a Skills Summit specifically to consider regional skills needs. Information from these events has been passed to the national Skills Task Force, whose remit includes consideration of geographical skills needs. Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) also undertake a periodical survey of local skills needs and a report will be published by the TEC National Council after their Skill Strategy Steering group meeting on 24 June 1998.

  Staffordshire TEC
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the performance of Staffordshire TEC. [46299]

  Dr. Howells
  Staffordshire Training and Enterprise Council achieved or surpassed most of the targets contracted in its 1997–98 Business Plan against DfEE/DTI funding lines. Its overall performance was the best in the West Midlands.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he intends to monitor the effects of the decision not to waive fourth year fees for eligible English and Welsh students at Scottish institutions. [46297]

  Dr. Howells
  We shall continue, as now, to monitor the number of applicants domiciled in England and Wales who apply for degree courses at Scottish Institutions.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date the Cabinet Secretary was first informed of the planned involvement of UK Government personnel and military assets in support of Sandline International's involvement in restoring the Government of Sierra Leone. [41833]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 14 May 1998]The Cabinet Secretary first received an indication of the allegations against Sandline on 20 April 1998. It was not until 30 April 1998 that such information was confirmed.

  Intelligence Services
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if the information available to the Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services is available in full to the Intelligence and Security Committee. [44413]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]The Permanent Secretaries' Committee on the Intelligence Services (PSIS) advises Ministers on the intelligence and security agencies. Advice to Ministers is not disclosed to the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) but some of the information available to the PSIS may be made available to the ISC.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister if the reports to, and minutes of, meetings of the Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services are available in full to the Intelligence and Security Committee. [44414]
  313
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 9 June 1998]The remit of the Ministerial Committee on the Intelligence Services is to keep under review policy on the Security and Intelligence Services. Proceedings of Ministerial Committees are not disclosed to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but much of the information available to the Ministerial Committee may also be made available to the Intelligence and Security Committee.

  House of Lords
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed reform of the House of Lords; and if he will introduce measures to permit hereditary peers to stand for election to this House. [45619]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government will publish detailed proposals for fulfilling their Manifesto commitments on reforming the House of Lords in due course.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will show the evidence which the Crown Office has in relation to the destruction of Pan Am 103 to a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary for his scrutiny; [46017]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1998, Official Report, columns 19-20, if he will re-examine the basis on which on 6 October 1995 the then Lord Advocate wrote to the hon. Member for Linlithgow confirming that proof of the case against two Libyans accused of the destruction of Pan Am 103 does not depend on the evidence of Mr. James T. Thurman. [44909]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answers 15 and 17 June 1998]I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on 19 May 1998,Official Report, column 314.

  British Nuclear Fuels
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister which representatives from British Nuclear Fuels were invited to participate in the last British trade and co-operation visit to Japan. [45953]

  The Prime Minister
  There have been a number of trade visits to Japan this year. British Nuclear Fuels did not participate in any of these but they do maintain a permanent representative in Tokyo.

  Ambassadors' Telegrams
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Prime Minister if ambassadors' telegrams to the Foreign Office are routinely copied to No. 10 Downing Street. [45861]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]FCO telegrams are distributed internally and to other Government Departments using pre-set distribution lists linked to the subject of the telegram. No. 10 appears on a number of these distribution lists.

  Dounreay
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what discussions he had with President 314
  Clinton on the transfer of nuclear waste from Georgia to Dounreay; and what data the US Government gave him on this material; [46248]

  (2) on what dates negotiations took place with the US Government with regard to the importation of nuclear material from Georgia; on what date it was first discussed that low-grade nuclear material would form part of the consignment; and which UK representatives were involved in these discussions; [46249]

  (3) on what date he was notified that 9 kilogrammes of low-grade nuclear waste was included in the consignment of nuclear material brought to Dounreay from Georgia; and what quantity of low-grade nuclear waste was proposed when he agreed to receive the material into the United Kingdom; [46246]

  (4) who made the decision to accept the 9 kilogrammes of low-grade nuclear waste from Georgia for reprocessing at Dounreay; when it was made; and which ministers were informed. [46247]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 June 1998]Following their initial approach in July 1997, there were contacts at official level with the US Government on several occasions. The decision to accept the Georgian nuclear material was made in the normal way, in consultation between Cabinet colleagues, at the beginning of February this year, and communicated to the US Government during my visit to the United States a few days later. Policy officials from the DTI and their security advisers took part in a meeting in Washington on 24 February to discuss security and transport issues related to the movement. Technical information relating to the probable nature of the consignment was among the detailed documents received from US officials and subsequently passed on to the technical specialists at Dounreay so that they could make the necessary preparations for receipt and safe-keeping of the Georgian material.

  The Government's prime objective was to remove material of proliferation concern from Georgia. Before the Government made the decision to take the material, we were informed of all relevant issues. Low grade nuclear waste did not form part of the consignment, which consisted of irradiated highly enriched uranium. As I told the House on 22 April 1998, Official Report, column 818, in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherds Bush (Mr. Soley), the intermediate level radioactive waste resulting from reprocessing the irradiated uranium would fill two drums. The exact details of the consignment were a matter for the technical specialists whose job it was to handle the material safely and securely once it arrived in this country.

  ASEM
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will support the expansion of ASEM to include India and Pakistan; [42358]

  The Prime Minister
  The United Kingdom has supported the inclusion of India and Pakistan, as well as Australia and New Zealand, since the start of the ASEM process in 1996.
  315
  However, it is clear that Asian members of ASEM are not ready to see expansion of membership before ASEM 3 in the year 2000. Any decision to expand membership will require the support of all current members.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Small and Medium Businesses
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the range of schemes available to assist in the start-up of small and medium businesses. [45052]

  Mrs. Roche
  There is a range of support available to assist those wishing to start-up in business. This includes schemes funded through the Single Regeneration Budget Challenge, European Structural Funds and New Deal together with other locally funded initiatives.

  The Business Link network, Business Connect in Wales and Scottish Business Shops provide key information, business support and advice through partner organisations such as Local Enterprise Agencies and Training and Enterprise Councils.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the support offered by Government to small businesses. [45077]

  Mrs. Roche
  Small businesses are crucial to a successful enterprise economy and the Government are firmly committed to stimulating and sustaining the competitiveness of the sector.

  The key principles underlying the Government's approach include fostering an enterprise culture that rewards innovators and risk takers; providing and maintaining a supportive economic environment; and providing high quality business support for SMEs at all stages of their development.

  Industry Productivity
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action her Department is taking to improve productivity in British industry. [45066]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Improving productivity is at the heart of the Government's drive to improve the competitiveness of UK companies.

  While the responsibility for this lies largely with business itself, the Government have a key role to play. It is for this reason that I set up six business-led working parties last year to make recommendations about how Government and business could work together in partnership to promote competitiveness. I am also co-hosting, with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a series of seminars on the UK's productivity gap.

  This work will contribute to a White Paper on competitiveness to be published in the Autumn. This White Paper will, for the first time, be written in partnership with the business community.

  "Fairness at Work"
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many representations she has received on the "Fairness at Work" White Paper; and if she will make a statement. [45067]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  When the Government published the White Paper on 21 May, we asked for views on a number of the specific issues which it raised. By 10 June, the Department had received twelve responses. The consultation period lasts until 31 July.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the prospects for manufacturing industry. [45068]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Despite tough competition in domestic and overseas markets, UK manufacturing output is expected to grow both this year and next.

  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of United Kingdom manufacturing exports for(a) the last three-month period for which records are available and (b) the same period in the previous year. [45072]

  Mrs. Roche
  In the three months to March 1998, United Kingdom exported manufactured goods, worth £32.8 billion, little changed from a year earlier. The volume of manufactured exports, grew by 5 per cent. over the same period.

  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the prospects for manufacturing industry to the year 2000. [45073]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Every day, I hear success stories about British manufacturing industry. I also hear about its strengths and weaknesses and about the issues which affect its short and long-term prospects. The Government's task is to work in partnership with industry to build on the strengths, address the weaknesses and promote the sustainable healthy businesses on which we depend as a nation for our future prosperity.

  Post Office
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to increase private sector involvement in the Post Office. [45071]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The review of options for giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom is considering the potential for the involvement of the private sector, for example through increased use of joint ventures. We plan to present our proposals to Parliament in the Autumn.

  Framework Research Programme
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the EU fifth Framework research programme. [45074]

  Mr. Battle
  I am pleased to say that we have made very good progress with negotiations on the fifth framework programme (FP5) during the UK Presidency of the European Union.
  317
  The Council common position on FPS was secured at the EU Research Council meeting, which I chaired, on 12 February. The new programme, as agreed in the Council, is well focused on a limited number of user-led objectives of clear European importance and is designed to complement the work undertaken at national level. Potential users of the research will also be given a formal advisory role in the implementation of the programme to define the research they need as the programme progresses. Ministers agreed a budget of 14 billion ecu for FP5 (around £10 billion), which closely reflects the UK priorities and objectives. In addition, the UK Presidency also hosted a Ministerial Colloquium meeting in April to consider how FP5 can be managed and implemented to make the most effective use of these resources. A number of points for action were agreed with the Commission which will make an important contribution to the future effectiveness of the programme.

  The Commission have recently proposed texts for the specific programmes of FP5 which set out the detail of the research and technological priorities for the new programme. Three of these specific programmes will be considered by Ministers at the forthcoming Research Council meeting on 22 June, and the remainder in the autumn. Much remains to be done, but I am optimistic that we will be able to bring FP5 in on time at the beginning of 1999.

  EH101 Helicopter
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what launch aid her Department has provided for the Westland EH101 helicopter and its powerplant the RTM322. [45075]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI provided £60 million of launch aid toward the development of the civil variant of EH101 between 1986 and 1994. No launch aid was paid by DTI toward development of the RTM322 engine. Launch aid is a repayable but risk-sharing Government investment in specific projects for the design and development of civil aircraft, helicopters and aeroengines in the UK.

  Clothing and Textile Industry
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received on the export prospects in the United Kingdom clothing and textile industry. [45076]

  Mrs. Roche
  DTI ministers and officials have a regular dialogue with representatives of the textiles and clothing industry to discuss export prospects and opportunities for UK manufacturers of textiles, clothing and footwear. This dialogue is conducted through the British Apparel and Textiles Export Advisory Group (BATEAG).

  BATEAG is used primarily as a forum for discussing specific export opportunities for the textiles and clothing industry, but it also provides members with the opportunity to discuss the wider economic background to exporting.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received regarding the value of the pound and its impact on the clothing and textile industry. [44990]
  318
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  I have met representatives of the textiles, clothing, and footwear industries over the past six months and have had the opportunity to discuss with them the impact of macro-economic factors upon the industry in the UK. I have discussed these issues recently with the T&GWU at their conference in Skegness, with a range of knitwear manufacturers at a conference in April, and with footwear manufacturers in February.

  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what measures she is taking to promote the British clothing and textile industry. [44989]

  Mr. Battle
  DTI is supporting a range of activities aimed at improving the competitiveness of the UK's textiles and clothing industries. These include projects to help improve marketing skills, develop supply chain partnerships, encourage better links between industry and academia, improve environmental performance, promote the profile of the industry, and assist young fashion designers.

  DTI Ministers and officials are also engaged in a dialogue with representatives of the textiles and clothing industries and the trade unions, with a view to establishing a more coherent strategic framework in which these various activities can be placed.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what further progress her Department has made in assisting businesses to prepare for the launch of EMU. [45078]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Euro Preparations Unit was set up in the Treasury at the beginning of this year to raise business awareness of this issue and to help firms prepare.

  My officials will continue to work closely with the EPU to ensure that the many contacts that my Department has with business are used to support these objectives.

  Ice-cream Industry
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations she has received about restrictive practices in the United Kingdom ice-cream industry. [45079]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Several representations have been received.

  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I are currently considering the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of wrapped ice-cream to wholesalers by Birds Eye Wall's Ltd.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mrs. Heal
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the European Commission's proposals for the reform of EU structural funds. [45081]

  Mrs. Roche
  The draft regulations for the Structural and Cohesion funds covering the operation of the Funds from the years 2000 to 2006 were published on 18 March as part of a wider Agenda 2000 package.
  319
  It is important that the Structural and Cohesion Funds be reformed to make them more effective and to provide better value for money. The Funds' procedures are in need of substantial simplification and the prospect of enlargement of the EU to include central and Eastern European countries makes this reform vital in any event.

  During the long negotiations ahead, we will be striving to achieve three main aims for the UK and its regions—these are fairness, affordability and durability.

  Publication of the Regulations marks the start of a long negotiation initially under the UK Presidency and continuing possibly into 1999. The regulations will have to be agreed in the council of Ministers and approved where appropriate by the European Parliament.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she expects to announce her response to the Low Pay Commission report on the level of the minimum wage. [45082]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will be making a statement to the House later this afternoon.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance she is giving to industry to help counteract the year 2000 computer problem; and what role her Department is playing in providing the technicians announced by the Prime Minister. [45083]

  Mrs. Roche
  I have established Action 2000 to specialise in helping industry to address the year 2000 problem. The Department is also making use of existing delivery mechanisms to ensure that the message gets across. Business Links, the main delivery channel for Government support to the SME sector, are working closely with Action 2000 in developing services to provide information and advice on this issue. In addition, Business Links are working closely with the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) to help employers access the Department of Education and Employment (DfEE) funding announced by the Prime Minister to train 20,000 people in IT skills. DTI also contributes to the funding of the IT National Training Organisation (ITNTO) which is directly involved in developing the programme.

  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is her current assessment of the state of awareness within the United Kingdom of the need for computer systems to be millennium compliant and of the action that is necessary to be taken in the private sector. [45085]

  Mrs. Roche
  Recent research by Action 2000 shows that the vast majority of large companies and most small and medium enterprises are aware of the need to ensure that their computer systems can handle Millennium date changes. Large businesses are taking action to avoid disruption to their own systems and increasingly addressing the potential for problems in the supply chains across their sectors.

  Many smaller companies have yet to act, and these are the priority target for Action 2000 which has put in place a number of activities to pursue progress with these.

  Regional Development Funds
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she will take to ensure that Merseyside receives a fair allocation of objective 1 funding relative to other European objective 1 areas. [45084]

  Mrs. Roche
  We are at an early stage in the negotiation on the Commission's proposed reform for the Structural and Cohesion Funds from 2000 to 2006. The Commission have not made any detailed proposals for the financial allocations to individual areas. When they do, the Government will press for the future allocation of the European Structural Funds to be fair and affordable to the UK and its regions.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the requirement to ensure that each United Kingdom bid for EU objective 1 status is from a territory recognised by the United Kingdom as a European region. [45086]

  Mrs. Roche
  The present criterion for Objective 1 is as follows"regions at NUTS level 11 whose per capita GDP, on the basis of the figures for the last three years, is less than 75 per cent. of the Community average".

  This applies across the European Union.

  The Commission produced draft proposals on 18 March for the reform of the Structural and Cohesion Funds. We are at an early stage in the negotiations. I cannot therefore make an assessment of the likely eligibility of any region for Structural Funds.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will support measures to ensure fair trade in steel products(a) in Europe and (b) globally. [45069]

  Mr. Battle
  We support strict controls on subsidies for European Union steel production; action against dumped or subsidised steel where that is clearly consistent with our World Trade Organisation obligations and in the interests of the European Union as a whole including steel users; and action against unjustified restrictions on European Union steel exports.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment she has made of the impact of dumping of steel products by competitors in Europe on the British steel industry; and if she will make a statement. [45070]

  Mr. Battle
  The European Commission is responsible for any investigations following complaints that products originating outside the EU are being dumped. These investigations include an assessment of the impact of any dumping on the EU industry concerned. A number of steel products are currently under such investigation, or consideration for investigation.

  Gas-fired Power Stations
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how long she plans to continue the moratorium on the building of gas-fired power stations. [45080]
  321
  Mr. Battle
  I propose to continue to defer decisions on consents for power stations until we have the conclusions of the review of energy sources for power generation. The present position is not a moratorium: exceptions are possible, and some have been approved.

  Nuclear Material
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will list the countries which have received weapons-usable nuclear material from Dounreay since 1968, indicating(a) the quantity of material, (b) the type of material, (c) the date of the contract, (d) the date the material was shipped to the client country and (e) the proportion of weapons-usable remains and by-products from this material which have been returned to the United Kingdom. [43064]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 21 May 1998]I have asked the Chairman of the UKAEA for this information and his reply will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action the Nuclear Industries Directorate has taken to investigate the effects of radiation from liquid discharges into the Irish Sea from the Sellafield plant. [45865]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 17 June 1998]The Nuclear Industries Directorate of my Department has no role in this matter. Monitoring in the Irish Sea, and elsewhere, and investigations into the effects of discharges is carried out by BNFL, the operators of the Sellafield plant. Independent monitoring and investigations are also carried out by the Environment Agency (who are responsible to DETR) who regulate the level of discharges, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Power Generation (South-East England)
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when she plans to announce the result of Barking Power Station's application of 4 July 1997 to build an emergency black start facility to cover London and the South East. [46456]

  Mr. Battle
  My right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, will make her decision on the application as soon as practicable.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what advice she has received from the National Grid Company about emergency black start capacity covering London and the South East. [46455]

  Mr. Battle
  The National Grid Company has written to my right hon. Friend, detailing the benefits of black start capacity in relation to the security of supply for London and the South East.

  Legislation
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the impact on the level of employment of her employment and industrial relations legislation. [45087]
  322
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Government's strategy is to secure high and sustained rates of growth and employment. This requires a flexible labour market based upon the principles of fair treatment and partnership at work.

  The Government's proposals in this area create a legislative framework of decent minimum standards. This should encourage people to move into employment, raise employee commitment, reduce turnover, and increase incentives for employers and employees to invest in training. Employment prospects should not be damaged and the net economic effect should be beneficial.

  Military Exports
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will make a statement on the countries in conflict for which the United Kingdom has provided ECGD cover for military exports since May 1997. [45050]

  Mrs. Roche
  I can assure my hon Friend that, when considering the risks associated with the provision of its support, ECGD takes into account all political circumstances of the market into which UK goods are to be exported.

  Anglia TV (Shares)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will place in the Library the findings of the previous inquiry into Anglia TV share dealings. [46485]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Reports of insider dealing inspections are not published. There are strict legal restraints on disclosure of information obtained in such inspections.

  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if she will re-open the inquiry into Anglia TV share dealings. [46484]

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  Possible insider dealing in Anglia shares in 1994 has already been carefully investigated. The matter would be re-opened only if substantial fresh information became known which it was considered in the public interest should be investigated.

  Diesel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps she is taking to increase the availability in the United Kingdom of low-sulphur diesel. [46575]

  Mr. Battle
  The major step the Government have taken to increase the availability of ultra-low sulphur diesel has been the change in the relative levels of excise duty between this fuel and conventional diesel, announced in the March Budget. I expect new suppliers of this fuel to enter the UK market as a result.

  Key Cutting
  Ms Stuart
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans she has to prevent registered keys being cut without proper identification, by limiting the availability of key blanks to authorised key cutters and locksmiths. [46266]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.
  323
  Concern over the ease with which car thieves were able to obtain duplicate keys led to discussion last year between the Home Office Vehicle Crime Prevention Group and the Master Locksmiths Association. The result of negotiations between the various trade associations, the main players in the automotive key cutting industry, the police service and the Home Office resulted in a voluntary Code of Practice being drawn up at the beginning of this year which we launched on 2 March.

  All key cutting outlets have been asked to comply with the Code of Practice.

  There are no plans at the moment to extend the Code of Practice to cover the supply of keys generally, but we will keep progress in this area under review.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of how many of the sheep exported in 1997 for(a) slaughter and (b) further fattening the final destination was stated in the route plan, submitted to the Minister, as (i) Artenay, (ii) Lunery, St. Florent sur Cher, (iii) Baroche, (iv) Zuilichem, (v) Morkhoven, (vi) Elst, (vii) Harmelen, (viii) Pervije and (ix) Loker. [44648]

  Mr. Morley
  It is not open to me, on grounds of commercial confidentiality, to disclose information about specific businesses which has been given in fulfilment of statutory obligations.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has commissioned on the number of animal deaths per year resulting from the live animal export trade. [46026]

  Mr. Morley
  None. The Ministry's research programme is intended to provide a better understanding of the way animals respond to transport and to determine factors relating to vehicle design, handling and stocking of animals on vehicles and feeding, watering and rest requirements for animals on long journeys.

  Egg Producers
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the cost to United Kingdom egg producers of the European Commission's proposals on new cage sizes. [45467]

  Mr. Rooker
  As part of our recently completed consultation exercise on these proposals, we invited UK industry organisations to supply information on costs. The outcome of our evaluation of the estimates supplied will be included in the regulatory appraisal which is currently in preparation.

  Flood Damage
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the visit of the Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), to Banbury to consider flood damage, what 324
  estimate he made of the level of compensation payable to (a) Cherwell District Council and (b) local residents as a consequence of the recent flooding. [45827]

  Mr. Morley
  I have made no such estimates. Local authorities have statutory powers to deal with emergencies and are expected to budget accordingly. They may apply for additional financial assistance where there is a case for doing to under existing rules. Cherwell District Council has indicated its intention to submit such an application in respect of the Easter floods. The Government do not provide compensation direct to individuals.

  Grade 1 Land
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the permanent loss of Grade 1 agricultural land since 1980. [45896]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department does not hold information about actual agricultural land losses by ALC Grade. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' Land Use Change Statistics give, for England, approximate estimates of the amounts of land changing from agriculture to developed urban uses, but the data do not record ALC Grade.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the research documents on rabbits published by his Department over the last 20 years. [45835]

  Mr. Morley
  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of research papers written by researchers undertaking research on rabbits funded by this Department and published in scientific journals.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been his Department's expenditure on research on rabbits for each of the last 10 years. [45836]

  Mr. Morley
  Details of expenditure covering research on rabbits funded by the Department from 1991–92 to 1998–99 are listed. The figures relate to the whole cost of research projects rather than the proportion directly addressing rabbits. Details covering 19988–89 to 1990–91 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost and so are not listed.

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  672,000

  1992–93

  741,000

  1993–94

  648,000

  1994–95

  647,000

  1995–96

  782,000

  1996–97

  744,000

  1997–98

  435,000

  1998–99

  1597,000

  1Estimate

  Meat Labelling
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 1998,Official Report, column 28, if he will make it his policy to encourage beef from animals born, raised and slaughtered in the United Kingdom and sold in the United Kingdom to be prominently and clearly labelled as British. [46463]

  Mr. Rooker
  Yes, but the Government cannot insist that all such beef is so labelled because the EU Scheme is a voluntary one.

  EU Wine Subsidies
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action the Government intend to take to contain expenditure on European Union wine subsidies; and if he will make a statement. [46392]

  Mr. Rooker
  When negotiations commence on the European Commission's awaited new proposal to reform the EC wine regime, we will be seeking fully to expose the budget implications. Our main objective will be to achieve a balanced market using cost-effective, enforceable and transparent mechanisms.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Methodist Central Hall, Westminster
Lord Davies of Coity Lord Davies of Coity asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether good relations between Church and state depend on the central organisations of the main Christian denominations being located together in Westminster.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, no. The geographic location of these bodies has no bearing on their relationship with the state.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Nevertheless, I wonder whether he shares my disappointment to hear that it is proposed to move the headquarters of the Methodist Church from Westminster Central Hall to Marylebone Road. Does he agree that, alongside Westminster Abbey and Westminster Cathedral, Westminster Central Hall serves as a symbol of the Free Church witness at the heart of the nation? It would be a tragedy if that were put at risk, particularly because of its unique pastoral ministry to the Palace of Westminster which, in my view, should not be under valued.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, Pererin 'rwyf mewn anial dir, which, being translated for the ungodly, or those who cannot speak Welsh, if the two are not the same, means, "I am a pilgrim in a desert land", but Marylebone Road is not all that far away in the desert, surely.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, with the much acclaimed and welcome elevation to the peerage of the Reverend Dr. Kathleen Richardson, who is currently the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council and also one of the presidents of the Churches Together in England, does the Minister agree that the representation of someone who is a former president of the Methodist Conference can only enhance Church-state relationships in the future?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely agree. She is a person of enormous worth, virtue and talent; and of course your Lordships' House will be enlivened and assisted by her presence.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, surely good communications depend on good relationships between people, particularly in these days of IT, and not on geographical location.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is what I said earlier. I think that even in Marylebone Road there are telephones.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, having attended many services officially on behalf of
1680
Westminster Council in the Methodist Central Hall, I would regret any change in that regard. Does the noble Lord think that the proposed move is in any way connected with press reports that the serving of liquor is to be allowed at functions there? Are the Methodists moving because they feel they cannot stay in a building where that happens, or is it because the cost of the building has become far too great?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as far as I am aware, no final decision has been made by the appropriate body as to whether they are going to move or not. Whether it is because alcohol is going to be served, I do not know. The decision really is a matter for the internal governance of an organisation which is, and ought to be, wholly free of state control or even ministerial comment.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is nothing wrong with serving liquor? After all, at Cana the water was turned into wine.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords, but that was at the end of the evening.

Developing Countries: Unsustainable Debt
3.4 p.m.
Lord Redesdale Lord Redesdale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they have taken to reduce developing countries' unsustainable debt following the G8 summit in Birmingham.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, following the Birmingham summit, the Prime Minister has written to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund and the president of the World Bank to ask them to take forward the proposals discussed there. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has invited Church Leaders and heads of non-governmental organisations to a second Downing Street seminar on debt. This week UK officials have been discussing debt relief for a number of developing countries in the Paris Club.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an indication of what went on at the meeting on 2nd/3rd June concerning the debt situation in Rwanda at which Britain was going to raise the issue of reducing unsustainable debt for a country which has very little ability to repay those loans?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Rwanda is one of the countries to which urgent attention has been and is being given. As the noble Lord knows, the HIPC initiative has been in operation for some time now. The impact of the Birmingham summit was the speedy and determined implementation of debt relief to more countries under the HIPC initiative. The intention is that all poor countries should have begun the process of

1681
securing debt relief by the year 2000. I accept that the conditions in Rwanda make a very strong case for that country.
Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I recognise the considerable contribution Her Majesty's Government have made to moving forward the debt reduction plans. But does my noble friend agree that, as long as the United Kingdom remains 14th among the 21 major aid donors in the level of its aid, we are on rather shaky ground when we seek to persuade other countries to increase their debt relief, as they are always in a position to say that they make a major contribution through increased official development assistance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that both are necessary. It is necessary for us to pay our share in the aid programme. Indeed, the Secretary of State for International Development is working particularly hard in that area. But at the same time the contribution of all of us to debt relief under the HIPC initiative and in pursuance of the Naples Agreement ought not to be put on one side.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the unsustainability of these loans would suggest that in the past many of them were blown rather than properly invested? What will be done to make certain that future aid will be properly invested so that it can be properly sustained?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is the thrust of the HIPC initiative and why progress on it has, for some people, been too slow. The intention of relief of debt for the heavily indebted countries is that they should qualify for this relief only when they have shown that they have a sustainable programme of economic reform in compliance with the requirements of the International Monetary Fund.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: My Lords, on the evidence of the current progress of the Heavily Indebted Poorer Countries initiative, there are only four countries that will have full debt relief by the year 2000; namely, Bolivia, Guyana, Mozambique and Uganda. Does the Minister agree that this shows woeful complacency on behalf of the G8 with regard to the cause of international debt relief? Are the Government willing to set a shining example to the other creditor countries by cancelling all UK aid and export credit debt by the year 2000 for the benefit of the world situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in response to an earlier question I acknowledged that there is concern about the slow progress of the HIPC initiative. It is not quite as bad as the right reverend Prelate said. Burkina Faso and Cêote d'Ivoire can be added to the list that he mentioned, but I would not expect him to be satisfied with that. There are major problems for us in deciding unilaterally to forgive our debts, not least the fact that we are far from being the largest creditor country. If we were to forgive our debts unilaterally,
1682
that would relieve the pressure on other creditors. The money would go to the governments rather than to those most in need in the countries concerned. It is not quite as simple as some very well meaning people seem to believe.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one of the problems with debt relief is that it tends to penalise the responsible in favour of the irresponsible?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that that is what I said in response to the question about the HIPC initiative. If debt relief is to be effective, it has to go to those countries which have their economies under control and which can demonstrate that the benefits of debt relief will go to those most in need in those countries. To that extent I agree with the noble Earl.
Baroness MacLeod of Borve: My Lords, I know parts of Africa very well. Does the Minister agree that we owe those countries quite a lot and that they are in great trouble? Having to pay back debts to other countries is like having a noose around their neck. They want to pay back. Some of the African countries are in a disastrous state and people are starving. Does the Minister agree that some of the wealthier countries should give those countries more money?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course all of us agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness. I do not know whether it is of any consolation to her to know that at the Paris Club meeting this week, to which I have referred, it was agreed that Senegal can be added to the countries which will get enough debt relief to reduce them to the debt sustainability level of the Naples Agreement, which is 67 per cent. We hope that other countries in Africa and elsewhere will be added to that list.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, would the noble Lord inform the House how plans for a proposed millennium bond are progressing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness has caught me out. I shall have to write to her.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is precisely his language and that of others about getting the economies of the countries concerned under control which lies at the root of the difficulty? For a country such as Rwanda the decisions that it would have to take in order to get its economy under control would be deeply damaging. Is he aware that it is for that reason that that country and others find themselves quite unable to qualify for the HIPC and other initiatives?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is quite correct and why I put the issues of aid and debt relief side by side rather than falling for the temptation of

1683
mixing them up. It is quite clear that Rwanda is in particular need of huge levels of aid—and not in the form of loans, which would create debt.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I appreciate the steps that the Government have already taken this week, but is the Minister aware that the media have talked about differences among the heads of G8, with Germany being particularly unto-operative? Can the noble Lord inform us of the extent of the support which he is getting for debt relief from other countries in G8?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe the noble Viscount will understand if I prefer not to criticise foreign governments at this Dispatch Box. I have made it clear that this country has been taking a lead. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have personally sought to press matters forward faster than they have been progressing. Logically, that implies that there are those who are less enthusiastic, but I would prefer not to name them.

Takeovers: EU Proposals
3.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they are making in their negotiations with the European Commission over the latter's proposals for a directive on takeovers.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Simon of Highbury): My Lords, the Commission presented a revised proposal for a directive to the Council in November last year which took into account amendments proposed by the European Parliament. Since then there has been one meeting at Council level which took place last December under the presidency of Luxembourg. At that meeting all member states made clear that the proposal was still being examined and consequently the views expressed were preliminary ones. There have been no meetings under the presidency of the United Kingdom to discuss the directive.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply which, I suppose, is as optimistic as he can make it. Since the directive, as drafted, would, among other things, introduce tactical litigation into our excellent system of mergers and acquisitions, does the noble Lord agree that this is yet another example where introspective legislation from Brussels is potentially very damaging to our wider commercial interests? Furthermore, is it not very misguided, even by the standards of the European Commission, to plan a directive of this kind when the various European regimes are so different from our own and from each other and where, for example, bearer shares are common and hostile bids are a rarity?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, as I implied in my Answer, it is very clear that many of the member
1684
states still have objections to the way in which the Commission has put forward this directive, very much taking the point made by the noble Lord that very different circumstances apply to takeover regimes in each country. The objective of protecting shareholders under any takeover regime is important, and that is at the heart of the directive. It is too soon to speculate as to whether all member states are happy with the way in which the directive is currently couched. We should wait for the next stage.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the UK takeover code system in the City of London has been operating well and, indeed, progressively better over the past 30 years? Does he further agree that it has served the shareholders of this country extremely well? It has avoided litigation which can lead to delays in what may be desirable in terms of changes in company structure. Does my noble friend agree with me that it is not necessary for there to be a legalised system operating in each country of the European Union just because such may be desirable in some member countries and not in others?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I agree with everything that my noble friend has said. I believe that our non-statutory basis has been extremely successful for both shareholders and companies. If we wish to progress to a situation where it would be as easy for our companies to take over European-based companies we shall need to find some common causes. Currently, I believe that it is fair to say that our national system is the envy of all other member states. We are trying to arrive at a system whereby our own companies wishing to make takeovers in Europe will benefit from the same kind of regime. I agree that it would be best if it were non-statutory, but let us see what we can achieve.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any proposal to bring forward this matter under the Austrian presidency?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, yes I am. Plans are in hand.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our system, such as it is, takes insufficient account of the interests of employees and that it should be improved in that direction before it can become an example to anyone else?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, there has probably always been some misunderstanding about how the interests of employees can be taken into account. Two current directives take account of employees' interests in change of ownership situations and run parallel to the proposed statute. It has always been clear, but misunderstood, that consultation with employees is possible under the existing takeover code. Issues that arise relate to secrecy and the protection of existing shareholders' rights in the run-up to a bid. Our own system does not in any way prevent consultation with employees.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that Sub-Committee E of the Select

1685
Committee on the European Communities considered the matter deeply and that its recommendations were accepted by the previous government? Has there been any substantial change in policy since 1st May last year? If so, perhaps my noble friend could tell us about it.
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I am not fully aware that the previous government developed a policy on this matter. However, to the extent that we are studying the existing legislation, we are still to be convinced that any directive will improve this country's non-statutory basis for dealing with takeovers. Until we are convinced that that could be improved, we see no reason to move away from our current highly effective and successful system.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister confirm to the House that the Commission intends to bring in any directive under single market legislation, which will therefore be subject to the dreaded qualified majority vote in Brussels? Would he further agree that this might be one of several cases which might provide a good test as to whether the Government's charm offensive is working in Brussels?
Lord Simon of Highbury: My Lords, I do not think that this is exactly a matter of charm, although charm is always helpful. Indeed, I find that in most negotiations the aggressive stance is usually not appropriate when I am with my European colleagues. I have no doubt that a little charm would not be unhelpful, but the debate is really about the substance of the matter. We are still far from getting to the substance of the matter because we do not know what other member states will put on the table when, as the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, predicted, the Austrians raise this question at the next Council, as I am sure that they will. We must wait and see the positions of all other member states. However, I am sure that we shall adopt our usual charming stance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, when the noble Lord exercises his undoubted charm, can he tell us whether or not this matter can be dealt with by qualified majority voting?
Lord Simon of Highbury: Yes, my Lords, this matter will be dealt with by qualified majority voting.

Bosnia and Kosovo: British Forces Costs
3.22 p.m.
Lord Burnham Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the continuing cost of participation of British forces in Bosnia and of potential operations in Kosovo will be borne by the Treasury contingency reserve.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, the plans underlying the 1998–99 defence budget did not assume that it would cover short-term operations such as British forces' participation in operations in Bosnia, or potential costs
1686
in Kosovo. Where these cannot be accommodated within the budget, such costs have in the past been the subject of a claim on the reserve.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I cannot really thank the noble Lord for that Answer because it is not really an Answer to the Question. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, assured the House last November that until June 1998 those costs would be paid for by the Treasury foreign policy budget. Will that continue until June 1998?
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, nothing in my Answer is inconsistent with what my noble friend Lady Symons said. In recent years, where unprogrammed operational costs could not be accommodated in the defence budget it has been the practice to seek access to the reserve. My noble friend Lady Symons would have been aware of that. Those arrangements are currently under review and are being considered in the context of the strategic defence review.

Business
3.24 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. today, my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the national minimum wage. 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. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of others.

Business of the House: Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill
Lord Carter: My Lords, while I am on my feet, perhaps I may take this opportunity to refer to a matter which was raised in your Lordships' House this time last week. A number of noble Lords expressed concern that the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill was provisionally scheduled for Thursday 25th June. I am pleased to say that, following discussions through the usual channels, the Second Reading of that Bill will, assuming that it arrives in good order from the Commons this week as anticipated, now take place on Monday 29th June. I should like to express my appreciation to all those who co-operated in arranging that change of business.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I should like to express appreciation on behalf of the 12 or so Peers from Northern Ireland who would like to be present at their place of duty in Northern Ireland on that day. We are grateful to the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip and his colleagues for meeting our wishes. In

1687
return, I think that I can undertake that we, on our part, will abstain from the ancient Irish tradition of voting early and voting often.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, perhaps I may express our thanks for the appreciation which the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip has shown to the usual channels. It has come up with the correct result. Will the noble Lord confirm that the Opposition have agreed to reduce the normal time intervals on that Bill so that it can be passed successfully before the Summer Recess? In view of that fact—and because most Members of the House who take an interest in the matter will be expecting the normal intervals to be observed—could the noble Lord possibly give us some advance notice of the dates for the Committee, Report, and Third Reading stages? In view of the offer that we have made, will the noble Lord confirm that he will not seek to rush the House in its deliberations and that he will allow plenty of time, not only for the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and his friends on the Cross-Benches, but also for Peers on all sides of the House to be able to express themselves fully on what is clearly a very important subject?
Lord Carter: Yes, my Lords. I am glad to be able to say that, with the change of date, there will be the normal time interval between First Reading and Second Reading. I fully appreciate the co-operation that has been shown in reducing the normal time intervals. It might help your Lordships to know that the Committee day for that Bill is provisionally Monday 6th July. As always, we shall allow plenty of time for debate on that Bill, as on all the other Bills that we are considering.

Pensions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions, and war widows' pensions. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Morris of Manchester.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Scotland Bill
3.28 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open the second day of the debate on the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. Yesterday we had a wide variety of interesting contributions to this debate. I am sure that we shall hear many more today.
Much has been said about the constitutional architecture; the position of Scotland in the Union; the relationships between the devolved parliament and administration and their counterparts in London;
1688
relations with Europe; and the financial arrangements for the parliament. These are all important issues which must be debated properly.
But the parliament is not just about the dry bones of these arrangements the details of which will be known only to those in close contact with it. The real heart of the matter is what the parliament will mean for the very people of Scotland who decided that it should come into being.
The Bill gives the Scottish parliament the power to make laws for Scotland. Substantial scope to do so will be devolved to Edinburgh as a result of the Bill. The Bill sets out clearly and in necessary detail the powers to be reserved to Westminster. The fact that anything that is not listed in the Bill as reserved will be devolved to Edinburgh means that a very wide range of responsibilities will be transferred.
The powers to be devolved are in fields which are crucial to Scotland's economic and social well-being: health, education and training, local government, social work and housing, economic development and transport, law and home affairs, environment, and agriculture, forestry and fishing. These are all issues that have an effect on the everyday life of Scotland.
It is particularly inspiring that for the first time in 300 years legislators elected solely by voters living in Scotland will have the power to pursue a distinctive Scottish agenda which meets the needs and aspirations of the Scottish people. There will be an opportunity that is simply not available at Westminster to devote significant amounts of time to debate and legislate on Scottish issues which have been neglected for many years. For example, I expect that land reform—so badly needed for so long—will be among the top priorities for the Scottish parliament.
Some of the doom and gloom speeches made yesterday which adopted phrases such as "despondency close to despair" at the prospect of doomsday scenarios I found to be both depressing and unrealistic. It was strange to hear some noble Lords speak as if the contents of the Bill had appeared out of nowhere; as if the Scottish Constitutional Convention had not worked hard and long for some six years to produce its blueprint for a Parliament; as if the Government's White Paper had not been debated in both Houses of this Parliament before a referendum in which the people of Scotland had said a resounding "Yes" to the two questions put to them.
From the Front Bench opposite the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, very correctly and properly accepted the decision of the people and said that the only thing to do was to try to make the parliament work. However, other speakers yesterday appeared to believe that the whole idea of a Scottish parliament was a bad one—one noble Lord even said that it was a rotten idea—and that whatever the people had said or thought, it would all end in tears. I regard such an attitude as rather arrogant and patronising, especially when it comes from noble Lords whose party's views were decisively rejected by the people of Scotland.

1689
The Scottish Constitutional Convention drew on the experience of political parties and Scottish civic society—organisations large and small—and the Churches and trade unions to build a vision of a better Scotland. I take great personal pleasure as the current co-chair of the convention in seeing the results of their years of work coming to fruition in legislation.
The Scottish parliament will be closer to the people of Scotland, not just geographically but in the way it operates. It will be for the parliament itself to decide its working methods, but I expect the parliament and the executive which will be accountable to it to have their collective ears firmly to the ground. Listening as well as acting will be a very high priority.
I am particularly pleased that the constitutional convention recognised that a unicameral legislature can offer the possibility of a new, more inclusive style of politics. When the word "unicameral" is used in this House many noble Lords appear to be able only to conjure up a picture of another place as it now stands alone without a second chamber. I know of no unicameral legislature in the world that is structured just like the British House of Commons. I can speak from first-hand experience of the unicameral parliaments of the Nordic countries. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark and Iceland are recognised throughout the world as successful, healthy and well-functioning democracies. All of them have unicameral parliaments. They organise in different ways. My noble friend Lord Hughes indicated yesterday the mechanism by which Norway met its requirements and how its unicameral Storting divided for certain legislative purposes. There are many different ways to ensure adequate scrutiny, revision and checks and balances. The Nordic parliaments demonstrate how much arrangements can improve openness and provide for penetrating scrutiny of the executive.
We are determined to learn from the experience of others and ensure that proposals for legislation are thoroughly and openly examined from their early stages. I should like to quote some independent research into single chamber parliaments conducted recently by the Constitution Unit of the School of Public Policy at University College London. Noble Lords will find this report in the Library among the papers for the Consultative Steering Group established by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and chaired by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Devolution, Mr. Henry McLeish. The authors of the report state:
"Parliaments need to be designed to ensure they are a constant, credible and legitimate check on government … well designed unicameral systems can produce good government".
They add,
"The [Scotland] Bill should result in a Parliament which will serve Scotland well in the same vein as the Swedish Riksdag or the Danish Folketing".
The members of the Scottish parliament will be close to the people they represent. Because of the voting system that we are putting in place they will also be a fair reflection of opinion in the country. In a relatively small country it will be possible for ideas, proposals and
1690
even draft Bills to be debated openly, sensibly and constructively. I have seen this happen in Nordic countries. It can and will happen in Scotland. I am quite sure that when making decisions the parliament will want to experiment with new ways of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny. The work being carried out by the Consultative Steering Group will give the parliament a flying start in determining its procedures.
The Consultative Steering Group already seeks to involve Scottish civic society through its consultation on how the parliament should work. It is one of the largest consultation exercises undertaken in Scotland for some time. The views of groups and individuals will be considered by the CSG in presenting its recommendations later this year.
In closing, I look ahead a few years. I hope to see a parliament that is about openness, accountability and accessibility, in which the people of Scotland can play a real part in shaping their future and not be dismayed or put off by exclusivity, mystique and seeming irrelevance. I say that this is my hope for it is not in my gift to deliver this. That responsibility falls squarely on the politicians of Scotland and above all on the people of Scotland who showed their willingness to take on that responsibility last September.
It is right that this House scrutinises the Scotland Bill properly, but in looking at the detail we must remember what should now be an agreed vision, as all political parties in this House are committed to make the Scottish parliament a success. Let us work together to ensure that we have a scheme that recognises the benefits of diversity within the Union. We in this House have a responsibility to give Scotland the Bill that it so clearly wants for the parliament it so clearly wants. I hope and trust that we shall deliver.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the Scotland Bill is the third Bill that the Government have introduced in their radical constitutional agenda which is, in its intentions if not its dimensions, of Cromwellian scope. Before considering the Bill, I should like to put it in context.
The first great change we see in our constitution is the shift from representative government to government by referendum. We have already had a referendum for Wales, Scotland and London, and we are promised one on proportional representation. It is significant that there will be no referendum for England or for the way England governs itself. Those amount to a break with the great tradition of representative government that our country has had over several centuries.
The second great change is the shift from government by legislators to government by judges. That has been most dramatically exhibited in the passage of the Human Rights Bill soon to become law. We now have introduced into our constitution a convention whose interpretation by our judges is capable of striking down every single Act of Parliament on the statute book. It is true they cannot do so simply by their decision; but by making a declaration of incompatibility they can in effect compel the legislators to make that change.
The third great shift is in the fragmentation of the Executive: from the Crown in London to the executives in Scotland, Wales, and—to continue a previous tradition—in Northern Ireland. A legislative fragmentation will go with that.
Finally, anticipated at the centre although not yet necessarily planned for the next election, is proportional representation. I spent a certain amount of my life in the European Parliament. I had the opportunity of watching at close quarters proportional representation systems at work. Whatever their merits, they are not recipes for decisive government. On the contrary, they seem to me more often than not to produce equivocation.
If one adds all those factors together, one will see that in our nation there will be a great decentralisation of power. What is lacking in the face of these centrifugal forces is something that will bind the whole thing together. I see no evidence of that in the Government's programme.
That is why I find it almost risible that, whereas in the United Kingdom the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty is now fast ebbing away, in the Scotland Bill it is the primary constitutional assertion.
Clause 27(7) states:
"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland".
So much for the division between reserved powers and delegated powers, my Lords. In Clause 95, on supplementary powers, one can see a Henry VIII clause par excellence. It states:
"Subordinate legislation may make such provision as the person making the legislation considers necessary or expedient in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament".
I have come to the conclusion that the Government are playing some kind of joke on us. In what I took to be the Claim of Right, 1989, and the sentiment of the subsequent constitutional convention, I understood the Scots to be acting as a nation, agreeing to remain within the United Kingdom, and agreeing that certain reserve powers should be exercised from London. I believed that was the sentiment behind the referendum decision in Scotland many months ago.
Even if I am wrong on that, all the Government have to do is to look back to our nation's experience in Northern Ireland to see how foolish Clause 27 is. As I am sure the parliamentary draftsman knows, the Government of Ireland Act contained Section 75 which was, in terms, precisely the same as Clause 27. Two years after that section was enacted, Sir James Craig, perfectly within the powers of the Act, decided to change the electoral system of local government from proportional representation to first-past-the-post. The Lord Lieutenant, who had the power under Section 12 of the Act to do so, delayed the measure. He was faced by the Northern Ireland Government with the threat of resignation. Against that threat he gave in; and since that moment, until the great events of the early 1970s, this Parliament never sought to legislate for devolved matters in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it was always a
1692
tradition in another place that no Questions were to be asked about the Northern Ireland Government in those areas which were clearly delegated.
If that is how we behaved towards Northern Ireland—whose Parliament was set up, not to distance Ulster from London, but to make sure that it was never distanced any further from London—how can the measure have any relevance to the kind of relationship that we shall have with Scotland? Before the Government go any further, I urge them to think carefully about Clause 27(7) and its relationship with Clause 95.
Other parts of the Bill are equally likely to cause offence. One is the differential treatment of the question of human rights. As I have recounted, under the Human Rights Bill if a judge in England or Wales considers that a statute contravenes the Convention on Human Rights the statute is not struck down: there is simply a declaration of incompatibility. But Clause 28 of the Scotland Bill treats human rights in a quite different way.
In Scotland, if a statute contravenes the Convention on Human Rights there will be no declaration of incompatibility. That statute will simply be struck down. Why should the Scottish parliament be a second-class citizen in respect of human rights? Why should Scottish citizens not have the same treatment as the rest of the country? It is likely that as the jurisprudence develops there will be different rules about the same clauses in the convention, bearing down upon statutes of a similar character. That is not desirable.
It is clear from even a glancing acquaintanceship with the Scotland Bill that the judges are to play a very important role in patrolling the constitutional boundaries—though, heaven knows, one can see that they are likely to have their work cut out after even a quick look at Schedule 5, whose definition of reserve powers runs into no less than 19 pages.
The final arbiter of all these matters is to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I believe that that is the right decision. However, I listened with great interest to the outstanding speech delivered to your Lordships last night by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He rightly mentioned that there were insufficient judges in Scotland who were Privy Counsellors. He went on to say that he hoped that the Government would do something about that.
He also touched on, by implication rather than directly, the composition of the Privy Council when it is making decisions about the borders between what the Scottish parliament and the Westminster Parliament can do. I understand the reasons why that is of concern. However, I believe that it would be disastrous if we got into the habit of determining the composition of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council according to the origin of its members. Once we do that we will distinguish between Judicial Committee decisions made by three Scots as opposed to two Englishmen and vice versa. Once we get into that kind of game the decisions of the committee will become discredited. Once its decisions become discredited the Bill will be ashes. Therefore, I urge the Government to think very carefully and to take seriously the question of deciding who should sit in the Privy Council.
I have one more theme to touch on before I sit down, although I realise that I have already spoken for 12 minutes which, in terms of the number of noble Lords who wish to speak, is unusually long. It is the relationship of the Bill to the constitution of the rest of the United Kingdom. It was Dicey who in the 1880s memorably said in his book on home rule in Ireland that what was being considered was not the dissolution of the firm but a change in its articles of association. Here we are not just creating a new constitution for Scotland; we are creating a new constitution for the United Kingdom. What the Bill does to the rest of the United Kingdom is just as important as what the Bill does to Scotland.
That is where I find the Bill rather thin. In my submission, it is essential that the Government come forward with decisions on a range of issues connected with the number of Scottish Members of Parliament who sit in the United Kingdom Parliament; their effect on the political balance of power in another place; the scope of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet; a range of questions in relation to the financial powers of the United Kingdom Parliament in Scotland; and the powers of the Scottish parliament to modify those powers. All those issues will begin to emerge once the Scotland Bill becomes an Act and operational. If we have not found solutions to those problems which are fair to all sides the system will have imperfect foundations. What will build on those imperfect foundations will be deep resentments; resentments which will ultimately break this settlement.
The late Lord Birkenhead, when he was Mr. F.E. Smith speaking in another place in 1911, said that between union and separation there is no middle course. I hope that in this case he is wrong and it must be our responsibility to do everything we can—
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the remark of Lord Birkenhead was identical to one that was made on the Union of the Crowns in 1603, which was wrong?
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I could not have been corrected by a more noble Lord. Sadly, Mr. F.E. Smith was right in relation to Ireland. In the 1990s and in the millennium to come, it is our task to prove wrong the sentiment which he expressed then, and which reflected a previous observation made so many centuries ago. But we will do so only if we take these issues and others that your Lordships have raised with the utmost seriousness.

The National Minimum Wage
3.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Clinton-Davis): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade on the national minimum wage. The Statement is as follows:
"Today the Government publish the report of the Low Pay Commission and spell out how, in our response to that report, we will begin to end the scandal of poverty pay.
"In the labour market we inherited just over a year ago, many workers received such excessively low rates of pay that they were driven to work long hours simply to make ends meet. We all know the examples: a homeworker paid as little as 35 pence an hour; a cleaner £1.30 an hour; or a security guard £2.35 an hour—and bring your own dog!
"In addition, such low levels of pay mean that taxpayers provide massive sums of income subsidy and businesses, large and small, striving to compete, as Britain must, on quality and value for money, see their position undermined not by fair competition, but by cutthroat cowboys. And with the lack of any fair and basic minimum standards at work, the gap between real hourly earnings of the lowest and highest paid almost doubled in the past 20 years.
"This was the outcome of the strategy of the previous Government; that Britain aimed to be merely the cheapest rather than the best, no longer the workshop of the world, but the sweatshop of western Europe.
"This Government believe in decent standards as a spur to competing sustainably on quality, to tackle social exclusion and to make work pay.
"We have already made substantial progress. The working families tax credit will guarantee an income of at least £180 per week for families working full-time. No family with weekly earnings of less than £220 will pay tax. The reform of national insurance contributions will reduce barriers to work. The New Deal will help the young and the long-term unemployed to move from welfare to work; and the Fairness at Work White Paper and the work of the Social Exclusion Unit are all part of the wider strategy to reshape Britain.
"The national minimum wage is a key element in this range of policies. It will help create a better rewarded and more committed workforce, itself a force for driving up standards and helping competitiveness. Experience elsewhere shows too the likelihood that staff turnover will be reduced and investment in training encouraged, which itself improves productivity.
"We were determined from the outset that the national minimum wage must be introduced sensibly and in accordance with prevailing economic conditions. That is why we set up the Low Pay Commission, with George Bain in the chair, after only 90 days.
"The commissioners were publicly recruited following Nolan principles, and drawn from among employers, employees and independents, each serving in an individual capacity. Their work is impressive. I would like to pay tribute to George Bain and the other commissioners who have done a quite remarkable job.
"As well as studying 500 written submissions, they took oral evidence from a wide range of organisations, and held over 200 meetings throughout the United Kingdom. They heard from large and small employers, trade unions, individual employees including homeworkers, and a range of other interested organisations.
"I wholeheartedly commend their immense hard work, energy and willingness to give so freely of their time for this important task. As we made clear in our evidence to the Low Pay Commission, the government are particularly concerned to ensure that our national minimum wage should be set at a level which avoided the risk of adverse effects on employment, inflation and the PSBR.
"We have been particularly mindful of the need to protect the position of young people. It is in our view essential that we avoid reducing the relative attractiveness to young people of staying on in education and training, and to avoid discouraging employers from providing training for those in work. These concerns have guided our judgment on the decisions in response to the commission's recommendations.
"The Government welcome the report and support all of the commission's key recommendations, subject to consultation on some of the practical details. In particular we accept a main rate of £3.60 per hour before deductions with effect from April 1999. When combined with the working families tax credit and other benefits, for a one-earner couple with two children, this means an effective wage of more than £7 per hour. We accept that all those aged 16 to 17 or on formal apprenticeships should be exempt, and we also accept the proposal to institute a development rate. The commission proposes that that minimum rate should apply at £3.20 to all 18 to 20 year-olds, and to all workers starting a new job with a new employer and receiving accredited training.
"We are however at a critical point in the economic cycle. The Government are determined to proceed with all due caution with the introduction of that rate, especially for the crucial group of those aged 18 to 21.
"We have therefore decided, for this group, to phase it in two stages, with an initial transitional rate of £3.00 from April 1999, which will increase to £3.20 in June 2000. However, we are asking the commission to review the position of 21 year-olds again in 1999, following the implementation of the £3.00 transitional rate, and then to provide a further report on whether, in the light of experience to that date, they reconfirm their advice that 21 year-olds could safely be covered by the main adult rate. I am pleased also to announce that we shall also be asking the commission to continue its work monitoring and evaluating the introduction and impact of the minimum wage.
"Introducing the minimum wage at the levels I have announced today will help some 2 million workers escape from poverty pay without adverse
1696
effects on jobs or inflation. These will include: 1.4 million women, over 1.3 million part-time workers, some 200,000 young people, around 110,000 homeworkers, approximately 175,000 lone parents who work, and some 130,000 ethnic minority workers.
"The remaining Low Pay Commission recommendations deal with such technical matters as the composition and reference period for calculating the minimum wage, the handling of benefits in kind and its application to homeworkers and pieceworkers.
"We have fully and carefully considered these recommendations and accept them in principle, subject to consultation on the practicalities and detail of their implementation when formulating the regulations implementing the national minimum wage.
"Both Houses will have an opportunity to discuss all the matters on which the commission have made recommendations when we lay draft regulations in Parliament following that consultation.
"In order to assist right honourable and honourable Members I shall place in the Vote Office a paper setting out the Low Pay Commission's recommendations as well as details of where further consultation is required.
"Today marks a further milestone in implementing this Government's manifesto commitments. The introduction of the national minimum wage would never have taken place under a Conservative administration. From the outset the Government's approach to the minimum wage has been that it must be approached in an atmosphere and a framework of partnership. The Low Pay Commission has shown that that approach was the right one. It is clear from its work that there is now an overwhelming welcome for the principle of the minimum wage. Among the few people out of step appear to be the party opposite. I challenge it today on behalf of the 2 million people benefiting from these proposals, to say whether it will, if returned to office, seek to reverse the steps we take today.
"The minimum wage, along with our other policies, such as the working families tax credit, will help remove the worst cases of exploitation in the workplace, cases which have no place in a modern Britain.
"I commend the report to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this very important Statement. Is he aware that, although at long last we welcome the official Statement from the Government, it has been massively leaked for weeks, apart from copies apparently being privately available to the trade unions ahead of Parliament? Unlike others, I have not had the chance to read this 285-page report in the half hour that was available before entering the Chamber.
Is the Minister aware that we welcome the fact that the Government have agreed a lower sum for the young, one of the vulnerable groups that will suffer most from

1697
this ill-conceived doctrinaire concept? The Minister claims that the New Deal will help the young move from welfare to work. Can the Minister say how that will happen? He is absolutely right; we would not have introduced the Bill, although we most certainly agree with the minimum income.
Up to this very minute Parliament has been legislating about a pig in a poke. The National Minimum Wage Bill has passed all of its stages in the other place without honourable Members knowing for certain what the national minimum wage will be. Here we have gone two-thirds through the Committee stage, which is a very abbreviated stage considering the number of unknowns and the number of blank cheques that the Government are asking us to sign, but only now are we being told some of the details. We did have a leaked figure, with counter leaks from within an apparently divided Cabinet that a sort of Dutch auction is going on, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer trying to bid the figure down as if he were in some kind of oriental bazaar. There is more that we need to know.
Mr. Rodney Bickerstaffe, the Secretary General of UNISON, said in a television interview last Sunday that there was a lot of pressure by the Treasury on the Low Pay Commission to keep the national minimum wage down. Can the Minister say what pressure was brought to bear by the DTI on the Low Pay Commission with regard to other aspects of its deliberations? To what extent did the different Government departments interfere with the supposedly independent and impartial inquiry? Why were the terms of reference of the Low Pay Commission circumscribed by the Secretary of State and Clause 5 of the Bill, which has not yet become an Act, to produce a pre-determined result? If, as the Minister stated, the commissioners were widely recruited, why was there no representative of genuine small businesses?
Why, if the commission had been so minded, was it not able to recommend different figures for different areas, sectors of employment, different size undertakings, different ages over 26—for example, senior citizens—or different trades or occupations?
On Second Reading, I asked why the President of the Board of Trade had expressly forbidden the Low Pay Commission to take regionality into account. May we please have an answer now? Despite using the American minimum wage as their model, which provides many exemptions for small businesses, why will the Government not give the same exemption to our own small businesses?
The Minister has said that this measure will help about 1.4 million women. If the American experience is anything to go by, why would the American equal pay Act 1963 have given exemptions to business with an annual turnover of less than 500,000 dollars? Is he aware that tables on page 104 of that report show that a national minimum wage of the order proposed by the Government would add almost 2 per cent. to the wage bill of Britain's agriculture and up to 5 per cent. in the cleaning industry? Do the Government agree that it is
1698
small businesses which are currently providing the greater number of new jobs, while big businesses are still shedding them?
Although the Government must be tired of being reminded of the Deputy Prime Minister's frank admission that,
"any silly fool knows that the national minimum wage would result in job losses",
perhaps they will tell us whether they agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskell, who as recently as 18th May at col. 1277 agreed that if an employer had to pay more in wages he would shed labour.
Do the Government agree with Professor Bain, the Chairman of the Low Pay Commission, who told The Times on 3rd June 1997 that he would be,
"surprised if there were not some job losses, but the question is whether those jobs would be better lost anyway"?
Do the Government agree with what he appears to have been saying: that job losses would be a price well worth paying? Can the Minister say whether there is any truth in the report in the Mail on Sunday last Sunday that Professor Bain has warned that he might resign if the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission are not accepted?
Do the Government agree with the analysis which appeared in The Times on 17th June by Christine Buckley who also repeated the adverse effects on employment of the national minimum wage, especially on young employees? Do they agree with that same analysis which repeated my warning on Second Reading; namely, that it would have an adverse effect on the Government's Welfare to Work programme? Will the Minister say whether that is the advice that the Treasury has given to the Chancellor?
Do the Government agree with the CBI, which forecast that the national minimum wage,
"could result in rising prices, business closures and unemployment"?
That is despite the fact that the CBI is now reported as saying that it could live with the figure of £3.60.
Do the Government agree that the CBI does not speak for my village store or everybody's local newsagent which are the sort of business that will be hit hardest by a national minimum wage of £3.60? Will the Government be publishing the minutes and rationale of the deliberations of the Low Pay Commission in fixing the figure? We are very curious to know how it could arrive at a figure of £3.60 when in the USA, where the average wage is far higher than in the UK, it is five dollars 15 cents which is merely about £3.15.
What is the Government's attitude to the threat by Mr. Monks that the unions will jump free (whatever that means) from the so-called partnership with the employers and government if the LPC's recommendations are watered down? Is the Chancellor not worried about that? Will the Government introduce fresh legislation to deal with any political strikes threatened by UNISON at its current conference if its demands for different levels of the national minimum wage are not met?
Do the Government agree that this latest interest rate increase, the sixth in 13 months, was due to the fears of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee about the increasing size of wage settlements? What assessment does the Minister have of the impact on wage inflation of the introduction of the national minimum wage?
Do the Government agree with the widely held view, as reported in The Times that:
"A 5.25% pay award by Marks and Spencer was an important factor in the decision"?
Marks & Spencer is generally regarded as a model employer. Does the Minister agree that it was bound to have taken the forthcoming national minimum wage into account and would have ensured that it maintained its pay differentials with other employers?
Do the Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Healey, who once said in the other place that the minimum wage was something on which the unions will build differentials? How will that help the Chancellor to secure the wage restraint he is calling for? How will the national minimum wage increase productivity and employment, and help to bring down interest rates which are at a damagingly high level?
The Minister said that when we were in government, we aimed to be the cheapest rather than the best. I utterly reject that. I am proud to have been part of a government who made sure that we secured one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. We were very keen to try to maintain that.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware of the edict in the Companion that points out that short points and questions about what is contained in the Statement is all that is allowed when a Statement has been made? We seem to be having a tirade of prepared points of view which have almost no relationship whatever to the Statement.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is absolutely not so. That does not apply to Front Bench speakers and I advise my noble friend to carry on directly.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that advice. I must tell him that I intended to do that anyway.
Is it not true that the leaks from Cabinet about the disagreement between the Treasury and the DTI are because the Chancellor wants a rate which will be less inflationary and which will lose fewer jobs? I commend him for that. Does that not look as though at least he agreed with our objections that it would have been inflationary and would cause the loss of jobs? If the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission was not to be accepted, why did the Chancellor not set the rate himself? Is it because, like the matter of interest rate rises being hived off to the Bank of England, this Government wish to hive off their responsibilities to make unpleasant decisions to someone else so that they can say, "not my fault, guy", or in this case, "not my fault, comrades"?
4.17 p.m.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, I share the noble Baroness's welcome for the Statement. That is the only thing that she said with which I agree. When the Minister responds, I should be grateful if he would correct a point which he made at the end of the Statement when he indicated that the Opposition were against the proposals put forward. I hope that he will make it clear that he was looking opposite him and not obliquely to the Liberal Democrats, because, as he well knows, we stand four-square behind the Government in this regard. We believe that the slave rate wages which have been paid in many sectors of British industry are a scandal. That matter should have been rectified long ago and we entirely support the Government's determination to do that.
I admire the noble Baroness's ability, from a half hour study of the Statement, to produce 43, or perhaps 45, detailed questions on it. In fact, we should admire her skill in turning the speech which she and her colleagues made both on Second Reading and in Committee into that many questions. Of course, we have heard it all before.
The first point I make is that from reading the report, it is clear that the basic minimum wage has been fixed at a point at which the maximum advantage will accrue to the lowly paid with the least effect on jobs. When people have an opportunity to look at the detailed report, they will see that it demonstrates quite clearly that anything over £3.60 or £3.70 per hour starts to have a more significant effect on jobs than the recommended rate. It is demonstrated in the summary of recommendations at paragraph 23 that at the proposed level the national minimum wage will increase the nation's wage bill by a little over 0.5 per cent.
Our party does not wish to be critical of the Government in accepting that fundamental recommendation. Clearly, from what we read in the papers, we understand that there is significant opposition to the rate from sectors of the trade union movement. I await to hear with interest whether the Minister is prepared to comment on that. But having read the report, that seems to be a sensible figure for the Low Pay Commission to have recommended and for the Government to have adopted.
Clearly the significant issue that we ought to spend a little time on and ask the Minister to comment upon is the question of young workers. During the course of studying the Bill in this House, we considered long and hard whether the appropriate cut-off point was 26 years of age, which was the original suggestion by the Government, 21, 18 or indeed 16 years of age. Although there is disagreement between the Low Pay Commission and the Government, we are now moving towards an acceptance on the government side of a two-tier rate. But now is not the time to go into that aspect of the debate. However, when looking at the overall impact of not having the standard minimum rate for all young people, it would be worth while if the Government were to indicate whether they have looked into, and costed, the issue of housing benefit as regards not paying young people the full rate. I assume that that is a relevant factor for the Chancellor of the Exchequer in making his recommendations.
Perhaps I may now indicate where we part company with the Government. Rarely do I want to take a point that the Conservatives have taken because they often have a tendency to look at form rather than substance. However, I have two concerns about the way the Bill and these proposals have been dealt with. First, we have seen a most extraordinary series of events through newspaper reports relating to the fact that the rate and the proposals have been well known for at least a month, despite the fact that there has been no government statement to that effect. It is well known and has been well reported that there is a significant row in the Government over whether the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission should or should not be accepted. Secondly, having at last had the Statement, we find, contrary to every expectation held since the Low Pay Commission was established, that the Government are now saying that they basically agree with the proposals of the commission except in one very critical area where they have decided they will not adopt the recommendation. That is obviously significant.
We know that the Treasury normally likes to control all pay, but this is a classic example of the Treasury trying to pay the dog and bark itself. No one who has been involved in the proceedings on the Bill would ever have expected the Government simply to take the very detailed work of the Low Pay Commission and say, "We like that aspect of it. We like it overall, but we don't particularly want to accept one very key recommendation".
I do not want to say anything further at this stage on that point. However, it leads me to my final point. As the Minister will know, we argued strongly during the course of the Bill for the need to give the Low Pay Commission a much more permanent status. Quite honestly, we have been somewhat surprised in our discussions with the Government and in the debate which has ensued as to why they have not been prepared to make such a commitment. Can the Minister confirm that when we come to review the progress of the National Minimum Wage Bill we will now enshrine into the legislation the permanent status of the Low Pay Commission? There is a clear recommendation in the report that it would like to review exactly what is happening in two years' time. There is a demand in the context of the debate that has followed that that should happen. Otherwise, we are fearful that the sort of rather unseemly political row which has featured in our newspaper reports over the past few weeks will happen every year or every two years when such recommendations are put forward again.
I should like to press the Minister on that point. Is it now quite categoric that the Government will give permanent status to the Low Pay Commission and, dare I say it, in future, unlike this time, adopt its recommendations?
4.24 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the nice remarks she made about the Statement and about the
1702
whole policy of the national minimum wage of which I know she has always been a most active supporter. Indeed, she made that clear during the Committee stage of the Bill. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, who I know is very much an adherent of the principle of the national minimum wage. Although we have differences, I believe that they are relatively minor when placed against the backcloth that here we have, for the very first time in this country, something which ought to have been introduced years ago; namely, a national minimum wage.
I turn, first, to the allegation of leaks, which I do not believe is of dramatic importance. To say the least, it is a little irksome for this Government to be lectured about leaks when, in the case of the previous government, it seemed to me that theirs was the only vessel in the world to leak from the top. There has been much speculation in press reports and in the media in that respect; indeed, I do not deny that fact. But four weeks from receipt of a document dealing with an innovative policy is not a very long time for the Government to take to consider all the implications involved. Of course discussions take place in Cabinet where different points of view are expressed. I thought that had also happened in previous governments, but perhaps I was wrong. It is possible that they were all in unison about the disaster that they were imposing upon us.
I turn now to the dire effects of this as suggested by the noble Baroness. I accept the noble Baroness has not yet had time to read the report, but when she does so she will see that they are expressly refuted by the Low Pay Commission. The commission considered in great detail a vast amount of evidence to which I have already referred. As regards the terribly serious impact on small businesses, job losses and all the other adverse speculations in which the noble Baroness indulged, I should point out to the House that the report of the Low Pay Commission has not confirmed any such prospects. I respectfully suggest that the commission considered the matter in rather more detail than the noble Baroness, the shadow Secretary of State or, indeed, the Conservative Party has done. No one has conducted an assessment of the position in such detail. Therefore, to predict all these dire effects is to dramatise the whole situation out of all proportion for a rather simple party political point.
We also had the allegation that there was pressure from the Treasury and the DTI to interfere with the conclusions of the Low Pay Commission. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that; indeed, I vehemently deny it. The House would be here until next Christmas if I were to attempt to reply to all the points raised by the noble Baroness. It is as well to have all that on the record, but it could all be significantly reduced to one sentence: the Tory Party does not accept the minimum wage. All the rest is verbiage.
The noble Baroness referred to the fact that there was no representative of small businesses on the commission. That reflects a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the Low Pay Commission: there were no representatives of any interests. Those concerned were there because they are people with expertise covering a very wide field. Therefore, they contributed

1703
not as delegates or representatives but as individuals using their own personal experience. The remit was set by the Government, and I did not think that there was too much complaint about the way in which we did so. I believe that the remit was a perfectly reasonable way of setting out the issues for consideration. The Low Pay Commission did a very good job in dealing with all the factors involved.
My noble friend Lord Haskel was brought to book, but I could not quite understand why. He is sitting here calmly and is not in the least upset by the attack upon him. I understand that the matter he dealt with did not concern wages but rather investment. He does not accept the view that—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I certainly would not dream of mentioning anything that I did not believe the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, had said. That is not the kind of thing I would do. However, I refer the Minister to col. 1277 of the Official Report, which I have already mentioned. I refer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, at Question Time, who asked,
"Is the noble Lord saying that if an employer has to pay more in wages, he will shed labour and go for new technology, thus being able to operate with fewer employees"?—[Official Report, 18/5/98; col. 1277.]
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, replied, again at col. 1277,
"I am afraid that that is the way of business today. Increased productivity often means more investment and fewer people".
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I do not wish to get involved in this debate because it is taking up time. My noble friend Lord Haskel replied to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. That is plain from what the noble Baroness has just read out.
It has been asked whether George Bain will resign. I heard him speak this morning and I did not detect a hint of any resignation being tendered. Of course he would have preferred the Government to have accepted the recommendations in full. It has also been asked why we should bother with the Low Pay Commission at all when the Government are dictated to by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have read stories which claim that certain Members of the Government are opposed to a rate of £3.60. That is not true but that was speculated. I have read all kinds of stories. The only area of difference between the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, and myself relates to young people. I shall discuss that in a moment.
I ask the following rhetorical question. If the Government had simply set up the Low Pay Commission and then accepted all its findings in their entirety without question, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness would have asked whether the Government did not have a view of their own. Weeks ago I stated from this Dispatch Box that we value the work of the Low Pay Commission, but it is for the Government to make up their mind on the evidence. That is a perfectly feasible action on the part of the Government.
It is difficult to respond to all of the questions that have been asked. I shall try to respond to those I have not dealt with, although I have dealt with many of them.
1704
As regards small firms, there is no evidence at all that small firms' organisations seem to be discomfited by the evidence before us. I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall. I welcome his support. On the question of the rate, we take the view that £3.60 is a sensible rate and that it will not have an adverse effect on jobs in any significant degree. Of course, job gains and job losses occur for many reasons. I cannot reply to the question of the noble Lord on housing benefit as I do not have the figures before me. I shall try to obtain the information and write to him.
As regards young workers, the Low Pay Commission itself states that they are a separate case. The Government have always recognised this is a difficult case and a finely balanced one. The Low Pay Commission's report stated that the concentration of young people in the lowest decile of earnings might lead to the conclusion that the age of 21 or 22 would be an appropriate cut-off point. There is reflected the finely balanced nature of the argument.
I look forward to the discussions that we shall have on this report. I hope that the discussions will be sensible and based upon the real matters at stake, rather than simple Conservative Party prejudice.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, in assessing the significance of the Statement that my noble friend has repeated, I hope he can help not just myself but also the House in answering two questions. First, he mentioned the figure of 2 million low-paid employees who would benefit from the introduction of the new rate, of whom I think he said 1.4 million were women. Are these people additional to those whom we anticipate will benefit from the working families tax credit, or are they largely subsumed in that group, which, incidentally is to receive a more generous benefit than the new rate for the low paid? Secondly, in considering the relationship between the minimum wage and the working families tax credit, does not the latter have the unanswerable advantage that because the sum of money making up the pay is contributed by the state rather than by the employer there is no threat whatever to jobs?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Shore. My understanding is that the figures I have quoted stand by themselves. However, I may be wrong and I shall certainly look into the matter. As regards my noble friend's second point, I consider that the issues are complementary rather than mutually exclusive. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the issue. I shall certainly look further into it.
Lord Acton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned the current American minimum wage of 5.15 dollars. Is my noble friend the Minister aware that the International Herald Tribune reported in February that President Clinton and the Democrat leadership in Congress announced that their party will run in the mid-term election in November with a plank in their platform of a 6.15 dollar minimum wage? The OECD estimates that in 1997 the purchasing power parity of the pound was almost exactly 1.50 dollars.

1705
Thus 6.15 dollars is approximately equivalent to £4.10. Does he not agree that the American President and his party are comfortable with a minimum wage some 50p higher than our proposed minimum wage?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the alliance with the Clintons is a strong one. The American experience, like that of other countries, is, of course, different. This is the first time we have introduced the national minimum wage. I am sure the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Acton for giving us this information.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in view of the business which has unfortunately been interrupted by this Statement, what is implied by the word "national" in national minimum wage? What is the nation to which it applies?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, if the noble Lord had paid more attention to the debate to which he has just referred he would be aware that we are talking about the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I have two questions. First, what makes Her Majesty's Government think that younger workers are charged less for their lodgings, their food, their clothes and their fares? Is this measure not discriminating unfairly against these young workers?
Secondly, is there not a danger that unscrupulous employers will be tempted—I go no further than "tempted"—to take on school-leavers until they reach the age of 20 or 21, then get rid of the lot and start again with another batch of school-leavers? I know that there are certain protections in relation to unfair dismissal through the work of employment tribunals. I merely wish to be sure that tribunals will not be overloaded with work if the situation is abused by unscrupulous employers.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I hope that will not be the case. Effective enforcement is important. That is a matter to which the Government will return when we have consulted and drawn up the regulations which will be laid before the House in due course. It is absolutely right to speak of effective enforcement. I do not want to help my noble friend put ideas into the minds of the unscrupulous as to how they might react to this situation. I do not in fact believe that the points she has raised will have an overriding or overall effect.
The reason for taking the steps that we have in relation to younger people is simply that, on balance, we have to operate somewhat cautiously in the first period of the national minimum wage. We do not want to deny young people an effective ability to obtain good jobs. We have other programmes in place designed to achieve precisely that. It is not a question of discrimination; it is a question of examining the evidence and balancing the situation. That we have done. A review will take place on at least a part of our proposals within a very short time.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in giving a general welcome to the Statement, for the benefit of the party physically
1706
on my left, will the Minister list the other major industrial countries that do not have a minimum wage? I do not believe that that will detain him until Christmas.
On the question of a lower rate for the young, is the Minister aware of the work done by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and by Shelter, arguing the grave likelihood that welfare-to-work will break down because the young cannot find affordable rented accommodation? Does he accept the general principle of equal pay for equal work? Is the Minister aware that if 16 and 17 year-olds have no entitlement to benefit, they may now be compelled to take jobs on which they cannot live? Does he believe that to be right?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the list would be a very short one indeed. I thank the noble Earl for raising that point. There are different experiences, and some countries apply different practices for young people.
We are aware of the situation, as indeed is the Low Pay Commission, which entered a caveat. We will certainly take account of the representations referred to by the noble Earl. On the basis of present evidence, we do not share the draconian fears that he has expressed. No doubt he will wish to raise the issue in more detail later.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the House that the seeds of the national minimum wage were first sown in 1986, the very same year that the Conservative Government started to dismantle the wages councils, which were set up by Winston Churchill in the early part of this century. It is absolutely clear that those sitting on the Conservative Benches are totally opposed to a national minimum wage. What are not so clear, and indeed are rather confusing, are the arguments that they marshal in support of their opposition. It seems that they do not address the objectives of this Government or the realism of the situation.
The Government have two worthy objectives. One is to try to get as many people as possible into employment. The other is to ensure minimum standards of a civilised nature for those who are most vulnerable in our society. When addressing those objectives, there has to be some degree of proportion and balance. If the minimum wage is levelled too much towards adults, on the one hand large numbers of adults can be unemployed and young people will find employment—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I understood that I could make a comment.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend of the words of the Chief Whip asking Back-Benchers to limit their remarks to questions and factual clarification.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I shall therefore terminate my remarks and pose a question. Given that

1707
less than 10 per cent. of the British working population will be covered by the national minimum wage—2 million people, 1.4 million of them women, out of a total working population of 22 million—does the Minister feel that any self-respecting employer will be in any way damaged or in opposition to the national minimum wage?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, to respond to my noble friend's last point, many employers have already taken advantage of the fact that the climate in industry is changing, and they are themselves changing. Many are paying in excess of the recommended national minimum wage.
My noble friend is right in drawing attention to the history of the abolition of the wages councils—an example of Conservative amnesia. The great thing about the Conservative Party is that it does have balance—its members have a chip on both shoulders.
Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, remembering, as I do, the sets of figures with which I was furnished by my officials at the DTI as to the number of jobs that would be lost at different levels as a result of a national minimum wage, with what figures has the Minister been supplied by his officials at the DTI indicating the numbers of jobs that will be lost given the level of minimum wage that has now been decided by the Government?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I rely on the evidence provided for, and accepted by, the Low Pay Commission.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I welcome the Statement by my noble friend the Minister. It brings us into line with many of the other western European countries, and indeed America, by establishing a national minimum wage, which already exists in those other countries. I congratulate the Government on persisting in establishing the principle of a minimum wage. Does the Minister feel, as I do, that the establishment of that principle will in the future provide a means of getting rid of poverty pay in this country?
Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes, my Lords, that is one of the reasons that I have already adduced. Achieving better conditions in Britain's workplaces is critical in terms of achieving a more involved and committed workforce, and a workforce that is treated decently and with dignity. That is effectively what this is all about.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I do not know what the precise cut-off age will be for young people being paid less than older people. Will the Minister accept that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, does not seem to recognise, if I employed a labour force I should not expect to pay more experienced people the same as young people who had just started in the job?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, that has been one of the arguments in the finely balanced discussion that has taken place. I note that the noble Lord is not saying that
1708
he disapproves of the idea of a national minimum wage. He merely refers to an element of it. That is the point made by my right honourable friend in the Statement.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble friend monitor the situation to see where jobs will be saved as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage? Will it not mean that the responsible employer who pays decent wages will not find himself in unfair competition with an employer who may prosper mightily while paying starvation wages to his workers, who as a consequence have to be subsidised by the state?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend is right, that is why many employers have supported the concept of the national minimum wage. It is the old argument about the level playing field. People who are carrying on a decent job of employing workers on a civilised basis do not want to be cut down by cowboys displaying the kind of tactics of which presumably the Conservative Party approves.
I have already said that the position is to be monitored by the Low Pay Commission and I am glad that that is the case. The point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, in the debate that we had. I hope that he is satisfied with that response.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that at £3.60 per hour we are talking about a weekly wage of just under £137? That is little enough and I feel sure that all noble Lords sitting here would find great difficulty living on it.
I wish to ask two questions. First, will the minimum wage be increased year by year? Secondly, will it be increased in relation to the retail prices index or in relation to wage movements, or a mixture of both? Finally, perhaps I may ask him whether the 20p difference between £3 and £3.20 for young people will have any effect on employment. I doubt it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, as to the last point, my noble friend is entitled to entertain his doubts about the situation. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. That is why it is important. All the other points he raised relate to that and that the Low Pay Commission should monitor the situation. That will be done. Therefore it will also impact on the mechanism to be deployed as to whether there should be increases.
I entirely agree with the point made by my noble friend that few noble Lords would wish to live on the minimum wage. However, it is a floor; it is not something which will apply in all cases of employment. We hope not. But at least it is right for the first time to have that floor so that the lowest paid—the most vulnerable—can be protected.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the real danger of a minimum wage—and I support it—lies not in London and the south east of England where job opportunities are considerable, but in parts of England like the north and the west country, where the

1709
real test will be whether job opportunities will continue or whether employers will no longer be able to afford to employ workers and so start reducing the labour force?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, with respect, I do not believe that the noble Lord is right about that. There are places in the regions that suffer a serious impact from low wages. Even in parts of the country where we expect people to be well rewarded, that is not always the case. That is why we do not accept the regional argument which has been well and eloquently argued in this place in Committee by the noble Lord's party.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, can the Minister furnish us with the list of countries which do not have a minimum wage? In answer to the question from the noble Earl, Lord Russell, he said that the list was short.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is here.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, the Minister referred a few moments ago to the national minimum wage being a floor. Does he agree that there is a danger that those who do not accept the concept of the national minimum wage—and I am talking about employers—will view it as a national maximum wage? For that reason, does he agree that the need to be a member of a trade union at this time is as great as it has ever been?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, yes. I happen to be a trade unionist myself, so I agree with the point. My noble friend is well known as having an excellent background in that regard, and I can understand his articulation of the point.

Scotland Bill
4.53 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, I shall make a short, rather schizophrenic speech. I very much welcome a Scottish parliament, but at the same time I cannot help having doubts and apprehensions. I believe passionately in devolution. The more power that can be transferred to the regions and away from central government the better. Scotland is much more than a region, it is a country with a long and independent history, with its own legal and educational system. It has long deserved a parliament of its own.
Never was that more apparent than during the Thatcher years when many of us living north of the Border felt that we had become a colony, governed by a remote foreign power that emanated from somewhere in the home counties. We feel more comfortable today, but that is because the whole of Great Britain is now largely governed by Scots.
It is partly because I feel that the Scots should be playing their part in governing Great Britain rather than just Scotland that my feelings towards a Scottish
1710
parliament are mixed. For example, to which body should an ambitious young Scottish politician aspire—Edinburgh or Westminster? I am also apprehensive because, like many on the Conservative Benches, I fear a Scottish parliament could be the stepping stone to Scottish independence. Like every noble Lord who has so far spoken in the debate, I can see nothing but disadvantages in an independent Scotland. England and Scotland are greatly strengthened by their marriage to each other. A divorce would weaken both.
I know that one of the Government's intentions in establishing a Scottish parliament is to strengthen the Union, not to weaken it. It is desperately important that this turns out to be the case. Yet, as several noble Lords from the Conservative Benches have already pointed out, polls in Scotland suggest that the prospect of a parliament has increased Scottish enthusiasm for an independent Scotland rather than calming it down. Let us hope that this is only a transitory frustration, a protest against the early disappointments of the Blair administration or the result of World Cup fever. We certainly want to distance ourselves from the English football fans, for example!
I am also disturbed when many friends and colleagues, Scottish and English—and not predominantly Conservative—talk as if Scotland were already in the process of becoming an independent country. They speak as if there were an unstoppable inevitability about it, that it is only a question of time. Is that the way the establishment of a Scottish parliament is being perceived out there? It is important that we—and I mean people like me in particular—do not get talked into feeling that way too.
I also have a more personal historic reason for feeling ambivalent about a Scottish parliament. My ancestor, the first Earl of Glasgow, was one of the architects of the Union of the Parliaments in 1707. He was treasurer depute and a Privy Counsellor in the last Scottish Parliament. Like the merchants of Glasgow, whose interests he came to represent, he believed that the Union was essential for Scotland's economic survival. We sometimes forget that Scotland was close to war with England at the turn of the 18th century, particularly over the issue of England's refusal to let Scotland trade with its colonies. That made life almost impossible for the monarch, William of Orange and later Queen Anne, who was head of state of both countries. I cannot help but envisage similar difficulties for our monarch in the future, if we were to separate again: disputes over ownership of North Sea oil, for example.
The first Earl of Glasgow is vilified by Scottish Nationalists as the man who got hold of a large sum of money from the court of Queen Anne and proceeded to bribe Scottish MPs, particularly opportunist Jacobites, to vote for the Union against their natural instincts. It is probably true that the Act of Union would never have passed through the Scottish Parliament without a little greasing of the wheels. However, we in our family have never accepted the charge that he was guilty of such shenanigans. Even if he was, it seems to me that there is nothing intrinsically wicked in offering bribes to further a good cause. It is those who accept the bribes who need to look to their consciences.
Whatever nationalists may say now, there is no doubt that the Union benefited Scotland as well as Britain. Certainly, the merchants, the traders, the middle classes, thrived under the Union and I do not think that they can even blame the Highland clearances on the Union, just because the Duke of Sutherland happened to be an Englishman.
While I cannot get rid of apprehensions, I tell myself that the majority of Scots are sensible people; that they do not really want an independent Scotland. We are certainly not the kamikaze pilots that some Conservatives patronisingly predict us to be. We are a tolerant, practical, friendly, inventive people. In relation to the size of our population, we have had more influence in the world than any other race, with the possible exception of the Jews. We have had to put up with a lot of English arrogance and insensitivity over the years. But we tolerate it because we realise that they do not know any better.
Surely we are too sensible to be hoodwinked into edging towards an independent Scotland. All we want is what we have always wanted; that is, the right to decide things in Scotland that affect Scotland. If that is what we are to get—that is clearly the Government's intention—then the re-establishment of a Scottish parliament will be the best thing to happen since the first Earl of Glasgow and his cronies had it abolished in 1707.
But we must work hard at the Bill to get it right. At present there are several areas relating to reserve powers at Westminster that will be controversial and could provide ammunition for the nationalists. The Bill is a leap in the dark. It is beset by dangers. But if we all have the will to make it work, we will make it work. And it will serve ultimately to strengthen and not to weaken the United Kingdom.
5 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, sadly, I could not be here yesterday. However, I took the opportunity this morning to read most of the speeches of your Lordships, and very impressive was the reading.
I had a general impression that, given the fact that under the referendum the Scots wanted, to a degree, to go their own way, yesterday's speeches were all constructive and helpful. I was struck by the fact that some of the business leaders in particular were worried by the problems that may arise when the Scotland Bill goes through. One or two other important points were made, such as the relationship of Scotland with the European Union, the point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, as to how the £500 million outwith the block grant for agriculture and so forth will fit in, and the question of who will decide and organise it if there is to be a referendum. However, I must not make up a resume of yesterday or give a winding-up speech; rather, I must keep to my own brief that, above all, this Bill must safeguard the Union. We should all look at it with that constantly in mind.
The Act of 1707 sowed the seeds of the greatest empire ever known in the world. To an important extent, that was due to the Scots. They did perhaps more than
1712
anyone else in a military way, in their readiness to govern and go abroad to set up businesses there. On the political side, as noble Lords will be aware, many of the best Prime Ministers came from Scotland.
To a degree all that will change because many Scots will now devote their attention to building up Scotland within the framework of the United Kingdom. The question of how to divide the block grant will be difficult. We must cover the issues of education, health, social services, transport and various economic developments. I wonder whether the dream of a canal from the Atlantic to the North Sea will be one of them? It is clear that a formidable task faces the Scottish parliament. I am only comforted by the fact that the Scottish Office is such a good machine and will help us all from an administrative point of view.
Constitutional changes are hugely difficult and will need the greatest understanding, patience and good will, not only on the part of England and Scotland, but also we must not forget Wales and Northern Ireland. When embarking upon a project for the building of a new Union—a new Great Britain—and the relationship of the parliaments, we are facing a unique situation, though there are the examples of the Läander and so forth in Europe. We must make no mistake: this will be a difficult task. It is of significance that, not only are we to undergo constitutional changes in Scotland, but that it is taking place against the background of constitutional change in Europe.
We are all going to be kept pretty busy. I have puzzled much over the issue of the European currency and EMU. I only say to those who have the responsibility that they must not drag their feet too much. We must always remember what happened when the Treaty of Rome came about to our disadvantage and not as we would have liked to see it.
Recently I became aware and indeed was shocked at the hatred some of the Scots feel for all things English. I wonder why? The poll tax may have had a part to play when we were the guinea-pigs, or situations such as when Rosyth lost the battle for submarine bases to Plymouth. Clearly that was a decision taken for political rather than economic reasons. I have no doubt that the Scots in central Scotland remember that and resent it to this day.
But that is all in the past. What matters is the future. The Scotland Bill must ensure that such things never happen again. It will take time and patience, as I said. But let all parties combine if there is a serious threat from the blandishments of the Scottish National Party for independence. The history of the Union shows that that would be a tragic mistake and we must never forget the part that Scotland played.
Clause 5 and its reservations are the key to the Bill. It is important that the Government realise that we are all trying to help and that they listen to the points being made, not only by the Opposition but by all the speakers on the Bill. They must understand the basis of their comments, take notice of them and improve the Bill by so doing. It is only in the spirit of "We have to get it to work" that the Scotland Bill will succeed, and we must all work together to ensure that this happens.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, at this stage of the debate, on the second day, I will try to find some new ground in commenting on the role of the Bill. My noble friends have already pointed out the unsolved problems, especially in the contribution by my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton yesterday, which I thought was outstanding. I will also refer to developments in Scotland in the past few weeks, well after the Bill left the other place.
This House has had little opportunity until now to discuss the Government's proposals. The White Paper was published only about five days before a debate, on the day before Parliament went into the long Summer Recess last year. The debate was on the Welsh White Paper as well. The Scottish White Paper would not be recognised as a White Paper by statesmen and parliamentarians of the past. It was a glossy brochure. It contained colour portraits of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, but was very short on substance. It could be described as a spin doctor's prospectus.
Scottish Conservatives will now be working to make the proposed new parliament function as smoothly as possible. That is a laudable intention. However, they will find it uphill work. Some of us have given warnings about the pitfalls and problems for many years. The Government are already bumping into some of them. Three weeks ago an opinion poll in Scotland showed the Scottish National Party—the SNP—to be 9 per cent. ahead of the other parties. Twelve days ago, in another poll, on independence for Scotland, 52 per cent. were found to be in favour and 41 per cent. against. This appears to have taken the Labour leadership by surprise. But why? They were warned many times.
The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State, Mr. Dewar, has turned on the SNP with bitter criticism, having accepted them as allies in the referendum campaign last summer. The Secretary of State has been joined by the Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. John Reid, who was quoted in the Scotsman newspaper on 25th May as saying, in a powerful speech in Edinburgh:
"The SNP will use the parliament as a battering ram to break up Britain … The Nationalists' agenda for the new parliament will be shaped by confrontation politics with the UK parliament".
I do not disagree with Dr. Reid, but why has the Labour Party waited until now to say this? The situation was the same and the SNP policies were the same a year ago. Similar wording appeared in a joint statement by the Prime Minister and the leader of the Liberal Democrats. That stated on 11th June, only a week ago, that Labour and Liberal Democrats,
"firmly reject those parties who see devolution as a stepping stone to the break-up of the United Kingdom".
We were giving warnings a year ago, and before that, but the Labour Party either refused to listen or let the spin doctors take over to get the result they wanted in September's referendum. The SNP has never made any secret of its ultimate objective in Scotland—that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom. It wants the new parliament to be thoroughly unstable and to be at loggerheads with Westminster.
1714
We seem to be moving into a era of constitution changing by referendum. Referendums are still new in this country. I took an active part in the very first two—the 1975 one on Europe and the 1979 one on the Scotland Act. In both, there was no shortage of information, including the solid text of an Act of Parliament in the second. Before the Bill for the 1978 Act was introduced, opinion polls in Scotland were showing that about 60 per cent. of the population were in favour of what was then the vague concept of devolution. A referendum then would have reflected that 60 per cent. in favour. The referendum was, sensibly and correctly, held later, in 1979, when the tangible and substantial Scotland Act was available for all to see and examine. Then only 33 per cent. of the electorate in Scotland gave support to those proposals.
Last September, in the referendum held before clear plans or legislation had been produced, some 60 per cent. of the electorate voted in favour of the principle of devolution. The Times newspaper, in its leading article on 28th May on the referendums in Scotland and Wales, stated:
"Pre-legislative referendums are invitations to buy pigs in pokes".
I add my own comment that government by vague concept referendum is not good government.
Referendums on abstract ideas can be misleading. Few members of the public feel like voting against a principle like devolution, any more than they would vote against freedom or virtue. In Scotland, the electorate may, before long, be expected to vote in a referendum on another attractive sounding concept—independence. The latest opinion poll indicates a majority in Scotland now in favour of 52 per cent. No general framework or agreed principles on conducting referendums have yet been formulated. If in the United Kingdom we continue to use this new electoral device—several more are now in prospect—there should be some basic arrangements to ensure that they are orderly, well understood and efficiently administered. Otherwise we shall be changing the constitution by a new method—the random referendum.
The Scottish electorate, as previous speakers pointed out, are sensible and canny, but they must have the facts and the consequences of a high sounding principle like independence fully before them so that they can make judgments that are based on those facts. It seems almost inevitable that a referendum will be held in Scotland before long on independence. If held today it seems that a majority would be in favour of it. So much for what was described as "the settled will" of the Scottish electorate, which supported something quite different—namely, devolution—a few months ago. That is unsettling.
I suspect that "Cool Britannia" is already losing some of her sang-froid as her domain becomes seriously threatened with a major amputation; and there will be no question of a "Cool Caledonia" while Scotland is undergoing severe internal surgery. I foresee much muddle and confusion ahead. The test of who is proved to have been accurate in forecasts in this debate will be in two to three years' time—what actually happens. I shall seek to raise the subject then for review.

1715
The Bill aims to transfer to the proposed new parliament those functions which are already entirely devolved administratively to the Scottish Office and the Crown Office of the Lord Advocate. Most of these have been devolved for 60 years or more; for example, home affairs, health, education, housing, roads and local government. The advantage of this dividing line is that it already exists. There will he difficulties in drawing that line precisely, as there have been at times in the present system. An attribute of the present United Kingdom Cabinet system is that Ministers and officials can get together and iron out such matters concerning the precise division of functions in doubtful areas as they arise.
We are informed by the present Government that concordats are to be reached in the new set-up between Edinburgh and Westminster. Concordats are most unlikely to replace effectively the present Cabinet systems especially if the SNP is involved, as is likely because of the system of proportional representation which will produce coalitions in the executive.
I gave two illustrations in our debate on 30th July of how the present system works well. Briefly, they were that 27 years ago, during my term of four years as Secretary of State for Scotland, there was direct co-ordination with my noble friend Lady Thatcher, then responsible for education south of the Border, on two initiatives that I was taking on schools in Scotland. The second was co-ordination with the late Lord Joseph on my Scottish Bill to reorganise the National Health Service in Scotland in a different way from that to be adopted a year later in England and Wales.
I am reminded of that time, and I commend to the Government and your Lordships the speeches of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord McCluskey, yesterday and in particular their criticism of the proposals for appointing and dismissing judges. I appointed several judges while I was Secretary of State, but always in the closest consultation with the Lord Advocate of the day. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the present Lord Advocate, when he winds up tonight, will undertake to address these matters in full.
While the functions and subjects now within the domain of the Scottish Office are to be devolved, there are some subjects and services, closely affecting individuals and families in Scotland, which will continue, as now, to be administered from departments in London. I refer in particular to employment and social security. They are administered by United Kingdom or Great Britain departments now, and that means jobs, pensions and benefits. Many families in Scotland will be surprised when they find that these personal, almost daily, contacts with government will not come under the Scottish parliament or be dealt with by its new members.
A Scottish Office function for many years which is accordingly to be devolved is supervision of local government and its powers to raise money. There is concern in Scottish businesses that business rates will be increased. There is also general concern that the parliament could force council taxes to be increased, so widely increasing taxes as a whole.
1716
Apparently there has been a change of attitude within the Government on expression of views by business, industry and financial institutions. Mr. Henry McLeish, a Minister in the Scottish Office, was reported last month as urging the business community to make full and vocal comments on the proposed parliament. He said, "They must speak out on these issues". What a contrast with the treatment of Sir Bruce Patullo last year during the referendum campaign. He questioned the skeleton proposals for varying income tax, the subject of one of the two propositions. Sir Bruce, then Governor of the Bank of Scotland, knows as much about finance and taxation as anyone in Scotland. His points have proved to be correct and relevant, but he was publicly told to shut up, stick to his banking and not to interfere in politics. Many of us thought that he was treated disgracefully, as finance and taxes were to be voted on in one of the propositions. The only excuse that can be made is that the spin doctors, determined to do anything to win the referendum, would stop at nothing.
I mentioned earlier the Minister for the Armed Forces, Dr. Reid, with many of whose reported views I agree both on the integrity of the United Kingdom and defence matters. I am in an age group that meant that I was already in uniform at the outbreak World War II. In the Army I was commanding a body of officers and soldiers for three years in a Scottish TA infantry division. My recollections are continually refreshed because I am still asked to lecture on those times at staff colleges or on battlefields abroad about three times a year. I am doing that again next month at a two-day conference at the new Joint Services Staff College at Bracknell.
In the Army there was immense strength in the unity of our country. Our Scottish division was, during one period of operations, alongside, or handing over, to the 53rd Welsh Division and the 43rd Wessex. We were determined not to let them down or to fail to give them the greatest support possible. There was also friendly rivalry between us within our complete commitment to defeat the enemy and Hitler.
Another strength emerged unexpectedly when we had crippling casualties. In at least two offensives our division lost more than half of our combat units, killed and wounded, inside a week. Replacements had to be provided rapidly from miscellaneous regiments and corps. Many were not Scots and to their great surprise were joining Scottish units. Within a short time, and certainly after the next major battle, they were all pulling together as a team.
We hope never to have a world war again. In very testing times, nonetheless, the United Kingdom proved to be a powerful entity. At question time on these lecturing occasions I am often asked to what extent patriotism motivated our troops when having to advance under intense fire or to defend a position against superior numbers and weapons. My answers include what I have just said. Noble Lords will understand why I personally feel particularly depressed at any prospect of Britain breaking up.

1717
The one proposition that all speakers so far on all sides of the House have agreed is that Scotland leaving the United Kingdom would be a tragedy for all concerned. Our differences lie in assessing the degree of risk involved in the proposals now before us.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, it is an honour to take part in this debate. Noble Lords may be surprised to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was Secretary of State when I was a student. I regard it as an honour to follow him and his contribution. However, while I may be slightly more kindly disposed towards him and his views now than I was some 25 or more years ago, I was slightly disappointed by his contribution. He began by saying that as this was the second day of the debate, he hoped to say something different. I regret to say that, with the exception of his war-time reminiscences, he really gave us much of what is called in some parts of Scotland kail rehet. It was largely about the referendum and the dangers of independence. I shall return to both of those topics, if I may.
While I am expressing my disappointment, perhaps I may refer to the fact that my noble friend Lord Ewing of Kirkford is not participating in the debate. I think that that is a shame, although I understand my noble friend's reasons. He has made a massive contribution over many years to getting us to our current position with this Scotland Bill. I hope that my noble friend will make a suitable contribution in Committee. I am sure that he will.
I regard participating in this debate as an honour. Although it may sound like hyperbole, I believe that whenever your Lordships' House votes we are in a sense making history and I believe that in a very real sense this Bill is history in the making. It has had a long and tortuous road to travel before getting to the current position. Even within my lifetime, many attempts have been made to frame a Scotland Bill which would produce a parliament for Scotland. That idea began seriously to gain ground when the Claim of Right was signed in 1989. I am one of those who was in the privileged position of being able to sign it. My noble friends Lord Ewing of Kirkford, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld and Lord Hughes of Woodside are other Members of your Lordships' House who signed that Claim of Right in 1989.
Perhaps I may refer now to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, which I enjoyed. As a new Member of your Lordships' House, I was advised that the noble Lord was one of those Peers to whom I should be sure to listen. In that respect, the information that I received as a new Member was accurate. I enjoyed the noble Lord's contribution. I enjoyed both his delivery and the sources from which he drew. Of course, I did not agree with much of what he said, but he made some pertinent points, many of which I am sure will be revisited in Committee. Having referred to the Claim of Right, the noble Lord charted the moves towards this Bill. He referred to referendums, saying that we have
1718
moved away from representative government to government by referendum. I would argue that a referendum is about as representative a way as there is of finding out the opinion of the people of the country as a whole, whether that country is the United Kingdom or Scotland. I do not regard referendums as in any way weakening the democracy of this House and the other place. In fact, I think that they complement it.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Hitler's power was based entirely on plebiscites?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie: My Lords, that is a rather unfortunate analogy. In any case, that example is not entirely accurate because I seem to remember that Hitler was elected to power (by some system) in the 1930s. I do not think that that example serves the noble Earl's argument.
My argument is that referendums—I refuse to say "referenda"—are a useful source of enhancing democracy. By definition, the political parties approach a general election with a manifesto. There is no way in which you can pick and choose certain items within a manifesto. You either vote for the party or you do not. That is a blunt-instrument approach—and necessarily so. It is important that in their manifestos political parties are prepared to say, "We will give you a vote on this or that issue", as the Labour Party fairly and democratically did. A referendum gives political parties the opportunity to argue their case in a much more detailed and focused fashion than could ever be possible in a general election debate. That is a very positive aspect of referendums.
I believe that referendums are appropriate specifically for constitutional issues. That is why the referendums on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and that which is forthcoming on our voting system, are particularly apposite. If we are going to change major aspects of our constitution, I believe that it is far better to do so via a referendum than a general election for a long time. I have very much wanted to see us reach the present position.
Perhaps I may now deal with a question which is difficult to handle. It has been raised by many noble Lords both yesterday and today. I refer to the question of whether the creation of Scotland's parliament will lead inexorably to an independent Scotland, the break-up of the Union and the rise to power of the Scottish National Party. I see no reason to assume that it will.
I recall that yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, seemed to be full of doom and gloom about the fact that already, within months of the referendum, the SNP is in a much more powerful position in the polls in Scotland than has ever been the case hitherto. That is, indeed, true. However, one should not read simply the top line of such polls because one gets a slightly different message if one goes beneath the surface and asks what people's voting intentions were when they voted for the SNP or indicated a preference for independence.

1719
I believe that when the parliament beds in, people in Scotland will come to see that it serves their needs well within the Union and that there is no need to break away and to try to seek independence. However, if there ever was a referendum on independence for Scotland I would argue vigorously against it. I do not think that that is the right way to move. I do not think that it would be good for the people of Scotland. It would certainly not be good for Scotland's economy. I would argue against it.
However, I am prepared to put my faith and trust in the people of Scotland to weigh up the issues if they are put to them fairly and openly and to arrive at the decision that they collectively believe to be in the best interests of Scotland and the people who live there. Of course, not everyone who lives in Scotland is a Scot—and that is a great strength. I am prepared to put that to the test.
One reason I am so enthusiastic about the parliament is that I believe that when the people of Scotland see that decisions are being made much closer to them and that they have a parliament that is more responsive, accountable and accessible—that is a crucial factor—they will warm to the different ways of doing things within a decentralised governmental structure. I prefer the word "decentralisation" to "devolution" not least because nobody seems to know how to pronounce the latter. I think that "decentralisation" is a much more accurate term.
The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred to the "great decentralisation of Britain". I welcome that. We are moving within the United Kingdom towards decentralised government having for almost 20 years had a government who were increasingly centralised, and who made us one of the most centralised states in the European Union. That swims against the tide of what has been happening in many other countries, which is unfortunate. In government, we have begun to reverse that trend—and that is a very good thing.
I accept that different parts of the United Kingdom are moving ahead with decentralisation at different speeds. Scotland will take a fairly major leap, with Wales and Northern Ireland making rather more modest leaps. That is not necessarily a major problem. Perhaps I may refer to what happened in Spain in the post-Franco period. Many of the regions that are now autonomous did not gain autonomy until some considerable time after 1975. However, the Spanish constitution was able to accommodate them and to develop with them. I am not drawing an analogy between the United Kingdom now and Spain in the post-1975 period, but I am saying that different regions do not have to move forward with one pace as one decentralises government. Of course, that creates problems and the sort of anomalies to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, referred yesterday. Although those problems are not necessarily insuperable, they must be dealt with sensitively.
Looking 10 or 15 years into the future—I hope that it may not take as long as that—I should like to see decentralisation brought to England. By that, I do not mean an English parliament. If they are being slightly cynical, many Scots would say that England has had a
1720
parliament for many years, and still does. I want to see the decentralisation of power within England to the various regions. London is starting that process. I should like to think that within 10 or 15 years that process will be complete and there will be regional assemblies, or whatever the people in the regions want to call them, and that those assemblies will have broadly the same sort of powers as the Scottish parliament is at the moment scheduled to have. I do not see that as anything other than a strength. It would mirror developments in other major European Union countries, and I believe that it would strengthen and enhance our democracy. I look forward to going into these issues in greater detail in Committee.
I have referred briefly to the question which the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, raised yesterday when he said that there is no answer to the West Lothian question. I accept that. If there was an answer to the West Lothian question, we would have found it at some stage in the past 20 years since Mr. Dalyell first raised it. Although I do not think that he did Scotland a service, it was nevertheless important that that issue was brought into the open and answered. My answer, such as it is—having said that there is no answer!—is that it is a transitional problem. It is not a long-term problem. The matter will be resolved when decentralisation within the United Kingdom is finally complete. Yes, we have to deal with that anomaly in the interim, but we should be capable of doing that in a mature, changing and modernising democracy. I look forward to revisiting that and many other issues such as the concordats, the relationship with Europe and the financing of the parliament in the weeks to come.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, has made an interesting but rather controversial speech, but I do not doubt his sincerity. Although he did not expressly say so, perhaps one should infer from his remarks that he wants the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to be retained. I am glad to see the noble Lord nodding. When he said that government by referendum was the nearest that anyone could get to finding out what people wanted, I was reminded of a remark made by Sir Winston Churchill. He said that democracy worked badly but that one could not have any other system. When one considers government by referendum one must always ensure that a referendum has only an advisory effect. Admittedly, on this occasion the result of the referendum in Scotland was pretty decisive. I agree with my noble friends who have said that we must accept the degree of devolution such as is proposed in the Bill.
In my time I have won 10 general elections. Although I always tried to arouse the interests of voters as much as I could, as did the opposing candidates, I gained the impression that they were thankful when the election was over because they were pretty indecisive in making up their minds about very general matters. Let us be cautious about the noble Lord's reference to government by referendum.
As I was born in Kent, am a member of the English Bar and represented Huntingdonshire for many years, noble Lords may wonder why I am involved in this debate. I am more than half Scottish. My father was a Scotsman and my mother partly so. My late wife was the daughter of a Scotsman. We have a family property in Galloway, where the local Member of Parliament was my noble friend Lord Lang of Monckton, who made such a formidable speech yesterday which is deserving of a great deal of attention. Twice since the war Galloway has had a Scottish nationalist MP, and it has one now. I do not believe that they at any rate should be taken too seriously.
My involvement in this matter does not end there. In 1971 I was appointed to the Kilbrandon Commission. That was the Royal Commission on the Constitution which considered devolution. I am the only member of that commission speaking in this debate. There are not many survivors of that commission. I disagreed with its main proposals for Scottish devolution. I was alone in recommending that Scotland should have only a deliberative assembly, with the very limited legislative power to consider the Committee stage of Bills which had had their Second Reading in Westminster and which would go back to Westminster for Report stage. It would also have had power to consider, but not finalise the decision upon, statutory instruments. They appeared to me to be two very good links with the Westminster Parliament and to provide a degree of decentralisation. I was not in favour of a Scottish executive.
When the Scotland Act of 1978 was considered in another place I took part in the debates there. I believe that the Act was constructed and drafted in a better way than this Bill. However, in view of the referendum result, we must support this Bill with a degree of parliamentary and executive devolution, even though the Scots might have produced a different verdict in the referendum had the Bill been passed before it was held and if the various views expressed on this Bill had been made known to them. For example, yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, made a most powerful speech, which pointed out the financial difficulties that would arise in Scotland with devolution.
I do not wish to anticipate the Committee stage in any detail. However, I should draw attention to the two most important provisions of the Bill. I refer to the provisions that deal with the legislative competence of the Scottish parliament and the functions of the Scottish executive. I shall say a brief word about each. As to legislative competence, this is described in Clauses 28 and 29 and in Schedules 4, 5 and 6. Those contain 27 pages of detail. That will require many hours of scrutiny at Committee stage. By contrast, the Scotland Act 1978, which had broadly the same purpose as this Bill, dealt with this vital matter much more succinctly in one-and-a-quarter smaller pages. The functions of the Scottish executive are dealt with in Clauses 48 to 54. They are perhaps unavoidably complicated. One must not complain too much about that. But the 1978 Act did it more simply and in a way which the Government should consider.
I should like to add a word about the European Union. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish raised some very important questions about the effect of Clause 49 on Clause 53. He was right to point out that even in countries that had federal constitutions (as several European countries have, which thankfully we shall not have under this Bill) only the central government are represented on the Council of Ministers and only the officials of central governments are able to carry out negotiations behind the scenes. If Scottish Ministers want some influence in Europe, as one must assume they do from what has been said and what is contained in those two clauses of the Bill, they must do so by getting the Secretary of State for Scotland to raise the matter with those members of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom who have responsibilities in Europe. I refer not only to the Foreign Secretary but to the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the President of the Board of Trade, who also has some responsibility and from time to time has appeared at the Council of Ministers. One must be careful to avoid conflict between the Scottish executive and the Cabinet of the UK on these very important external matters and other external matters.
As to internal matters, from time to time there is bound to be conflict between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish executive. Goodness me, every week in the newspapers there is a report of a conflict between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who happens to be a Scot, and other members of the Cabinet. One dreads to think how that failure to agree will manifest itself when there is a separate Scottish executive with financial interests which conflict with the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, alerted us to the financial conflict which is bound to arise with the Scottish parliament and executive crying out for more money. Poor old England!
In conclusion, I wish to mention two legal matters of some constitutional significance. First, as my noble friend Lord Kingsland said, the Government are right to have the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to scrutinise Bills to see whether they are valid; that is, within the powers granted under the Bill when it becomes an Act. That arises when there is doubt about the legislative competence. It is right to have the Privy Council doing that rather than our distinguished and learned Law Lords. Most of our Law Lords are English. Normally only two are Scots. Although they would do the work perfectly, we must avoid what might appear to be a conflict when they have a duty to overrule a proposal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, was right when he said yesterday that more Scottish judges need to be appointed to the Privy Council so that there may be a wider choice and a greater Scottish influence when the Privy Council has to decide these matters.
Secondly, I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—for whom we have all developed a great respect—sitting on the Front Bench. He will wind up the debate. He is given considerable extra responsibilities under the Bill. I earnestly hope that they will not result in his having to abandon any of the

1723
important work which he does in your Lordships' House and which has been undertaken by Lords Advocate since 1969 in this House. Indeed, the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, of which I was chairman, drew attention to the importance of having the Lord Advocate advising not only on Scottish legislation but in a general way in your Lordships' House. It is important that his responsibilities here should not be diminished by the Bill.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Renton who has such knowledge of constitutional matters.
I have been listening to and reading all the debates in another place. It is obvious that many transitional problems will have to be faced over the next few years by the Scottish Office. It is up to us to correct as many errors and anomalies in the Bill as we can. I have to accept the referendum. But, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I feel most strongly that it should have been held after the legislation was completed, and not before. I note with interest the result of the referendum. In Dumfries and Galloway—represented for many years by my noble friend Lord Lang, who made an excellent speech yesterday, and myself—it was a much closer call of 60:40. It was the only mainland region to vote against taxation. There was a similar trend in the Borders, with a much lower majority answering "yes" to each question. That shows the difficulties that we anticipate, being so near to the England/Scotland Border.
The referendum is now behind us and the Bill before us. It is up to us to improve the Bill and make it workable. I shall enthusiastically support the Conservative candidates for the Scottish parliament to ensure that Scotland has the best chance to remain within the United Kingdom. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the Government have run into all sorts of trouble. Labour thought that it would trump the Scottish National Party. It believed, too, that there would be a substantial majority in the parliament. It now looks as though it will be lucky to have a majority. Emotion and opinion polls can be dangerous, in particular if translated into a referendum.
Many speakers have stressed the fear of independence. Labour must realise that it is playing with fire over the next few years. My noble friend Lady Young spoke yesterday about the English backlash. That inevitably means in the long run the possibility of a move towards a federal state. That is something I do not want to see. There would be far too much bureaucracy within the current United Kingdom.
The Bill came late to this House. The Third Reading in another place was a month ago. I do not know why the government business managers have taken so long to bring the Bill to this Chamber. The delay, if any, has been with them rather than with the Opposition. The Committee in another place took place to an agreed timetable. However, many issues were not discussed, and more importantly, many questions were not answered. The noble and learned Lord the Lord
1724
Advocate is not now here: he has had a pained expression throughout some of the debates. The Minister has done much negative head nodding at the same time. That does not indicate the likelihood of a sympathetic reception of our forthcoming amendments.
However, we must not be criticised for carrying out our proper scrutiny when delay has been the Government's responsibility. I note that it is already building up in the media that the Bill will be delayed by your Lordships. That is not true. I am glad to hear from the Leader of the House that we shall have time to discuss the Bill in some detail.
I have some concern about the parliament itself. The problem of having only one chamber was raised by my noble friends Lord Lang and Lord Strathclyde yesterday. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, spoke about it in her remarks earlier today. But this Chamber does a fine job of tidying up legislation. The fact that that opportunity will not be available in Scotland causes me a great deal of concern. I am also concerned about the exact role of the Secretary of State—perhaps it will emerge in Committee or today—his position in the Cabinet, his relationship with the Scottish parliament, and the importance that will have to the interrelationship between the government of the day at Westminster and the Scottish parliament.
The central belt will inevitably ensure that there will be a substantial number of socialist Members of the Scottish Parliament, given that the SNP, Labour and Liberal Members are basically all socialists at heart. I look with some degree of horror—this was emphasised in another place on Tuesday—at the standard of some Labour local councils in Scotland and the intolerable delay of the Secretary of State in calling them to order. We must expect something very much better from the Scottish parliament after it is elected. We want efficiency, vision and talent in the Scottish parliament. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is a candidate; which will add to the possibility. But it is interesting to note how few current Labour Members of Parliament are standing. They would prefer a safe, easy life in Westminster, with constituency work carried out by the first and second class Scottish members of the Scottish parliament.
Nearly all Members who have spoken in the debate have highlighted the West Lothian question. The Bill cannot leave this House without some form of resolution. We cannot say, "It does not matter. It will resolve itself'. It is an issue which has to be resolved. I hope that it will be taken seriously by the Government, and that they will not adopt their current attitude of simply walking away from the issue. At the same time it would be wrong if the Bill left this House without detailed debate on the future number of Scottish Members of Parliament at Westminster. I do not believe that it can be put off to the election after next, or to the one after that. It must be done at the next election. If we make a decision now, there is plenty of time for the Boundary Commission to resolve the issue of how to reduce the membership to 58 Members of Parliament at Westminster. We must follow that issue closely.
We must also examine the reserved and devolved powers because some of the anomalies are extraordinary, particularly that on abortion. Apparently, the Scottish parliament will be able to discuss the death penalty or euthanasia, but not abortion. I found that an astonishing decision by the Government. There was a big debate in the other place and perhaps there was a misunderstanding over the whipping; most Labour Members thought that they were on a Government Whip, but it appeared that as it was a moral issue there was a free vote. The decision might have been different had they known that before they entered the Division Lobbies. I hope that we can resolve this important issue and because of that misunderstanding give the other place another chance to debate it.
Last night I followed the detailed arguments put forward by my noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Strathclyde relative to agriculture and fishing. I have represented the United Kingdom Government in Luxembourg and Brussels in fishing and agricultural debates and in the councils. We cannot leave the matter to a concordat, which seems to be a loosely worded agreement, to cover the question of where Scottish Ministers will be in relation to UK Ministers when we come to argue the case in Europe. That matter must be resolved before the Bill leaves this House.
I am pleased that at least we have Clause 100 which resolves the problems of the Border Esk and Tweed. For many years, I fought and argued over the friction on the Border Esk. The river mouth is in England, but 90 per cent. of the river is in Scotland. It came under the jurisdiction of the North-West Water Authority or the National Rivers Authority. I am grateful that that will now be carried further.
Finally, I wish to deal with the issue of taxation. We in Dumfries and Galloway, and those on the Scottish Borders, are concerned about the problems of where one lives, where one works and where one will be taxed. The game seems to be full of anomalies. A Scot working in England and travelling daily will be taxed in Scotland. If he works in England for the whole week and goes home at the weekends he will still be taxed in Scotland. If he lives in England and works in Scotland he will not be taxed there at all. There will be an immense problem for local employers on either side of the Border as regards the taxation system which will apply.
I have mentioned only a few of the anomalies, but there are many that we must resolve over the next few weeks. We have much to improve and much to elucidate in the Bill in order to achieve the future of Scotland within the United Kingdom.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, noble Lords will be well aware that I am not a Scot. My connection with Scotland is in both senses of the word purely "academic". For that reason I have no particular personal concern with whether Scotland is well or ill governed. Therefore, I came to listen to the Second Reading of this Bill with an absolutely open mind. I must say that most of the
1726
speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, almost convinced me that there was a much stronger case than I had thought for Scottish devolution.
Then, as so often is the case when one thinks one has seen the light, something happened. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, having listed all the other intentions of the Government towards the constitution, went on to say:
"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 modem world. We want to build a system of government which people can access easily, feel part of and take part in".—[Official Report, 17/6/98: co1.1574.]
I do not for a moment believe that those words were written by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel. Obviously, someone who has held a professorship at a major Scottish university would never use the word "access" as a verb; nor would he indulge in the high-flown guff which characterises new Labour. We must assume that that paragraph did not appear in his original speech and was received by fax or pigeon post from Millbank Tower, having been composed by Mr. Alistair Campbell or someone of that kind.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for trying to get me off that particular hook, but I have to own up to the fact that I wrote it.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I suppose that keeping bad company does in the end affect one! Therefore, in the light of the 30 or 40 speeches that I have heard or read, I must reconsider the issues on which we are embarked. It was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, yesterday evening that the Labour Benches did not fill up with enthusiasts for this Bill. On the other hand, then and subsequently there has been no lack of Peers to fill the Liberal Democrat Benches. Indeed, we got more of a flavour for what the Bill is about from the Liberal Democrats than we did from members of the Labour Party. That is not surprising because after years in the wilderness there was a real prospect, give or take a few extra seats from PR, that the Liberal Democrats will provide some Ministers. There will actually be loaves and fishes for them after so long.
On the other hand, I cannot say that their arguments were very impressive. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, must live in a world of total fantasy if he believes that the experiences of Spain or Germany are relevant to what we are doing. He indicated that in recent months he had, no doubt with great pleasure, travelled backwards and forwards to Barcelona. To compare Catalonia and its undoubted important place in Spain with Scotland is as far fetched as comparing the climate of Barcelona with that of Edinburgh. If, on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, had spent more time in the Basque provinces he might have found that even devolution is not always a cure for everything.
There is a tendency on the part of the Liberal Democrats—and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is at one with them—to think in terms of geography rather than history. I believe that under the national curriculum one

1727
cannot study both, so that is their choice. I should have thought that in debating devolution for Scotland the first thing to consider is how the Union came about and why.
We heard notable misrepresentation, not for the first time in this House, from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but his speech is available for us all to read. What happened was indeed part of a European process: the creation out of the scattered authorities, principalities, counties, kingdoms, states and cities, of the beginnings of the modern state. Often this was, as in our case, the prelude to dynastic union. The Union of the Crowns in the beginning of the 17th century led, because of the repercussions of religious and political movements in both countries, to a considerable degree of interaction between their politics. Nevertheless they remained separate countries. It is no exaggeration to say that they remained separate nations.
I questioned the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the national minimum wage because I did not know to what nation the adjective "national" referred. He said that it would apply to Scotland. What is the nation? Is it a nation that embraces the English, the Scots and presumably the Welsh, or, as I would like to think, a United Kingdom which provides a constitution under which all three nations exist?
At the end of the 17th century there was a considerable problem for Scotland which was largely the product of English legislation. The exclusion of Scotland from the advantages of being within the Navigation Acts and the failure of the one major Scottish attempt to create a Scottish colonial empire was the impetus which led so many of the Scottish elite—and whether a few were bribed to go along is of no consequence—to think that they would be better off within that economic and imperial structure. At the same time, England, involved in the beginnings of its second Hundred Years War against France, was worried lest Scotland might prove to be a jumping off point for a French invasion. So there was a bargain: "You give us military security and we give you political, economic and commercial opportunities".
Most people would probably agree that the bargain worked. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, and other noble Lords have stated that the Scots took a very full part in the creation of the British Empire, in the manning of it and in the expansion of British commerce, industry and beliefs throughout much of the globe.
Therefore it is not surprising that for quite a long period, in spite of the differences within Scotland which were exploited in the two Jacobite rebellions, the issue was dormant. Then, towards the end of the 19th century, as nations became more self-conscious—and this applies to Ireland and Wales as much as to Scotland—people began to think that they should take greater charge of their own affairs because the original union was an imperfect one in the sense that Scotland retained very important aspects of its national being, its ecclesiastical establishment and its educational system. It began to be anomalous, as more legislation was required in the 19th century for that to be done in a Parliament in which the Scots themselves were necessarily a minority.
However, people were dominated by the greater problem presented by Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, referred to Gladstone. As a former Gladstone Professor I am very sensitive about the way in which Mr. Gladstone is brought into debate. My impression is that Gladstone was never a great enthusiast for Scottish home rule. He seems to have been much less interested in rebellious Scots than the revolting Bulgars, but he made one very important contribution which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, might like to note. The noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that there is no answer to the West Lothian question. He is wrong: Gladstone had an answer. In the first Home Rule Bill for Ireland Gladstone suggested that Irish MPs should cease to sit at Westminster altogether. He referred to the fact that there were a lot of fish around Ireland and that they would like to make sure that they got it.
In the second Home Rule Bill he changed his mind and suggested that Irish MPs should sit at Westminster as well as in Dublin and that they should only take part in debates and decisions which concerned the Empire, foreign affairs or defence—the external field. We no longer have an Empire for the Scottish MPs to participate in running, but there are external considerations of defence and perhaps commerce and relations with the European Union which might suggest that we could look to Gladstone for a solution to that problem.
These issues and many others will no doubt be discussed as we proceed through the Bill. On the European theme I feel that sometimes in Scotland—and this applies more to the Scottish Nationalists than to the other parties—there is an assumption that it is for them to tell Europe how to treat them. If Scotland were to adopt the path of independence, as some of my noble friends feel is possible, they would not automatically become part of the European Union; they would have to join the queue somewhere between Slovakia and Cyprus. As we were told yesterday, that queue will be waiting around for a very long time.
If, as we all hope, Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom, clearly there must be some way in which Scottish Ministers can take part in delegations to consider issues in which Scotland has a particular reference. There should be far more detail in that part of the Bill.
We have a lot of work before us. I am told that it is the policy of my party to accept the decision of the Scots in their referendum, on democratic grounds. It is up to us to make it work. It reminds me of what Adam said to Eve after they were expelled from Paradise: "Of course, old girl, it was all your fault but we are going to make it work".
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, before the noble Lord finally sits down, he told us at the beginning that he was approaching this matter with an open mind. Perhaps I may tell him that we are all mightily relieved that he did not approach it with a closed mind.
6.20 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, it is always fascinating for me to follow my noble friend Lord Beloff who made such a fascinating speech. However, my knowledge of history is nothing like as good as his.
I come right back to the present. Although we are informed in the preamble to the Scotland Bill that there will be no increase in overall public expenditure as a result of setting up the Scottish parliament, it will be an extra tier of government which is bound to be expensive. The estimated cost of establishing the Scottish parliament is about £55 million and the costs of the staff, MSPs' salaries and accommodation are expected to be a moderate £30 million.
It is estimated that about 200 staff will be required for the parliament. They will not be civil servants. Therefore, I wonder about their contracts of employment. Yet the Scottish executive will inherit responsibilities for the staff of the Scottish Office and other departments for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is currently responsible. Some increase in staff will be required over and above current staff numbers to deal with the new responsibilities currently falling to the Cabinet Office and to Her Majesty's Treasury. Yet in Schedule 5, most matters seem to be reserved matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, explained the expense involved to the people of Scotland even better than I can in his very good speech last evening at about 9.45 p.m. Whatever else may be said and done, it is not for us in this House to object to this Bill because it was voted for by a large majority in Scotland. Yet I am certain that many amendments and improvements will be required.
Equally, I feel that it should be recorded at this stage that the costs involved in setting up and running this parliament will come out of the Exchequer block grant to Scotland. That surely means that there will be less money for education, welfare, housing and so on because of the parliamentary costs. I fear also that before long, we in Scotland will lose our very important Cabinet representative—the Secretary of State for Scotland.
From my years as a Member of this House, I am convinced that the Treasury, guided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should be the only body to hold this country's purse strings. There are some good economic local authorities, health boards and so on. But equally, there are some that are inefficient and poorly managed. I know of a health board in Scotland which has managed to become overdrawn by £2 million. Unfortunately, it is extremely easy for any person or business to get into debt. But with present interest rates, it is extremely difficult to get out of it.
I am not satisfied that there is sufficient control and guidance in the Bill as drafted to help the parliament to budget for and manage carefully its affairs, particularly in its early life.
6.24 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I believe that this Bill will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is sad and it perhaps would not be the case had the Bill been better thought out.
We must all accept the results of the referendum, but we have a government for whom message is all and content is subordinate. Future referendums might just as well ask the question, "Do you want to feel better?". I am sure that if we had had a referendum in Scotland which said, "Do you like being governed from Westminster?", the answer would have been an overwhelming "No". I am equally sure that if the referendum had asked, "Do you like being governed at all?" the answer would probably again have been an overwhelming "No". That is often the nature of politics in Scotland.
I must declare an interest. I have a house on the Isle of Jura in Argyll which I regard as home. In my lifetime, I have been represented by two Conservative MPs, one of them my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, a Scottish National Party MP, and now a Liberal Democrat MP. Thankfully, I have never been represented by an MP from the government side but who knows what may happen in another election?
I should like to look at three particular areas in the Bill—the muddled relationship there will be between the two parliaments and between Whitehall and the Scottish Office and the muddle over which responsibilities will be reserved and which will not.
The Government have fudged the West Lothian question. The SNP has announced that its six MPs will stand for the Scottish parliament. I do not know the view of the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat Party. But Scotland will have a multitude of MPs. We shall have Euro MPs, Euro MPs who may be in the Scottish parliament, Westminster MPs, Westminster MPs who also sit in Scotland, Scottish MPs who represent a constituency and those who do not. Some will be very busy and some will have hardly anything to do. Some will have constituencies and some will not.
The electorate will be greatly affected by that. The people will be unclear as to whom they should go to for help and representation. They will be affected badly by the very concern which the government sought to address; namely, that devolution seeks to avoid people feeling disenfranchised. People will end up in that very situation. Taxes will be a problem if all the promises are to be kept. The only way to raise money after a 3p tax increase, which will raise £450 million, is through local taxes. That will not satisfy all the aspirations that there are at present in Scotland. I am sure, encouraged by the Scottish National Party, we shall find in Scotland a huge increase in rates. Tourism will be affected. Home owners will be penalised, especially holiday home owners. Indeed, a tourist tax has been proposed by Labour politicians in Scotland.
The White Paper stated that if the level of self-financed expenditure by Scottish local authorities rose steeply, the Treasury could then cut the block grant to Scotland. However, there is nothing explicit on the face of the Bill which provides for that. The only

1731
potential reference is in Clause 61 which provides for the Secretary of State to make annual payments into the Scottish Consolidated Fund. However, there is no indication as to the base-level, annual changes or frequency of those payments. Given the potential for finance to be the prime area of conflict between the Scottish parliament and Westminster, there is surely a need to specify the level of revenue which the Scottish parliament and local authorities can raise independently and by what means.
We have the situation where quangos will be split and put back together again. It is proposed that there will be "reserved matters", cross-border public bodies, devolved matters and Scottish public bodies. We are told that government departments will have a relationship based on "consultation, consent and co-operation". That is a recipe for confusion. I have never yet come across one government department which has agreed with any other, let alone in a situation where one would be from Scotland and the other from England.
I turn now to a specific area. The Labour Government want to control and keep a hold on broadcasting. I should have thought that this was an obvious candidate for Scottish control and the Scottish parliament. After all, broadcasting in Scotland is largely separate. Scotland has its own ITV regions, its own radio areas; and, indeed, the BBC is different in Scotland. Interestingly enough, Scotland has media empires which would never be allowed in England. The Mirror Group, which is the owner of the Daily Record and the Sunday Mail, also owns 20 per cent. of Scottish Media. Indeed, Scottish Media, publishes the Glasgow Herald, the Evening Times as well as owing STV and Grampian Television—a hold over Scotland which even surpasses Mr. Murdoch's hold over the media in this country.
The Scottish parliament as proposed will take over responsibility for the Scottish Arts Council and for Scottish Screen. But broadcasting, which is both an art form in its own right as well as being a major commissioner of the arts, is to be regarded as a purely UK matter. Could not some of the frequencies, whether or not they be national, be used more effectively for purposes more specific to Scottish needs, in co-operation with the ITC and the Radio Authority?
If we are to have a Scottish parliament, it ought to be able to deal with those regulatory issues. Under the Government's current proposals, if a Scot wants to start a Gaelic local television or radio station, permission will have to come from London. That does not seem to me to make any sense at all. We shall have to consider such issues very carefully in Committee. I shall certainly be putting forward some amendments. If we are to have a Scottish parliament, we on this side of the House want to make it work. I believe that broadcasting issues are something upon which the Scottish parliament should have a view.
Is there anything good in the Bill? I believe that it will destroy the base of power of the Labour Party in Scotland. I would rather not see that happen because, if it does, it could also mean the break-up of the Union. That would be a terrible price to pay. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy said, further fundamental
1732
change is inevitable. The Scottish National Party would try to force through another referendum on independence. Faced with these proposals, it is the only logical position to take. I am concerned that this Bill will produce a parliament that does not work; that will fail to satisfy the aspirations of the Scots; and that, in many areas, will be resented by the English.
It could have been a better Bill, but the Government have neither properly acknowledged the West Lothian question nor offered any solutions. We face the danger of a federal United Kingdom. However, we have to deal with the Bill as it appears before us. We must seek to ensure that we attempt to improve the legislation as it goes through this House. We must also ensure that the Government address the serious issues which so far have not been given their proper due.
6.33 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is an interest, but I shall declare it in any event: I am most hopeful of being on the list for my party for the Highland region. I am, possibly, a little optimistic, but I hope to get into the Scottish parliament through that list. Batting, as it were, in 48th position out of 68, I shall not for a moment pretend that it is possible to deliver much in the way of an original thought or contribution. Therefore, perhaps I may confine my remarks to one rather personal observation and three specific points, which I shall raise at a later stage in the Bill's proceedings but which I should broadly like to mention tonight.
However, before I do so, I should like to say that, however many speakers we may have heard both today and yesterday, the quality of all of them has been very high. Indeed, I have enjoyed all of the interventions which I have either heard in the Chamber or which I have read in the Hansard report. We began with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who made an excellent exposition of the Bill's intentions. It seems to me that we have had marvellous moments of irony throughout the debate. One of them is the fact that, in this Government so dominated by ethnic Scots, it is an ethnic Englishman who introduces the Scotland Bill into your Lordships' House. Not for one moment do I doubt the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, to Scotland. I know from personal exchanges with him that he is highly committed to the passage of the Bill and its objectives. Nevertheless, it is one of those nice little ironies that has arisen.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made his usual spirited canter through the subject. I noted that he has become a convert. That is wonderful. But, as my noble friend Lord Steel said, some convert! Nevertheless, it is nice to have the noble Lord on our side. I thought that my noble friend Lord Steel made a very constructive intervention, especially with regard to his experiences in Catalonia. Here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. As a Liberal Democrat, I always enjoy being teased by the noble Lord. However, as he said himself, he is firmly rooted in history and I like to look forward to the future. So I do not really mind what he says.
There is another contribution to the debate that I feel I should mention; namely, that of the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, who let slip—that is the only way of putting it—that he could not tell the difference between a Liberal Democrat and a socialist. I find that quite extraordinary, because it is a pretty obvious and fundamental difference. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place at present and I realise that now is not the time to discuss such matters. However, any time the noble Lord would like to discuss them, I am at his entire disposal.
When I returned home last night I sat down and reflected on what had been said in the debate and on what I might have to say today. While sitting there, I happened to look up at the wall and noticed two A4 portrait photographs. One of them was of my father and the other of my grandfather. As I looked at them I realised—and this, perhaps, is yet another moment of irony—that here was a true dynasty of people who believed wholly and totally in home rule. My grandfather has already been mentioned by my noble kinswoman Lady Linklater of Butterstone. Indeed, she quoted from a speech that he made in another place in 1932, parts of which I quoted in this House on 3rd July 1996 when we debated the constitution. He made a major contribution to the cause of promoting home rule for Scotland.
The portrait of my father is a wonderful photograph, which was taken about five years ago. It shows him looking relaxed and smiling as only he could. One of the major contributions that he made in your Lordships' House was his intervention in the proceedings on the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 when he fought hard and long, but unfortunately without success, to prevent the creation of the unitary council in Inverness. Here I should like to refer to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. I do so because my father fought long and hard with him. During the debate yesterday the noble Lord said:
"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".—[Official Report, 17/6/98; col. 1604.]
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lang. I have respect for his ability, for his intelligence and for his integrity. I certainly respect his conviction. However, I totally disagree—even violently—with the whole tone of the noble Lord's intervention. I should like to refresh his memory. That part of his speech that I have just read to the House comes from someone who was a member of a government who were described to me earlier today as having been the most centralising governmental force since the Tudors.
I also remind the noble Lord that in centralising to Inverness all of the Highlands of Scotland, he created something which has been a complete disaster for Caithness, Sutherland, and the outer areas. However, it has worked for Inverness, as everyone said it would. All of the prophecies which my father made in your Lordships' House at the time of the passage of that
1734
legislation have come to pass. While I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Lang, I have seen how faulty his judgment is. I assume that his judgment in this case is equally faulty.
As I said, I feel as if my father and my grandfather are sitting on my shoulders as I address the question of home rule. It was they who toiled and did all the work but it is I who will enjoy the fruits of their labour. It is perhaps another irony that at the very moment when this hereditary dynasty of home rulers is to be extinguished—which I wholly support—what we all fought for should come to pass. But, more importantly, perhaps I was dipped in the font of home rule at birth. I am a "home ruler" by conviction. I wish to remind your Lordships of what I said in the debate of 3rd July 1996 because I believe that I expressed the matter then as well as I can. I said,
"The majority of people in the country, if the discussions that I have had are anything to go by, seem to be largely apathetic towards all forms of government, both local and national, and have the feeling that they have little or no say in how they are governed. In short, the average person regards the process of government at all levels as failing to take account of their views and aspirations … it is frustrating in that most citizens feel less and less able to participate, which has fostered a growing feeling of them and us—them who govern and us who suffer".—[Official Report, 3/7/96; col. 1529.]
I went on to explain how home rule is the beginning of the solution to that problem. Therefore I wholeheartedly welcome with open arms the thrust of this Bill. As I said, I am a "home ruler" by conviction.
I also said in that debate,
"This great Parliament has been described as the mother of Parliaments. Mothers give birth. Let this great Parliament give birth to a child in Scotland. It will be as all children—ill-disciplined, gawky and awkward—but as it grows to adulthood it will become a worthy child, dutiful, respectful and honoured".—[Official Report, 3/7/96; col. 1531.]
We have the midwives on the Government Front Bench in the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. I wish them every success in bringing this baby out of the womb and into the world.
There are three specific points I wish to touch on. The first concerns Schedule 1 to the Bill which establishes constituencies. A theme I have mentioned in your Lordships' House on many occasions when talking of government, is the need to ensure that in areas of sparse population we look to geography and community as the guiding forces for constituencies and for local government as opposed to the number of people. I note that Orkney and Shetland—probably for those very reasons—are to be split into two constituencies. However, other constituencies which also cover large areas of land and are extremely difficult to get around, such as Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, remain as one. When we discuss this matter in Committee I shall want to probe the Government's thinking on this matter and consider the possibility of reflecting on the size of constituencies.
My second point also relates to constituencies. I refer to a situation that worries me as it is a kind of catch-22 situation. Schedule 1 sets out the constituencies for the purposes of this Bill, but Clause 81 provides for changes

1735
to constituencies, applying the population formula for England to the new constituencies in the parliament in Scotland. The catch-22 seems to be that because we have representation now in Scotland we shall need less in England, and therefore the constituencies will be enlarged. But that in turn will reduce the number of MPs who will sit in Scotland. That is a complex clause and I may have misinterpreted it. If I have, that is marvellous.
The third point that concerns me relates to Clause 74 and tax-varying powers. We have the ability to raise or to reduce the basic rate by up to three percentage points. I am totally in favour of that. If we raise the tax by three percentage points because we wish to spend more money for whatever reason, we shall receive the complete Scottish block grant and our 3 per cent. But if on the other hand we decide that we would like to save for a rainy day, or we would like to be a little more generous to our citizens, and we reduce the tax by 1p, 2p or 3p, the only effect of that will be to return the money straight back to the central Treasury. That appears to me to guarantee that the tax will only ever be varied up rather than down. There is absolutely no point whatsoever in varying the tax down. When we discuss that matter in Committee, I shall wish to probe the Government's thinking in that regard.
I have spoken of my passion for home rule in Scotland. I have listened to the concerns of many noble Lords on the Conservative Benches. They are right to have some concerns. Any new venture is bound to be difficult. However, I approach this measure with a great sense of joy because I believe that Scotland is about to be liberated in the best possible way. For the first time since the Act of Union we shall become genuine, full members of the Union. We shall be able to take our place alongside England as equal partners with it. I believe this Bill will strengthen the Union. I have a great vision of Scotland free of shackles, able to do what it wishes to do and contributing fully to the Union. I believe that this Bill is a great step in that direction.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, this is an excellent Bill which is full of dreams for the future. Those dreams may, in the not too distant future, be turned into reality. I am grateful to noble Lords for their speeches this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, made a brilliant speech, although he had to admit that he was not a Scot. I do not think there was anything Scottish about his speech.
With my name it seems that I should take the opportunity to say a few words tonight. My words will be few as the hour is late. Although I am a quarter Scottish from my mother's side, the name "Borve" comes from the Outer Hebrides. There is a Borve on Skye, on Harris and on Lewis, which is halfway to Newfoundland. I want to state categorically—I hope no one will gainsay me—that there is no more beautiful place in the world than parts of Scotland. The people can be obstinate and they can be dour, but they can also be the most hospitable of hosts. My late husband and I fought the 1945 election in a constituency in the Outer Hebrides. The election was called when he was on
1736
leave. How thankful I am that he was not successful because in that day and age we seemed to spend our time in rowing boats going from one island to another, trying to secure the votes of the few people there. There were more sheep than people.
In my view, this Bill is tragic and, as far as I can make out, is not wanted by those who have had time to read it. It is tragic and unnecessary because for 300 years we have stood the test of time in a severe and changing world. The Government had to bring the Bill forward, as a result of—in my view very unwisely—including a promise in their manifesto that they would hold a referendum on this subject. Any of us who have been in politics in this country and who have been asked a question about the referendum by those involved know very well that nobody ever tells the truth; they very rarely say what they feel. We cannot go by a referendum.
Wales was made the subject of a referendum, and it is outstanding that the people of England were not given that assurance. Knowing the people of Scotland fairly well, I know that financial affairs will loom large in their thoughts and calculations when voting in the parliament. It was therefore interesting to read in yesterday's Hansard the report of the Minister's excellent speech (col. 1571), and his references to Clauses 61 to 68.
Much is made in the Bill of the judiciary, but more is made of the financial situation. That situation will be geared to the people of Scotland. However, from the results of the referendum and from other comments, they seem to think that we in England will match the enormous amount of money that we have given to the Scots in the past. I do not believe that that will come about. I believe that they will be asked to raise income through a tax of 3p, which will bring in £400 million, as and when they want to do so.
The judiciary is to have more members. They will certainly be required to administer what is looked upon as efficient and forward thinking. We are lucky to have the Lord Advocate in this House. He will have to create more judges, and that will be very welcome in Scotland. The Bill will need to be discussed clause by clause, until we in this Parliament are satisfied that it is the best that we can do for the country and for the people of Scotland.
I fought in the war with the Scottish, the Welsh, the Africans and the Australians. Like other noble Lords who work in this House, I fought for the "United" Kingdom. Long may she remain so.
6.53 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I imagine other noble Lords will agree with me that the opportunity to be anywhere near the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, whether socially or in the Chamber is in itself a privilege. I wish to take this opportunity of saying how much we all enormously appreciate the example that she sets of personal courage and charm beyond normal human expectation.
In the referendum I voted "Yes" to the first question and "No" to the second. I should have preferred a deliberative assembly. However, we have to take what

1737
we have been given. My belief was and has remained that a far better solution to Scottish aspirations, and to the problem of bringing Scottish local opinion to the notice of those who govern, would have been to re-vamp and upgrade the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA). In my view that body is much nearer to the people than any MSP can ever be. It has tried and proven procedures which have worked over the years, and its members know all the snags.
The Holyrood parliament has yet to adopt its procedures after the Scottish Secretary has had a bevy of intellectuals, businessmen and others comb through the procedures of almost every constitution in the world to see what is both "modern" and "democratic".
When the Scottish parliament starts, it is vital that it is, and is seen to be, workable and workmanlike, and that its procedures are so effective that it can reach a common voice without an appalling amount of ordinary Scottish wrangling. Most noble Lords who live and work, or whose head offices and activities are, in Scotland will share my opinion, as they will if they have ever been exposed to sitting on the Scottish Grand Committee in the other place. That is a dour, hellish experience. One has to listen to fellow countrymen nitpicking on minor points of procedure for the sake of holding matters up.
My first fear is that the Scottish parliament will find that its procedures have not been seriously laid down in advance, that they have not been carefully thought out and worked out, as have our procedures here at Westminster through 500 years of experience. There will be new procedures of utterly diverse origin and they may very well not work at all. If that is so, and if the Holyrood parliament is seen to be in any way woolly or inconclusive, it will wreak enormous damage. That is one of several anxieties that I have.
The Bill before the House contains no procedure for a chamber for scrutiny. I was much taken by the suggestion put yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that in Scotland we might well adopt the Norwegian system whereby a number of MPs, or deputies, elect among themselves a body which is, as it were, corralled off and later treated as a senate with revising powers. When there is a clash between the two, they all vote together. I was interested to learn in the remarkable opening speech of the noble Baroness that the Norwegian procedure is common to several of the Scandinavian countries. I was unaware of that. It is an example of which we should take heed when the procedures of the Holyrood parliament are worked out and codified.
A second feature of this Bill alarms me. I refer to the fact that the constitutional requirement that the House of Commons should contain no fewer than 71 Scottish MPs is to be repealed. That is a disaster. At the end of the day the major things are still to be done here at Westminster; they will not be done in Edinburgh at any time.
That brings me to a nightmare that has haunted me of late. My nightmare is on two counts. The Holyrood parliament may well prove ineffective if it is a
1738
quarrelsome, argumentative assembly of people who argue half of the time about procedure, as has been the miserable experience of the Scottish Grand Committee. If the Holyrood parliament is even remotely like that, it will be a discredit and a disservice to all of us. It will never achieve any real business.
So there are two factors that concern me. There is to be no revising chamber under the Bill that is before us, and no procedure settled in advance, let alone based on the procedures of the former Scottish Estates or indeed on the experience of Westminster. To base procedures on what happens in America or anywhere else is quite extraordinarily irrelevant. There is no separation of powers here, and the American constitution is based on that. That constitution, though democratic, is no real guide to the kind of procedures that will be useful and worth while at Holyrood.
My fear about the Scottish parliament is not so much that it will be disruptive of the UK—and I shall come back to that in a moment—but that it will not be strong enough to do its job. We recently learnt that the Department of Trade and Industry in Whitehall had decided that Dounreay should be closed down.
Dounreay has been a terrific social success, establishing a great research establishment on the north coast of Scotland in what was almost a desert, with nothing but heather and sheep. It has made a vast difference to Scotland as a whole; it has brought bright and enterprising British people from all over the British Isles to work there. Very soon they fell in love—who wouldn't?—with the gorgeous girls of Caithness; they married and they brought up a new race of children in the north of Scotland, all thanks to Dounreay. For Whitehall to close that down is to close down a social experiment which has been of enormous benefit not only to Scotland but to Great Britain as a whole.
I have a second anxiety: that the Scottish parliament may not be strong enough to fight the Treasury should the Chancellor of the Exchequer proceed with plans which he has already announced heavily to tax the offshore industry. That industry was developed in the North Sea, based largely on Aberdeen, thanks to the work of Sir Maitland Mackie, the brother of the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie. The offshore industry has not only brought between 20,000 and 30,000 jobs to Scotland but it has developed all kinds of new technologies for deep sea drilling.
Now that the North Sea province is coming to an end, as all extractive industry does sooner or later, a new province is opening up in the Atlantic. Gas and oil are believed to exist 1,000 or 2,000 feet below the seabed in the Atlantic, beneath about 1,000 feet of stormy Atlantic sea. To drill down and explore those areas, let alone to develop them, will require an enormous assemblage of technology and economic resources. It will require some of the multinationals that we regard as big and independent to be as pygmies joining together to develop this enormous new frontier.
My fear is that if the Scottish parliament is not strong and effective enough to stand up to Whitehall, then punitive taxation of the offshore industry may well come

1739
about, and that would be a second big disaster looming. It is up to the Scottish parliament to fight both those dangers.
I said that I had a nightmare and it is in those two areas: that the Scottish parliament may not be strong or effective enough.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, is it permitted for an Irishman to interfere in a Scottish debate? I have six Scottish grandchildren and I suppose that that gives me the qualification. Can the noble Earl throw any light on whether he wants the parliament to become stronger and stronger? If so, does he want it in the end to become an independent parliament?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl if I did not hear him clearly because I am pretty deaf. What I heard was a question as to whether I wanted the Scottish parliament to be strong. Yes, I do. I want it to be able to stand up to Whitehall and fight for Scotland.
My fear is that the Bill before us does not give us a strong enough Scottish parliament. I am afraid that I can see it dissolving into nitpicking wrangles on procedure instead of doing the real job that needs to be done. That is to fight for Scottish industry both at Dounreay and with the offshore industries. Both those need defending against the depredations of Whitehall.
There is much more that I could say if I could read my notes, which are illegible anyway. I could go on for longer, but I have only one or two more comments to make now. We have been talking throughout the debate about the United Kingdom. I am glad that the Bill is grammatically correct in referring to the "kingdoms", plural, of Scotland and England. Here we are in the United Kingdoms, not the United Kingdom, singular. I like to think of the grouping that we have hitherto called the UK as the gathering of the British peoples—Scottish, English, Welsh and Irish. I hope that in that context the Scottish parliament will prove strong and vigorous enough to defend Scottish interests and resist the ever greedy depredations of Whitehall.
There is more that one could say, but I have taken 12 minutes, which is too long. I am grateful to your Lordships for bearing with me thus far.
7.6 p.m.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, my position in the speakers' list presents a challenge, but I do not even pretend that I will be able to avoid repetition. It is inevitable that I shall trespass on ground already covered by others of your Lordships. What I hope to do is to develop a little further some of the themes that have been advanced so far—notably the powerful contributions of my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
The Secretary of State for Wales argues that devolution is a process and not an event. I do not dispute that. Respective referendums in Scotland and Wales have set this process in train. They have let the genie out of the bottle. I find it slightly ironic, therefore, that
1740
both the Bill before us today and the Government of Wales Bill have been and are promoted as the means to deliver a new and improved constitutional settlement for the UK, that they will reinforce the Union. By inference, they have been promoted and are drafted as single events and not processes.
Where does this leave the idea of the settled will of the Scottish people? This is a concept to which the Government, to my mind a little desperately, attach great importance. I can understand the political imperative of so doing, particularly in the face of recent polls north of the Border. But it is an absurd oxymoron. How can a will, if it is to be free, electorally or otherwise, let alone as part of the process, be settled?
Clearly there is a contradiction here. Of course, it is true that Scotland has voted for its own parliament and for tax-varying powers. I neither question nor dispute that. But to interpret that vote as unswerving and permanent acquiescence to either the proposals espoused in the Bill or the maintenance of the Union stretches credulity. Electorates are much more subtle and fluid than that.
Perhaps, therefore, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will be able, when he winds up tonight, to advise the House which of those two contradictory versions of the Government's devolutionary agenda is the more accurate. Is the establishment of the Scottish parliament a single event or part of a much wider and deeper process?
Whatever the noble and learned Lord's answer in due course, it is necessary, in so far as we can, to test the Bill against the litmus paper of its capacity to deliver a lasting constitutional settlement. My thinking on this is coloured by what I consider to be three virtues—there will be some of your Lordships who see them as vices—of our existing constitution: continuity, stability and an absence of compulsion. Does the Bill entrench those virtues within the new constitutional landscape?
I turn first to the absence of compulsion. There exists the paradox of this Government espousing the cause of greater democratisation; of giving more power to the people at the same time as taking ever greater powers to the Executive here at Westminster. It is smoke and mirrors. This Bill, like many in the Session, is part and parcel of that process. Despite rhetoric to the contrary, the Scottish people will be increasingly bound to and compelled by the party political system. The electoral and parliamentary arrangements proposed in the Bill, especially the Government's obsession with the closed list, value the political party over any proper principles of representation. They have much more to do with strengthening the power of the political élite than with delivering genuine decision-making into the hands of the individual voter.
In that context many noble Lords have already expressed concern that the Scottish parliament is to be denied a second chamber. I leave aside the grave implications that that could have for the principle of the separation of powers. Rather, like my noble friend Lord Strathclyde last night, I am intrigued that this Bill, of all Bills in this Session, has inspired such lack of interest from the Government Back-Benches. Is it really

1741
to be supposed that the Bill is so perfectly drafted that all noble Lords opposite stand four square behind its every dot and comma? Or can we suspect that pagers have been vibrating furiously with the dictum of, "Say whatever you want, as long as you do not criticise party policy"?
The relative silence from the Government Back-Benches is, to my mind, an eloquent expression of the sort of critical analysis—if ever a Bill required critical analysis it is this one—to which this Administration wish to subject legislative proposals not only in Edinburgh by a unicameral Scottish parliament, but also here in Westminster by the Prime Minister's recomposed super-quango. Is that really the level to which the absence of compulsion in our constitutional framework should be reduced? That said, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Desai—for whom I have great respect and admiration—follows me on the speakers' list. I invite, and genuinely hope, that he at least will prove me wrong in this.
What of continuity and stability? First, devolution is a process and not an event. Of itself that does not imply either continuity or stability. More than that, as other noble Lords commented, there are many areas—funding, concordats, Europe and so forth—where we can have legitimate concerns as to how stable and continuous any settlement delivered by the Bill will be.
We must also consider the issue of sovereignty. In that I endorse the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I am in full agreement with the simple reality outlined by the noble and learned Lord that parliamentary sovereignty will be retained here at Westminster. But it would be both wrong and naive to fail to recognise the huge expectations that the Government's devolutionary agenda released. Scottish desire for real legislative, administrative and executive power for a measurable degree of autonomy and sovereignty is genuine and incontrovertible. But the Bill does not and cannot satisfy that desire. Again, it is smoke and mirrors. Worse, it retains the most important levers of control of both devolved and reserved competence, particularly control of finance and European matters, within the hands of the Executive here at Westminster. That is a control which, to an extent, will be exercised unconstrained by parliamentary scrutiny either in Edinburgh or here at Westminster. That is not a recipe for continuity and stability, nor indeed for good governance. No, as Scottish resentment over mock expectations and unsatisfied desires gathers pace, what will flow quite naturally from it is constitutional mayhem and political chaos. The double mandate will spread the fire of that resentment throughout the United Kingdom.
I do not wish to be misunderstood in this; I am not anti-devolutionist. I repeat that I believe that the Scottish desire is both genuine and incontrovertible. I have no doubt that your Lordships' House will do its utmost to improve the Bill, and I hope that the Government will be receptive to attempts so to do. But I sincerely fear that the Bill as it stands has about it the worst of all worlds. It does not, in fact, deliver meaningful
1742
devolution. It does not, in fact, deliver a credible constitutional settlement that Scotland, within the United Kingdom, can take forward into the next century.
Scotland will of course have its parliament; there is no doubt about that. Our duty in the coming weeks is to do what we can to make it work.
I return to where I started. The genie has been let out of the bottle. There must be a real fear that even the wisest counsel and expertise of your Lordships' House may prove insufficient, as we scrutinise the Bill, to recork that bottle.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for the kind words that he said about me and I hope that I can live up to his expectations. Let me begin by saying that, like the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I am not a Scotsman; I am an academic. Therefore all I can do is be an academic. I cannot claim a grandmother anywhere on Scottish soil.
This is part of a collection of Bills and moves to which the Labour Government are committed, to modernise—I have no problem with that word—the constitution of the United Kingdom. I should have preferred all those Bills to have come together in a single framework and we could then have seen the interconnections which exist between them. But I will start as someone with a good colonial education in India by saying that that is not the British way and I shall therefore have to live with this piecemeal approach to constitutional reform.
Let me say this—I shall not spend too much time on it: we forget that this Parliament has made many constitutional changes in the past, especially while the British Empire was in existence, and many constitutions have been discussed. For reasons into which I need not go, I happened to be reading recently one of the longest Bills that this Parliament ever debated; that is, the Government of India Bill 1935.
That Bill was preceded by a statutory commission report, round table conferences, and a report from a joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament. It was an extremely long Bill which went into considerable detail about the constitution of India. The discussion on the Bill occupied 4,000 pages of Hansard. We are doing something equally important, but in a much shorter time; so we must be careful. But we are doing something monumental and we may perhaps benefit later by a joint committee report, if we can get hold of one. Important issues are being discussed to which we are not being exposed in sufficient depth.
Many noble Lords have said that there is probably no choice between Union and separation; either we have this or we have what the Scottish nationalists want. Members of the party opposite seem confused about that. They want either more powers for the Scottish parliament—for example, in European matters—or they want fewer powers. Either way, they believe that it will lead to independence. They should make up their minds as to what precisely they want the Scottish parliament to do.
The difficulty is patent. The United Kingdom has a multi-national quality which is unitary in its structure. We are devolving power but we are not creating a federation. That is a very peculiar thing. There is a step between the present union and Scottish independence, but we are not going to go in that direction. We have chosen to devolve power. However, in devolving power there are considerable risks because there will be a symmetry between Westminster and whatever assembly or parliament we create. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out in a masterly speech yesterday, the symmetry is embodied in Clause 27(7), by which the Scottish parliament will be subject to the constitutional sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Unless that distinction is carefully followed through in some of the reserved powers and devolved powers that we create and unless we think of all kinds of possible disastrous scenarios and prevent them now, there may be trouble ahead.
I am especially concerned about the fiscal side. As usually happens in these matters, nothing much is said on the face of the Bill. There is talk about a consolidated fund being created with the Secretary of State putting in money or whatever he likes to do. We are given to understand that the Barnett formula will be continued, but as an administrative arrangement and not as a constitutional or legal arrangement.
Many noble Lords who have experience in these matters have already pointed out that Scotland gets more money than the Barnett formula stipulates. Therefore, at the beginning we face the problem that the amount of money Scotland gets is not as provided in the Barnett formula but is something else. But right now it is subject not to an administrative arrangement but to a political arrangement, which is whatever the party in power wants to do about Scotland and however rigorous or weak Scottish Ministers are. Given that that is currently the situation, it would be right for us to think through how we can incorporate as much of that as we can in legislation rather than leave it to administrative detail. I say that because a sovereign parliament can change its mind. If the next Parliament decides to cut 25 per cent. off the Barnett formula, nothing in the Bill can prevent it. That would lead to a terrible and frustrating quarrel.
I think we ought to understand for ourselves what we want to do. We want to do the best by Scotland. We want to create a parliament which will be beneficial to the Scottish people because that is what they want. We do not want to be mean as a Parliament; we want to be generous. If we want to be generous, we ought to state in a schedule to the Bill that future Westminster Governments may not touch the money other than to a very small extent. Unless we do that, there will be trouble ahead. Money will be central to this thing. As the noble Lord, Lord Nickson, pointed out, any delusions about Scotland's oil wealth and so on will be pretty well disappointed. Money will become a major ground for quarrel. It is not desirable that we pass an Act which will create room for such a quarrel.
My next point concerns Schedule 5, which is quite a long schedule. Very little is said there about the reserved power of taxation. It mentions only taxes and excise
1744
duties. Far too much fuss has been made about the variable rate of basic income tax. The party opposite has done a great deal of damage in this country by focusing all of its attention on income tax and the basic rate of income tax as if there are no other taxes to worry about. A great fuss is made about 3p in the pound, but I do not think that 3p in the pound matters very much. As the two previous Chancellors and the present Chancellor have shown, there are a thousand ways of raising taxation other than by going through income tax. But we ought to be clear in our mind whether we want the Scottish parliament to be able to create new taxes which are not income taxes. I could easily invent some taxes if someone asked me to.
I know very little about the real world but let us suppose that oil is carried in large lorries and a tax of £2 per lorry is put on any load that goes from the wellhead to outside Scotland. That would be very simple. One could also have an hotel tax or a restaurant tax. My noble and learned friend on the Front Bench will probably tell me that that is not allowed, but I should like an assurance from him as to what is or what is not allowed. Will the Scottish parliament be able to innovate in the area of taxation?
The Kilbrandon Commission was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It went into this issue and suggested various committees of the Exchequer which would give rulings about the powers of taxation of different jurisdictions. That is especially important if we are in a single market and a single currency region. It might be that a tax imposed in Scotland on Scottish residents would distort competition in the United Kingdom. There could be all kinds of problems. I should like an assurance from my noble friend that the Government have thought about this and that such quarrels will not arise or that they will be duly decided upon by either by the Privy Council or by a committee of the Exchequer.
Perhaps I may make one or two points which go beyond fiscal matters. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that there are a variety of ways of solving the West Lothian question. I do not think one should say that there is not a solution. If there were a federation there would be a straightforward solution. The difficulty arises because we do not want to go to a federal solution; we want to create a half-way house of devolution. It would be perfectly permissible for us to say that only on certain topics of United Kingdom interest would the Scottish MPs be allowed to vote and that they should go away when other matters relevant to English interests are being discussed. In that way the Westminster Parliament minus the Scottish MPs would become the parliament of England and Wales. That is very straightforward. The Scottish MPs could go and work in their constituencies or whatever it is that people do. I do not think that the West Lothian question is as insurmountable an obstacle as people say. It can be if people want to make it so, but I believe it can be solved if people wish it to be solved.
Perhaps I may refer to the second chamber problem. Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Hughes referred to the Norwegian Parliament.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord says. However, the whole point is that there is no desire on the part of the Government to make any attempt to solve the West Lothian question. Their choice is purely to ignore it.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I know as much about the Government's intentions as the noble Earl knows. But I am sure that, after my speech, the Government will be enlightened.
My noble friend Lord Hughes referred to the interesting Norwegian case. I believe that the way of electing the Scottish parliament offers a very natural solution to that problem. I suggest that the 73 directly elected MPs can always constitute the lower chamber and that the 56 elected at the second round or through some slightly dubious procedure, can constitute the upper house. It can be the scrutiny committee. Within a single chamber we have a natural division. We respect the will of the people, and the directly elected MPs with constituencies and those who come from lists of various kinds can act as the upper chamber. I do not believe that any of these problems are insurmountable. As the noble Earl, Lord Northesk said, it is a process and not an event. There is a lot of mileage to go yet. If there is the goodwill and we work hard on the issues, we can minimise possible problems and perhaps even make the Bill better than it is now. If we do that I am sure that it will be a great success.
7.31 p.m.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, as a number of your Lordships have implied, there are certain aspects of devolution which have hardly ever been contentious. First, there is the concept of non-parliamentary devolution such as the Scottish Office, its functions and the development of its role. Secondly, even the notion of parliamentary devolution has hardly been disputed. Critics have not objected to this notion itself. They have not necessarily denied that an Edinburgh parliament would deal much more efficiently than Westminster with a majority of matters affecting Scotland. Instead, concerns have correctly focused on the complications which arise as soon as there is both a parliament in Edinburgh and at Westminster. The challenge and context has always been how to institute and progress an Edinburgh parliament without upsetting the stability and integrity of the United Kingdom.
As your Lordships have recalled, before this present Bill several previous drafts have already sought to address these difficulties and to present a stable formula for Scottish devolution within the United Kingdom. The drafts include proposals put forward during the Heath Government by the committee chaired by the late Lord Home of the Hirsel. They also comprise measures which formed the Scotland Act 1978 when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, was Prime Minister.
While the contents of the present Bill are different from those drafts in the 1970s, many of the fears and anxieties then are broadly similar to those expressed now. In the debate yesterday and today a number of your Lordships have cautioned that friction and resentment between Westminster and Holyrood could develop not least from financial arrangements currently proposed and from the consequences of a changed role for Scottish Westminster MPs.
Among other issues your Lordships have referred in particular to proposals in the Bill for elections, to financial consequences relating to the Barnett formula and regarding reserved and non-reserved powers to current anomalies in the Bill affecting Scottish representation at Brussels, and proposals for Scottish agriculture and fisheries. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish urged the House to examine these issues very carefully in Committee. That we shall certainly do. Clearly, the more thoroughly we succeed in that task, the better able to work in practice will become the provisions of the Bill.
From many of the Bill's provisions we can already surely take heart. Ranging as they do from pre-legislative scrutiny to post-legislative judicial challenge, they present a number of sensible checks and balances. A proper parliamentary committee structure can also be inferred from the parliament's membership of 129. Not least, if votes cast in the country can be fairly represented in parliament, is there some real prospect of political balance and consensus and of parliamentary control over the executive?
Recently I have tried to find out as much as I can about the workings of various regional and national unicameral parliaments comparable to Holyrood in size and for some of their functions. My conclusion is that arrangements for Holyrood compare favourably with those which work best elsewhere. Provided that in Committee we deal with the aspects already referred to, then the parliament can hope to start out on a sure footing.
The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also said that he had made comparative studies. In particular he referred to the Norwegian parliament, the Storting. He advised that the first thing we must do is to find out how well the single chamber of parliament works. However, he suggested that after a year or so, Holyrood might well wish to introduce an element of bicameralism.
If, at a later date, Holyrood wanted to do that, then the enabling power for that option, even though it might never be used, should probably appear in this Bill. When the Minister replies, can he say whether he agrees that a new clause should be introduced in Committee to achieve that purpose?
I am particularly pleased that it is the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who puts forward that idea. I nearly always find myself in agreement with him. My father used to tell me how much respect he always had for the noble Lord and for his opinions.
A new clause inserted in Committee could also assist a related purpose. Holyrood may well not need an element of bicameralism at all. However, through time, in discharging certain of its own duties and functions,

1747
it might want to involve other elected representatives from Scottish constituencies, including Scottish Westminster MPs and Scottish Euro MPs. Perhaps the Minister can also comment on this related aspect when he replies.
Another feature of the Scottish parliament is not only its developing role in Brussels and in the European Union, but also how it comes to relate to other regional and national parliaments of the 40 states which now comprise the Council of Europe.
If one is a parliamentarian seeking to progress various initiatives in any national or regional parliament, very often one's chances of success will be considerably enhanced by a knowledge of how other parliamentarians in other states have proceeded with similar issues in similar circumstances. Such information, useful to parliamentarians, can already be accessed through the Internet, as your Lordships are well aware. That process can be assisted further in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe parliament where I have the honour to serve.
If the Holyrood parliament can already hope to exert a healthy measure of influence over the Executive, use of the parliamentary Internet can further assist the success of the initiatives of its parliamentarians. Paradoxically, in terms of the wider Europe there is all the more scope for regions and their parliaments to set examples of best practice with matters such as business, employment, education, young people and social policy.
Evidence of best practice is often at its clearest when presented on a smaller scale and where initiated by parliamentarians rather than by members of the Executive. That evidence is also often at its most effective when demonstrated on a smaller scale in the form of partnership between the Government or public bodies and voluntary bodies.
One of the keys to the success of Holyrood must be the flexibility of practice and provision affecting its relationship with Westminster. It must adjust to circumstances and, through time, in consultation with Westminster, modify its functions as required. At the outset no doubt its task is a daunting one. Yet within the United Kingdom and Europe it can set a fine example. For Scotland and all its communities it must help to bring harmony and stability.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Gray: My Lords, I do not see the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, in his place so I am afraid that noble Lords cannot put off listening to me any longer. I live and work in Scotland and I am proud to be a Scot. I never had a problem reconciling fierce patriotism with staunch support for the Union. When, 20 years ago, we completed our marathon debates on the 1978 Bill, I did not believe that I would be cantering around the course again. Perhaps that is because I am not a politician. It is perhaps surprising that I am not when I have to own up to the Machiavelli of Scottish politics—best known as Patrick Master of Gray—as a forebear.
Following yesterday's references to ancestors by my noble friend the Duke of Montrose and by the noble Earl, Lord Buchan, I might offer as the earliest example
1748
of a Gray political action the day, in 1297, when, from the Borders, father rode south to join Edward and son rode north to join Bruce.
We have debated the devolution possibilities for many years. A pre-emptive strike has ended that general debate and we must now, like it or not, focus on the future that this Bill ushers in. I have confessed to political innocence and so I can say with ease that the Bill demands scrutiny which transcends party politics. I recognise the vox populi but, unlike my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, do not have to say in consequence that I am a convert, albeit reluctant, to devolution; I am not. I do not like what is proposed, nor do I believe that it will advance the interests or prosperity of Scotland, England or the Union.
We are being asked to conduct an experiment which cannot later be set aside after trial and error. It is all very well hoping that this will disarm proponents of separatism, but that is not good enough—only certainty would suffice. Some noble Lords have suggested that this plays into the hands of separatists. It may well prove so; I hope not. That is the kernel of concern for those who value the Union. Let us face it: there are those who will use and abuse the proposed system in pursuit of separatism, even if not all Scottish Nationalists favour a total break.
If we fail to improve this Bill, there will be much scope for mischief. What are some of the areas of particular opportunity for mischief? I suggest that the list includes Edinburgh versus Westminster, in the most general sense; Edinburgh versus Westminster on those occasions when there may be complete political divergence between the two legislatures; Edinburgh versus the local authorities; and the Central Belt versus the Highlands, Islands and other rural areas. I suggest that there will be a diminished voice in Europe in the fashion described so illuminatingly by my noble kinsman Lord Lindsay yesterday. It was suggested yesterday that the city versus country problem would be catered for by the electoral system. I do not think that that will be so in reality. Industry, commerce and dense population have too much muscle. Anyone who lives in rural Argyll, once over-lorded by Strathclyde Region, will know that.
When we come to consider the detail, we cannot—nay, we must not—ignore other proposed constitutional reforms and possible changes; nor changes to the European scene. To consider this Bill in isolation will not do, but it is frustrating to be able only in part to guess at interaction with other constitutional changes. It is no use throwing a pebble into a pond to produce intended ripples if someone else steps up and throws in another. There are murky, indistinct areas in the Bill. The less the clarity, the greater the scope for discord. The 1978 Bill said too much. I suggest that perhaps this Bill says too little.
Speaking 55th in this debate—correction: 54th—it is hard to avoid repetition. I shall confine myself to emphasising just a few of the points made. I choose to highlight the following. I refer first to the future of the Secretary of State for Scotland. By convention, the Bill refers only to "the Secretary of State". Does that,

1749
perhaps inadvertently, allow for the introduction later of a minister with different, wider responsibilities than purely those for Scotland?
Secondly, I choose to highlight the matter of concordats. We need to know much more, and I believe that we are to be given more information. Presently, the concordats are like a collection of cobwebs, barely discernible for want of illumination—and they sound pretty cobwebby to me.
Thirdly, I look at local government finance. Anyone who listened to the masterly speech of my noble friend Lord Nickson will appreciate how finance is likely to impede the parliament from delivering the electorate's expectations. Local authority finance will be affected. We need to protect local authorities and their financial position.
Fourthly, I refer to the unicameral nature of the parliament. I was encouraged yesterday by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and others have referred this afternoon. Nonetheless, I should like to see something about that on the face of the Bill. The amount of work and the committees to be manned will place a considerable strain on members of the Scottish parliament.
Fifthly and lastly, I refer to the electoral system. I am sorry, but I find it unconvincing. I hold that it would have been far better to let parliament decide on the electoral system to be adopted—that is, this Parliament, not the one to be. I hope that there may be scope for amendment.
Our debates in 1978 were an experience I much enjoyed for all the hard work involved. The stamina and courteous handling of debates by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, were exemplary. Speaking yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, kindly referred to my part 20 years ago. I have looked up a couple of the matters over which he and I locked horns in those days. With some smugness I noted that the authors of the Bill before us have adopted the "reporting of proceedings" clause which I daringly and successfully pressed at Third Reading in this House and which survived the Commons.
Another matter that I looked at is not reproduced in this Bill. This puzzles me. The 1978 Bill included provision for the Secretary of State to advance or postpone a Scottish election. That provision was there to protect United Kingdom interests and, for instance, to deal with any potential clash of electoral dates. There is a scheme, running through several clauses and schedules, covering the holding of elections and their organisation, but only a Minister of the Scottish parliament is given the power of postponement. But the Secretary of State has been written out of the whole matter except in respect of the initial election. I understand that that will not be imported even via the representation of the people legislation. The devil is always in the detail, and it is certainly in vires. As to that, one matter puzzles me. Why on earth does Clause
1750
31 allow the legislature to overrule its own presiding officer on vires when the ultimate decision remains elsewhere?
In conclusion, there are other ways of expanding and improving existing devolution mechanisms. As I observed last time round, we are being asked to stitch some strange new cloth onto our old constitutional garment that threatens the consequences that that simile suggests. I hope that I am wrong.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Forbes: My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow my noble friend Lord Gray, who speaks with such eloquence and knowledge. There is no doubt that the people of Scotland want devolution, and there is little doubt that they will get it. Sadly, when the people of Scotland voted for devolution they did not know all of the dangers and implications for the unity of the kingdoms that might result from devolution. The voters were carried away by the thought of having more control over their affairs and dealing with the remoteness of Whitehall. Unfortunately, this came about because the Government acted with too much haste over devolution. They simply had not thought it through properly. It is only now that they are beginning to realise some of the pitfalls that may lie ahead, the worst being areas of potential conflict between Parliament in London and parliament in Edinburgh.
The Scottish Office, with areas devolved administratively, has served Scotland extremely well, in spite of the fact that at times the credit for some of its notable successes has been snatched by one of the Whitehall ministries because the department has failed to blow its own trumpet loud enough. Today Scotland is flourishing, with the notable exception of the agricultural industry, which is in dire straits.
I turn to the future and this Bill. Having gone so far down the devolution road, it is up to all of us to see that it works for the benefit of Scotland and the United Kingdom. How are we to make devolution work? Areas of potential conflict between parliament in Edinburgh and London must as far as possible be eliminated. There is little doubt that failure of devolution will lead to the next experiment, separation, which is something that the Government and practically every Member of this House deplore. To assume that a conflict will not arise is to bury one's head in the sand. Each time there is conflict it will give a boost to Scottish nationalism. Once that happens, the survival of the United Kingdom is at stake because the Scottish National Party will see its chance to go for separation.
There are many areas of potential conflict that have already been mentioned by other noble Lords. All of those areas must be scrutinised during the passage of this Bill. It is not just a question of conflict. It is almost certain that there will be frustration in the Edinburgh parliament. It will be able to discuss almost anything it likes but its power to act will be limited by matters reserved to Westminster. This frustration will be made worse if different parties are in power in Edinburgh and Westminster. Make no mistake: Scottish

1751
devolution will concern England as well as Scotland. The present dormant nationalism in England may well rear its head in future.
My advice to the Government in devolving power to Scotland is "Ca'canny", as is said in Scotland. They should think through all of the implications and get the Bill right; otherwise, the United Kingdom will be the victim of their mistakes. The strength of Scotland and England lies in unity. If that unity is broken both will suffer. Like many other noble Lords, from 1939 to 1945 I fought for the United Kingdom, not just for Scotland. Today, given the chance the Scottish nationalists will break up the Union. They must be stopped.
It is the duty of your Lordships' House to improve this Bill so that it does not lead to the break up of the Union. To achieve this improvement co-operation between the Government and noble Lords on all sides of the House will be required in considering amendments to the Bill. The various stages of the Bill must not be rushed. It is of paramount importance to get it right. The revision of a Bill of great constitutional importance is something at which your Lordships' House excels. To make devolution work the Government will need all the help they can get. The Government may find that even some hereditary Peers can offer considerable assistance. Above all, with their large majority in another place the Government must not steamroller this Bill on to the statute book. To do that will lead to disaster not only for Scotland but also for England. The Government will never be forgiven if devolution for Scotland fails and is replaced by separation.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Sempill: My Lords, it is a remarkable coincidence that I have the privilege to follow one of my noble kinsmen. Our families go back a long way in the history of Scotland. For more than 200 years they were intermarried, and for many of those years my family were known as Forbes-Sempills.
This has been a long debate. I should like to adopt a slightly different tack. Noble Lords may be interested to hear the results of a snap poll which I prepared following yesterday's debate. I categorised the 36 speakers in three ways. The doom and gloom merchants made up some 28 per cent. of the contributions; the Doubting Toms made up 42 per cent. (which after today's performance is now closer to 50 per cent.); and the proponents and supporters of the Bill made up another 28 per cent. Noble Lords may draw their own conclusions, but I suggest to the Government that there are many hours of debate ahead.
In a further analysis of the sample, I observed one underlying concern, repeated many times—the threat to the Union. I shall therefore address my remarks to that one issue and draw some observations that I have also made on the Bill's progress to date.
It is my contention that the Union is like most long established marriages: it has become tired; it has hit some serious problems; it is fraught with frustration; and the net result is that we have arrived where we are today. England and Scotland have come a long way. It is
1752
unfortunate that the senior partner took the junior partner for granted. However, the promise of a change of responsibility has provided a new impetus which will, it is to be hoped, create a rejuvenation in this long-standing relationship.
I support the intention and good will behind the Bill. The key is to look forward and to take the initiative. Stagnation or the status quo is no longer an option. I see two clear tasks ahead. One is to ensure that the Bill is amended and strengthened in order that it can achieve the objectives of its designers. There are many anomalies. Let us not forget that it has already received a substantial amount of interest and investigation in another place, where a total of 860 amendments were tabled, of which 297 amendments were made.
The contributions made in this Second Reading have highlighted some crucial areas of concern, most notably referred to by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord McCluskey. They referred to the issue of the Bill's ability to withstand the scrutiny of the judiciary. That seems to me critical. If the Bill is to endure—it is the objective of all—it will require serious discussion.
The second objective is to address the issue of public perception regarding devolution and its role in the future of Britain. It is a myth that the man in the street understands what is at stake. That myth was well illustrated in yesterday's leader in The Times. I shall quote part of it. The article states:
"The SNP has been further helped by the seductive illusions which Scottish opposition politicians fostered during the years of Conservative rule. The myth was nurtured that Scots were a nobler people than the devil-take-the-hindmost individualists south of the border who voted Tory. Expectations among Scots of what a Labour Government should do were allowed to exceed those of English voters: now traditional supporters in Scotland appear more disillusioned than their comrades south of the border. The SNP has made of these old ideological comfort-blankets a tartan banner under which dissidents may rally".
The leader added what I maintain is the key towards regaining the initiative:
"A sustained critical assault … from a position of economic honesty will see the SNP, like Labour in 1992, fall apart under fire"—
a point that was made clearly yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Nickson.
I have also followed the progress of this Bill ever since I first read the White Paper. It is one of the most important constitutional documents to have been produced this century. I have been staggered by the limited interest shown in its contents, not just in the public domain but here in Parliament. Noble Lords may not be surprised by my following observations which I made during the Bill's progress through another place. I witnessed six different Sessions and read most of what was said in Hansard. At no time did I see more than 30 to 40 MPs in the Chamber. That is less than 5 per cent. of the elected representatives of the kingdom. Of the 30 to 40 MPs, approximately a quarter to a third came from the Opposition Benches. That implies that they came from English constituencies. That leaves a total of some 20 elsewhere in the Chamber. That is less than one third of all the Scottish MPs.
More interestingly, it was the same hard core every time. I have no doubt that their knowledge of the Bill is excellent, but as for the others, "I hae me doots". I should have thought that on a Bill of this magnitude, at least a keynote address should have been made by the Prime Minister. As it was, the Bill was guided through the House by the Secretary of State and two of his ministerial colleagues, supported by a core of colourful Back-Benchers, some of whom must be nursing deep grievances having failed to be selected by their party for the very parliament for which they have fought so hard.
I may be naïve, but I found it disturbing. I see it as a true democratic deficit. I cannot stress enough the importance of widening this debate throughout the United Kingdom. Too little knowledge can be dangerous, especially if misinterpreted. I suspect that that is where the SNP is gaining substantial ground. The concern I have was well expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her powerful contribution in which she highlighted the growing dissent among the English.
Much has been said, and nearly all of it has been recorded. Apart from Hansard, there have been the House of Commons research papers, guidelines to the Bill have been placed in the Library and there have been regular correspondence and editorials in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald. Unfortunately, those newspapers have a combined daily circulation of under 200,000; and most of that is in Scotland. The contents and implications of the Bill are therefore known to only a minority. If the Bill is to endure and the Union is to survive, I suggest that a more positive attitude is required in promoting the strength and benefits of the Union to all the citizens of Britain, with special emphasis on the Scots.
I conclude by drawing a sporting analogy. This time last year the British Lions won a test series against the Springboks, the current world rugby champions. The results of the current tours in the southern hemisphere by the individual home nations are, to put it politely, woeful. I do not deny that each country is capable of achieving great success. And while I should love to see my own country win this current World Cup, I should be equally pleased to see England repeat its success of 1966.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, at the Second Reading of the Government of Wales Bill I argued that the Bill was inappropriately titled and that a more appropriate title might be Government of the United Kingdom (Creation of a National Assembly for Wales) Bill. That criticism applies with even greater force to this Bill. It is of course a Scotland Bill, but, more appropriately—we need to remember this all the time—it is a Government of the United Kingdom (Creation of a Scottish Parliament) Bill.
I accept that such amendment is not necessary. It would indeed be tautologous. The Bill would not be debated in this House if it were not a United Kingdom
1754
Bill. However, the capacity for misrepresentation which appears to happen because of those deficiencies of title in the far-flung parts of our country causes some concern to me.
We have had an interesting debate. I am almost the 60th speaker and there are more to go, so I shall be no longer than I must. We have heard a great deal of history. We have heard about the deficiencies in 1707 when the Act of Union was put in place and about the deficiencies of some of the individuals concerned. We have gone even further back in history. Perhaps I may say as one who is here by right of surprise as opposed to right of heritage, I find a debate of this nature wonderful because it gives one an enormous sense of continuity and unity.
I suggest that the seeds of this Bill are more recent than those far off times. I suggest that the seeds of the Bill grew because of the philosophy of the corporate state. I can trace that back effectively in my mind to the Second World War when the United Kingdom had to be turned into a war machine so as to achieve a desperate victory. In order to do that, the reins of power were extended in a dramatic way over all walks of life. Although after the war they were in some ways relaxed, they were never wholly relaxed. Such authority was too tempting to give up.
During the 50-year period since that dreadful time one could watch the reins of power, which were largely financial, being exercised initially to mould the country. Latterly, what I can only call "the spurs of authority" were applied to fit society into a procrustean bed—all society.
We should not deny that that process was successful. During that time the country enjoyed economic growth. Of course there were ups and downs. I make no party points because governments of both political philosophies had control at various times. At the same time, educational standards were rising. Despite all our criticisms today, the situation is better than it used to be. Political and philosophical ambitions were rising, too. I have always argued that one of the great forces which needs to be recognised in society is the desire of people to take to themselves as great a political control of their immediate affairs as can reasonably be achieved.
Now the dam has burst. As regards this Bill, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale—and my comment takes nothing away from the integrity and aciduity of the Scottish Constitutional Convention—that the convention was invited to consider only the problem of Scotland. The tragedy is that the Labour Party became committed to the conclusions of that conference before it had fulfilled its proper role in considering the implications for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the situation that we are in today. This is the second major constitutional reform Bill; we have had the Welsh Bill.
We shall have a third Bill, that for Northern Ireland, which will be different yet again. The Irish situation is different because that body will come into being with a community attempting to heal the wounds of division, whereas the danger with the Wales and Scotland Bills is that they will widen the divisions rather than heal them.
Devolution is a process and not an event. When the three Bills have been completed we will have an unbalanced United Kingdom and our Celtic brethren will have an open and perceived parliamentary representational advantage. The process will have to continue until that deficiency is answered. I am not sure whether I know what the answer is, but the only answer I have seen to the West Lothian question which is satisfactory and will stand the test of time involves an English parliament and a federal United Kingdom, with all the revolutionary change that that implies for Parliament as we know it today. I have seen no other alternative. This Government will have to answer that pressure in one way or another, or be left in a backwater by the floodtide that is unleashed without thought for the consequences.
I cannot let such a situation pass without mentioning the financial arrangements. Much has been made of the Barnett formula. The noble Lord with great goodwill enjoys a distinction that is perhaps unreasonable in the context of funding for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly. The Barnett formula is a fairly simple way of dealing with increases in the initial blocks of expenditure. It is with those initial blocks that we should be concerned.
More than that, we heard yesterday from the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, that when he was Secretary of State for Scotland he was all too aware of the Barnett formula, which was originally intended to narrow the gap between expenditure in Scotland and England. He was concerned to find his way over, round or under that formula or, perhaps more importantly, to get one across the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the advantage of Scotland. He and his predecessors have been notably successful in that. It will be more difficult in future. One of the outcomes of the Bill will be that the spotlight will be on the Scottish block all the time and its disparities with England will come under severe question.
Perhaps they are best illustrated in this way. Much has been made of the figure of expenditure per head in Scotland as opposed to England. The figure of £777 which was stated yesterday—I have forgotten by whom—is the figure by which the Scottish expenditure per head exceeds the United Kingdom average. The United Kingdom average includes an even higher Irish figure and a slightly lower Welsh figure. The difference between the Scottish figure and the English figure is not £777 but £941. The last figure I saw for GDP per head in Scotland was 98 per cent. for the national average, which is on the medium line. There are numerous English regions where the GDP per head is much lower than that. The lowest figure that I have seen is 86 per cent. but that is neither here nor there.
The people of those English regions will find it increasingly difficult to justify spending those excess sums on Scotland when their own situation is not so fortunate. That will be the motive force which will drive the need for an English settlement.
All of that said, surprisingly I am a devolutionist, with all the problems devolution brings, because I believe that the corporate state with which we marched for 50 years has been a cul-de-sac, and I am glad that we are at last breaking out of it.
8.21 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I apologise for having to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate. Some time ago I agreed to attend a dinner on Waterloo night to commemorate my ancestor General Hussey Vivian, who commanded a brigade in that battle. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for agreeing to change places with me to enable me to arrive not too late for the dinner.
I speak as someone who has lived most of his days in Scotland. Most of the organisations and institutions with which I have been involved have been linked with the south but they have their own economy. Some of them, like the Royal British Legion Scotland and the Scottish Arts Council have constitutions that are separate to their English counterparts. Their Scottish identity helps to give them a sense of individuality and a pride in their country. Most of us are proud of the United Kingdom and it is important for unity between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom that that pride is not impaired.
This is a unique moment in the history of our country and we must make the most of it so that the challenges we face are dealt with successfully. If they are not, there could be serious divisions which would be detrimental to the whole kingdom.
It is important to be precise about the financial arrangements and safeguards between London and Edinburgh in order to minimise the risk of conflict. It is important to maintain the block grant according to a mutually agreed formula. There must be close consultation between the Scottish executive and the Treasury about financial agreement, but it should not rely on the European Union for funds and must reflect a strong Scottish economy.
At moments of economic difficulty effective remedies have to be found to support particular areas. If they are not supported there will be bitterness. There are difficulties in the Borders region due to the slump in the textile industry. The Scottish Office is working closely with Scottish Borders Enterprise to find ways and means of channelling money to boost failing businesses and to halt redundancies. Looking ahead, there is a need to be clear about tax-raising powers because at times of recession lowered incomes will cause erosion of the tax base and lead to loss of jobs.
The system of the block grant must be reliable and there should be an agreed formula in the Bill. Many institutions depend on their share of it, and their share will be decided by the Scottish executive and by the UK Government. They will be competing for resources with authorities for housing, education and local government. There is a danger that the needs of one institution may suffer because of the needs of another. Availability of regular income is important for those running an institution.
I should like to emphasise the particular need of the National Galleries of Scotland of which I was for some years a trustee. In the Bill there is no mention of this important institution. Ideally, it should be reserved. At the very least its name should be written into the Bill. It is largely dependent on the block grant for funds. If the Scottish Parliament were to deprive them of their share, the effects would be serious. They are already under-funded. Continuing interest in the galleries on behalf of the Scottish parliament is essential. I am not encouraged by the fact that no Member of the Government has so far put a foot in the door of the galleries since the election.
The present level of the purchasing grant is extremely low—about £700,000—which has to cover the needs of all three galleries plus a fourth, the Dean Gallery, which is due to open.
Looking ahead, much will depend on the quality and expertise of the Scottish parliament. I hope that there will be a spirit of unity and co-operation. I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Steel, about political accountability, which were echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone. The avoidance of disruption on party political lines would reduce the conflict between old and new Labour. All political parties in Scotland should avoid party politics for a while so that affairs can be debated in an atmosphere of harmony. As my noble friend Lord Monro of Langholm stated, the majority of members will come from the Central belt. It is from there that the members of my regiment, the Scots Dragoon Guards are largely recruited. They are entirely lacking in class prejudice and, like members of the Royal British Legion for Scotland, are proud of the United Kingdom. They would be supporters of the Scottish parliament on a non-party political basis.
As the Minister pointed out, the success of the Bill will depend upon consensus and consensus will be achieved only by the removal of class prejudice which lies deep in the minds of many people in Scotland. For that reason the cultivation of co-operation rather than division is essential.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, as I have said before, I am a devout devolutionist and a sincere unionist. I have been a very small voice in the Scottish Conservative Party advocating the setting up of a Scottish parliament and devolution. I feel if we had followed up Sir Edward Heath's 1974 Perth declaration we would not have the problems we face today. Now we are racing into a hotch-potch situation, with each of the four countries who make up our country being offered differing degrees of devolution which must not be allowed to break up the United Kingdom. We would have had long ago a parliament in Scotland which would have been the beginning of a federal Britain, a Britain where the Union was strong and yet the people of Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales would have seen decisions affecting them being taken in their own parliaments. It is a fact that the Scots—and I am proud
1758
to be one—are all nationalistic in their outlook. It is a fact that we are very proud of our ancestry, the Kilt and our celtic blood.
But, equally, few Scots really understood the consequences of what they were voting for in the referendum. How could they? Even we in Parliament did not understand because we had not seen the Bill at that stage. They voted with their hearts—the Braveheart phenomena—and not with their heads. They voted with their spirits and their political aspirations to get rid of the Tory Party in Scotland—a party that had, as they saw it, ruled them for 18 long years from their English base in the English shires, when since 1955 they had consistently voted for another party. However, to their discredit, as they failed to get the facts across, the Tory Party of Scotland was and still is based in Edinburgh, Scotland and not in England. It is the British Labour Party that has its roots in London and now the Scots are beginning to realise this.
We have seen a tide of nationalism sweep over the country as the Scots nation sees the start of a political independence from England. We must stop that tide and make our compatriots realise that political independence must not lead to complete separation. The parliament we are debating here must have the strengths to show the people that they have all the independence they need with this political power base in Edinburgh.
That brings me to my first real point. This parliament must succeed for if it does not it will surely lead to the break up of the UK. It is a dangerous route we go down if we do not give it our total support. We should therefore get rid of this independence issue once and for all. The SNP has indicated it will call for this in the first session of parliament if it has a majority, and it is beginning to look as if that might happen. But how can the Parliament work properly with the threat of it being only a half-way house or being for a trial period?
My local seat has always been a Labour seat. In fact, it has been such a strong Labour seat for years and years that there was no other party in sight. But a by-election last month saw the return of an SNP councillor, with the added insult for the local Labour party of seeing its candidate coming a very poor and distant third behind the Tory candidate, who was very pleasantly surprised by her second place, and only just in front of the Liberal, who, for the record, was an even worse fourth.
I believe that many Scots vote SNP not because they believe in independence but as a protest, as I have already said, to the two supposedly English-based parties. If the Parliament is to be on trial by the SNP it will not get a chance to prove what it can do when it works properly. It needs to work for at least 10 years to prove itself to the Scottish people.
Totally contrary to what my noble friend Lord Kinnoull said yesterday and what the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, said today, I believe that we should have immediately, before we even start, a referendum on whether there should be independence or separation. I am absolutely sure that we should get the right vote. The Scots would vote overwhelmingly for their continuation within the United Kingdom. We could then carry the message forward that this parliament

1759
might have its blips in its relationship with Westminster but that they could be sorted out sensibly if there was not the dreadful spectre of separation there—a sort of sword of Damocles—hanging over the heads at all times of all parliamentarians and the parliament itself, as everyone would know that we, the people of Scotland, want to remain a part of Great Britain and want the parliament to work within that remit. That referendum would prove that.
We must, though, never take away what we have offered and are now in the process of giving to the Scots. We receive 20 per cent. more funding per head from central funds than any other part of the UK for our basic services. If we have this differential removed and it is perceived that London is trying to squeeze the Scots of what they see as their fair share, public opinion could and will change in such a way that the SNP could use it for its political gain. Even if there is the same party in power in both Scotland and England, that is a key point of potential confrontational problems. But what will it be like if we had different parties in control in Edinburgh and Westminster and the paymaster—Westminster—wants to cap the parliament because it feels it is not spending money in the way the mother Parliament sees it should? We have seen the chaos that attitude causes at local government level when it gives local councillors carte blanche to blame everyone but themselves for the subsequent cuts in services and jobs that result from these cuts.
Fourthly, we must not cut the number of MPs to Westminster after devolution to answer the impossible-to-answer West Lothian question as again it could be taken as a sign of anti-Scottishness by Westminster. We should make a decision on the correct procedure of voting in both parliaments and the numbers who will represent Scotland now as this Bill goes through this House. It is no good our MSPs having a loud voice in Edinburgh while our MPs in Westminster are political eunuchs with the ability to speak with no more than a whimper here in Westminster, and, most importantly, we must protect the voice and seat in the Cabinet that Scotland enjoys today.
The fifth problem is the tax-raising powers. Are we genuinely to believe that Scots employees will be happy to be paying 3 per cent. more tax than their English, Irish or Welsh fellow workers—or to put it another way will they accept less pay for doing the same job as their fellow workers in other parts of the kingdom? Of course they will not, so that will mean union pressure on businesses to pick up the tab and that means pressure to move the business to more profitable parts of the UK because these days profit is the essential word for most companies to satisfy the stock market and the bank manager.
We already pay more in taxes in Scotland than England as council tax is greater—on average £100 more for domestic rates and a lot more for business rates despite the supposed uniform business rate. The average Scot will not stand for much more just for the pleasure of living in their beautiful and friendly country. What is to stop the Treasury from reducing the Scottish grant if the parliament decides to use its tax-raising
1760
powers? There are many other problems to do with taxation and to which other noble Lords have referred which we must confront.
The sixth and final problem I wish to raise today is that if Westminster seeks to override laws passed by the Scottish parliament it would simply bring closer the day when Scotland is tempted to go its own way.
The UK is a multinational state made up of four countries with diversity of culture, beliefs and language. The relationships within it are being changed by this Bill. I am not frightened by that, but I am frightened that we could, instead of creating a new strengthened constitutional position, create a monster that destroys the country that has so dominated world affairs for many years and do it at a time when the world trend is to join together—big is becoming more beautiful. We must resist by all means the temptation for the Scot to throw this trend to one side for the sake of nationalism.
Scotland has 59 per cent. of the land mass of the UK but only 10.6 per cent. of the population. But it is a volatile population, especially when it comes to dealing with the "Auld enemy", the English, who are distrusted by so many Scots even today when we have lived in peace and harmony for so many years.
As a unionist I believe we must stand or fall together financially, politically and morally. I have therefore always believed in the idea that if any area of the UK needs help, it should receive it. As a devolutionist I pray now that we will, during this Bill's passage through your Lordships' House, do everything in our power to give this parliament the chance to succeed and to allow the political aspirations of the Scots people to be satisfied within the context of this great United Kingdom of ours.
We can only be assured of the total success of this enterprise if we deal positively with these six problem areas which I have mentioned and which have been mentioned by other noble Lords during the course of the debate.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to make my small contribution to the debate, I wish to thank my noble friend Lord Sewel for starting the debate in such a masterful yet succinct way. I compliment also the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on the dextrous way that he handled his party's conversion to acceptance of the new Scottish parliament from its original outright condemnation. I only hope that he can persuade his Back Benchers not to indulge in wrecking tactics.
I aim to say a few words about how we came to the point where we are now and where we might be going. I shall then say something about the scrutiny of legislation. First, I shall say a few personal words which arise from the fact that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will be called into action to determine various matters within the Bill. The first Lord Monkswell, my ancestor, was instrumental in setting up the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and was one of its founding members. It is interesting to reflect also that that committee was set up to deal with a backlog of cases from the colonies which needed to be

1761
dealt with. Over the subsequent years, the colonies have fallen away and it is nice to think that we are finding a new role for that committee.
The extensive remarks which I was going to utter about the lead-up to the commitment to a Scottish parliament can be cut very short because, as a number of noble Lords, mainly from the Conservative Back Benches, have already said, the Conservative administration by centralising the state and emasculating local government over the past 18 years, caused the demand for a Scottish parliament to become overwhelming. The imposition of the poll tax only added fuel to that fire.
However, I sincerely hope that the establishment of the Scottish parliament and the devolution programme for Wales and Northern Ireland, the proposals for London, and the development of the English regional assemblies, will be seen as an exciting start towards the fashioning of a new constitutional settlement for the next century rather than as recreating the narrow nationalism which was out of date 300 years ago.
In future I hope that in a rejuvenated House of Lords we will hear the leaders of those new devolved administrations, rather than the hereditary absentee landlords who have very little relevance to the modern world. I hope that the people's representatives elected to the European Parliament will also have ex officio seats in the new House of Lords, alongside captains of industry and commerce.
I was interested in the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld who pointed out that the Scottish trades union movement and the Church of Scotland were the two largest "mass membership" organisations in Scotland. I hope that senior members of those organisations will also have seats in the future House of Lords. If we do not weaken in our resolve to fashion a new constitution fit for the new millennium, we shall have an exciting time.
I move from the big picture to a smaller but no less important one. Adequate scrutiny of legislation is fundamentally important. It is best summed up by the phrase, "legislate in haste and repent at leisure". A number of noble Lords have suggested the need for a second chamber. I am not convinced that it is the answer in this case. If we look at the way in which the Westminster parliament operates, we can see that there are two opportunities to amend legislation as it passes through the House of Commons and three in the House of Lords. Those stages are separated to allow for mature reflection.
However, in local government, major changes, which are, in some ways, equivalent to legislation, are discussed by a sub-committee of a main committee, followed by the main committee, and the policy and resources committee, and finally by the full council. That provides an opportunity for amendment at each stage with time delays being built into the process. My noble friend Lord Hughes also mentioned how the Norwegian Storting, or its parliament, organises its affairs. Three principles derive from those examples: first, there needs to be more than one occasion upon
1762
which legislation can be amended. Secondly, there should be time delays between the different stages of consideration; and, thirdly, different groups of people should be involved in at least two of those stages.
I shall end with a philosophical question: should we, the UK parliament, in setting up these new devolved administrations, hedge them around with rules that we think are important, or do we allow the elected representatives of the people—in this case of Scotland—to do their own thing? I do not know the answer to that conundrum, but I am sure that we shall spend many hours in Committee, on Report, and indeed, on Third Reading discussing such important issues.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I rise to speak this evening with some diffidence after so many excellent, witty and commendable speeches; and, indeed, comments—I might even call them asides—from my noble friend Lord Onslow yesterday. He made some particularly good cracks during the Minister's opening remarks. When I look around the Chamber, I believe that I am one of the few who sat through many debates here, virtually on the same Benches, when my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was giving as good as he got and in fact even better. Indeed, he has not lost much punch since those days of 1978 and 1979 when we discussed—surprise, surprise!—the same subject; namely, the Scotland Bill.
However, we are here again tonight. Thanks to my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip, I hope that I speak as a strong Member. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur will follow me as the tail-end Charlie of the club, to stir things up before my noble neighbour Lord Mackie, who is not here at present, speaks. When one goes along to put one's name down to speak in the Whips' office there is usually a four letter word to be seen—"wind". However, I have been told that, no, in that case it is "wynd". I am sorry that my noble friend is not here now. In any event, I shall attempt to wrap up my short thoughts on the massive Bill before us. Indeed, it is probably one of the more important Bills of this Parliament.
Noble Lords will be aware that at the end of July 1997 we discussed the White Paper. I found a copy of the report of the proceedings. I am afraid that in the course of the remarks that were made then I made one or two naughty cracks at the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, about "gender balance". I should, first, say that it was a particular pleasure for me to hear the noble Baroness speak today in a major debate with such fluency. I congratulate the noble Baroness on the style with which she delivered her speech. Indeed, I look forward to hearing from her in the future. The noble Baroness has made a very swift—and I hope deserved—transition to her position, far quicker than some of us on these Benches. She has learned quickly and I congratulate her.
I should like to stress now something that I should have stressed in July 1997. In my county of Angus we do not necessarily need too many lessons in gender balance. The provost, who in fact is the chairman and

1763
convener of the council, is a lady. We have three deputy lieutenants who are ladies, one of whom is my noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy. Indeed, the councillor for the Glens who represented my noble neighbour Lord Mackie was a doughty lady. You do not get them much more couthy in the Glens of Angus. There was and still is a very good balance in the county of Angus.
The noble Baroness gave us a lovely gem which I shall treasure for the next few years. Indeed, it may be relevant to the mass ranks of the government supporters. She mentioned two words, an "agreed vision". If the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord sitting beside her care to look around them they will realise that that "agreed vision" is one floor up looking at a 56-inch screen. Indeed, I believe that is where many of them will be lurking. Those two words will be used by many enthusiasts who are not present in the Chamber tonight. I have in mind the noble Lords, Lord Ewing, Lord Watson of Invergowie, Lord Kirkhill and especially the noble Lord Hughes of Woodside, because that "agreed vision" will be a term that will be much used, as is the case with the gentleman with the whistle who runs around—and it was the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, who referred to rugby—with his "agreed vision" as he gives another penalty against Scotland or the team that we support. It is indeed something that I shall treasure.
The main thrust of my comments in July 1997 referred to Chapter 7 of the White Paper. Indeed, I hope to do the same tonight, but I shall also refer to Part 1V of the Bill. However, I shall just skate over them this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in his opening remarks yesterday mentioned what I believe is technically called the Scottish variable rate. I think that that will be the technical term as regards tax-raising powers. However, yesterday, at col. 1572 of Hansard, the noble Lord seemed to depart a little from that theme. For many years we have been hearing about the Scottish Constitutional Convention, with suggestions that there should be power for the parliament to raise or lower taxes of up to 3p in the pound on the standard rate on that band of income. According to some arithmetic, we are told that that would give rise to a sum not unadjacent to £450 million.
Last July I tabled a Question. The cunning noble Lord, Lord Sewel—if I may call him that in the nicest way—opened the debate but left the winding-up to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, who accused me of being Machiavellian. I wonder whether noble Lords have read col. 1572 of Hansard, because in yesterday's speech, which I presume the noble Lord filled in himself, he mentioned that he understood that the figure involved would be £400 million. Perhaps the noble Lord or someone else may be able to explain to me how the figure of £450 million, or 3 per cent., came about. I am afraid I have not followed the history of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but if someone could explain that to me over the course of the proceedings on the Bill it will certainly assist me considerably.
In July 1997 when we were discussing the White Paper I referred to Chapter 7, which is broadly set out in Part 1V of the legislation now before us. Noble Lords
1764
may be aware that I spent five very interesting years purportedly being in charge of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. After I had had quite a stressful meeting with Members of Parliament who had come over or others, I always had some indication of the success or otherwise of the meeting by the biscuits that accompanied my coffee. If they were chocolate, I knew that the meeting had been good; but if they were ordinary biscuits—well, I shall leave it there.
I should like to congratulate my noble friend and neighbour Lady Carnegy, my noble friend Lady Strange and my noble friends Lord Sanderson, Lord Monro and Lord Rotherwick on perhaps joining the chocolate biscuit club in that it seems that all of them have alluded in some way to the brief which I have also received from the chartered accountants of Scotland. They seem to have it pretty well right.
Last July I referred to paragraph 16 of Chapter 7 of the White Paper. At Committee stage I shall have plenty to say and to ask and to learn. I hope that much will be clarified for me. The honourable Member for Linlithgow and my own Member of Parliament, the honourable Member for Tayside North, have had plenty to say about the complications and difficulties for employers as regards the PAYE system. I refer to Clause 71 and the term of residence. The chartered accountants of Scotland have commented on this matter. It is a fairly formidable body.
Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 of the White Paper are particularly relevant in this regard. I wonder whether the bulk of United Kingdom employers realise that Part IV of the Bill will affect each and every one of them if they have an employee who will be a Scottish taxpayer. That will result in a pretty hefty extra expense for those employers. I refer to paragraph 19 of Chapter 7 of the White Paper on costs. I have discussed these costs with a leading expert tax accountant from a firm in Glasgow. He used the dreadful term "a joke". I put it more tactfully and say that the figures do not appear to me to have the customary Scottish accuracy of Mr. Stephen Hendry, Mr. Jockie Wilson, let alone Mr. Craig Brown's heroes.
At this stage I should declare my interest. I live in Scotland and I am a member of the chartered accountants of Scotland. I am extremely proud to be a member of that institute. I believe that the noble Earl who is to speak later in the debate is a member of a sister institute. I remember that the vice-chancellor of Heriot-Watt University said 35 years ago when I was a student there, "You chartered accountants think of yourselves as queen bees or kings of the universe".
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, we who are fellows of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales always regarded fellows of the Scottish institute as far superior and more qualified beings.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, flattery will get my noble friend everywhere. The vice-chancellor said that we were given four extra marks for writing "incorporated in 1854". It must have been that that got me through the exams! The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, expressed some astonishment that I was just an

1765
accountant. I am extremely pleased to have that qualification. I started my apprenticeship in October 1962. I spent most of the Saturdays that October doing extra work as I had expressed a view that the symbol of the chartered accountants in Scotland was a vulture with the motto "Vigilance". For that I was punished with four extra Saturdays of work. The motto is quaere verum, which I understand translates as "Seek the truth". It is with that sentiment that I pose my questions tonight and look forward to discussing Part IV in Committee. Is there a possibility of arranging a meeting for the chartered accountants with the Minister during the course of the Bill to try to save time in your Lordships' House as we could discuss problems outside the Chamber? These problems have been alluded to by my noble friends on these Benches. I believe they would have been alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Milne, who sits on the Cross Benches. He is another member of the chartered accountants of Scotland.
Over the past year I have made several visits to the services with the All-Party Defence Study Group. I have visited all three services, including the Royal Marines. On each visit I was asked by servicemen and women whether they would be liable to pay the tartan tax if they served in Scotland. They had read about the additional 3p rate. I replied with an instant volley, rather like a Wimbledon tennis player. I said, "Yes". I do not know whether I am right about that. That is an example of the guidance we shall seek during the course of the Committee stage.
I hope I am correct in thinking that this Scottish variable rate will not come into force until the next Parliament. Clause 70(6) refers to the year 2000–01. It seems that there is at least a year in which we can discuss these problems. The PAYE system is complicated enough, but the self-assessment for individual taxpayers will be more complicated still. I note that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Drumadoon is on the Front Bench. Recently he asked me to assist him in filling in the little sheets that we collect from the Printed Paper Office. I assure him that that is child's play compared with some of the complications that will arise with PAYE.
As I said, I look forward to discussing Part IV in Committee. I hope that above all we shall not scare investors or people who will bring jobs to Scotland. I hope that the Government will keep the tax-raising powers as simple as possible. The chartered accountants have some thoughts on this matter which I hope they can express in the next month or two. I hope that the Scottish parliament and the Cabinet will be successful with this Bill, but they will have a hard and difficult road ahead and hard choices to make. I refer to an Italian proverb, "Between the doing and the saying—word and deed—there is half an ocean". Many expectations have been raised. However, we shall have some problems as regards finances.
This morning I received a telephone call from that valuable organ of the press, the Sunday Post. I was asked whether I could tell them how many hereditary Peers there were in Scotland. I do not know why they rang me. They should have consulted the noble Lady,
1766
Lady Saltoun. Perhaps they had read col. 1601 of the Official Report of yesterday and read of the noble Lady referring to the Wolf of Badenoch and thought I might not savage them quite as badly as the noble Lady. I was able to assure them that out of the total membership of the Scottish Peers' Association it appears there are 84 hereditary Peers. On a rough count this evening, 35 out of 68 noble Lords are Peers of succession. I believe that shows there is sufficient talent and interest in the Bill before us tonight. I hope that we shall continue to discuss it in a constructive spirit. I apologise for having spoken for 15 minutes. I promise that I shall speak more briefly when we discuss Clause 71. I thank your Lordships for your attention.
8.58 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, inevitably I shall reinforce views expressed elsewhere in this debate. As a Scot, living in Scotland, and having been a Minister in the Scottish Office, it is almost inevitable that I should feel strongly, and frankly not a little worried, about this Bill and about what has led up to it.
My concerns are many, but let me dwell on what I believe are the key themes. First, despite the Labour Party's election manifesto and the popular wish—which I understand, even if I do not agree with it—for devolution in Scotland, as evidenced by the referendum I share fully and without any reservation the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland about government by referenda. To that extent I do not share the view of my noble friend Lord Rowallan about a further referendum, for the reason so admirably expressed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland earlier. As the Bill makes clear, and as this debate has shown, the issues involved in devolution are immensely complex. They are not fully understood by the experts, let alone by the man in the street, as was remarked by the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, and my noble friend Lord Rowallan. The man in the street expresses a rather loose wish for Scottish devolution, not really knowing what is involved, and cannot reasonably be expected to appreciate the pitfalls it introduces as highlighted in this debate.
I accept that we now have a Bill before the House. We must work as hard as we can to make it an operable Bill. I hope the Government will accept that the very broad range of concerns expressed in the debate require thorough examination. The debate has indicated how strongly opinions are held. Those of us who have anxieties will be diligent in pursuing them in order to achieve a better Bill.
I now turn to the constitutional aspects. A measure that has stood the test of time, as has the Act of Union, should not be casually tampered with or put in peril, as this Bill inevitably risks. It leaves a mass of issues wholly unresolved, from the West Lothian question to what might happen as Scottish nationalism grows, feeding on the provisions introduced by this Bill, with the threat of separation one day growing ever more real. I wonder whether the Government ever imagined, as they embarked upon their proposals for devolution, that this might happen, and that what I regard as the frightening cries for greater independence, leading to

1767
separation, would have grown so fast. But they were warned. I bet they are uncomfortable with what has happened.
Like others, I believe that what has led to all this is a rather vague popular wish, a search for an increased national identity. But that identity is already very real. It is a kind of unattainable, simplistic and unrealistic grab for some glamorous ideal, swelled by popular emotion rather than well-judged practical thought.
And what of the economic realities to which it may lead? Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Nickson said it with admirable clarity: the sums just do not add up. The Scottish people are not only being conned; I very much fear that they are in danger of conning themselves.
I was particularly struck by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on the legal aspects of sovereignty, whether parliamentary or constitutional. What a tangle potentially lies there for us to unscramble over the next few months. These issues will need very thorough scrutiny.
Finally, I turn to the unicameral nature of the Scottish parliament. After 22 years in this House I am bound to say that I am wholly unclear as to how first-rate Scottish legislation can be achieved without some form of revising chamber. I disagree fundamentally with the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Primary legislation in the Westminster Parliament would be in the most appalling mess were it not for the scrutiny, in principle and in detail, which this House gives to it. Yet the Scots are to be denied that. I know, because I handled the Bill at the time, that the Scots grumbled about the Abolition of Domestic Rates (Etc.) (Scotland) Bill—the poll tax legislation. How much more they would have grumbled had it not been for the work of your Lordships and the number of concessions that were achieved during the progress of that Bill in this House to make it marginally better than others felt it might have been. It is our duty as a revising chamber to find ways of tackling this difficult problem, of making the legislative body that is to be set up a wholly effective body.
I accept, of course, the results of the referendum, but with more than a little sadness. I realise that we now have to work with the grain of public opinion. The Bill as it stands does not resolve some very difficult and contentious issues. Indeed, it creates many more of them. To that extent it is a rather frightening experiment, one of a series of doubtful constitutional experiments, and one that will require an enormous degree of detailed work to make it even half safe—as my noble friend Lord Forbes said, safe for England as well as Scotland, but most particularly for the Union.
9.5 p.m.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this significant and important Bill—even though I am number 64 on the list of speakers. Nonetheless, noble Lords will be glad to hear that I have some new points to make. I therefore crave the indulgence of the House.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, when introducing the Second Reading of this Bill in another place said:
1768
"It is part of the most far-reaching programme of constitutional reform that the country has seen for well over a century".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/1/98; col.19.]
I entirely agree with the Secretary of State. In fact, "far-reaching" is, if anything, an understatement. Before I come to the body of my speech, I wish to comment on the speech made by my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton. I do not know whether it is in order for a mere hewer of wood and drawer of water in the rhetorical vineyard such as myself to congratulate a speaker. However, my noble friend's speech was one of unalloyed brilliance. The first part, and the only part I intend to address, was an eloquent exposition of everything that Scotland receives from the present system. My noble friend was absolutely right in everything that he said. It was absolutely valid. However, a third fact is that the Scots do not want to know.
The reasons why they do not want to know are very interesting, and might indeed have been avoidable—if only the Labour Party had not, in a reckless and cynical way, fanned the fires of nationalism in order to preserve their seats in Scotland; if only—this is not an entirely facetious point—Mel Gibson had chosen to make a film called "Lionheart" about Richard I rather than one called "Braveheart" about William Wallace; if only, and I hope my party will not perceive me as being disloyal if I say this, the poll tax had not been introduced in Scotland at the time and in the manner that it was. But all those things happened. There has been a sea-change in public opinion in Scotland, as confirmed by the referendum. There is no putting the clock back.
Given that there will shortly be a Scottish parliament in Edinburgh, I now propose to address what my noble friend Lady Young—who is not in her place—described yesterday as the English dimension. The overall context of which I should like to make noble Lords aware—and again, so far as I know, it has not been mentioned in this debate—is that, according to the DTI in a survey published conveniently in last Thursday's Financial Times, if one can categorise Scotland as a region, it is the second most prosperous region in the United Kingdom, second only to the south-east.
By comparison, my own region of Yorkshire and the Humber, where I have recently been selected to stand for my party in the European elections next year, is on that basis 10 per cent. poorer per capita than Scotland. I should say that, despite my forthcoming candidacy, like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I am merely presenting my views as I see them.
Stating the facts which I am about to draw to the attention of the House, will probably be characterised as inciting an English backlash. But stating facts does not constitute incitement. On the contrary, the facts speak for themselves. They need no rhetorical spin from me or anyone else. I shall cite three facts which are unfair to England, one of which has already been mentioned in this debate.
The first unfair fact is the gross over-representation of Scotland at Westminster. Under the Government's proposals, this gross over-representation of Scotland will still exist at the time of the next general election, even though there will then long have been a fully

1769
fledged Scottish parliament in Edinburgh. Should the general election be close, those extra Scottish MPs will determine which party forms the government. That is obviously unfair on English electors.
There is also the familiar West Lothian question, which I am sure we all understand. However, as I said in my earlier intervention, it is a problem which the Government have made not the faintest attempt to solve in their proposals.
At the risk of imposing on the goodwill of the House, because the matter is important, I intend to say something about regional selective assistance grants. Regional selective assistance grants are payments financed by the UK taxpayer, paid directly to companies as an inducement to them to locate or relocate in a given region. In the past 10 years, almost £3 billion sterling has been paid in grants directly to companies under that programme. Of that huge sum, 57 per cent. has gone to companies locating or relocating in Scotland and Wales. If one excludes the grant paid to Wales from the calculation, 44 per cent. has gone to Scotland alone. The effect of this is that people living in Yorkshire and the Humber who only have nine-tenths of the wealth of people living in Scotland—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, I shall come to the end of my point, if I may. People living in Yorkshire and the Humber are paying for grants which induce companies to locate to Scotland rather than to their region or, worse still, paying to induce companies in Yorkshire to relocate away.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am finally grateful to the noble Earl. Perhaps I may point out that that was one of the significant achievements of his noble friend Lord Lang.
The Earl of Dartmouth: My Lords, my noble friend is a noble friend, but the noble Lord must think of something new. I was not part of my noble friend's administration, I was not part of the previous administration nor was I even a candidate for my party at any time in the past 18 years. So the noble Lord will have to use that point on someone else: it is not valid so far as I am concerned.
It has always been difficult for a fair-minded person to justify the privileges for Scottish residents, even when there is a wholly integrated United Kingdom such as we shall have had until this Bill becomes law. However, the setting up of a Scottish parliament with material powers amounts to a new constitutional settlement. The privileged position of Scottish residents, of which I have given just three examples, becomes impossible to justify.
I want to address particularly the Government's stated intention to leave the Scottish block and the Barnett formula unchanged. As I said earlier, someone living in England receives 23 per cent. less public expenditure than the same person would receive if he were living in
1770
Scotland. To put that in money terms—confirmed by other noble Lords in the course of the debate—in the fiscal year ending 1996 an extra £871 per head of identifiable public expenditure was spent on the residents of Scotland as compared with those of England.
It was in that context that I was interested to read of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, in this House on 9th June. I remember the noble Lord as a distinguished Member of Parliament for another Greater Manchester constituency when I last stood for my party, also in a Greater Manchester constituency, in a general election 24 years ago. That is why I do not take seriously interventions such as that produced by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnett, said then,
"I am not unhappy to have my name associated with something which for a long time has been relatively rational and intelligent. But today it is long overdue for reform".—[Official Report, 9/6/98; col. 906.]
Once the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, himself had said that, I was agog to hear the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, from the Government Front Bench. Earlier today I contacted the office of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to warn him that I would be quoting him tonight in this debate.
The noble and learned Lord said,
"We have no plans for a fundamental review of the … Barnett formula rules".
I characterise that as a dismal and unacceptable response to the historic and insightful comment of my fellow chartered accountant the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. The reason that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, gave was,
"That formula has been in operation for nearly 20 years and it has been accepted and used by successive govemments".—[col. 919.]
I know that there are many hereditary Peers in this House—indeed, I am one myself—but the notion that just because something has been in operation for 20 years is sufficient justification for it to continue unreformed is singularly unconvincing, even in this House. I can assure noble Lords opposite that that line of reasoning will certainly not convince the electorate of Yorkshire and the Humber, and indeed other English regions.
I had expected the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—that celebrated legal luminary catapulted on to the Front Bench—to produce a more substantive and convincing line of reasoning to justify the Government's point blank refusal to reform the Scottish block and the Barnett formula in the context of Scottish devolution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dean, pointed out yesterday, the current UK Treasury team features a Scottish Economic Secretary, a Scottish Chief Secretary and a Scottish Chancellor, all of whom also represent Scottish constituencies. That is not a reassuring line-up from an English point of view. As a member of a profession—as my noble friend Lord Lyell pointed out—and like many other Members of the House who are also members of a profession, I recognise there is a clear and potential conflict of interest.

1771
My noble friend Lord Lang said in his speech that there will be a demand to move away from the Barnett formula to a needs-based system. I should like to make that demand to the Government now. So as to take away any suspicion of partiality and bias in the Treasury, I propose that the Government announce forthwith that there is to be an assessment of needs and from henceforth public expenditure shall be allocated entirely on the basis of need and not on the present basis of the Scottish block and the Barnett formula.
In conclusion, when the Secretary of State described the Bill in another place as "far-reaching", he was absolutely correct; it is indeed far-reaching. In fact, it is so far-reaching that it makes the present privileged position of residents of Scotland in logic untenable and, in practice, unsustainable. Should the Bill become law in anything like its present form, the Government will have to make substantial compensating changes to the benefit of England and the English regions. Should they fail to do so, they will be aiding and abetting the break-up of the United Kingdom, not for the reasons given by other noble Lords in the debate, but because that is what England will then want. I say that very much in sorrow and not at all in anger.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, it is a rare honour to be the last of 65 speakers in such an important debate, and I know it is an honour which carries with it the duty to be brief.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, I find myself somewhat schizophrenic about this Bill. With a Scottish father and a Sassenach mother I was brought up in the wilderness of Rannoch but sent to school in England. I spend most of my time in London, but only feel at home in Scotland. Perhaps for these reasons, and because I abhor the Treaty of Rome and what it is doing to Europe, I have in theory no objection to a devolved Scottish parliament, and no difficulty either with a completely independent Scotland, provided that the Scottish people do not become disadvantaged and embittered by those changes. After all, one can hardly hold the view that the Treaty of Rome, with its explosive commitment to the premature union of the peoples of Europe, is wrong for the nations of Europe and in the same breath insist that Scotland must stay in the Union with England if her people no longer want to do so.
Of course, that dilemma makes the Government somewhat schizophrenic too. As one character, they pay the European Union billions of pounds annually to absorb the sovereignty of the United Kingdom into its venomous bosom. As the other character, they protest that their plans for Scotland must not lead to the break up of the United Kingdom.
At this point, and in order to save time, I hope that my noble friends Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord Nickson will not mind if I single them out from many excellent speeches made by your Lordships over the past two days and associate myself with their remarks made yesterday. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lang that the genie of full independence is well
1772
and truly out of the bottle. I also agree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Nickson that the future is likely to prove more expensive for the people of Scotland, and of course much more expensive under full independence than under the devolution foreseen by this Bill.
Here I would underline a point eloquently made by my noble friend Lord Beloff today, to the effect that the people of Scotland are mistaken if they believe that the European Union will come to their financial aid. EU enlargement is almost certainly a pipe dream, because adequate reform of the common agricultural policy does not appear to be achievable, and Scotland will be well back in the queue of Eastern European applicants even if enlargement does occur. Of course it is true that Brussels would love to see the break-up of the United Kingdom and to absorb Scotland as one of its subservient regions, but it is difficult to see how this can happen in practice, unless, of course, Scotland becomes a net contributor to the EU budget, which I submit is also unlikely.
So, I am reluctantly forced to conclude that this Bill is not good for the people of Scotland, however much some 40 per cent. of them may have hoped it was when they voted in the referendum last September. When its financial and political implications come home to them, most of them will feel deceived and angry and will want to draw back. For some of them, the fervour of full independence will carry them forward, in spite of the financial cost. I fear there will then be deep division among the people of Scotland, and I can only pray that it does not lead to violence.
It is a pity that among the 68 speakers in this debate not one has spoken or will speak on behalf of the Scottish National Party. If there had been such a representative, I submit that noble Lords on the Government Benches would be less likely to dismiss my fears as groundless.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened and borne all I have heard with, if not equanimity, then at least in silence. I have enjoyed the debate and I have been very interested in the ancestors of the many hereditary Peers who have spoken and what they did or did not do. I thought that I would check up on my own forbears. There was a George Mackie who was a direct forbear. He was a farmer of Foreside of St. Fergus near Peterhead. I daresay that he was very interested in what was going on. But I believe that he would have been more interested in improving the bare land there and in securing a living for his family. In any event, he did not have any say.
The great difference today is that in this Bill we restore the parliament that was taken away. The people of Scotland have been consulted extremely well. I have no objection to a referendum if the questions are fair, and I thought that they were. Many referendums are, of course, loaded, but in this case I believe that the referendum on Scotland was fair. There was plenty of opportunity for both sides to put over their points of view. I believe that the result was a true reflection of how the Scottish people thought.
We have had a good debate and we have had a long debate. The first Opposition speaker was my long-time friend, but not a political friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. He promised to ensure that every clause was examined in an impartial manner. It was splendid to hear him say that, although I found it hard to be wholly convinced that he meant it. A little later on the noble Lord, Lord Lang, made a powerful speech. I thought it was a sad and bitter speech. Perhaps he was feeling the loss of Eden as much as Adam and Eve did when they walked out of the Garden. But whether he actually lived in a Garden of Eden and acted with the knowledge and skill that has been attributed to him and other Tory Secretaries of State, I beg leave to doubt. There are plenty of examples where the organisation of the Secretary of State and his department has not worked particularly well. One has only to consider agriculture and one or two other matters—the poll tax has been mentioned ad nauseam— to see that there are snags as great as any that are likely to be incurred under the new system.
From then on I was very disappointed that the Tory Party generally followed a line that this Bill was introduced hurriedly; that it was horrible and ill thought out; that the Government were away with the fairies and so on; that the Tory Party was filled with despair because this legislation will lead to the break up of the Union; and that the rise of the Scottish National Party was without doubt entirely due to them.
Today the Tories in this House have done the SNP more good than anyone for a very long time. It is not true that the SNP has waved the banner of its great success. We have seen these surges before. I believe as strongly in the United Kingdom as any Tory here. I have lived my life in it. I hope to live on in the United Kingdom. But we have to get over this foolish tendency and fight against it in the way that the Canadian electorate is fighting against the Quebecois, and with some effect, instead of moaning that all is lost. However, all has been lost under the Tories—all the seats that the nationalists gained from the Tories. Here is a lesson that needs to be learnt.
There were honourable exceptions. My old opponent from Caithness and Sutherland was one of them. He spoke of what could be done by the Scottish people and their own parliament if they really went to town on it. Quite a few Tories have revealed some sense of there being a great adventure before us which might—they even went as far as to say "might"—do the Scottish people some good.
I turn now to the speeches by the other side of the House. I am not sucking up to the Government—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: No, but I thought that the speeches from the Government side of the House were sensible. The noble Lords, Lord Kirkhill and Lord Hughes, put up sensible suggestions about the troubles that we will encounter with this Bill and talked about how one can examine legislation properly in a
1774
unicameral situation. We did not hear much about that from the Conservatives. All that we heard were moans about Tam Dalyell and the what-not, what-not—
Noble Lords: The West Lothian question!
Lord Mackie of Benshie: Ah, the West Lothian question! It is perfectly soluble. Worse problems have been solved very easily. Here in this House, we have a majority of hereditary Peers, with prejudiced views. Some of those noble Lords are brilliant; others are not so clever. They are mostly Tories. They follow the Salisbury convention quite happily. That is a solution to a problem that is potentially far more difficult than the West Lothian question. So, as I have said, there are solutions. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, quoted the Norwegian solution. I am certain that there are other solutions that could apply without any great trouble or difficulty.
People appear to be terrified that the parliament in Scotland will upset the status quo. It will, to a degree. However, everybody talks—we have had examples from all sides—of the success of the Scotsman abroad and the Scotsman in the south—and of what a splendid fellow he is. There does not appear to be any good reason why he should not be a sensible fellow at home if matters are properly put to him. I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats, the most sensible of all the parties, will gain many more seats in the election than the 10 per cent. with which we are credited. We always do—mainly because of the excellence of the candidates. However, I have been heartened by the number of independents and people who would not normally consider that they have the time to be a Westminster MP who want to stand for election to the Scottish parliament. I refer to able people who are at the height of their professions. I know that I have referred to this previously, but I ask noble Lords to consider the quality of the local Members of the Stormont parliament as regards administration and ability, if not fairness to minorities. Their ability was certainly infinitely greater than is found at Westminster. Good people will be attracted to the creation of a centre of power.
Of course, there will be snags, but I trust that we shall be able to iron out many of them if we approach the matter with goodwill and not with the sense of resentment which I feel that many good people who sit on the Tory Benches in this House are bringing to bear on this issue.
If the Government will listen—I hope that they will listen; indeed, I wish that they would listen now to what I am about to say—I advise them that it is most important to note what was said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord McCluskey, who put so well the legal points that are so important to liberty and to the good governance of Scotland. I hope that we shall be able to discuss those points and to make something of them.
I have spoken for 10 minutes and can see that I shall not get the same close attention for much longer. If we all play our part and we and the Tories go at it and get

1775
our supporters out, this parliament has a simple task. They can either make it or muck it. It will be their fault if they muck it.
9.35 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, at the conclusion of the Bill's passage through another place the Secretary of State for Scotland remarked on the number of people who had spoken to him since the referendum along the following lines: "I voted 'No' in the referendum to both questions, but I am as determined as you to make the Scottish parliament a success". I cannot claim to be one of those to whom the Secretary of State has spoken. His political difficulties may be increasing by the week but they have not driven him to seek my advice; nor do I expect that situation to change in the weeks ahead. However, without any reservation I wish to be regarded as someone who is determined that the Scottish parliament should be successful not only as an institution in its own right in Scotland but as one that plays an effective role in the continuing success of the United Kingdom as it moves into and through the next century.
During the extensive debate that we have enjoyed over the past two days a number of noble Lords, including many of my noble friends, have expressed serious reservations as to whether the setting up of a Scottish parliament will ferment rather than dissipate the forces that seek to break up the Union and bring independence to Scotland. They have done so in a variety of ways. With the greatest respect to my noble friend Lord Dartmouth, they have done so with varying degrees of passion. All of these views are very genuinely held. Many are expressed by those who speak from years of experience of public life and in the field of politics. In particular, I refer to the very eloquent and carefully thought out speeches of my noble friends Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord Gray of Contin.
I understand why those concerns are expressed. I respect those who hold those views and I can well understand the reasons. Equally, I respect the views of those who speak without reservation in support of devolution. The very eloquent speech that we heard tonight form the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, who traced his family's support for devolution, was impressive and clearly genuinely felt. Equally, last night the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, reminisced with affection about his involvement in the previous devolution Bill. Noble Lords could not have failed to be impressed by the genuineness of the views that he held. I hope that those who have promoted devolution over the years will also learn to respect the views of others who have reservations about the project, because if together we address the provisions of this Bill over the next few months that is the best way to ensure that it goes forward in the best possible form.
I believe that after the manifesto commitment, the election and the referendum one crucial question remains unanswered: what will happen if the Scottish parliament is not a success? The answer to that question is obvious. Unless the parliament is a success there can be little doubt that nationalism will flourish. If the Scottish parliament is set up and fails it is difficult to
1776
see on what basis the people of Scotland will not vote for independence, which many in Scotland do not wish for and many in the United Kingdom do not wish for either.
For that reason, I very much hope that, whatever their perspective before the election and the referendum, noble Lords on all sides of this House will apply their talents and efforts to a searching yet constructive revisal of a Bill which on more than one occasion the Secretary of State for Scotland has publicly acknowledged to be a difficult measure to draft and one that merits the closest attention of Members of your Lordships' House.
I hope that in that debate we shall hear somewhat more from the active supporters of devolution than we may have heard over the past couple of months. I noted in particular what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, earlier today: that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, had not taken part in the debate. There are others who fall into that category, although none has played as distinguished a role as the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. If it is important that those who have doubts about devolution constructively criticise the Bill, it is equally important that those who actively support it do so as well. With respect, that seems the best approach to revising the detail that lies ahead of us.
I welcome and pay tribute to what was said yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, when he addressed, in what I took to be an utterly genuine way, a few words of encouragement to members of the official Opposition. In turn I look forward to a constructive response from the noble Lord and his colleagues, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and others in addressing the issues that lie ahead. I and my colleagues on this Front Bench are more than happy to meet with them at any time to discuss in fuller detail than may be possible in debate the concerns we have about the terms of the Bill. Equally, it is important that the main issues are debated on the Floor of this Chamber so that drafting can be improved and to ensure that those who have to construe the Bill's provisions in the years ahead will be aware of the problem areas, the Government's policy and what the statute is intended to say.
Before I go further, it is right that I pay tribute to the skill of the draftsmen who prepared the Bill. The Bill's provisions are in most instances clear and succinctly drawn. It is a matter on which I have commented before. The Scotland Bill is some 40 pages shorter than the Government of Wales Bill which bestows on the assembly much fewer and less complicated powers than will be available to the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. The impression on reading the Bill is that the setting up of a parliament is a comparatively straightforward exercise; and that in no small measure is due to the skill of the draftsmen. In particular, that same skill has been deployed—I use the words advisedly—to slightly more devious means. There are, as one expects in a Bill of this complexity, certain important clauses that seek to address what I might describe as flash points, where there might be conflict between Whitehall on the one hand and the Scottish executive on the other—between this Parliament on the one hand and Holyrood on the other.
I know that the draftsmen and the Ministers will expect us to explore those clauses in great detail, to expose to public view the policy that lies behind them and to provide assistance to the parliamentarians in Edinburgh and to the courts on the practical implications that will flow from what lies ahead.
I turn to some of the important constitutional issues. First, it is essential to understand the central role the courts will play in the devolution settlement—a role of supervising the activities of the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive. That duty will fall primarily on the courts and tribunals of Scotland and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. But it is a role that will be played by the courts of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The extent and nature of that jurisdiction were at the forefront of the two excellent speeches we heard yesterday from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord McCluskey. I shall turn in a moment to what they said about the need for the independence of the judiciary following devolution. But at this stage perhaps I may deal with the role that the courts are to be given.
I believe that the role of the courts should be confined to what is strictly necessary. When the referendum took place, those who voted in favour of the setting up of a parliament were aware from reading the White Paper that some issues as to the legal competency of the actings of the parliament and of the Scottish executive might end up being resolved in a court of law.
Notwithstanding what they may have read in that White Paper, I believe that when the same voters have elected members of the Scottish parliament, and when the Scottish executive has been appointed, the voters will look to the members of the parliament and the executive to take and to be answerable for decisions on devolved matters. They will not anticipate, nor do I believe will they welcome, the regular involvement of the courts in such matters, whether such involvement arises as an attempt to interfere with the proceedings of the parliament or in some way to quash the executive action on the part of the executive.
The Bill's provisions as currently framed offer a considerable scope to litigants to seek to involve the courts in what we have until now regarded as political issues. They confer on the courts significant powers over the deliberations of the Scottish parliament which are not available to the courts in relation to the exercise of this Parliament's responsibilities.
There is a discretionary element in certain of the powers that the courts are being given, the exercise of which may involve the consideration of highly political issues. I and others believe that these powers could draw the judiciary into fierce conflict with the Scottish parliament and the Scottish executive not out of any wish on the part of the courts to be so involved but as an unavoidable consequence of cases brought before them. For those reasons, it is important to scrutinise with great care the provisions in the Bill relating to the role of the courts. They do not wish any greater powers than are necessary; and, arguably more importantly, I do not believe that the general population wish them either.
The second area to which I turn is the role of the Law Officers. On this issue my comments can be somewhat briefer. When we debated the White Paper which was published last summer, I drew attention to a concern which was held in many quarters about the Government's decision to devolve the role of the Lord Advocate. I suggested that the Government might like to consult further on that matter and I look forward to hearing in Committee what further consideration has been given to that.
However, if contrary to my views, the role of the Lord Advocate is to be devolved, his powers must be carefully defined. In the Bill his independent role as public prosecutor has been recognised and I fully welcome that. But I question whether it is sensible that the Lord Advocate shall be a full member of the Scottish executive, able to exercise the statutory functions of other members of the Scottish executive in a way in which would not be competent for a Law Officer of the United Kingdom Government to proceed.
One of the Lord Advocate's roles will be to give the Scottish executive legal advice. Is it sensible that he should be a member of the executive body to which he will be giving such advice? Is it sensible that he, rather than the first Minister, should be given the discretionary and politically sensitive role of exercising the powers under Clause 33 to refer Bills to the Judicial Committee to determine whether they lie within the legislative competence of the Parliament? Whether they do lie within that competence is clearly a legal issue. The decision whether to take the matter before the Judicial Committee could be one of the highest political sensitivity. When he exercises that role, will he be acting in the public interest, as the Lord Advocate has traditionally done in many cases over the years, or will he be acting in his capacity as a member of the Scottish executive? Is the public interest and the interest of the Scottish executive synonymous? Those matters must be urgently and fully explored.
The same observations apply to the role of the Advocate General. He will be a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament. He will have certain discretionary powers and we will wish to explore the circumstances under which he should be authorised to exercise them.
I now turn to another topic which received scant consideration when the Bill was in another place: the terms of Clauses 33 and 54 of the Bill which give the Secretary of State power to intervene and overrule by order the acting or failure to act of the Scottish parliament or the Scottish executive. These powers will be available to any Secretary of State, not just the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Bill proposes that the Secretary of State can intervene even when the parliament and the executive are acting within the bounds of their competence; in other words there is no suggestion that they have acted ultra vires.
In certain circumstances any Secretary of State will be able to order the Scottish executive to make subordinate legislation. He will even be able to insist upon the Scottish executive introducing a Bill to the Scottish parliament. It is not difficult to imagine the political controversy that might arise if the Scottish

1779
executive were directed to introduce a Bill to the parliament that it did not wish parliament to enact. In such circumstances it is not difficult to understand why some have described these provisions as similar to those enjoyed by a colonial governor.
Standing the supremacy of this parliament, as explicitly recognised in Clause 27(7) of the Bill—unnecessarily so, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out last night—it is difficult to understand why such powers are being included in a Bill setting up what has been correctly described as a "mature parliament for a mature people". This is a good example of where the skill of the draftsman has arrived at a superficially attractive solution to a very serious area of political conflict.
I believe that when the parliament and the executive are acting within the limits of their statutory competence they should not be subject to interference in such a way as would play straight into the hands of those who seek to see the Scottish parliament as a stepping stone to independence. The power of a Secretary of State to intervene in such circumstances should be limited to where the parliament or the executive is acting contrary to international treaty obligations and even then the power should be exercised by making an application to the court for a ruling on what is essentially a legal issue.
The noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord McCluskey, last night dealt with the issue of the appointment of judges and the provisions for the removal of judges in Scotland. Judges in Scotland, whether they be judges of the Court of Session or sheriffs, will continue to exercise civil jurisdictions that cover reserved and devolved matters. The same applies to High Court judges who sit in the High Court of Justiciary and the sheriffs in connection with criminal matters. In certain instances they may be required to adjudicate in legal cases between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish executive. In those circumstances there is great force in the argument that we heard yesterday about the need for their independence to he fully protected.
I suggest this House might consider it prudent to require resolution of at least one House of this Parliament, in addition to a resolution of the Scottish parliament, before any judge could be removed from office. Those noble Lords who have studied the Bill in great detail will appreciate that there is nothing novel in suggesting that an order should be subject to the approval of both parliaments. Certain of the order-making powers fall into that category.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, indicated that he might not be present in Committee when these matters are debated. I will make every effort to ensure that they are fully debated. I look forward to his announcement of his retirement from the Bench and his active return to politics. If he does not follow that route he could take up the role of trade union leader for the judges, one that he deployed with great skill and eloquence yesterday.
Other matters I shall touch on briefly, the first of which is the relationship between this Bill and the Human Rights Bill. That is a matter which the noble and
1780
learned Lord the Lord Advocate will recall that I raised during our debates on the Human Rights Bill. As I understand it, the Government acknowledge that some amendments to the Scotland Bill will be required and I look forward to those being brought forward as soon as possible.
I turn next to the future role of the Scottish Law Commission. One thing which has struck me throughout the debate is the number of noble Lords who have commented on the consequence of there being only one chamber in the proposed parliament. One possible, albeit not complete, solution to the problems which that might create would be to place upon the Scottish parliament an obligation to consult formally the Scottish Law Commission as one of the mandatory stages of the consideration of any public Bill.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, who suggested earlier that a unicameral legislature offers a new and more inclusive style of politics, as a more than casual observer of the political scene in Scotland over the past few months I have not been struck by the great success which that new inclusive form of politics is acquiring. Indeed, some of the political invective which has been flowing between members of her party and members of the SNP is of a nature to which my former colleague, Michael Forsyth, could only have aspired.
To be more serious, I was much struck by the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, made as to how we might address the absence of two chambers. I suggest to the House that that is a matter which should be explored in greater detail during later stages of the Bill, as should the number of Henry VIII clauses which are to be found in the Bill.
I cannot conclude without making some mention of the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lyell about the assistance which he apparently gave me in filling out entries in squares on the white forms. I have no recollection of that assistance, although it is much required. I doubt whether this is a Bill to which we can bring forward amendments to ensure that the numbers that we put in the boxes are somewhat larger than they are at the moment.
It falls to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to make the final speech in what is undoubtedly an historic debate. It is singularly appropriate that the current holder of that historic office should have the opportunity to do so. Since the Union of the Parliaments, the Lord Advocate has been charged with a very important public role in the affairs of Scotland in representing Scotland in the UK Parliament and, in more recent years, being a very active Member of your Lordships' House.
I should not wish him to reminisce in detail about the origins and history of his office, but were he to do so it would be discovered that the office which I formerly had the honour to hold and which he now holds predates many of the historical anecdotes to which we have been treated over the past couple of days.
Equally, none of your Lordships would expect the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to reply in detail to all the points that have been raised during the

1781
debate. It would be quite impractical to do so. However, I hope that he will join with the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in assuring your Lordships that in Committee he and his colleagues will engage with noble Lords on all sides of the House in a very serious, honest and full discussion of the many issues which lie ahead.
I am sure that if they do so, we shall, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said, if we are around in 20 years' time, look back with considerable affection and pride at having taken part in debates on the most historic of Bills.
9.58 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Hardie): My Lords, in comparison with most noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in the course of the past two days, I am a novice both in terms of membership of this House and of political experience. Noble Lords will understand that, as holder of my present office, I feel particularly privileged to be involved in this important Bill at this important stage in the history of Scotland. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will not be too critical of the language that I use, far less the content of my speech.
We have had a useful and constructive debate over the past two days. This Bill must be one of the most important which this House has debated in recent years. I am pleased to see that the House recognises the desire of the Scottish people, expressed so forcefully on llth September, for the creation of a Scottish parliament with tax-varying powers. During the various stages of our deliberations on the Bill, I trust that we shall not lose sight of that fact.
This is a truly momentous day for Scotland and indeed, as so many noble Lords have said, for the United Kingdom as a whole. Like all noble Lords who have spoken, I am committed to a United Kingdom as much as I am committed to a Scotland with appropriate status within the Union. At the end of the debate, I am confident that this House will approve in principle the Government's plans to establish a Scottish parliament. We shall thus be paving the way for one of the most significant shifts in the British constitution in decades.
I share the confidence of many noble Lords who have spoken—a confidence which was encapsulated in what I respectfully suggest was an outstanding contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. Like the noble Viscount, I do not see this Bill as a means for separation, resulting in the fragmentation or disintegration of the Union as was feared—unreasonably in my submission—by some noble Lords opposite. Like the noble Viscount, I see this Bill rather as a means of strengthening Scotland's role within the Union and, thereby, strengthening the Union itself. As my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale said, we should all co-operate. I confirm that it will be my intention and that of my noble friends on this side of the House to co-operate with noble Lords at all stages of the Bill. We should all co-operate and work towards ensuring that we have a scheme which recognises and achieves the benefits of diversity within the Union.
Many important issues have been raised in the course of our debate. I should like to spend a little time dealing with some of them from the Government's point of view. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, observed, it would be impossible for me to do justice to all the points raised by noble Lords. However, I can confirm that I and my colleagues are content to meet any noble Lord and to correspond with any noble Lord at any time—indeed, we would prefer to do so in advance of the Committee stage—in the hope of allaying fears and in order to focus upon the real issues which must be addressed and addressed properly during the various stages of the Bill.
Before dealing with particular points which have been raised by noble Lords opposite, I should like briefly to consider some aspects of devolution which are close to my own heart, and that of many noble Lords present today; namely, the Scottish courts and legal system and the position of the Law Officers.
As has been observed, the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will become members of the Scottish executive. I can reassure noble Lords that I do not intend to go into the long history of the distinguished office that I hold because time does not permit me to do so. However, the positions of Lord Advocate and Solicitor-General are ancient offices and they pre-date the Union. They are at the very heart of the Scottish legal system. The Bill will ensure that they continue to operate effectively in the Scottish context, including provision for the participation of these Law Officers in proceedings of the Scottish parliament. I do not share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, about the Law Officers being part of the Scottish executive. However, I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to debate that matter in more detail at later stages of the Bill.
The wide-ranging nature of the devolutionary settlement proposed by the Government makes it sensible to include the Lord Advocate as part of that process. We believe that it is crucial for the proper government of Scotland that the independence of the office of Lord Advocate is fully recognised. The Bill therefore confirms the independence of the Lord Advocate and preserves his position as public prosecutor.
I refer to another point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon. I do not share his concern about the power of the Lord Advocate conferred by this Bill to refer Bills independently of the executive if the Lord Advocate considers that they are ultra vires. In the exercise of that function the Lord Advocate is acting as a Law Officer, and Law Officers do not act other than in an independent fashion at present. They act independently of the Government. They give independent advice. If they think at any stage that a Minister is about to transgress the proper boundaries of activity, it is the function of the Law Officer to pull back the Minister and to advise him or her accordingly. For the Lord Advocate to have the power to intervene and to refer a Bill independently of the executive is consistent with the actions of the Law Officer.
The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General for Scotland will be the Law Officers of the devolved Scottish administration. They will continue to prosecute crime independently and in the public interest. But the United Kingdom Government will continue to require advice on Scots law. For this reason the Bill creates a new ministerial office of Advocate General for Scotland. I hope this provides reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, who asked whether the Lord Advocate or the Advocate General would be regarded as holding the more senior post. If I may say so, and as I hope has been clearly explained, the question is, with respect, misconceived. The Lord Advocate and Advocate General will fulfil quite distinct and separate roles. The Lord Advocate will continue to be the senior Law Officer to the devolved Scottish administration. The Advocate General will be the Law Officer of the United Kingdom Government on matters relating to Scottish law.
Devolution of the Scottish courts and legal system will mean that responsibility for this fundamental part of the Scottish constitution will lie where it rightly belongs. The first minister will have the same role as the Secretary of State for Scotland has at present relating to the appointment of Scottish judges, sheriffs principal and sheriffs. We have benefited from substantial and thoughtful contributions on the relationship between the Parliament and the judiciary from the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord McCluskey, in their impressive contributions last night. They have signalled that this House will be asked to look very carefully during Committee stage at the parts of the Bill which deal particularly with the issue of judicial independence. I look forward to that debate.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke eloquently about the need for judicial independence. He described the new role for the courts envisaged in this Bill. He was perhaps unduly modest about the role the courts already play in relation to European legislation. However, as he rightly said, this Bill and the Human Rights Bill mean that devolution and human rights issues will be raised in the courts. But it is important to recall that for devolution issues the final decision will rest with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Both the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord McCluskey, mentioned in particular Clause 89 and the provisions contained there relating to the appointment and removal of judges. We have already introduced a number of amendments relating to this clause into the Bill in response to concerns raised by the senior judiciary in Scotland. But we will of course look carefully at any further detailed suggestions which are made during the Committee stage. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, expressed particular concern that a government could easily command the two-thirds majority required for the removal of a judge. I have to say that I do not think even the current Government would regard such a hurdle as an easy one to overcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, who has unfortunately had to leave due to illness, indicated that, as Lord Advocate, I should be required to appoint more judges. The number of judges required to ensure
1784
the proper administration of justice in Scotland is constantly kept under review. I can assure the noble Baroness and the House that that will continue after devolution.
There is one final point that I should like to make on this theme this evening. I should not like noble Lords to leave this debate with the impression that anything in the Bill detracts from the Lord Advocate's present role in advising on the appointment of judges, as seemed to be suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. It is proposed that, where the Secretary of State consults the Lord Advocate in relation to such appointments under existing arrangements, those arrangements will be continued by the first minister. We believe that the arrangements in the Bill strike an appropriate balance to ensure a judicial system which is at once independent and accountable.
Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in a most powerful and impressive contribution to the debate. At present, there are eight Scottish judges who would be able to consider cases. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, indicated, it would be wrong to suggest that judges would be selected to represent national interest. What matters is not their country of origin, but to have a sound legal decision from the most senior and authoritative source. That was why we widened the pool from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary.
The Scottish parliament will also provide an opportunity which is simply not available at Westminster to devote significant amounts of time to debate and to legislate on aspects of Scottish private law which may not have been given sufficient attention in recent years. For example, I believe that the Scottish parliament will wish to bring forward a more extensive programme of law reform based on the valuable work of the Scottish Law Commission. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, will be reassured to know that it is intended that the Scottish Law Commission should have as important—if not more important—a role to play after devolution. I believe that that will help to promote consistency in Scots law in years to come.
I now turn to other issues raised in the debate. The issue of Europe was raised by a number of noble Lords. I trust that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not mention them all by name. That would take up valuable time in what has already been a very long debate. In that regard, the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and other noble Lords spoke from practical experience as former Ministers. They were concerned that, after devolution, Scottish Ministers will not have the right to attend EU Councils. Noble Lords will recognise that Scottish Ministers do not have such a right at present. Even in matters such as fisheries and agriculture, Scottish Office Ministers attend the relevant Councils at present only by agreement with the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is the lead Minister. It is not correct to suggest that Scottish Office Ministers currently have an automatic right to attend Councils of their own volition. After devolution the situation will be essentially the same. There will be discussion between

1785
the UK Government and the Scottish executive to reach agreement on which Ministers should speak to represent the UK. It is inconceivable that a UK Minister would ignore or phase out Scottish Ministers on major devolved issues.
The noble Earl also raised the question as to whether a Scottish Minister could act on his or her own as a representative on behalf of the United Kingdom Government. The simple answer is yes, because in terms of Schedule 5 to the Bill such a Minister would be able to assist the UK Minister. Of course, a Scottish Minister in those circumstances would be speaking on behalf of the United Kingdom on the basis of a policy which has been agreed in advance.
I turn to the Barnett formula, about which many noble Lords have spoken, and the funding arrangements for a Scottish parliament. In particular, the Barnett formula loomed large in many contributions from noble Lords. It is, I think, important to put on record the limited nature of the Barnett formula. Scotland has a historic baseline and all that the Barnett formula does is to calculate, on a population basis, an appropriate Scottish share of any changes in comparable Whitehall programmes. It is important also to make the point that this arrangement has worked very well and to the general satisfaction of all sides for 20 years, serving to reduce enormously the scale of annual head-to-heads between the Scottish Office and the Treasury. Yes, there have been annual discussions and disputes, but they have ultimately been at the margins of any settlement. The great bulk of the Scottish budget has been sorted out each year largely automatically and without dispute.
Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Desai. It is not necessary or appropriate to incorporate the Barnett formula into the legislation. The formula has never had such a formal status and the support of successive governments for the formula suggests that legislation is unnecessary. In any event, legislation would not bind future governments to maintaining it, as the UK Government are sovereign. They could change such a provision if they wished. Furthermore, we propose to build on and improve the arrangement: first, by publishing the rules which will apply each year, making the details of the Scottish settlement a matter of public record; secondly, as announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, by moving from an annual PES settlement to a three-year deal. That will offer the parliament greater certainty and a much improved capacity for long-term planning.
My noble friend Lord Dean of Beswick specifically raised questions of what the new parliament would cost and where the funding will come from. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, suggested that it should be made clear that the cost will come from the Scottish block. Perhaps I may refer noble Lords to pages x and xi of the Bill's Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. The costs of establishing the parliament and its subsequent operating costs will be met from the Scottish block, with no additional cost to the UK taxpayer. We anticipate an annual running cost of £30 million—about a quarter of 1 per cent. of the overall block. This will not be at the
1786
cost of other services, precisely because we anticipate that the Scottish parliament will deliver better use and more effective scrutiny of the Scottish budget. It will allow no repeat, for example, of the poll tax fiasco which squandered, in a few short years, hundreds of millions of pounds from Scottish resources, all to no purpose.
I do not accept arguments which say that the funding arrangements will diminish the financial responsibility of the parliament. Subject to the limited tax-varying and borrowing powers, it will have a budget and it will have to live within it. Its prime responsibility will lie in ensuring that it uses its resources efficiently, effectively and to the benefit of the people it will serve.
I turn to the tax-varying powers. The proposed tax-varying powers were discussed by a number of noble Lords and a range of issues was raised. The Government have, of course, listened carefully to all the points that have been made about the proposed power. We have discussed and will continue to discuss issues of detail with a wide range of interested bodies. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Scotland. I am able to say that meetings have been arranged between my honourable friend the Minister responsible for devolution and the institute. So there is ongoing dialogue.
Furthermore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State met CBI representatives on a number of occasions and the Inland Revenue is conducting a series of wide-ranging and in-depth consultations. What is clear is that, notwithstanding the criticisms voiced in some quarters, the powers in the Bill are practical, workable and will deliver to the Scottish parliament an ability to vary its total budget up or down in any year by something in excess of £400 million—equivalent to around 3 per cent. of the parliament's overall budget.
That is not just my view. Contrary to the impression given by the noble Lord, Lord Sanderson of Bowden, it is firmly backed by the Inland Revenue with its long-standing and unparalleled experience of our tax system. Of course, we continue to look at points of detail—a number of which were raised by noble Lords—and will be listening carefully to what noble Lords have to say during the passage of the Bill on this and other topics. However, I am satisfied that the substance of our proposal is both right and robust. It is a limited power which will not place undue burdens on either individual taxpayers or business. The maximum liability which anyone might face is £660 per year, but only around 7 per cent. of Scottish taxpayers will be liable for that—those earning in excess of £30,000.
In practice, nearly two-thirds of taxpayers will pay only £145 on average, assuming a full 3p. increase. The average liability will be £230. The impact of tax on individuals will therefore not be excessive in any circumstances. I do not believe that it can be seriously suggested by noble Lords—for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan—that such figures will act as a disincentive to business which values many of the specific skills of the Scottish workforce available within

1787
Scotland. In relation to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, it will be only that; the parliament will have no other tax-raising powers.
In relation to the referendum on independence, that again was an issue raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who speculated that there would be an early referendum for independence. With respect to the noble Lord, that is not so. The present Government have no plans for such a referendum, nor can the Scottish parliament legislate for such a referendum. I have dealt with many items raised by noble Lords. I am conscious that there are many more with which I have not dealt.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend concludes—I have restrained myself for two days now—is he aware that if he were winding up tonight at the end of a two-day debate in the other place, he would be speaking largely to himself? Here in your Lordships' House he is speaking to well over 70 noble Lords. Is not that a strong case for at least a paving clause for the creation of a second chamber in relation to the Scottish parliament?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I do not know whether my noble friend was in the Chamber when my noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale dealt fully with the merits of a unicameral system. I do not accept therefore that it is desirable to have a second chamber.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord was good enough to give assurances about the taxes that may be raised by the parliament. Is he able to say anything about local tax in that respect? Some people fear a tourist tax and other taxes raised at a local level. Is the noble and learned Lord able to say anything about that?
Lord Hardie: My Lords, questions have been raised about the Scottish parliament and its tax-raising powers. I have answered those. As for the power of local authorities to raise local taxes, that would be a matter which would be regulated by their legislative competence and, in turn, the Scottish parliament would regulate the legislative competence of Scottish local authorities.
1788
In conclusion, I would simply repeat my offer to noble Lords whose points I have not dealt with or dealt with as fully as I ought to have done. I am conscious that I have not dealt with many points. If noble Lords wish to speak to me or to write to me, I am quite happy and content to accommodate them at their convenience.
The Scotland Bill will be good for Scotland and its people, but it will also be good for democracy in the whole of these islands. We believe that the establishment of a Scottish parliament, together with Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies, will enhance and modernise democracy and, as a result, strengthen the United Kingdom itself. The experience of other countries throughout the developed world is that a strong regional government is complementary to and not incompatible with loyalty to a larger nation state. The backing of the people is vital. That is why we legislated for a referendum in Scotland. Now that the electorate have spoken so decisively in favour of a parliament with law-making and tax-varying powers, the onus is on us all to ensure that we deliver the best possible piece of legislation, based firmly on the proposals which were endorsed in the referendum.
Clearly, there are differences of view between noble Lords in this House, but that should not hinder the process of constructive scrutiny which we hope will take place in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, suggested that my pained expression on occasions did not augur well for Opposition amendments. I was unaware of having such an expression on any occasion, but I can assure the noble Lord and the House that the Government are certainly prepared to consider sensible amendments on points of detail which do not cut across the White Paper principles. I am confident that the debate in Committee will be conducted in this spirit. In that regard, I was reassured by indications from noble Lords opposite that they would be constructive, but not obstructive, at later stages of the Bill.
The Scotland Bill is the start of a new chapter in the history of Scotland, but it is only the start. It is up to the people of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom to make devolution work. I am confident that we shall do so and that we shall all reap the benefits of diversity within the Union. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past ten o'clock.

  Harassment
  Harassment
  Khat
  Khat
  Political Parties: Registration
  Political Parties: Registration
  Prison Enterprise Service: Internal Services
  Prison Enterprise Service: Internal Services
  Export Promotion
  Export Promotion
  RAF Feltwell
  RAF Feltwell
  Gulf Veterans: CIA Documents
  Gulf Veterans: CIA Documents
  RAF New Training Aircraft
  RAF New Training Aircraft
  Varroa Mite
  Varroa Mite
  Beekeeping: EU Support
  Beekeeping: EU Support
  Avebury and Stonehenge World Heritage Site
  Avebury and Stonehenge World Heritage Site
  House of Lords: Parked Cars
  House of Lords: Parked Cars
  Cancer Charities
  Cancer Charities
  "Customer"
  "Customer"
  Interest Rate Rise
  Interest Rate Rise
  Pay-TV: ITC Proposals
  Pay-TV: ITC Proposals
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Strategic Communications Unit
  Water Abstraction Licensing
  Water Abstraction Licensing
  Coalfields Task Force: Report
  Coalfields Task Force: Report
  World Heritage Sites: Agricultural Buildings
  World Heritage Sites: Agricultural Buildings
  Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales: Consultation Paper
  Access to the Open Countryside in England and Wales: Consultation Paper