Sitting of 2 March 1998

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

  Victim Support Week
  Mr. Miller: What contribution his Department has made to Victim Support week. [30337]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): The main event of last week was the launch of the new national telephone helpline called Victim Supportline. It was made possible by the Government's decision to increase Victim Support's annual grant by £1 million a year. Extra money has also gone towards improving front-line services for victims and witnesses. Those were also promoted during Victim Support week.
  Mr. Miller: I am sure that the House will congratulate those involved in Victim Support on their tremendous work. Will my hon. Friend take into account the views of victims and ensure that they are fully informed during the progress of cases? Will he also look at the needs of the families of victims of road deaths and examine what is happening in other countries, especially Switzerland, in relation to such families' needs?
  Mr. Michael: I support my hon. Friend's comments about the volunteers who do such excellent work. We certainly want the system to keep people much better informed about the progress of cases that involve them and we want to keep victims better informed. My hon. Friend gave a specific example and I should be interested to look at the case that he cites. Perhaps he could supply me with information. With colleagues at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we want to do all that we can to recognise the damage to the families of victims of road incidents.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: In commending the work of the Victim Support scheme and paying tribute to those who operate my local scheme in Barnet, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the best commitment that the Government could show to this worthwhile charity would be to continue to increase its funding, which I think has gone up from a derisory £5,000 in 1979 to £11.5 million last year?
  Mr. Michael: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's endorsement for the action of my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in increasing Victim Support's grant during the current financial year.

  Crime
  Mr. Rammell: If he will make a statement on the proposed statutory role for local councils in tackling crime. [30338]
  Mr. Michael: The Crime and Disorder Bill will create radical change by requiring local authorities and the police jointly to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder, to draw up a local strategy and to agree targets for cutting crime. This process will involve local people and a wide range of other key partners. Other changes will help cut youth crime and strengthen the powers of the courts.
  Mr. Rammell: In my constituency, much good community safety work has been undertaken by the local council and the police working in partnership on issues such as closed circuit television and on developing policies to deal with racial harassment and domestic violence. The most recent development is a one-stop drop-in centre to provide advice and information for young people. All that has been achieved by good will. Does the Minister agree, however, that much more could be achieved if the principle of joint working were underpinned by statutory force?
  Mr. Michael: Yes, and that is what we shall provide in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the House will shortly have the opportunity to debate. A partnership between the police and each local authority and local community has been welcomed by all parties.
  Mr. Clappison: The Minister will recall that, when shadow Home Secretary, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised to provide more places in local authority secure accommodation. How many new places have been provided? Have any been provided?
  Mr. Michael: I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting confused. What happened was that in February 1991 the Conservative Government promised to provide 171 additional places. That was later revised to 170, but they failed to provide them, and the places have still not been provided. We will keep our promises.

  Prison Population
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: What steps he is taking to reduce the prison population. [30340]
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Within the sentencing framework set by Parliament, who is sent to prison and for how long is a matter for the courts. Prison is the only appropriate punishment for many offenders. The Government are also committed to providing more effective and tougher community punishments.
  Mr. Prentice: I hear what the Home Secretary says, but is there not a danger of the prison population spiralling out of control? The official Home Office mid-range projections take the prison population from 65,000 this year to 83,000 in seven years' time—which is double the 1992 level—and the top-range projection is for 93,000 prisoners. Sending all those people to prison costs the rest of us an arm and a leg, as a

  691
  top-security prisoner costs us £35,000 a year, and a category B or category C local prisoner costs us £17,000 a year. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to bring down the prison population, as quickly as humanly possible, and to levels that are commonplace in the rest of the European Union?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend must bear in mind the inheritance that we suffered from the Conservatives. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] Our levels of burglary, vehicle crime, robbery and assault are the highest in western Europe—higher, even, than those in the United States. Against that background, it is hardly surprising that our prison population is rising. However, there is no danger of the prison population getting out of control—per head of population, it has only recently reached the level in Scotland.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: If the Government seriously want to reduce the prison population, would it not be a good idea to stop introducing an endless raft of unnecessary, bossy, nannying and tyrannical rules and regulations—progressively criminalising perfectly honest and honourable activities, from pistol shooting competitions to eating beef on the bone? In the light of yesterday's countryside rally, does the Home Secretary realise that, if he—not to mention his dreadful Government—goes much further along that road, and reduces the drink-driving limit and bans fox hunting, he will progressively bring the law into disrepute? Is it not about time that the Government thought before they regulated?
  Mr. Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the fox hunting Bill—the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—is a private Member's measure. He knows also that there is overwhelming public support for the crime and disorder agenda that the Government are vigorously pursuing.
  Mr. Grocott: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that, whenever he mentions the previous Government's legacy, he is met with jeers from the Conservative Benches? Does he recall, as I do, that for 11 years—from 1979, until she was thrown out in 1990—Mrs. Thatcher repeatedly blamed the previous Labour Government? Will he therefore continue blaming the previous Tory Government until at least 2008, when we can perhaps review the policy?
  Mr. Straw: I concur with that. As I am a fair-minded Home Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that has approbation from both sides of the House. As I am a fair-minded Home Secretary, we shall continue blaming the previous Government as long as it is justified for us to do so. The facts are that crime doubled under the previous Government, whereas the number of people convicted of those crimes fell by one third.
  Mr. Alan Clark: Is not the most effective way of reducing the prison population not to prosecute wrongdoing? Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the application of discretionary powers by the Metropolitan police in that respect? What input does his Department have on that application?
  Mr. Straw: The previous Government's policy was not to prosecute wrongdoing—as the right hon. Gentleman
  692
  says—which is why crime rose. Far too many criminals felt that they could get away with committing crimes. I have no knowledge of what the right hon. Gentleman was referring to in particular, although I should be happy to receive a letter from him. He should nevertheless have caught up with the fact that decisions on prosecution are now made not by police but by the independent Crown Prosecution Service.

  Voluntary Sector
  Mrs. Brinton: What measures he will bring forward to improve the relationship between the Government and the voluntary sector. [30341]
  Mr. Michael: The Government will strengthen partnership between government and the voluntary sector. We are working towards a compact that will set out the principles that should govern the relationship. I am delighted to have the support of Ministers across the Government for that initiative.
  Mrs. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which will certainly be welcomed not just in my constituency of Peterborough but in many constituencies where voluntary organisations are working very hard to combat social exclusion. Can he assure me that the compact will set out exactly what needs to be done in practical terms to make the partnership work and that it will be available to all organisations and not just those that shout the loudest?
  Mr. Michael: The compact will establish the relationship and the consideration that the Government should give voluntary organisations—and vice versa—nationally and locally. My hon. Friend refers to social exclusion. The priority that the Government are giving the issue touches on the charitable object of many voluntary organisations and there has been a general welcome for the way in which the policy has developed.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does the Minister not understand that his expressions of support, and those of his right hon. Friend, for voluntary organisations and charities ring hollow? Does he not remember that, in last year's Budget, which was only a matter of months ago, the Government hit charities hard by undermining their pension funds so that volunteers' contributions had to be moved from the doing of good works to bolster pension schemes? If the Minister is serious about supporting voluntary organisations and charities, will he undertake to ensure that, in this year's Budget in a couple of weeks' time, they are reimbursed for that raid on their pension funds?
  Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman's intervention strikes me as a rather desperate attempt to drive a wedge between the Government and the voluntary sector. He will not succeed because many voluntary organisations find that, after years of trying to pursue their charitable objects under a Government who were not interested in most of their priorities, the present Government share their concern to improve society, so they are working in a totally different atmosphere.

  Prison and Probation Services
  Mr. Cranston: What plans he has to ensure integration between the prison and probation services. [30342]
  Siobhain McDonagh: What plans he has to integrate the prison and probation services. [30350]
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Ms Joyce Quin): As my right hon. Friend announced last July, I am leading a prisons and probation review into the efficiency and effectiveness of the ways in which the two services work together. We shall be examining options for improving their performance as a basis on which to consult widely about the future of both services.
  Mr. Cranston: Does my hon. Friend not agree that one of the advantages of the two services working together relates to public perception, since community sentences under the supervision of the probation service are too often perceived as a soft option? Does she agree that, by working together, the two services can change that perception and make community sentences a tough option?
  Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Both services are very much concerned with public protection and reducing offending. By working more closely together, they will be able to find out better what works and provide a better service to the public.
  Siobhain McDonagh: Given the separateness of the prison and probation services, and the antipathy within those organisations to working together, how can we ensure that the public's desire to see them working together will be met?
  Ms Quin: So far during the review, both services have shown a great willingness to work together and address some of their differences in approach. I should also like to pay tribute to the work that they do jointly in delivering courses in prisons, where prison officers and probation officers work together.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will the Minister commend activities in Surrey, where an extremely enlightened and hard-working probation service, working with the police, is making extremely good progress on punishment in the community? However, the vindictiveness of the financial settlement makes collaborative working in Surrey all the more difficult. Will the Minister look at the way in which the funding formulae hit Surrey, which is facing difficult decisions that had not been anticipated?
  Ms Quin: I am happy to join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to the Surrey probation service, which I visited recently to look at the Springboard project. However, I am astonished by her comments on funding. The settlement was drawn up by the Conservative Government of which she was a part. We are examining the future options in our comprehensive spending review.
  Mr. Soley: Will my hon. Friend give a high priority to training in the prison and probation services? A higher priority for training is needed in the Prison Service.
  694
  Probation officers must always be able to recognise signs of child abuse, mental breakdown and possible violence, particularly when they are visiting homes. If we lose that, people will be put at risk.
  Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Prison officers want their jobs to be more varied and challenging. Training is an important part of that. We are also addressing the vacuum left by the previous Government in relation to probation training. We have said that there should continue to be a professional qualification, which can offer a great deal to the criminal justice system.

  Disorder and Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Coaker: What measures he is proposing to tackle disorder and antisocial behaviour. [30343]
  Mr. Straw: There are tough new measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill to tackle such unacceptable conduct, which causes misery to so many communities. They include antisocial behaviour orders, child safety orders, local child curfews and statutory crime prevention partnerships between local authorities and the police.
  Mr. Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend reassure constituents such as mine in Gedling that the measures in the Crime and Disorder Bill will become law as soon as possible? Antisocial behaviour and disorder on estates are making many people prisoners in their homes. Will my right hon. Friend reassure them that action will be taken to deal with the repeat offending that seems to be so common?
  Mr. Straw: I give my hon. Friend that reassurance. Sadly, the previous Administration failed comprehensively to deal with such disorder. We pushed repeatedly for all-party agreement on such orders. I shall be interested to see whether, after 18 years of refusing to act, the Opposition back our proposals.
  Miss Kirkbride: Does the Secretary of State have any advice for my constituent who is subject to visits to his farm by animal rights protesters because of his export of turkeys? Some of them are reasonable people who want to exercise their legitimate right to protest, but there are others who behave irresponsibly and abuse his grandchildren and his farm workers. He is at the mercy of such protesters, who come almost every week to abuse his staff. He has found that they cannot be dealt with under current law.
  Mr. Straw: I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady's constituent. I should be happy to meet her to discuss the issue in further detail. I am aware of a similar situation just outside Witney. Some of the actions of the so-called animal rights protesters are outrageous. She will know that some of them have been convicted of offences that amount to terrorism. They call themselves animal rights terrorists and that is how they behave. The attitude of police forces varies. As the Thames Valley police has shown in response to the incidents near zWitney, there is no reason why effective action cannot be taken to ensure that people can go about their lawful duties, as they have every right to.
  Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a good deal of antisocial behaviour is caused by out-of-control youths with air weapons? Does he have any plans to review the ownership of air weapons?
  Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend will recall that in our evidence to the Cullen inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I talked not about the banning of air weapons, for which we have no proposals, but about the need for better control over their use. I hope that Conservative Members share that concern. Like my hon. Friend, I personally see no possible purpose in people who live in high-density urban areas shooting air weapons out of back-bedroom windows at human, rather than animal, targets. We shall certainly address that. But we need to take one step at a time; we must get the firearms legislation fully implemented first.
  Mr. Greenway: Why should anyone take seriously the Government's claim to support rural communities when they have cut funding for closed circuit television cameras to a paltry £1 million this year, just when market towns and large villages believe that it is their turn to receive support to install cameras to fight disorder and vandalism in their areas?
  Mr. Straw: There is the widest possible support for this new Government's crime and disorder agenda, which is one of the many reasons why we did so well in many rural areas. As for the hon. Gentleman's main point, I simply congratulate him on his chutzpah and cheek in daring to complain about the levels of cash allocated for closed circuit television for next year, since those are the exact allocations that were agreed by his Government.
  Jacqui Smith: I commend to my right hon. Friend the actions of a group of parents in Redditch, who have voluntarily organised a curfew for their children following some disorder last summer. Will he tell my constituents how the Government's plans will support such responsible community action?
  Mr. Straw: I know a little of my hon. Friend's constituency, and visited it last year. I very warmly congratulate those parents. It is clear that almost every parent is backing our proposals for child curfew and child protection orders, recognising that parents, first, have to accept responsibility for their children.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Bob Russell: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future use of private prisons. [30345]
  Ms Quin: On 19 June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced that the Prison Service was to examine whether prisons managed by the private sector could be returned to direct management on value-for-money grounds, as well as exploring methods of using private finance to achieve value for money, with the public sector providing custodial services.
  Mr. Russell: Will the Minister advise the House on whether she anticipates that, at the end of the Parliament, more of the Prison Service will be privatised? Does she agree with me and with the Home Secretary's words that
  696
  it is morally repugnant for people imprisoned by the state to be treated as little more than commodities for profit by private firms?
  Ms Quin: Very similar questions were answered by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at our first Home Affairs Question Time. Obviously, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation which I have just announced, although a great deal depends on the value-for-money aspect to which I referred.
  Mr. Bercow: In view of Ministers' earlier dogmatic and ideological opposition to private prisons, will the Minister tell the House when she first made a speech, wrote an article or issued a press release suggesting that there could be some merit in private prisons? Is there such an occasion? Can she name it? When was it?
  Ms Quin: The process that I have announced, whereby the Prison Service, prison unions and people who have an interest are examining the issues, is the valuable one. We shall draw conclusions from it when the study is complete.

  Electoral Systems
  Mr. Walter: How many different electoral systems will be in operation in the United Kingdom by May 2002. [30346]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Taking into account all existing proposals, five.
  Mr. Walter: I have been involved in a number of discussions with constituents over recent weeks about proposals for the European Parliament elections. My constituents are mesmerised when I go on to tell them about all the other proposed electoral systems. Will the Minister reassure the House that, if the Government bring forward proposals for this House, the essential link between a Member and an individual constituency will be preserved? Perhaps he could do the decent thing and reassure my constituents that there will be no change in the electoral arrangements for the House.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman must have missed the fact that Lord Jenkins's commission is currently looking at what might be an alternative system for electing the House of Commons. Once he has deliberated and come up with a proposal, we are committed to a referendum. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will then have the opportunity to look at what systems are on offer and, instead of listening to him, make up their own minds, which in my opinion would be wise.
  Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a disaster if the Government tried to impose the same voting system on every tier of government? The different systems have not been introduced for any reason of self-interest—quite the reverse. It is the Conservative party which might otherwise be seriously underrepresented in the European Parliament and, indeed, not represented at all in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh assembly.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. There are several proposals to change the constitution of this

  697
  country in line with public opinion and, in respect of electoral systems, we are committed to an appropriate electoral system for each layer of government. At the end of the day, people appreciate that that is the best way of achieving these things.
  Mr. Beith: Will the Minister remind the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) that three of those five systems were introduced by the Conservatives, including both the single transferable vote and the regional list system in Northern Ireland? Will he recognise that, in the next few days, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the opportunity to ensure that, in the European elections, there is a combination of fairness to voters in terms of the outcome of the election and the retention of a role for the voter in deciding which individual is elected by going for an open list system?
  Mr. Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House that the Conservative party introduced a number of different systems, most recently the d'Hondt system for the Northern Ireland peace forum. He will also remember that, until 1923, his own party was in favour of the first-past-the-post system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that we are still listening to the debate on to the most appropriate divisor for the European Parliamentary Elections Bill and, in due course, he will make an announcement.
  Ms Abbott: Does the Minister accept that the closed list system of proportional representation proposed for the forthcoming European elections is possibly the worst conceivable system of PR, combining as it does breaking the link between Members and their constituencies and taking away powers from local parties? Will he give the House an assurance that this is the first and last time that system will be used in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady has to understand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hon. Friend."] My hon. Friend has to understand that parliamentary constituencies do not apply to the European Parliament in same way as, for example, she represents a parliamentary constituency. Increasingly, Europe is a Europe of the regions and the new proposed system will respond to that. As for the specific system, I have already pointed out that we are listening to representations—not least to those made in the House—and an announcement on the result of that will be made in due course.

  Electronic Tagging
  Miss McIntosh: What savings in the prisons budget he estimates will accrue from the extension of electronic tagging. [30347]
  Ms Quin: It is estimated that home detention curfew may avoid the need for expenditure on about 3,000 new prison places, which would have cost £90 million per year. Other uses of electronic monitoring, if applied nationally, could also impact on demand for prison places.
  Miss McIntosh: Although we welcome the zeal of converts to electronic tagging, do the Government appreciate that it is better for the courts to decide who should be electronically tagged and which prisoners are
  698
  eligible for early release? Will the Minister agree to extend electronic tagging to child curfew orders, which the Home Secretary mentioned earlier, and to persistent sex offenders?
  Ms Quin: Given that it is people who are coming to the end of their sentence who are eligible for home detention curfew, we believe that it is quite right for the decision to be taken by prison authorities, together with experts who can make the appropriate risk assessment.
  Mr. Bermingham: I welcome tagging and anything else that reduces the number of people who are incarcerated in prison—sometimes for long periods, despite the fact that the punitive impact of a short sentence would be equally effective—but will my hon. Friend consider other methods, such as the reintroduction of suspended sentences, which were extremely effective in the past?
  Ms Quin: We are considering such methods, but we believe that electronic monitoring can provide a structured transition from custody to release during which, we hope, it will help to stop people reoffending in future.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Can the Minister assure the House that no prisoners serving sentences for rape, serious sexual offences or child abuse will be allowed out early under any tagging programme?
  Ms Quin: As I have told the right hon. Gentleman before, the most important consideration is risk assessment. We are, in this instance, talking about people who are serving four years or fewer and who will be released anyway. We believe that we have a responsibility to make that release as structured as possible, but we shall be extremely careful about risk assessment in the cases that he mentions.

  Criminal Justice System (Delays)
  Mr. Sheerman: What measures he is taking to tackle delays in the criminal justice system. [30348]
  Mr. Straw: The Government are acting to tackle delay throughout the criminal justice system. The Crime and Disorder Bill provides for statutory time limits that will be tougher for young offenders than for adults, and tougher still for persistent young offenders.
  Mr. Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that. I am sure that my constituents and people who want a Government of law and order are very happy that we have moved so quickly to implement what we said in our election manifesto. He knows better than most of the number of vested interests in the legal system, so will he be vigilant and keep a monitoring brief on judges, banisters, solicitors and the Crown Prosecution Service, all of which seem to have a vested interest in delay and delay, as that means more money for them?
  Mr. Straw: I accept what my hon. Friend says. Not only are we keeping an eye on the vested interests, but we shall be setting them clear targets. A number of magistrates courts have already proved that our policy can be implemented. Teesside magistrates court, for example,

  699
  has introduced a fast-track system for young offenders to reduce the time between charges being made and any trial to six weeks—or 42 days—which more than halves the time that it usually takes to deal with persistent offenders. I congratulate Teesside on that.
  Mr. Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that justice delayed is justice denied, and that everything that he can do to speed up the dispensation of justice will be welcome? Will he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General consider carefully whether the Crown Prosecution Service has adequate financial resources? I recently visited the CPS local office in Horsham, which is doing an extremely good job, but there is no doubt that it is short of barristers and short of money. I should be grateful if he could tell me what he can do about that.
  Mr. Straw: I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point that he raises. He may know that a major inquiry into the running of the CPS by the former High Court judge Sir Ian Glidewell has been under way since just after the election. It will report shortly and, I believe, lead to major improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the CPS.

  Criminal Justice System
  Mr. Mackinlay: What plans he has to review his Department's responsibilities in relation to the criminal justice system. [30349]
  Mr. Straw: As part of the comprehensive spending review, I am chairing a cross-departmental review of the criminal justice system, to consider ways in which the delivery of the Government's objectives for the criminal justice system as a whole can be improved. There are no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities.
  Mr. Mackinlay: Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary reflect on the fact that, when the Government's credentials as a modern and constitutionally reforming Administration come to be tested, one consideration will be whether they have been able to restructure the criminal justice system so as to make it much more answerable to the House of Commons? In addition to its core duties in relation to criminal justice, his Department is cluttered by other duties. Moreover, his criminal justice duties are shared with the Lord Chancellor, who combines the post of Minister, judge, Speaker of the House of Lords and interior designer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a real case for having a Minister of justice who is answerable to the democratically elected House of Commons?
  Mr. Straw: As I said, we have no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities. I believe that we shall be judged at the next general election by whether we have delivered at a local level on our crime and disorder pledges.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: We all hear what the Home Secretary says, but we all saw Government Front Benchers furiously trying not to laugh their legs off at the Lord Chancellor. This is none the less a serious matter. Given the number of staff that the Lord Chancellor is
  700
  accumulating at vast public expense, when will the Government announce the setting up of a Department of justice at the expense of the Home Office?
  Mr. Straw: I have always enjoyed the humour of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), and I have made it clear that there are no plans to make changes in departmental responsibilities. We believe that what matters is the ability of the three Departments involved in the criminal justice system—the Law Officers' Department, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Home Office—to co-operate effectively, as we are doing, to deliver improved efficiency on the ground.

  Prisons (Drug Testing)
  Mr. Timms: When he last carried out a review of the mandatory spot tests for drugs in prisons. [30351]
  Mr. George Howarth: Mandatory drug testing is being reviewed within the broader assessment of the Prison Service drug strategy that I have commissioned. All relevant issues are being explored.
  Mr. Timms: My hon. Friend will be aware that some prisoners and former prisoners have alleged that the current mandatory drug testing regime provides an incentive for prisoners using cannabis to switch to heroin, to reduce the chance of being caught. Is that allegation being considered in the current review? Should we not as quickly as possible give prisoners access to voluntary testing and other help, including follow-up help outside prison once their sentences are completed, so that those who want to break free from drug misuse can do so?
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the statistics suggesting that there could be a perverse incentive in the mandatory drug testing regime to move from cannabis to heroin are under examination. Sixty-three establishments are involved in various kinds of drug treatment and it is proposed that about £7.3 million be spent on the problem next year.
  Mr. Green: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a terrible air of complacency about his reply on this important subject? Will he at the very least assure the House that, when the inevitable review that he has set up finally reports, some action will emerge from it on the smuggling of drugs into prison, because we all know that that is how they get there? Without action on that front, any words from the Government will simply seem hypocritical.
  Mr. Howarth: The mandatory drug testing system was introduced by the previous Government; there are difficulties with it, but we welcome it. When the review is completed, we will consider what is the most appropriate action. Let me make it absolutely clear, in case the hon. Gentleman needs any reassurance, that we do not think it acceptable that drugs are smuggled into prisons and taken by prisoners, so we will do what is necessary to stop it. In the meantime, we must have a clear picture of what exactly is going on, so that we can consider how to deal with it.

  Budget Allocation
  Mr. Simon Hughes: What proportion of his budget is allocated to (a) prevention of crime and (b) detection and punishment of crime; and what plans he has to change this allocation. [30352]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): It is impossible to identify the overall level of funding for crime prevention. Although £19.3 million is specifically allocated, the police budget, which is more than £7.2 billion, and other resources also contribute to both crime prevention and detection.
  Mr. Hughes: I am sure that the Minister will accept that the more we can prevent crime, the less we will have to spend on detection and prosecution. As part of the review that the Home Secretary has quite properly instigated, will two specific matters be considered?
  First, if the figures are right, about a quarter of all prisoners have themselves been victims of abuse, so if we can prevent the physical and sexual abuse of youngsters we will be more likely to prevent their offending subsequently. Secondly, if we can find useful activities—not only work—for youngsters outside school, and outside school hours, we will prevent the huge amount of crime that is carried out between about 4 pm and 10 pm by 14 to 20-year-olds, who could be better employed doing other things.
  Mr. O'Brien: All I can say is that I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bill O'Brien: Will my hon. Friend take note of the situation faced by the police in West Yorkshire? When he considers the police budget, will he remember that the capping system has meant that the charge for band D properties in the area has been reduced by 57p per annum? That will have an effect on the monitoring and prevention of crime. Given the extra resources that have been allocated by the Home Office to crime prevention, the funding for West Yorkshire appears to be an anomaly. Will the Minister investigate that serious situation?
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I will investigate that important matter for my hon. Friend and write to him.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the Minister been able to ascertain what will be spent in real terms on new policing, or has there been a cut? Certainly, Dorset police believe that when they have paid for everything that goes up every year, such as pensions, they will have to make cuts. Local authorities are trying to help the police by, for example, putting in cameras, but they are now finding that they cannot even bid for town centre cameras, because there is no matching funding. Will the Minister consider that problem carefully?
  Mr. O'Brien: Police expenditure has been targeted to rise by 3.7 per cent. and the figures are clear. On the subject of crime prevention, the Crime and Disorder Bill and the new crime reduction partnerships will ensure that the police are more closely involved with local councils in work on crime reduction. However, the hon. Gentleman must consider the whole budget. It would be wrong to
  702
  consider only the money allocated to crime prevention under a single budget head. Crime prevention has a role across billions of pounds of budgets, and the Government are committed to making crime prevention a priority across our whole budget.

  Crime Against Businesses
  Ms Blears: What steps he is taking to combat crime against businesses, with particular reference to inner-city areas. [30353]
  Mr. Michael: The Crime and Disorder Bill requires local authorities and the police together to conduct an audit of local crime and disorder and to develop a strategy to cut crime. They are required to involve the wider community, including the business community, in that process. We are also working with business to tackle specific problems, such as retail and car crime.
  Ms Blears: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. In cities such as Salford it is crucial that businesses, which are the key to economic regeneration, feel safe and protected. I know it is difficult, but has my hon. Friend considered involving businesses in some of the community punishments, such as the reparation order, that make the people who commit crimes face their effects on the prosperity of the whole community?
  Mr. Michael: Yes. My hon. Friend is right. I visited Milton Keynes recently, as did my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and saw the way in which the business community is productively engaged with the people who are involved in the correction of offenders. We visit various cities—my right hon. Friend will visit Salford on 2 April—and such visits give us the opportunity to discuss the issue with business. I am pleased by the way in which business is engaging with our agenda to cut crime.
  Mr. Hawkins: The Minister will be aware that a number of crimes against businesses have, sadly, spread from inner-city areas to other urban areas. Several businesses in my constituency have recently been targeted by ram raiders. Will the Minister confirm that he is urgently liaising with police forces to tackle that serious crime against businesses?
  Mr. Michael: Yes. In recent weeks, I have had several discussions with police forces about smaller town and rural crime. Those problems will be addressed by our proposals, because we need a partnership between the police, local authorities and the communities in smaller urban and rural areas as well as in the cities.

  Prison Medical Service
  Helen Jones: What plans he has to improve the prison medical service. [30354]
  Ms Quin: The Prison Service and the national health service have established a joint working group to advise Ministers on the options for improving prisoners' health care. The group will be looking in particular at whether

  703
  responsibility should be transferred to the NHS, as recommended by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons.
  Helen Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply, but does she agree that one of the main obstacles to improving the service is the lack of suitably qualified staff? As the Home Office's own figures show that, in a service with a large number of mentally disordered offenders, only 21 of 197 doctors are members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and only 34 per cent. of health care managers are registered nurses, will she assure the House that the working party will consider, as a matter of urgency, the need to recruit more qualified staff into the prison medical service, and to provide an adequate career path to retain them in that service?
  Ms Quin: My hon. Friend makes important points, and I pay tribute to her for the keen and detailed interest that she has taken in this matter. We are very keen to improve training in the prison health service, and the working group is considering that as one of its priorities. It is a very important issue to make progress on if we are really to respond to the recommendations that the chief inspector made in his report "Patient or Prisoner?".

  Alcohol (Young People)
  Mr. Bradshaw: What steps he is taking to reduce the number of young people who engage in under-age consumption of alcohol. [30356]
  Mr. George Howarth: The Government are committed to tackling under-age drinking. Our statement of 17 July last year, a copy of which is in the Library, set out our views on the action needed by all concerned parties to tackle alcohol abuse by young people under the age of 18.
  Mr. Bradshaw: Following the Minister's visit to Exeter last week, he will be aware of the great concern locally about the phenomenon known as the booze cruise, which exploits the current loophole in the law and allows alcohol to be sold to under-age children as long as they are on a moving boat. Does not that fly in the face of our desire to curb under-age drinking, and what is he going to do about it?
  Mr. Howarth: As recently as last week, my hon. Friend and I visited his constituency to talk to people who had been involved in such cruises. I am looking very carefully at what all the people who were worried about that issue said, and considering what action will be appropriate. One aspect that we can look at immediately is whether the operator concerned is in breach of his sailing licence.
  Mrs. Lait: Further to that, does the Minister share my concern that under-age drinkers have access to cheap alcohol because of the great prevalence of bootlegged and smuggled alcohol? Does he agree that the multi-disciplinary approach to stemming that tide of alcohol is the best one possible, and will he guarantee that police forces involved in trying to stem that tide will receive the resources that they need?
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady is clearly right. As any of us know from our own constituencies, there is a
  704
  problem in that people go abroad, bring back various forms of alcohol and sell it to young people. I agree that a multi-disciplinary or multi-agency approach is a very good way of tackling that problem, and we are committed to such an approach. It shows the value of working in partnership to try to eradicate such problems.

  Human Rights Bill
  Mrs. May: If parish councils are among those organisations whose acts and omissions it is intended should be able to be challenged under the Human Rights Bill. [30357]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: Although it will be a matter for the courts, we think it likely that parish councils will be regarded as public authorities.
  Mrs. May: I thank the Minister for that reply, although it gives some cause for concern in the following respect.
  The Government have already had to undertake reviews of the application of the Human Rights Bill in two important areas—its implications for the press and for the Churches—and the Home Secretary has undertaken to consult in those two areas because the Government have discovered that the Bill's implications may not be what they originally thought that they would be. Therefore, will the Government now accept that, as I believe, there is a very real need to review the way in which the Human Rights Bill will affect other public authorities, such as parish councils, which form such an important part of our village community, and will the Minister undertake to consult and review the implications for those important parts of our village communities?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Bill does not change the substance of convention rights; it only changes access to them in our courts. Broadly, we wish to ensure that all bodies for whose actions the United Kingdom Government are answerable are treated as public authorities under the Bill. The Government are committed to bringing people's rights home from Strasbourg, whereas most Tories appear to want to keep power under the European convention on human rights across the channel, in Strasbourg. The question needs to be asked: why do the Conservatives seek to deny people access to their rights, and why are they so determined to keep power in Strasbourg?
  Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend agree that giving everyone in the United Kingdom access to local jurisdiction over human rights helps to bring people together? Does he share my view that it is perturbing to hear people pressing for sectional interests to get a pass out of the Human Rights Bill—which of course they will not get, because we have an international treaty obligation in that regard? We should encourage people in the Churches, the media and local authorities of all kinds, including parish councils, to recognise that they have a responsibility to respect the human rights of others.
  Mr. O'Brien: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill will ensure that there is greater respect for human rights in this country, and will raise Britain's status in the world as a country that respects human rights.
  Mr. Gibb: Given the limited budgets of parish councils and the limited scope for parish councils to engage in

  705
  abusing human rights—certainly in my constituency—is there not a case for specifically excluding parish councils from that ludicrous legislation?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand that the convention currently applies to public authorities anyway. We are not changing the substance of that. We are ensuring that people have greater access to their rights. For the life of me I do not understand why Opposition Members are so opposed to allowing British citizens access in their own courts to their own rights.

  Internet (Racist and Anti-Semitic Material)
  Mr. Dismore: If he will make a statement concerning the use of the internet to spread racist and anti-Semitic propaganda. [30358]
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Government deplore the distribution of racist material via the internet. Provided that it falls within our jurisdiction, material passing over the internet is subject to the same laws as material distributed by other means.
  Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are more than 600 anti-Semitic and racist sites on the internet, many of which promote holocaust denial? The internet is readily accessible to young people. Bearing in mind the transnational nature of the internet, will he take the opportunity of Britain's European Union presidency to raise the problem with our European partners and to work with them to find a way of tackling this growing menace?
  Mr. O'Brien: Indeed, we are already doing that. We condemn such material on the internet. The National Criminal Intelligence Service has been in close liaison with other countries to combat internet abuse, and the G7 action plan on high-tech crime commits us to developing closer links to combat internet crime even more effectively.
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the related problem of defamation or libel on the internet? As he observed, the problem is one of jurisdiction. Does he realise that it is possible to defame people in the foulest terms and for them to have no remedy, if the internet service provider is situated abroad? When he undertakes discussions with his European colleagues on racism and anti-Semitism, will he also discuss the problem of defamation or libel?
  Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is increasingly being recognised what an impact the internet can have on the lives of all of us, and on crime and civil torts such as defamation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary discussed these matters in December with G8 colleagues. As the discussions move forward, the international community will increasingly realise that the only way to tackle these issues is through international co-operation.

  Young Offender Teams
  Mr. Linton: What powers he intends to give to the proposed young offender teams; and if he will make a statement. [30360]
  Mr. Michael: The Crime and Disorder Bill places duties rather than powers on youth offending teams. The teams will co-ordinate youth justice services in their area. They will play a key role in working with young offenders in the community from the point of arrest to completion of sentence.
  Mr. Linton: Does my hon. Friend agree that youth offending teams will have to work hard to re-establish the credibility of cautions, given that many young offenders receive up to six or seven cautions? Does he support the work of the Thames Valley police, who have turned the caution from a five-minute formality into something more like an hour-long ordeal in what they call restorative justice?
  Mr. Michael: I certainly commend the actions of the Thames Valley police in encouraging young people who are being cautioned to understand the damage that they have done to others. The credibility of the caution system has been completely undermined in recent years. That is why we are replacing it with a final warning system. Not only will young people be told that their offending must stop but there will be intervention, action and community involvement for them and their families in order to stop their pattern of offending.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Amess: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of ways of dealing with antisocial behaviour. [30361]
  Mr. Michael: Antisocial behaviour can grow out of control unless it is nipped in the bud—particularly with young offenders. Those problems have grown out of control in recent years. This Government have acted swiftly to reform the youth justice system to make young people face up to the consequences of their own behaviour and to make them realise that the most effective way to deal with antisocial behaviour is to be firm, fair and swift.
  Mr. Amess: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that at times the whole country seems to be covered in graffiti—whether they are on road signs, on the tube or on walls? There is a particular problem in Chalkwell ward in my constituency of Southend, West—a ward that the Conservatives won from the Liberal Democrats last week. Will the Minister tell the House what effective measures are in place to apprehend those vandals who continually indulge in antisocial behaviour through acts of graffiti?
  Mr. Michael: I am not sure which of those two parties the hon. Gentleman blames for the graffiti problem. We intend to nip things in the bud by encouraging partnership between police and local authorities in order to recognise problems as they begin to grow. We will not allow problems to develop—as has happened in recent years—to the point where it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. We intend to tackle those problems.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Ancram: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As the guardian of the interests of Back Benchers, you will be aware that it is traditional to have a St. David's day debate around 1 March, when Welsh Members of Parliament may raise any issues relating to Wales. I am sure that it will not have escaped your notice that this year there is no arrangement or provision for such a debate. Today we shall consider the remaining stages of the Government of Wales Bill in Committee, which is hardly the same thing.
My point of order concerns whether you have received any explanation of why there is no such debate. If not, is the absence of a St. David's day debate not a massive and calculated insult to Wales? Does it not signal the beginning of the cynical and deliberate marginalisation of Welsh Members in the House that we predicted would follow devolution? Madam Speaker, as you are the defender of Back-Bench interests—not least those of Welsh Members—is that not something that you deplore?
Madam Speaker: The business of the House is not a matter for me: the conduct of business of the House is my responsibility. This matter should have been referred to the usual channels some weeks ago. Indeed, it should have been pressed on the Leader of the House last Thursday during business questions. However, I notice that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), who leads for the Opposition in considering the Government of Wales
708
Bill, is proudly wearing his daffodil. I must be even-handed and note that the Secretary of State for Wales is doing likewise.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Whenever an international court rules against a country, it is surely a matter of some urgency and concern. Have you received any request from the Crown Office in Edinburgh or from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seeking to make a statement of explanation about the ruling against our country, by 13 votes to two, brought down by the international judges in relation to Lockerbie? Has any such request been made?
Madam Speaker: I must inform the hon. Gentleman that no request of that nature has been put to me. To the best of my knowledge, no Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter today.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Code of Conduct) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
That the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Procedural Rules) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
That the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Guidelines) Order 1998, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day

  Government of Wales Bill
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 25 February].
  [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Government of Wales Bill
    New clause 40

      FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS' FINANCES
      '.—(1) The provision of funding for the exercise by the Forestry Commissioners of their functions in relation to Wales shall be the responsibility of the Assembly.

      (2) What subsection (1) requires of the Assembly is that it shall provide such funding as the Assembly considers appropriate for the exercise by the Forestry Commissioners of their functions in relation to Wales.

      (3) In deciding what funding it considers appropriate to provide for the exercise by the Forestry Commissioners of their functions in relation to Wales, the Assembly shall have regard in particular to what it considers those Commissioners need to spend in order effectively to discharge their functions in relation to Wales.

      (4) The Assembly shall before the beginning of each financial year of the Assembly consult the Forestry Commissioners about the funding it is to provide for them in that financial year; and in determining the amount of that funding the Assembly shall take account of the Forestry Commissioners' estimates of—

      (a) what they will need to spend in that financial year in order effectively to discharge their functions in relation to Wales, and

      (b) the income which they will receive in that financial year and be entitled to apply towards meeting their expenditure on the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales.

      (5) Schedule (Forestry Commissioners) (which makes provision consequential on this section) has effect.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3.34 pm
      The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ron Davies): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new schedule 1—Forestry Commisioners.
      Government amendments Nos. 542 to 544.
      Mr. Davies: I made it clear on Second Reading that I would table amendments about forestry in Wales, to combine the advantages that come from the Forestry Commission retaining an overall strategic role for forestry in Great Britain, with our aim that the Forestry Commission should be answerable for its operations in Wales to the National Assembly for Wales.
      Forestry is important to the economy and environment of Wales. At 31 March 1997, the forest area stood at 247,000 hectares, or 12 per cent. of the total area of Wales, of which the Forestry Commission owned 120,000 hectares. Current production levels represent 15 per cent. of the British total. The latest figures suggest that 4,750 people employed in Wales are dependent on forestry, including 1,270 employed by the Forestry
      710
      Commission, and more than 1,700 employed in wood processing industries, in which Wales has benefited from substantial investment.
      Forestry can also provide farmers with an opportunity to diversify farm business through woodland planting as an alternative to agricultural production. Well-designed forests can provide high-grade landscape and wildlife habitats, and can be used to advantage in the reclamation of derelict sites, and provide excellent recreational opportunities.
      The Government are not proposing the establishment of a separate Forestry Commission for Wales.
      The Government amendments will ensure that, in future, the assembly will have responsibility both for setting policy in respect of forestry in Wales and for funding the activities of the Forestry Commission in relation to Wales.
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Is my understanding correct that responsibility for the Forestry Commission—a UK-wide body—in relation to Wales will transfer from the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Welsh assembly? For the past 10 or 20 years, the Forestry Commission has been anomalous, in that it is the only body with a remit outside Scotland for which the Secretary of State for Scotland has ultimate departmental responsibility. Will my right hon. Friend go into detail about the relationship between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly in respect of forestry?
      Mr. Davies: As my hon. Friend will know, with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I currently have responsibility for all forestry matters. My hon. Friend is correct in his understanding that, post-devolution, the responsibility that I currently exercise will devolve to the Welsh assembly, and the responsibility currently exercised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will devolve to the Scottish Parliament.
      On matters that operate GB-wide, it will be necessary for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the representative of the Welsh assembly, and the appropriate Minister in the Scottish Parliament to agree. It will be open to the Scottish Parliament, because it will have jurisdiction in this matter, to legislate by means of primary legislation. It will be open to the Scottish Parliament to decide to introduce further changes. My hon. Friend is correct in his understanding. If he will bear with me, I shall deal with this point in a moment.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: A number of my constituents work at the Forestry Commission's headquarters in Edinburgh, and there is real concern and a lack of clear understanding about their future. I am trying to be constructive about this, but can some document be placed in the Library fairly soon, outlining in detail precisely what the thinking is, because there are quite a number of worried people? They are worried about whether they will have to move their homes yet again, having recently moved north to Edinburgh. They are asking, "Do we have to move south, or somewhere else?" Families' futures are very much at stake here.
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend raised that matter on Second Reading, when he asked me particular questions

      711
      about the likely employment consequences for people in his constituency. Later in my remarks, I want to answer fairly specifically some of the questions that my hon. Friend asked. However, I take this early opportunity to assure him that there is nothing in the Bill that will in any way prejudice the livelihood, or the opportunity for continued employment within the present work force, of my hon. Friend's constituents. As I said in reply to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), the Scottish Parliament will have jurisdiction in this matter. No one can foretell what it might want to do in future.
      New clause 40 deals with the devolution of responsibility for funding. The Forestry Commission's funding is currently provided from a single vote approved by the House of Commons. Discussions are in progress on the appropriate transfer of resources into the Welsh block as a result of a significant shift of responsibility. At present, the commissioners' functions relate to Great Britain as a whole.
      Paragraph 1 of the new schedule accordingly contains an order-making power for me to provide for the separate exercise, in relation to Wales, of the commissioners' functions, and for their functions to be exercised differently in respect of Wales. If an order under paragraph 1 amends Acts of Parliament, it will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is the purpose of amendments Nos. 542 to 544, to clause 144.
      I currently have wide-ranging powers in respect of the commissioners enabling me to direct the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales. As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, I exercise these powers jointly with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Agriculture. These powers will be transferred to the assembly and made separately exercisable with respect to Wales in the transfer order under clause 22.
      The forestry commissioners have powers to regulate activities in their forests. They may also make regulations to prevent the introduction into Great Britain of, for example, forestry pests and diseases.
      Paragraph 2 of the new schedule provides for such subordinate legislation, where it contains only provisions relating to Wales, to be subject to procedures in the assembly instead of in Parliament. The overall effect is that the assembly will approve the commissioners' subordinate legislation.
      Paragraph 3 of the new schedule provides that the status of the commissioners as a Government Department and the status of their staff—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—are not affected by these changes. I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that, in my view, these amendments in themselves are most unlikely to reduce the number of staff employed by the Forestry Commission. It will remain a Great Britain body, and any changes to this arrangement would require primary legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow raised that point on Second Reading. Obviously, as I have said, we cannot predict how the assembly will choose to exercise its functions, including that of funding the commissioners, but the drafting of new clause 40 ensures that, if the assembly wishes to exercise its functions in a certain way, it must have a proper dialogue with the commissioners.
      712
      The arrangements for Scotland are broadly similar, although the details will be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. They will differ from those for Wales, because of the different structure of the Scotland Bill, and in particular because it is proposed that the Scottish Parliament should have legislative competence over forestry.
      If the Scottish Parliament were to legislate to create a separate forestry commission for Scotland, the Government would need to reconsider the issue, and in particular to decide whether to retain the commission on a Wales and England basis or whether to create separate bodies. As I have said, such changes would require primary legislation.
      Sir Sydney Chapman: I wish this matter to be clarified: if and when the Bill is enacted, and any Member of this place wishes to ask a question or seek information about the Forestry Commission working in Wales, for example, would he or she table a question to the right hon. Gentleman, to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to the Minister of Agriculture, or would he or she not be able to table a question?
      Mr. Davies: I say to the hon. Gentleman, in the gentlest possible way, that it is a question not of whether the Bill goes through, but of when. Last weekend, the leader of the Conservative party made the position absolutely clear. My understanding is that his party is now in favour of devolution. I assume that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) will lead his troops into the Lobby in support of Government policy.
      It would be inappropriate for me to comment on which questions Madam Speaker would deem to be in or out of order, because I would be trespassing on matters for which I am not responsible. My current responsibilities will transfer to the assembly, and where those powers need to be exercised jointly, they will be so exercised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly.
      The Table Office or Madam Speaker could advise the hon. Gentleman on tabling a parliamentary question to a Minister in this House who would answer on those broad policy matters. To influence the implementation of detailed policy in Wales, the hon. Gentleman would have to join the happy and growing band of Welsh Conservatives who will seek election to the assembly. Now that he has expressed an interest, he must look for what passes as a safe seat in Wales, although finding one may be difficult.
      Mr. Michael Ancram: I am interested to hear the Secretary of State singing the praises of the Welsh assembly and inviting my colleagues to stand for election. Will he stand for election to the Welsh assembly?
      Mr. Davies: In fact, I suggested to the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman)—
      Mr. Nigel Evans: Answer the question.
      Mr. Davies: I shall certainly answer now. I said that the hon. Gentleman should try to find a safe seat; if I were to stand for the Welsh assembly, I would not have as much difficulty finding one as he would.

      713
      Paragraph 4 of new schedule 1 deals with the forestry commissioners' receipts. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Devizes has spent the past month or so berating me for arrogance; now he chunters from a sedentary position and accuses me of being coy. The transition from brutishness—I am supposed to have cast aside public and political opinion in Wales—to coyness is remarkable.
      Mr. Cynog Dafis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Davies: Of course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's question will bring me back to the matter of the Forestry Commission.
      Mr. Dafis: We are speculating about Conservative intentions, and the Secretary of State will be as intrigued as I am by the proposal of the leader of the Conservative party for a more equal pattern of devolution within the United Kingdom. Does that not imply that there should be a Parliament in Wales with powers equal to those of the Scottish Parliament, and, further, that such a Parliament should have the power to establish a forestry commission for Wales? Would that not be an excellent idea, because forestry is an important industry in Wales and has many distinctive qualities that should be addressed at an all-Wales strategic level?
      3.45 pm
      Mr. Davies: The idea might be excellent, but it is outwith Government policy, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is to transfer to the assembly the powers that I currently exercise. He will not be surprised if I describe devolution as a process. It is for those who come after, in the assembly and in the House of Commons, to decide whether to modify the powers of the Welsh assembly. I am not proposing that; I am proposing sensible and practical arrangements for the transfer to the assembly of my current forestry responsibilities.
      I was referring to paragraph 4 of new schedule 1, which deals with the Forestry Commission's receipts. The measure has been drafted to allow the assembly to choose whether to fund the commission's activities in Wales on a net or gross basis—that is, to decide whether the commission should retain its operating income to help it to meet its own expenditure.
      We must also recognise that the commission's forestry assets in Wales have been built up using United Kingdom taxpayers' money.
      Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We have paid for them.
      Mr. Davies: Paragraph 4 provides an overriding power for the Treasury to direct that certain receipts, such as those arising from major asset sales, should be returned to the Consolidated Fund.
      The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) was right to say that we had paid for the assets. That is why I say that a balance must be struck. I assume that, if the Forestry Commission disposed of certain assets to assist its annual operations, the asset sales would be retained by the commission. In the event of a major
      714
      act of privatisation, however, the Treasury would understandably want to retain the right to ensure that the contribution of United Kingdom taxpayers as a whole was properly safeguarded.
      Paragraphs 5 to 9 deal with the accounts and audit arrangements. The Forestry Commission will produce separate accounts for Wales, which will be audited by the Auditor General for Wales. He or she will also be able to carry out value-for-money studies, and the Comptroller and Auditor General will retain access rights. Paragraph 10 provides for the forestry commissioners to produce an annual report about their activities in Wales, and for it to be laid before and published by the assembly.
      The Government amendments devolve to the assembly responsibility for funding the forestry commissioners' activities in Wales, and make the commissioners properly accountable to the assembly.
      Mr. Evans: The new clause, new schedule and amendments deal with an aspect of rural Wales that needs to be protected. They deal with our natural environment—trees, plants and wildlife, conservation and preservation, jobs and tourism, recreation and nature, and our ancient woodlands and forests.
      The rural community feels threatened. Yesterday, 284,000 people marched here in London, crying out in frustration and fear that their voice was not being heard. Many demonstrators travelled from Wales to be here, and I hope that the Secretary of State—who was not on the march—was at least able to hear what they said. They were good-natured, but they were extremely frustrated. Large numbers turned out from all parts of Wales to join yesterday's demonstration, because they care for the countryside. I assume that that is what new clause 40 purports to do as well, and I shall ask a number of questions about it towards the end of my speech.
      The Forestry Commission has a profound effect on our land. It was established in 1919 as an answer to first world war deforestation. In fact, deforestation had been going on for some time. At the turn of the century, only 5 per cent. of our land was forested; today, thanks to the commission's work, that percentage has more than doubled.
      Forests are vital, not only for their value as timber but for their natural beauty and their part in conservation and recreation. The nation's forests need protection from, for instance, disease. The commission's research division is very important in that regard, and I shall want to know how it will be ensured that that research function will be properly protected in Wales under the new arrangements.
      We need to prevent the reduction of crops by pests. We also need research into ways of increasing the productivity of forests, and the establishment of forests on difficult sites, if areas throughout Wales are to benefit. The conservation of rare and endangered species is important, as is the protection of our ancient and semi-natural woodlands.
      The Forestry Commission's research is mainly done in house, but it also commissions outside work. We shall need to know how that will be done under the new arrangements, and what impact the assembly will have in directing key commissioning in certain areas. As the Secretary of State said, the commission has a large staff, and we shall need to know more about how staff will function after the changes. The commission also has an

      715
      international impact. Will the assembly have a say in some of the international commitments in which we are involved on behalf of the commission?
      Forests and woodlands support much of the rural economy, and they are environmentally and socially important. The White Paper entitled "A Working Countryside for Wales" spoke of the economic role of forestry and of the Government's aim to increase Welsh woodland by about 50 per cent. by 2050. Are the commitment and the target still operative, and how will they be affected by the proposed changes?
      In January 1996, the Government's panel on sustainable development, which was chaired by Sir Crispin Tickell, spoke of the need to draw up a national forestry strategy that was supported by regional strategies containing targets that were related to the main economic, environmental and social benefits that forestry could provide. The incentives needed to meet those targets were identified. Will the relationship with regional strategies remain the same? What will be the impact on the Forestry Commission's national picture?
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he raises these matters. I do not want to be too brutal with him, but I have to say that many of the issues he raises are policy matters, on which the assembly and the Scottish Parliament will decide. We are debating structures—the way in which my current powers will pass to the assembly. It is not for me to decide how the assembly will formulate and implement its policies—unless I seek election to it. Those are matters for the assembly.
      Mr. Evans: We can tell that the Secretary of State is seriously considering whether to move from this place to the assembly in 1999. I do not want to be brutal with him, but I hope that he decides to go to the assembly, because not many Labour Members have shown themselves keen to move there from Westminster. Perhaps he can lead the rush of his Back Benchers. [Interruption.] I shall not seek election to the assembly. I suspect that the people of Ribble Valley would not wish to have representation there.
      Mr. Davies: How on earth can the hon. Gentleman square that stupefying statement with the comment over the weekend by his party leader that the Conservative party wants to make the assembly work? How on earth will it work without the hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Evans: I, too, find that a difficult question.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps we could get back to new clause 40.
      Mr. Evans: We shall have to leave the question unanswered, and return to the debate on the new clause.
      I hear what the Secretary of State says. It is important to look not only at the policy functions that are to be devolved to the assembly but at the national strategy, and how it will weigh with what the assembly wishes to do. I shall shortly come to the funding arrangements. I assume that the Forestry Commission will wish to
      716
      continue its important consultations with local communities on such matters as planting and felling. It is important for it to carry on with its policy of ensuring that, where necessary, there are prosecutions for illegal felling, and warnings in less serious cases. It should enforce the restocking of illegally felled areas.
      I have spoken about only some of the Forestry Commission's work, because it has an important and diverse role. The commission and the timber trade could do much for Wales. We import £7.5 billion-worth of wood materials and manufactures, and export £2.3 billion-worth. That leaves a gap of more than £5 billion. That shows the potential, and if Wales can exploit that, it will be an important boost to the Welsh economy.
      My fears about changes to the Forestry Commission centre on the factionalism that may break out if the Welsh assembly pursues one route when a national strategy dictates that the Forestry Commission will pursue another route. We must ensure that both bodies work together absolutely, with one policy and with the same priorities.
      The Forestry Commission's funding arrangements will be vital. The Secretary of State for Wales said that Ministers are currently talking about how much money will be provided in the block grant, part of which the assembly will provide to the Forestry Commission. However, we have been given no assurances on how much money will be earmarked for the Forestry Commission. Moreover, the money that is provided to the assembly for the commission will be only notional, and it will not be ring-fenced. The Welsh assembly will decide what priority to place on the Forestry Commission's work.
      4 pm
      The Welsh assembly may not necessarily say, "The Forestry Commission is an easy target; we'll cut its money." The assembly—perhaps because of the Committee's debate on sustainable development, on 25 February—may take the opposite view, and decide that the Forestry Commission's work is vital. It may therefore decide to spend more money on the commission than the Treasury had originally notionally allocated.
      We must get the Forestry Commission's funding right, especially as so many competing demands will be placed on the assembly. As hon. Members have said during the Bill's passage, the assembly will have to determine how to order its priorities. Last Wednesday, for example, in the Committee debate on the assembly's role in promoting business in Wales, "business" was interpreted very widely. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) also mentioned the tin can that will be rattling outside the Welsh assembly, and the inevitable calls that the assembly will face for all sorts of money for all sorts of worthy projects. The Forestry Commission will be only one of those worthy projects.
      There is enormous ignorance of the Forestry Commission's good work, of the depth of its remit and of the vital nature of its role. In future debates on whether money should go to education, to social services or to the Forestry Commission, my fear is that the commission will be an easy target for Members of the Assembly, and that it will suffer cuts. Such cuts

      717
      cannot be made currently, because the national budget allocates the commission's funds. After devolution, because of competing interests, the assembly could decide to downgrade the Forestry Commission's role.
      I assume that the Secretary of State is involved in negotiations on the funding arrangements. We know that there will be—although the Bill does not mention it—a type of Barnett formula in Wales, which the Secretary of State has assured us will apply after devolution. Will such a Barnett-type formula be devised to fund the work in Wales of the Forestry Commission, so that the definite needs of Wales are emphasised, and the funds allocated to the Forestry Commission are not simply divided into three?
      Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman's earlier interpretation is broadly correct: the assembly will have responsibility for deciding whether to increase or decrease the resources going to forestry. There is nothing exceptional in that responsibility, as that is the importance of devolution. Furthermore, the assembly will occasionally want to reassess its priorities in, for example, education, the environment and the health service. Any Secretary of State currently has that discretion, and it is one that the assembly will enjoy. He was therefore correct in that assertion.
      On the hon. Gentleman's latter, specific question, I am currently in the process of discussions with my colleagues in the Government to determine how the Forestry Commission's budget can be disaggregated. I will want to ensure that the Welsh assembly gets its fair share of the disaggregated Forestry Commission budget once the new financial arrangements apply. It will then be a matter for the Forestry Commission to decide whether, by using additional money from the block grant, to supplement the resources that will provided to it by disaggregation of the existing Forestry Commission budget.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. He will appreciate that we in Wales are interested in ensuring that we get our fair share. I was wondering whether special needs, tasks or projects within Wales would be able to get more. Will there be some form of Barnett formula after devolution?
      Mr. Davies: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman yet again, but his two points are inconsistent. He cannot suggest that there should be a Barnett formula and then ask for special consideration. The two positions are mutually exclusive. However, I can assure him that, during the discussions about the disaggregation of the budget, I shall press as hard as I can to ensure that the particular interests of Wales are reflected in the financial settlement.
      I share the hon. Gentleman's great admiration and respect for the Forestry Commission, and attach the same importance as he does to its work. It has done a superb job over the years. I am glad that it is now following better policies than it did several decades ago, although not necessarily in the past decade.
      Mr. Evans: Under several Governments, I presume. It is important that the Forestry Commission gets it right, but it needs resources.
      718
      The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned his concern about his constituents who are employed by the Forestry Commission. The Secretary of State said that there would not necessarily be any reduction in staff because of the changes. I wonder whether additional staff will be required, because of the way the budgets will be allocated and because there will be more of a regional bent to the way in which the Forestry Commission will work in future. If extra staff are required and the resources are not increased, its task will not be as well fulfilled. I would be interested to know whether, as a result of the changes, the Forestry Commission is likely to need extra staff.
      I spoke earlier about the goal of 50 per cent. more woodland by the year 2050. Is it the Secretary of State's understanding that the same targets will exist? Will the Welsh assembly be able to alter that target to a greater or lesser extent?
      Mr. Davies indicated assent.
      Mr. Evans: We are dealing with a vital chunk of devolution, and a major change. We want to ensure, therefore, that the assembly is given not only the resources, but the knowledge of how important it is that the money is not channelled off to meet other priorities. The assembly must understand the importance of using the money it will receive for the particular task at hand.
      The Secretary of State also mentioned sales—whether some of the proceeds could be given back to the Forestry Commission to use in pursuit of its targets within Wales, whether the assembly could take any of that money, and how much could be retained by the Treasury. Will he clarify exactly how the system will work? It all sounds very vague, and as if the Treasury will be able to step in.
      We know that the demands on the Treasury are constantly rigorous, and that it is always keen to ensure that it gets its fair share of the money. How will it be worked out? Will it be through a concordat or a general understanding, or will there be a more specific definition of what is a major sale and what is a minor one? Obviously, the Forestry Commission is constantly buying and selling, so we are talking about rather large sums of money. Of course, privatisation would involve an enormous sum of money.
      Will the Secretary of State say a bit more about the various roles and where the money will end up? Could the proceeds of sales be siphoned off from the Forestry Commission to the assembly? If so, given the priorities that the assembly will set itself, it may wish to use some of the money for other projects, so it would not be reinvested into the Forestry Commission's tasks and targets.
      Mr. Davies: It is probably best to deal with these issues as we go along, rather than trying to deal with them all at the end—if that is all right with you, Mr. Martin.
      The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that we should ring-fence the Forestry Commission budget. It would then be both a ceiling and a floor. That would merely fix in time the spending pattern for the Forestry Commission, making it difficult for the assembly to embark on new policies or change its priorities. If the forestry budget should be ring-fenced, why not those for health, the Welsh Development Agency or education?

      719
      The purpose of devolution is to allow the assembly to change its priorities from time to time, reflecting local circumstances and its political will.
      I had an exchange about funding earlier with several hon. Members. If the Forestry Commission wanted to dispose of assets and recycle the money as part of its annual operations, it would be able to do so as at present. If, on the other hand, there was a major privatisation, it would be open to the Treasury to recover part of the money because it reflected previous Great Britain investment. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise definition of what would be a major privatisation and what would be considered annual operations. We shall have to make such judgments as we go along.
      Mr. Evans: I am grateful for that response. The Secretary of State will understand why we are asking such questions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said earlier—the response to his point reinforced it—after devolution we shall have limited powers to question the Secretary of State for Wales on matters relating to the Forestry Commission in Wales. I suspect that we shall usually be ruled out of order because our questions will be considered not the responsibility of the Secretary of State. It is right that we should ask questions now, because the opportunity to do so will be curtailed.
      There is a fear that, after devolution, if the assembly gets part of any money raised from sales, it may spend it elsewhere, particularly when budgets are tight. The assembly will not have direct tax-raising powers, but here we have the possibility of an indirect tax. The assembly may be keen to award itself other indirect tax-raising powers.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman is misconstruing what I said. I made it clear that, if the forestry estate was rationalised or certain sales were made to fund other forestry projects in Wales, the matter would remain within the assembly's discretion. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there will be privatisation, with the proceeds used to fund other services. I do not expect that. The hon. Gentleman should not raise the spectre of the Welsh assembly selling off the forestry estate in Wales wholesale to fund its other priorities. That is not what I said.
      Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State likes to look at the devolution proposals through his rose-tinted spectacles, believing that everything will be fine and there will be sunshine. Expectations about what the assembly will do must already be high in Wales. It is right to consider worst case scenarios in Committee, to ensure that devices are in place to prevent them from coming about. That is all we are asking of the Secretary of State. We want him to clarify his interpretation of the Bill to ensure that it is carried out when devolution takes place.
      The Forestry Commission is doing a good job. I have no problems with the way in which it is performing its functions in Wales, Scotland and England. It is fulfilling its targets with its limited budgets. The Secretary of State's passion for devolution is evident, although he is being rather coy—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said—about whether he will
      720
      run for the assembly. Such a description does not normally sit easily with him. We need to be certain why, if the Forestry Commission is not broken, we trying to repair it.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I did not intend to speak, but I was intrigued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's mention of disaggregating the Forestry Commission's budget. I think that that is what he said; he certainly used the word "disaggregating".
      I am totally ignorant about the Forestry Commission's finances, but I was surprised that it is necessary to disaggregate its budget. I should have thought that the Welsh Office would already know how much the Forestry Commission spends in respect of Wales—perhaps I am wrong. If the Welsh Office does not know, the Secretary of State will have to conduct the disaggregation exercise every year in order to arrive at a hypothetical disaggregated figure, which will be added to the rest of the block grant and handed to the assembly. If I am right—I could be completely wrong—the assembly would not, in this rather convoluted procedure, hand back the hypothetical disaggregated sum to the Forestry Commission. I do not know. The assembly might or might not hand back the equivalent of the disaggregated hypothetical sum. Is that the position?
      Mr. Ron Davies indicated assent.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend is indicating that I may quite correctly have reached such a convoluted end. I find it strange that, at the moment, the Welsh Office does not know how much the Forestry Commission spends or what its budget is for Wales. Who—I ask, perhaps rhetorically—decides the Forestry Commission's budget? Presumably, it is decided by the Treasury at the moment. Is it decided in negotiation between the Treasury and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? My right hon. Friend said that he was responsible for the Forestry Commission in Wales.
      Mr. Ron Davies: The essence of my right hon. Friend's case is absolutely correct. Forestry Commission operations in Wales are not funded at the moment out of the block grant. They are subject to a separate vote, which is negotiated with the Treasury by the respective forestry Ministers. His argument is correct that, post devolution, the forestry budget will be disaggregated. The block will increase, and that will form the basis of any future decisions that the assembly might want to take in funding forestry.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: Perhaps one is playing with words. The budget must already be disaggregated if the Secretary of State for Wales is one of the three Ministers who negotiate with the Treasury on the total Forestry Commission budget. The Welsh Office must know what part of that relates to Wales, otherwise there would be nothing to negotiate. There is no need to disaggregate the budget because it is already disaggregated.
      Mr. Ron Davies: Certain elements of the Forestry Commission's operation may or may not relate directly to Wales. That matter will have to be discussed. Indeed, it is the basis of current discussions. I cannot give my right

      721
      hon. Friend a precise figure, because we have not yet arrived at the appropriate adjustments that need to be made.
      I shall try to help the Committee by making it clear that, during the current financial year, the Forestry Commission expects to spend £27 million in Wales and generate income of £29 million. In addition, there is the appropriate Welsh share of Great Britain expenditure and income, which has to be calculated. The Welsh share of net GB expenditure is nearly £30 million.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: In effect, the budget is £27 million-plus. That is the figure about which—possibly—there is some doubt, although the Welsh figure is fairly clear. Will the "plus" figure also go to the Welsh assembly, which will decide whether to hand it back to the Forestry Commission? In effect, the Welsh assembly could pocket the GB figure. Is that what my right hon. Friend is saying?
      Mr. Ron Davies: That is the effect of it, yes. My right hon. Friend says that the Welsh assembly could pocket the money, but it could not do so and simply walk away. As he knows, the money will be in addition to the block, and the assembly will then have to decide its spending priorities. It will be for the assembly to decide whether forestry is a higher or lower priority and whether the programmes will vary from year to year.
      Mr. Denzil Davies: I do not want to pursue the point, but I find it rather bizarre that the £3 million, being a "GB" or British figure, will be handed over to the Welsh assembly. No doubt the assembly will do its job properly and not abuse its position, but this point highlights some of the difficulties in dealing with a Great Britain body that is based in Scotland and which will be answerable, in part to the Scottish Parliament, in part to a Minister in England and in part to the assembly in Wales. One can only hope that matters will work out all right.
      Mr. Oliver Letwin: After that fascinating exchange about the financial side, I wish to raise what I suspect the Secretary of State will describe as a legalistic point, but one that is of considerable interest to Opposition Members, as it is part of a general pattern. Incidentally, I am still waiting for the Secretary of State to write to me about the errors that he made during our previous Committee sitting.
      Will the Secretary of State, either now or when he winds up the debate, tell us whether the order-making power given in paragraph 1(1) of the new schedule is one that could, at least in theory, be transferred to the Welsh assembly through a transfer of functions order or a subsequent version thereof? If so, is it true that if that were to happen—even if it is not the current Government's policy—the Welsh assembly would itself have the ability to make orders in respect of the Forestry Commission? If so, how would that relate to the powers of the Scottish Parliament in respect of the Forestry Commission and to the activities of the UK Parliament?
      Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I welcome the new clause, the new schedule and the Government amendments, because it seems to me that one could not fail to devolve forestry
      722
      to the Welsh assembly. It would have been a great mistake had forestry and the funding responsibility for it not been devolved.
      Mr. Evans indicated dissent.
      Mr. Morgan: I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—I take it that he does not believe that forestry should be devolved in the way proposed in the new clause. Because of forestry's intimate relationship with agriculture and rural life generally and because of its impact on the sustainability of rural life, responsibility for dealing with agriculture, forestry, tourism and other aspects of rural life should be devolved to the assembly, so that those matters can be dealt with according to the way in which the assembly sets democratic priorities.
      My first point relates to the one raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). It would be useful to know when the disaggregation exercise will be completed. I do not know whether it will be done before the Bill goes to another place, or whether it will be carried out in connection with proceedings in another place, but, like my right hon. Friend, I should like to see the figures. The Committee should know what the present funding position is in respect of the Forestry Commission's various responsibilities, both those that are clearly a Wales responsibility and those that are the Wales share of the wider United Kingdom or Great Britain responsibility.
      That is because of the switch taking place in the Forestry Commission's work and within forestry generally—from the giant monocultural plantations that formed the basis of the commission's work for 60 or 70 years, to the microforestry work that it increasingly emphasises nowadays. That change of emphasis is designed to achieve greater sustainability and to assist farmers to diversify from, for example, sheep farming in the uplands to being able to harvest a proportion of each year's growth in hardwood forests.
      The switch from big monocultural plantations to the harvesting of natural growth in small coppices—a switch, therefore, from softwoods to hardwoods—is important, and requires a totally different approach not only to funding, but from Forestry Commission officers, in terms of the intimacy and local control that they need in working with farmers, landowners, local conservation groups and community forestry groups, for example.
      We should also consider the job consequences of that switch and the number of jobs that can be created by harvesting only the natural growth of local hardwoods. If those woods are fed—through local sawmills or even, as I have seen in hardwood forests in south Wales, mobile sawmills—into furniture and similar industries, a massive number of jobs could be created in rural areas, to replace some of the jobs that are threatened in upland farming and other rural occupations.
      Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say what the implications of the switch from soft to hardwoods—and from the big to the small scale—will be for the funding questions to which he referred and the disaggregation exercise? We all hope that that exercise will be finalised as soon as possible, so that, as has been said so many times in this interesting micro-debate, we have the information that we need.
      Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)

      723
      because, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, what happens to forestry is an important part of devolution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) properly drew to the Committee's attention the difficulties that could arise. The Forestry Commission is a unique body that is, by and large, answerable for policy to the House of Commons through the Secretary of State for Scotland, as it is based in Scotland. By establishing a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh assembly, we shall create an asymmetrical structure, so we need to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements in Wales, just as our colleagues in Scotland will have to make appropriate arrangements there.
      I believe that the new clause, the new schedule and the amendments will enable us to have the best of all worlds. We shall retain the overall advantage of the Forestry Commission's status as a Great Britain body, but there will be an opportunity for greater flexibility to reflect the priorities in Scotland and Wales.
      In response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, it is likely that the new financial arrangements will apply from 1 April 2000, so we have some way to go before they are finalised.
      Mr. Dalyell: I think that there is a real difficulty. Some of us have had discussions of a fairly confidential nature—no one wants to be embarrassed, and I am honestly not out to make trouble—and we know that there are real difficulties from the Edinburgh perspective about how the arrangements will work. Will the Forestry Commission put a candid paper into the Library to make public, before Report, its view on these difficult technical questions about investment and other aspects of its work?
      Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend will have to take up that question, if he feels it appropriate, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the lead Minister on these matters. We need not make too much of this, as the functions of the Forestry Commission will not change, and the powers that I currently have to influence those functions will be transferred to the assembly. After devolution, the Scottish Parliament may want to exercise its powers of primary legislation to bring about more fundamental changes, but we cannot properly address that in our consideration of the Wales Bill. My hon. Friend should pursue his concerns elsewhere, not in this forum—although he should not for a moment take that to mean that I am encouraging him to pursue my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on the matter.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West rightly referred to the changing emphasis of the Forestry Commission, with its shift from a monoculture of softwoods to more varied hardwood production and the introduction of more small-scale enterprises. I strongly endorse those policies. It would be for the assembly to discuss with the commission the policies that should be pursued. The assembly could influence those policies by direct discussion with the commission and, in extremis, by exercising jointly the powers of direction that I currently hold. By its ability to fund the commission, it could ensure that its priorities were properly adopted.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Davies: I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, if he will first let me deal with the points that have already been made. I was trying to wind up the debate, not the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Shepherd: The Secretary of State is not winding me up.
      Mr. Davies: I am glad to hear that.
      The hon. Member for Ribble Valley spoke about the functions of the Forestry Commission. The new clause and our other changes will not affect those functions. As I have explained, an order under schedule 1(1) will provide for the commission's functions to be exercised separately, and differently, in Wales, but the functions themselves will remain. The policies that the commission follows in Wales will have to be discussed with the assembly. The funding that the assembly provides will reflect its priorities.
      Mr. Shepherd: Am I correct in understanding that the assembly can, if it deems it appropriate, reduce the block grant from £27 million or £30 million to £20 million, for instance, so that the Forestry Commission's objectives, which were the basis of the original grant, could be frustrated by a cut decided on by the assembly?
      Mr. Davies: I would have given the hon. Gentleman a far more robust response if he had asked whether the assembly could choose to reorder its priorities and increase the amount available to the Forestry Commission. He would have been entirely correct in that suggestion. That is the essence of devolution. In pursuance of policies to support and rebuild the countryside—we are dealing as best we can with a terrible crisis created by the legacy of 18 years of neglect—it may well be that the assembly will want to devote more money to forestry. If that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking, the answer is yes. The assembly will be able to vary the amount going to forestry.
      Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State said that the Government wanted to do as much for the countryside as they possibly could. Was he on the march yesterday?
      Mr. Davies: My Sunday arrangements are a matter for me. I do not propose to tell the Committee, because it may be that I was doing far more interesting things than coming to London to demonstrate on behalf of the countryside. The hon. Gentleman will know that I am a country man: I was born and have lived all my life in the countryside. I venture to suggest that, if the Government of the day had listened to the warnings that I and others gave them as far back as 1989 about bovine spongiform encephalopathy, for example, they would not have got into such a dreadful mess and wasted £3.5 billion of public money.
      I have a good understanding of the countryside dimension. I believe that it is important that we follow a holistic approach, and I have no doubt whatever that the

      725
      Welsh assembly will pull together the strands that are necessary to ensure that we have a vigorous policy to address the problems of the countryside.
      The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) raised a specific point. I was unaware of the fact that he had raised matters earlier to which I have not yet responded, but I assure him that I shall make inquiries and, if my officials have been negligent, I shall certainly not be negligent myself. The hon. Gentleman will understand that. If my officials have been negligent in giving him a precise answer, I shall remonstrate with them whole-heartedly. I have no doubt that as I speak scribes are looking back at each and every intervention by the hon. Gentleman in the debate and ensuring that he receives a reply. Of course, he is correct that if I fail to provide him with satisfaction, that is my responsibility, not my civil servants'. However, they will know what fate will befall them if they put me in that unfortunate predicament.
      The order-making power in new schedule 1 could not be transferred to the assembly because, under clause 23(3), only functions in part VI of the Bill can be transferred. As the power would, in all likelihood, be used only once to set up the arrangements that I have described for forestry in Wales, there would be no need for such a transfer.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 38

      SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
      '.—(1) The Assembly shall make a scheme setting out its proposals for securing that its functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that sustainable development should be promoted.

      (2) The Assembly shall keep the scheme under review and in the year following each ordinary election shall consider whether it should be remade or revised.

      (3) The Assembly may not delegate the function of making, or remaking or revising, the scheme to—

      (a) a committee of the Assembly, or

      (b) a member of the Assembly's staff.

      (4) The Assembly shall publish the scheme when first made and whenever subsequently remade and, if the scheme is revised without being remade, shall publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as it considers appropriate).

      (5) The Assembly shall consult such persons or bodies as it considers appropriate before making, remaking or revising the scheme.

      (6) After each financial year of the Assembly, the Assembly shall publish a report of how its proposals as set out in the scheme were implemented in that financial year.'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

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

      New clause 29

        ABOLITION OF RESIDUARY BODY FOR WALES
        `.—(1) Paragraph 18 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 (provisions for winding up of Residuary Body for Wales) is amended as follows.

        (2) In sub-paragraph (2) (meaning of "the transitional period" within which the Residuary Body must try to complete its work and at the end of which it is to be wound up), for "period of five years
        726
        beginning with the establishment of the Residuary Body" substitute "period beginning with the establishment of the Residuary Body and ending with 31st March 1999".

        (3) Omit—

        (a) in sub—paragraph (3), "Subject to sub—paragraph (4),", and

        (b) sub—paragraph (4),

        (under which the Secretary of State may specify a period longer than the transitional period as the period at the end of which the Residuary Body is to be wound up).

        (4) For sub—paragraphs (5) to (7) (duty of Residuary Body to submit scheme for its winding up and to make arrangements for transfers etc. and power of Secretary of State to make orders) substitute—

        "(5) The Residuary Body shall, before the end of the period of three months beginning with the day on which the Government of Wales Act 1998 is passed, submit to the Secretary of State a scheme for the winding up of the Residuary Body.

        (6) The scheme shall include in relation to the Residuary Body's remaining functions, property, rights and liabilities—

        (a) a statement of arrangements made by the Residuary Body for their transfer by the Residuary Body to another body or bodies,

        (b) proposals for their transfer by the Secretary of State to another body or bodies, or

        (c) such a statement in relation to some of them and such proposals in relation to the rest.

        (7) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for giving effect to the scheme (with or without modifications) and for the transfer of functions, property, rights and liabilities of the Residuary Body to another body or bodies (whether or not as proposed in the scheme).".'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 515.
        Mr. Davies: The White Paper made clear the intention to wind up the Residuary Body for Wales before 2000. The view was taken that the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 provided the necessary legal framework to effect the wind-up before the assembly was established. However, further consideration has concluded that the powers in the 1994 Act do not allow the certainty that will be necessary to wind up the residuary body in the time scale necessary. The issue is not a point of controversy between the Government and the Opposition, and new clause 29 and Government amendment No. 515 are intended to provide the necessary certainty.
        From the outset, I wish to make it clear that the residuary body and the local authorities in Wales agree that an early wind-up is desirable. Following the local government reorganisation of 1996, the residuary body inherited 21 properties, of which only six remain to be disposed of. The residuary body hopes to sell them in the coming months, although there is no guarantee that that will happen. None the less, new clause 29 and Government amendment No. 515 are designed to ensure that the residuary body can be wound up by 1 April 1999, irrespective of whether it still has any unresolved property disposals.

        727
        Furthermore, the residuary body will be required to submit a wind-up scheme that includes proposals for the subsequent transfer of property within three months of the Bill being enacted. Local authorities will be consulted on the residuary body's draft scheme before any wind-up order is made. The new clause does not stipulate how, at the wind-up, property vested in the residuary body should be disposed of, and we await its proposals in the wind-up plan on whether the properties, if unsold, should be transferred to an appropriate local authority by agreement or, in the absence of such agreement, by order.
        Mr. Evans: As the Secretary of State says, the new clause is not controversial. He referred to the six properties that will remain in the hands of the residuary body. Is there any controversy about any of those six properties? Does he expect any problems with their sale or transfer to local authorities?
        The Secretary of State said that he had talked with the local authorities and found that they were keen for the residuary body to be wound up early. In his discussions, did he encounter any reservations about the possibility of the residuary body being wound up? Has he had talks about the residuary body—gosh, that is difficult to say; the sooner it is wound up, the better—and, if so, what representations have been made to him about the early winding up?
        Mr. Davies: I have had no talks with the residuary body, but my officials have and, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question directly, I am given to understand that both local government and the residuary body are anxious for the residuary body to be wound up.
        The hon. Gentleman asked whether any problem attached to the remaining properties. I hesitate, when talking about property in Wales, to give him a categorical statement that there is no unresolved problem, but he asked specifically about the six properties that remain. They are the staff club at Westgate street in Cardiff; Greyfriars house and offices, Cardiff—which I understand are the subject of some offers at the moment; Nos. 3 to 5 Goring road, Llanelli; unit 7, Castle park, Flint; phase IV of county hall, Mold; and No. 3 High street, Caernarfon.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New clause 28

        DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
        '. A document purporting to be—

        (a) duly executed under the seal of the Assembly, or

        (b) signed on behalf of the Assembly,

        shall be received in evidence and shall, unless the contrary is proved, be taken to be so executed or signed.'—[Mr. Ron Davies.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Ron Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        As a body corporate, under common law the assembly will automatically be entitled to a seal. The new clause relates to the significance that courts attach to documents
        728
        submitted in evidence and bearing the assembly's seal. Such documents are to be regarded as properly made unless the contrary is proved. There have been many similar clauses in recent legislation, including equivalent clauses in the Welsh Language Act 1993 and the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New clause 7

        PRIVATE AND LOCAL LEGISLATION
        '( ) The Assembly may promote or oppose private or local legislation relating to Wales.'.—[Mr. Wigley.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause relates to the issue of private legislation and is, to some extent, a probing new clause, if that term may be used. Clarification is needed on several questions regarding private Bills—I emphasise that we are talking about private Bills, not private Members' Bills.
        I imagine that the answer to the first question will be yes. Does the assembly, as a geographically defined body within the United Kingdom, have the right to promote private Bills, as would a local authority or any other body, and the right to oppose private Bills?
        The second question is: can Wales, as a unit, be considered as an area for which it is appropriate to initiate private Bills—can the assembly initiate private Bills that apply to the whole of Wales but which would need to pass through the private Bill mechanisms in the House?
        The third aspect of the new clause concerns the extent to which the assembly may deal with private Bills. In the fairly recent past, fairly controversial private Bills from Wales have taken hours and hours on the Floor of the House. The Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 is a perfect example of legislation that should be dealt with in the assembly instead of swallowing time on the Floor of the House of Commons.
        There are less controversial examples—such as the Porthmadog harbour revision order that affects part of my constituency. From time to time, all hon. Members become involved with such legislation. The hon. Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) is in the Chamber. A few years ago, a Bangor Market Bill passed through the House by way of the private Bill procedure—and no doubt another resembling it will do so again in future.
        4.45 pm
        Such matters need not be dealt with in the House of Commons; it should be possible to deal with them in the assembly. However, the Houses of Parliament have a very tight procedure for dealing with private Bills and I am not convinced that the Government intend to make it easier for all that procedure to take place in the assembly.
        There is some parallel with the order-making facility that is within the assembly's purview. The fact that the assembly may pass secondary legislation gives it a fair amount of power. If the Government are worried about the amount of power that may be transferred and about the need for checks and balances on the use of that

        729
        power, I argue that it is no more radical to transfer to the assembly the power to deal with private Bills than to give it order-making powers because, as we heard earlier in the Committee, the power to pass secondary legislation is substantial.
        Those are the three aspects of the new clause. We do not intend its wording to be wide enough to cover all three adequately. Our intention is to discover what will be the role of the assembly when dealing with private legislation and to express the hope that it will be possible to develop the assembly into—if it is not so from the start—a body that can deal entirely with these matters. The time of the House of Commons should not be used on matters that are essentially local and should be dealt with by people from Wales, in Wales.
        Mr. Letwin: I shall briefly ask the Secretary of State a question that is in line with the probing new clause. In the context of the developing argument about the legal status of the National Assembly for Wales, it would be interesting to know whether the Secretary of State believes that, in the absence of such a new clause—although the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) may disagree with me, I think it likely that the Government will not accept it—the vires exist for the assembly to promote private legislation.
        When I inquired, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office told me that any individual in the United Kingdom can promote a private Bill without having any special rights, duties or powers. Is the National Assembly for Wales, in that sense, a legal person? Does it have, therefore, the right to promote a private Bill and, if so, what would be the scope of that right and which moneys would it deploy in its promotion?
        Would the assembly have the right, in promoting such a Bill, to use moneys that the Secretary of State had allocated to it for its general purposes? If so, would there be any constraint on that, or might the assembly spend 100 per cent. of its budget on the promotion of one private Bill?
        Finally, to illustrate why I ask the extreme and apparently ludicrous question about the 100 per cent., if the nature of the private Bill in question were very special—if it were one which the right hon. Member for Caernarfon and his colleagues might want to be promoted, relating to the governance of Wales—would it be debarred by some means, or would it have to be debarred only by the ordinary processes of the House in considering private Bills?
        Mr. Ron Davies: I thank the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for opening the debate and I am pleased to tell him that the Government accept the broad principle of new clause 7. I hope that we will return at a later stage with an appropriate new clause because, as he suggested, the wording of his new clause is somewhat defective.
        The Welsh Office has previously promoted at Westminster legislation that would have been local legislation if it had not been promoted by the Government; examples are the Conwy Tunnel (Supplementary Powers) Act 1983, the Cardiff Bay Barrage Act 1993 and possibly the Caldey Island Act 1990.
        730
        We do not want there to be any doubt about the power of the assembly to promote or oppose essentially local legislation, as the Secretary of State for Wales has done in the past. I cannot give the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) a direct answer to his question at this moment, but it is because we want to avoid doubt that the Government are minded to accept the thrust of the new clause 7.
        The right hon. Member for Caernarfon asked whether Wales would be regarded as an acceptable geographical entity for the purposes of promoting private legislation. The answer is yes, I understand that that would be accepted.
        Acceptance of the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's case would not confer on the assembly the power to make primary legislation. The assembly could promote only a private Bill in Parliament.
        The Government are considering further the precise terms of their new clause. For instance, it may be desirable to require a decision to promote or oppose local legislation to be supported by more than a simple majority of the assembly. We are looking into such matters and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to make representations during this brief debate or subsequently, I shall listen carefully to them.
        We must also consider the interaction with the Transport and Works Act 1992. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the many hours of happy debate that the House had on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. Those proceedings have largely been overtaken by the Transport and Works Act 1992. We must ensure that the assembly could not promote an order for development under that Act and approve it itself. We will ensure that the new clause is technically correct in that respect.
        In view of the undertakings that I have given, I hope that at the appropriate time the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State and I am glad to have had positive responses from him on two of the matters that I raised. At the end of his remarks, he touched upon, but did not clarify, the third.
        The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that the assembly is a developing body. To what extent is it possible—and to what extent is the possibility constrained—for the assembly to develop into a body that not only promotes Bills, but can dispose of them? For example, local authorities in Wales could propose their private Bills to the assembly if the Government deemed that to be appropriate. The order-making facility in the Bill—in clauses 22 and 141, I think—may indeed allow that to happen.
        I realise that there must be checks and balances in the process of private legislation, that there may be private interests that need to be balanced and that there is a role for the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons. None the less, it may well be that the assembly could handle some aspects of private legislation from within Wales—that from local authorities, for example—without their needing to come through to Westminster. What is the Government's thinking on that?
        Mr. Davies: We shall have to consider the matter carefully before we table the new clause that the right

        731
        hon. Gentleman seeks. The problem is that private legislation is effectively primary legislation. I made it clear that we cannot through this mechanism confer on the assembly the power to make primary legislation. I said earlier that such a provision would have to be made by the promotion of a private Bill in this Parliament.
        I understand that it would be largely a matter for the House authorities to decide whether a private Bill was an appropriate private Bill or whether it exceeded the provisions of this place for the handling of private legislation. I regret that I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise answer on that point.
        We must examine closely the operation of the Transport and Works Act 1992. The assembly cannot use order-making powers under that Act to create de facto primary legislation. That is not the purpose of the Act and we will have to ensure that our new clause takes that into account.
        The hon. Member for West Dorset asked a fair question and I tried earlier to answer it. He asked whether the absence of new clause 7 would mean that the assembly would not have the power to promote private legislation. The assembly is a creature of statute and is given certain powers. That particular power is not conferred by the Bill, although there may be arguments about whether, de facto, the assembly could decide to do that. The Government have accepted the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon to avoid doubt.
        Once we have tabled our own new clause, there will be no doubt and the assembly will have the power to promote primary legislation. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about whether that would be in order in the present circumstances is that there is an element of doubt. Instead of prolonged debates about whether that can or cannot happen, the Government have decided to clarify the position by tabling their own new clause.
        Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. His surprising response to the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) invalidates part of my question, as the problem will not arise.
        I repeat the second part of my question. Under the Government's version of the right hon. Gentleman's new clause, will there be any limits on the expenditure that the assembly will be able to incur in promoting private legislation?
        Mr. Davies: I am trying to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, but we do not have the new clause written yet, so I cannot tell him whether there will be such limits. Perhaps I can give him a steer. I do not think that it would be appropriate for us to lay down financial limits that should apply to the assembly in the exercise of its powers. The purpose of the Bill is to create the assembly and give it substantial powers to decide its own priorities. A pretty good case would have to be put to me for circumscribing the powers with a financial limit.
        Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his positive response to at least part of the thrust
        732
        of my new clause. I hope that the Government's new clause will be ready for our consideration, otherwise we shall have to look to the House of Lords to deal with it and we shall have a further opportunity to consider the matter when the Bill returns to this House.
        I put it to the Secretary of State that given that there is a facility in the Bill to amend primary legislation by order in certain restricted areas—the Henry VIII powers, as they are fondly known, and we are all growing more knowledgeable about what Henry VIII could and could not do—
        Mr. Ancram: On legislation.
        Mr. Wigley: Of course. I would not for a moment suggest that heads should be rolling around the Chamber. Given that those powers exist, if that principle is applied to private Bills, as it may be applied to certain limited areas of public Bills, it might be a way of ensuring that the assembly can deal with certain matters without having to take up the time of Parliament on them. A range of issues arise and it is ridiculous that they become centralised to Westminster and take up the time of the House of Commons.
        In drawing up the new clause, the Government may bear that in mind and give the assembly the flexibility to get on with scrutinising and deciding on some local matters, without every single one having to come through Westminster. That would accord with the general tenor of the Secretary of State's approach to other aspects of the Bill. I hope that the Government will move in that direction at the appropriate time.
        Mr. Ron Davies: I shall reflect on the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. The Henry VIII powers to which he refers apply only to specified legislation that is stipulated in the Bill. I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's comments and, on the basis of our dialogue, I hope that he will withdraw his new clause and give the Government the opportunity to reflect on his case.
        Mr. Wigley: I intend to do precisely that. We look forward to seeing the wording of the amendment or new clause that the Government will propose at the appropriate time. No doubt we shall return to our discussion of the detailed questions then.
        Although the Henry VIII powers apply to specific legislation, the powers of clause 141 are fairly broad with regard to existing legislation to the extent that they impact on certain matters dealt with in the Bill. Flexibility along those lines would be helpful not only to the assembly but to successive Governments in this place. The ultimate control of granting an order to facilitate matters may rest with Governments in Westminster. There is no question of the assembly's marching away with those powers, but it should have the flexibility to ensure that matters are dealt with reasonably in Wales rather than centralised in Westminster. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
        The First Deputy Chairman: We now come to new clause 11. Who will move it?

      New clause 11

        POWER TO CONDUCT REFERENDA
        '.—The Assembly may conduct a referendum in Wales on any matter affecting Wales:.[Mr. Dafis.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        5 pm
        Mr. Dafis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Thank you for your patience, Mr. Martin. This new clause concerns the power of the assembly to hold referendums. I want to probe whether the assembly will have that power—I certainly believe that it should and I believe that the absence of primary legislative powers strengthens our case.
        The power exists already at varying levels of government. Parliament has the power to hold a referendum after it has passed an Act specifically for that purpose. The Scottish Parliament will also be able to do that as it will have primary legislative powers. At the bottom level of government, schedule 12, part IV of the Local Government Act 1972 confers the power to hold community polls on any question to be decided at a community meeting if the chair of the meeting consents and if the poll is demanded by at least 10 local government electors present at the meeting, or by at least a third of local government electors present at the meeting. That power exists at the basis of government at the community level.
        The power of unitary or county councils to hold referendums is more ambiguous. However, section 141 of the 1972 Act allows those bodies to conduct an investigation and collect information concerning the county or any part of it. I am told that that could involve holding a countywide poll in certain circumstances. A parallel power in Scotland enabled Strathclyde regional council to conduct a referendum in March 1994 on the Government's proposals for the water industry in Scotland. That referendum was influential in the debate about whether the Scottish water industry should be privatised.
        I believe that the national assembly should be given this power unambiguously—although it might not use it and, if it did, it would be used sparingly. It could be particularly useful in the kind of circumstances that arose in Scotland—if a future Government tried to impose upon Wales a set of policies that were unacceptable to Wales, which is not unheard of in Welsh history. For example, a future Government might wish to impose selection in the school system. We are currently debating education legislation that does that to a limited degree: it allows schools to apply to select pupils for certain subjects on the basis of aptitude. A future Government might introduce far more sweeping selection proposals.
        If the national assembly could not prevent the introduction of such policies through secondary legislation—it might not be able to do that because of the way in which the legislation is designed—it might express its objections. Although the Government should take the assembly's views into account, they might decide to override them. The Secretary of State of the day could claim to have public opinion on his or her side—it would not be the first time that politicians have claimed to speak
        734
        for the people; they have an unpleasant tendency to do that. Even my colleagues are sometimes guilty of claiming to speak for the community at large.
        If a Secretary of State did that, a referendum would settle the argument by revealing the people's views. It would be a powerful tool for the assembly in establishing that it had a democratic mandate beyond that which it was given initially through the electoral process. I believe that the assembly should have that kind of power.
        Mr. Evans: I can understand why the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) was rather reluctant to move new clause 11—particularly in light of what happened the last time there was a referendum in Wales. I am surprised and shocked that the hon. Gentleman is even considering using the referendum process as a device for testing public opinion. The last experience was not a tremendous or a ringing success, with only 50.1 per cent. of electors voting in that referendum.
        The hon. Gentleman has said that new clause 11 is probing and is designed to determine whether the assembly will be able to instruct that a referendum be held in Wales. In light of all the evidence that the hon. Gentleman produced in the local sphere, I suspect that the assembly will have that power. It will be interesting to see whether the Welsh assembly will be able to instruct that a referendum be held in Wales on a constitutional question. Will the Secretary of State respond to that issue? Does he believe that the assembly will have the power to hold a referendum in any event?
        The hon. Gentleman said that he thought that the power would be used sparingly—I suspect that that is because referendums are very expensive. We must also consider voter fatigue and the fact that electors do not like being asked to vote constantly. Under devolution, we are establishing an assembly with 60 politicians who will represent Welsh constituencies and regions. They will consider carefully events in Wales and will speak on behalf of Wales in that body. A referendum would devolve power away from the assembly to individuals. I suspect that the proposal is a product of new Plaid Cymru or Plaid Cymru Newydd—I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are having problems deciding what to call their party.
        If the assembly has the power to instruct that referendums be held, could Parliament instruct that those referendums be conducted following certain guidelines? For instance, Newport council has been criticised for spending £8,000 of taxpayers' money during the Welsh devolution referendum campaign on a leaflet publicising the yes vote. The Government have claimed that no taxpayers' money will be used to promote a particular side in a referendum campaign. However, I have reservations about copies of the White Paper that were sent to every letterbox in Wales, and I suspect that taxpayers' money was used to promote that case. Local authorities should not have the power to issue propaganda that is paid for with taxpayers' money from a very limited budget and delivered to every house in the area. It should be established at the outset that that should not occur.
        Perhaps referendums will be used to sort out problems between the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Secretary of the assembly, both of whom might say that they speak on behalf of Wales. If they are not one and the

        735
        same person—they might be because of Cabinet responsibility—a referendum might be used as a device, whereby the First Secretary will say, "I am speaking for Wales, and I shall hold a referendum to prove that that is the case," against the policy of the Government of the day.
        Referendums might also be used to trample the wishes of minorities. We saw a fine example yesterday with the march through London, in which the Secretary of State for Wales did not take part; he said that he had better things to do on a Sunday than to march with rural people. Will minorities be protected to ensure that they are not trampled as a result of the wishes of the majority on country pursuits, including angling? Backed by a referendum, the majority might say that it should not take place in Wales.
        Referendums on Sunday closing used to be held regularly in parts of Wales. I think that only one part of Wales is dry on a Sunday, but I might be wrong. One area held out rigidly. Perhaps referendums will be held in parts of Wales. If the previous referendum in Wales proved anything, it was that 11 areas of Wales were in favour of devolution and 11 areas were against.
        The other important aspect is whether the assembly will have direct tax-raising powers. We know from earlier debates in Committee that the Liberal Democrats are not in favour of such a referendum. In fact, they tabled an amendment and said that they were not interested in another referendum in Wales. They thought that the assembly would be sensible enough to know when it was appropriate to use its tax-raising powers, without consulting the Welsh people. That is completely wrong.
        Scotland held a referendum on a Parliament and on whether it should have tax-varying powers. The electorate chose to have a Parliament and, to a lesser extent, but with a majority, for it to have such powers. In Wales, the referendum was on the establishment of an assembly without any tax-raising powers whatever. It would be completely wrong not to have a referendum to establish whether it should. I give a commitment to the Secretary of State and to the people of Wales that under no circumstances would tax-raising powers ever be introduced for an assembly in Wales by a future Conservative Government without the Welsh people stating that that is exactly what they wish.
        Mr. Richard Livsey: I apologise for my absence at the start of the debate. My train should have arrived at 2.20 pm, but because of the railways policy of the previous Government—now the official Opposition—it arrived at 4.45 pm, so I deserve an official apology from them. This is an extraordinary state of affairs.
        The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not make in his recycled speech what I would describe as substantial points.
        Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. I seem to remember—he belongs to the same profession as me—being reminded during the early days of my career, "You shall take the train you need before the train you need to get to the court on time."
        Mr. Livsey: I shall not be diverted. The fact that the train was one and a half hours late speaks for itself.
        736
        The new clause is an important aspect of the possibility of giving the assembly powers that could be useful. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley referred to the Sunday closing referendums that we used to have in Wales. We recognise that the clause on referendums applies only to secondary legislation; the assembly does not have the ability to make primary legislation. The assembly might seek a view on primary legislation to represent to Parliament. Parliament might wish to grant tax-varying powers to the assembly if that were the wish of the people of Wales. Westminster might enact primary legislation for that to occur. Is such a referendum possible?
        What provision is there to implement legislation that follows a referendum? If the Welsh voted overwhelmingly in favour of tax-varying powers, would Westminster have any power to implement such legislation?
        5.15 pm
        There are other areas where referendums would be of great use in Wales. Perhaps county councils—particularly in the present climate with regard to the countryside—could be enabled to expand their smallholding schemes. It might involve enabling county councils to get hold of more capital to carry out such a policy. Would such a referendum be possible within a county in Wales, supported by the assembly? There are many issues where referendums could be useful. I, too, was on the countryside march yesterday, and proud of it.
        Mr. Letwin: I shall, if I may, intrude a little further on the Secretary of State's good will and press slightly further the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who asked whether the Welsh assembly would have the power to conduct referendums in the absence of the new clause.
        I draw the Secretary of State's attention to clause 39, in which we are told that the assembly may do anything that is calculated to facilitate or is
        "conducive or incidental to the exercise of any of its functions."
        Does clause 39 give the assembly the power to hold referendums? If it does not, it would be extremely interesting to know whether that is because of the disconnection between a referendum and the functions of the assembly, or whether it is because the holding of a referendum could not be regarded as calculated to facilitate such functions. In other words, is the problem that a referendum might not be connected with the functions allocated in the Bill? Or could a referendum be construed as not facilitating those functions? If the answer is the second rather than the first, there could be forms of referendum that would be legitimate under the Bill as drafted, whereas other forms might not be. It would help the Committee to know, as we have not enlarged sufficiently in Committee on the general scope of the powers in clause 39.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: I speak in opposition to the new clause. It is extraordinarily vague and has the potential for great confusion, disruption and mischief-making. It is not circumscribed in any way. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful for the robust defence of the Government's position, but I should tell

        737
        my hon. Friend that our position is flexible on this matter. He should not dig a deep hole for me, which I might find it difficult to get out of.
        Mr. Thomas: If my right hon. Friend had contained himself, I would have gone on to enlighten him, by explaining why I regard the new clause, as drafted, to be extraordinarily vague. It refers simply to an ability for the assembly to
        "conduct a referendum … on any matter affecting Wales."
        That ability is not circumscribed and is not confined to secondary legislation within the areas of government devolved to the assembly. This is an extraordinary omission.
        As the new clause stands, it raises several crucial questions. The clause makes no reference to what rules should apply in relation to how the referendums should be conducted or to who will pay for them. It fails to take account of the important issue that the raison d'être for an assembly is to give Wales an elected voice through that assembly and through its elected representatives. Any attempt to use such a device as is proposed too speedily would, in my view, undermine the principle behind the assembly. That is why I object to the new clause.
        Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Thomas: I have finished speaking.
        Mr. Ron Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) for making, as he normally does, a forthright and vigorous defence of the Government's position. It was a particularly well-considered speech.
        I wish to express my disappointment. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had learned something over the past couple of weeks. For the first one and a half hours of the debate the hon. Gentleman was the model of circumspection—he was considered and well researched and it was a pleasure to listen to him—but then he degenerated into his old diatribe, which we have heard time after time. At the end of it, I was not sure whether he was speaking in favour of the new clause or against it.
        It is worth reminding the Committee that new clause 11 is very brief. It reads:
        "The Assembly may conduct a referendum in Wales on any matter affecting Wales."
        The contribution of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was astonishing. He talked about fox hunting, local councils, Parliament instructing the assembly and taxing powers. I am rather surprised that he did not suggest that we should have a referendum on the right to roam. If anyone wants the right to roam enshrined in legislation, it would seem to be the hon. Gentleman, having roamed all over the place. He made no reference to the new clause.
        I wish to put one point to the hon. Gentleman forcefully. He reverted to type and talked about the referendum of 18 September, which the people of Wales won and which embarked us on this course of legislation. It was, of course, a consultative referendum. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter, let me remind him that the House of Commons voted by a majority of
        738
        231 on Second Reading to endorse the proposed legislation. That is what has given the present process of legislation real authority. We had an advisory referendum and the Bill has the vigorous, whole-hearted and full endorsement of the House of Commons.
        I hope that the hon. Gentleman will put aside, as he managed to do for the first one and a half hours this evening, all his worst prejudices against the people of Wales. I hope that he will accept—I know that the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) would be the first to do so—and acknowledge how reasonable the Government are on these matters, and how flexible and emollient we are when the Opposition make any reasonable suggestion, whether it comes from the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru or even the Conservatives. If there is a shred of substance or rationality in proposed amendments, I am prepared to consider them.
        I hope that the right hon. Member for Devizes will persuade his hon. Friend to acknowledge that the Government are exercising discretion and operating in the most delicate way possible in embarking on this process of legislation.
        Mr. Evans: That is, of course, entirely in character with the way in which the Secretary of State conducts himself in the House of Commons. I was trying to be as reasonable as I possibly could in speaking to the new clause. However, I believe that the assembly would have the power itself to conduct a referendum. That is why I asked several questions, especially on constitutional matters. I am merely stating—it is a clear fact, irrespective of how we wish to rewrite history—that the most recent referendum held in Wales was not a great success, with only 50 per cent. of the people turning out.
        Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman may believe that the Bill empowers the assembly. He will forgive me if I choose to rely on advice other than that which comes from the Opposition Dispatch Box, from the hon. Gentleman.
        The hon. Gentleman's point was taken up by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), whose contribution I shall refer to before I take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who introduced the new clause. I refer the hon. Member for West Dorset to my reply to a previous debate, during which a similar question was asked. The assembly is a creature of statute. Unless power is spelt out in the founding, primary legislation, there must be a question whether that power can be properly exercised. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.
        The hon. Member for West Dorset asked about the general power that exists in clause 39. It may well be that that clause could be used if the referendum being proposed was in pursuance of other powers that the assembly was exercising. There is some doubt whether clause 39 would provide the authority for a referendum to be held, if it were being held on a matter not in pursuance of other powers that the assembly was implementing. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is doubt whether at present the assembly has such power.
        I return to the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I do not want to give a commitment at this stage to return with a Government amendment relating to the new clause. However, the hon. Gentleman has raised a serious issue and I would like to examine further the points raised by the new clause.

        739
        I have a number of concerns about the proposal that is at present before the Committee in the form of the clause. First, the clause does not make clear what electoral rules would apply for any referendum. The Government are determined to ensure that whenever a referendum is held, the rules are laid down clearly by the House of Commons and that they are followed scrupulously by the various electoral officers who are appointed to undertake the task. I want to ensure that any amendment that the Government were minded to bring forward would make clear what electoral rules would apply for any such referendums.
        The referendums that have been held in the United Kingdom on several occasions over the past 25 years have been authorised by an Act of Parliament, as was the case last year, which led to the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997. If the assembly were to have a power to conduct referendums in Wales, it would need to be constructed in such a way that it did riot involve a power to make primary legislation. Paragraph 34 of schedule 12 to the Local Government Act 1972—the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion about community polls in Wales—may be a precedent. That is one of the matters to which I want to give further consideration.
        Finally, any explicit power for the assembly to conduct referendums would have to be limited in some way to its range of responsibilities and make it clear that the assembly would meet the cost of holding them.
        I repeat that I cannot give a commitment—
        Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State has just made the important point that the assembly would not be able to instruct that a referendum be held on an issue involving primary legislation. What would be the position if it were to have an advisory referendum as opposed to one involving primary legislation directly—that is, if it did not have that power anyway—and decided that it wished to have one on the independence of Wales, for instance? Would it be able to do that?
        Mr. Davies: With respect, the hon. Gentleman has missed my point. I was saying that referendums that have been held previously have been the result of primary legislation that has passed through this Parliament. If the assembly were to have a power to conduct a referendum, it would need to be constructed in such a way that it was not seen to be itself exercising a power which was similar to primary legislation. It is the process by which the referendum is authorised that is of concern, and not so much the question that would form the matter for public debate. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.
        Mr. Ancram: Under the Bill as it stands, or under any amendment that the Secretary of State might table, would the Welsh assembly be able to instruct that a referendum be held on whether Wales should become independent or remain within the United Kingdom? Because of the reserved nature of constitutional matters in Scotland, there is genuine doubt about whether the Scottish Parliament would have such a power.
        Mr. Davies: There is no doubt in my mind that the Bill as drafted does not give the assembly authority to hold
        740
        referendums, which is why I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a precise answer, because this is not a Government amendment and I am not proposing such a power.
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Ancram: Will the Secretary of State write to me on the matter?
        Mr. Davies: If I do not table an amendment, I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman. However, if we decided not to table an amendment, it would not be necessary to clarify the position because there would be no opportunity to hold referendums.
        The principle must be that any referendum would have to be properly authorised and on a matter for which the assembly was responsible. If we were to go down that path and the Government were to propose such a power, there should be a debate about the matters on which the assembly should have the authority to hold referendums.
        Mr. Letwin: Earlier, the Secretary of State mentioned the promotion of private Bills. Would any amendment that he tabled give the assembly the right to hold a referendum on its proposed promotion of such a Bill?
        Mr. Davies: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman to enable me to reply to a point that he made in that previous debate. I wrote to him on 26 January and 19 February, giving detailed answers to questions that he had asked. I hope that he will put the record straight and acknowledge that my civil servants and I have been diligent and forthright in answering the questions that he has quite properly asked.
        Mr. Letwin: I referred not to those illuminating letters, for which I am duly grateful and to which we might return on Report, but to Wednesday's debates on the Welsh Development Agency. The Secretary of State said that if he was mistaken in what he was telling me, he would write to me. Subsequent researches have shown that he was mistaken, and I hope that he will write to me.
        Mr. Davies: If I undertook to write to the hon. Gentleman if I was mistaken, I shall do so, but I find such circumstances difficult to conceive. Nevertheless, I shall allow for the possibility and assure the hon. Gentleman that if I have made a promise, I shall keep it.
        The hon. Gentleman should not interpret my remarks as a commitment to table an amendment allowing for referendums to be held. I shall consider such a provision, but I specifically said that I am not giving any commitment. However, he made a fair point: if the assembly were to promote a private Bill, I should have thought that it would want to ensure that there was wide support for the measure. The assembly might decide that there should be a referendum on a private Bill, but that is a matter for the assembly. It is not for me to speculate on how the assembly would use its powers to hold a referendum or to promote private legislation, should it be given them. Such matters will have to be considered some way down the road.

        741
        I repeat that I am not giving a commitment to table a Government amendment. However, I want further to consider those serious questions, and hope that the motion will be withdrawn.
        Mr. Dafis: The debate has been useful and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his responses.
        I must place on record my undying and profound admiration for the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who is exceptionally skilled in flogging a dead horse. I am not sure whether his skills are becoming more or less admirable, but he seems to have an unending capacity in this regard. He also has a remarkable ability for losing track of the substance discussion. My special skill is mixing metaphors, but we shall leave that matter to one side.
        The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) questioned the appropriateness of referendums for making decisions. That is not what the debate is about: the question is whether the National Assembly for Wales should have such powers. Local bodies and bodies with responsibility for national legislation have such powers, so it would be wrong for the assembly to be unable to resort to referendums, should it wish to do so.
        I am glad that the Secretary of State will consider these matters further, and I urge him to do so. I had not envisaged the assembly holding referendums on major constitutional issues. The power should be used sparingly and only when necessary, to ensure that policies that it had advocated were acceptable in Wales and were strengthened by a democratic mandate.
        We have some confidence that the Secretary of State will bring forward a proposal. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 12

        ADVICE FROM UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT STAFF
        '.—(1) A member of the executive committee may request advice from staff of United Kingdom government departments and other public bodies in cases where the member considers that this would assist him in the carrying out of his duties under this Act.

        (2) The Assembly and the Cabinet Office shall draw up a concordat governing arrangements for staff of United Kingdom government departments and other public bodies to respond to requests made under subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Wigley.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Wigley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The new clause deals with the important matter of the right of members of the Executive Committee of the assembly to obtain advice from staff of United Kingdom Government Departments, or other public bodies, on matters that are relevant to their functions. Existing, and particularly proposed, legislation on subjects whose executive and administrative dimensions have been devolved will have implications for Wales. A member of the Executive Committee who is in charge of, for example, education or health in Wales might need advice from UK governmental staff in London who are drawing up legislation that affects Wales.
        Mr. Denzil Davies: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's reference to UK Government Departments.
        742
        He also mentioned education and health. As I understand it, no UK Government Departments will cover education and health in Wales.
        Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman may want to move an amendment on Report to deal with that matter if the new clause is agreed to. As he well knows, legislation dealing with education in Wales will be passed at Westminster, not in our National Assembly for Wales. However, a member of the Executive Committee of the assembly will be responsible for the implementation of such legislation in Wales. Particular circumstances in Wales may bear on the framing, content and implementation of such legislation.
        I accept that the new clause may be defective because it refers to Government Departments, but it is a probing amendment. We are trying to establish whether the right to advice exists. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that such a right exists, or that, if it does not, a provision along the lines of my new clause is needed. If it would better meet the requirements of the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), a new clause could be tabled, worded differently from mine but at least going in the same direction.
        The Bill needs to be clear. Those charged with making decisions in the Cardiff Executive need to know where they stand. The door needs to be open. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for the drawing up of "a concordat governing arrangements" for that approach to be possible. The concordat is necessary, for the simple reason that there may be an Executive in Cardiff of one political persuasion, and a Government in London of another political persuasion.
        Mr. Denzil Davies: That is devolution. The right hon. Gentleman wants devolution and a unitary state at the same time.
        Mr. Wigley: This particular Member of Parliament would he very happy for all the law-making powers to be in our own national assembly in Cardiff, where the problem would not arise. The problem arises because of the split function, and the need to ensure that those in charge of framing legislation have some interface with those who must act on the implications of the legislation. My party would be very happy for the assembly to have the full powers available to the Scottish Parliament to make its own laws on, for instance, education, without having to come to Westminster; but that is not what we are discussing. The new clause tries to deal with the difficulty that may arise because of the split function.
        We need a concordat of some kind, although whether it is enshrined in legislation may be another issue. We need ground rules to ensure that those who, from May 1999 onwards, will be carrying out their new responsibilities in the assembly know exactly what they can and cannot do. We do not want their route to be blocked by certain political considerations at Westminster. We want certain rights to be embedded in primary legislation—rights on which they can fall back when necessary.
        Mr. Denzil Davies: I will speak briefly. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) became more and more confused as his speech went on—
        Mr. Wigley: Rubbish.
        Mr. Davies: That is the kind of reaction that we receive from members of Plaid Cymru—is it still Plaid Cymru?—when we criticise them.

        743
        The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a split function. There is no split function; there are two separate functions. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the function of the assembly, and the function of United Kingdom Departments. The Treasury, the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the Department of Social Security, the Department for Education and Employment and the Ministry of Defence will be involved, but I can think of no other functions that will be carried out on a United Kingdom basis.
        That goes to the heart of the problem. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is just a matter of drafting, but drafting often shows up defective thinking, and in this instance there has certainly been defective thinking. There is no reason why the assembly should go to United Kingdom Departments for advice. It can go to the Secretary of State for Wales, who presumably is considered to come within the ambit of the phrase "United Kingdom government departments". After all, he will have nothing much else to do.
        Mr. Wigley: I should have thought that it was fairly clear that the Welsh Office is a UK Department for this purpose. The new clause covers the Secretary of State for Wales, but it also covers other Departments. It includes the Treasury—with which a link may well be needed—as well as Departments such as the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. When it comes to national heritage, the relationship between UK and Welsh responsibilities is very unclear.
        Mr. Davies: Why on earth should a member of the Welsh assembly be able to demand advice from Her Majesty's Treasury about UK matters? I understand the point about the Secretary of State for Wales. I would not object if the new clause said that a member of the Executive Committee could request advice from staff of the Secretary of State for Wales—although he may not have staff—because, as a member of the Cabinet, he can presumably ask other Departments what effect this or that legislation will have on Wales.
        It is being suggested, however, that a member of the assembly should be able to roam around under powers not available to Members of Parliament. I am not in favour of the Official Secrets Act, but it exists. Will members of the assembly sign it when they ask for information? Not only is the new clause misconceived: it shows how much confusion there is.
        Subsection (2) asks for a concordat. Apparently, there are to be concordats in any event, because there is a real problem. Perhaps, when he responds to—and, I hope, rejects—this rather silly new clause, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will tell us when we shall see those concordats. Will they appear before Third Reading? My right hon. Friend indicates that that is possible. How will we be able to debate them, and with whom will they be drawn up? I cannot imagine that the assembly and the Cabinet Office will have their own little concordat. I do not see where the Cabinet Office comes into it.
        5.45 pm
        Mr. Wigley: May I press the right hon. Gentleman, to ensure that I fully understand his objection? Does he object to the fact that we refer to a member of the
        744
        Executive Committee? Does he assume that there would be some links on a civil service level between those serving the Executive in Cardiff and civil servants here, given that we have a unified civil service?
        Mr. Davies: That is not what the new clause says.
        Mr. Wigley: I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question.
        Mr. Davies: There is not much point in the right hon. Gentleman asking me. We are debating his new clause, and his new clause says that a Member of the Assembly—an elected Member, albeit a member of the Executive—can roam around Departments and ask civil servants for advice. It goes on to ask for a concordat to ensure that that happens. It makes no sense.
        I do not want to go on about the drafting, but subsection (2) also refers to public bodies. Who are those public bodies? Again, Members of the Assembly can roam around and ask them questions. Does that apply to all public bodies? The new clause is wholly misconceived, but that is not the point; the point is that there is complete confusion in the right hon. Gentleman's mind—and, indeed, in his party.
        Mr. Livsey: We support the new clause. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) seems almost to be asking whether there is a right to roam among civil servants, but I do not think that that is the context in which the new clause was tabled. I believe that it would give access to UK civil service expertise in regard to, for instance, important Ministry of Defence issues. There is a danger that a camp may be closed in my constituency, which would have a considerable impact on employment in the area. I am curtailing my speech, but I think that Members of the Assembly should have access to expertise on such matters.
        Mr. Evans: I, too will speak briefly.
        The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred to the Executive sitting in Cardiff. I am not sure whether such a decision has been made. Presumably that was a Freudian slip, unless there is something going on which we have not yet been told.
        Will the Secretary of State clarify the relationship that will exist between his Department, with its own civil service, and the assembly? Obviously, members of the assembly's Executive will make policy at a secondary level, but I suspect that they will want to have constant discussions with the Secretary of State. During our debates, we have been led to believe that there is a great hope that the assembly and the Secretary of State—irrespective of the political colours under which they happen to be flying—will work together in the best interests of the people of Wales. Perhaps he will put some flesh on the bones of the matter to show exactly what the Secretary of State will do after devolution. I suspect that much of his work will be negotiation and consultation with the assembly. Plaid Cymru is trying to have its cake and eat it. It wants the best of both worlds.
        Mr. Ron Davies: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was absolutely right in his critique of the new clause. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon

        745
        (Mr. Wigley) said that there should be consultation between the assembly and Whitehall Departments, but his new clause refers to a
        "member of the executive committee",
        and that is its weakness.
        The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) spoke about relationships. Obviously, there will have to be a close working relationship between the Secretary of State and his Department and the assembly. The better, closer and more clearly defined that relationship is, the better will be the government of Wales. I cannot pretend that in my inside pocket I have a list of do's and don'ts or prescriptions or rules that will apply to ensure that relationship. However, the holder of my office when the assembly is in being will realise that there is a heavy responsibility to ensure that the relationship operates as effectively as possible. I shall write to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley if he requires further information.
        I understand why the right hon. Member for Caernarfon moved the new clause, but, as I have said, it is defective and does not seem to achieve what he wants. However, it is right to explore the nature of the relationship between the assembly and Whitehall Departments. It is important to remember that the Welsh Office does not operate in isolation from the rest of Government. There was discussion about the continuing role of the Department for Education and Employment and the Health Department. The assembly will derive its changing powers to operate under secondary legislation from the nature of primary legislation that has been passed by Parliament.
        It is important that the desires of the assembly should be transmitted to people in Departments that are responsible for drafting legislation to facilitate the assembly's work. There will certainly be a need for a continuing relationship not only on the non-devolved matters that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about—he mentioned the Home Office, the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence—but on devolved matters. At the moment, departmental work proceeds smoothly because information and professional advice are shared, and policies and secondary legislation are developed in consultation within Government. It is a two-way process.
        The assembly will want a framework of liaison arrangements with relevant Departments, and they will be based on the existing positive relationships between civil servants in the Welsh Office and their counterparts in other Departments. Of course, those are relationships between civil servants and not between Executive Committee members or assembly Secretaries. The Government concluded that that relationship is best provided by a series of non-statutory concordats, whose nature has already been debated. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about those.
        It is most unlikely that the concordats will be available before Third Reading, but my right hon. Friend will know, and other hon. Members may be interested to know, that I published on Friday a statement of the principles for drawing up concordats. Copies have been placed in the Library. Hon. Members who wish to get a feel of the Government's thinking on the matter should study that document, which consists of two and a half pages. It could not be classified as a ripping good yarn, but it is worth reading.
        746
        It will be for the assembly to agree the concordats. In the meantime, we shall work up drafts based on the principle of providing the assembly and Whitehall Departments with the confidence that working relationships will be conducted properly and in accordance with agreed processes such as adequate consultation, and will avoid constraining either the assembly or Whitehall Departments in their fields of competence.
        Mr. Wigley: Perhaps I could be clear. Is the Minister saying that the non-statutory concordats that may be developed will enshrine a right to ask for advice at civil servant level from Departments other than the Welsh Office if those Departments are in charge of drawing up legislation that may affect Wales? May I take it that that right would not be unreasonably refused?
        Mr. Davies: As I have said, it will be for the assembly to agree the concordats, so I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance about a right. I cannot bind the Government or the assembly on that, but I can make it clear that we shall certainly work up the drafts of the principles.
        There must obviously be proper working relationships, and they require an exchange of ideas and information. While I cannot say to the right hon. Gentleman that rights will be enshrined in the concordats, which will be non-statutory, I can assure him that the Government wish to make sure that the concordats provide the necessary framework for consultation between the Government and the assembly.
        Mr. Ancram: Last week, the Secretary of State answered a question on concordats and set out the basis on which they would operate. Am I right in thinking that they will not come before Parliament or, indeed, the assembly for debate?
        Mr. Davies: We discussed those matters in some detail in earlier proceedings. The concordats will be non-statutory, and they will not be finalised until the assembly is established. As I have said, it will be a matter for the assembly and the Government of the day to decide how those matters are to be presented to Parliament. That is not to say that they will be presented to the House. The concordats will be agreements between the Government and the assembly and will not have any legislative force as a result of measures that have been passed by Parliament. I should be happy to discuss the matter.
        Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Ron Davies: As my right hon. Friend knows, the knife is about to fall, but I shall give way briefly.
        Mr. Denzil Davies: Will there be separate concordats for each Department or will there be one giant concordat?
        Mr. Ron Davies: Just as there will be not one giant dome but a dome with a baby, so there will not be one giant concordat. I am not promising baby concordats, but there will be a concordat for each Department. We have already explored the matter. The working relationship between the assembly and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be close, and, because of the

        747
        European dimension, it will be important. The concordat for that Ministry will be different from those for other Departments in which the assembly's involvement will be less. There will be a series of concordats.
        I take direct advice on only a few matters from officials in other Departments. We debated forestry policy earlier, and that is a good example, because on that I am advised directly by officials from the Forestry Commission, which is a public body. Of course, I also receive advice from my own officials.
        The new clause provides for almost unfettered rights for assembly Secretaries to request advice from officials in any Government Department or public body. That goes far beyond current practice, and risks placing unreasonable work loads on officials in those Departments without any constraints on cost, time or good working practice. On that basis, we cannot accept the new clause as drafted. However, where appropriate, the relevant concordat will provide for assembly Secretaries to have access to advice on the basis on which I have access now, but it will be via civil servants of the assembly. It will be for them to have relationships via the concordats with Whitehall Departments before feeding the information to the assembly Secretaries.
        I hope that the right hon. Member for Caernarfon—having initiated the probing debate that he wanted—has been satisfied by that response. I invite him to withdraw new clause 12.
        Mr. Wigley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that response. Obviously, we will have to wait to see the detail of those concordats before we can reach any firm conclusion on them. However, I am glad that this short debate has facilitated an opportunity for the Committee to give some attention to the matter, and for the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) to ask questions which were clearly worrying him on a matter that would not have been dealt with otherwise in our debates.
        On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 14

        CONSULTATION WITH BUSINESSES
        '.—(1) The Assembly shall make a scheme (referred to in the Act as the business scheme) setting out how the Assembly proposes, in the exercise of its functions, to sustain and promote business in Wales.

        (2) The Assembly shall consult with such businesses and business organisations in Wales as it considers appropriate before making, remaking or revising the scheme and in making, remaking or revising the scheme the Assembly shall have regard to any advice which has been given and to any representations which have been made to the Assembly by businesses and business organisations in Wales.

        (3) In determining at any time the provisions to be included in the scheme the Assembly shall consider how it intends to exercise such of its functions as relate to matters affecting, or of concern to, business in Wales.

        (4) The scheme shall specify—

        (a) how the Assembly proposes to consult business and business organizations in Wales about the exercise of such of its functions as relate to matters affecting or of concern to such businesses and organizations, and

        748

        (b) how the Assembly proposes to monitor the extent to which any proposed subordinate legislation is consistent with sustaining or promoting business in Wales and the extent to which it imposes obligations or costs on businesses in Wales.

        (5) The Assembly shall keep the scheme under review and in the year following each ordinary election shall consider whether it should be remade or revised.

        (6) The Assembly shall publish the scheme when first made and whenever subsequently remade and, if the scheme is revised without being remade shall publish either the revisions or the scheme as revised (as it considers appropriate).

        (7) After each financial year of the Assembly, the Assembly shall publish a report of how its proposals as specified in the scheme are implemented in that financial year.'.—[Ms Lawrence.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        6 pm
        Ms Jackie Lawrence: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        New clause 14 would require the assembly to establish a scheme stating its proposals on sustaining and promoting business in Wales. From the commencement of our debates on the Bill, and following publication of the White Paper, the Secretary of State has maintained that the legislation is built around partnership and inclusivity. In clause 64, the Bill is already innovative in stating a commitment to consult business in Wales, which has not previously been consulted. The new clause attempts to recognise that innovation, but goes a little further and gives business interests parity with the interests of both local government and the voluntary sector, which are already more comprehensively provided for in clauses 110 and 111.
        The proposals in the new clause attempt to establish a proactive approach in the relationship between the assembly and the business sector, rather than a merely reactive approach by the assembly, which might have a knock-on effect on the Welsh business sector.
        I have determined from my discussions with businesses in my constituency that there is widespread support for the Bill's proposals requiring the assembly to assess the cost implications for business of any proposed regulations and to consider businesses' views. There is widespread support also for a strategic approach to economic development in Wales—via the new Welsh Development Agency—by establishing links with the four economic forums, by placing renewed emphasis on indigenous businesses and, therefore, by implication, by placing emphasis on sustainable development.
        The Federation of Small Businesses has stated that there are 3.45 million small and medium-sized enterprises across the United Kingdom, and that if the economic climate enabled each of them to take on one more employee, there would be no unemployment in the UK. UK-wide, 80 per cent. of jobs are provided by companies employing fewer than 20 people. In my constituency, that percentage is even higher.
        In the spirit of the partnership and inclusivity promised by the Secretary of State, the views of SMEs must be heard and listened to if we are to make real progress in the battle to improve gross domestic product in Wales. Within the framework of the national assembly, there must be a recognition of the role of business in that process. Every effort must be made to improve Wales's ability to produce competitive goods and services.

        749
        The assembly's economic structures and policies must promote Welsh business as the basis of improving the standard of living of everyone—not only selected parts of Wales.
        Establishing in the Bill a scheme specifying plans to promote and maintain Welsh business will give Welsh business parity with local government and the voluntary sector. Clauses 110, 111 and 33, for example, provide for the assembly—quite rightly—to create a scheme to sustain and promote local government in Wales, to promote the interests of the voluntary sector and to support cultural aspects of Welsh life. However, it is equally right that similar arrangements should be made to promote the interests of businesses in Wales, on which the vitality of the Welsh economy ultimately depends. New clause 14 would meet that need, and ensure that the assembly listened to business and worked in partnership with it. New clause 14 would also have the benefit of ensuring that outside expertise from the business community was available, ensuring that the assembly's Committees were well informed in their decision making.
        As a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, I have been involved in recent investigations into the effects that the national assembly will have on economic development in Wales. Evidence given to that Committee, which was published last week, shows that business believes that the assembly holds tremendous potential, but also that it is essential that extra burdens are not placed on Welsh business in comparison with business in England. Businesses' concerns related to both the implementation of secondary legislation and to such pragmatic matters as the assembly's handling of issues such as planning appeals and call-ins.
        The Confederation of British Industry, for example, feared that proposals to handle in Committee the Secretary of State's current role in determining appeals and call-ins might cause delays that would disadvantage Welsh business. That concern provides a simple example of the need for the assembly to think not only proactively but strategically in maintaining its links with business, and to think through the impact of all its actions on Wales's businesses. A scheme such as that outlined in new clause 14 would create the framework for such an interchange.
        Clause 41(2) provides for the assembly to make subordinate legislation provision for Wales that is different from that for England, recognising Wales's and England's different needs. However, it is vital to ensure that businesses in Wales are not disadvantaged in economic development, by having to bear greater compliance burdens than businesses in England.
        A local cheese maker in my constituency informed me that the business's compliance burden increased tenfold during the time when the previous Government were in office. The assembly will have the responsibility not only to ensure that that burden is not increased but, I hope, to reduce it. Similarly, the new clause will ensure that a mechanism is established to avoid such increases in compliance burdens.
        The opportunities offered to Wales by the establishment of the national assembly, as stated in the Bill, are exciting and innovative. However, the additional benefits gained by implementing a scheme such as that outlined in the new clause would be even more significant.
        Mr. Evans: At this juncture, I should declare my interest in having a small business in Swansea, which I
        750
        still own, and in having—as have several generations of my family—many years of business experience in the retail trade.
        Mr. Ron Davies: Was it handed down?
        Mr. Evans: Yes, of course; like new Labour, we believe in the hereditary principle. [Interruption.]
        I am generally in favour of new clause 14. I hope that the proposed scheme will make transparent the assembly's plans for supporting businesses.
        The super-quango consisting of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales will also have policies to promote businesses in Wales. In Wednesday's debate, we discussed the CBI's concern about whether the assembly would meddle too much in the new super-quango's daily functions. The question arises as to whether new clause 14 enables the new WDA to formulate strategic policy and to eliminate confusion. If the new clause does that, it is a good idea.
        The new clause's proposals to consider businesses' interests on the same level as those of the voluntary sector and of local government are also absolutely right, so that there is no confusion in the super-quango's demarcation of its various roles.
        We shall have to do a bit more than merely pay lip service to our desire to promote business in Wales. I am sure that all political parties in Wales want Welsh businesses to do well, whether they are established by inward investment or are new indigenous Welsh businesses. We want all businesses in Wales to prosper.
        We know that businesses in Wales already must confront problems such as the 48-hour working week, a minimum wage and works councils. Moreover, with the introduction of regional development agencies in England, we shall want to ensure that businesses in Wales are able to compete on an equal footing with businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom.
        I support the ethos of the new clause. I hope that whatever scheme is set up—irrespective of whether it is under the new clause—consultation will go further than the CBI and the Institute of Directors, as many other all-Wales bodies are equally relevant.
        The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) was absolutely right to mention small businesses, as they represent the vast majority of businesses in Wales. We have to look to that sector to increase employment. We can no longer rely on the large industries that employ 15,000 to 20,000 people to generate extra jobs. Small and medium-sized enterprises are spread around Wales, and they should be given every encouragement, as that will benefit the whole of Wales. We should consult the Federation of Small Businesses and local chambers of commerce throughout Wales and listen carefully to their views on promoting business.
        The hon. Lady mentioned that the gross domestic product in Wales is very low, especially in certain areas. That was demonstrated by the reply to my recent question to the Secretary of State for Wales. There is clearly inequality in that respect. Therefore, we need to ensure that areas that are doing badly will be boosted by any new scheme.

        751
        On Wednesday, we agreed that "business" should have a wide meaning, and that certainly applies to the new clause. Given yesterday's events, we should remember that many farms in Wales are desperate for support. I hope that any new scheme will also consider how the assembly can establish policies genuinely to assist small businesses in the rural community, and particularly farmers. We must also consider the ripple effect. Businesses that supply farms with tractors and capital goods, and which repair barns and erect fences and walls, are also affected by the current crisis.
        The next debate will be about the regional aspect. Any new scheme must reach all parts of Wales.
        Mr. Livsey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on introducing the new clause. It is absolutely essential that the assembly should consult business. The proposed scheme would provide business advice to the assembly and would undoubtedly benefit the Welsh economy and investment prospects for Wales.
        The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to small businesses, which are particularly important as they are more likely to provide indigenous growth, which is vital to increasing employment and wealth creation throughout Wales. In many of our constituencies, particularly rural ones, up to one third of the population is self-employed. Many self-employed people run small businesses and are often burdened with a great deal of bureaucracy. There will be a need for businesses—particularly small businesses—to liaise with the assembly in respect of how they can best be assisted. There is evidence of a lack of a level playing field for small native businesses as compared with inward investment schemes from other parts of the world. Certainly in mid-Wales, businesses from other parts of the United Kingdom appear to have greater advantages than indigenous enterprises.
        Reference has been made to the agriculture industry. About 56,000 people are involved in farming in Wales—I was one of them for a considerable time, although I was never a newsagent. I hope that the new clause will enable a policy to emerge, to assist those small businesses to develop for the benefit of everyone in Wales.
        6.15 pm
        Mr. John Smith: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on introducing the new clause, which the Government should consider carefully. It is vital that the new assembly consults business, but there is already a requirement in the Bill for it to do just that. It is a welcome innovation.
        We should be careful, however. It is my view that the assembly's relationship with business is crucial to the success of the assembly and to economic development in Wales in the coming years. We have to get that relationship absolutely right. There are dangers in thinking that we can legislate on a relationship between Government and business in Wales and thereby solve most of our problems. It is not quite that simple. We have to establish a relationship that allows business and Government to do what they do best without interference.
        752
        We should not ask business to behave as a philanthropic or democratic organisation or expect Government to behave as a business. Traditionally, the record on that is not terribly good.
        Wales has been particularly good at establishing just such relationships. Our economic success in respect of inward investment has been due almost exclusively to the "team Wales" approach and has set the standard for the rest of the United Kingdom. It is one reason why other regions look to us with envy—and so they should—in respect of attracting direct foreign investment. However, trying to attract the English investment to which the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) referred presents a more difficult problem. We have to be clear about making sure that we get our fair share.
        We should remember that London and the immediate surrounding area accounts for 40 per cent. of our GDP per capita. Wales has the lowest percentage in the United Kingdom and the gap is widening, so we have to take a balanced approach to developing indigenous small and medium-sized companies. Of course we have to do that, especially in areas that depend on small businesses, but we must also recognise that we must continue the battle to attract our fair share of United Kingdom investment and build clusters of small Welsh companies to service incoming companies. That means that we have to get the formula right, so I ask the Government to consider the new clause carefully.
        Mr. Wigley: I welcome the opportunity that the new clause provides to examine the opportunities for business. The National Assembly for Wales should provide a stimulus for the business sector and encourage people to take the initiative, take risks and set up enterprises because of the atmosphere of confidence that we hope will be engendered. It should not tie businesses in knots and prevent them from undertaking ventures.
        In examining the phrasing of the new clause, I fear that businesses might expect to play a greater role in determining policy than might be possible in practice. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) gave the example of the town and country planning function. Businesses are understandably worried that the processes may be slowed down. They may hope that subsection (4) would provide them with a means of influencing planning decisions as
        "matters affecting or of concern to"
        them. That might give them inappropriate leverage in the planning function. If the provisions are to mean anything, businesses will want such influence, but it may not be possible to provide it in the mechanism for even-handed planning at assembly level.
        The assembly must feel itself to be a partner with business and industry in Wales, working hand in hand with them to create the conditions for a thriving economy. The hon. Lady obviously has the creation of such a partnership in mind. The thrust of the new clause must be of relevance to the Government and the assembly.
        Mr. Dalyell: I should like to raise a practical problem. Last year, I had the good fortune of opening a branch unit of Personnel Hygiene Services in the small village of Blackridge in West Lothian. The Secretary of State will know that the headquarters of Personnel Hygiene Services are in his constituency, in the Western industrial estate in

        753
        Caerphilly—the postcode is CF83 1XH. I expect that he knows it well. They are good people. The Welsh leaders were most welcome among us.
        However, the company has a problem. On 19 February, Mr. Louis Howe wrote to me on behalf of the company about the Special Waste Regulations 1996. He said:
        "Of particular interest is point two, which brought to the attention of the Environment Agency the fact that the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency are interpreting the Regulations differently to the Environment Agency.
        We find this particularly annoying as we believed the establishment of the Agencies would lead to common national standards enabling us to standardise our practices and procedures nationally. Unfortunately, we must now regard England/Wales and Scotland as two separate entities and we wonder what disparities will occur in the future to further complicate our businesses."
        The House of Commons should be careful about complicating people's businesses. I shall ask the relevant Ministers for the full answers to the details in the letter. Such problems are bound to arise when, to use the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), we start unbundling the United Kingdom.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: I accept the sentiments behind the new clause. The premise is that because small and medium-sized enterprises are so important for the Welsh economy, it is essential that the legislation facilitates a partnership between them and the assembly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) said.
        No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will refer to clause 64, which provides for a regulatory appraisal before general subordinate legislation is approved by the assembly. The effect of legislation on small business will be taken into account in the appraisal. However, that clause does not go far enough. The Government should take on board the points made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence). Small businesses are vital. Clause 64 refers to a regulatory appraisal simply in the context of subordinate legislation. That is narrow in scope, contrasting with the general reference in the new clause to the functions of the assembly. Clause 64(2) says that an appraisal will not be necessary if it is
        "inappropriate or not reasonably practicable".
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on presenting the new clause in a positive spirit, with the strong support of all sectors of business in Wales. She has clearly had considerable consultation with the larger business sector and small businesses. I am also pleased that the Opposition are taking a new constructive view, with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) supporting the important issues raised in the new clause. My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) raised some relevant points, which I shall try to deal with later. Coming in from the flank, the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) also supported the principles of the new clause.
        We have always believed that the assembly should provide an environment in which business can flourish. In our White Paper, "A Voice for Wales", we laid great
        754
        stress on the importance of the assembly's role in creating a growing and sustainable economy. That will largely be a matter for the policies of the assembly, which we should not attempt to predetermine in the Bill. As a democratic body, the assembly must develop its own policies and account to its electorate for their effects. We can create an effective institutional framework for it.
        We have created a mechanism to ensure that the assembly's legislative procedures take proper account of their effect on business. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West mentioned clause 64, which provides for statutory regulatory appraisal. That is a significant and radical legislative innovation in Britain, which the CBI has recognised and welcomed.
        The new clause is a different matter, going beyond that. In providing for the assembly's relations with local government, the voluntary sector and business, we are not trying to create a blockbuster clause to deal with all the issues, such as sustainable development. We have tried to tackle the issues in a way that will be suitable for each sector. For local government, we have a duty to promote, a scheme and the partnership council—that builds on the existing concordat with local government and the established negotiating machinery. For the voluntary sector, we have consultation arrangements and a duty to promote, building on and strengthening the existing consultation arrangements and the concordat that we are finalising. For business, we have the statutory recognition of a process of regulatory appraisal.
        The new clause would knit all those factors together and add them on top of statutory regulatory appraisal. That would create a risk of greater complexity and a slowing down of decision making, referred to by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. The assembly could become too bureaucratic, which is what business fears most.
        We shall resist the detail of the new clause, but I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire that we accept the spirit of it: there should be regular, open and constructive dialogue between business and the assembly—not just with big business but with small business, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, and not just with traditional industries but with business in rural areas. My hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Glamorgan, for Clwyd, West and for Preseli Pembrokeshire all laid stress on encompassing all business in order to get the framework right.
        We propose to return to the matter with a Government amendment. In the light of that, I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire to withdraw the motion.
        Ms Lawrence: I thank the Minister very much for accepting the new clause's principles. Bearing in mind his commitment to take them on board, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 21

        DECISIONS AFFECTING VITAL INTERESTS OF A REGION
        `.—(1) No legislative, administrative or other decision shall be made by the Assembly which the presiding officer determines might reasonably affect the vital interests of any region, unless the same shall have been approved by a resolution of the Assembly which was itself supported by at least one third of the Assembly members in that region.
        (2) In making such determination, the presiding officer—

        (a) may not be overruled by any resolution of the Assembly, and

        (b) shall have regard for the views of the region possibly affected through its regional committee and the individual members thereof, which views shall be binding upon the presiding officer unless he certifies that he is satisfied that the same are without any reasonable weigh.'.—[Mr. Ancram.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 24—Decentralisation within Wales—
        '.—The Assembly shall give active consideration to the decentralisation of appropriate functions from Cardiff to other parts of Wales, and shall actively seek to encourage other public sector bodies over which it has control, or which are answerable to it, to do likewise.'.
        Mr. Ancram: It is appropriate that we are debating this important new clause on 2 March, the day after St. David's day. I genuinely regret the absence of a St. David's day debate. I was looking forward to participating in my first such debate, as I was told that they were occasions on which matters relating to all interests and parts of Wales could be properly aired. I only hope that the absence of such a debate this year is not a forerunner for future decisions and the beginning of the marginalisation of Welsh Members of Parliament following devolution.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there could hardly be a more appropriate subject for a debate the day after St. David's day than the constitutional future of Wales?
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. I said that it was most appropriate that we were debating the new clause on this date. I was merely making the point that I hope that we are not having a St. David's day debate just because we are having this debate. For the sake of hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies, who will continue to do so after devolution, I hope that we are not seeing an end to the traditional St. David's day debate, which was certainly welcomed by Welsh hon. Members, if not the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas).
        Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) would not know, because he was not a Member during previous debates.
        Mr. Ancram: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will advise his hon. Friend on the value of St. David's day debates.
        The new clause stems directly from the result of the referendum on 18 September, when the people of Wales—we cannot avoid the fact that, more precisely, just over 25 per cent. of the people of Wales—voted for an assembly. That tiny minority, about which much has already been said, was not replicated evenly across Wales.
        756
        Indeed, Wales was effectively split down the middle. The most significant aspect of the result was the regional variation in the yes and no votes. It reflected deep differences and different outlooks—and, indeed, fears—between the various parts of the Principality. The geographic split in the vote was both instructive and not a little alarming. As politicians who are used to studying the nuances of votes, we should be most unwise to ignore the way in which the votes were distributed.
        I may not be Welsh, nor can I claim to know Wales as well as I know Scotland but, since June, I have travelled extensively in Wales and regularly visited various parts. It does not take a great deal of expertise to realise that Wales is fundamentally divided. It is not just, as one Labour Member said, that Offa's Dyke has moved west, but that the north fears domination by the more populous south, the east expects and fears favours for the west, and both English and Welsh speakers fear losing out to one another.
        I think that we all realise that the north looks not to the south for its economic centre of gravity but to Merseyside and beyond. Monmouth feels more affinity with its erstwhile historic English county neighbours than with its quarter of a century of Welshness. There is fear, resentment and a feeling of a democratic voice being ignored. To turn a blind eye to that would risk storing up immense problems for the future and build in a destabilising factor of unacceptability in the assembly. That would serve nothing, least of all the concept of devolution in Wales.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I want to pull up the right hon. Gentleman on the travesty of history in referring to Monmouth and Wales being connected for a quarter of a century. He may recall that the only reason why Monmouthshire has any English connection is that the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535 and 1542 placed Monmouthshire in the Oxford circuit for judicial purposes—but that was all. One only has to look at the place names in Monmouthshire. In fact, in Herefordshire, the right hon. Gentleman will find a similar good dose of Welsh place names. It could be argued that Offa's Dyke should be moved a little east.
        Mr. Ancram: I listen with great care to what the Minister has to say. However, judging by my visits to Monmouth and the correspondence that I have received from there, his view is not unanimously held. I shall be corrected if historically I am wrong, but I think that Monmouth was made a county of Wales in 1972, having previously been a county of England. [Interruption.] I shall certainly be corrected.
        Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend may care to bear in mind when praying in aid the position of Herefordshire that, if questions of national identity are anything to go by, during the disestablishment of the Church of Wales, the parishes on the Radnorshire side of the border were offered the choice of whether to stay in England, and they

        757
        chose to stay in England. The argument that, somehow, Herefordshire should always be viewed differently is complete bunkum.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The argument is straying into English matters. I should be grateful if the Committee returned to the new clause.
        Mr. Ancram: I accept your strictures, Mr. Lord, and turn back to regionalisation in Wales.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Ancram: Yes, I always enjoy giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
        Mr. Morgan: On Wales and Monmouthshire, I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has committed the most ghastly historical solecism. Monmouthshire was never in England. For centuries, legislation has referred to Wales and Monmouthshire, which clarified Monmouthshire's position. That is anything but Monmouthshire being in England. To say that, since Monmouthshire was not in Wales, it must therefore be in England is completely wrong. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark straight away before he receives letters from history teachers throughout Wales—and England.
        Mr. Ancram: I said that I stood open to correction. The hon. Gentleman used a fair amount of what the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) was accused of the other day: legalistic talk. The position is absolutely clear. The referendum results
        "showed a marked difference in views between north Wales and south Wales and between east and west Wales".
        I do not think that any of us would deny that
        "we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together."
        We must continue to listen to what people in Wales tell us.
        Mr. Ron Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is compounding his mistakes. First, he is making a grave error in trying to overemphasise the counts that were conducted on the basis of unitary authorities. They were merely the mechanisms for counting. The count itself was an all-Wales count. As history recalls, in that referendum, the people of Wales voted yes. The right hon. Gentleman's second error is to disregard the thousands of people in the unitary authorities of Monmouth, Wrexham, Flint and Conwy—the local authorities that voted no—by suggesting that they share a monolithic view that there should not be an assembly. That is just not so. There is a broad base of support right across Wales. He should also have regard to the fact that the swing in Monmouth from the 1979 vote was huge.
        Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman says that, when I say that the referendum
        "showed a marked difference in views between north Wales and south Wales and between east and west Wales"
        and that
        758
        "we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together"— [Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 18 November 1997; c. 12.]
        I am compounding my error; but those are not my words—they are his, spoken in the Welsh Grand Committee on 18 November. It seems strange that, when I quote them back to him, I am told that I am compounding an error and that I have somehow misunderstood the position. When I read his words of 18 November, I agreed with him and because I am repeating what he said, I hoped that he would agree with me, but that may be too much to hope for.
        The point is that nothing in the legislation as it stands works to bring Wales together. Nothing heals the rifts or quells the fears that the Government have created by this legislation and which, as the Secretary of State admits, were reflected in the referendum result. In the setting up of regional Committees, there is a cosmetic attempt to assuage the fears of north Wales, but, in practice, that is a meaningless gesture, and north Wales knows it. The southern-dominated assembly gets to decide how many regions there will be; it draws up the boundaries for those regions; and, because the regional Committees are only advisory, they can simply be ignored by the southern-dominated assembly.
        In short, nothing in the Bill addresses the fears and concerns of people outside south Wales. People in the north of Wales will have watched the cavalier way in which the Secretary of State cast aside their bids to home the currently itinerant National Assembly for Wales. The fear is not temporary: it is a fear of long-term, if not permanent, domination. In any democracy, the fear of permanent domination by a majority is a recipe for ultimate breakdown. We cannot allow such a democratic deficit to be built into the new National Assembly for Wales, first, because that would be a mockery of its name and, secondly, because it would create a long-term legacy of resentment.
        I accept that our new clause might not provide all the answers, but it is designed to build in a safety net that would bring some much-needed comfort and reassurance to the Welsh people, both those who live outside the south and those who live in the south. Essentially, the new clause would ensure that any decision that might affect the vital interests of a particular region would have to be authorised by a vote of the assembly in which at least one third of the Members from the region affected—however they were elected—gave their approval. That is a variation on the principle of weighted voting, which is often used in cases of this nature to mitigate what would otherwise become an oppressive majority.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am interested in the underlying principle. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that south Wales is more populous than the rest of Wales: south Wales contains about 2 million people out of the 3 million living in Wales as a whole, and if industrial south Wales were compared with north Wales, the population ratio might even be 4:1. However, the right hon. Gentleman was always against devolution, even though Wales had only about 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, whereas England had about 85 per cent. of the population. Why was he not in favour of devolution if he believes that people worry about being dominated by a majority with different political patterns?
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman was obviously concentrating so hard on campaigning for the yes vote

        759
        that he did not listen to the arguments made on the no side during the referendum campaign. We argued that the White Paper opened up the danger but provided no solution to it and that, unless a solution were found, it would be a fundamental flaw that could undermine the concept of devolution in the longer term. That fear was clearly shown in the way in which votes were distributed within Wales.
        Mr. Morgan indicated dissent.
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head but, according to The Guardian of 20 September, the Prime Minister said in Downing street the day after the referendum:
        "We must take account of the narrowness of the margin and that is why we carry on, allaying their fears, and making sure they know that this is about decentralising power."
        The Independent of the same day quoted the Prime Minister as saying:
        "moves to create a Welsh assembly would carry on while the Government concentrated on 'allaying the fears of people that were expressed during the campaign'."
        The Prime Minister accepted that there were fears, that the margin was narrow and that something had to be done to address that; but, having waited since the referendum to find out what measures were to be taken to address those fears, we find that there is none. For that reason, we tabled our new clause. We are trying to supply what the Prime Minister inferred would be produced by the Government, but which they have singularly failed to produce.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Morgan: It is the consistency of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that I am questioning. If that is what he believes, given the 4:1 ratio between the populations of industrial south Wales and north Wales, why was he against Wales being given any devolved powers, given that, in the United Kingdom, there is a 17:1 ratio between the populations of England and Wales?
        Mr. Ancram: I am finding it difficult to understand whether the hon. Gentleman believes that it is healthy that one part of Wales may be able permanently to dominate another. Those who believe in devolution think that that is wrong and, if devolution is to work, we need to apply the sort of remedy that is contained in our new clause.
        The one-third threshold is not a major hurdle and it is not obstructive—it is reasonable. The test of what decisions should be subjected to the threshold would be for the Presiding Officer to determine, having clear regard to the views of the regional Committee. It is right that the Presiding Officer should be able to exercise independent judgment as to whether to apply the threshold. I suspect that such decisions would most often involve economic and industrial issues, where fairness was essential to the future economic cohesion of Wales as a whole; or cultural or social matters, where parity of esteem was crucial to the smooth working of devolution. Given the nature of Wales and of the referendum result, it is surprising that Labour Members find it so difficult to accept our fairly modest remedy.
        760
        The overall intention is not to create gridlock, but to ensure that, in specific and important matters, the interests of any region cannot be overridden roughshod by a geographical majority. The provision would probably not be used often, but where and when it was used, it would work to bring Wales together. It would provide a protection that democracy would welcome, but that Wales's geography denies. It would give teeth to the concept of regions within Wales, which the current proposal for toothless advisory Committees singularly fails to do. It would remove the causes of the real concern and fear that have been expressed to me in my travels. It would reduce hostility by giving all parts of Wales the confidence to try to make devolution work, in the knowledge that it was no longer weighted to work against their interests.
        The new clause would remove one of the deepest flaws in the Bill and the nature of devolution to the assembly as proposed. It is central to making devolution work constructively, rather than destructively. In that spirit, I commend the new clause to the Committee.
        Mr. Dafis: I rise to speak in support of new clause 24, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I should say first that the reference to Cardiff in the new clause is not based on any assumption about the location of the assembly; it refers to the relocation of functions that are currently at Cardiff. We want that sort of radical decentralisation.
        New clause 24 represents an infinitely preferable approach to dispersing activities and power than that suggested in new clause 21, which would place a totally unreasonable constraint on the assembly's ability to develop national policies, and would make it difficult to take any strategic decision that could be interpreted as being to the disadvantage of any region. It is a curious idea that the final decision about whether the interests of a region were seriously threatened should be taken by the Presiding Officer of the assembly—I cannot imagine that the Speaker of the House of Commons would want, even after consulting hon. Members from throughout the United Kingdom, to decide whether a policy constituted a sufficiently serious threat to a region that it should be changed. The proposal is inappropriate and improper.
        I despair of the Tory party. Centralists have always advocated the policy of divide and rule. The British empire was adept at it, and the Tory party is the remnant of the British imperial way of thinking. New clause 21 would entrench the purported divisions that Conservative Front Benchers say that they want to heal. Does the Conservative party intend to campaign for election to the assembly with such an appallingly negative agenda? If so, it will find it difficult to enter the assembly.
        New clause 24 would create a presumption in favour of decentralising functions throughout Wales. There are various reasons for such an approach, including such elementary ones as the financial savings that would come from locating functions in areas of lower property values. More importantly, we must use the location of Government Departments, functions and arm's-length bodies—such as the remaining non-departmental public bodies—as an instrument of regional policy.
        That policy has been widely used at the UK level to create employment: when the Employment Service was created, it was located at Sheffield, and one of the best

        761
        examples in Wales is the establishment of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency at Swansea. I welcome the further moves in that direction in Wales. The Welsh European programmes executive will be based in the Cynon valley and in Machynlleth, bringing high-quality jobs to areas that need such a transfusion.
        Unfortunately, the trend has largely been in the opposite direction. In 1993, I think, it was decided to transfer a section of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department from Trawscoed outside Aberystwyth to Cardiff, which led to significant job losses in an area where such jobs are scarce and getting scarcer. That was done on the spur of the moment. The decision was taken in June or July 1993 on the basis of short-term cost savings—it was certainly a short-sighted policy—and was a disgraceful example of the tendency to centralise for the most superficial reasons and in the teeth of strong opposition. I do not believe that it would have happened if a national assembly had existed, as the assembly—unlike the Welsh Office at the time—would have had a strategic view of the location of jobs. Another example was the removal from Aberystwyth to England of all but an outpost of the British Geological Survey.
        I trust that both those actions will be reversed over time—soon, in the case of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department. The department would appropriately be located in rural Wales, particularly rural Ceridigion—although I would say that, wouldn't I? That would create high-quality, well-paid employment and the spin-off of other job opportunities.
        The use of electronic communications would facilitate further decentralisation as the pattern for future activity in Wales, and we should consider the assembly's activities in that context. It has been suggested that there should be access points to the assembly in various parts of Wales. I hope and trust—that is the right word to use—that the National Library of Wales will, in effect, be the assembly's library. It would be absurd to try to replicate the massive resource at Aberystwyth wherever the assembly is located—electronic communications would make feasible the use of that tremendous resource.
        Other Welsh Office departments, such as the one responsible for industry, could be located in the valleys, Swansea or even further west. The new Welsh Development Agency must operate in a much more decentralised way than before. It seems inevitable that a core headquarters, which will be responsible for strategic functions, should be located in the capital, but the regional offices should also be powerful, and should become centres for the development of expertise in some of the agency's functions. Business services, for example, could be located in one of the regional offices, as could the policy unit itself.
        The regional office for the central region—the canolbarth, as we call it in Welsh—should certainly be responsible for rural policy for the whole of Wales. I also believe that the office should be in the west, which tempts me to utter the name Aberystwyth once again, although perhaps that would be to overstress my point. The location of the WDA office for the central region will be a live and real issue.
        The new super-TEC—the new training and enterprise council—should be established in the south-east, but away from Cardiff and Swansea: in the valleys, perhaps. The Welsh Language Board or its functions—however
        762
        they are to be delivered—would appropriately be located in Welsh-speaking areas, and why not move the Arts Council from Cardiff?
        Mr. John Smith: I have much sympathy with the hon. Gentleman—
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Does he want anything in Cardiff?
        Mr. Smith: I think that there is case for rewriting the new clause to mention Ceredigion. Surely the location of those bodies is for the new assembly to decide; it is not our business to pre-empt it. The hon. Gentleman used the word trust—he should trust the assembly to make the right decisions.
        Mr. Dafis: Yes, but it is our business to probe policy issues, consider the ways in which the assembly will operate and lay down some principles in advance. Decisions that may be made before the assembly is established could also benefit from the application of those principles.
        Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is talking about the principles. I wonder whether he wants to leave Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, with anything at all. The last speech along those lines that I heard from a major political leader was by Pol Pot in Cambodia, who believed in getting rid of the capital city altogether and dispersing its entire population to the countryside. Is that really what the hon. Gentleman has in mind?
        7 pm
        Mr. Dafis: The hon. Gentleman is being untypically facetious. I see no danger of Cardiff being left with nothing; a lot is happening in, and concentrating on, Cardiff. No less a person than Mr. Russell Goodway, in his advocacy of locating the assembly at Cardiff, suggested that certain departments should be located well outside Cardiff, and mentioned the Welsh Office Agriculture Department as an example.
        Spending on government is an important reality, and the dispersal of that spending is worth advocating seriously. In the new Wales that we want to create, we should certainly consider the dispersal of the high-status activity that is associated with government; of prosperity; of vitality; and of influence. We are devising a system of government at the very time when electronics is revolutionising communications, and when distance, however great, is becoming far less of an obstacle to the co-ordination of activities.
        It is also important to overcome the perception that the government of Wales will be remote from the people. That is a similar theme to that of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), but I hope that I am being more constructive and positive about it. On the United Kingdom level, that perception has been influential in bringing about the devolution proposals enshrined in the Bill and in the Scotland Bill.
        We must avoid the perception—however inaccurate—of a single centre where the members of the power elite socialise, drink coffee, wine and dine, and cobble together

        763
        deals that serve their own interests rather than those of the people at large. Much of the debate about the location of the assembly has sprung from such concerns.
        Mr. Nick Hawkins: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely. Will he be more specific? When he talks about the perceived elite, is he referring to the Government party?
        Mr. Dafis: When I think of elites, I normally think of Tories; that is deeply ingrained in the culture in which I was brought up, so I shall not apologise for it. Elites are people who, for various reasons, have power and influence and tend, if their power is not curtailed, to look after their own interests.
        Mr. Grieve: Is that not a most compelling argument for new clause 21?
        Mr. Dafis: I spoke about that new clause earlier, and I do not need to go over that ground again. It is an absolutely cockeyed new clause.
        We have the opportunity from the outset to establish an approach to government that avoids the geographical imbalance that has disfigured Britain; that typifies the United Kingdom; and that people fear may be replicated in Wales.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a programme to get civil servants, some of whom must necessarily be based in south Wales, out of their bunkers in Cardiff or elsewhere and into the regions, to educate them about how people live in other parts of Wales, is as important as permanently dispersing them around the country? Of course, that applies equally to civil servants in the mainstream United Kingdom civil service.
        Mr. Dafis: I am sure that there are civil servants sitting not far from us at the moment who are keen to educate themselves about the needs of Wales in its entirety. Among Welsh Office civil servants, I have never come across anything but a desire to understand the needs of Wales as a whole; the problem has often been with their political masters.
        New clause 24 was drafted to highlight at the outset the importance of the principle that I have outlined.
        Mr. Livsey: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a divisive speech in support of new clause 21. He could perhaps have concentrated more on the advantages of having strong regional bodies within Wales. He talked about permanent domination and democratic deficits. None of us wants to be permanently dominated, but in 33 of the final 50 years of this century we have tended to be dominated in a certain way. The assembly will set us free from such domination.
        We do not want to replicate that domination in the Welsh assembly. The regions are vital, and there is a great difference between all the regions in Wales. I often liken Wales to a jigsaw puzzle in which people in different parts of the country think entirely differently.
        The challenge to the assembly is to unify the regions and give them a common purpose. We need the generosity of spirit to reach out into all the regions of Wales and
        764
        bind them together; but they also need their independent voices. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devizes that there is not much in the Bill to give us hope. Ministers must give us more meat on the bone—if I may use that phrase—for the regions of Wales.
        The regional Committees must have real teeth. Ministers must prove to us that that will be the case. They have alluded to the matter in rhetoric, but they have not made any concrete proposals. I hope that they will not ride roughshod over the regions. That phrase was used by the right hon. Member for Devizes. No region of Wales would want to be ridden roughshod over by Swansea, Cardiff, Wrexham or anywhere else. The regions want a life of their own, but in close association with the assembly.
        What are the vital interests referred to in the new clause? A definition would be most illuminating and would assist me in making a judgment on the new clause. Inclusivity is vital, but we need to ensure that the regions have a fair deal; after all, they have strong characteristics and individual needs. We need to be persuaded that the legislation will meet that challenge.
        The notion of one third of the assembly's members having to support any decision that might affect the vital interests of a region is interesting, although I am not sure why it should be specifically one third. I have more confidence in new clause 24 when it provides that the assembly should decentralise functions from Cardiff. That provision is similar to an amendment that we have tabled recently. Functions should be decentralised from Cardiff—or Swansea, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) pointed out—to the regions whenever possible and we should encourage public bodies to do likewise. I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of that point.
        I was professionally involved in the work done by Trawscoed. It was obvious that the staff were doing a job that was relevant to rural Wales and accessible to a large proportion of the population—the farming community in particular. When I lived and worked in Aberystwyth, the administrative section of the Welsh Office Agriculture Department was removed to Cardiff and I did not think that that was an especially good idea. The assembly will need to consider such moves.
        We want to enable more local people to become involved in the decision making in their areas. We all know about the difficulties in Wales of communication and transport and the inadequacy of the infrastructure. It is vital that the assembly appears inclusive; the regions must have adequate powers. The assembly must react to and accept proposals from the regions. Many people from the regions of Wales will have great confidence in an assembly that behaves like that, and I hope that the Minister will convince us that it will do so. Otherwise, we shall have to adopt the new clause to ensure that it does so.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: I oppose new clause 21. I understand the political motives behind it; it is clear that, in the speech of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), we have heard a rehearsal of the campaign that will be conducted by the Conservatives during the elections to the National Assembly for Wales in May next year. Their campaign will be based on divisiveness. We had a fascinating insight into it tonight.

        765
        The right hon. Member for Devizes struck a chord, however, because a rudimentary reading of Welsh history shows that the country has been prone to parochialism and regional tensions. One need only consider the history of the Welsh princes and the abject failure to establish any political unity in Wales until recently to see that. Wales is a parochial country and it is proud of its parochialism.
        At St. David's day dinners such as those I have attended recently, the first question asked is not, "Which school did you go to?"—as Conservatives might ask each other—but, "Where do you come from?" People want to know exactly which part of the valley or which part of a community others are from because they take great pride in their locality. However, it would be wrong to institutionalise that diversity and to mistake the message of Welsh history and our rich patchwork of communities. It is pessimistic to believe that Wales is incapable of political unity; that is taking cynicism too far.
        I reject the premise behind the new clause, which is typical of the patronising attitude of Conservative Members to the Welsh people. Conservatives think that the Welsh people are incapable of forming a political community: that is wrong. The Bill takes great care to address regional tensions in Wales and it is right to do so. The voting method is clearly designed to enable more inclusive debate in Wales.
        The new clause raises practical considerations. The Presiding Officer would be in an invidious position if he or she had to decide what constituted the vital interests of a region. How should a region be defined? Extraordinarily, the official Opposition define regions as coterminous with European constituencies, but that definition is unworkable. The new clause is divisive and would be a disincentive to the constructive, bridge-building approach that the Welsh people need to improve their economic and social status. I reject the new clause and I deplore the sentiments behind it.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Desmond Swayne: I shall speak in favour of new clause 21. I should have preferred the opportunity to speak in favour of new clause 17 but, unfortunately, it was not called for debate.
        The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman should not mention any clause or amendment that has not been selected by the Chair.
        Mr. Swayne: I apologise, Mr. Martin. New clause 21 will do very well.
        It is appropriate that the new clause provides a mechanism that would address the interests and outlook of the regions that are at variance with the Welsh mean. If we take Monmouthshire as an example, we find that in the referendum only 10,592 voters were in favour of the assembly, against 22,403—more than double—who voted against. That was true not only in Monmouthshire: it was mirrored all the way down the March. Such results should be set in the context of an overall majority in Wales for the assembly of only 6,700-odd.
        The Prime Minister said that sensitivity would be exercised. New clause 21 would be evidence of such sensitivity, were it accepted. However, the sensitivity shown in the remarks made by the Secretary of State for
        766
        Wales only two hours ago, when he said that the people of Wales won on the night of the referendum, leaves those of us who are anxious about the future of the interests of the regions I have mentioned feeling that our anxiety is well placed. Such regions are characterised by small market towns whose economic and political outlook is at variance with that of industrial south Wales, and our anxiety about them must be addressed.
        The Secretary of State would do well to appreciate that Owen Glendower failed to take Monmouth and, shortly after that, he met his end. The Monmouthshire and Berwick-upon-Tweed Act 1756 specifically excluded Monmouthshire from the provisions of legislation pertaining to Wales except when it was explicitly included.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: First, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell us more about how and when Owen Glendower met his end, because—according to the history books—nobody knows how he met his end. Secondly, what is the hon. Gentleman's definition of a region?
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not make any mention of Owen Glendower and how he met his end, because the hon. Gentleman is talking about new clause 21.
        Mr. Swayne: I shall not pursue that matter. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked about the definition of a region. We are constrained by the Bill and the new clause, but I acknowledge that another definition might have been more appropriate. To avoid being ruled out of order, I shall not pursue the subject any further. All I would say is that there must be a mechanism to address these issues.
        I know that Labour Members dispute that because, on Second Reading, there was much talk of a new politics. It was said that the assembly would be very different; that it would have a gender balance; that it would be inclusive of all minorities; and that children would trip about in the aisles. In all, it was going to be an assembly for the new Jerusalem. I wondered where I had heard all that before—and then it dawned on me; we are back in Praise-God Barebones' "Parliament of the Saints" in the 1640s.
        However, setting that aside, there must be a means of securing the interests of the regions that find themselves unsympathetic to the political outlook of the industrial areas in south wales that will dominate the assembly. New clause 21 provides such a mechanism.
        Mr. John Smith: I strongly resist new clause 21, on the ground that it—if nothing else we have heard during seven days in Committee—blows the cover on the Tories. This is the new clause that proves that they have no intention of behaving constructively during the Bill's passage through Parliament or of campaigning during the assembly elections except in the divisive manner that we have heard tonight.
        The Tories' hypocrisy is breathtaking. Theirs is the party that opposed devolution tooth and nail to the bitter end; and tonight they expect us to believe that they now want devolved regions within Wales—our country. What a nonsense; what hypocrisy.
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read our new clause. We do not set out what the regions

        767
        are, other than to accept the definition of electoral region that is already given in the Bill and for which Members will be elected both directly and by the additional member system. We are not inventing those—they are in the Bill. They were created by the Government.
        Mr. Smith: Yes—and let me tell you what else this ludicrous new clause does, Mr. Martin. It proves once and for all that its authors have no understanding of what it is to be Welsh and what it is to be part of one nation. The proposal that our new national assembly, the single voice for our country, should be undermined by this bureaucratic nonsense, exposes them for what they are. It is an appalling new clause.
        Mr. Lembit Öpik: I am struck by the passion with which the hon. Gentleman speaks. Notwithstanding the known conversion of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) to the assembly when the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was not looking, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the new clause may be quite constructive? Taken at face value, it may be a constructive protection for regions within Wales. More to the point, there is genuine anxiety in the regions that a centralised southern assembly might discriminate against the regions.
        Mr. Smith: I would draw attention to the different ways in which this issue has been dealt with—there is one approach in new clause 21, which is a nonsense, and another in new clause 24, which raises some serious issues about these regional anxieties. That is the difference. [Laughter.] Let the Tories laugh; they may laugh all the way to the next election, when they will be wiped out because of their behaviour during the Bill's passage and in this Committee.
        Unfortunately, the new clause lowers the tone of the debate and the behaviour of the Opposition. Instead of constructively criticising the Bill and making realistic suggestions and proposals, they table wrecking new clauses such as the one before us and have no intention of giving the Bill principled support.
        My final point is practical. We have already gone out of our way to set up the regional Committees. By doing so, we have recognised the differences within our country—one country, one nation, which is about to inherit its mature nationhood. We have restructured the powerhouse; we are recognising the differences that exist within our country by restructuring the training and enterprise councils. We are fully aware of the differences that exist in our country. The fact that the north-east Wales corridor—
        Mr. Ancram rose
        Mr. Smith: I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I hope that he will not mess about.
        Mr. Ancram: Under the hon. Gentleman's system, how many regions will there be?
        Mr. Smith: They will be regions established to reflect the genuine differences and the genuine interests of our people, which do vary.
        768
        It is crucial that we throw out, and have nothing to do with, new clause 21. Any country, any democratic body, any democratic forum, must be able to take decisions that are in the strategic interest of the whole constituency. One of the terrible legacies of local government reorganisation in Wales is that the strategic county councils have been done away with and a tier of unitary authorities has been created. Those authorities do a damned good job in representing their own areas but they cannot represent the country as a whole.
        Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Gentleman is waxing lyrical on the importance of clarity in local government in Wales. He has had a moment or two to think about it; will he now answer the question? What number of regions does he favour?
        Mr. Smith: This is typical of the behaviour that has characterised tonight's debate. The Tories are not serious; they are out to wreck this constructive Bill. It is vital that there is one voice for Wales: that one national body has the authority to speak for the whole country. For generations, if not centuries, the Tories tried to rule on the principle of divide and rule; they will not get away with it tonight.
        Mr. Collins: We had a note of—perhaps unintentional—hilarity from the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith). Earlier, he waxed lyrical about how appalling, ludicrous and scandalous it was that there should be any suggestion of creating regions within Wales. When it was pointed out to him that regional Committees are in the Bill as proposed by the Government, he tried to change tack, but when he was asked—twice—how many regions or regional Committees he wanted, he was unable to say. That may show that there is some confusion on the Labour Benches just as, earlier, there seemed to be some confusion on the Labour Benches about whether Herefordshire should be inside the borders of Wales. Perhaps a new Welsh imperialist party is taking shape on the Labour Benches.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I was only saying that parts of Herefordshire used to be in the diocese of St. David's, that many place names in Herefordshire are Welsh and that at one time it would have been part of Wales.
        Mr. Collins: The Minister is making my point for me. Earlier, he suggested that Monmouthshire was as Welsh as Herefordshire, which slightly undermined his argument.
        Plaid Cymru Members rightly drew attention to what, from their point of view—and, I suspect, from that of many Labour Members—is the problem with new clause 21. It was said that new clause 21 is unacceptable because similar provisions will not apply in the Westminster Parliament. That slightly gave the game away, because we have been told throughout that the Bill will not create a Parliament and that the assembly will not have a power to make primary legislation. Nor will it have the power to introduce taxation. It is an assembly, not a Parliament comparable to Westminster. If it is argued that new clause 21 would not be accepted by Westminster, that gives part of the game away.
        My primary concern, however, is to reveal the heart of the reason new clause 21 is needed. The argument has been voiced a little in this part of the debate, but not

        769
        sufficiently during the Committee's consideration of the Bill. New clause 21 is needed to deliver on the clear promises given by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State the day after the result of the referendum, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred.
        7.30 pm
        The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State said that they would take on board the fact that the result was exceptionally narrow, that they would listen to the arguments advanced by the no campaign—which did far better than anyone expected—and that they would present new proposals that would take account of the fact that the referendum result indicated not a huge mandate in favour of change, as the Secretary of State said, but the fact that the Welsh population was at best split down the middle, if not split one quarter in favour and three quarters apathetic or opposed.
        Where are those new proposals in the Bill? We have heard a little about the regional Committees, but if we do not know how many regional Committees there are to be, as has been amply demonstrated, it can hardly be said that they are a central part of the Bill or that a great deal of thought has been given to them.
        Mr. Dafis: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) suggested that the regions referred to in the new clause are the electoral regions from which the additional Members will be elected. Are Opposition Members seriously suggesting that we should regard the Mid and West Wales electoral region, which extends from the coast in the north right down through the centre of Wales, including Llanelli, Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire, as a coherent regional entity for the purposes of the new clause?
        Mr. Collins: I agree to some extent with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a powerful case against the Bill, which was not introduced by my party, and against the electoral system, which throws up such absurdities. That is what happens when the Government try to introduce a new system of elections—we heard in Home Office questions that five different electoral systems will apply in the United Kingdom during the next 24 months. That is absurd.
        As my right hon. Friend said, we are proposing new clause 21 as a genuine attempt to get the Government to deliver on the promises that they made. They were not forced by us to make them. No member of the Conservative party was pulling the strings of the Prime Minister when he came out on the steps of No. 10 after the election and volunteered that the Government would listen and address the issues. The Secretary of State was not bullied or blackmailed into making the announcements that my right hon. Friend quoted earlier. He said that he recognised that the results showed that different parts of Wales had different attitudes towards the national assembly.
        It has been suggested that Conservative Members are being divisive, but it was the Secretary of State who said that there were different attitudes in the Welsh regions. The new clause may not be the ideal way to deal with the problem, but no one has come up with a better way. At least there is some substance to the new clause—
        770
        unlike the nebulous regional Committees, which seem to have only advisory functions, which can be overruled by the assembly and whose number is to be guessed at or plucked from the mind of the Secretary of State at some time in the future. Now, when the Bill is being considered by the Westminster Parliament, we are not to be told how many regional Committees there will be.
        New clause 21 deals with a serious concern. We have heard from the Secretary of State and others who are in favour of the Bill that it is a major problem that needs to be tackled. The new clause deals with it in a responsible way. It provides that where there are to be decisions affecting the vital interests of a region, one third of the representatives of that region should vote in favour of that proposal. That is quite a low threshold by many standards.
        The new clause is constructive and would enable the Government to deliver on their promises. It would reflect the fact that the referendum result did not indicate, as we have heard repeatedly from the Secretary of State, that the Welsh people are of one mind and one determination, for they were not, according to the referendum result. Parliament has a responsibility to deliver on the undertakings made from the doorstep of No. 10 that the Bill would be amended to take account of those differences.
        We have the chance today, in the discussion on new clause 21, to make the Bill a great deal better and to give the Welsh people what they were led to believe, the day after the referendum, they would get. For that reason, I support new clause 21.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Despite the attempts at elegant advocacy by Conservative Members, new clause 21 remains, as I think was admitted by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), legislative junk mail. They know that it will not work. They are trying to tap into a wellspring of those who voted no, and to use them as a springboard for a modest electoral revival in Wales in the assembly election campaigns, the Euro-elections or the local government elections next year.
        I am afraid that Conservative Members are sadly mistaken if they think that trying to balkanise Wales is a constructive way forward. To provide for blocking minorities implies a degree of split in Wales that was not the purpose of the regional Committees, which were proposed in the White Paper and are mentioned in the Bill. Admittedly, only one is specified to serve the northern part of Wales. That may well be a northern Committee, but the rest of the structure of the regions is a matter that can be left until a later date, possibly to the assembly itself, to take account of the views of those elected to the assembly on the question of how many regions are needed in order to administer Wales in an appropriately decentralised way.
        To install blocking minorities as the new clause proposes is absurd. It is an attempt to balkanise Wales. It is a sound principle that any new legislative body should not attempt to run before it can walk, but this is a proposal to hobble the Welsh assembly before it can walk.
        There must be a balance in a democratically elected Welsh assembly, with a proportional representation component as to a third of the seats, which will enable people who are not of the majority party in any of the

        771
        Euro-regions of Wales to have a fair chance to give them an incentive to take part in the election, even though they may never win a majority.
        That applies to Conservatives in the south Wales valleys and to Labour people in some remote rural parts of Wales. They may never win a majority, but their supporters have every incentive to vote because the party may have a candidate elected under the list system. It will be inclusive in that respect.
        The adoption of a committee system rather than a cabinet system in the modus operandi of the assembly is another way of ensuring that those who may not be able to win a majority nevertheless have some share of power. That also is intended to cover the fact that in areas of Wales there may be people who feel that they are not part of the dominant political culture.
        In democracies we always count heads—we count majorities, and majorities could conceivably oppress minorities. We accept that. The ways around it are those that have been proposed: proportional representation, the committee system and the establishment of regional Committees, with an obligatory northern Committee and others to be sorted out by the assembly or at a later date.
        The Welsh assembly must be given room to breathe. It must be able to act and to take a strategic all-Wales view at the times and on the subjects where that is appropriate. It must disperse and decentralise where it can, but it must have the strength to make decisions and to deliver on manifesto promises, taking as many of the people along with it as it can. Democracy requires the ability to get decisions made. To tie the Welsh assembly's legs together before it has had a chance to take a few strides, as new clause 21 would do, is absurd. It is an attempt to say to the assembly, "You don't exist yet, but, before you do, we want to make sure that you will be as weak as possible in case you do something to those who voted no in the referendum or those who vote Conservative in general elections".
        Is there any evidence to suggest that, under the proposed structure—given the absence of primary legislative powers and given the existence of an obligatory north Wales Committee, of a proportional representation voting system and of a modus operandi by committee—the assembly will oppress minorities in Wales? We do not know the answer to that question, so why should we assume that the assembly—which, unlike Parliament, will have all sorts of special features designed to prevent oppression of the minority by the majority—will do that?
        If those protections are not built into the Westminster system, why should we assume—even before the assembly is established—that it will oppress minorities because many people happen to live in the industrial south and north-east of Wales? It is true that 50 per cent. of the Welsh population live within 25 miles of central Cardiff—that is not a sin, although the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) might think so. That is the population distribution in Wales that we have inherited as a result of the various economic factors that lead people to live where they live. That is the way it is in Wales:
        772
        many people live in industrial south Wales. We are heavily outnumbered by sheep in Wales by a ratio of about 9:1.
        Mr. Öpik: Sixteen to one.
        Mr. Morgan: It is not as many as that—perhaps it is 5:1. The sheep to people ratio in mid and north Wales is different from the ratio in the industrial south. That is due to the nature of economic activities in different areas of Wales.
        We cannot, on the basis of some absurd fears, hobble the Welsh assembly with leg-irons before it is established. There are many protections in place as a result of the voting system, the modus operandi, proportional representation, and the obligatory north Wales Committee and the assumption of other regional Committees. If we were to accept new clause 21, myriad other new clauses would be suggested to provide further protection for those who voted no in the referendum. Those people would be offered individual opt-outs so that they would not have to pay obeisance to the Welsh assembly.
        Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman referred to "absurd fears". Were those the fears to which the Prime Minister referred? If not, to which fears did he refer?
        Mr. Morgan: The Prime Minister said that the narrowness of the majority in the referendum implied that the Welsh assembly would have to work very hard—and we would have to work hard in framing the legislation—to carry the people of Wales with us and overcome the apathy shown by 49 per cent. of electors who did not vote and those who voted no.
        How will we carry those people with us? One thing we must not do is exaggerate their fears and extend the natural centrifugal forces in Wales that are created by the population distribution in industrial south Wales, with the mountains in the middle and another population belt along the north Wales coast. We must overcome those centrifugal forces.
        We will not carry the people of Wales with us by balkanising Wales or—like the United Nations mandate in Bosnia—by installing blocking minorities for this or that and giving people the impression that they can opt out. That is not the correct way forward. We must generate enthusiasm for the new Welsh democracy that the legislation creates. We should not let people think that they can opt out in some way: they must opt into the new democratic structure. The Tories are trying to replay the referendum in an attempt to cash in on the high proportion of those who voted no and to create the impression that, in some way, the Tories are looking after their interests by helping them to opt out mentally, as it were, and not be part of the new democratic Wales.
        That is an absolutely pernicious way of thinking, which is a reversion to the old Tory colonial mentality: when all else fails, try divide and rule. We will not allow that to happen in our proceedings tonight.
        Mr. Grieve: The more I listen to the arguments advanced by Labour Members—particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—the more convinced I am about the correctness of new clause 21. The hon. Gentleman manifested real anger and passion

        773
        when it was suggested that the new clause might appeal to voters in many parts of Wales. It is extraordinary to suggest that new clause 21 is a wrecking measure and an Opposition conspiracy designed to exploit differences in Wales. That is rather similar to the suggestion that the countryside rally was a conspiracy planned by landowners who gathered together 284,000 forelock-tugging retainers. The two arguments have exactly the same lack of discernment.
        7.45 pm
        The fact is that tensions are currently present in Wales—the passion with which Government Members have opposed new clause 21 shows that they know that very well. It is a tribute to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) that he recognises that those tensions exist. The question is: will those tensions be addressed?
        Mr. Dafis: I did not mention tensions. I spoke about the need to develop a decentralised pattern of government in Wales, unlike the grossly centralised pattern of government that Britain has had for so long.
        Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have misquoted him. I took the thrust of his argument to mean that he recognised that there is immense diversity of view in Wales. We know that from the referendum result. Numerous regions of Wales do not want the assembly. One might infer that they are suspicious of the assembly for a host of different reasons, ranging from a lack of desire for another tier of government to the fact that their regional identity is so markedly different from the areas of south Wales that they believe will become dominant that they are seeking protection.
        Those problems will not go away. Over time, the sense of national identity reflected in the comments about a "national assembly"—and descriptions of it as such—may prevail. However, one can only apply one's own experience and what one sees for oneself when one travels through Wales. When I visit Wales, I get the impression that there is immense diversity and a great sense of local identity. Many people are deeply suspicious of the Cardiff assembly.
        Mr. Donald Anderson: What about the Swansea assembly?
        Mr. Grieve: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The proposed new clause asks that those factors be recognised in order to prevent the regions from being trampled on by the Cardiff assembly. If that occurs, the consequences will manifest themselves—whether or not the new clause is part of the Bill—in hostility about the way in which the assembly operates. That is the reason why this is a sound and solidly based new clause.
        Mr. Anderson: Is the hon. Gentleman privy to information that the rest of us are not in referring to the Cardiff assembly—or is that a general term of Conservative abuse for the Welsh assembly?
        Mr. Grieve: I am aware that the assembly appears to be somewhat peripatetic as to its possible final location. I refer to it as the Cardiff assembly because, according to
        774
        the hon. Member for Cardiff, West, it will be dominated by the area within 20 miles of Cardiff where the population is. Regardless of whether the assembly is located in Cardiff or in Aberystwyth, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that its composition will be dominated by south Wales by virtue of population distribution. I also thought that the Secretary of State wanted the assembly to be located in Cardiff—the fact that Cardiff does not want it, because Cardiff did not want an assembly in the first place, is another matter.
        Fear of domination is something that the Committee should address. It is said that Conservatives believe in divide and rule. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have spent the past six months arguing that we do not want the United Kingdom to be divided, and that we would prefer to maintain a unitary system. It is hon. Members on the Government Benches who have been fermenting discord, but having done so they set up their own imperial entity and seek to dominate other regions within it. That is the fantasy that they have created in their minds as to the way in which government should be conducted. That is a bad principle.
        As the Government have accepted, there is tremendous diversity of view in Wales, and the Prime Minister has said that it should be recognised. They should have the courage to accept that and accept the new clause, which protects the regions of Wales. Whether or not these are electoral regions, they are the only ones that we have at the moment. If the Government were creative, they would identify the different regions in Wales and include them by amendment in the Bill. The fact that they have not done so has put the responsibility back on us, and we have done our best.
        Mr. Robert Syms: I shall make a brief speech in support of the new clause.
        The United Kingdom is the result of relationships that have grown up over quite a long time. The question is: what unites the Welsh? One feature that unites the Welsh is the English. There is a relationship between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Whether on the rugby pitch or trying to represent the Welsh nation, or whether one is making proposals, the reality is that there is a certain unity that the Welsh have had to have as 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population. Once one devolves power to the Welsh assembly, one changes the nature of that relationship, and there is internal competition from within the Principality for resources. Ministers would be well advised to recognise that the debate, which so far has been in terms of Wales, England, Scotland, and the United Kingdom, will be different with a devolved assembly.
        I have sat through the debates on almost all the clauses, and have been struck that whenever resources or the Welsh Development Agency is discussed, or even where the assembly will be based, hon. Members have jumped up to make bids for their respective regions. That is part of politics. We all like to represent our areas, but it is quite clear that there are different agendas in different parts of Wales.
        There are worries. Fears have been expressed. None of us wants disunity in Wales. That is not part of the Conservative party's agenda at all. We wish people to work together. From what we have heard during the Bill's consideration, and from the result of the referendum, to

        775
        which one must pay attention, we are concerned that many areas of the Principality had, and may still have, concerns about the way in which the assembly will be set up and how it will operate. What we on the Conservative Benches are trying to do, in our most helpful fashion, is to ensure that there is consent and consensus throughout the regions of Wales.
        I agree that the regions chosen are not ideal, as they were set by the Government for electoral reasons. We should review the regions to see what interest there is. It is clear that there are differences between north and south Wales. If that were not so, there would not be a north Wales Committee in the Bill. There are differences between east and west Wales, with the exception of Pembroke. There is a diversity within Wales. All we are trying to do is to have that recognised by the assembly.
        I hope that the Government will pay attention to the new clause. If they do not accept it at this stage, I hope that they will come back with proposals to ensure a great deal of unity throughout the regions for any proposal that they make.
        We heard from hon. Members about the electoral system and the various methods of trying to create unity. My central point is that if one changes the relationship within the United Kingdom and ends up with a wholly Welsh assembly that deals with problems with a different agenda, the nature of the relationship within Wales will be changed.
        I almost felt sorry for the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) when hon. Members started to talk about shifting jobs out of Cardiff to other areas of Wales, with hon. Members suggesting that perhaps the assembly should be in Swansea, or elsewhere. No doubt there will be fierce competition for the £7 billion of resources that the assembly will spend. There is no doubt that many people in Cardiff and the surrounding areas have jobs, living standards and mortgages based on the fact that they work for the Welsh Office, and the Welsh civil service. That will be a real issue for debate. Our proposal is to ensure the greatest consent throughout the regions—north, south, east and west.
        I would not say that I am wholly uncritical of our proposals, because given that the new clause has been selected for debate, and the electoral regions were not selected by us, in different circumstances one could probably have done a better job of drafting a better proposal. I hope that the Government will take on board our concerns for the regions of Wales: the change in the relationship of the United Kingdom will change the dynamics of the debate in Wales. After all the debate and all the concerns that have been expressed, and with the great investment that the Government—indeed, the people of Wales—will make in the assembly, I hope that it will be a success, and that there will be a great deal of unity in setting out its objectives. None of us particularly wants to see it fail, although we opposed it in terms of the referendum. The key point is that it has to have consent throughout every region of Wales.
        Mr. Letwin: I, too, speak in support of the new clause, but from a slightly different angle.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: A legalistic one.
        Mr. Letwin: No, in contrast to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). I do not wish to dwell on what he would describe as a legalistic point.
        Mr. Morgan: For the first time.
        Mr. Letwin: This is not the first time.
        I shall dwell on precedent and effect, because part of the duty of the Committee is to consider the effects not just on Wales, which have been much discussed, but on the United Kingdom as a whole. This is a major constitutional Bill, and the new clause is a major constitutional provision. Both the Bill and the new clause will affect how the rest of the constitutional development of the United Kingdom proceeds.
        In particular, with entirely unified objections from Opposition Members, we are led to believe that there may come a time, alas, when Her Majesty's Government will introduce a subsequent Bill with a view to making the current hotch-potch arrangements of regional development agencies in England the basis of English regional government.
        Mr. Syms: Shame.
        Mr. Letwin: I echo entirely the comments of my hon. Friend. It would be a shame, to put it mildly.
        Nevertheless we must recognise that the Government have a significant majority. Indeed, they spare no pains to remind us of that daily. Having introduced such a Bill, the Government, with or without referendums—
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the new clause before us.
        Mr. Letwin: I intend to return specifically to the effect that the new clause would have—
        The First Deputy Chairman: It is not a question of when the hon. Member decides to return to it. I am telling him to return to it now.
        Mr. Letwin: I shall do so immediately, Mr. Martin—forthwith.
        If the new clause is not adopted, a precedent will be created in that there will be no protection for parts of the entirely arbitrary regions, which may be set up for England, from other parts of the same regions with the greatest voting power. That precedent would suggest precisely the need for such protection. Without straying from referring to the new clause, I shall use as an example my own region, the south-west, which some hon. Members present also represent. It is evident to us that in the absence of mechanisms similar to those which are suggested through new clause 21, there would be a grave danger—especially in the case of Bristol, which has a great weight of the votes within the south-western region—of certain areas becoming the overwhelming and dominant features of an arbitrary region. There are parallel cases throughout England in what are, perhaps in contrast to Wales, entities that have hardly any cultural homogeneity, hardly any real historical association and hardly any feeling of being conjoined except by arbitrary fiat of Her Majesty's Government and by a Bill produced in the House of Commons in an arbitrary and legalistic, if I may put it that way, fashion.

        777
        8 pm
        There is a distinction between a country which has a real history and English regions which do not. The danger is—
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not considering the Bill generally. Instead, we are dealing with a specific new clause. The hon. Gentleman must speak to the new clause, and he should know that.
        Mr. Letwin: I accept your admonition, Mr. Martin. In one sense, I find it refreshing, having been accused throughout our consideration of the Bill in Committee of concentrating excessively on the precise words of each clause. In this instance, I am trying to relate my remarks to the new clause while illustrating what I think is an important precedent effect. If new clause 21 is accepted by the Government, or if any similar version is, the Government will be establishing a precedent that will provide protection of the sort that I have described for the English regions. That in itself would justify for many of my right hon. and hon. Friends the insertion of such a new clause.
        Even if the Minister chooses not to take account of the new clause, and not to rephrase it in some way acceptable to himself and his colleagues, I would be extremely grateful if he were able at least to put on record that the Government accept the strength of feeling that would exist in a parallel case in English regions. I would be grateful also if the Minister would accept that where there are arbitrary collocations of particular places put under a single sub-national government, there is a need for protection of the sort suggested in the new clause.
        Mr. Owen Paterson: New clause 21 is excellent, and I support it on the ground that it is clear this evening that not one Government Member has understood how delicate the opinions of many Welsh people are on the question of the assembly. It grieves them to be reminded, but they must be reminded yet again, that 75 per cent. of the Welsh people did not want the assembly. Labour Members have been grossly insensitive this evening towards those who do not want the assembly.
        Mr. Öpik: I am generally sympathetic to the terms of the proposed new clause. However, is the hon. Gentleman not weakening his argument by using the tired old debating point about 75 per cent. yet again?
        Mr. Paterson: If the hon. Gentleman allows me to develop my argument beyond the first four sentences, he might learn what I am about to say.
        The referendum proved that Wales is not homogeneous politically, socially and economically.
        Mr. Dafis: Is England homogeneous in the ways that the hon. Gentleman says Wales is not?
        Mr. Paterson: Certainly not, but we are not putting forward such a measure for England. We believe in a sovereign Parliament for a United Kingdom, and not for one region.
        Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman not rethink the repetition of the tired old line that 75 per cent.
        778
        of the population of Wales did not want the assembly? His side lost the referendum campaign, and we on the other side won it. That is why the measure is before us. These are not just weasel words: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that they are a stoat's soundbites. Will he either rethink the tired old line or forget it? If he does not, his party, the Conservative party, will have no chance of ever reviving from the appalling position of zero Members in which it now finds itself.
        Mr. Paterson rose
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must be careful. We must not return to the argument about the referendum. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that he wished to develop his argument. He has referred to the referendum, but we will not get bogged down by that. Instead, we shall deal with new clause 21.
        Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I am delighted that hon. Members are so interested in my comments. I would like to progress beyond my fifth sentence.
        I am delighted also that the great listener has resumed his place. I refer, of course, to the Secretary of State, who said:
        "I am conscious that we need to do a lot more work to bring Wales together. We must address genuine concerns and I acknowledge the fact that we must listen and continue to listen."—[Official Report, Welsh Grand Committee, 18 November 1997; c. 12.]
        I revert to my argument. Wales is not homogeneous. There are major differences between those in south Wales round Cardiff, who believe strongly—[Interruption.] If hon. Members rise to make interventions, I may be able to respond to them.
        South Wales has little in common with the rural areas that are represented, for example, by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). There is a Labour-dominated elite in south Wales. That economy looks to the east, to the M4. Montgomery and the hills of Powys and those of Denbighshire have little in common with south Wales. The areas of Wales that I know well are in the north-east, on the borders of Wrexham. There again, the borders are arbitrary. The nearest village to my house, Overton on Dee, was a bastide built by Edward I. It is very similar in design to the bastides that he was building in Aquitaine at about the same time.
        Borders are arbitrary, but social and economic flows are not. Labour Members must recognise that there are real misgivings, especially in north-east Wales, about an assembly that may be in Cardiff or Swansea—much depends on how negotiations develop with the local estate agents. We do not know where the assembly will be, but it is almost certain that it will be built in south Wales.
        As I have said, there is real unease. I beg the Secretary of State to take that on board. There is unease in the markets in north Wales as there is among investors, who are coming over the border from places such as Chester, Manchester and Liverpool. Those are the areas to which the economy of north-east Wales looks.
        Socially, many of the people in north-east Wales have come from over the border and are all along the coast. There are those who have come from Merseyside. They have little in common with those who will dominate the assembly in south Wales, and they are nervous.

        779
        There is no transport system between north and south Wales. That is no one's fault, because there are mountains in the way. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire knows full well that the way to get through from north Wales to south Wales runs through my constituency and on to Shrewsbury. There are no links, and there is little in common. That was demonstrated graphically during the referendum.
        New clause 21 would give the regions a chance. As proposed, the Bill contains no reference to a revising chamber. There is nothing to resist the diktat of the south Wales majority. [Interruption.] The two Ministers are laughing, but we could not have been faced with a more graphic example yesterday. There were nearly 300,000 people on the country march. They demonstrated that we cannot run a parliamentary democracy if the majority abuses its temporary power.
        Ministers must take that on board. Majorities cannot use their power to trample on substantial minorities. The referendum showed that. I know from the people in north-east Wales, whom I speak to every week, that there are those in north Wales with real doubts about the whole project.
        I turn briefly to new clause 24. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) told us that he wants to reduce traffic. I cannot understand how traffic will be reduced if parts of the administration of the assembly will be dispersed around Wales. We have the horrendous example of the European Parliament. I think that about 80 trucks go up and down between Brussels and Strasbourg once a month. We do not want to see that in Wales, if it is to remain a green and unpolluted land. I shall vote against new clause 24, and strongly support new clause 21.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: We have had an entertaining and, at times, passionate debate on the new clauses. New clause 21 would place on the assembly procedural limitations in decision making on the vital interests of any region. Decisions could not be made without the support of at least a third of the Members of the Assembly from that region.
        The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) specified five electoral regions: I shall not cavil at what regions he could justifiably use for this purpose. The assembly's Presiding Officer would determine when a region's vital interests were likely to be affected by a particular proposal. In reaching that conclusion, the Presiding Officer would have to have regard to the views of the regional Committee, which would be binding unless the Presiding Officer certified that they were without reasonable weight.
        The assumption behind the new clause should not go unchallenged. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) considered the new clause typical of the Conservative party's cynical and patronising attitude to Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan saw it as hypocrisy: the Conservative party was opposed to devolution for Wales, but now seems to want devolution within Wales.
        My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said that the new clause was an attempt to balkanise Wales and to hobble the National Assembly for Wales. The Bill
        780
        provides for proportional representation, and, through the regional Committees, for the views of all parts of Wales and of all parties that gain reasonable support across the whole of Wales to be taken into account.
        The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) may know that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has suggested that regions could be based on the four areas used by the Welsh Development Agency, or on those to be used by the new powerhouse. The national assembly advisory group has been considering seven regions, but there will be consultations, on the basis of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will decide on the best way forward. The principal point is that advisory committees will be set up.
        It takes unprecedented gall for Conservative Members to discuss the worries of people in Wales. Only the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) can claim to have regular contact with any part of Wales. We should remind ourselves that, of the 40 Welsh constituencies, 34 returned Labour Members of Parliament, in industrial and rural areas; four returned Plaid Cymru Members; two returned Liberal Democrat Members; and not one elected a Conservative Member of Parliament. Conservative Members should approach with humility the matter of what they know about what the Welsh people are thinking.
        The Opposition assume that the assembly will in some way ride roughshod over the interests of particular regions of Wales in a malign conspiracy to promote one area over another. Labour Members represent 34 of the 40 Welsh constituencies, and are always in a majority in Wales.
        We reject the nightmarish picture painted by the Conservative party. The National Assembly for Wales will work for the whole of Wales, not just for parts of it. The electoral system that we are providing will ensure that the voices of all parts of Wales will be heard in the assembly, and that the interests of the whole of Wales are taken fully into account. New clause 21 would place an artificial and bureaucratic constraint on the assembly in the proper discharge of its functions. We cannot accept it.
        We have heard much about the referendum and yes-voting and no-voting areas. I remind the Opposition that the distribution of yes and no votes—the so-called green and red areas—is artificial, and does not sufficiently represent how the votes were cast. Nearly 40 per cent. of the yes votes were cast in areas that voted no. The 10,000 yes votes cast in Monmouthshire were as crucial to the majority as the yes votes cast in Carmarthenshire. Wales voted for the proposal in a national referendum. We can forget about the concept of yes and no votes: there was a substantial yes vote in the no areas.
        8.15 pm
        The new clause is inconsistent with the Opposition's championing of a cabinet system for the assembly, because it would hobble such a system and make it difficult to operate. The Opposition have suddenly come up with a regional system, which would hobble the National Assembly for Wales. Why on earth did they not think of it years ago, when they were considering the electoral make-up of the United Kingdom? They could have given Members of Parliament from Wales, Scotland and the standard planning regions of England a vote on proposals that had an impact on everybody—a far greater impact than a national assembly with its own powers will

        781
        have—and, if more than a third of them were opposed to a proposal, such as the poll tax, it could have been shelved or imposed only on those parts of England that voted for it. The story told by Conservative Members is ludicrous.
        New clause 24 was spoken to by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) and supported by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey). The proposal for a National Assembly for Wales is aimed at bringing government closer to the people, and is at the heart of devolution. I look forward to the assembly making itself visible and accessible to all the people of Wales. However, the proposal in new clause 24 is not the best way forward.
        Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion advocated devolution from Cardiff, it sounded like devolution to Aberystwyth. I shall put that matter aside for the moment, and point out that 25 per cent. of the executive quangos in Wales have headquarters outside Cardiff. There is also a substantial Welsh Office presence in a number of parts of Wales. We have no objection in principle to administrative devolution, but it is a matter that the assembly should consider. Significant extra costs would be built into the operation of the assembly in its early years if Parliament imposed an artificial timetable for devolution.
        We must accept that the assembly may want to take up the theme of new clause 24, and will decide whether to undertake administrative devolution from Cardiff in its own time and in its own way. It is not, however, the job of this Parliament or this Bill to provide for such a set programme of administrative devolution. I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion will accept that.
        Mr. Paterson: What reassurances can the Minister offer people in north-east Wales who have real doubts about the whole project? We have heard bluster from him, but so far we have heard no answers.
        Mr. Griffiths: I realise that it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to get to grips with the concept of the whole of Wales. Let me explain the point of our proposals. At present, no Conservatives represent north-east Wales, but under the additional member system, there is a chance that a few may do so. That will give an opportunity to some of the voice of north-east Wales that is not now heard in this Parliament to be heard in the national Assembly for Wales.
        Similarly, the regional Committees will have an opportunity to give advice to the assembly. I have every confidence that the whole assembly will want to consider the views of its constituent parts. I realise that it is difficult for Conservatives to understand that any institution will listen to advice, because for 18 years they rejected advice consistently.
        We will reject new clause 21 if the Opposition have the temerity to press it to a vote. As for new clause 24, I hope that it will not be pressed.
        Mr. Evans: We always thought that this would be a significant debate. It has proved to be so, but it does not behove the Minister to talk about "listening", given that we have listened to what he just said about new clause 21.
        I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins), for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), for Poole (Mr. Syms), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve),
        782
        for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). They proved one thing, at least: that they have listened to what the people of Wales have been saying.
        New clause 21 is intended to allay the fear of people in the regions that they will be dominated by Cardiff and the south-east. If we look at the result of the referendum on 18 September—[Interruption.] I was waiting for the Secretary of State to start huffing and puffing. This is the one thing that he does not want: he does not want people to talk about the result of the referendum on 18 September. I understand why—it was an embarrassing result for the Secretary of State—but we will not allow history to be airbrushed in such a fashion.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that, if the swing of opinion between 1979 and the referendum had been the same as the swing between then and the general election, there would not have been a Conservative Member in the House.
        Mr. Evans: That comes from the same school of thought that told us a moment ago that it was Monmouthshire that "won it for us". It is ridiculous to use statistics in such a way. The result in Monmouthshire was appalling—more than two to one against the measure.
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members must not dwell on the results in Monmouthshire, or in any county of Wales; they must debate new clause 21.
        Mr. Evans: I went down that route, Mr. Martin, in response to the Minister, who presented a particular proposition.
        New clause 21 refers to the regions. We must not ignore the fears of Wales, and we must not ignore the result of the referendum. We must take it on board. We must accept that there was a low turnout and that the result was split, and we must not kid ourselves, or con the Welsh people, that it was otherwise. At least on the morning of the result, the Prime Minister—instead of flying to Wales to pat the Secretary of State on the back and say how wonderful the result had been—
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must not go into the history of the referendum, which is past and done with. What is won is won, and what is lost is lost. We must deal with new clause 21.
        Mr. Evans: New clause 21 is intended to address the fears of the people of Wales, who, in the regions, did not whole-heartedly support the proposals. The result proved that Wales was split down the middle. New clause 21 is aimed to deal with the result of the referendum. The Government—along with the Prime Minister—said that they would listen to the fears of the Welsh people, but they have not done so. It is the same sort of listening as their "listening" to the countryside. That is why 284,000 people marched on London yesterday.

        783
        The Government said that they would listen to the sensitivities of the people of Wales. What have they offered the people of Wales in the Bill? They have offered clause 62. I do not know whether Labour Members have read clause 62, but it could be called the sop clause.
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not start quoting from clause 62. We are discussing new clause 21.
        Mr. Evans rose
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must listen to me, even if he listens to no one else in the Chamber. [Interruption.]
        Mr. Evans: I will certainly ignore sedentary catcalls from the Secretary of State.
        New clause 21 addresses the deficiencies of clause 62, which deals with regional Committees. Clause 62 provides for the establishment of a regional Committee in north Wales—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State listen for a moment? This is his Bill. The Government have decided to set up a Committee in north Wales, and other Committees in other regions of Wales. When the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) was talking about the Committees, we asked how many would be set up. He could not tell us, because he did not know. I suspect that he had not read the Bill properly. Clause 62 clearly states—
        Mr. Win Griffiths rose—
        Mr. Evans: I have no time to give way. I have only four minutes left, and I am trying to follow the Chairman's guidance as far as possible.
        The Government refer to north Wales and the other regions. In subsection (5), they state that the members of a regional Committee should be the Members representing regional constituency seats and also regional seats. We have taken the new clause from clause 62, to try to be helpful and to deal with the fears of people in the regions. [Interruption.]
        The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Those on the Government Front Bench must be quiet.
        Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
        The fact is that clause 62 does not address the fears of people in the regions, for instance in north Wales, who feel that they will be dominated by a Cardiff-based, or Swansea-based—certainly a south Wales-based—assembly. We tabled new clause 21 to allay those fears.
        The Secretary of State and the Minister have talked about being inclusive, and listening to what the people have said. If they want the will of the Welsh people to be settled, they will accept new clause 21. It will provide real presence and structure; it will address the fears of the regions in vital respects that affect parts of Wales outside Cardiff and the south-east. They will have a blocking vote that will give the whole structure some teeth. Our new clause is intended to be constructive rather than
        784
        destructive. We have tried to include the people of the regions outside Cardiff and the south-east. The new clause is straightforward, but if the Secretary of State is unhappy with it, he can prepare one of his own.
        We want to listen to the people of Wales, but the Government have shown that they are not interested in anything other than spin, soundbites and cheesy smiles, and they are not enough to assuage the fears of people in the regions. That is why we will divide the Committee. We have listened to the people of Wales, and Labour has not. We shall speak up for all the Welsh people.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 271.

        Division No. 186]

        [8.29 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Grieve, Dominic

        Amess, David

        Gummer, Rt Hon John

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Hancock, Mike

        Arbuthnot, James

        Harris, Dr Evan

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

        Harvey, Nick

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Hawkins, Nick

        Baker, Norman

        Hayes, John

        Baldry, Tony

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Blunt, Crispin

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Horam, John

        Brazier, Julian

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Breed, Colin

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Hunter, Andrew

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Burnett, John

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Bums, Simon

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

        Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Cash, William

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Key, Robert

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Chidgey, David

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Chope, Christopher

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Clappison, James

        Letwin, Oliver

        Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Lidington, David

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Livsey, Richard

        Collins, Tim

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Colvin, Michael

        Loughton, Tim

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Luff, Peter

        Cotter, Brian

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Cran, James

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        Mclntosh, Miss Anne

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        MacKay, Andrew

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Day, Stephen

        Malins, Humfrey

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Maples, John

        Duncan, Alan

        Mates, Michael

        Duncan Smith, lain

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Evans, Nigel

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Faber, David

        Moss, Malcolm

        Fabricant, Michael

        Öpik, Lembit

        Fallon, Michael

        Ottaway, Richard

        Feam, Ronnie

        Page, Richard

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Paterson, Owen

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Pickles, Eric

        Fraser, Christopher

        Randall, John

        Gale, Roger

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Garnier, Edward

        Rendel, David

        Gibb, Nick

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Gill, Christopher

        Ruffley, David

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Gorrie, Donald

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Gray, James

        Sanders, Adrian

        Greenway, John

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        785

        Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Shepherd, Richard

        Walter, Robert

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Wardle, Charles

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

        Waterson, Nigel

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Whittingdale, John

        Spring, Richard

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Wilkinson, John

        Steen, Anthony

        Willetts, David

        Streeter, Gary

        Willis, Phil

        Stunell, Andrew

        Wilshire, David

        Swayne, Desmond

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Syms, Robert

        Woodward, Shaun

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Yeo, Tim

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Townend, John

        Tredinnick, David

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Trend, Michael

        Mr. Oliver Heald and

        Tyler, Paul

        Sir David Madel.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Ainger, Nick

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Allen, Graham

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Dafis, Cynog

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Armstrong, Ms Hilary

        Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

        Ashton, Joe

        Darvill, Keith

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Austin, John

        Davidson, Ian

        Barron, Kevin

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Battle, John

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Beard, Nigel

        Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Dawson, Hilton

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Denham, John

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Dismore, Andrew

        Benton, Joe

        Dobbin, Jim

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Betts, Clive

        Doran, Frank

        Blizzard, Bob

        Dowd, Jim

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Drew, David

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Drown, Ms Julia

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Edwards, Huw

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Efford, Clive

        Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Ennis, Jeff

        Burden, Richard

        Etherington, Bill

        Burgon, Colin

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Fisher, Mark

        Caborn, Richard

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Fitzsimons, Lorna

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Flint, Caroline

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Flynn, Paul

        Caplin, Ivor

        Follett, Barbara

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Fyfe, Maria

        Galbraith, Sam

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Galloway, George

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Coaker, Vemon

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Godman, Norman A

        Cohen, Harry

        Godsiff, Roger

        Colman, Tony

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Connarty, Michael

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Cooper, Yvette

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Corbett, Robin

        Grogan, John

        Cousins, Jim

        Gunnell, John

        Cox, Tom

        Hain, Peter

        786

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Morley, Elliot

        Hanson, David

        Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

        Healey, John

        Mudie, George

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Mullin, Chris

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Heppell, John

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hinchliffe, David

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Hodge, Ms Margaret

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Hoey, Kate

        Olner, Bill

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Hope, Phil

        Pearson, Ian

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Pendry, Tom

        Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

        Perham, Ms Linda

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Pike, Peter L

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Plaskitt, James

        Hurst, Alan

        Pollard, Kerry

        Hutton, John

        Pope, Greg

        Illsley, Eric

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Jenkins, Brian

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaWeld)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Purchase, Ken

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Quinn, Lawrie

        Rammell, Bill

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Rapson, Syd

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Rooker, Jeff

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Rooney, Terry

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Ruane, Chris

        Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

        Sawford, Phil

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lawrence, Ms Jackie

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Leslie, Christopher

        Singh, Marsha

        Levitt, Tom

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Linton, Martin

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Lock, David

        Snape, Peter

        Love, Andrew

        Soley, Clive

        McAllion, John

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Spellar, John

        McCabe, Steve

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

        McDonnell, John

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        McFall, John

        Stott, Roger

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Stringer, Graham

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        McLeish, Henry

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        McNulty, Tony

        MacShane, Denis

        Taylor, David (NWLeics)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Touhig, Don

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Trickett, Jon

        Martlew, Eric

        Truswell, Paul

        Meale, Alan

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Michael, Alun

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Milburn, Alan

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Miller, Andrew

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Mitchell, Austin

        Ward, Ms Claire

        Moffatt, Laura

        Wareing, Robert N

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Watts, David

        787

        White, Brian

        Wise, Audrey

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Wood, Mike

        Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

        Worthington, Tony

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Wray, James

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Wyatt, Derek

        Wilson, Brian

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Winnick, David

        Mr. David Clelland and

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Mr. David Jamieson.

        Question accordingly negatived.

      New Clause 22

        EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES (WELSH PUBLIC BODIES)
        '—.(1) It shall be the duty of any body mentioned in Schedule 13 to make arrangements with a view of securing that its functions are carried out with due regard to the need to secure equality of opportunity.

        (2) In this section, "equality of opportunity" means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability or of other personal attributes, including belief or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions.'.—[Ms Julie Morgan.]?

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Ms Julie Morgan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 25—Gender neutral drafting—
        '.—The National Assembly for Wales shall use gender neutral language in its publications and when framing subordinate legislation.'.
        New clause 30—Equal opportunities (candidatures)—

        —(1) The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 shall be amended as follows.

        (2) After section 49 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted—
        "Candidatures for National Assembly for Wales
        49A. Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by or on behalf of a registered political party within the meaning of the Government of Wales Act 1998 if it is an act done for the purpose of, or in connection with—

        (a) selecting female candidates only, or male candidates only, for election to the National Assembly for Wales (`the Assembly'), or

        (b) taking any steps preliminary to, or in connection with, such selection which either favour or subject to a detriment either female or male candidates,
        provided that in the opinion of the party concerned the act in question is in the circumstances necessary to attempt to secure an equal number of members of the sex favoured as there are of the other sex as candidates of that party for election to the Assembly".'.

        Ms Morgan: New clause 22 would impose the duty on public bodies of ensuring that their functions are performed with regard to equality of opportunity. It would apply to any of the public bodies mentioned in schedule 13 to the Bill—such as, for example, health authorities and trusts, the Welsh Development Agency and the Welsh Language Board. The membership of public bodies in Wales is very unrepresentative of the people of Wales, with women comprising less than a third of their membership. The new clause is therefore very necessary.
        788
        I should like to speak primarily to new clause 30, which would amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and allow political parties to introduce positive discrimination, to secure the selection of equal numbers of women and men candidates in elections to the assembly. I shall go into some detail on how the 1975 Act operates and on how new clause 30 would help to secure a more representative assembly.
        The Sex Discrimination Act 1975. which is now 23 years old, was the first time that Parliament tried to legislate for equality between women and men. We have come a long way since the Act was passed, in our understanding of what we mean by equality and of how discrimination can arise. Discrimination often happens unintentionally, because little thought is given to the effect of actions on women and on men.
        The 1975 Act differentiates between direct and indirect discrimination and states that, to claim discrimination in a tribunal, one must show a detriment. However, the Act provides only a few specific instances of detriment, such as in advertising. The Act makes it clear that its provisions apply to employment, education and access to publicly available goods, facilities and services, although it has been up to the courts to decide by case law what constitutes discrimination.
        An individual alleging sex discrimination makes an application to a tribunal and argues her or his case, giving as much evidence as they can. Decisions are made individually. The Equal Opportunities Commission has made recommendations to establish a clearer and more comprehensive law, and has produced a document that is currently out for consultation. However, the law that currently applies is that which was passed in 1975.
        The legal definition of discrimination has not been set in stone but has evolved by case law, both in United Kingdom and in European courts. It was not until 1986, for example, that sexual harassment was acknowledged as constituting sex discrimination. Even more recently. the courts have agreed that detrimental treatment of a woman because of pregnancy is sex discrimination. The law grows and evolves—reflecting society's views and sense of justice—in outlawing discrimination.
        Until the Jepson case—which challenged all-women shortlists—it had been widely believed that the actions of political parties fell outside sex discrimination legislation. Section 33 of the 1975 Act specifically states that the Act shall not
        "be construed as affecting any special provision for persons of one sex only in the constitution, organisation or administration of the political party."
        That means that we are legally able to have women's sections and women's seats on committees, which have been widely used by all political parties.
        When Mr. Jepson began his case, in 1993, the Equal Opportunities Commission took an opinion, which confirmed its view that selection for parliamentary candidates did not constitute employment, and so did not fall within the scope of the 1975 Act, but was an internal matter for a political party. An industrial tribunal disagreed. However, that was only one tribunal; another might have reached a quite different conclusion. The case was not appealed, and therefore did not reach a higher court, where a precedent might have been set and the law clarified.

        789
        8.45 pm
        The objectives of the European Community and of the United Nations are to achieve gender balance in decision making. The United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women was acceded to by the United Kingdom Government in 1986, and places special importance on women's participation in the public life of their country. Other conventions have reinforced the position of establishing a set framework of international standards of equality—including the Beijing declaration, and the platform for action arising from the United Nations conference on the status of women, which our Government agreed to implement.
        Across the world, political debate now acknowledges that it is not enough simply to remove barriers to women's participation, but that we must take positive action and positive measures to get women involved. The concept of democracy that Labour is committed to renewing will have real meaning and lasting effects only when political decision making is shared by women and by men.
        Article 4 of the UN convention encourages the use of temporary special measures to give effect to article 7, which spells out the right to participate in the formulation of Government policy, to hold public office and to participate in non-governmental, public and political organisations.
        New clause 30, which would not only amend but clarify the 1975 Act, would allow British political parties to give effect to the principle stated in the UN convention, and would allow the UK to support and to take action in achieving the European Commission's fourth equal opportunities action programme—which has as one of its five objectives promoting a gender balance in decision making, and proposes that the Commission should develop a policy for promoting gender balance in decision making, by improving the quantity and quality of women's participation. The Commission plans to encourage and to support similar actions at the other decision-making levels—at both national and regional level—within member states.
        The Labour party's proposals for Wales and for Scotland are absolutely in line with the EC and UN objectives. In Wales, women have been more dramatically under-represented in public and political life than in any other part of Britain. Wales has the lowest percentage of female councillors, and until May, only four women had ever represented Welsh constituencies. The three new women Members elected in May bring the grand total to four out of 40 and were selected from women-only shortlists. Positive action was required to ensure that more women were elected to represent Wales.
        Labour has agreed to field equal numbers of women and men as candidates in the elections to the assembly and to the Scottish Parliament.
        Mr. Alan W. Williams: I whole-heartedly agree with the aim of gender balance, but my hon. Friend knows from our discussions on achieving that aim that it raises difficult issues for constituency parties. What is the problem with 50:50 shortlists? That form of positive discrimination
        790
        could apply in the public sector as well as to political parties, although it would not guarantee gender balance. Will my hon. Friend explain why she rejects that idea?
        Ms Morgan: I reject the idea of 50:50 shortlists because there is no guarantee that it will produce the required result. Obviously, it is a step in the right direction, but it would not guarantee 50:50 representation. I would accept that only as part of the solution.
        We are working on procedures to achieve equal representation, but a worry remains that the law is unclear and any procedure adopted may be challenged. The new clause would not mean that there would be no legal challenge—nothing can guarantee that—but it would make clear the Government's intention that women should play a full and equal part in the national assembly and their commitment to allow political parties to take whatever steps they see fit to achieve that.
        Sir Raymond Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware of my proposal that there should be 40 seats for women and 40 seats for men, totalling 80 seats in the assembly? Would not that solve the problem? It would do away with the need for proportional representation, as there would be an equal balance of male and female Members of the Assembly.
        Ms Morgan: That would be a simple solution, and I welcome the proportionality that it would involve. However, we have to combine gender balance with the element of proportionality.
        The new clause would enormously strengthen the position of any political party that needed to contest a legal challenge. We have to be aware that anti-equality organisations may mount such a challenge.
        The new clause means that any case would have to hinge on European law. The Equal Opportunities Commission has taken further legal advice, which confirms the earlier advice that it received and argues that measures to ensure parity of female candidates are unlikely to contravene the equal treatment directives.
        There have been a number of signs that European law will uphold special measures if they are consistent with United Kingdom law. First, the treaty of Amsterdam, which amends the treaty of Rome, makes it clear that positive action measures to redress the under-representation of women are lawful. Article 119 states that
        "the principle of equal treatment shall not prevent any Member State from maintaining or adopting measures providing for specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantage in professional careers".
        In the recent Marschall case, the European Court of Justice ruled that selection procedures that gave priority to female candidates when fewer women than men were employed was not unlawful discrimination, provided that there was an objective assessment of male as well as female candidates.
        There is a great deal of evidence and legal opinion to suggest that a legal challenge to measures to field equal numbers of male and female candidates in elections to a new body such as the Welsh xassembly, in a country where women have been so dramatically excluded from political life, would not succeed.

        791
        The argument in favour of amending the Sex Discrimination Act is that that would strengthen the ability of political parties to defend themselves against a claim, by making clear the Government's intention and demonstrating that democracy comes first. The establishment of the Welsh assembly is a crucial part of the Government's strategy to revitalise and renew our democracy, and for it to work, we must ensure that 52 per cent. of the Welsh population who were previously excluded are there at the start. We cannot afford to waste time and energy defending cases through industrial tribunals, when we need to make absolutely categorical and indisputable our commitment to equality and inclusiveness, as part of the new democracy.
        The new clause would enable the Government to defend themselves against any claim or action by any political party; it is essential that we ensure that 52 per cent. of the Welsh population have an opportunity to serve on the assembly.
        Mr. Öpik: We support the new clause, for the simple reason that it is about time that we started taking equal opportunities seriously. It places a duty on
        "any body mentioned in Schedule 13",
        such as a housing action trust, the National Museum of Wales, or the National Library of Wales, to ensure that there is equality of opportunity in the carrying out of its functions. It states that
        "'equality of opportunity' means the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds or on grounds of disability — religious beliefs or political opinions."
        Mr. Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that agism should be included in that list? As it is my hon. Friend's birthday today, on which I congratulate him, does he not think it an appropriate moment to introduce that point?
        Mr. Öpik: I thank my hon. Friend for undermining my repeated youthful credentials. The world should know that this is the end of my first third of a century on the planet. At 33 today, I remember when I was younger, but I shall leave those reminiscences until another time.
        My hon. Friend raises a serious point, however. There is a great deal of age discrimination, and perhaps the new clause would have been even better if it had included that.
        The new clause also demands acceptance that the Welsh assembly would necessarily use gender-neutral language in its publications and when framing subordinate legislation. In effect, it is saying that the status quo is not an option when there is a choice between prejudice and equality.
        The challenge of our political generation is to ensure that equal opportunities are enshrined in the etiquette and the legislation of our political institutions. The greatest strength of the new clauses is that they spell out the demand for equal opportunities in the Welsh assembly—a case that has already been made in legislation.
        Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has spoken a good deal about equal opportunities. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) spoke a lot about equality of outcome.
        792
        Does he acknowledge that there is no guarantee that equality of opportunity will lead to equality of outcome? Where does he draw the line? Would he be prepared to go as far as the hon. Lady on what she described as positive action or affirmative action, or is he sitting on the fence, as Liberal Democrats are wont to do?
        Mr. Öpik: I fully understand the Conservative crisis on the issue. I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman is asking the Liberal Democrats for guidance on what the moribund Conservatives should do to ensure equality of opportunity. My tuppenny-worth is that the important point for any political party—not just in Wales—is to set a strategy to dissolve the prejudices that so infest the political structures of the United Kingdom. To that extent, I agree with the desire of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) for a system to redress the balance, which surely nobody in any party can think is reasonable or fair as we come to the turn of the millennium.
        There are differences of view on how best to achieve our aim. The Labour party is proceeding in one direction. We settled our process at a conference at the weekend. I look forward to hearing what the Conservatives will do to ensure that they do not live in the ancient past, with ridiculous sexual inequality and an overbearing proportion of men in whatever seats they can win in the assembly. I hope that that answers the question of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I shall be happy to furnish him with a few more ideas on what the Conservatives might do, when he buys me my birthday drink in the Strangers Bar.
        9 pm
        Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Liberal Democrats are claiming the moral high ground on sorting out the gender balance. Of the 46 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament, how many are women? What did the Liberal Democrats decide at their weekend conference?
        Mr. Öpik: I do not want to digress too far from the matter in hand, but in the spirit of directness that I always seek to achieve in my interactions in the House, I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's questions as briefly and clearly as I can. He well knows that of our 46 Members of Parliament, only three are women. That is an unacceptable proportion. We have said that, and others have said it. We must set about modifying not just the proportion but the first-past-the-post system, which creates such an outcome. The hon. Gentleman knows that we believe that a single transferable vote system would redress the balance. The statistics on our candidates in the general election back that up.
        The hon. Gentleman's second point is probably more relevant to the issue under discussion. The fundamental need is to engender an attitude of not tolerating discrimination in our systems. To summarise very briefly, the conference decided that we must proceed with equal shortlists and show to one and all attitudinally that we are not prepared to accept the prejudices—which come from the head and heart rather than constitutional documentation—that have infested our party and kept us from achieving the sexual equality that we all seek. I hope that that is sufficient explanation for the hon. Gentleman. I see him nodding, so I shall move on.

        793
        On a clean sheet, which the assembly is, we can draw any picture that we want of etiquette and prejudice. We can reproduce the same old tired weaknesses and paradigms that we see in this House, or we can decide that the past is not an option, refusing to tolerate the sexism, racism and agism that have pulled down the credibility of our political system. [Interruption.] Despite some of the incomprehensible shocked disappointment coming from the Conservatives on what is not just logic but a moral imperative, we should all agree on the issue.
        The Government can give a little. Some people think that it is a sign of weakness to accept someone else's ideas. It is the same for the Government sometimes. The starting point for overcoming prejudice is recognising that the vulnerability of listening to and accepting another person's views can help us to modify positions that may prevent us from achieving equality. Just as men must acknowledge that a person's capability should be assessed regardless of gender, just as skin colour does not define personal abilities, so being in government does not entitle a person to believe that they have a monopoly on good ideas. Those who think otherwise feed the fallacious assumptions of superiority from some arbitrary distension. That and a fear of looking vulnerable are the seeds of discrimination. The Government genuinely could go some way to accepting the new clauses, rather than giving some reason in the summation why that is not on.
        Whatever one's view about the selection processes adopted by various parties, what possible harm would it do Ministers or the Government's image to accept the basic request of, say, new clause 25, to ensure gender-neutral language in the assembly's publications? That would not cost a penny. I suggest that those who do not think that that is important ask themselves whether they are unaware of some prejudice in their outlook in the political environment, which makes them discount the importance of changing words to reflect the attitudes so clearly enunciated by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North.
        I urge the Government to show commitment to equality in terms of words and deeds. It is a virtue to admit fallibility. In doing so, they will provide the precondition to sweeping away sexual prejudice. The best thing that the Government can do is to prove that they mean what they say. They have been resistant to accepting change in our deliberations so far. I urge them to accept this change, to show us that they take the issue seriously and to send a message, behind which I hope we can all unite, that sexual equality is the only option in the assembly. The assembly should be a model of good parliamentary practice for the rest of the United Kingdom. We have a golden opportunity to dissolve prejudice.
        Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As I look to the Benches behind me, I freely confess that the Conservative party is not unpreoccupied with matters of female representation in this place, or in the party. One of the key features of our party's renewal will be the involvement of more women in its front line.
        The new clauses display a remarkable lack of confidence in the electors of Wales and how their elected representatives will deal fairly with such issues without the sanction of primary legislation. The Bill already requires the assembly to exercise its functions with due regard to equality of opportunity. The assembly will also have to publish a report each year, outlining what arrangements it has put in place to achieve that and how
        794
        effective they have been. I imagine that, by implication, that applies to the assembly's responsibilities. It is up to the assembly whether it wishes to lay down conditions for Welsh public bodies, as new clause 22 would require in primary legislation. New clause 22 would impose a duty on the bodies to make similar arrangements to the assembly for exercising their functions with due regard to equality of opportunity, but that surely should be a matter for the assembly and not be imposed by the Committee.
        I shall brush over new clause 25 and move straight on to new clause 30. New clause 30 appears to be an interference in the relationship between the elector, the party and the elected. Whatever the internal arrangements of a party, it is not for legislation to lay down methods of selection. Nor should it legitimise forms of discrimination that would otherwise be illegal.
        The way in which the argument about discrimination has progressed is extraordinary. Discrimination is outlawed in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the equal treatment directive and article 119 of the treaty on European Union. As that does not satisfy the political agenda of some of the participants, they want to make legislation more, not less, discriminatory.
        When the Labour party tried to introduce women-only shortlists for parliamentary elections, that was found to be unlawful under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in the case to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) referred. Labour did not appeal, leaving the legal position still somewhat unclear, but several leading lawyers argue that the parliamentary selection process would not be subject to the Act if it came before a court of law.
        Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he thinks that the new clause would lead to a more discriminatory outcome when the whole point is that, starting with a clean slate and a new assembly, the intended outcome should be equal and that neither sex should have a numerical advantage over the other?
        Mr. Jenkin: The logic of the hon. Lady's position is to accept an earlier suggestion that we should simply legislate for 50 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly to be women. That is not a democratic outcome, because the voters of Wales should decide the membership of the assembly, and they should be free to vote for the candidates whom the parties choose to put up. There is a difference between discrimination in the process and discrimination in the outcome. We are against discrimination in the process, whereas the hon. Lady is in favour of discrimination in the process in order to achieve a particular outcome that satisfies her beliefs. That is not necessarily more democratic.
        We all want more women to come into public life, to compete for jobs in public life and to do well, but it does not do women a favour to promote women who are necessarily less well qualified than men. [Interruption.] Women are not inferior to men; women can do just as well as men and often do far better, as we in the Conservative party have discovered from time to time. The problem is that the new clause would legitimise discrimination, and that flies in the face of the very rights that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North is trying to create.

        795
        I refer the Committee attention to article 14 of the European convention on human rights, which the Government are incorporating into United Kingdom law. It states:
        "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."
        That is the true language of rights. The language of the new clause is the language of a political agenda that has more to do with restricting rights in favour of certain groups than with promoting genuine equality. That is why we oppose the new clause, although I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North on her tenacity and on her honesty in telling the House that she herself is here by virtue of such a discriminatory process.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: The business of the Committee has meant that the debate has not been as long as we might have wanted it to be and my remarks will necessarily be brief.
        New clause 22 arises out of a use of schedule 5 to the Scotland Bill and, unfortunately, the way in which that has been transposed into the Government of Wales Bill does not meet the same requirements that exist in the Scotland Bill. It would extend rights in respect of religious and political beliefs, but we have no statute law on those matters and they are therefore specifically excluded in the Scotland Bill, even though they are referred to in the interpretation of equal opportunities. Because of the pressure of time, I shall write in detail to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who stated her arguments clearly, and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
        The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) spoke to new clause 25. We believe that the Bill already provides in clauses 47 and 113 for the assembly's business and the exercise of its functions to be pursued having regard to the principle of equality of opportunity. We also believe that the use of gender-neutral language is only one element in this. The national assembly advisory group is already considering equality of opportunity in the context of clause 47, and I shall ensure that its attention is drawn to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises.
        On new clause 30, the Government attach great importance to much more extensive participation by women in the political process. I take it that that is the feeling of the whole Committee, despite some rather negative remarks. For far too long, there have been far too few women in our elected chambers. That is particularly true of Wales, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said, women have been scandalously under-represented in political life. In 80 years, only seven women Members of Parliament have represented Welsh constituencies, four of whom are current Members. However, I am pleased that two of the five representatives of Welsh constituencies in the European Parliament are women—that is something on which to build.
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Dafis: I want to make it clear that Plaid Cymru Members strongly support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan). May I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that the Women's Institute in Wales suggested that the Equal Opportunities Commission should be included in the list of organisations in schedule 4, to establish a relationship between the assembly and the commission and so encourage the integration of gender balance into the work of the assembly?
        Mr. Griffiths: Speaking off the cuff, I do not think that there would be any problem with that—we shall consider it.
        The Government hope that representation in the National Assembly for Wales will, from the outset, be different from what we have had at Westminster. The assembly will be a new start for Wales, and we hope that women will be to the fore in ensuring that that new start is a success.
        Sir Raymond Powell: What are the Government's proposals to ensure a gender balance? How will they ensure that women are elected to the Welsh assembly?
        Mr. Griffiths: If I may continue with my speech, I hope that some of the issues will emerge as I proceed.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: Three minutes.
        Mr. Griffiths: Well, I shall have to proceed very quickly.
        The Government are committed to the principle of equality. We want the assembly to be inclusive and equally accessible to all groups in Wales. New clause 30 would amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to remove from its scope the selection procedure for assembly candidates. That is a complex issue. The requirements of European employment law, particularly the equal treatment directive, and the Sex Discrimination Act have established the framework in which we work.
        The parties can take a range of steps to encourage more women to put themselves forward as candidates. They need to make a strong statement nationally of their commitment to encourage women to come forward as candidates for selection—I have no hesitation in giving that commitment on behalf of the Wales Labour party.
        Parties should offer more training for women who are interested in putting themselves forward as candidates. There should be training for local selection committees, and promotional literature to encourage women party members to stand for selection. The Equal Opportunities Commission has offered political parties advice on how to put into practice equal opportunities in their selection procedures, and I urge all parties to take up that offer.
        We are also aware that the procedures and working practices of a legislature may in themselves be an active disincentive to women who might otherwise be interested in standing for election. With that in mind, clause 47 requires the assembly to make appropriate arrangements to ensure that its business is conducted with due regard to the principle that there should be equal opportunities for all.

        797
        Clause 113 also requires the assembly to make arrangements to ensure that it has regard to the principle of equality in the exercise of its functions. The White Paper made it clear that we are committed to equal opportunities for all. That commitment extends to women and men, members of the ethnic minority communities, the disabled and others. We urge all political parties to have regard to the principle of equal opportunities in drawing up their procedures for the selection of candidates for the assembly elections.
        I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North to withdraw the motion.
        Ms Julie Morgan: In view of those remarks, and in the hope that the Government will examine the issues again during the passage of the Scotland Bill and consider whether free-standing legislation should be introduced, I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
        Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. In view of the way in which the guillotine is preventing debate on matters such as the consumer affairs committee, can we have some assurance that those matters will be given some consideration on Report?
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a matter for the Chair at this point. I am sure that the Committee is well aware of the times laid down for debates this evening.
        Mr. Livsey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. May I make the same point about the Consolidated Fund, which is especially important?
        The Second Deputy Chairman: I have dealt with that point of order. I remind the Committee that points of order simply take more time out of tonight's debate.
        Mr. Ron Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Lord. Let it nevertheless be on the record that the timetable motion with which we are complying was agreed by all parties, and that the whole House has responsibility for the passage of the legislation.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: I think that I have dealt with that point of order.

      New clause 31

        TREASURY CONSENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE AND COUNCIL TAX)
        '(1) The Assembly shall not directly or indirectly do anything, or omit to do anything, which would have, or may have, the effect of increasing local government expenditure in Wales or the effect of increasing the rate of council tax in Wales without the consent of the Treasury.
        (2) Such consent of the Treasury may be given from time to time and may be revoked or qualified at any time or times.'.— [Mr. Jenkin.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        798
        In an effort to ensure that everyone gets a chance to speak, I shall be as brief as possible. It was interesting to note in the previous debate that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), spoke for longer than the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), who moved the original motion.
        Paragraph 3.8 of the White Paper made it clear that the assembly would assume responsibility for funding Welsh local authorities, and that was to be put into effect by clause 22 and schedule 2 which, taken together, require the Secretary of State to transfer functions relating to local government in Wales.
        The amount of revenue support grant awarded to a council is not specified in law and will be totally at the assembly's discretion. Furthermore, the Government are committed, as paragraph 3.9 of the White Paper says, to removing "crude and universal capping". Indeed, the Secretary of State said:
        "Certainly I want to get away from the capping regime. I think that it is unhealthy … as a Government we are opposed to the crude and universal system of capping, introduced by the last Government, which we have inherited."—[Official Report, 11 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 385–87.]
        As we have consistently said, the assembly could introduce its own tax-raising power through the back door, by deliberately holding back funds from the unitary authorities, safe in the knowledge that they would then raise council tax. The new clause would stop the assembly forcing local authorities to raise their council tax without Treasury approval.
        We have consistently warned that the assembly will effectively possess an indirect tax-raising power. The new clause is designed to prevent that.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) displays entirely unnecessary caution and fear, as I hope to be able to show. It must be realised that funding for local government—the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to that point—represents nearly half of the total Welsh block. New clause 31 would fundamentally affect the way in which the assembly would discharge its responsibilities for funding local government in Wales.
        We must be clear about the effect of the new clause. It would provide for a Government Department in Whitehall to second-guess decisions of an elected assembly based in Wales. The assembly will be directly accountable to the people of Wales for its decisions, but that is not to say that, under devolution, the United Kingdom Government will have no interest in the level of local government expenditure in Wales. The block principles that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary published before Christmas made it clear that financial arrangements would be made to safeguard the United Kingdom taxpayer from the effects of decisions taken by the assembly. That is why, for example, the cost of council tax benefit in Wales is to be brought within the block. The assembly will not be able to pass on the benefit costs of its decisions to the Department of Social Security.
        We have also recognised that, at the moment, local authority self-financed expenditure, including council tax income, forms part of the Government's control total. Council tax levels are controlled by capping. As the hon. Member for North Essex rightly pointed out, the

        799
        Government are committed to abolishing crude, universal capping, but we are reviewing the capping powers as part of our review of local government finance. Consultation on those issues will be carried out later this year in England and Wales. We shall decide, in the light of the review, what powers the assembly should have. The block principles cater for that.
        If local authority self-financed expenditure in Wales grows more rapidly than the equivalent expenditure in England and in such a way as to threaten targets set for public expenditure as part of the management of the UK economy, it will be open to the Government to take the excess into account when considering the level of the Welsh block. That safety provision is written in. Therefore, appropriate safeguards will be put in place to protect the UK taxpayer. The Government's view is that those safeguards are best delivered through the flexible administrative arrangements in the block rules, instead of the straitjacket that would be introduced by new clause 31.
        Under the new clause, a decision to give £1,000 more to local government would require the assembly to go, cap in hand, to the Treasury for permission. That cannot be an appropriate way to treat a mature, elected body. I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex will accept that protection for the UK taxpayer is provided in the block principles that we have already set out. A serious side effect of the new clause would be to make it impossible for the assembly to make even small changes in the provision for local government in Wales. Therefore,
        I hope that he will withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He gave the answer that I expected. Will it be less inflammatory for the future relations between the Treasury and the assembly for a behind-the-scenes, arm-twisting policy to be the way in which the Treasury controls the withdrawal of grant from local authorities, instead of clear and unequivocal consents being required by the Bill? I ask that question as a warning. We believe that misunderstandings on that issue are likely to lead to friction between the Westminster Parliament and the Welsh assembly in the future.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: There is nothing behindclosed-doors about this. I have explained clearly how the principle will work, and it is open for everyone to see.
        Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but there will be private discussions between representatives of the Welsh assembly and the Treasury, behind closed doors, where the issue of how much revenue support grant settlement is doled out to local authorities will have to be agreed, so that the assembly should know that what it is agreeing will not result in a withdrawal of grant by the Treasury.
        That is the use of Executive power, instead of the use of simple expedients in the Bill, to try to control local authority spending. I can appreciate why, sitting in his position, the Minister would prefer everything to be done at the discretion of Ministers, but that approach carries with it dangers. The dangers are that, when the arm twisting becomes serious, the assembly will feel that its legitimate rights are being thwarted because no restriction that would otherwise contain its action has been put in the Bill.
        800
        To achieve what we should prefer to achieve by legislation, the Minister will have to rely on back-room pressure, and back-room pressure is less satisfactory than an open agreement set down in the Bill. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 32

        ASSEMBLY TO BE SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER
        'In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 at the appropriate place insert:—
        "The National Assembly for Wales".'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        9.30 pm
        Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 33—Assembly to be subject to investigation by Commission for Local Administration—
        'In section 25(1) of the Local Government Act 1974 at the end insert:
        "(e) the National Assembly for Wales".'.
        New clause 41—Ombudsman for Wales—
        '.—(1)The Assembly shall make provision for the investigation of relevant complaints made to its members in respect of any action taken by or on behalf of a member of the executive committee in the exercise of functions conferred on the members of the executive committee.
        (2) For the purposes of subsection (I), a complaint is a relevant complaint if it is a complaint of a kind which could be investigated under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 if it were made to a member of the House of Commons in respect of a Government department or other authority to which that Act applies.
        (3) In making provision of the kind required by subsection (1), the Assembly shall have regard to (among other things) the Act of 1967.
        (4) The provision required by subsection (1) shall include the appointment by the Assembly of a National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Administration.
        (5) In this section, "action" includes failure to act (and related expressions shall be read accordingly); and the references to the Act of 1967 are to that Act as it has effect on the commencement of this section.'.
        Mr. Jenkin: I shall be very brief because I should be grateful to the Minister for an answer.
        There is no provision in the Bill for an ombudsman to investigate complaints of maladministration by the assembly or those bodies for which it has responsibility. We could give many examples of where an ombudsman would be an appropriate port of last call for members of the public with grievances. The House has an ombudsman; local government has an ombudsman. Is there an ombudsman to whom people could apply in this case?
        Mr. Wigley: I wish to speak to new clause 41, which proposes an ombudsman for Wales, making slightly different provision from that suggested by the Conservative new clauses 32 and 33, which give that responsibility either to the parliamentary ombudsman or

        801
        to the local government ombudsman. Our new clause provides the facility for a specific ombudsman for the National Assembly for Wales. Whichever course is chosen, it is essential that there is recourse to an ombudsman.
        Mr. Livsey: Liberal Democrat Members agree with what the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has just said, but if what he proposes is not possible, we propose that the assembly be subject to investigation by the parliamentary commissioner. We do not believe that investigation by the commissioner for local administration in Wales, as is suggested in new clause 33, is appropriate.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I was fully prepared to take short speeches from all the Opposition parties because we believe—as we have shown in our actions—that an important part of the process of passing the Bill is to listen to what people have to say.
        The House may recall that, in the White Paper, we said that we would wish to extend the jurisdiction of the parliamentary commissioner to cover the work of the assembly. However, after considering the matter, and at the suggestion of the parliamentary commissioner, Michael Buckley, we felt that it would be better to create a separate office of the assembly ombudsman. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State informed the House of that on Second Reading.
        It is our intention to create a new office of the assembly ombudsman. We would expect constituents to bring their appeals to the ombudsman through their Member of the Assembly, as constituents bring appeals to the parliamentary commissioner through their Member of Parliament. It would be up to the assembly to decide whether it wanted its own free-standing ombudsman or whether it would place itself at the disposal of the parliamentary ombudsman. However, we shall table an amendment, and when we do so there will be an opportunity to discuss the detail. Therefore, I hope that the motion will be withdrawn.
        Mr. Jenkin: It has been drawn to my attention that, in view of our previous debates, it might be more appropriate to call the person an ombudsperson rather than an ombudsman, because I believe that we want gender-neutral language in the Welsh assembly. That rather underlines the pointlessness of the exercise. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 35

        CANDIDATURES
        '(1) No party may submit a list of candidates to be Assembly members for an Assembly electoral region unless there is a candidate of that party in at least one—half of the Assembly constituencies included in that Assembly electoral region.

        (2) Where a party has candidates in at least one half of the Assembly constituencies included in an Assembly electoral region they shall submit a list of candidates to be Assembly members for that Assembly electoral region.'.—[Mr. Ancram]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        802
        This is a somewhat unusual new clause that deals with an important point. As I have only a short time to deploy the argument, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not take interventions. I hope that the Government will be able to respond.
        To understand the argument, it is necessary to revisit the proposed system of elections to the assembly, which we discussed earlier in Committee—the two-vote additional member system known as AMS, with the distribution of list seats contingent on the outcome of the constituency contests in the individual constituencies in each region.
        For various reasons, largely in relation to the Scotland Bill, it has become clear that the AMS as at present provided could be open to legal but undesirable manipulation, which would effectively go far towards negating the purpose of achieving a more proportional result.
        As hon. Members will recall, I made clear my dislike of the AMS at an earlier stage. I want to make it clear at the outset that the new clause does not seek to wreck the proposed system. In reluctantly accepting the system, I am trying to mitigate the effects of the damaging manipulation which, it appears, could currently arise and which, without some adjustment to the Bill, is quite likely to arise.
        The potential for manipulation arises from what could loosely be called ticket splitting. In a region where one party is likely to score heavily on the first-past-the-post constituency contests, the AMS by way of the d'Hondt divisor, which is the one built into the Bill, applied under clause 6(1)(b), would on straight party tickets militate strongly against that party on the electoral region lists. Indeed, the required proportionality is achieved through the so-called adjustment seats, which is the purpose of the d'Hondt system that the Government have adopted and by which they set great store, as they have told us repeatedly.
        The potential, however, arises for the party in question to decide not to contest the list seats at all, but instead to throw its weight behind another party in order to deny other parties additional members through the adjustment seats. This other party could be, as is happening increasingly in Germany, a potential coalition partner that would then owe loyalty in return for the benefit of the split ticket. Although that is undesirable and undermines proportionality, I fear that that is probably unavoidable within the system.
        The most unacceptable manipulation can occur in a slightly different way. The dominant party in terms of the constituency elections could decide not to contest the list seats, and could instead form an understanding with another party, probably one that might be termed an alter ego party, which had been registered for that purpose—a party that either had not stood in the constituency seats, or had received no votes there.
        Mr. Ron Davies: Or presumably that could be done with independent candidates.
        Mr. Ancram: Indeed, but the mathematics become more fierce when they involve a registered party on the list system. The alter ego party could stand in the regional lists, and if there was an effective straight replication of votes across from the constituency to the regional lists, the effect would be dramatic in the overall increase of

        803
        seats that those combined parties could achieve. The alter ego party would avoid the constituency strike-rate element of the divisor, and would be subjected to the divisor only under the list system itself.
        A party could stand, for example, as Plaid Cymru in the constituencies and register its alter ego as the Party of Wales for the regional list. Conservatives could become Unionists for the same purpose. Labour could become Co-operative, as has been mooted in the west of Scotland, or resurrect the Independent Labour party.
        Mr. Wigley: Or become socialist.
        Mr. Ancram: Or even become socialist. Liberal Democrats, as we know, would probably become whatever suited them at the time.
        It all sounds complicated, but in essence it is not. A split-ticket campaign would not be difficult where the split between the two parts of the system was total. If, however, there is any cross-over, split-ticket voting is by no means impossible, but it becomes much harder to manage. I shall return to that.
        I shall try to exemplify. I am sorry that I have not been able to produce any figures for Wales, but some work has been done in Scotland. I refer with appreciation to the initial work of Dr. Michael Dyer of the department of politics and international relations at Aberdeen university. On the basis of the electoral results of I May last year applied equally to both ballots within the AMS in Scotland, it is calculated that Labour would have returned 64 out of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament—which is only one short of an overall majority. However, if there had been a clear split-ticket arrangement in place using an alter ego party, the combined total would have been 91—a clear majority and an increase from just under 50 per cent. to just over 70 per cent. of the seats. While that might be attractive in political terms, it would comprehensively defeat the purpose of the AMS system: proportionality would be side-stepped and the basis of the new political arrangements would be undermined. On that basis, I hope that the Secretary of State will share my concern about that problem.
        That brings me to the solution. Clearly the key will be the provisions for the registration of parties. The worst of the effects that I have mentioned would be avoided if there were provisions to prevent the registration of what I have termed alter ego parties. However, at present, we do not know what the provisions will be. It is quite extraordinary, if not unacceptable, that we have reached this stage in considering the legislation—alongside the Scotland Bill and the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, which are also affected—without sight of the terms of the enactment referred to in clause 4(8) and having achieved nothing more than the earliest stages of inter-party consultation about what they might be.
        So central is the question of registration to the proper working of the electoral system that it is unconscionable that the legislation could complete its passage through this place without full sight of, and discussion about, the statutory criteria by which registration will operate and clear indications that alter ego parties will not be permitted. I make that point very seriously at this stage in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to
        804
        ensure that, when we return to the Bill on Report on the Floor of the House in due course, we shall be fully apprised of the details of the forthcoming legislation regarding registration. It cannot be right that important democratic systems are created in legislation with a vital component such as this left unrevealed. We need to see the registration Bill—and soon.
        In the meantime, our new clause—which does not and cannot deal with registration—seeks to mitigate the worst effects of such manipulation. It seeks to prevent the optimum split-ticket arrangement where the split between the two parts of the system is total. It is in two connected parts: the first requires a party to put up candidates in one half of the constituencies in an electoral region if it wants to nominate a list; and the second requires a party to nominate a list if it has candidates in one half of the constituencies in an electoral region. I must admit that that does not resolve the problem, but it makes the potential abuse more difficult to achieve. It is certainly better than nothing—which I fear is what the Bill at present provides.
        I hope that this suggestion will appeal to anyone who genuinely wants a fair and balanced system of elections to the assembly—and I hope that that includes the Government Front Bench. In any event, I commend new clause 35 to the House.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I thank the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) for advancing new clause 35 and the reasoning behind it. We acknowledge the points that he has made and I concede that there may be scope for collusion between and within parties to exploit the two-ballot structure of the additional member system in the manner that he described. Such cynical manipulation of the system would be an affront to the electorate and would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body.
        However, it is not easy to deal with this problem as a matter of law—the proposed new clause would have some undesirable consequences, as I shall explain in a moment. I am not aware that there is any provision in existing electoral law that would provide the answer. A rather similar circumstance prevails in certain parts of Wales that has a different effect. Known members of political parties often stand in local government elections as independents, even though they are nothing of the kind. They do not wear their political colours because they fear that that might reduce their chances of election. Nothing in the law prevents that practice, and it is left to the good sense of electors to figure out who is who.
        One of the unfortunate side effects of the new clause is that it could—without going into all the details—have a severe effect on many of the smaller parties in the electoral regions. It would sometimes be difficult for them to offer a sufficiently large number of candidates for the list. The new clause could damage the interests of smaller parties. We want to be inclusive in the assembly. We want to try to take account of the fears of people throughout Wales. That is why we are a bit hesitant.
        9.45 pm
        I return to the issue of collusion. The collusion mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman will require the vigilance of other political parties and the media to expose it. There is evidence to show that, in New Zealand and

        805
        Germany, where efforts have been made to use collusion, it has been exposed and it has not done the parties involved any good. If that were to happen in Wales, it would not reflect well on the guilty parties. That would be a real deterrent. That said, we take on board the serious concerns the right hon. Gentleman has raised.
        I am not in a position to give a guarantee about when the details on registration will emerge. I can assure Opposition Members that we want to see whether it will deal with these issues. I am not entirely sure that it will. We do not want to dismiss the matter as of no importance. We shall examine it with our colleagues in Scotland and the Home Office to try to prevent collusion in the additional member system in Wales.
        I hope that, with those assurances, the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for the concern that he has shown towards the new clause and, indeed, for the way in which he responded to it. He, like me, realises that whatever our views on a particular electoral system, it is important that it is seen to work fairly if it is not to undermine the democratic institution at which it is directed.
        I am worried not just about collusion, which might be regarded as underhand and when exposed cause a public reaction, but about the open manipulation of the system, as happens in certain parallel systems where having an alter ego party is a purely political manoeuvre to allow the d'Hondt divisor to be avoided in the second list, which means that in the first calculation no account is taken of the constituencies that are won on the direct list. The system can be abused not just in an underhand way but in a legitimate and legal way, which would avoid the intentions behind the system. I hope that that can be looked at.
        I am a little cautious about using Germany as a parallel. The areas there are much bigger and there is not the tendency, except in a few areas, towards a preponderance of one-party votes that could create the problems in an area such as this.
        Finally, I return to the registration of political parties. Important issues arise and I stress that I shall be making the same point in relation to the Scotland Bill. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), the shadow Home Secretary, made the same point when the House of Commons was discussing the European Parliamentary Elections Bill last Thursday. If we are to have confidence in going along with what is proposed, we must know the criterion on which legislation is to be based. I understand that consultation has begun, but it is at an early stage and fairly vague.
        As for the propensity for alter ego parties to get through the system, I should be grateful for detailed information, if that is possible, on Report. Indeed, it would be difficult for us to take a sanguine attitude to these matters if that information was not available. I realise that that is not entirely in the hands of the Minister or the Secretary of State, but is a matter for the Home Secretary. However, I hope that my views and representations will be made known strongly and clearly.
        806
        In the light of what the Minister has said, and given his undertaking to take the new clause away and consider it carefully, I am prepared to withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 36

        RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS REPRESENTING PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES IN WALES
        '(1) Members of the House of Commons representing a constituency in Wales shall be entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the Assembly.
        (2) Subsection (1) does not confer on any such Member of the House of Commons—

        (a) any right to vote, or

        (b) any right to attend or participate in the proceedings of a committee of the Assembly or any sub—committee of such a committee.

        (3) The standing orders must include provision for any documents which—

        (a) contain material relating to any business which has been, or is to be, transacted by the Assembly itself, and

        (b) are made available to all Assembly members,

        to be available to such Members of the House of Commons no later than the time when they are made available to Assembly members who are not members of the executive committee.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Under clause 75, the Secretary of State for Wales is entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the assembly, although that right would neither give the Secretary of State a vote nor would it extend to Committees. The Secretary of State would also receive any relevant documents at the same time as Members of the Assembly. The new clause would give Members representing Welsh constituencies similar privileges. We think that that is only right as they have responsibilities for representing the electors of Wales as much as Members of the Assembly.
        Mr. Syms: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). One of the key points will be how the relationship between the House of Commons and the Welsh assembly develops. The new clause provides a mechanism whereby Members of this place may at least be able to attend, talk and participate but not vote in the assembly's deliberations. That would be useful for an understanding of the perspective from the point of view of us in the United Kingdom Parliament and of Members of Parliament, of what is happening and of the issues that are current within the assembly.
        Almost of more importance is the last part of the new clause, which provides that documents should
        "be available to such Members of the House of Commons no later than the time when they are made available to Assembly members who are not members of the executive committee."
        It is important that if decisions are made in the assembly that have an impact on parliamentary constituencies, Members who represent those constituencies should at least have the full information available to them relatively quickly so that when they are dealing with correspondence or local problems they are aware of the

        807
        advice that was given to assembly Members by their officers and aware also of the information that has been available to those who have taken decisions.
        Mr. Gareth Thomas: I oppose the new clause because it would confuse the roles of elected representatives of the assembly and elected representatives at Westminster. They should work in partnership, but to allow representatives from Westminster to attend the assembly, even if they do not have the right to vote in debates at the assembly, would create confusion and would undermine the principle of accountability. It would also eat into debating time within the assembly.
        I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say in reply. I am sure that I am not the only Member of this place who, while supportive of the principle of devolution and congratulatory of the Government on their valiant efforts to produce workable legislation, wants to hear what my hon. Friend has to say about how he and the Government generally intend to foster a workable relationship between Members of Parliament in Westminster and elected Members of the Assembly. Given the devolved nature of powers, that is particularly significant, and it will be interesting to see whether the Government start a debate about how that partnership should be engendered. That important point exercises the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
        There would have to be a partnership. It is not beyond the wit of man or woman to realise that assembly Members and Westminster Members of Parliament must respect each other's functions. Westminster will retain primary legislative power, and Welsh Members of Parliament will continue to play an important part in the legislative process.
        I oppose the new clause because, although it raises an issue that should be addressed, it confuses the roles of the representatives at Westminster and in the assembly.
        Mr. Livsey: Liberal Democrat Members believe that the new clause would subordinate the Welsh assembly to the views of Westminster Members of Parliament, which is not the correct way to proceed. Westminster Members should have the right to observe the assembly's proceedings and to receive documentation on its workings. Beyond that, a line should be drawn.
        Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) made interesting points, but I shall explain why the anxieties that he expressed do not add up.
        The assembly will regulate its own proceedings. I should be surprised if Westminster Members who wanted to attend were given priority over Members of the Assembly to participate in debates, but the new clause addresses the anxieties that the hon. Member for Clwyd, West rightly expressed. There must be a good working relationship between Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies and the assembly if the assembly is to do its work successfully.
        The assembly will deal with secondary legislation—we shall consider statutory instruments later in the debate—and good channels of communication with those who represent Welsh interests when primary legislation is
        808
        considered at Westminster are essential. There will be the danger of a breakdown in communications if Westminster Members of Parliament are not invited to attend the assembly's debates. Members of Parliament will not want to attend as observers unless their views can be heard.
        The new clause is designed to deal with precisely that point, and would not subordinate the assembly to the will of Members of Parliament. The reverse is true: the assembly will have the power to regulate its own proceedings under the Bill, and the new clause would allow Members of Parliament to be fully briefed on assembly issues. For that reason, I support the new clause.
        Mr. Letwin: I see the new clause as a cry for help. We have frequently examined the tissue of the conflicts to which the Bill gives rise, and the Secretary of State and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench have assured us on numerous occasions that our fears will be resolved by a new spirit of amity and co-operation. Those Ministers have often told us that our fears are based on a reactionary view of the likelihood of constitutional conflict. They have said—the Secretary of State is nodding helpfully—that, if only we understood the new spirit in which the House of Commons, the other place and the Welsh assembly would proceed, we would realise that our fears were groundless.
        10 pm
        If that is true, it falls to the Secretary of State and his Ministers to tell us how, mechanically, such an entirely new constitutional spirit will arise. Close to me sit the highly articulate and noble representatives of a political party represented—at the moment—by the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley). Unlike the Government, they have an entirely clear view of what the assembly is, where it is headed and what is to be made of it. They have taken great heart from the Secretary of State's observation on repeated occasions—I think I quote him exactly—that this is a process rather than a resting point. As they see it, the process is not one to which new clause 36 would give rise, nor is it in a spirit of amity and co-operation. On the contrary, like many parts of the Bill—to which, admirably, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and others have drawn our attention—it allows, in great measure, for a spirit of litigation.
        Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman has tempted me to intervene. I know that my reaction is delayed; it is the shock.
        Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the process—although it is a process—can go no faster or further than the people of Wales want, or even than the House permits? The long stop, in terms of legislation, rests with the House.
        Mr. Letwin: That is an interesting point, which the Committee ought to ponder.
        I entirely accept that it will not be possible to go further or faster than the Welsh assembly desires, and, to the extent that the assembly reflects opinion in Wales, I suppose that it must be true that it will not be possible to go further or faster than the majority opinion in Wales wishes. However, once a constitutional muddle is established as the Bill establishes it, in the absence of a

        809
        measure such as new clause 36, the natural means by which that muddle will be resolved is one for which the Bill provides: litigation before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and, in some cases, lower courts leading to that.
        I think that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there is no knowing where that process will lead. It will be taken out of the hands of elected representatives, Welsh or otherwise, and placed in the hands of judges—on the whole, English judges—who will decide most of the important issues. New clause 36—I refer to it before the Secretary of State tries to get the Chair to call me to order—tries to deal with that.
        The new clause may well be described as insufficient, inadequate and inelegant. On behalf of Front Benchers, I think that I can accept all those accolades. The important point that it raises, however, is undeniable. It seeks to establish some mechanism to make a reality of the rhetoric that the Secretary of State and his Ministers have repeatedly given the Committee, in the absence of the slightest substance in the Bill.
        Nowhere, other than in new clause 36, do we see even an attempt to create the mechanics for co-operation. That is extraordinary. We have been told repeatedly that well-documented causes of litigation and strife will be avoided simply through a new spirit, without being vouchsafed a single set of mechanics for that new spirit save a mysterious entity called "the concordat". That is not provided for in any way in the Bill.
        There is every reason for the Committee to look at new clause 36 as a probing measure, which is how our friends in Plaid Cymru once described another new clause. It seeks to elicit from the Government the slightest concrete example of how they will engender this supposed spirit of amity and avoid what, despite the evident smiles of Government Front-Bench spokesmen, I confidently predict will lead to the Government's misery in the years ahead. That will happen as the predictions of litigation are seen to be true rather than merely hypothetical, and as the Government find themselves unable to deal with that because the courts have taken over from elected representatives.
        Dr. John Marek: I oppose the new clause. The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is quite wrong. The functions of the National Assembly for Wales will be entirely different from the functions of this place. The assembly will operate on a committee system and everybody will have an important role in executing the functions that the assembly decides. In this place there is much hot air and very little else.
        How many amendments have been accepted by the Government? There might have been one or two but, generally, decisions are made not in the Chamber but in the ministerial corridors or across the road in Whitehall. This is the place for talk and the hon. Member for West Dorset seeks to transfer talking to the assembly. I do not think that we want too much of that in Wales. We can certainly talk, but we want decisions as well.
        Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Dr. Marek: I intend to be brief, so I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman and then quickly finish my speech.
        Mr. Letwin: Was the hon. Gentleman here when we conclusively showed, and I think that the Secretary of
        810
        State admitted, that it was within the scope of the powers of each of the Committees to which the hon. Gentleman so lovingly refers, to delegate its entire power to a Secretary who would be a de facto member of the Cabinet? If that is the case, does the hon. Gentleman think that there will be the slightest difference between this place and the assembly to the extent to which this Chamber is a talking shop? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Secretaries would be able to wage war on this place and on the Government through the courts?
        Dr. Marek: They may wish to wage war, and rightly so, but I do not think that that is the issue. It would be wrong for all the functions of a Committee to be delegated to a Secretary. I have reasonable confidence that that will not happen because of the committee system that is envisaged for the assembly.
        Mr. Letwin: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has that confidence. If he reads Hansard he will see that the Secretary of State admitted that the Bill contains powers for each Committee to do precisely what I have described.
        Dr. Marek: I have lived in Wales for a long time and I understand what will happen. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that there will be far more co-operation and committee work in the assembly than there is here because there is none in this place. That is the problem. I accept that what the hon. Gentleman outlines may happen to some degree, although I hope that it will not. If it does, the new clause would simply add to the problem. The last thing that anybody in Wales and many hon. Members with a different rigour about them and a different purpose in life want to see is time wasting, talking for hours on end in an assembly that ought to be deciding important matters for the Welsh people. I hope that the Minister, although perhaps not for the reasons that I have enunciated, does not give way on the new clause.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: This has been an interesting debate and I thank the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) for moving the new clause. Under clause 32 of the Bill, the Secretary of State has to consult the assembly on the Government's legislative programme. Clause 75 entitles the Secretary of State to attend and participate in the assembly's debates. The new clause goes much wider than that because it seeks to create a sort of Welsh assembly grand committee in which anyone who has been elected to the assembly or to this place can join in the fun. It takes only two or three seconds to realise that such a proposal is totally impractical. We would have to ensure, first, that we virtually doubled the size of the assembly's chamber, because it would be disastrous—we would never hear the end of it—if 40 Members of the Assembly turned up and there were no places for them.
        We must realise also that hon. Members and Members of the Assembly will have completely different responsibilities. As an hon. Member who does not intend to be a Member of the Assembly, I foresee no good purpose being served by my trying to rush between London and south Wales to participate in assembly debates on matters in which Welsh hon. Members will have a full role in this place.

        811
        The assembly could perhaps pass on to hon. Members its papers and proceedings. If hon. Members want to spend time dealing with those, it will be up to them. However, I do not think that the new clause would assist in helping the assembly to perform its job effectively.
        The directly elected Members of the Assembly and hon. Members will also return to the same constituency parties. I am quite sure that that is the place where co-operative relations might develop. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for North Essex will withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Evans: I am rather disappointed by that reply. Although new clause 36 is only a probing measure, we tabled it not only because it mirrors clause 75 but because it would include our desire to provide Welsh hon. Members with the same opportunities as the Secretary of State for Wales to attend the assembly's main proceedings and functions—although not to attend its Committees or sub-committees. The new clause certainly does not propose that Welsh hon. Members should be allowed a vote in the assembly's proceedings.
        We thought that the new clause would be an ideal opportunity to provide an assembly that will shortly be born with the wealth of experience of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies, some of whom have served well the House for many years.
        Mr. Ron Davies: Name them.
        Mr. Evans: I am too embarrassed to name them, because of those I would exclude rather than those I might include.
        Some very experienced hon. Members represent Welsh constituencies. The Minister said—it was almost a criticism—that hon. Members, unless they represent regions, would serve exactly the same constituencies as Members of the Assembly. That is absolutely correct. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, the new clause would allow a dialogue between hon. Members—with their knowledge and insight of what is happening in this place—and Members of the Assembly, and would allow Welsh hon. Members to participate fully in the assembly's major debates, thereby enriching and enlightening those debates.
        Mr. Öpik: In the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, would it not be more sensible to invite Members of the Assembly to Westminster when we are debating Welsh issues—rather than to clog up the assembly's business with lots of questions from hon. Members?
        Mr. Evans: It would be a fine thing if, as we look forward to our St. David's day debate, we could debate Welsh issues the day after St. David's day. However, I think that we will all have to travel to Cardiff or to Swansea or to wherever the Welsh assembly will be sited to participate in Welsh affairs.
        812
        Hon. Members would not attend the assembly's debates on a daily basis. They have work and functions at Westminster, for which they will have to prepare. They will also have their constituency work, and want to participate in our debates in the Chamber and in Committees at Westminster. However, on some occasions they may want to participate, particularly in debates involving their constituencies. They would not have the opportunity to vote or to participate in the Committee or Sub-Committee stage. I was rather hoping that the Minister might have been as generous as he was in respect of a previous new clause, but I understand that that is not to be, so I leave it to my hon. Friend formally to withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Jenkin: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New clause 39

        ROLE OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
        '(1).— The subordinate legislation procedures must include provision for ensuring that, before a draft of a statutory instrument containing Assembly general subordinate legislation is laid before the Assembly, the draft is—

        (a) submitted to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments ("the Committee"), and

        (b) approved by the Committee without adverse comment.

        (2) When any draft is submitted to the Committee under this section, the Committee shall report within a reasonable period as to whether it approves the draft without adverse comment.

        (3) Adverse comment on a draft shall only be made by the Committee on any of the grounds (so far as applicable) on which the Committee is empowered to draw a statutory instrument to the special attention of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        10.15 pm
        Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        All statutory instruments laid before Parliament are considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, composed of Members of both Houses and usually chaired by an Opposition Member. Its remit is to focus upon technical rather than policy matters and to ensure that draft subordinate legislation conforms with the primary legislation from which it derives. It might ask, for instance, whether the Minister who made the order was acting within his powers or whether the drafting was defective. It is not a political Committee and it does not consider political issues; it performs a valuable task in scrutinising the thousands of pieces of legislation that Ministers produce and that never cross the consciousness of the vast majority of right hon. and hon. Members.
        The new clause would require the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to consider any draft subordinate legislation before it was considered by the assembly simply for the purpose of ensuring that the legislation was technically appropriate and would achieve what Ministers had intended. If the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported adversely, the draft could not become law. It would then be a simple matter of the statutory instrument in question being amended or revised so that it could be passed by the Committee and the assembly. It could then become law.

        813
        The new clause is not designed to limit the political powers of the assembly; it is simply a safeguard to ensure that the statutory instruments that it considers conform with the primary Acts of Parliament from which they derive so that the scope for getting into a muddle about legislation is considerably reduced.
        Mr. Livsey: I am sure that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) is proposing the new clause from the best possible motives, but we see certain disadvantages stemming from it. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman said, it would certainly create more bureaucracy that would slow up decision making and reduce the effectiveness of the assembly. We believe that it takes away some of what little power the assembly will have.
        We should like to know the definition of "a reasonable period". The Conservative interpretation of the word "reasonable" has not always inspired confidence—and I am putting that gently. The new clause opens up a number of ways by which statutory instruments could be delayed and in the process it would tend to reduce the powers of the assembly.
        Mr. David Tredinnick: I am grateful for the opportunity to address the issue. I welcome the new clause tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, as I recognise that there are still many grey areas in the likely relationship between the Welsh assembly and Westminster on the scrutiny of statutory instruments. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I chair, has raised the issue with the Leader of the House. I am grateful for the reply that I received today, which says that the issue is still under consideration and that a full response will be forthcoming as soon as possible. We hope that the memorandum that the Leader of the House has promised to issue with the Welsh Office will set out the Government's position in detail. They have not done so to date.
        The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has three main concerns: first, arrangements for co-operation between it and its counterpart in the Welsh assembly, particularly over joint instruments, which, under the Bill as drafted, will be made jointly by Ministers of the Crown and the assembly; secondly, the potential for conflict between the two Committees over similar instruments laid before the assembly and Parliament; and thirdly, the scrutiny of instruments derived from European obligations.
        The new clause would give the JCSI more powers over Welsh legislation than it currently has over United Kingdom instruments. Many hon. Members have argued for a long time that it should have more powers. In a sense, the new clause is a step in the right direction. However, the Government are not currently required to act if the Committee criticises an instrument. Making our adverse comment on an instrument sufficient to stop it in its tracks would be a major change. That is not the only solution, but it would be one way to focus attention on the scrutiny of delegated legislation, which is too often neglected.
        That illustrates how the role of the JCSI must be considered when planning arrangements for the scrutiny of secondary legislation in the context of the Welsh assembly and the Scottish Parliament. It cannot be left
        814
        to chance after the assembly has begun to work. If it is, the situation will be chaotic. That will be in the interests neither of Wales nor of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am pleased to see the Secretary of State nodding about that. Potential areas of confusion and difficulty must be identified and solutions found. The JCSI will continue to press on that, but it will also co-operate in any way that it can with the assembly, once established.
        I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. It is a great pity that the Government have not been able to address the issue earlier in the passage of the Bill. It touches on many vital issues. The Committee checks the legality of a good deal of legislation. It is a pity that the House has not been able to look in detail at the Government's proposals. In fact, it has not had any proposals to look at.
        I exhort the Secretary of State to talk to the Leader of the House and to give us the Government's position face up, so that we can consider it. That must happen before the Bill goes to another place.
        Mr. Grieve: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) in his comments on the new clause and the way in which statutory instruments are subjected to scrutiny. I also have the pleasure of serving on the Joint Committee.
        The issue is not a tug of war for power between the House of Commons and the assembly. It is a question of the absolute necessity of maintaining a degree of conformity of practice and drafting in the way in which statutory instruments are dealt with, whether in Wales or England.
        Scotland has a separate legal system and it will have a separate Parliament. I accept that the situation there is bound to be different, even though there will clearly also have to be considerable co-ordination. None the less, we are to continue to have a common legal system in this country—which is England and Wales. As long as that is so, it is essential that subordinate legislation, whether created in Cardiff or wherever else the assembly may sit, or in this place, should be drafted in a way that does not give rise to problems.
        We also ought to bear in mind that we in this House are privileged to have a body of expertise in the Speaker's Counsel and assistants to the Speaker's Counsel on the way in which subordinate legislation is drafted.
        I endorse every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth said about the fact that the role of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is insufficient to meet the amount of legislation that is coming through by statutory instrument. It is also insufficient to scrutinise and check as one would wish some of the gobbledegook to which we are subjected. The new clause provides an opportunity to put our house in order on the way in which both the Welsh assembly and the House proceed with statutory instruments.
        I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State will bear those points in mind. This is really a non-partisan issue. It is a question of ensuring that, when the assembly is introducing statutory instruments in 10 years' time in order to achieve exactly the same effect as those being introduced here, we do not end

        815
        up with the ludicrous situation of such statutory instruments being different in content and legal interpretation. That could happen; there is no adequate mechanism to prevent it.
        Regardless of whether the Government are prepared to accept new clause 39, I ask that we are given some adequate replies on the way in which the matter will be dealt with. It will be interesting to know where, for instance, expertise will be found immediately to provide advice to the assembly when it is set up.
        Mr. Ron Davies: In Wales.
        Mr. Grieve: It may be in Wales, but it will still have to be found. It is likely that a degree of co-ordination with expertise available in the House will be required.
        Mr. Letwin: At the risk of sending the Secretary of State to sleep—he is clearly near to the point of quiescence—I should like to go slightly beyond what my hon. Friends have said.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: Not beyond the new clause.
        Mr. Letwin: Certainly not.
        What is proposed in new clause 39 is not in any way surprising. What is surprising is that there is no clause equivalent to its effect in the Bill. Clauses 59 and 60 set up a system which, in the absence of new clause 39, yet further intensifies—the Secretary of State and his colleagues may by now have noticed that this has been a theme of mine in this Committee—the potential for litigation. That goes to the heart of the Bill; new clause 39 is profound in its implications.
        Surprisingly, there is no check other than that proposed by new clause 39 or some substitute for it on the Welsh assembly's interpretation of its own powers to engage in subordinate legislation—other than, of course, the courts and ultimately the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Clauses 59 and 60 are so structured as precisely to permit a majority of the assembly to constitute a majority of the statutory instruments Committees, which could decide to legitimate, or appear to legitimate, as a piece of subordinate legislation an action that was entirely ultra vires. If new clause 39 is not accepted, the Bill will contain no limit on that.
        Ministers have assured us—indeed, it is part of the essence of their argument—that they are establishing a structure that permits the Welsh assembly to engage only in subordinate legislation. That is a fine phrase, but if it is rendered meaningless by repeated decisions of the relevant Committee of the Welsh assembly that items that are clearly primary in intent and would not, in this House, qualify as subordinate are nevertheless subordinate, that can be challenged within the structure of the Bill without new clause 39 only through the courts and ultimately in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. New clause 39 would rescue the Secretary of State and his colleagues from a manifest lacuna in the Bill and I should have thought that, far from giggling themselves into a pleasant pre-nuptial sleep with the Bill—[Interruption.]—I stress,
        816
        with the Bill, they should be grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for tabling an amendment that rescues them from that lacuna and fills it so admirably.
        10.30 pm
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I cannot go for a pre-nuptial sleep, but I have been looking forward to sleeping and I have to admit that the debate was pushing me towards that state, but occasionally awaking me with horror at what I was hearing.
        Paragraphs 4.22 and 4.27 of the White Paper made it clear that the assembly would have its own procedures for formulating and approving subordinate legislation. Those are set out in part III of the Bill. Following the precedent of section 75 of the Wales Act 1978, clause 43—I am surprised no one referred to this—provides for parliamentary procedures generally to cease to apply to subordinate legislation made by the assembly. The assembly will be an elected body able to make its own subordinate legislation and it will be directly accountable to the people of Wales for its actions.
        In the Government's view it would be inappropriate for all the assembly's subordinate legislation to have to be referred to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Clause 59 establishes a subordinate legislation Scrutiny Committee whose role will be analogous to that of the Joint Committee, but there is one major and important difference and I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will accept that it is an improvement. Whereas the Joint Committee's evaluation of a statutory instrument often takes place after the instrument has been made and laid before Parliament, the assembly's Scrutiny Committee will perform its functions before the formal making of the instrument. Indeed, the effect of clause 65(5)(a), subject to clause 66, is that the assembly may not make any general subordinate legislation without having before it a report on the draft from its Scrutiny Committee.
        Mr. Grieve: I do not disagree with any of that—it is an improvement on the House's procedure for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation—but the key question is whether the Minister agrees that a great deal of the subordinate legislation will, of necessity, be identical in intent to that which will be passed by the House. How, for the sake of legal clarity and the maintenance of conformity, are we to retain parity of wording? If that is not regarded as important, will the Minister explain why it is not?
        Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman may be getting rather exercised because of the desperation he has felt in meetings of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. He needs to bear in mind that the National Assembly for Wales will be serviced by civil servants currently in the Welsh Office and from other parts of the United Kingdom who want to be a part of this exciting new project. When scrutinising statutory instruments, a wealth of experience will be available to help Members of the Assembly judge what the best wording will be. I do not think that we need to get over-worried about that, although I can see why the

        817
        hon. Gentleman finds it easy to become exercised about such matters when serving on the Joint Committee deep in the bowels of this place.
        Mr. Tredinnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has raised a valid point. I want to draw to the Committee's attention a problem that it has not addressed—European legislation. Although a number of learned counsel advise the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, it is difficult to ensure that the instruments conform to the requirements of the European Parliament and European legislation. Having scrutinised these instruments for some time, I am worried about how we can ensure a proper interface between legislative bodies so that there is no difference in the legality of instruments in England and in Wales.
        Mr. Griffiths: I think that I have got the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I appreciate that, as Chairman of the Joint Committee, he has particular concerns and is deeply enmeshed in all the difficulties that that Committee faces, but he should remember that Members of the Welsh assembly will be served by civil servants. If Members feel that there is a tricky problem with European legislation or something else, they may ask how the issue is dealt with in the House of Commons. I am confident that people will apply their common sense to all these issues, about which we can become far too worried.
        Clause 60 provides for the assembly's Scrutiny Committee to be chaired by a member of a minority party and prevents the assembly Secretaries from being members of it. We believe that that gives us good internal audit—the assembly's secondary legislation will be properly scrutinised.
        The memorandums to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments about the assembly's subordinate legislation procedures will be forthcoming shortly and I hope that they will allay all the fears that have been expressed. Given that, I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will withdraw the motion.
        Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble he has taken in responding to the motion. I was interested to hear that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, has discussed these matters with the Leader of the House and others.
        I do not want to sound a sour note, but it is rather typical of our proceedings that information has trickled out, sometimes even after the event. It would have been nice to have such a memorandum before this debate. I accept that the debate started 20 minutes early, but I do not expect that we shall see the memorandum tonight. Will the Minister assure us that the Leader of the House will issue the memorandum before Report so that we can debate the issues that arise if we so choose?
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I understand that the memorandum is close to completion. We shall certainly make it available to hon. Members as soon as possible. I cannot make an absolute commitment on timing, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be available very soon.
        Mr. Jenkin: I wonder whether the Minister could make representations to the Leader of the House about
        818
        the memorandum. In the spirit of the age and of the new politics, which the Minister clearly espouses for the assembly, I take him to mean that we will see the memorandum as soon as possible and probably before Report. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
        Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

      New Schedule 1
        FORESTRY COMMISSIONERS

          Separate exercise of functions in relation to Wales
          1.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for securing—

          (a) the separate exercise in relation to Wales of functions of the Forestry Commissioners, and

          (b) the exercise of functions by the Forestry Commissioners in relation to Wales free from so much of any requirements as would oblige them to have regard to circumstances outside Wales or to interests other than those of Wales.

          (2) An order under this paragraph may include provisions in the form of amendments or repeals of the Forestry Act 1967 or any other enactment.

          (3) The functions of the Forestry Commissioners—

          (a) may be exercised in relation to Wales whether or not they are exercised in relation to England or Scotland, and

          (b) may be exercised differently in relation to Wales on the one hand and England or Scotland on the other.

          2.—(1) This paragraph applies where a function of the Forestry Commissioners to make any subordinate legislation is exercised by the making of a statutory instrument containing only provision relating to Wales.

          (2) Any relevant Parliamentary procedural provision within section 43(3)(a), (b) or (c) which relates to the function shall not have effect in relation to the exercise of the function.

          (3) Instead (but subject to sub—paragraph (4)), the subordinate legislation shall not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before and approved by the Assembly.

          (4) But the subordinate legislation may be made without compliance with sub—paragraph (3) if the Forestry Commissioners determine that, in the particular circumstances, it is not reasonably practicable to comply with that sub—paragraph.

          (5) If the subordinate legislation is made without compliance with sub-paragraph (3)—

          (a) the statutory instrument containing it shall be laid before the Assembly after it is made, and

          (b) any Assembly member shall be entitled to move, within the period of forty working days (construed in accordance with section 66(7)) beginning with the day on which the instrument is laid before the Assembly, that the subordinate legislation be revoked.

          (6) If, pursuant to a motion made within that period, the Assembly resolves that the subordinate legislation be revoked, the resolution revokes it.

          (7) The provision imposing or conferring the function of making the subordinate legislation includes power to make any provision which appears appropriate in consequence of its revocation by the resolution.

          (8) Neither the passing of a resolution under sub—paragraph (6) revoking any subordinate legislation nor the making of an order under sub—paragraph (7) in consequence of the revocation—

          (a) affects the validity of anything done under the subordinate legislation before its revocation, or

          (b) prevents the making of new subordinate legislation.

          819

          3. Nothing in section (Forestry Commissioners' finances) or this Schedule affects the status of the Forestry Commissioners as a government department or the status of the officers and servants appointed or employed by them.

        Receipts
        4.—(1) Any sums received by the Forestry Commissioners—

        (a) under section (Forestry Commissioners' finances), or

        (b) (subject to sub—paragraphs (2) and (3)) in respect of any transactions carried out by them in the exercise of any of their functions in relation to Wales,
        shall be applied by them towards meeting their expenditure on the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales.

        (2) The Treasury may direct that any sums within sub—paragraph (1)(b) which are, or are of a description, specified in the direction shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.

        (3) The Assembly may direct that any sums within subparagraph (1)(b) which are, or are of a description, specified in the direction shall be paid to the Assembly.

        (4) A direction under sub-paragraph (3) may be varied or revoked by a direction under sub—paragraph (2) (as well as by another direction under sub—paragraph (3)).

        Accounts
        5.—(1) The Forestry Commissioners shall keep proper accounting records relating to their Welsh finances.

        (2) In this Schedule references to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners are to

        (a) sums within paragraph 4(1) received by them, and

        (b) expenditure by them on the exercise of their functions in relation to Wales.

        (3) The Forestry Commissioners shall, for each financial year of the Assembly, prepare accounts relating to their Welsh finances in accordance with directions given to them by the Treasury.

        (4) The directions which the Treasury may give under subparagraph (3) include, in particular, directions as to—

        (a) the information to be contained in the accounts and the manner in which it is to be presented,

        (b) the methods and principles in accordance with which the accounts are to be prepared, and

        (c) the additional information (if any) that is to accompany the accounts.

        Audit
        6.—(1) The accounts prepared by the Forestry Commissioners under paragraph 5 for any financial year of the Assembly shall be submitted by them to the Auditor General for Wales no later than five months after the end of that financial year.
        (2) The Auditor General for Wales shall—

        (a) examine and certify any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, and

        (b) no later than four months after the accounts are submitted to him, lay before the Assembly a copy of them as certified by him together with his report on them.

        (3) In examining any accounts submitted to him under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall, in particular, satisfy himself that the expenditure to which the accounts relate has been incurred lawfully and in accordance with the authority which governs it.

        Accounting officer
        7.—(1) The Treasury shall designate one of the Forestry Commissioners or an officer of the Forestry Commissioners as the Forestry Commissioners' accounting officer for Wales.

        820

        (2) The person designated as the Forestry Commissioners' accounting officer for Wales shall have, in relation to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners and to accounts relating to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners, the responsibilities which are from time to time specified by the Treasury.

        (3) In this paragraph references to responsibilities include in particular—

        (a) responsibilities in relation to the signing of accounts,

        (b) responsibilities for the propriety and regularity of finances, and

        (c) responsibilities for the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the resources of the Forestry Commissioners are used in discharging their functions in relation to Wales.

        (4) The responsibilities which may be specified under this paragraph include responsibilities owed to—

        (a) the Assembly or the Audit Committee, or

        (b) the House of Commons or its Committee of Public Accounts.

        Examinations into use of resources
        8.—(1) The Auditor General for Wales may carry out examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which the Forestry Commissioners have used their resources in discharging their functions in relation to Wales.
        (2) Sub-paragraph (1) shall not be construed as entitling the Auditor General for Wales to question the merits of the policy objectives of the Forestry Commissioners.
        (3) In determining how to exercise his functions under this paragraph, the Auditor General for Wales shall take into account the views of the Audit Committee as to the examinations which he should carry out under this paragraph.
        (4) The Auditor General for Wales may lay before the Assembly a report of the results of any examination carried out by him under this paragraph.
        (5) The Auditor General for Wales and the Comptroller and Auditor General may co-operate with, and give assistance to, each other in connection with the carrying out of examinations in respect of the Forestry Commissioners under this paragraph or section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).

        Examinations by the Comptroller and Auditor General
        9.—(1) For the purpose of enabling him to carry out examinations into, and report to Parliament on, the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners, the Comptroller and Auditor General—

        (a) shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents in the custody or under the control of the Forestry Commissioners, or of the Auditor General for Wales, as he may reasonably require for that purpose, and

        (b) shall be entitled to require from any person holding or accountable for any of those documents any assistance, information or explanation which he reasonably thinks necessary for that purpose.

        (2) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall—

        (a) consult the Auditor General for Wales, and

        (b) take into account any relevant work done or being done by the Auditor General for Wales,
        before he acts in reliance on sub—paragraph (1) or carries out an examination in respect of the Forestry Commissioners under section 6 of the National Audit Act 1983 (economy etc. examinations).

        Reports
        10.—(1) The Forestry Commissioners shall, no later than such time after the end of each financial year of the Assembly as the Assembly directs, make a report in such form as the Assembly directs about the exercise of the Forestry Commissioners' functions in relation to Wales during that financial year.

        821

        (2) The Forestry Commissioners shall lay before the Assembly any report made under sub—paragraph (1) and the Assembly shall publish it.

        Interpretation
        11. References in this Schedule to the Welsh finances of the Forestry Commissioners shall be construed in accordance with paragraph 5(2).'.[Mr. Ron Davies.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Clauses 141 and 142 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Schedule 14

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 491, in page 123, leave out lines 16 to 19.
        No. 492, in page 123, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 29.
        No. 515, in page 129, line 5, at end insert—

        'PART V

        RESIDUARY BODY FOR WALES

        1994 c. 19.

        The Local Government (Wales) Act 1994.

        In Schedule 13, in paragraph 18, in subparagraph (3), the words "Subject to sub—paragraph (4)," and sub—paragraph (4).'.

        [Mr. Ron Davies.]
        Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
        Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 144

        ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
        Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 513, in page 67, line 6, leave out from 'applies' to end of line 27 and insert
        'to all orders under this Act.'.
        The amendment is essentially probing; it is designed to give the Government the opportunity to explain the purpose of the clause. We have already heard that the Government are most unhappy that this Parliament should have any scrutiny over anything that has been devolved to the Welsh assembly. The clause says:
        "No order … shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
        The clause then lists a large number of exceptions. By deleting the exceptions, the amendment would obviously act as a sledgehammer, but it is designed to elicit a response from the Minister. Will he illuminate the Committee on the mechanics and purpose of the clause?
        Mr. Collins: The amendment deals with some extremely important matters. As the clause stands, Parliament would not debate, other than in special circumstances, matters relating to the date of the elections; payment under certain circumstances to Members of the Assembly; transfers of property; the role of the Auditor
        822
        General for Wales; the staff of the Development Board for Rural Wales; and the role of the Welsh Development Agency. Those are important matters. [Interruption.]
        The Secretary of State may say that that is devolution—
        Mr. Ron Davies: It was not me.
        Mr. Collins: Well, another hon. Member must have said—
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. It would help very much if we did not have sedentary interventions, and also if hon. Members did not respond to them.
        Mr. Collins: I shall make a point of not doing so, Mr. Lord.
        It is important for the Government to put it on the record why they do not intend to permit Parliament to have proper scrutiny of such legislation. It is not good enough to say that it is all a matter of devolution, as if the United Kingdom Parliament no longer had any role. Such important matters need to be discussed in the future, as today.
        Mr. Letwin: I have no hesitation in depriving the Secretary of State of his beauty sleep for a little longer to discuss amendment No. 513, which—if anything—my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) undersold. His brilliance in drafting it exceeds his rhetoric. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will answer some serious questions about what clause 144, in the absence of the amendment, would achieve.
        I wish to direct the Minister's attention to the powers that the Bill will give the Secretary of State to make orders, including those powers in clause 22, which the Secretary of State clearly believes—judging from a remark he made earlier—are qualified by the restrictions in clause 23. However, on Report, we may raise our doubts about whether that clause is sufficiently tightly drafted to have such restrictive effects.
        10.45 pm
        In the absence of amendment No. 513, would clause 144 have the effect that orders transferring additional powers to the Welsh assembly could be passed by the House of Commons by negative resolution, without even 90 minutes of debate? If so, that is a remarkable constitutional departure, which should have been included in the White Paper but was not and should have been described by the Secretary of State but has not been. Clause 144 is a case either of bad drafting—as we hve experienced frequently with the Bill—or of intent. I may have mistaken the purport of the clause, but it would be helpful if the Minister elucidated it for the Committee.
        How will clause 144 operate in the absence of amendment No. 513? Is not the amendment necessary to force orders made under clause 22, as possibly restricted by clause 23, to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure? That is the minimum that the House could demand of further transfers of its powers to the Welsh assembly. It is the most extraordinary feature of an ill-conceived Bill that the House should be asked to allow

        823
        the Secretary of State to transfer its powers to another body by order instead of by primary legislation. That is an aberration.
        However, we have passed that point in the Bill and we are considering the effects of clause 144. The very least that any responsible House of Commons could demand of the Secretary of State is that further transfers of its powers should be by affirmative resolution. If I have misunderstood the purport of clause 144, the Minister should explain the situation. If I have correctly understood it, the Minister has not a leg to stand on unless he is willing to accept amendment No. 513.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: Clause 144 seems to have exercised the minds of Conservative Members; they have tabled the Little Big Horn amendment in a desperate last stand, to prevent the whole purpose of the Bill from being achieved. The Bill is about the government of Wales and the devolution of powers to the national assembly. Clause 144 provides that all powers to make orders are to be exercisable by statutory instrument and sets out the required parliamentary procedures for the Secretary of State's order-making powers. Orders in Council are already required to be exercised by statutory instrument under the Statutory Instruments Act 1946.
        Clause 144 sets out the parliamentary procedures that will apply to orders made under the Bill. More significant orders, especially those exercising the so-called Henry VIII powers, are to be subject to laying in draft and affirmative resolution. More technical matters are to be subject only to the negative resolution process. That approach is in accordance with long-standing practice under other statutes, and I am surprised that Conservative Members object in this instance.
        Mr. Letwin: The Minister may implicitly have admitted what I was asking about, but will he clarify the matter? Is he therefore agreeing that, under clause 144 as it stands, in the absence of amendment No. 513, it would be possible to make orders under clause 22, by negative resolution?
        Mr. Griffiths: Clause 22(4)(a) provides that the affirmative resolution procedure will apply to all Orders in Council under clause 22. If the hon. Gentleman looks at clause 22, he will see that all Orders in Council will go through the affirmative resolution procedure.
        Mr. Letwin: That is the issue that led me to the conclusion that there must be a failure of drafting; will the Minister comment? Clause 22(4)(a) does not appear to have the effect that he described. It appears directly to contradict clause 144. Which will prevail, and why does he imagine that clause 22(4)(a) will prevail?
        Mr. Griffiths: I do not believe that there is any contradiction, because this part of the Bill refers to an order made by the Secretary of State, to which clause 144 applies; and clause 22 refers to an Order in Council. The two are different. Given the time of the night, and as there are other things to do before we conclude our proceedings, perhaps we should conduct some correspondence to settle the matter if there is any need to do so.
        Mr. Jenkin: May I clarify that the Minister is saying that there is a difference between "make an order" under clause 144(1), where it says,
        "Any power of the Secretary of State or the Assembly under this Act to make an order",
        and an Order in Council, and that therefore he is satisfied that an Order in Council would not be covered by clause 144? I believe that that would answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
        Mr. Griffiths: I am satisfied that the two are mutually exclusive and deal with separate issues, but as these are difficult and complex technical matters, I am fully prepared to look at the matter again and let hon. Members know well before Report, so that we may return to it if there is a problem. However, I am pretty confident that it is as I have said.
        As amendment No. 513 is phrased, it would require us to debate in the House and approve the transfer to the assembly of specific property, rights or liabilities; the purposes for which the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales is to be treated as a Government Department; and the transfer of staff to the new Welsh Development Agency. A load of technical things would be caught by the amendment, so I hope that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will withdraw it.
        Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who extended the debate in a most interesting and informative fashion, and I am grateful to the Minister for replying. I look forward to the correspondence to which the Minister refers, if there is a need for it.
        I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Amendments made: No. 542, in page 67, line 9, after & 141' insert
        'or paragraph 1 of Schedule (Forestry Cotrunissioners)'.
        No. 543, in page 67, line 21, leave out 'or'.
        No. 544, in page 67, line 21, after & 5' insert
        'or paragraph 1 of Schedule (Forestry Commissioners)'.—[Mr. Ron Davies.]
        Clause 144, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

      Clause 145

        INTERPRETATION
        Mr. Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 516, in page 67, line 41, after 'Treasury', insert—
        '"Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Wales.'.
        This is a short amendment, but no less important for that. The amendment seeks, where the words "Secretary of State" appear in the Bill—as they do frequently—to substitute the words "Secretary of State for Wales". That arises from several questions that have been asked in these proceedings, to which we have not received totally satisfactory answers.
        I may say that I am not seeking at this stage to find out from the Secretary of State by way of the amendment whether he intends to be that Secretary of

        825
        State or whether he will have moved on to other matters in Cardiff, Swansea or wherever it might be. He has shown an unnatural and unaccustomed coyness on the matter, and he has been sufficiently embarrassed today for me not to press him further.
        The Under-Secretary has just said that this is the Government of Wales Bill and that the Government are seeking devolution. It seems extraordinary, therefore, that we should leave in the Bill a provision that could suggest that what had been done by the Secretary of State for Wales in the past could be done in future by any Secretary of State.
        My understanding is that the term Secretary of State can be applied to anybody who carries that title in the Government. Fifteen members of the Cabinet are described as Secretaries of State. Each of them would fit the nomenclature in the Bill and would be able to exercise the powers given to the Secretary of State. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer also a Secretary of State for these purposes, and is that true also of the Chief Secretary, the President of the Council and the Lord Privy Seal?
        Under the Bill, various powers are to be exercised by the Secretary of State. Under clause 3, he deals with elections; under clause 16, he makes the early determinations in relation to allowances for Members of the Assembly; under clause 22, he lays the draft transfer of functions order; under clause 32, consultations on legislation are to take place under the auspices of the Secretary of State; under clause 80, which is extremely important, he determines the sums paid to the assembly for it to spend; and under clause 141 he has the draconian power to amend primary legislation by order.
        If that is all in the hands of the Secretary of State for Wales, we can understand the position, but my fear is that—
        Mr. Collins: My right hon. Friend has skipped one clause that immensely strengthens his case: clause 75, which states that
        "The Secretary of State for Wales shall be entitled to attend and participate in any proceedings of the Assembly."
        If other references to the Secretary of State mean the Secretary of State for Wales, why does clause 75 contain that specific reference?
        Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. It underlines the fact that my anxieties are well founded. We might well find that no Secretary of State for Wales is involved in determining the sums to be given to the assembly, and that that will be decided by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
        I want to clarify the matter by inserting the words
        "Secretary of State for Wales".
        If that is what is meant, there can be no harm in doing that. If that is not what is meant, we must fear for the position of the Secretary of State.
        826
        I recall that under the Stormont provisions relating to Northern Ireland, there was no Secretary of State. The duties of the Secretary of State were handled by a Minister of State in the Home Office as one of three portfolios. It would not be in the interests of Wales if that happened in this case, and if all the business was conducted by other Secretaries of State.
        Mr. Win Griffiths: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, who has had considerable experience in government, should have bothered to move the amendment. As the Committee knows, the Bill confers many functions and duties on the Secretary of State, rather than on a named office holder. That simply reflects the modern parliamentary drafting practice of not naming the individual ministerial offices in statute unless absolutely necessary.
        I am pleased that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) drew attention to the fact that clause 75 refers specifically to the Secretary of State for Wales. Among all the Ministers of the Crown, only the Secretary of State for Wales will have the right to attend and participate in the debates of the National Assembly for Wales. In all other references, it is assumed, as in all other legislation, that the matter involves the Department of which that person is head.
        I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not refer, for example, to clauses 23 and 87. That would have spoilt his argument. Those clauses refer to the Minister of the Crown when the intended meaning is not the Secretary of State. I hope that, after that brief explanation, it is clear that, when the term "Secretary of State" is used on its own, it means the Secretary of State for Wales. When we need to, we make it clear that it is only the Secretary of State for Wales. When the legislation applies to any other Minister, it is a Minister of the Crown.
        Mr. Ancram: When we argued about devolution some months ago, we made it clear that we feared that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales would become so otiose that the position would disappear. Judging from the Minister's comments tonight, it is clear that the Secretary of State for Wales will have very limited functions, which will be designated in the Bill. I do not think that that bodes well for Wales. However, I do not think that I shall succeed in having the amendment accepted at this stage. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
        Clause 145 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Clause 146 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        It being Eleven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [15 January] and the Resolution [24 February], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
        Clauses 147 to 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
        Bill reported, with amendments.
        Bill, as amended, to be considered tomorrow.

        HOME AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
        Ordered,
        That Mr. Douglas Hogg be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee and Mr. Nick Hawkins be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

        SCOTTISH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
        Ordered,
        That Rosemary McKenna be discharged from the Scottish Affairs Committee and Ms Sandra Osborne be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

        TREASURY COMMITTEE
        Ordered,
        That Mr. Tony Colman be discharged from the Treasury Committee and Mr. David Kidney be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

      Community Hospitals
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]
      11.1 pm
      Sir Michael Spicer: I am grateful for this opportunity to introduce a short debate on the very important subject of community hospitals. Community hospitals, as against local general district hospitals, have in recent years developed their own distinct role, ethos and dynamic. Linked to general practitioners' services and to other local health and social services, they provide a clear, specific and well-defined pattern of hospital services throughout the country. It is therefore all the more strange that their future should now be under threat.
      There are 457 community hospitals in the United Kingdom, which provide approximately 10,000 beds—and several of my hon. Friends who are in the Chamber represent those hospitals. I am informed by the Association of Community Hospitals that 16 of those hospitals are now directly threatened with closure—as it happens, four of them are in Cornwall and four are in Norfolk—and that the continued existence of many others is under serious review.
      Both the challenges and problems facing community hospitals are in no way specific to Worcestershire. However, there are reasons—not simply because I am the Member of Parliament for West Worcestershire—for using the case of the Worcestershire hospitals as an example of a more general problem.
      Evesham hospital—which used to be in my constituency, but, following boundary changes, is now in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who has been most assiduous in espousing its cause—is one of half a dozen or so community hospitals listed as nationally recognised models of good practice. While in the marginal seat of Worcester during the general election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to speed up the building of a new acute Worcester infirmary, and so put into question the future existence of the satellite community hospitals, two of which—Pershore and Malvern—are in my constituency.
      Although the health authority has recently announced that closure of the Worcestershire community hospitals is not an option, the strains on the funding of the county's hospital services has left question marks, and a good deal of scepticism surrounds the announcement. Any cutting back of the support services on which community hospitals depend, or of the number of beds and services provided by hospitals, will threaten the viability of hospitals, especially the smaller ones, such as Malvern and Pershore. It is in that context that I raise points about community hospitals in general.
      Community hospitals exist essentially for two purposes: first, to allow patients to recover from traumatic surgery and medical treatment near their homes and local services, such as those provided by their GPs and physio and occupational therapy, as well as social services, in some cases; and secondly, to provide palliative care for the terminally ill. The ever-present context to all this is a rapidly aging population.

      829
      Alongside the need for community-based medical support have been the explosive financial requirements of the high-technology acute specialist hospitals. As life-saving medicine has become more advanced and successful, so in general it has become more expensive. The average bed cost per week in Worcestershire health authority is £2,500 to £3,000. The comparable figure for community hospitals is between £800 and £1,000—roughly a third of the acute hospital costs. Equivalent figures exist throughout the country.
      These figures are, of course, non-comparable. High-technology medicine is bound to be much more expensive than recuperative nursing. The problem is that in-patient bed audits show that a large proportion of patients occupying beds in expensive specialist hospitals could easily be transferred more swiftly to the more appropriate community-based hospital.
      A recent analysis in Worcestershire revealed that up to 42 per cent. of patients currently occupying an acute hospital bed could be nursed at an alternative health facility. In other words, if patients were sent back to community hospitals in Worcestershire more rapidly than they are at present following major surgery or medical treatment, there could be considerable savings. That is particularly germane in Worcestershire, where the hospital system is running a rapidly growing overdraft, currently standing at some £15 million, with a recurring deficit on present budgets of £8.8 million.
      The case for the community hospital is only in part financial. The core philosophy and ethos is rightly different in community and acute hospitals. The acute hospital is primarily concerned with the saving of lives in a medical crisis. Rehabilitation and palliative care, especially for the elderly, are different roles altogether. They are best performed alongside local health and social services.
      The danger, and the reason for the debate, is that, in the nature of things, community hospitals throughout the land will be squeezed out by the inexorable, high-profile but expensive onward march of breakthrough technology in life-saving developments in acute hospitals.
      No one would argue against pushing out the frontiers of applied medical knowledge. What is true is that, the more successful the advance in medicine, the greater the need for the recuperative work of the GP-led community hospital. As people live longer, due in some measure to the wonders of new technology, so the requirement will grow for nursing care for those who are terminally ill at one end of the spectrum, and for those who are recovering from traumatic medical experiences at the other.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: As my hon. Friend knows, one of the hospitals administered by the Worcestershire health authority is sited in my constituency, in Burford, near Tenbury Wells. In respect of that hospital, the health authority is saying that it believes that there are opportunities to develop Pershore and Tenbury community hospitals in partnership with GPs.
      In another part of my constituency, a community hospital has been run in conjunction with fundholding general practitioners. That has led to a vast improvement in the range and quality of services for the local community. 1 hope that my hon. Friend will recognise how important the link is between GPs and community
      830
      hospitals, and how the advent of fundholding gave an enormous impetus to the improvement in primary health care within local communities.
      Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the definitions of community hospitals is that they are GP-led. The reforms that the Conservative Government introduced gave a boost to the entire community hospital movement. We are not sure what will emerge in terms of GP practice. We do not know whether they will fund-hold, and what other arrangements will be made. It will be a terrible shame if whatever emerges undermines the community-based, recuperative GP-led service, which the Conservative Government did so much to foster.
      Mr. Shaun Woodward: My hon. Friend may be aware that, in my constituency in west Oxfordshire, the Burford community hospital is faced with the threat of imminent closure. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree with me that nothing so sadly illustrates the Government's lack of concern for rural communities as the prospect of closure of hospitals such as the Burford community hospital, which play such an important role in rural communities. I shall find only words that express deep regret if the Government do not, as they are proposing to do with village schools, take urgent action to redress the prospect of closures.
      Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, in two respects. First, he has identified yet another community hospital of which I was not aware which is under threat. Secondly, he makes the link between, especially, the smaller community hospitals and rural communities. Both those factors are extremely valuable additions to the case that I am trying to deploy.
      Two functions are best provided locally—the palliative and the recuperative. These functions are best provided at the places where people live and where they have ready access to the services of their family doctors and the appropriate complementary rehabilitation services. My hon. Friend makes the strong point that that is especially true of rural areas such as his constituency and mine. The smaller rural hospitals are particularly under threat, where any cut and any removal of beds will make them less viable.
      Mr. Peter Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that small community hospitals such as the one at Evesham, about which he has spoken, are contributing enormously to the local communities they serve and are capable of developing remarkable expertise of their own? I think especially of the stroke rehabilitative work that is done at Evesham, which is testimony to what community hospitals can achieve. It is a potent example of why they must be saved at all costs.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I must not delay the House for too long, but I know the Evesham community hospital well, because it was in the constituency that I represented for 23 years.
      My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. If we start cutting, in the case of Evesham, for example, the Macmillan unit would be involved. Such units are funded with voluntary assistance. The moment we start pulling out some of the plugs, the entire edifice is in

      831
      danger of collapse. Since so much outrage has been expressed by the Conservative party about these matters, there is the worry that the authorities will not confront the problem directly. Instead, they may salami-slice some of the hospitals. That will be particularly serious if small hospitals are involved.
      Mr. David Lock: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in Worcestershire, the root of the problems and the possibility of cuts, against which he rails, derive from an £8 million overspend that occurred substantially through mismanagement when the Conservative Government were in power, and when the people they appointed to the health authority were not managing it properly? So we now have substantial overspend, and a substantial accumulated deficit. That is the mess that the Government and the people they are appointing are having to sort out.
      Sir Michael Spicer: We are rapidly running out of time when that argument can continue to be used. The countryside march yesterday showed that things are changing. We did not have these problems, and we did not have this debate, under the Conservative Administration. The Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, came to Worcester for electoral reasons.
      Mr. Michael J. Foster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Sir Michael Spicer: I shall not give way, as the hon. Gentleman did not give way to me in the debate on fox hunting—that issue has become his trade mark.
      Without having thought through the funding implications, the Prime Minister said when he came to Worcester that he would accelerate the building of a new acute hospital. Anyone who has examined the figures will know that that is what has brought this matter to a head, and is the reason why I secured this debate.
      Mr. Gill: It may interest my hon. Friend to know that, when the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Lock) was a parliamentary candidate, he did not blame the health authority. He said that there was a lack of money, and that money was the answer to the problem.
      Sir Michael Spicer: That is what Labour Members always say; there is nothing new about that. Labour local authorities also say that more money will do the trick, whereas what is often needed is better management. Most of the problems that are emerging under Labour did not exist under the Conservative Government.
      The case for the relatively low-cost community hospital as distinct from the all-purpose, local general hospital, whose days may be numbered, may go by default. It needs to restated, and I am grateful for this opportunity to do so.
      11.16 pm
      The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. Alan Milburn): I congratulate the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) on securing this debate. This is an important issue. Community hospitals
      832
      excite much local concern in many parts of the country, and have a great deal of local support. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman has not read the White Paper "The New NHS", which deals with some of these issues in detail.
      The hon. Gentleman asked for a clear steer on the direction of Government policy. Community hospitals are valued parts of the local health service in many areas. Patients value them because they tend to deliver services in a friendly and homely way. Our White Paper "The New NHS" sets out a vision of a service in which swift advice and treatment is available as close to home as possible. Community hospitals will be part of that vision in some places.
      Dartford is different from Darlington, and it is the job of health authorities to ensure that local services are matched to local need. I thought that the Conservative Government supported that principle. If there has been a dramatic U-turn, I am happy to take an intervention on the issue; otherwise, I shall continue.
      The hon. Gentleman is a strong supporter of Malvern community hospital in his constituency, and I understand his concerns. Public consultation on the future of health services across Worcestershire was launched last Monday by Worcestershire health authority with the document "Investing In Excellence". While that public consultation is taking place, it would be wrong for me to either endorse or oppose the preferred option of the Worcestershire health authority.
      Different views and different options on the overall strategy for Worcestershire have been appraised by the health authority against a range of criteria, including clinical quality and accessibility. The preferred option is to centralise specialist services on one site—either Worcester or Bromsgrove depending on the specialism—with local access to diagnostic services, out-patient appointments and post-operative rehabilitation. Emergency services would also be available locally, with major trauma cases going to Worcester.
      There are, of course, a number of options that the health authority must consider. One of those options—I think it was option seven, which is of most concern to the hon. Gentleman and, perhaps, other hon. Members—would involve integrating acute and community services across the county, with the closure of all community hospitals. Again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the pros and cons of that wide variety of options while the consultation is in progress. The point is that it illustrates just how difficult the decision will be.
      Clearly, only one option will finally be approved, and the criteria that we shall use to assess the issue—if it comes to Ministers—will relate to what is in the best interests of patients.
      Mr. Woodward: The Minister makes much of the importance of public consultation. In Oxfordshire, the community health trust has presented two options for the future of community hospitals. Option one is the closure of Burford community hospital; option two is the closure of Burford community hospital. Will the Minister explain just what public consultation means, when both options mean that the hospital is faced with closure?
      Mr. Milburn: I will not be drawn into a detailed commentary on each and every consultation that is going on. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well why that is the case. If a local community health council objects to any of the proposals, the objection will end up on my desk, but until it ends up on my desk I must retain a sense of objectivity and impartiality.
      Mr. Lock: Community hospitals are important, but in many areas—such as Kidderminster, in my constituency—people are desperate for their general hospitals not to be downgraded to the status of community hospital. Does my hon. Friend understand the strong feelings in Kidderminster about the proposal for the hospital—just before receiving its charter mark—to be reduced to a hospital of 35 beds, one for every 2,600 people, as opposed to the one bed for every 160 people that there is in Evesham? Will he assure the House that, as far as he is concerned, all options will remain open until and unless the matter comes to his desk?
      Mr. Milburn: Of course I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns. He and his colleagues have been to see me about the health authority's consultation proposals. During any consultation, I shall expect to see a full appraisal of the preferred option of the health authority, but it will be open to local communities and their representatives to make representations to the health authority about other options. The health authority will be expected to examine those options—as, indeed, I would, if they came to me.
      Mr. Luff: The Minister, who is taking a very fair approach, will recognise that Evesham community hospital serves not just Evesham, but the whole of south Worcestershire. Many people from Worcester, for example, go into Evesham for rehabilitation.
      Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the local position. I know that a number of community hospitals serve a number of communities in the Worcestershire health authority area. I also know of the concern in the areas that could be affected if option seven were given the go-ahead. Equally, I am concerned about the anxieties that have been expressed to me by those in Kidderminster and other parts of the county.
      These are clearly difficult issues, which will need to be considered carefully. That is why it is important for the health authority to do everything in its power to ensure that there is a full and open debate about the issues during the next few months. I know that the health authority is promoting that consultation through a number of public meetings. I understand that it has also established a freephone helpline and a website. Moreover, views can be sent to the health authority by freepost.
      Let me tell hon. Members on both sides of the House that, when difficult decisions must be made, it is important for those representing local communities in all parts of the area covered by the Worcestershire health authority to submit their views. I assure hon. Members
      834
      that their views will be properly considered by health authorities. Views that are brought to me will also be properly considered.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Do the Government have a policy on distinguishing between community hospitals and their development and the old-fashioned district general hospitals?
      Mr. Milburn: I am coming to that, and trying to go beyond the boundaries of Worcestershire.
      Mr. Michael J. Foster: Before my hon. Friend leaves Worcestershire, perhaps I could ask whether he agrees that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when Leader of the Opposition, at no time visited Worcester to make the great electoral pledge that we have heard about. Does he further agree that the new hospital that is planned for Worcester springs from medical necessity, and is not the result of some sort of electoral deal?
      Mr. Milburn: One of my most pleasing actions as a Health Minister was to give the go-ahead to some new hospitals. I am surprised that some Opposition Members seem to oppose that. I thought that new hospitals were welcome in the national health service. That is certainly what some Opposition Members call for.
      The value of community hospitals was recently emphasised in the White Paper that sets out how new primary care trusts will be able to take over the running of community hospitals and other community services to provide a broad range of treatment and care. Precise arrangements will depend on local circumstances, but it is envisaged that, in time, the primary care trust will employ all relevant community health staff and run community hospitals and other community facilities to provide an integrated system of primary and community care. That will allow patients access to an integrated service.
      Under the White Paper proposals, primary care groups and trusts will be a focus for better integrating primary and community care services. Clinicians in primary and secondary care will together be able to set quality standards and service protocols so that the patient receives properly integrated programmes of care. By integrating primary care and community health care, we shall bring together health care professionals with many and varied complementary skills. The sharing of skills and expertise in that way will create greater flexibility in the provision of health care services, and will allow general practitioners to use their time more effectively to provide a better service to patients.
      Mr. John Burnett: Are the Government considering changing the appeals procedure for rural community hospitals to match the one that was announced on Friday for rural primary schools, so that there will be a presumption against closure, and a decision to close will have to be referred to the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Milburn: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, in some parts of the country—in rural areas, for example—community hospitals may have an important future role. It is a question of horses for courses. We certainly do not have a single national blueprint that can be applied to all areas. There are differences between

      835
      rural and urban areas, but not all rural areas are the same. We must have a system that allows proper inspection and an analysis of what is needed in each area.
      I hope that all hon. Members share our aim of achieving services that are better attuned to local health needs. The consultations that are going on in Worcestershire and in other areas will allow us to do precisely that.
      Mr. John Hayes: In south Lincolnshire, where we face problems similar to those that have been mentioned, the issue is sparsity. The Minister says that different solutions must be applied to different areas. Can he assure us that sparsity will be fully taken into account? It may not always have been fully considered in the past—I do not seek to make a party political point—but can he assure the House and those in rural areas, many of which are represented in the Chamber for the debate, that it will be considered in future?
      Mr. Milburn: We must take into account whether any change in local health services will improve care for patients—that is the bottom line, the barometer and the yardstick against which any change or reconfiguration proposal should be judged. There is no exception for community hospitals.
      As the hon. Member for West Worcestershire rightly said, with such wide variations in the types of service provided by community hospitals, it would be wrong to
      836
      attempt to impose a national blueprint from the centre. The centre's role is not to be prescriptive, but to establish clear national standards to help local planners develop services that best meet local needs. As I have said several times, all districts are different, and all have differing needs. The range of services they commission and the various unit types must be determined locally, and by much more than only physical environments.
      We want—more importantly, local people in all parts of the United Kingdom want—local services that best meet their local health needs. As I said, there are many possible models for community hospitals, and a variety of factors will determine the right model to suit local circumstances.
      A modern national health service—which is what we want—is one that provides high-quality and appropriate services, and has a capital and staff infrastructure that is capable of delivering those services to meet patients' needs in the 21st century. However, no part of health care stands alone: it is an interconnected system, between primary, community and acute services. It simply is not possible artificially to separate one service from another. In all parts of the United Kingdom, we need to give proper consideration to ensuring that the nature of local health services in totality better meets local health needs.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve midnight.

PRIME MINISTER
  City of London Corporation
  City of London Corporation
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  State Opening of Parliament
  State Opening of Parliament
CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  British Library
  British Library
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Prosecutions (Sussex)
  Prosecutions (Sussex)
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Computer Systems
  Computer Systems
  Age Discrimination
  Age Discrimination
ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS
  Official Entertainment
  Official Entertainment
  Departmental Buildings
  Departmental Buildings
  Drink Driving
  Drink Driving
  Public Transport (London)
  Public Transport (London)
  Noise Warnings
  Noise Warnings
  Strategic Roads Review
  Strategic Roads Review
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Civil Aviation Authority
  Rail Franchises
  Rail Franchises
  Car Clocking
  Car Clocking
  Hedges
  Hedges
  Diabetics (Vehicle Licences)
  Diabetics (Vehicle Licences)
  Waste Management
  Waste Management
  Irish Sea
  Irish Sea
  Buildings Insulation
  Buildings Insulation
  Building Conversions
  Building Conversions
  Housing Development (Nottinghamshire)
  Housing Development (Nottinghamshire)
  Air Safety
  Air Safety
  House Building
  House Building
  Motorway Services (Solihull)
  Motorway Services (Solihull)
  "Modernising Planning"
  "Modernising Planning"
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Inspectors
  Planning Inspectors
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Railfreight Grants
  Railfreight Grants
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Hedgerows
  Hedgerows
  Motorway Roadworks
  Motorway Roadworks
  Coalfield Task Force
  Coalfield Task Force
  Road Traffic
  Road Traffic
  Confined Spaces Regulations
  Confined Spaces Regulations
  Housing
  Housing
  Road Traffic (Short Journeys)
  Road Traffic (Short Journeys)
  Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order
  Department of Transport (Fees) (Amendment) Order
  Driver Records
  Driver Records
  Local Government Services
  Local Government Services
  Highways (Noise Pollution)
  Highways (Noise Pollution)
  Leaded Petrol
  Leaded Petrol
  Telecommunications Masts
  Telecommunications Masts
  Regional Development Agencies
  Regional Development Agencies
  Local Government Finance (Tewkesbury)
  Local Government Finance (Tewkesbury)
  European Charter of Local Self-Government
  European Charter of Local Self-Government
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Health and Food Safety Research
  Health and Food Safety Research
  Labour Relations Agency
  Labour Relations Agency
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Schools
  Schools
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
  Microcredit
  Microcredit
  Reproductive Health Care
  Reproductive Health Care
  India
  India
  Mixed Credits
  Mixed Credits
  Education Projects
  Education Projects
  Russia
  Russia
  Peru
  Peru
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  Intellectual Property Rights
  Intellectual Property Rights
  Biodiversity
  Biodiversity
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Europe 2010 Dining Club
  Europe 2010 Dining Club
  Visa Applications
  Visa Applications
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Sudan
  Sudan
  Schengen Agreement
  Schengen Agreement
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Court Rules and Procedures
  Court Rules and Procedures
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Small Claims
  Small Claims
  Community Legal Service
  Community Legal Service
  Crown Courts
  Crown Courts
  Magistrates
  Magistrates
  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Legal Services Ombudsman
SCOTLAND
  Theft and Fraud
  Theft and Fraud
  Queen's Counsel
  Queen's Counsel
  Funicular Railway, Cairngorm
  Funicular Railway, Cairngorm
  Driving (Drugs)
  Driving (Drugs)
  Skye Bridge
  Skye Bridge
TREASURY
  Computer Systems
  Computer Systems
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Multilateral Agreement on Investment
  Credit Control
  Credit Control
  Credit Controls
  Credit Controls
  Barn Conversions (VAT)
  Barn Conversions (VAT)
  Euro
  Euro
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Lloyd's
  Lloyd's
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Asbestosis
  Asbestosis
  NUTS Review
  NUTS Review
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Dietary Supplements
  Dietary Supplements
  Defence Exports
  Defence Exports
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions
  Insolvency
  Insolvency
  Accountants (Money Laundering)
  Accountants (Money Laundering)
  Newspapers (Market Share)
  Newspapers (Market Share)
  Motor Vehicle Warranties
  Motor Vehicle Warranties
  Independent Committee for Supervision of Telephone Services
  Independent Committee for Supervision of Telephone Services
  First Bus (Glasgow)
  First Bus (Glasgow)
  Imutran
  Imutran
  Gas Deregulation
  Gas Deregulation
  Employment Rights
  Employment Rights
  Coal
  Coal
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  NUTS Review
  NUTS Review
WALES
  Mental Health Unit, Bronllys
  Mental Health Unit, Bronllys
  Coastal Defences
  Coastal Defences
  Housing
  Housing
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Sex Offenders
  Sex Offenders
  Crime Prevention
  Crime Prevention
  Avon and Somerset Police Authority
  Avon and Somerset Police Authority
  Firearms (Compensation)
  Firearms (Compensation)
  Members of Parliament (Offence of Bribery)
  Members of Parliament (Offence of Bribery)
  World Cup
  World Cup
  Young Offenders Teams
  Young Offenders Teams
  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Juveniles (Secure Accommodation)
  Children (Pornography)
  Children (Pornography)
  Disorder and Anti-social Behaviour
  Disorder and Anti-social Behaviour
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Terrorist Organisations
  Terrorist Organisations
  Alcohol (Young People)
  Alcohol (Young People)
  Restorative Justice
  Restorative Justice
  Schengen Agreement
  Schengen Agreement
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Laboratory of the Government Chemist
  Ministerial Meetings
  Ministerial Meetings
  Prisoners (Sexually Explicit Material)
  Prisoners (Sexually Explicit Material)
  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Remand Prisoners
  Remand Prisoners
  Prisoners (Violent Offences)
  Prisoners (Violent Offences)
  Driving (Drugs)
  Driving (Drugs)
  Iraq
  Iraq
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Casual Employees (Retirement)
  Casual Employees (Retirement)
  Police Disciplinary Procedures
  Police Disciplinary Procedures
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
  Detention Centres (Inspections)
  Detention Centres (Inspections)
  Private Prisons (Suicide and Self-Injury)
  Private Prisons (Suicide and Self-Injury)
  Public Marches
  Public Marches
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  Luxembourg Summit
  Luxembourg Summit
  European Funding
  European Funding
  Lipreading
  Lipreading
  New Deal
  New Deal
  Lone Parents
  Lone Parents
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Hearing-impaired Children
  Environmental Task Force
  Environmental Task Force
  Young Unemployed
  Young Unemployed
  Primary School Places (Tooting)
  Primary School Places (Tooting)
  Nursery School Entitlement
  Nursery School Entitlement
  Single Parents
  Single Parents
  Standard Assessment Tests
  Standard Assessment Tests
  Employment Service (Documents)
  Employment Service (Documents)
  Student Loans
  Student Loans
  Lifelong Learning
  Lifelong Learning
  Utilities
  Utilities
HEALTH
  London Hospitals
  London Hospitals
  Home Care Staff
  Home Care Staff
  Ambulance Services
  Ambulance Services
  NHS Charges
  NHS Charges
  Rubella Vaccine
  Rubella Vaccine
  Joint Replacements
  Joint Replacements
  NHS Trusts
  NHS Trusts
  Continence Products (VAT)
  Continence Products (VAT)
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Nursery Inspections
  Nursery Inspections
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
DEFENCE
  Departmental Publicity
  Departmental Publicity
  Ministerial Transport
  Ministerial Transport
  Broughton Moor
  Broughton Moor
  Gunwharf, Portsmouth
  Gunwharf, Portsmouth
  RAF Menwith Hill
  RAF Menwith Hill
  US Visiting Forces
  US Visiting Forces
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Service Delivery (Costs)
  Service Delivery (Costs)
  Market Research
  Market Research
  Overseas Travel
  Overseas Travel
  Buildings Refurbishment
  Buildings Refurbishment
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality
  Empty Properties
  Empty Properties
  Meat Export Licences
  Meat Export Licences
  Relative Stability
  Relative Stability
  Advertising Contracts
  Advertising Contracts
  Conferences
  Conferences
  Designated Ports
  Designated Ports
  Black Fish
  Black Fish
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Food Labelling
  Food Labelling
  Agriculture Payments
  Agriculture Payments
  Beef
  Beef
  Fisheries
  Fisheries
  Food Standards Agency
  Food Standards Agency
  Vitamin B6
  Vitamin B6
  Biodiversity
  Biodiversity
  Sheep Dipping
  Sheep Dipping
  BSE (Compensation)
  BSE (Compensation)
  Works of Art
  Works of Art
  Fish (Disease)
  Fish (Disease)
  Diversification
  Diversification
  Cattle Passports
  Cattle Passports
  Beef Export Ban
  Beef Export Ban
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Social Fund Loans
  Social Fund Loans
  National Insurance
  National Insurance
  Independent Tribunal Service
  Independent Tribunal Service
  Income Support
  Income Support
  Disability
  Disability
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Benefits Backdating
  Benefits Backdating
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Benefit Integrity Project
  Benefit Integrity Project
  Lone Parents
  Lone Parents
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Disability Living Allowance
  Disability Living Allowance
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
  Social Security Reform
  Social Security Reform
  Habitual Residence Rules
  Habitual Residence Rules
  Fuel Costs (Pensioners)
  Fuel Costs (Pensioners)
  Official Hospitality
  Official Hospitality

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

Gulf War: DU Weapons and Toxic Dust
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether chemically toxic dust created and scattered by the explosion of depleted uranium weapons by allied forces in the Gulf was responsible for casualties on either side.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, the Government are not aware of any coalition personnel who have become ill or have died as a result of any such exposure. We have no information regarding any Iraqi casualties resulting from exposure to such dust.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it the view of the Government that toxic chemicals produced by their nuclear weapons are legal but that if such substances were produced by an enemy they would become illegal?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend may be suffering from a misunderstanding. DU shells are in no sense nuclear weapons and no nuclear explosion is caused when they hit any object.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of a study carried out in 1993 by three US scientists which found that in the first eight months after the Gulf War about 50,000 children died from DU-related illnesses? In the light of that, what does the Minister think of the remark made by General Gallois in 1995 that if tanks are equipped with these kinds of munitions, chemical/nuclear war is morally allowable?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am not familiar with the study to which the noble Countess has referred. But I find those figures quite remarkable because, if anyone did suffer from the inhalation of depleted uranium dust, he would have had to be very close to the point of impact of the shell on the tank. It would have to be a hard and not a soft target. On the basis that I dispute the premise of the noble Countess's question, I cannot follow the rest of it.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, in a reply to an earlier question that I asked about depleted uranium, the noble Lord said that it was a heavy metal with toxic properties similar to lead. Can he confirm that that is the case and that DU has no more dangerous properties than lead?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I can confirm what he has said.
946
Depleted uranium is a material used for many civilian purposes. It is used in hospitals for radiological protection, for balancing the keels of small boats and in aircraft. There are several tens of thousands of tonnes of this material in civil hands in this country.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that depleted uranium is used because of its high density and that as a result it can penetrate armour? Does he agree that there is no question of depleted uranium surrounding explosives and dust being created, and that the only dust that may arise from the use of depleted uranium ammunition results from the shattering of ammunition as it hits a very hard object, as the noble Lord implied?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I agree entirely with what he has said.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend suggest that no toxic chemical is produced by the explosion of depleted uranium, or does he suggest that a nuclear weapon exploded by us is in a different category from a nuclear weapon exploded by anyone else?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, my noble friend cannot have heard my original reply. These substances are not parts of nuclear weapons. No nuclear explosion takes place whatsoever when a DU shell hits the main battle tank of an opposing force. He is quite right that toxic dust arises from such incidents. It also arises when other materials hit main battle tanks.

Immigration Advisers
2.42 p.m.
Lord Dholakiaasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will publicise the names and addresses of those companies and individuals offering immigration advice whose activities cause concern to the Home Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, no. It would not be right to publish details of companies and individuals whose activities are currently under investigation or who may be further investigated in the future or who may be behaving in a way which is currently within the law where we believe the law to be inadequate and in need of amendment.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I am aware of his impeccable record in the field of race and community relations. Does he agree that those who are desperately seeking help and advice on immigration matters are being exploited and that it is right and proper that they should be aware of where to go when seeking such help and advice? On that basis, does the Minister accept that a 3 per cent. increase in the budget of the Immigration Advisory Service has resulted over a period of three years in a deficit of about

947
£500,000 and yet the service, whose record is impeccable—it has a 25 per cent. success rate—is expected to cut its staff by 21 as a result of cuts?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's first proposition. People are in a vulnerable situation and are being leeched upon by organisations of dubious morality and possible illegality. Those organisations are concerned with bogus applications for asylum, the presentation of bogus marriage certificates and fraud of the legal aid fund and are preying financially upon those in such difficulties.
The Government funds the Immigration Advisory Service. Funding for 1997–98 will be core funding of £2.592 million, together with £500,000 on the spend-to-save initiative. In respect of the refugee legal centre, there is further funding from the Home Office of some £3.644 million. Therefore, the sums available from public funds are not insignificant.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the law can deal with these illegalities? My experience shows that when these fraudulent immigration agencies deal with gullible people the civil courts are dilatory in attending to the cases. Can the Minister give his attention to accelerating the court process of these cases, which cause enormous distress?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the thrust of the noble Lord's question. We believe that the criminal courts and not the civil courts should be dealing with these cases. Undoubtedly, criminal offences are being committed, which is one of the points of the consultation document we have put forward. The Government's preference is to look to a statutory scheme which would be able to regulate the activities. Our further belief is that if there are convictions in the courts a few sharp sentences would send a useful signal and have a salutary effect on what is a cruel practice.
Lord Randall of St. Budeaux: My Lords, does the Minister agree that applicants for immigration are incredibly vulnerable because the immigration law is complex and many of them are not in the UK at the time of application? In order to prevent the kind of cases about which we read, is there not a reasonable case for setting up a register of reputable organisations and individuals which provide such services to potential immigrants?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is such a case. That is why we have put out our consultation document which is headed "Control of Unscrupulous Immigration Advisers". The three options we are examining are, first, a self-financing statutory scheme, to which I referred earlier; secondly, a voluntary self-regulatory scheme; and, thirdly, a compulsory self-regulation scheme.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, bearing in mind that many of the examples quoted in the consultation document are
948
of a criminal nature, and that on 2nd February in another place the Home Secretary stated that 250 firms were guilty of unscrupulous behaviour and 40 of them were solicitors, why have not those firms been reported to the Home Office, the Law Society or to the police respectively?
Furthermore, considering that the proposed regulatory scheme will cost £600 per agency, where does the Minister believe that the UKIS and the Refugee Legal Centre will find the money to meet the additional costs? Where will it come from if it is not passed on to the clients?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there may be confusion in the noble Lord's mind. The proposed fee for the first option, the preferred option, is an annual fee of £600. That is not a vast amount in terms of the budgets which I have put forward. It may weed out the unscrupulous because they will know that under a statutory scheme they are likely to be exposed.
Assertion of unscrupulous behaviour is one thing, but proof of criminal activity is quite another. However, I assure your Lordships that the Home Secretary is deeply concerned about the abuses. The matter was raised in 1992 by a Select Committee in another place and it was put forward in your Lordships' House in 1996 when my noble friend Lord Dubs introduced a proposal for a statutory scheme. The then government believed that the problem was not sufficient to require such a remedy.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Many immigration cases were brought to me in my former constituency of Croydon. In one case, I discovered that people were being brought to me by unscrupulous advisers who charged a fee for the introduction. Does the Minister agree that there should be a register?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, as far as the Government are concerned, the noble Lord is pushing at an open door. I confirm that people in this vulnerable situation are being charged, I have heard it alleged, as much as £1,000. A further claim is then made on the legal aid fund, making two possible frauds. At the end, there is no decent redress for the applicant and the system is severely clogged for more meritorious applications.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in the past he has admitted that certain aspects of the law relating to asylum seekers are far from clear and satisfactory and that while that is so the need for advice is exceptional? When he considers how far that is the case, will he bear in mind what was said by Lord Taylor of Gosforth about the delays to justice caused by ill-informed litigants in person?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly it is a very difficult area of law even for those who claim to be expert in it. But I know that the noble Earl will remember the indication which I gave to your Lordships

949
in the past few weeks that there is a review of the asylum procedures. I entirely agree that we want a system which will be fairer, firmer and faster.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an interest as a lay member of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Is it not correct that when an asylum seeker has his initial claim rejected by the Home Office, he is informed of the two free legal services which are provided? But is it not the case also that a great many people who seek asylum do not speak English and those forms are only in English? In view of the fact that the Home Office will know, at that stage, which language the person speaks, would it not be possible to put in a separate sheet with that information in that person's own language, because if he goes to a solicitor he is unlikely to be given that information?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a useful suggestion. One of the problems is that people from abroad who come to this country will not be familiar with the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, rightly pointed out, nor with the language. It is people of their own ethnic and national origins who are familiar with the language who are very often preying on their own countrymen and countrywomen. It is that which we wish to stop.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister indicate how many cases have been reported to the Law Society, bearing in mind that such exploitation has been going on for some years now?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I cannot give a precise figure in terms of those reported to the Law Society. I agree entirely with the sub-text that the Law Society and the Bar Council have their own duties in relation to their members. Very often, we are dealing with people who are not solicitors or barristers but who may pretend to be. At present there are about 250 organisations, individuals and companies which are known to the Home Office. Of those, 38 are firms of solicitors and five claim to be solicitors. I hope that that provides a context for the noble Lord's question.

Western European Union: Purpose and Functions
2.52 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaireasked Her Majesty's Government:
What they consider to be the purpose and functions of the Western European Union, in the context of NATO's acceptance of the objective of developing a European security and defence identity and of the Protocol on Article J7 of the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Western European Union acts as the interface between NATO and the European Union, allowing Europe to take on an increased share of responsibility in security matters, consistent with the primary role of NATO. It provides
950
Europe with a valuable crisis management tool and a military capability which the European Union can call on to support its common foreign and security policy.
The WEU is also an essential part of the development of the European security and defence identity in NATO, able to draw on the assets and experience of NATO to run crisis management operations in which our North American allies choose not to take part.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will the Minister assure us all that, in the foreign policy led strategic defence review, the question of how our forces fit in with the developing European and defence initiative is being taken fully into account? Will the Minister accept that over the past few months we have heard more enthusiastic language about closer European defence co-operation from our American allies than we have from the British Government?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, on the first point, I assure the noble Lord that those aims will be taken into account in the defence review. On the second point, it is clear that the British Government wish to see a strong European dimension to NATO. What the noble Lord may be querying is the position which the Government have explained often to this House; namely, that we do not believe that the European Union should take on direct military responsibilities. We made that position absolutely clear in the Amsterdam negotiations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the protocol cited in the Question refers specifically to paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article J7? In view of the profound silence of the European Commission during the recent Iraq crisis, will the Minister reassure us that the members of the European Council meeting together can decide on courses of action regarding both the organisation and functions of the WEU without any proposals coming from the Commission or without being required to enter into any co-decision matters in conjunction with the European Parliament?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, clearly relations between the EU and the WEU are covered in the inter-governmental second pillar to which Article J7 and its paragraphs apply. That means that it is the Council of Ministers and not the Commission which is the prime authority in those matters and there is no co-decision with either the Commission or the Parliament in that respect.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, will my noble Lord comment on the proposition that the WEU is much more suitable as the base of the security pillar in western Europe but, if it is to fulfil that role properly, the Council of Ministers will have to take the same sort of approach as Her Majesty's Government have adopted over the past year.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, to some extent, I agree with that. Increasingly, the WEU can take on responsibility for

951
aspects of crisis management within Europe. We should not expect it to take on aspects of the territorial defence of Europe which is the responsibility of NATO.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the European Council of Ministers has no status whatever in the matter? The protocol concerned and the article to which it relates refer specifically to the European Council, which is set up under entirely different auspices from the Council of Ministers. Therefore, would the Minister care to revise his answer to my question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, not very much. The article referred to relates to co-operation between the WEU and the EU. Clearly, the Council of Ministers does not have any authority in relation to the WEU's operations. Therefore, the co-operation is expressed in terms of co-operation between the European Council and the WEU.
Lord Carver: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify his answer? Is he saying that the WEU as it exists at present and its relationship with NATO satisfactorily provides the European security and defence identity which has been envisaged? If so, I do not agree with him. Is he saying that nothing more needs to be done to produce a better organisation and relationship than the sort of muddle which exists now between the WEU and NATO?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am certainly not saying that the present position is satisfactory. But the role of the WEU would primarily be in the area of crisis management, whereas the European pillar of NATO would deal with territorial defence aspects. But certainly all those areas need further development and, in particular, the WEU needs to be turned more effectively into an operational unit to deal with crisis management matters. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, Article J7, which is now before the House as part of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, states specifically that the WEU is an integral part of the development of the European Union. Are the Government saying that they agree with that sentiment or that they have deep reservations about it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, for the European Union to develop a direct defence capability requires a unanimous decision and at present the British Government are not prepared to be party to that unanimous decision. Those longer term objectives will always be subject to a unanimous decision under the Treaty of Amsterdam as well as under the current treaties.

Motorcycles: Parking Places
2.59 p.m.
Viscount Addisonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, as part of their integrated transport policy, they will strengthen current guidelines to ensure that sufficient motorcycle parking spaces are made available.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, discussions with motorcycle groups have identified the provision of adequate and secure parking as one of their principal concerns. The Government certainly agree that local authorities and employers should have regard to their needs in this respect. What further advice might be offered on the subject is something that we shall consider in the preparation of the forthcoming White Paper on integrated transport policy.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that there is no strategy for public transport which has resulted in a reduction of congestion on the roads? Is the noble Baroness also aware that, because of that, the number of commuter scooters and motorcycles is an attractive sight to those who use public transport because the costs involved compare favourably with the cost of public transport? Bearing that in mind, and given the fact that 93,000 motorcycles and motor scooters were sold last year, is it not imperative that more leverage should be placed on local authorities—I was pleased to hear what the Minister said—and that something should be put in place to ensure that they do provide more adequate and secure parking for motorcycles and motor scooters?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the Government are committed to developing a sustainable and integrated public transport policy. With regard to the modal shift from one means of transport to another, research is a good idea and has been commissioned. It is useful to note that the Driving Standards Agency has surveyed candidates taking the test for motorcycle licences in order to gain some evidence. It was found that 75 per cent. of the sample had access to a car, which they also used daily or several times a week; that 33 per cent. travelled to work by motorcycle more than once a week; that some would otherwise have driven; but that most would have walked or used public transport. Regarding secure parking, local authorities have powers to provide designated parking spaces on highways for motorcycles. The Government encourage them to use those powers.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was a 36 per cent. rise last year in motorcycle sales and a 39 per cent. rise in moped sales? I say this in my capacity as one of your Lordships who is a motorcycle commuter. Does the Minister agree that the number of parking spaces in London for motorcycle riders is totally insufficient?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, with regard to London, I can tell the noble Lord that the document Traffic Management and Parking Guidance for

953
London, published on 27th February, states that it expects boroughs which have not yet done so to undertake a fundamental review of their existing parking regimes. Among other things, the review process is expected to assess the need for any coach, cycle or motorcycle parking. The document goes on to point out that the Secretary of State recommends that local authorities should bear in mind the needs of cyclists and motorcyclists when planning and designing.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the Driving Standards Agency. Can she tell the House whether that agency will be looking at the driving standards of dispatch riders in London and other central city areas?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, they would be included in any review of standards.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, regarding guidelines, can my noble friend say whether, where a great big motorbike driven by a chap dressed in leathers attempts to sneak past two cars, thereby frightening the living daylights out of an old man, breaking the car wing mirrors and then making off without saying a word, an addendum could be added to the guidance stating that, in such circumstances, the biker should: "Stop, be kind and apologise"?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, my noble friend's question had a ring of experience about it. I am quite sure that all those who are involved with motorcycle riding, including Members of your Lordships' House, would also want to continue to pursue safety as the main theme, both for riders and other road users. I am quite sure that the picture of large, aggressive motorcyclists driving dangerously is one which is most serious but must not be taken to include all motorcyclists.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addison told the House that 93,000 motorcycles and scooters are sold each year. However, does the Minister agree that there are no secure parking spaces when 52,000 motorcycles are stolen each year, according to the figures of the Metropolitan Police stolen vehicles unit? Therefore, what are the Government proposing to do to ensure that we have secure parking spaces in London, especially as regards street furniture so that motorcycles can be chained and secured? Further, can the Minister say when the White Paper on integrated transport policy will be published?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, secure parking is a key concern. We acknowledge the problem of theft, although the rate has fallen in recent years. The Government have declared that they will change the law when an opportunity arises to put beyond doubt the ability of local authorities to provide devices on the highways to which motorcycles can be attached.
The Government also endorse the initiative of ACPO on the secured car parks initiative for off-street car parks and encourage all operators to aspire to the standards that that has established. Local authorities have the power to
954
require that off-street parking in car parks that they do not own provide motorcycle parking spaces. However, should that result in a loss of revenue for those who own the car park, compensation must be paid by the local authority.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, although my point does not directly relate to the Question on the Order Paper—
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Viscount of Falkland:—it has, nevertheless, been raised. I should first declare an interest as chairman of the Despatch Association, which is one of the two main bodies that represent dispatch riders. I can tell the House that there is now a national vocational qualification for dispatch riders which is more and more widely being taken. Is the Minister aware that, on every occasion I address groups of dispatch riders, I tell them that every time they frighten one of my noble friends—or, indeed, other noble Lords—by knocking wing mirrors, it makes my life exceedingly difficult and that, therefore, I am expecting a vast improvement in that area?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I endorse the view that, complementary to compulsory basic training, it is important to encourage the pursuit of safety. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount did not wish to imply that it was acceptable to knock car wing mirrors of people who are not Members of this House. However, as I said, I endorse what he said about the importance of safety. That is especially so for dispatch riders, many of whom are very young.

Succession to the Crown Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Richard): My Lords, last Friday my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, when replying to the Second Reading debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill, said:
"Her Majesty had no objection to the Government's view that in determining the line of succession to the throne daughters and sons should be treated in the same way".
The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, immediately raised a point of order and said that,
"it was not normal to make known the views of the monarch on legislation before the House".—[Official Report, 27/2/98; col. 916]
No doubt the noble Lord had in mind the passage in Erskine May, which says:
"Her Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament is immediately checked and censured".
I was not present during that part of the debate when my noble friend advised the House of the view of Her Majesty. However, I recognised that the matter was of some importance and, therefore, took advice on it. The advice that I have received is that, on a Bill which is so fundamentally personal to the sovereign and to her family, it would have been unhelpful to the House for

955
the Government not to have made her view known to your Lordships. The procedure must always be applied with common sense and with due consideration of the circumstances. I am bound to say that the advice I received was both sensible and correct.
Her Majesty's views would very soon have became apparent through other channels. Indeed, there was an alleged mention of them in the Daily Telegraph of the day immediately before the debate. It might have been thought discourteous to your Lordships, when debating such a measure, not to have learnt of them first. Even though the advice that I was tendered was that no impropriety had occurred, I thought it might help the House, in view of the interventions made on Friday, to have the position clarified publicly at the earliest opportunity. That is what I have sought to do.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Statement that he has just made to the House. Was my noble friend Lord Marlesford given notice that the statement was to be made today? Without prejudice to the advice received by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, it is astonishing that on such a constitutional matter a statement was made to the House on the Second Reading of a Private Member's Bill on a poorly attended Friday afternoon in a way which broke a convention which has survived over centuries; that is, that it is not normal to make known the personal views of the monarch on legislation before the House. I understand that no Member of the Opposition, nor the usual channels, nor my noble friend Lord Archer, were informed that such an historic break with convention was to be made. I note the advice that has been accepted by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal. I have read and re-read page 382 of Erskine May, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, but which I refer to again:
"Where the Crown has a distinct interest in a measure, there is an authorized mode of communicating Her Majesty's recommendation or consent, through one of her Ministers";
that is, setting aside, or putting at the disposal of the House, the Crown's prerogative. That was done for this Bill on 30th July 1997. Erskine May further states,
"but Her Majesty cannot he supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of her responsible advisers; and any attempt to use her name in debate to influence the judgment of Parliament is immediately checked and censured".
It is my personal view that it was inadvisable for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to have broken with the convention in this way. Whenever the personal views of the sovereign are placed before the House, ahead of the determination of a Bill, private or public, that runs the risk of influencing matters under discussion and impeding full and free debate. Therefore I hope the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will assure the House that the precedent established should not be prayed in aid by the Government to justify alluding to the sovereign's personal view on other matters coming before the House.
3.12 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I hope that the majority of Members of your Lordships' House will feel that the Statement on the position made by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal was fair and reasonable and widely acceptable. I think that the most relevant sentence in that Statement of the noble Lord was when he said that procedure must be applied with common sense and with due consideration of the circumstances. The circumstances were such that the failure to make a Statement to the House in the terms that the Minister did would have been widely misunderstood, and, I think, resented in this place. My only question is one that I perhaps take for granted. I assume that the circumstances of the Statement, the time and the place were understood by Her Majesty so that she was in full knowledge of what was being done.
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Lord Richard: My Lords, I had better reply to the two Front Bench spokesmen first.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked me whether I had communicated with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The answer to that is no. What I did was to communicate with the Opposition. The Opposition are here in force this afternoon. I made what I thought was a procedural statement to clear up a point which had arisen last Friday, instead of which I find myself under considerable attack from the noble Baroness, particularly on the basis that this is an historic break with convention. My advice is that it is not an historic break with convention. There is no breach of convention. There is no breach of the rules of procedure of the House. That is the advice that I have received. In those circumstances I say with great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I think she is going somewhat over the top as regards this issue.
I am grateful for the views of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers. It would be difficult to see how the Bill could sensibly have been debated without that information being passed to the House; otherwise it would have been debated on the basis of leaks in the newspaper. I cannot believe that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would have wanted. If there had been many leaks to the newspaper, I am perfectly certain that we would have been under intense pressure to have clarified the position.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what precedents there are for citing the private views of the monarch in a matter which is controversial in party political terms?
Lord Richard: My Lords, first, with respect, I do not agree that they are necessarily the private views of the monarch. Secondly, it would have been impossible to discuss the Bill without the views of the present monarch being considered. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, asked me whether this took place after consultation. Of course it occurred after consultation with the appropriate authorities, and with their full

957
agreement. In my respectful submission to the House, in those circumstances it would have been remiss of the Government not to have dealt with the position.
Earl Russell: My Lords, in my professional capacity, perhaps I may be associated with the advice that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has received. I believe it to be entirely correct. I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also to be correct that this procedure is not normal, but that is because the subject matter of the Bill is not normal. Such a procedure relates to Bills on the succession and on Royal marriages, which in their very nature are not likely to be every day occurrences.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am certainly grateful—I nearly said surprised—to have received the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. His historical knowledge is far greater than mine. I am fortified in the position I have taken by not only having the support of the Clerks of both Houses but also of eminent historians and constitutionalists in this House.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House accept that at the present time, when so much constitutional change is being discussed, the Government need to be particularly careful about the propriety of the way in which the views of the Crown, or the personal view of the monarch, are conveyed to the House? Does he also agree that the Government have a duty when they are dealing with a comment that has been made by a Member of the House—in this case by my noble kinsman Lord Marlesford—to tell the individual that this matter is to arise, and not to use the Opposition Front Bench as message boys?
Lord Richard: My Lords, with great respect, I do not accept the final point that the noble Baroness has made. It seems to me that in circumstances of this kind, when the incident occurs on a Friday, I have to decide on a Monday morning whether to make a Statement. I thought I was helping the House in making the Statement. When I am dealing with an issue which has arisen in the House I really cannot make myself responsible for notifying everyone who had an interest in that issue last Friday that they should be here this afternoon. If I have been discourteous to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, of course I apologise, but I do not think that I have.
The noble Baroness said that the Government have been responsible, or are being responsible, for much constitutional change. The author of the Bill we are discussing is sitting on the Benches behind the noble Baroness, not behind me. The constitutional change that was debated last Friday has emerged from the Opposition Benches and not from the Government Benches. The noble Baroness asks me to be especially careful as regards the Queen's views. Of course we shall be careful. I totally accept that point. Were it not for the peculiar, special nature of this Bill, no difficulty would have arisen. However, the nature of the Bill is such that
958
it was almost impossible to discuss it without this matter being an issue. If it was going to be an issue, it was obviously better that it was dealt with on a formal, agreed basis by the Government Front Bench than by leaks in newspapers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I ask the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal just one question. Is it proper or is it normal practice to refer to the Clerks of both Houses as having given advice?
Lord Richard: My Lords, if another hare is about to start running, let me strangle it now. If I should not have said that I have had the advice of the Clerks of both Houses. I apologise to the Clerk of the House, to whom I should not have referred. If that helps the noble Baroness, I am delighted to say so.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal sits down, perhaps I may ask this. Before Erskine May is cast aside quite so easily as appears to have been done on Friday, would it aid the House in future if, when there is to be some substantive change, prior notice were given to noble Lords at one of the normal meeting days of the House which is known to be well attended, so that noble Lords can take the matter on board? Had that been done, this difficulty would not have arisen.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I do not accept that Erskine May has been tossed aside. Nor, indeed, is the advice that I have received that Erskine May has been tossed aside. If Erskine May had been tossed aside, and that is what the Government were advised, I should be making a very different statement today from the one I have made.
Lord Annan: My Lords, could we vote in favour of common sense and not pedantry?

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Baroness Blackstone.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 16 [New arrangements for giving financial support to students]:
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 11, line 6, at beginning insert—
("(A1) Fees in respect of tuition for any course of higher education at a publicly-funded institution shall only be payable by the student concerned where a grant in the same amount has been made available for that purpose to that student.

959
(A2) For the purposes of subsection (A1) above, "the student concerned" means a person whose normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 45.
There has been considerable concern in your Lordships' House and in the country generally as to exactly where in the Bill one finds the provision to institute student payment of tuition fees. Indeed, there is no specific reference to such a provision in the Bill. That has made it extremely difficult to draft any amendments opposing it, and therefore to have any debate in your Lordships' House on the principle of student payment of tuition fees. We reach this comparatively late stage of the Bill without having had any substantive debate on what many would see as one of the most important aspects of the Bill. I bring forward Amendment No. 37 as the vehicle by which your Lordships can debate the important issue and principle of student payment of tuition fees.
I am sure that it will be noted that this debate is also taking place in prime time, as was the Government's intention. The amendment that I move as a device to make our views clear on this issue provides that students will have to pay fees only where an equivalent grant has been made available for that purpose. I make no pretence that it is anything other than a device to register our fundamental opposition to the payment of tuition fees. The effect of the amendment, if passed, would be to nullify that payment. On these Benches, we oppose the student payment of tuition fees as wrong in principle, unnecessary in practice and the thin end of a very large wedge.
The most important of those arguments is that the Government's move is wrong in principle. They know it. The Harris poll among Members in another place suggests that 45 per cent. of Labour Members of Parliament also know it. Indeed, I think that only last week the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, assured us that the provision will be defeated should it reach another place. I hope today that we can save it the trouble. If the measure reaches another place, I hope that the noble Lord is right in his belief.
There is widespread concern and opposition throughout the country to the imposition of tuition fees. There have been demonstrations in 14 cities across the United Kingdom. An estimated 40,000 students, lecturers and parents have taken part in the campaign against the student payment of tuition fees. There is a great wave of feeling against what I described at Second Reading—I got into some trouble with others in your Lordships' House—as a student poll tax. Many of us have received shoals of letters from student unions, individual students and concerned parents. That suggests that that concern is well founded.
We believe in the principle that education should be free at the point of entry and at the point of need. That is the principle we are defending today. We see education as a public service and a national investment. I had thought that noble Lords on the opposite side of the House shared that view of social provision and
960
national investment. I know that many noble Lords and Members in another place are deeply unhappy at the move which the Government are making.
Much has been said about the deterrent effect of the imposition of tuition fees on applications for higher education. As we have said previously, those of us who oppose it may tend to exaggerate that effect. I think that it is equally true that the Government will seek to minimise that effect. The truth is that we shall probably not know the actual effect for a year or two until the system has settled down. But it must be self-evident that the fear of having to meet the tuition fees, the fear of having to leave university with a large debt, must be a disincentive in particular for people from poorer families. It is most certainly not an incentive to enter higher education.
Our second argument is that the Government's plan to introduce student payment of tuition fees is unnecessary in practice. We acknowledge fully and strongly that significant further money needs to be found for universities. We are all well aware of the funding crisis there. But it does not need to come from the £1,000 contributions of young or not-so-young students. Our approach to covering the cost is threefold. We recognise that there are three main beneficiaries of higher education: the state; the student, the individual learner; and the employers. Employers are too often left out of the equation. Yet if they are to benefit from a highly educated workforce, as our international competitors do, they need a strong and well-financed higher education sector. According to the CBI, good employers contributed an estimated £28 million in 1994; and I am sure the figure is higher now.
The problem is that there are too many free-loading employers who do not make any investment. They ride on the backs of their more responsible competitors. Liberal Democrats therefore want to introduce a remissible education and training levy, equivalent to 2 per cent. of the organisation's payroll. That proposal is endorsed by the OECD. Companies employing small numbers of people would be exempt. We estimate that that measure alone would raise some £500 million.
Clearly a further contribution needs to come from the Treasury. We make no bones about that. There have been many weary jokes in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the longest "p" in history. But the fact remains that the somewhat modest £2 billion extra on education for which we asked was carefully costed and that more money for higher education was a small component within it. Additionally, we believe that the current funding system for tertiary education is wasteful with funds being distributed in various ways through a number of different funding agencies. The duplication of bureaucracy uses resources that could be better spent.
Lastly, I turn to the third beneficiary—the students. I think that it is now accepted, perhaps reluctantly by most students, that they, too, need to make a contribution towards university funding, not through the payment of tuition fees but through contributions to their maintenance. For that reason, after some difficult discussions within our party, we are prepared to abandon the concept of the maintenance grant and to

961
fund that through income contingent loans. That, too, would release significant sums of money. I suspect that later in the day I shall say more about income contingent loans. But they are different in practice and principle from the student debt. They depend upon the outcome not the income. They take account of where the student will be in the future, not where he is when he starts on the process. Repayment is linked to so much in the pound, not to having to pay off a large debt or to having to meet the equivalent of a mortgage payment each month.
Those are our alternatives for finding the funding for higher education. But we are not here today to debate, still less to vote upon, Liberal Democrat proposals. I thought it important to make clear that we recognise the crisis and have means of meeting it.
I have spoken about the principle and about covering the cost. I wish to conclude with a warning about this provision being the thin end of a very large wedge, and possibly in two ways. Once the principle of free tuition has been conceded, demands will increase for student payment to grow and grow. I am aware of the provision in the Bill, but it will not be sufficient safeguard once the legislation has been introduced. In Australia, tuition fees have risen from an average of 23 per cent. of actual tuition costs to an average of approximately 50 per cent. That has led to a year on year drop in applications since 1996, with just the same pattern of decline in mature age applicants that we are beginning to see in this country.
The other danger is that, once student payment of tuition fees is accepted, it will spread further. The Government are trying to revise the traditional view of social provision so that those who can pay for public service should have to do so. It may well be that the next target will be sixth form education, and so on.
The time has come in this debate to take a stand and say that student payment of tuition fees is a step too far in principle, in practice, and in terms of the real dangers that it opens out. There are many more sensible and fairer ways of dealing with the funding crisis in universities. We are not today debating the Liberal Democrat alternative proposals—much as I would be happy to do so. We are deciding on the Government's proposals. We have the first opportunity in Parliament to express our view on those proposals, which were not a manifesto commitment. I therefore urge noble Lords to take this, the first opportunity in Parliament, to say "no" to tuition fees. This amendment is the opportunity to do so. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, some of your Lordships will be familiar with the work of Mr. Russell Baker, who is for the New York Times a combination of Miles Kington and the young David Frost. When I arrived in the States in 1984 I was reading his volume in the New York Times. He described a scene where a father burst into floods of tears at his son's graduation ceremony. It was because he had just been told that his son wanted to go to graduate school. When I read that, I vowed to myself that that was a situation I would never consent to have in this country. This is the time for me to make good that vow.
962
My noble friend touched on the "thin end of the wedge" argument. It is a very powerful one. Present the Treasury with an alternative source of funding, give it an inch of that and it will take an ell; give it once, and it will do it again and again. There is nothing new about that. In 1589, immediately after the Spanish Armada, the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked another place for two subsidies, and very rashly promised that it would never be done again. Twenty-one years later, one of those who heard the promise said, "How it hath been honoured, you all know as well as I." There is nothing new in the story.
If we look around this Chamber we must be aware of the force of education as an engine of social change since 1945. The noble Baroness the Minister will remember the debates on the Education (Student Loans) Bill 1990. One after another, noble Lords rose to their feet and said, "This is the system without which I should not have been here." If we get the thin end of the wedge—if tuition fees rise from £1,000, to £2,000, to £4,000, and I do not know how far after that—that avenue will be closed. If it is closed, the effect on the social structure of our country will be one about which I do not want to think.
We talk about getting all the money to go to university. We talk about avoiding a claw-back by the Treasury. But in this respect we are up against the sovereignty of Parliament. No Parliament can bind its successors. We cannot now bind a future Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a certain sum of money into the budget for higher education, and therefore we cannot protect ourselves against a slide down the slippery slope where the proportion of funding for higher education coming from tuition fees gets greater and greater.
I declare an interest as a parent of two recent graduates. The debt of people who finish courses as students is already extremely heavy. I had colleagues in the United States who were still paying off their own student debt when they first took on the load of their children's student debt.
We have heard from time to time—for example, in the pensions debate in this House on 15th October—about the need to encourage people to make more provision for their pension. I wonder whether we can really have both these things at once; or whether we are starting two hares that cannot finish the course.
We have to consider also the effect on public sector recruitment. We know—and the Minister drew our attention to the fact during debates on this very Bill—that there is a considerable problem in the area of teacher recruitment. Where students leave university with a greatly increased load of debt, and where we have the big institutions in the City offering golden hellos, attracting recruits by offering to pay off student debt, the Government are on a fork. Either the public services accept that their number of recruits will go down and down; or they compete and they, too, offer to pay off the debt. By doing one, they do not get the recruits; by doing the other, they do not get the saving. We know of Morton's Fork; but this is a reverse Morton's Fork. Government is sticking the fork into itself. That is even worse than shooting oneself in the foot. A pitchfork can be quite a dangerous instrument.

963
My final reason for supporting the amendment is that the charge is not on the student's subsequent income, but on the parents' immediate income; and there is no compulsion to make the parents pay it. There are cases—I have had one recently among my own pupils—where the father will not disclose his income. There is no way of getting round that. We have had cases, and again I have been dealing with one recently, where the parent will not pay—in that case because of his belief that women should not receive higher education. There still are such people, I regret to say.
There are also cases of bankruptcy, resulting from the last recession and predictable, no doubt, from the next, where the parent cannot pay. There again, the readjustment of the grant cannot be done in time and the student has to leave. So the student's chances of an education depend on parental goodwill and parental circumstances. That is not right. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, the Government were given a very difficult problem by the previous government, with the increase in the number of students in higher education and the associated costs. The Dearing Committee's recommendations are the obvious way of resolving that problem. So, despite one's repugnance at the notion of paying tuition fees, there are arguments for it, as set out in the Dearing Report, with its suggestion of 25 per cent. of tuition costs to be paid in fees. To some extent one sees the Government's case. There is a financial problem to be solved. I am not sure that the remarks that we have just heard altogether meet the problem.
However, I am surprised that it has been found necessary by the Government both to abolish maintenance grants entirely and at the same time, and in addition, to levy a tuition fee of £1,000. It seems to me that the first step would be drastic enough.
I realise that the amendment concerns tuition fees, not maintenance grants, but I hope it is not inappropriate to address oneself to the overall package since it is not otherwise clear how one would discuss the matter in the Bill. Will the Minister confirm that the total abolition of maintenance grants was not a recommendation of the Dearing Committee? Paragraph 111 of the report says that,
"an increased contribution from graduates towards living costs … takes away subsidies from the poorest families and redirects them to others".
I do not like the notion of tuition fees but I do not feel able to take quite the same moral high ground as previous speakers have done. I can contemplate the possibility of tuition fees. My objection is that there is a double whammy, as it were. Students are to be asked to pay tuition fees, but in addition maintenance grants are to be entirely abolished, which was not a recommendation of the Dearing Committee. To do both seems inappropriate. The package is not a fair one.
964
I received a briefing note from the students' union at the University of Warwick which puts the matter clearly. It states:
"The abolition of maintenance grants alone will raise twice the value of the current estimated funding shortfall for Higher Education".
There may be a correction to be offered there. I should be interested to know from the Minister, first, the total annual saving to be achieved by the abolition of maintenance grants and, secondly, the total sum that will accrue from the imposition of the £1,000 tuition fee, taking into account that it will not be paid by those who pass—or perhaps I should say fail—the means test. My concern is the package, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says. It is my overall impression, however, that the package is an unfair one. For that reason, I am currently inclined to support the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, I support these amendments. They do not entirely express my view on the matter but they are the best, and indeed the only, opportunity of voting against the imposition of tuition fees, which I intend to do this evening. The Government have no mandate for what is proposed either from the public—the electorate—or from the party. I hope that they will not tell me it was approved at the Labour Party conference, because it was not. It was swept under the carpet at the conference, with the connivance of one or two trade union leaders.
I believe that I am probably the only Member of your Lordships' House who went to college, many years ago, on a loan. When I came out of college, I had to repay that loan. I lived in poverty for a number of years. I was only rescued from poverty by going into the Army where I was fed and clothed at public expense. In the six years that I spent in the Army I made a tremendous vow to myself that, when I came out, one of my objects in life would be to ensure that every young person born in this country should have the opportunity to go through the whole education system to the top, if they had the ability to do so and wished to do so.
That is the bedrock of my political philosophy. It explains why, 30 years ago, the Labour Government—the government which we are now told did not do anything—abolished the 11-plus, the biggest cause of wastage of ability in this country at that time, and why my late colleague Anthony Crosland set up the polytechnics to extend the opportunities for higher education.
After the war we had the Robbins Report, following which we talked about the open highway from the primary school to the university. In recent years, as a university chancellor, I have seen about 4,000 students each year come up for their degrees. I began to believe that my dream was becoming a reality: that all our young people who wished to do so, and who had the ability to do so, were going right through to university. Then, in the closing years of this century, a Labour Government take leave of their senses, go off their rockers, and decide to impose a great road block, a great Berlin Wall, across this open road. Not only that but,

965
with great enthusiasm, they are completing the other wall begun by the party opposite when they were in power, so we shall have two road blocks across the open road.
I object on three grounds. First, I object on principle. I believe that all the stages in our education system should remain free, as they have always been.
Secondly, I object because it will be a deterrent. There is some evidence—not much so far, but it will increase—of a deterrent, especially among poorer families who know that they will not receive a maintenance grant and that even the poorest students will have to borrow the money, £43 a week for a room, or £50 a week in private lodgings, and to pay for their food, clothing, train fares, and so on.
Thirdly, I object because the Government have chosen a grotesquely unfair way of implementing their proposals. Had they had the courage to impose a graduate tax, I would still have opposed it, and I would still think it wrong, but at least it would have been fair as between one ex-student and another. I tried to explain previously what will happen. Take, for example, two ex-students, graduates aged 30; one a lawyer earning £70,000 or £80,000 a year, the other a teacher earning £15,000 a year. The graduate lawyer makes no contribution at all to his tuition fees but the teacher has to pay £3,000 towards his fees, in addition to the other costs. That arises because of their parental income. The amount graduates will pay towards their tuition fees will depend not on their own income but on that of their parents, of the family home which they probably left years before.
How do the Government justify that? It is grotesquely unfair. How can Labour Peers and Members of Parliament support it? It is ridiculous. I cannot think of anything more unfair. It is all based on a completely mistaken, untenable premise that those who have a degree will benefit more from that degree than will anybody else. What about the teacher? Who benefits from the teacher's degree? What about the doctor? Is the doctor himself the only person who receives any benefit from his degree? Large numbers of graduates are now health workers—nurses, physiotherapists, midwives. Are they the only people to benefit from their degrees? Of course they are not; the whole community benefits. The whole matter is based on a wrong premise.
I have said all this before, and I apologise for repeating it. I shall vote against the measure, and I hope that my noble friends on this side of the House will do so as well. I have told my noble friend the Government Chief Whip that I shall vote against and he said that he understood. Let us defeat this measure, throw it out, finish with it and let the Government think again.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I wish to examine a number of statements that have been made which are factually or logically erroneous. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, began with an example from the United States. Russell Baker is very amusing; I have read him. But the truth is that access to education in the United States is much wider and deeper and extends more to lower incomes than in this country. Access to
966
education therefore is not hindered by the charging of fees. We have to look at other institutions such as the capital markets, the opportunity to work and at a number of colleges and the diversity of fees that they charge. We must not equate the charging of fees with lack of access. The United States is a living example against that scenario.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Is he aware that in the United States there is a system of national merit awards which means that in most universities scholarships extend to as much as 40 per cent. of the student population? In the university in which I teach—Harvard—it extends to 60 per cent. of the student population. There is no such mechanism known to me in the British higher education system.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am not only aware of that system, but I was a beneficiary of it. I could not have come to this country because, although the fees were low, they were too high for me. I went to the United States for my graduate education and had a Ford Foundation Scholarship. I am aware of the system. Indeed, I would have been pleased had the noble Earl or his noble friend Lord Tope said, "Let us have full fees and scholarship awards". I would have supported such an amendment. If the amendment had said, "The Government are completely wrong. A charge of £1,000 is not enough; charge £4,000 and have 40 per cent. merit scholarships", I would have supported it. It would have not only a moral ground, but an economic ground.
I understand what is being said about the United States, but it is not fees alone—I mentioned capital markets and so forth—that deny access; it is a lack of other institutions. On another occasion we might debate that. But for the time being let us not point to the charging of fees as being a major factor.
Many people, including my noble friend Lord Glenamara, said that students are not the only people to benefit from education; that other people benefit also. That is right. But the students are not being asked to pay the full cost of tuition; they are being asked only to pay one-quarter of the cost of their education. Indeed, some part-time and mature students already pay. We do not have a system of universally free higher education and therefore the provisions in the Bill are not such a great move.
We are bringing 18 to 21 year-olds in line with some others. And I must declare an interest. I have put three young adults through 11 years of higher education. At £1,000 per year tuition fees—the fee now said to be payable—I received a subsidy of £11,000 which, when one thinks of it in terms of pre-taxed income, amounts to a subsidy of £16,000 or £17,000. What have I done to deserve that? People make the mistake of not counting a tax not paid because it is hidden. But that is a subsidy just as much as somebody claiming benefit. I am a bigger welfare scrounger, as are all parents of higher education children, than the poor people whose money we are disputing.
Currently there is a zero fee system for 18 to 21 year-olds. By and large that constitutes a massive subsidy to the well-off middle classes. People quote

967
difficulty of access. But the current bias towards the middle class in our higher education system is as great as the bias was at the time of Robbins when only 10 per cent. went into higher education. It is perhaps now a little less but, by and large, middle class children go into higher education and therefore any system which subsidises higher education does not, as my noble friend Lord Glenamara said, allow everybody to go from primary to higher education.
I agree with that. But it has become a pyramid. Those who receive subsidies are precisely those who are best able to pay. The reason the present system does not improve access for poorer people has nothing whatever to do with the charging of fees. Up until now when there have been no fees, access has been unequal. When we ask why that is so, we find that it is more to do with what happens when a child is 16 and the fact that the children of poorer families do not stay on at school beyond 16; it is the fact that they do not continue with their education beyond that age rather than the charging of tuition fees.
We must not perpetuate fallacies just to feel good at heart that we are supporting a good cause because there are people who believe that they should be subsidised. Of course they want subsidies; who would not? I would march for my subsidies. Everybody receives mortgage relief and that is a subsidy. We all love subsidies but that does not make it right.
Some people asked whether we should judge students by the income of their parents or by their future income. But I believe that the Government have struck a right balance in that regard. Obviously all payments of loans will be from future income. It is an income-contingent loan system and therefore, whether the student becomes a doctor or a lawyer, the amount of money he or she pays back will not be the full loan. It is not a mortgage scheme. It is an income-contingent loan scheme and therefore students pay back only as much as they are able to pay back until the time that they stop working. We went through this both at Second Reading and at Committee stages. Somebody who earns £17,000 will not pay back the full value of the loan because that is what an "income-contingent" loan means.
The Government have said that those whose parental income is not very high will not be asked to pay tuition fees. That leads to the dilemma that those students whose parents have a high income but who are reluctant to pay will have to find the money from somewhere else. But once again I say that our task is to remove fallacies and not perpetuate them. To those who say, "I shall end up with a great debt", we must say "No, you will not. The debts will be collected only as long as they are payable". That is the whole principle of an income-contingent loan.
The Government strive not to be purist—I am very tempted to be a purist, but let us not go into that—and to strike a balance. I ask Members of this House to see that the present system is not helpful to the poor; it is a subsidy to the well-off. The new system partially corrects it. But it admits the principle that those who benefit from education pay for at least part of that education.
968
Finally, inasmuch as one can combine acuity in this difficult matter, the Government have tried their best. I am not often known for supporting my Government. People are aware of that and nobody has persuaded me to do so. For the past 10 years I have studied this problem; my colleagues at the London School of Economics have analysed the problem and I am convinced that the only long-term solution for a widely accessible higher education system in this country is an income-contingent loan scheme. The Government have taken the first step. It is a bold step. They have been able to persuade the Inland Revenue to make collections on the debt. They need massive support because this is the first step in the change of the higher education system and I welcome it.
4 p.m.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity provided by the amendment to have this unexpectedly wide-ranging discussion of these basic issues. However, I do not rise to speak in favour of the amendment, much as I have been impressed and moved, as who could not be, by what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, has said.
Two things have surprised me about the amendment. One is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, this is aimed at protecting, as it were, the 18 to 21 year-olds, irrespective of the fact that those in part-time education and those going through the Open University, from, one would expect, less well benefited family backgrounds, have for years been paying tuition fees. There is, therefore, no matter of principle here, except possibly the very fair principle of extending to all that which has been unfortunately restricted hitherto to those who were not able to manage full-time higher education but had to cope with part-time study.
The other thing that rather surprised me about the presentation of the amendment is that, although we have all had marvellously full and detailed letters from the student unions up and down the country, to which reference has been made, we have also had a lot of briefing papers from the committee of vice-chancellors, to which no allusion has been made, though in fact the vice-chancellors are backing the imposition of the £1,000 tuition fee—that is, are backing Dearing in this respect.
I have one question only to put to the Minister, and it is one I raised at Second Reading. Presumably, we are going to get to know the details of the application of the £1,000 fee, or rather the derogation from the £1,000 fee, only in regulations at some future stage. I wonder whether it would be possible to see draft regulations before the Bill comes back for Third Reading. I should like to reiterate the point that I then made about the importance of being able to use the remission of fee payment as a means of attracting students.
It has been said that there is no serious deterrent to entry into higher education by the imposition of tuition fees—and that may well be true—but the Government appear not to believe it, because they are in certain instances saying that there is no need to pay tuition fees. The one that has been mentioned is the PGCE, and

969
I entirely welcome that. I should like to have some indication from the Minister that this principle will be extended.
If it is true that more people will enter the PGCE if they do not have to pay the £1,000 fee, I should like to see that principle used in order to attract people into school teaching, which is the profession on which all the rest of our education and our educational future depends. I know the Minister will say that we do not have such a recruitment problem for initial teacher training, but we have. We are getting a very poor level of academically-qualified students coming into primary education. Let us attract people into initial teacher training by a flexible derogation from these fees.
Furthermore, the Minister may say that the PGCE is accepted because of the importance of recruitment into secondary education—and that is perfectly true and I welcome it. But attracting people into secondary education is particularly difficult for mathematics and modern languages, just to mention two. Since so many of the undergraduates reading for a BA in modern languages or a BSc. in mathematics go into teaching, why do we not use the fee issue as a lever in order to attract people into the teaching profession?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I fear that we are conducting the debate on this amendment under a false premise, or so it seems from several of the points noble Lords have made. Those who have opposed the amendment and supported the Government's current framework have repeatedly talked about students making a contribution to their own education. But there is no guarantee whatever that the £1,000 which they pay as a fee will be used for their own education. From an answer that was given by education Ministers in another place we already know that £19 million of the fees paid by students out of their private money or out of their parents' private money next year will go into further education. It will not help their own education. That is a totally different principle. This is asking higher education students to make a contribution to the Exchequer. I think we should conduct our debate under honest terms with regard to where this money will actually go.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, from the sunny air of the London School of Economics, with its huge intake of students from private education, talked about middle-class students. Not all universities are like that. As he was speaking, I thought back to my previous job when I was vice-chancellor and before that the director of the South Bank, which took its students from Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham. Many of the students came from desperately poor backgrounds and desperately poor homes. To them, taking the loans which they had to take for their maintenance was extremely painful.
I am not talking about the minor deprivation of not being able to drink all night in the bar. I am thinking of the day when one of the university nurses came to see me. She was very upset. She said that she was concerned about a young woman in her 'twenties who was very tired and had collapsed in class. On careful questioning over some time, the woman finally burst into tears and
970
said, "I have a choice between feeding myself and feeding my four year-old child. I fed my child. I have not eaten today". That is real poverty.
We cannot separate the question of the loan of £1,000 which students might have to take from what my noble friend Lord Renfrew has called the double whammy. Students are also losing the £2,000 or the £1,800 of their maintenance grant, which means that they will be extremely heavily in debt when they finish. There are many students, particularly mature women, who will not take on that kind of loan. They will be denied access to higher education.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will reject this amendment for very much the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Desai. When the noble Lord decides that he will support the Government, it is almost a case of any port in a storm. But I very much agree with the line he was taking.
This debate is something of a Second Reading on tuition fees. I see that the noble Baroness the Minister is nodding. Well, she has made it so because tuition fees are not mentioned in the Bill and so it is difficult to address the issues which have been raised by several noble Lords on both sides of the House.
I support the Government in one respect. I believe it is appropriate to bring in tuition fees, though I think they are doing it in the wrong way. All governments have some difficulty in funding higher education properly. The previous government are to be criticised for the way they did not fund higher education properly for the last two or three years of their term. When I was responsible for this matter, I tried to provide funds on a growing level, and I succeeded in so doing. But every government, including the one of the noble Baroness, will find it difficult to provide the amount of money that higher education needs. Therefore, I look upon tuition fees as one way—and only one way—of doing it.
The cost of higher education should be borne in our society by three elements: the state, yes; the family, yes if it can afford it; and also the student. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, I believe the student is the primary beneficiary of higher education. Someone who has benefited from higher education certainly starts much higher up the ladder in society, whatever they may be doing, than someone who has not. Therefore, I accept the principle.
As regards whether it is a deterrent, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, quite rightly drew the attention of the House to the fact that in the Ivy League universities there is the principle of high fees with high scholarships. That is a system which, as the noble Baroness knows, has taken about 100 years to develop. The slow build-up of scholarships and endowments in America has allowed that system to develop. I would not pretend that that system exists and can be replicated in Britain today. When I first put forward the idea of student loans I insisted on having access funds, which would allow the institutions to help students who had financial difficulties. I am glad to note that the present Government have increased the access funds. I was hoping to start on the road to the university system

971
which the Americans now have. They are well down that road. The endowments that go with access funds and scholarships are the way forward.
I do not believe that a relatively modest tuition fee deters young people from going on to higher education. When I first put forward the proposals for student loans, the Liberal Party—as it did today—made dire forecasts of a drop in applications, but that has not happened. The rate of increase in the number of applications to institutions of higher education over the past 10 years is unlikely to be matched in future. As a result of that increase, more students have participated, and I believe that that is the way forward.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he aware that a large majority of the people whom I am at present teaching, when they arrive at university, believe, because the idea of students grants is deep in the culture, that they can manage without the loan? They learn better. But until they learn better before they come up we will not know the effect on access in the long term.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, the noble Earl helps me to my next point. He mentioned grants, which is where I believe the Government have got it wrong. I believe that maintenance grants should be retained. However, there is the double whammy to which my noble friends Lord Renfrew and Lady Perry referred. She was the vice-chancellor of a polytechnic, as it was then, when I introduced the loan scheme. It is a double whammy to impose a very high loan and to take away the maintenance grant. That is wrong.
The Government have a very botched-up proposal in means-tested top-up fees. It is going to be an administrative nightmare. For a start, one has to bring in 70,000 European students. So many people will be involved that I can only assume that it is part of the Government's welfare-to-work programme in order to reduce the number of unemployed people who can speak Greek, Portuguese and the rest. I believe that to be totally wrong. I would like to see retention of the maintenance grant—possibly increased slightly. Maintenance grants can be beautifully fudged, as I well know. They could be increased slightly to allow for the top-up fee. Amendment No. 50 on the Marshalled List allows that alternative, which is better than this amendment.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we have now debated this part of the Bill three times and, far from my worries being lessened as the Government have responded to our questions and probing, I feel more concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has made me feel even more concerned. It is very difficult to compare exactly where we are now in Britain in relation to America. I am also not quite sure whether the noble Lord realises that one of the problems with paying tuition fees is that the Government are not setting up a grants system for students to borrow money for the fees. However, I agree with him entirely about the difficulties
972
that 16 year-olds have in staying on in education. I believe that the arguments that the noble Lord used in respect of 16 year-olds could equally apply to those going into higher education.
There are several things that I am concerned about. I am still concerned at the lack of clarity surrounding the Bill, particularly the unknown regulations which are yet to come. Only last week the Department for Education and Employment produced a document in response to Dearing, which stated
"In today's publication we respond as promised to other aspects of the Dearing Report not dealt with in the statement to the House in July or in subsequent clarifications relating to the new structure of funding and student maintenance".
The Government are still trying to rush things through. In responding to what has happened in the House the Government have been tabling amendments very close to the wire. I still feel very concerned.
We have all had letters from people outside the House. Perhaps I may quote from a letter received from Southampton University. I do that partly because I was pushed incredibly hard to do so, having once represented that area as a local councillor. The letter says that they are,
"extremely concerned that the Government's proposals for fees are poorly thought through. Indeed, peers, MPs and students will not know the details and the true cost of the system until after the Bill has been passed and the regulations are published".
It is not only these Benches that are concerned on this matter. We all have a fund of similar letters.
I am also concerned about the timetable. Perhaps I may declare an interest here. On Monday my daughter received an offer of a place to return to university for the second time. In her letter there was no indication, on taking up the offer, what might be in store for her as regards fees. That information has not filtered through. Someone who is at school now is kept fairly well informed. My daughter has been working. She applied to university again, but the situation is not very clear. I am not even convinced that people outside this House would be in a better position to understand exactly what is going to happen even if they read the full proceedings of the House or the very long documents that we have seen clarifying further how the grants and fees will be dealt with by local authorities and universities.
I am still concerned that many will be discouraged when they try to find the tuition fees. They may not take up higher education because it will be too difficult. I believe that many families will find it difficult. Next October 40 per cent. of students will be asked to pay the full £1,000 up front. That will put many families into great difficulty. The Government have made concessions to families in real poverty, but some of the families which will have to find this money are not very well off. The Government maintain that there will be no difference. Families that made a parental contribution to maintenance will now pay for tuition fees. But paying a little month by month for your children is a very different matter from having to find, when budgets are tight, £1,000 up front. That is a large amount to be paid at once. Someone described it to me as throwing a six before one can even start the game. I think that puts it very nicely. If, like myself, one has been foolish enough

973
to have less than a three-year gap between children, one may well have to find £2,000 up front, with years of continuing great difficulty.
Bad as the situation is for those who are thoroughly committed to supporting their children through university, it is much worse for parents who cannot or will not pay £1,000. We may be dealing with parents who take the view that their child is an adult and should not be taking any more money from the family but bringing it in. It was also mentioned this afternoon that some families still believe that girls should stay at home. It is women, particularly mature women, who will be hit by many of the proposals that are going through the House. We may be dealing with parents or a spouse who wants to put pressure on the student in some other way. We may be dealing with parents who have been comfortably off and in good jobs. But we know that the job market is very uncertain at the moment. What happens then'? We also know that many small businesses go into receivership, and the children affected may find great difficulty.
The fact remains that under the current arrangements a very significant proportion of students do not get help with their maintenance from their parents. When Ministers have been pressed to say what would happen to those students whose parents refuse to pay the £1,000, they have admitted that those students will have to take out commercial loans for their fees or give up the idea of going to university. It has been said that the new arrangement will not put off students from going to university, but it is well documented that, since we began our proceedings on this Bill, the number of applications has dropped by between 18 and 20 per cent. What worries me most is that that large drop comes mainly from the mature age group—that is, those over the age of 25.
The Government have tried to calm us as the Bill has been going through, but today they have heard many of our fears. Indeed, they have heard not only from many Members of your Lordships' House, but also from universities, students and their families. People's fears are still as great as ever despite everything that has been said over many weeks. We are particularly concerned about the problems of implementing the new system, and especially about its effect on access to higher education for all.
I have received many letters and communications from people outside the House. Perhaps a letter I received today from a mother in Stockport best sums up what the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, said earlier. That mother writes about how she is against the proposals. At the end of her letter she states:
"Both my husband and I are from working class backgrounds and took full advantage of our educations to be able to support ourselves and family. We have both come a long way from our roots in council homes, subsidies and social security. But I truly don't see any way this could happen for children nowadays from this background. Taking away the right to a decent education from children with very few privileges anyway is an act of an uncaring, short-sighted, money-orientated government. I beg you to try to change its mind".
If the Government do not respond positively, what I shall find most difficult to come to terms with is the fact that we shall be taking a step that I never thought to see in this country. I refer to the fact that people will no
974
longer have access to free higher education. I would never have imagined that such a step would be taken by a Labour Government in this country and I hope that they will turn their back on it before it is too late.
Lord Annan: My Lords, I shall not take up the time of the House, but I should like to make two small points. First, can we have an answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, about teachers? Are we to assume that all those entering the teaching profession will be so poor that they will not have to pay the tuition fee?
Secondly, I refer to the "double whammy" mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. If I had to choose, I would not, like the noble Lord, Lord Baker, exonerate students from paying a maintenance fee—although I notice that, with the aplomb of a former Minister, the noble Lord realises that that is a way in which one can somehow swindle one's way past the Treasury. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, is entirely right. It is a great pity that we have to do these two things together. I would choose the maintenance fee as the fee that students should pay as it might induce some students to choose their home university rather than giving God's gift to the British rail system three times a year.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am opposed to the amendment because it strikes at the fundamentals of Part II of the Bill. I understand why my noble friend Lord Glenamara supports it. I respect him and the enormous contribution he has made to higher education and to education across the board, but I must say to him that perhaps the situation in which we find ourselves today is a result of some of the reforms that he made as Secretary of State for Education and Science. I say that because we are dealing now with an entirely different situation from any that we have had before. We have moved from a period in the 1960s when something like 5 per cent. of the age group participated in higher education to the situation today when some 32 per cent. now participate and when it is estimated, and hoped, that that participation rate will continue to grow. So we are dealing with an issue which is fundamentally different in dimension from what it was some years ago.
Both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, referred to free higher education. There has never been such a thing as universal free access to higher education. As my noble friend Lord Desai indicated, part-time students in higher education have always had to pay their way. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, referred to the mature women who will have great difficulty paying the £1,000 tuition fee. I, too, am concerned about the position of mature women. I am sure, however, that the noble Baronesses will agree that under the current system many mature women—the majority of mature part-time students in higher education are women—have that difficulty. So it is not a fact that there has been universal free access to higher education.
Indeed, education generally has not been completely free. Many further education students over the age of 18 have not had free access to that education. Those

975
who are concerned about the participation rate of those in the lower income groups should look at further education to see where the problems are. Although we have been supporting higher income families in higher education, those other students have had to pay for their own further education.
We are not talking about a level playing field; we are talking about some very complicated problems. Indeed, the problems were so complicated that when the now Opposition were in power they set up the Dearing Committee to look at the problems and to come forward with a report and recommendations. This Bill is a response to the Dearing Committee—or to some aspects of its report. The Government have not accepted everything that Dearing said—no government would—but they have accepted a number of important points.
Noble Lords have today offered the Government a different mixture of solutions. The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, referred to the "double whammy". Those on the Liberal Benches have said that they now recognise that the maintenance grants should go. Others have said that we should continue to support maintenance grants. There is no simple answer to the question.
What did the Government decide to do? They decided to give help where it was thought that help was most needed. So, they did not, as my noble friend Lord Glenamara suggested, offer a loans system or a graduate tax system right across the board. The Government decided that to try to encourage the lower income groups they would exclude them from payment of the £1,000 tuition fee. We are told by the Government that about 30 per cent. to 33 per cent. of the age group will be excused payment. The next 30 per cent. or so will pay part of the £1,000. One wonders whether that covers some of those whom the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, had in mind when she said that not everyone had a three-year interval between their children and therefore might have more than one child at university at any one time. If a family has more than one child at university and is reasonably well off, but not in the top echelons of wealth, it will probably fall into the second group and will be judged according to ability to pay.
The third group is made up of higher income families who are expected to pay the full £1,000. This afternoon some noble Lords have said that that is unfair because the parents are being means-tested, not the students. However, those parents will be expected to pay exactly the same proportion as they pay at the moment. I know that there are problems in a very few families. If there are problems—for example, parents may refuse to pay for their daughters because they do not believe that it is important for girls to be educated—those same parents would object under the present system.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Baroness said that at present only a very few parents fail to pay their contributions. Is she aware that the latest published figure is 43 per cent.?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I am not aware of the figure to which the noble Earl has referred. I shall
976
look into it. I am very surprised to learn that 43 per cent. of parents refuse to pay. I point out that part of the proposals that my noble friend has put to the House results in an increase in access funds. Access funds will be available to those students who suffer particular hardship. There has been an increase in access funding.
I ask my noble friend to look at the particular problems of mature students, because it is among those students that the deterrent is likely to be most effective. As to the deterrent effect, I ask my noble friend for the latest figures for comparative applications for entry to university. Applications to the university of which I am chancellor, certainly as of Friday last week when I made an inquiry, are not down but, if anything, have slightly increased. Although there was a drop at the beginning of January, I believe that the figures have increased considerably. I doubt very much whether the deterrent effect would be anything like as great as that suggested by noble Lords opposite. However, I should like my noble friend to clear up that point.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, time presses and I shall deal with only one of the matters that I wanted to raise this afternoon. The Government have themselves faced the fact that the £1,000 will be a deterrent. In the progress report on student support arrangements published on 19th January, they announced:
"To avoid discouraging students who would have difficulty finding up to £1,000 before starting their course, the Government have advised [higher education institutions] that they should collect fees sensitively in the early months of the course, for example, by offering instalment arrangements to students".
Therefore, the universities which are already required to access funds and the hardship loan must also be prepared to enter into hire purchase-type individual agreements with each student who so needs it. It is higher education on the never-never. Think of the administrative burden and bureaucratic chaos that this could cause. Not least, it will leave the universities with no firm financial base for 25 per cent. of the tuition fees and hence no ability to plan expenditure. I believe that that is an indication that there is a real deterrent in this £1,000.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I hope that the House will take careful note of the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. I believe that it is rather artificial to talk about fees without at the same time talking about maintenance. Two or three noble Lords have referred to that matter. I hope that my noble friend will take that into consideration when she comes to reply.
I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend Lord Glenamara, which is not entirely surprising in view of the fact that we share the same background and come from the same part of the country. I shall not today refer to some of the problems that the north east has faced over the past 50 or 60 years. I make the following simple point. I have the feeling—I do not believe that any noble Lord yet has the figures—that this measure may have a deterrent effect. I should like to know what

977
the figures will be. I presume that they will appear in regulations. It appears that there is to be a means test of some kind whereby some people may be deterred from taking advantage (if that is the right expression) of the situation. If my noble friend can give some indication—I do not expect to have the kind of figures normally seen in regulations—of the deterrent effect, I believe that noble Lords can be assisted in deciding how to vote this afternoon.
Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, I declare an interest as vice-chancellor of the University of Ulster. I believe that there are many distinguished former vice-chancellors, but I believe I am right in saying that, since the noble Baroness took the Queen's shilling, I am the only vice-chancellor within the meaning of the Act in your Lordships' House.
I should like to raise two matters, one a moral point and the other a more prosaic consideration. First, the present Government are not averse to levying windfall taxes. I should have thought that we might have been invited to consider a graduate windfall tax of, say, £3,000 for those of us who graduated between 1948 and the present. That would perhaps have given us the high moral ground.
Secondly, I turn to more prosaic considerations. I am gratified that other Members of your Lordships' House have raised practical difficulties. One can have an objection to fees as a matter of principle. Like the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I do not have that particular hang-up. I object, however, to the system that is to be introduced. The universities are to be asked to take on additional tasks. They have to collect the fees and invoice for them. If they stagger the payments the costs will rise with each invoice. They must have liaison with local education authorities. They also have to devise means tests for non-UK/EU students. Therefore, there will be more administrators and fewer teachers.
Mr. Frank Dobson accused the previous Government of creating too many managers and administrators and not enough doctors and nurses in the National Health Service. The present Government are in danger of doing precisely the same with regard to higher education. Universities will have to chase up debtors which give rise to additional cost. I should like to know precisely what the cost of this new administration and bureaucracy will be. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to disprove my cynical accounting. I believe that it will cost £1,000 a year and that there will be no net gain to the higher education budget.
We are told that the funding councils will tweak their formulae to provide more money to pay for this administration. I suspect that that money will be top-sliced from the higher education budget and that therefore there will be less for engineering, English, economics, chemistry and so forth. I should like reassurances that my cynical accounting is not as bad as I think it is.
The situation has become a farce, rather like an Aesop's fable. Vast machinery will have to be put into place for a measly £1,000. That is not commensurate
978
and does nothing to give a net increase in the money going to higher education, as the Dearing recommendations intended.
In the past 10 years the task of a vice-chancellor has been difficult. I shall not dilate on it to any great extent for fear of bringing tears to your Lordships' eyes. However, I offer a contrast between the role of a vice-chancellor during the past decade and power station managers in Mongolia at the height of Stalinism. I thought that there was not much to choose, but I fear that if the system is accepted we will be able to show that Mongolian power station managers had a better time than vice-chancellors do now.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, criticised the present system of higher education funding for students as being biased against the middle classes. Perhaps I may point out to him
Lord Desai: My Lords, I said that the system was biased in favour of the middle classes. It subsidises them; it is not against them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry, I thought that I said "biased in favour". If I did not, that is what I meant. The noble Lord said that the system was biased in favour of the middle classes. Perhaps I may tell him that the package before the House is biased against students from lower income families. That is indisputable if one looks at the burden on relative students—those from wealthy families and those from low income families—as they leave universities. The burden on students as a result of the Bill will be considerable and will without doubt disadvantage students from lower income families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, stated that the applications to universities have risen and not fallen. I do not know her source—
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I said that at my university, Bradford, the number was slightly up. I asked the Minister to give the exact figures covering the whole country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is wonderful for the University of Bradford, but I understand that the numbers are down all over the country, albeit by a small percentage. The category of student that is most affected by applications to universities is mature students. Those numbers are down considerably. My university, Teesside, where I was recently awarded a doctorate, is very worried about applications because its number is down.
On the basis that the Dearing Report was commissioned with all-party agreement, and it was agreed that more resources were needed in education, we backed the recommendations. However, it must be said that the Government's package as a whole is not acceptable to my noble friends on these Benches. The overall burden for a student borrowing all of his maintenance costs and having to find £1,000 to pay for

979
tuition will act as a deterrent to many young people, particularly those from low income families. There is no question about that and there is evidence for it already.
That is why, in the interests of fairness, we on these Benches wish to address the greatest financial cost to students; that is, their maintenance costs. We would prefer maintenance costs for students from low income families to be retained at the 50/50 arrangement.
I wish the Government to note that many aspects of the application of tuition fees give rise for concern. I refer, for example, to the Government's objection to any limit on the percentage of fees to be met by students in the future. All amendments to that effect have been rejected. The Government have failed to support any amendment to the Bill which will ensure that higher education exclusively benefits from the income from tuition fees and that, for the purposes of funding higher education, fee income will be disregarded in order that the income from fees will be genuine additional funding.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, referred to a graduate tax. I understand his point that in principle he would not agree with it but that it would be better than the proposals before us. There is a widespread view that there is to be a graduate tax. In fact, many students and some people from schools have said to me that what is proposed is a graduate tax. People are being told, "Don't worry about how much you borrow. It is irrelevant". The Government's information has not penetrated into the minds of many families and their young offspring who are contemplating going to university.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked about the provision of free tuition being broken for the first time. The point has already been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, but I expect that the Minister will disabuse the noble Lord of that view. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, will agree that when tuition fees were paid the number of students was very small indeed. Furthermore, the amount paid in real terms, even as a percentage of today's prices, was also very small indeed. However, it was the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, who in about 1976 rejected the recommendation to his government that the tuition fees should be retained. They were rejected then and have not been reintroduced until now.
For the reason I have given, it is with reluctance that I cannot support the amendment. However, depending on how the Government respond to other amendments tabled today, should there be no move whatever, and bearing in mind that the overall package is not acceptable, on Third Reading one will have to reconsider tuition fees in the context of the dogged rigidity of this Government.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I hope that Members of your Lordships' House will accept that it would be exceedingly difficult for me to pick up every single point made in what has turned into something of a Second Reading debate on some specific amendments, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Baker. The noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Renfrew, and the noble
980
Baroness, Lady Blatch, made points about maintenance grants. It would be better if we deal with those when we discuss one or more later amendments.
However, I will give an immediate answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, who asked about the package and how much additional funding will be gained as a result. By the year 2015 to 2016 there will be additional money coming in from fees of between £450 million and £500 million. Furthermore, there will be between £550 million and £600 million from the switch from grants to loans. I hope that that information is helpful to the noble Lord.
Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches raised many issues which, as I intimated, are not particularly relevant to the amendments before us. In fact, in some senses they are a long way away from them. They and other Members of your Lordships' House made a number of points which seem to me to be relevant to later amendments. It would be right for me to address the amendments on the Marshalled List since I cannot be sure whether Members opposite intend to divide on them. I believe that I need to explain to the House what would happen if there were to be a Division and the amendments were placed on the face of the Bill.
The amendments would have far-reaching implications and would run counter to the fair funding arrangements for higher education which this Government intend to set in place. They would have the effect of requiring higher information to be free to all home students whether studying full or part-time, whether qualified to first degree level or not, and whether in paid employment or not.
Perhaps I may remind the House of the guiding principle underlying the Dearing Report, a principle which this Government have endorsed; that is, that the costs of higher education should be shared among those who benefit. On average, graduates earn 20 per cent. more than those without degrees. In other words, they see their earnings rise by as much as £4,000 for every £20,000 of earnings. It is only fair that individuals who stand to benefit so much from higher education, compared with those who have not had the rich opportunities that it offers both at the time and in terms of the impact later on their lives, should also have to share some of those costs.
These amendments, taken together, would require the state and the taxpayer to bear the full costs of higher education at all levels, including those who will stand to earn the highest salaries. For example, they would mean that a clerical officer at the lower end of the earnings scale, who had never benefited from higher education, would be subsidising a highly-paid city executive who had embarked on an MBA course.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would clarify one matter because I think she may have slightly misphrased what she said. She said that the

981
amendments call on the state to bear the full costs of higher education. She is not suggesting, is she, that the tuition fee has ever been likely to do that?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no. The full costs of higher education of course include the grant paid through the HEFCE. But that is already covered by the Government.
Those who stand to increase their earning power still further would have their expensive courses paid for them by taxpayers some of whom, on average, earn less than they do. Where is the fairness in that?
The noble Earl gave the House a little anecdote about graduate students in the United States. But these amendments would also amount to a licence for those who were so inclined to become perpetual students at the undergraduate level, taking one course of higher education after another, never having to pay any fees and borrowing money for living expenses which they may never have to pay back. Again, where is the fairness in that?
I should say to the noble Earl that graduate students are supported in this country, unlike in the United States, by a national system of postgraduate awards through the research councils as well as by the system that we are discussing today for undergraduates. Therefore, it is a very different system.
We believe that it is only right and fair that the investment of the nation should be balanced by the commitment of the individual. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for his support on that matter. The alternative approach underlying the amendments of subsidising all those who enter or re-enter higher education, regardless of their families' income, would mean a heavier burden on all taxpayers.
I remind the House of the Dearing Committee's figures for the longer-term funding requirement of universities. Depending on the scale and pace of the growth in student numbers, the committee put the figure at up to £2 billion. The effect of these amendments would be that all that cost would fall on the taxpayer. I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Glenamara really thinks it is right to ask taxpayers to cover the full cost of tuition for all students regardless of their income or their parents' income. As my noble friend Lord Desai said, 75 per cent. of the costs of tuition will still be borne by the taxpayer, and I am grateful for what he said about that being the right balance.
Taken together with other amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, these amendments would also allow universities and colleges to charge as much as they liked in fees. In essence, they would amount to giving higher education institutions a blank cheque from the Government. While we readily accept that universities and colleges have been facing a financial crisis left by the previous government—and our reform of the funding arrangements for higher education are designed to address that crisis—no government can write universities a blank cheque. We are duty bound to the taxpayer to ensure that public funds are spent efficiently and provide value for money.
982
If these amendments were carried, the only real way in which the Government could keep the higher education budget under control would be to impose strict limits on the numbers of students that universities and colleges could recruit. That would mean returning to a system where only a privileged handful could benefit from higher education. The country would find itself increasingly without the higher level of skills. knowledge and understanding that we need to compete in the 21st century. We should rapidly fall behind other countries which are equipping more and more of their workforce with higher education qualifications. The social benefits of widening participation would also be lost.
I remind noble Lords who support the amendments that government reforms are intended to address the serious funding problems facing higher education in a realistic and forward-looking way, to which the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, referred. The Government have said on countless occasions now that their intention is that both further and higher education should benefit from those changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Perry, suggested that some £90 million was going to further education.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I believe that the figure of £19 million was given in Hansard.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am obviously getting deaf. The actual figure is £16 million. But the funding package for universities for next year will be greater than we expect to be raised from the introduction of tuition fees. Therefore, it is a reasonably good deal for the universities. The Government have been able to provide them with additional funding over and above that which will be raised from tuition fees. The FE sector provides various access courses and courses at sub-degree level which help students to go on to a degree course and enter university. It is important that we should ensure that there is adequate funding also for those courses.
The Dearing Committee recognised that further improvement and expansion of higher education could not be afforded on the basis of current funding arrangements. Our new funding arrangements, which will generate savings of more than £1 billion, as I have mentioned already, by 2015–16 will make it possible to move forward into the 21st century with a revitalised higher education system. I repeat that the vast majority of vice-chancellors have welcomed this new package.
To return to a narrower system with lower levels of participation will really serve no one's interests. It will not serve the interests of students, either young students seeking to acquire the skills and experience needed to start off on their careers or mature students seeking to update and improve their skills and to maintain and enhance their employability. It will not serve the interests of universities from which, as I said, there has been widespread support for the Government's determination to act decisively to address their funding problems. And it will not serve the interests of the country in an increasingly competitive world.

983
I am extremely sad that my noble friend Lord Glenamara feels unable to support the Government on this occasion. I wish I could persuade him to do otherwise, but I fear that I have failed already in the past and I shall probably fail this afternoon. But my noble friend said that all tuition is and has always been free. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said just now, that is not the case with respect to full-time undergraduates. There was a long period when a contribution from parents was expected towards those tuition fees.
But even today, before the new arrangements were introduced, I remind my noble friend and others who have spoken in favour of the amendments that further education students already pay towards their tuition costs. On the whole, those are far, far less privileged people than those who go to university. I also have to remind my noble friend, and others, that one-third of all students now study part time. They, too, have always paid, and are still paying, a contribution towards their tuition costs. For the most part, they, too, are very much less privileged than many of those who are full-time undergraduates in our universities.
However, I understand the concerns of my noble friend Lord Glenamara, and others, about those students from lower-income families who may genuinely he unable to afford the fees. That is why, in building on the proposals of the Dearing Committee, we have provided safeguards, in line with our commitment to secure access to higher education, which will ensure that higher education continues to be free for the least well-off.
I turn now to means testing. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Baker—indeed, I am sure he knows this very well—that we already means test. Therefore, I am afraid that we will not be providing welfare to work for large numbers of local education authority bureaucrats. People are already working on the means testing for the current arrangements. There will be a very small additional central unit which will take on the task of means testing a small number of EU students.
Our arrangements for means-tested support with tuition fees, backed up with a reserve power to control top-up fees, will ensure that the one dependent student in three who enters full-time higher education from a lower-income family will still receive free tuition. A further one in three from middle-income families will contribute less than the full fee which may be charged.
I am most puzzled by something said by the noble Lord, Lord Tope. For example, how, in these circumstances, can the charging of tuition fees be a poll tax? As I understand the usual meaning of that term, a poll tax is a tax on individuals regardless of their financial circumstances. Let us not forget that a significant proportion of students entering higher education will actually have been to independent schools where the fee charged is several times higher than the contribution that we are proposing. Moreover, according to an opinion poll commissioned by the CVCP last autumn, over 80 per cent. of parents are now prepared to contribute to their children's tuition. That same poll found that 69 per cent. of adults agreed that students and parents should foot some of the bill for
984
higher education, compared with only 38 per cent. in 1991. That illustrates the shift of opinion which has taken place.
Perhaps I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that only around one in three dependent students—that is, those from higher income families—will have to pay the full fee. Even then, they can expect, on average, to have three-quarters of the real cost of their course paid by the state through funding council grant to universities.
I am aware of concerns about the position of students whose parents are unwilling to help them, although I must point out that the figure quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, does not in any way corroborate figures that I have seen. Indeed, I would want to know how the survey was undertaken, what the nature of the question was, and whether the figure of 43 per cent. related to a total refusal to pay any part of the cost or just a small proportion of it.
Perhaps I may remind the House that many parents are already expected to make a contribution. There is no reason why parents should refuse to help their children in the future because, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood, said, they will not be expected to contribute any more than they do under the current system. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, suggested that it will be more difficult for parents and gave the House some examples. However, she is quite wrong in that respect. She appears to have totally misunderstood the arrangements which are being introduced. Moreover, on a more detailed point, perhaps I may mention the fact that the number of children whom parents have at university at any one time is of course taken into account when assessing the contribution that parents have to make. I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness is unaware of that fact.
I should like now to deal with a point raised by a number of speakers in the debate; namely, the impact of the new arrangements on applications. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that applications were down all over the country. That is not true. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, there are many universities where applications have increased rather than decreased. Of course, there are some universities where the number of applications is down. Indeed, there are very big variations as regards the apparent impact. I have another point to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. I believe that she started to say that overall applications had fallen by 18 per cent. I think that the noble Baroness then corrected herself and said that that figure only applied to mature students. I give way to the noble Baroness.
5 P.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister. Perhaps I may now confirm what I meant. That was indeed what I intended to say and I apologise to the House. I was thinking about students over the age of 25.

985
I believe the figures in that respect have decreased by 18 per cent. to 22 per cent. That is the group of students about whom we are most concerned.
Baroness Blackstone: Yes, my Lords; the noble Baroness is quite right. However, perhaps I may point out to her that it is a very small group. The vast majority of students over the age of 25 study part time. We are concerned about the situation and we shall try to do everything we can to ensure that the kind of information we have been able to get to younger applicants—for example, on access courses—is given to older applicants. It is a little more difficult to identify them and, therefore, it is not an easy task. However, we are addressing the problem.
Perhaps I may tell the House that the latest figures show that applications are down by about 3 per cent. overall and less than 1 per cent. as regards students under the age of 21. All that must be looked at in the context of a situation where there was a 6 per cent. increase in the number entering university last October over and above the numbers that were expected. Therefore, I really do not think that this is accurate—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the number of applications by mature students, according to UCAS figures, has fallen by 18 per cent?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I referred to that a few moments ago. Perhaps the noble Baroness did not hear what I said. I literally said it two minutes ago. Indeed, I can confirm that fact.
The targeted support that we propose will offer help where it is most needed and raise the money required to improve quality, standards and opportunities for all in further and higher education. I hope that those who have contributed to today's debate and who asked specific questions—for example, the question posed by my noble friend Lord Dormand in respect of which he quoted tables used to determine parental contributions—will forgive me if I do not go into what would be very complex replies. However, I can tell my noble friend—I repeat what I said earlier—that approximately 30 per cent. of parents will make no contribution to tuition, while about another 30 per cent. will only make a partial contribution. So there is a substantial number of parents who will be paying nothing like the full fees.
Various questions were raised regarding the position of teachers. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Annan, that fees will be based on parental income and not on the future possible earnings of students. However, low-paid teachers will not be expected to pay back their maintenance loans if their level of income does not justify it.
The amendments before the House would run counter to the fair funding arrangements for higher education which the Government intend to introduce. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that the amendments were a device to expound the views of his party.
986
Therefore, I assume that the noble Lord intends to withdraw them. Indeed, I hope that that is the case. However, if it is not, I urge the House to reject them.
Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I ask for some clarification—I must be a bit thick here—of her answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. Is tuition fee income additional funding for higher education, or not?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, yes, it is.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, and with the leave of the House, I make a specific point about how years at university are counted. There are many examples of people who do three years' higher education training, sometimes in preparation for studying medicine or dentistry, or people who for one reason or another undertake a second degree. Is the first year of the second course considered to be the fourth, fifth or sixth year, as opposed to the first, second or third year, for the purposes of tuition fees? How will the Government view an extra year at university when a student is re-taking a year, either because of illness or because that student simply did not make the grade in a particular year at university?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the arrangements will be as they are at present. A student who decides to take a second first degree, having already been supported from public funds, will be expected to make a contribution and indeed to provide for his own maintenance support. The noble Baroness referred to a re-take year. If someone has been ill and there is clear medical evidence of that, that would of course be taken into account and that person would not be expected to pay twice over.
Lord Tope: My Lords, we have had a full debate of nearly two hours in prime time in your Lordships' House. It has been a useful opportunity to discuss the whole issue of tuition fees. I hope I may correct the Minister. I think I quite clearly said at the beginning that the amendment was not a device for me to discuss my party's policies. Indeed I said specifically that the amendments, and certainly any vote, did not concern my party's policies, but comprised an opportunity to debate the whole issue of tuition fees. As the Bill has been drafted, it is difficult to frame an amendment that enables us to do that. That was, and is, the purpose of this amendment.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate which I know will be read with great interest outside this House. I am of course grateful to the Minister for her reply to it. She has not convinced me by her arguments—I think she would expect that to be the case—and I am tempted to re-open the debate and answer all the points she has made. However, that is not appropriate after such a long debate. I shall make just a couple of points. The Minister suggested that, because part-timers have to pay fees now, everyone else should. We are about to address the issue of part-timers on the next amendment.

987
I refer again to the "thin end of the wedge" argument. I say again that if we abandon this principle now, there is no reason why everyone over the age of compulsory education—that is, 16—should not have to pay fees sooner or later. That is a point which your Lordships need to bear in mind. If these amendments are accepted, one effect will be that the Government will have to think again about what they are going to do and how they will deal with the situation. I am sorry that the Conservative Front Bench does not feel able to support the amendment on this occasion, although I hear with interest that perhaps on Third Reading we may be able to move them a little closer to our position. Given the recent pronouncements of their leader, I had hoped they would be able to support us on this amendment. I hope that many Back-Benchers from the Conservative Party will feel able to do so for no better reason than that made in a memorable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara; namely, that the amendments may not be perfect, but they are not only the best opportunity but the only opportunity for your Lordships to express a view on the important issue of tuition fees. For that reason—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord tells us what he is going to do with this amendment—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Tope: My Lords, I am advised that the noble Baroness is out of order to intervene at this stage, although I would have given way to her. I was about to say that it is not only the best opportunity for your Lordships to express a view on this issue but it is also the only opportunity. For that reason I believe it is vitally important that we now test the opinion of the House.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Davidson, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

De Freyne, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Dholakia, L.

Avebury, L.

Dundonald, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Biffen, L.

Ezra, L.

Bridges, L.

Geraint, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Butterfield, L.

Glenamara, L.

Calverley, L.

Goodhart, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Grey, E.

Carlisle, E.

Halsbury, E.

Chesham, L.

Hamwee, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clancarty, E.

Holderness, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

988

Hooson, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochester, L.

Jacobs, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Jeger, B.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Rowallan, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Leathers, V.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ludford, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

McNally, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Maddock, B.

Sudeley, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Swansea, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Taverne, L.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Naseby, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Newall, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Newby, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Thurso, V.

Norton, L.

Tope, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Pender, L.

Weatherill, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wigoder, L.

Pym, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Quinton, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Razzall, L.

Windlesham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hardie, L.

Acton, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Haskel, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Blease, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Blyth, L.

Inchyra, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Burlison, L.

Islwyn, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Jay of Paddington, B.

Chandos, V.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E

Davies of Coity, L.

Lockwood, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Desai, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dixon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Donoughue, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mishcon, L.

Gallacher, L.

Molloy, L.

Gilbert, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Moyne, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Northfield, L.

Grenfell, L.

Paul, L.

Hanworth, V.

Plant of Highfield, L.

989

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Puttnam, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Quirk, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tenby, V.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Thurlow, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Varley, L.

Serota, B.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Sewel, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Warnock, B.

Simon, V.

Whitty, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 11, line 6, at beginning insert ("On or before 1st April 2000").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I speak also to Amendment No. 39. It is best that the amendments are argued together. They relate to the provision of a facility for loans for part-time students. We have had some discussion today about part-time students. We know that the Government are keen to promote the principle of life-long learning. I believe, as they do, that the financial support offered to part-time students will play a key role in the development of life-long learning. Many groups are in favour of that, not least students themselves, who have long believed that support for part-time students should be made available. The Dearing Committee was attracted to the principle of levelling up the support for part-time students. However, I realise that the Minister is likely to tell me again that Dearing did not consider this to be the priority.
A recent study undertaken by London Economics uses a model that would make a loan available to part-time students earning less than £10,000 a year, or £16,000 a year. It was supposed that the average loan would be about £500 per year. The study indicates that extending loans to part-time degree and sub-degree level students would cost the Government only an extra 0.5 per cent. per annum in the short term and 1.5 per cent. per annum in the long term. I maintain that that is not a large increase in public spending despite the fact that when we discussed this matter at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, indicated that he thought it was a huge amount of extra money. I maintain that that is not the case.
When we proposed similar provisions at Committee stage, the Government agreed in principle that they would like to offer student loans for part-time students. They also indicated that the Bill as drafted allows them to do so. The problem is that the Bill does not state when the Government will do that. Our amendment deals with that. We want loans,
"on or before 1st April 2000"
—that is, in two years' time.
Perhaps I may explain why we have chosen that date. We have all suffered somewhat since 1st May last year because of the Tory freeze on government spending. That freeze was adopted by the Chancellor, the right honourable Gordon Brown. However, we are trying to guess when the thaw in that freeze will come. The Government have used the phrase "about two years". We are testing whether they mean about two years. That is why we refer to the date 1st April 2000.
The Minister was cautious when she responded at Committee stage. I hope that today the Minister will be able to give us some idea when the freeze on the Government's spending is likely to be lifted. I believe that the provision would not cost as much as the Government say. Not all full-time students take up grant offers. Given the cross-section of part-time students going into higher education, it is likely that fewer would take up loans than those students going into higher education straight from school.
Our views were widely supported at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, backed the principle but spoke of "priorities". We realise that it is a matter of priorities. From the Liberal Democrat Benches our priority is to ensure that we extend help to part-time students by the year 2000. I look forward to the Minister's response. I hope that it will be favourable. If the noble Baroness is not in favour of the year 2000, perhaps she will give some indication about when the Government expect to be able to give some support to part-time students. The Government have agreed that it is important. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to respond positively.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as my noble friend made clear earlier, we recognise the vital importance of part-time students. But, as we have also made clear, the Bill as drafted already enables the Secretary of State if he so wishes to make grants or loans available to part-time or full-time students. Clause 16(2)(d) enables him to prescribe in regulations the categories of attendance which will qualify for any purpose of the regulations. So the power to do so already exists. The intention of these two amendments when read together is to require the Secretary of State to make a regulation extending loans to part-time students before 1st April 2000, and the noble Baroness tried to press the Government on that provision.
However, as we have said previously, in terms of priorities the Government do not at this stage intend to introduce regulations extending the loans scheme to the generality of part-time students. I reiterate that we agree with the Dearing Committee on this matter. As the committee pointed out, a high proportion of part-time students are in employment, and are therefore largely supporting themselves.
The noble Baroness referred to the cost of extending loans to part-time students. It is a key issue. If loans were made available to part-time students at the same level as for full-time students, on a pro rata basis, the

991
average loan would be at least £1,500. On that basis, the cost per year would amount to some £370 million each year in the short term. I am afraid that I cannot give—
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to repeat that there was some research done which indicated (I will not say proved) that the average grant was expected to be £500.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness refers to the study commissioned by the Open University. That suggested an average loan of £500. If that figure is compared with the average take-up and the average loan for full-time students, I do not see why there should be any dramatic difference between that and the figure for part-time students. On a pro rata basis, which is surely the more legitimate way to consider it, the average loan would be £1,500. That would amount to £370 million per year. It is not, I fear, a figure that I could guarantee to the House; nor can I give any comfort that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would immediately allow me to commit the Government in that direction.
That is not to say that we do not recognise the vital importance of part-time students, or rule out the possibility that loans could be made at some stage in the future. However, we are not at this point prepared to accept the date set down by the noble Baroness, or indeed to give a date for that to be done.
However, one of the features of the Bill is that it is suitably flexible to ensure that support could be extended to categories of students who are not currently eligible without recourse to further legislation. I am afraid, however, that I cannot commit the Government to making such provisions by 1st April 2000. Recognising the public expenditure involved in making such a commitment, I hope that, given the general assurance of the Government's good will and the fact that the Bill is flexible enough to allow us to make those orders at a later stage, the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I regret that it veers not one inch away from the reply that I received in Committee. I am extremely disappointed. However, in view of the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 42 not moved.]
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall make provision for the disregard of disability benefits in the calculation of income for repayment purposes.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is comparatively straightforward and simple. It deals with an issue that has been very much in the public eye and in the eye of the ministerial Bench; namely, ensuring
992
that those with disabilities are allowed access to all areas of life. In reality, that is done primarily through some form of pump-priming. This amendment seeks to ensure that the extra support given to those students with a disability is not taken into account when repayment terms are being calculated.
The reason is simply that the extra payments are given to meet specific needs, and therefore specific costs. For instance, if you are given extra payments to help with mobility costs, they are an essential part of the way in which you function. Thus, they are not disposable income and should not be counted.
We have heard a great deal recently about how the Government do not want to alienate those in our society who are disabled. I suggest that this would be a small measure towards that, in keeping with what has gone before. The Government could show their commitment in this field and in others by backing this amendment or a similar one. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and to speak particularly to Amendment No. 44, grouped with this one, standing in my name and those of my noble friends.
Amendment No. 44 returns to the important principle that at the age of 18 people are adults and should be regarded and treated as responsible adults. In almost every other walk of life, when people reach the age of majority they are treated as adults. If they wish to marry or enter into any other form of contract, fight for their country, and so on, they are regarded as adults. The only significant area of life where that is not the case is where they are students—they are dependent upon their parents, and their income is dependent on their parents' income. We feel that, as a point of principle, that is wrong. Therefore this amendment proposes that a student over the age of 18 should be assessed as an adult on the basis of his or her own income.
The Minister objected in Committee that our proposals were making available support for fees and loans for living costs without regard to the income of the households from which the students come, and that that would be both regressive and extraordinarily expensive. That is to misrepresent the proposal. Of course the calculation should take into account all the income of an intending student. That might typically include any allowances or gifts received from parents, spouse or friends; any earnings; any investment income from capital and savings, and so on. The important point is that it is the income of that student, not the income of his or her parents, that needs to be taken into account.
Students from wealthy homes whose parents wish to subsidise them generously should not be receiving the same help as those who have no such additional income. It may well be true that for families who are not very well off this new arrangement will make them decide that it is unnecessary to offer financial help. Perhaps for such families it is time that the burden of supporting their adult children was lifted from them. To that extent, the provision would increase government expenditure. However, noble Lords will recall that it was proposed earlier in debate that the Treasury should stop regarding

993
student loans as government expenditure. This is an important amendment. It is intended to recognise that, at age 18, students are adults, must be treated as such, and that their right to loans and grants should be assessed on the basis of their income, not that of their parents or spouse.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, yet again the noble Lord is separating one issue in a package contained in the Bill. He has just moved an amendment which, had it been won, would have cost the country £2 billion. I wonder whether the noble Baroness, in replying, will tell us what this one would cost.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, these amendments deal with the way in which income is assessed for the purpose of determining, on the one hand, the repayment arrangements for disabled borrowers; and on the other, the level of contribution that students' parents or spouses are expected to make towards the costs of their higher education.
I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the Government are totally in accord with the spirit of his amendment. At Second Reading the noble Lord expressed the hope that he was pushing at an open door in seeking confirmation that the Government's response to the Dearing Committee's recommendations on the treatment of disabled students would be positive. Members of your Lordships' House will know that we have already announced that the disabled students allowance will no longer be means-tested for full-time students. We are currently exploring the possibility of extending it to other groups, including part-time and postgraduate students and those who have become disabled and wish to seek a second qualification. So they would be treated differently from other students wishing to seek a second qualification.
We also intend to ensure that disabled borrowers continue to be treated fairly when it comes to repaying the costs of their maintenance. I can unequivocally assure your Lordships that we shall ensure that disability benefits are disregarded for the calculation of income for repayment purposes.
I have reservations about the noble Lord's amendment as it stands, however. In the first place, I am not sure that the amendment would have the effect that the noble Lord intends when considered in isolation. For example, there is no specific provision elsewhere in the clause relating to the calculation of income on which this amendment might bite. But this is not simply a question of the amendment being defective. If that were the only difficulty, I should happily undertake to come back to the noble Lord with another form of words. The fact is that the structure of the Bill simply does not permit an amendment of this kind; nor do I believe that it would be appropriate to make such detailed provision on the face of primary legislation.
Moreover, the amendment is based on the assumption that it will be necessary to make provision in regulations under Clause 16 to disregard disability benefits when calculating repayments. In fact, it is far from certain to what extent that will be the case. As Members of your Lordships' House will know, we intend that loan
994
repayments should be collected by the Inland Revenue alongside tax and national insurance contributions. At present, most disability benefits are disregarded for taxation purposes because they do not fall within the definition of taxable income. Under certain definitions of income, therefore, it is quite possible that such benefits would similarly be automatically disregarded for repayment purposes. If they were not automatically disregarded, we should make specific provision to ensure by other means that they were disregarded. It would be quite inappropriate to require provision to be made in regulations under Clause 16 when that provision might be made elsewhere.
We have stressed throughout our debates on the Bill the need for flexibility to ensure that the legislation can cater for a wide range of future possibilities. It is quite likely that in the future the definition of income to be used, or indeed the types of benefits to which disabled people are entitled, will change from time to time. We should, of course, make specific provision in regulations under this clause to exclude disability benefits from the calculation of income if that were necessary. But, as I indicated, disability benefits might be disregarded by other means in which case the amendment would be otiose and would fail to achieve the effect that the noble Lord intends. Therefore, with the assurance that the Government will take whatever steps are necessary to put in place fair arrangements, as I have outlined, for disabled borrowers, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Your Lordships may not be surprised that my response to the second of the amendments is less positive. The provisions in Clause 16(2)(c) enable us to target support for fees and maintenance on those who most need it. In the Government's view, there is a clear case for relating the level of support to family income; otherwise our proposed system of grants and loans would disproportionately benefit the better off. Our aim is to encourage access to higher education from those sections of society that are currently under-represented. Means testing grants will ensure that students from less well-off backgrounds will not have to contribute to tuition fees. Means testing loans will mean that these students will have access to the maximum funds available for maintenance. Since the loans will be highly subsidised, this also means that the largest subsidies will go to those from the poorest backgrounds.
The amendment, if accepted, would allow the means testing of grants and loans but only on the basis of an individual's income, not that of the parents or spouse. Means testing an individual's income without regard to the income of the household to which that individual belongs and from which he or she benefits, would be regressive and unduly expensive, as the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, indicated. For example, as I highlighted in Committee, we estimate that ending means testing altogether might cost around £700 million per annum in the short term. That is money we can ill afford to divert from our higher education system; nor would it be right to reduce the support available to the poorest students in order to give additional subsidies to those who could well afford to

995
do without them. This is a view shared by the Dearing Committee which also recommended maintaining the parental and spouse's contribution.
I accept that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, 18 year-olds are, for most purposes, adults in the eyes of the law. But in reality, as I am sure Members of your Lordships' House agree, most 18 year-olds are not fully independent of their parents and receive support from them in a variety of ways. I myself have had that experience and remember it from the size of my telephone bills at the time. This is particularly true of 18 year-olds whose sole activity is full-time higher education. Young people in this position are inevitably not economically independent, and it is not the function of the student support system to make them so. We believe therefore that where parents are able to continue to provide support by contributing to their child's living costs such support should be encouraged. This position is widely recognised across the world and indeed by many of our European friends. In some countries—Germany and Italy, for example—parents are under a legal obligation to maintain their children for as long as it takes the child to complete a course of vocational or professional education, irrespective of their age. In other countries—Austria and Italy, for example—this obligation does not cease until the child first becomes financially independent, whenever that is. I see no reason to fall completely out of step with the rest of the world in the way this amendment would have us do.
The current system in the UK, which we are proposing to retain, steers a middle course. Where students are financially supported by their parents, that support will continue to be taken into account, as it is at present. However, students will be treated as "independent" once they reach the age of 25—or in some cases sooner if they have been married for two years or supporting themselves for three—and their own income or that of their spouse will be assessed. The essence of the argument remains. Where a student is married and his or her spouse has the means to support him or her while he or she studies, he or she should be encouraged to do so. Government resources can then be targeted on those who do not have recourse to such support.
At the same time, our policy relating to such contributions essentially maintains the current situation. Only those who can afford it will be expected to contribute, and they will have to pay no more than they would under the current arrangements.
I acknowledge that some noble Lords may have concerns about students whose parents or spouses do not make the contribution expected of them. There is no reason why this should be more likely to happen when our proposals are implemented than under the present arrangements since, as I have made clear, no parent or spouse will be expected to pay more.
Our proposals build on the existing and generally accepted principle that students' families should, where they can, meet a proportion of the costs of their
996
education. They do not, however, impose any additional burden on parents or spouses. I therefore urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I had hoped to receive an answer in that tone. At the same time, I cannot help feeling a little wary when I hear about regulations that might apply, that will apply, or that will cross-apply. With the caveat that I shall study the Minister's answer and perhaps seek guidance in trying to decipher that spider's web of regulations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 44 to 46 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 11, line 37, leave out ("a loan") and insert ("loans").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 47, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 48, 49, 53 and 68.
I announced at Second Reading that the Government would be seeking an amendment to limit the rate of interest that can be charged on loans. My noble friend Lord Whitty reiterated the Government's intention in Committee. I am pleased to be able to move these amendments, which will have the effect of ensuring that the rate of interest charged will be no more than is necessary to maintain the value of loans in real terms. This is consistent with the provisions contained in the current Education (Student Loans) Act, and will mean in practice that the rate of interest charged will be equivalent to the rate of inflation.
I alluded at Second Reading to certain technical difficulties which delayed the bringing forward of this amendment. Members of your Lordships' House might find it helpful if I explain what these difficulties are, and why these amendments take the form which they do.
The difficulties to which I alluded relate to the way in which repayments are credited to borrowers' accounts and in particular the timing of that. For students in employment, repayments will be deducted at source from graduates' salaries by their employers and passed on to the Inland Revenue. The Inland Revenue will then remit these payments on to the Student Loans Company, which will be responsible for crediting individual borrowers' accounts. There are likely to be time lags between each stage of this process. Moreover, there will be separate repayment arrangements for graduates who are self-employed, as their repayments will be calculated as part of the self-assessment procedure and deducted as lump sums accordingly. Of course specific provision will also need to be made for the small proportion of borrowers who will be for any reason outside the UK tax system.
Under the current scheme, interest is accrued on borrowers' accounts on a day-to-day basis. This will be impracticable under the new arrangements, since the Student Loans Company will not know immediately when repayments are made through the tax system.
Instead, interest will be credited retrospectively, only after repayments have been remitted to the company and credited to individual borrowers' accounts. In order to compensate for the delays that are inherent in the collection mechanism, we envisage that regulations will specify the dates on which repayments will be deemed to have been made or received. Interest will be accrued as if the repayments had been made or received on those dates. This will help to ensure that all graduates are treated equitably, regardless of whether they are in employment, are self-employed or are outside the UK tax system altogether.
Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49 and 53 cover the position in England and Wales, while Amendment No. 68 inserts the equivalent provisions in Clause 21 dealing with Scotland. Taken together, this group of amendments provides the reassurance on interest rates that many Members of your Lordships' House and others have been seeking. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for these amendments, which meet an assurance she gave to me in Committee. I am satisfied with them, I am happy and I am delighted to welcome them.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("any such loan to hear interest at such rates") and insert ("such loans to bear compound interest at such rates, and calculated in such manner,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 11, line 46, at end insert—
("(3A) In relation to loans under this section—

(a) the rates prescribed by regulations made in pursuance of subsection 3(a) shall be no higher than those which the Secretary of State is satisfied are required to maintain the value in real terms of the outstanding amounts of such loans; and

(b) such regulations may make provision, for the purpose of calculating the interest to be borne by such loans, for repayments by borrowers to be treated as having been made or received on such date or dates as may be prescribed by the regulations.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall ensure that, in any regulations made under this section in relation to any eligible student for any prescribed purpose for any academic year—

(a) the maximum amount of any loan made available to that student is no greater than half the prescribed cost of maintenance for such a student for that purpose for that year, and

(b) provision continues to be made for maintenance grants to be payable to such a student, subject to—

(i) a maximum amount of half the prescribed cost of maintenance, and

(ii) assessment of any contributions applicable in his case.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when the Government solicited support for reducing the maintenance grant, they did not make it clear that maintenance grants would be abolished completely and in one fell swoop; nor that it would be introduced to impact on students who had already selected places at university and college well before the legislation had passed through Parliament; nor that it would be accompanied by the introduction of tuition fees; nor that the proposals would impact disproportionately on students from lower income families.
Students who had opted to take a year out between school and university were accused of being worried about nothing. This was followed by frenzied activity and some back-tracking by the DfEE. Even the criteria which determined which gap-year students were to be exempted from paying fees were subsequently changed because they were in practice unworkable.
Students can be forgiven for feeling let down by these proposals because of the indecent haste with which they were proposed as a supposed response to Dearing. Frankly, they could not have been a considered response to Dearing, first, because there was deliberate leaking of the proposals to the press the weekend before the Dearing Report was produced and, secondly, because there could hardly have been time to read the report, let alone consider its recommendations and findings between the publication of the report and the issuing of the Government's response.
Students will have noted, as indeed many of us did, the words of the Prime Minister on 14th April, only two weeks before the General Election last year, when he declared that the introduction of tuition fees paid for by students were not planned, as indeed did the right honourable Robin Cook who, on 24th April, just one week before the General Election, speaking to students, confirmed that view. Further, in an extraordinary display of ignorance, the Prime Minister on 25th February—only last Wednesday—when speaking to Parliament about student finance said that the Labour Party had accepted the Dearing recommendations. In fact, he said that they had promised that they would specifically abide by the outcome of the Dearing Committee Report, even accusing the Conservatives of not doing so. To put the record straight, we did support the Dearing recommendations; the government of the day did not.
As the noble Baroness knows, the Dearing Committee looked very carefully at the proposition that maintenance grants should be phased out from the 50–50 grants and loans to 100 per cent. loans. After much deliberation, they concluded—and I quote from paragraph 108 of the Dearing Report:
"We would be particularly reluctant to see any reduction in public subsidies being concentrated on students from the poorest families and even more reluctant to see the funding released by this, and more, being used to increase the subsidies for others".
When students are contemplating going to university they do not make the distinction, despite what people say, between tuition fees and maintenance grants. They want to know how much money it is going to cost them. In order to take up a place they will each require approximately £4,000 per year for maintenance plus, for 66 per cent. of them, anyway, some or all of £1,000 for

999
tuition fees to be paid up front. For the students from the lowest income families, this will mean that they will have to borrow more than their fellow students who come from higher income families and repay the loan regardless of parental income. It is indefensible that a proposal leaves a student from a lower income family worse off, with a greater burden of debt, than a student from a higher income family. If ever there was a desire to introduce a disincentive for people from lower income backgrounds, especially from families with no tradition of entering university, the Government could not have done better.
We know already that there has been an overall decline in applications for places. The decline is very much more marked in two categories: students in the age bracket 21–24 and students over the age of 24. I would suggest it is the sudden quantum leap in the overall level of borrowing—that is, tuition fees plus maintenance grants—which will act as a deterrent for the students. Maintenance for the lowest income families is by far the greatest part of such borrowing.
My amendment would mean a level playing field for students leaving university, whatever their family background and whatever their future earnings. It has to be the irony of all time that a Labour Government is penalising more heavily lower income families, and I predict that there will be much disquiet in another place on this issue. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have not troubled the House up till now on this subject, but I should like to say a few words about the abolition of free tuition. If this is the wrong moment, I must be told; but I was informed that it was the best time to say what I want to say, which will not take more than a minute.
I do not like the abolition of free tuition. I have as much vested interest in retaining it, I suppose, as anybody here. I am one of many people who have been university teachers, but I cannot think of many other noble Lords who have had 20 children and grandchildren who have benefited from free tuition. I now have eight children and 12 further great-grandchildren to come. I therefore have a very big vested interest in maintaining tuition fees.
However, if there is only a limited amount of money available for education then the interests of people like myself and many others here must be subordinated to those of the poorer classes—I put it as crudely as that. I do not like it. I would much rather more money was spent on education, and I hope one day it will be. But if money is limited, for whatever reason, I am afraid that, with much reluctance, I must support the proposal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I did not vote on the amendment in relation to fees because, as I have just explained, I do not believe that it is possible to separate the fees issue from the maintenance issue. As my noble friend Lady Blatch said, it is the package that is important.
1000
It is interesting how responsible and perceptive the students are who come to visit various noble Lords, including myself, on this issue. The National Union of Students talked in public about fees. I understood that it had agreed with the Government that it would not oppose the removal of maintenance grants. Of course, when it did that, it did not know the extent to which that would happen and that there would be a charge for fees. It felt therefore that it could only discuss fees. But student associations which do not belong to the National Union of Students have been extremely frank. They explained that they are worried about maintenance charges.
The Edinburgh Association of Students said that its concern was not for well-off students, but for people who were "at the end of the bus queue". It quoted the figures mentioned by my noble friend and explained that poor students would lose much more than better-off students under this deal. The association was greatly concerned about that and was worried about its less well-off members. I felt that that was extremely laudable and assured the association that I would convey those feelings to the House.
Other students in associations which are not members of the National Union of Students have also been able to talk about the matter publicly—St. Andrews and Warwick to name but two. I received a great many letters, as I am sure did other noble Lords. Students understand the problems of maintenance. It is a real difficulty for them and the House must look carefully at the amendment. From the students' point of view it is probably the most important amendment we will look at today, and I shall support it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Blatch, who set out the arguments so well. One of the curious aspects of the Bill is that, when we look at the funding—the combination of the tuition fees, the removal of the maintenance grants and the importance of the parental contribution added together—on the figures that I have seen, in a number of cases it is the poorer students who will end up paying the most. I cannot believe that that could possibly be intended and hope that, if the Government will not accept the amendment, they will undertake to take a long hard look at the matter.
The key to the whole curious mixture of figures is probably the parental contribution. It is arguable that some parents will not pay it, but the assumption is that they will. It is therefore a serious and important matter. It is important for poorer students, but we should be under no illusions that students as a whole are extremely worried about it. I speak not only in my capacity as chancellor of Greenwich University, which has a number of poor students, and certainly students who are doing part-time and sandwich courses in order to obtain their degrees (one admires enormously the effort that they put in), but I know that I speak also on behalf of the university when I say how concerned the students are about this combination of moneys that they will have to pay. We delude ourselves if we imagine that they do not understand it. In fact, students are perfectly intelligent and quite able to do the sums.

1001
Like many other noble Lords, I received a great many letters from student unions expressing different views. But the most tragic case is that of the student left with tuition fees to pay, no maintenance grant and parents who are unwilling to contribute their parental contribution. Those students will be the worst off of all. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will look again at my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in supporting the amendment perhaps I may briefly reiterate the point that this does not arise from a proposal of the Dearing Committee. Dearing did not propose that both tuition fees of £1,000 and a total abolition of the maintenance grant should be introduced. There is an element of injustice that the two provisions should be brought in simultaneously by the Government. I do not understand why the Government have done that. It seems to place a great burden upon students and was not a provision proposed by the Dearing Committee. For those reasons and others that we have already heard, I support the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I too favour the principle underlying the amendment, but there is one problem to which I should perhaps draw attention.
If we were to accept the amendment under subsection (a),
"the maximum amount of any loan made available to that student is no greater than half the prescribed cost of maintenance",
and so forth, it does not take account of the recommendation of Dearing which followed that of the National Commission on Education, which I had the privilege of chairing. That was to the effect that the loan should be able to take account not just of the contribution to maintenance, but should also cover the contribution to the fees. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, whether that would rule out the student being capable of taking out a loan which would cover the fee contribution as well as half the cost of maintenance. That is an important and fundamental point.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I have two reasons for speaking shortly now. First, because my noble friend Lord Renfrew most eloquently stated exactly the reasons why I support the amendment. Secondly, I do not want to be accused of making a Second Reading speech, which I would be if I spoke on anything except maintenance.
In passing, I say to the noble Baroness that I hope she will not rely too much, in the course of the remainder of these proceedings, on that worn out, shabby excuse which is used by every government in difficulties and comes ill from a government that produced a Bill such as this. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I have two interests to declare. First, I am chair of the Further Education Funding Council—a direct interest. Secondly, I have a more general interest in that for several years before the last election I was shadow spokesperson on
1002
further and higher education in the other place. Consequently, these issues have exercised my mind as much as they have Members of this House.
Let me say why the amendment should be rejected. First, we should recognise that students, in making their representations, valued the fact that the proposals from the Government brought two significant advantages. Despite the fact that any student contribution is bound to be regretted. None of us believe that we would not be in favour of giving full support to every student in the land if we could afford to do so and if we could expand our educational opportunities on that basis. But, as we know, for several decades that has not been the case. That is why the expansion of higher education under the previous government led to the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
I recall, with regard to that Bill, the suggestion at the time that there would be a slow introduction of the loans element alongside the maintenance grants. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is suggesting that the Government are acting with indecent haste, will she recall the fact that the previous government went from a 0 per cent. contribution by students to 50 per cent. in the space of three years? It is true that the amendment suggests that what the Opposition believe is "so far and no further". There was no understanding of gradualness at that time, but a recognition that the resources necessary for higher education must involve a contribution by the students. How rapid was the contribution? Students had to repay within five years.
Under these proposals students pay over a lifetime of earning on a contingent basis. The arguments have been well rehearsed in the House. I have to say to the Opposition that it is not the case that the National Union of Students or the student bodies are critical of those dimensions of the development with regard to the policy. Tuition fees are something else. But the important part with regard to the tuition fees is that this is exactly the area where they are made contingent on parental income, reflecting the fact that the Government are making it abundantly clear that young people from the more deprived homes will not be faced with a tuition fee. That is where the element of discrimination and support for students from the less well-off homes cuts in.
I maintain that this amendment would turn back the clock to a position which was rejected before the last general election. It was rejected not just during the election by the nation which clearly had before it the fact that, if my party formed a government, the issue with regard to maintenance grants in favour of long-term student loans would be altered; and students themselves had rejected that former model. What is the real way in which we can guarantee fairness and opportunity to our students in higher education?—by taking the single most constructive action the Government have taken and which they were able to take only on the basis of their proposals with regard to tuition fees and maintenance support. It is by raising the cap on student numbers and

1003
increasing the resources available to higher education so that we can create more places. Without that, there is no way in which we can provide equity in this country.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, most of the arguments on this issue took place about two hours ago, so I shall be very brief. By the vote that took place earlier, the House has accepted the principle of tuition fees. I can see there is no going back on that. What we are really debating now is how we can give help to those students who will have difficulties when there are tuition fees.
I could only get the student loans system through Cabinet by saying that we would introduce it slowly—which is what I was condemned for, but I can assure the House that it was the fairest way—and that it would get to a balance of 50:50–50 per cent. grant and 50 per cent. loan, which is what it is now. It has taken three or four years to get to that point, and I think it is a reasonable balance. However, the proposals in the Bill completely change that. The grant element will disappear. There will be a 100 per cent. loan with some relief for the tuition fee element, which will involve an elaborate system of means testing.
I hope that the amendment will be passed. I believe that the Government should think again about a combined system of tuition fees and maintenance grant, modified in some way. I think the point raised by the noble Lord can in fact be met with ingenuity and a little subtlety. That would be much better from the point of view of students. I hope the House will take this opportunity to deal with what my noble friend Lord Renfrew called the double whammy.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to comment briefly on the amendment. When I explained on the first amendment my party's package for the funding of higher education, I said that an important part of the package was the abolition of maintenance grants. It was long and keenly discussed at our party conference a couple of years ago, but that remains my party's position. We would replace maintenance grants with income-contingent loans, loans which would be repaid on the basis of so many pence in the pound of the graduate's eventual income, which would mean that he or she would not inherit a debt of so many thousands of pounds or a mortgage repayment model of so many pounds a month but instead inherit an obligation to repay so many pence in the pound of his or her income. However, because it is our party's policy and an important part of our package to fund higher education that we have to abolish maintenance grants, I am afraid that we are unable to support the amendment.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I declare an interest in that I was a member of the Dearing Committee. This is a difficult area to consider and I know that the decisions are difficult for all of us. On the Dearing Committee, we were talking about a compact. Tuition fees and
1004
maintenance are linked, and that is how we approached the matter. I accept that we are dealing with maintenance grants, but the Dearing Committee proposed that for tuition fees there should be a flat 25 per cent. contribution. We never considered that students from lower income families would pay nothing. We never considered that students from lower income families would pay just a portion. The proposal was for a flat 25 per cent. contribution which would be repaid as a loan when the student graduated and found employment. The contribution would then be gathered through the Inland Revenue—I am delighted that the Government have accepted that point—so if the person was not in work he would not pay. It was hoped that if he was on a very low income he would not pay.
One has to consider this issue in terms of the compact. The proposals in the response to Dearing published last week show clearly that, on the means testing which the Government will apply, around a third of students will not have to pay tuition fees—40 per cent. in Scotland—and another third will not have to pay the full amount. That has to weigh in the balance of what Dearing called the compact.
These are serious matters to consider. I hope that the amendment will not be carried for the reasons I have given. There has been a long debate and so I will not take up too much time. I would point out that we are talking about a compact and we talking against a background of the tremendous success of getting 30 per cent. of young people going into higher education. However, the figures show that the numbers of students from low income families have not increased in the same way as the numbers of students from middle and upper class families. We have made hardly a dent in that area. I would suggest that means testing so that a loan does not have to be taken out will encourage children from lower income families to go into higher education. I hope the amendment is rejected.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I hesitate to speak when it is so important to get on and vote but I am very concerned about two points. First, I regard the maintenance grant as a vital safety net. So many of our young people will come up with no money. They will have rent to pay and books to buy. If their loans are delayed—let us face it, the record of the Student Loans Company and the Student Support Agency is not impressive—they could wait two or three weeks. There will be chaos and a very demoralised group of young people.
Secondly, the Government think it is perfectly reasonable for students to pay back their living costs eventually. Eventually, yes, but today many students are desperately worried about the size of the loan they will have to repay. They are working in term as well as working in the vacations when they ought to be either doing academic work or some academic related work. The result is that they will get much worse degrees than they really merit. That in turn means that they will not get the good jobs that everyone believes that they will get. Employers expect a certain standard. More than that, they expect a CV which shows that the students have been able to benefit by the many other

1005
extra-curricula activities that a good university offers such as music, sport, debates and learning how to run things. Employers look for that, but students today will be putting on their CVs, "I filled shelves at Sainsbury's" full stop. That is not going to get them very far. So the whole purpose of this exercise, which is to get more people into higher education—and let them actually have that education—will be nullified because the students will be in a state of very considerable anxiety. They will be doing all the wrong things with their lives. So I urge that we consider restoring the maintenance grant.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the difficulty on these subjects is that we all tend to want incompatible things. We all want a large increase in student numbers; we all want a reasonably low level of taxation; we all want—if we can have it—free tuition; and we all want a maintenance grant. I agree in principle with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said about the maintenance grant. The trouble is that, with our present number of students, it seems that we cannot have free tuition and a maintenance grant both at once. We simply cannot make the arithmetic work.
For what appear to me to be good reasons, we on these Benches have decided that our priority is to keep the principle of free tuition, first and foremost because there is a charge on the parents, it is a lump sum and it cannot be dealt with on the arrangements we have now by an income-contingent system of repayment which seems to be the fairest way of doing it. So we cannot have everything. We believe that what we supported as regards the first amendment is more important. We cannot manage both because the arithmetic does not work.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I spoke at length in Committee in response to an identical amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I hope that your Lordships' patience will not be tried too much if I again speak in some detail about the issues that have been raised because they are obviously very important ones.
I have listened carefully to the views expressed by your Lordships both in Committee and in our debate today. I genuinely appreciate that there is concern on all sides of your Lordships' House that students should receive the support that they need in a way which ensures that they are not deterred from entering higher education, regardless of their circumstances. Before going on to explain again how our proposals meet that objective, I would like to take a little time to separate the facts from the fiction because there is still some misunderstanding here.
I am disappointed that some noble Lords are seeking to either detect confusion where it does not exist or else create it at this late stage in the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House. As the Prime Minister made clear—not in a display of ignorance, but in full knowledge of what we have done—we support the
1006
principles of Dearing. We support a contribution to fees. We support improved loan repayment arrangements, and we support—
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. With the leave of the House, may I repeat the precise words used by the Prime Minister in another place?
"First, on student finance, since we said specifically, as indeed the Conservatives said, that we would abide by the outcome of the Dearing Report, I think it is the richest possible hypocrisy for the Conservative Party, having supported those proposals, now to denounce them".
That is what the Prime Minister said. He said that the Government would support the Dearing proposals in principle and that we would denounce them. We have accepted them; it is the Government who have denounced them.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, no, we have not denounced the Dearing recommendations. As my noble friend Lady Dean indicated, we have accepted the principles of the Dearing Report and built on them. We have accepted the proposals as regards ensuring that there should be access for students from all social backgrounds to higher education. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made that absolutely clear. We accepted the principle that fees should be charged although we decided to mitigate them by means testing them.
We support a contribution to fees. We also support improved loan repayment arrangements. I must put the emphasis here on "improved". We support improved arrangements to encourage access. It is true, as some Members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Baroness, have been at pains to point out, that we have not adopted all the detail of Dearing's recommendations on student funding. However, our plans are in accord with the principles of Dearing. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Dean for her clear explanation of the Dearing Committee's position and the Government's modification of it by means testing the fee and balancing that with the abolition of grant.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, that I very much share her view that we want to maintain the highest possible standards in our higher education system. As someone who has worked for many years in our universities, I have always fought personally to do that and I shall continue to do so. I say to her that no student will pay any more up front under the scheme. From what the noble Baroness was saying, I believe that she was implying that they would; that they would be unable to afford to live and would have to take jobs because they would have less money. But they will not. They will have exactly the same amount of money as they have at the moment, but it will be in the form of a loan. It is very important that we do not have any misunderstanding.
We are abolishing grants because we believe that they have no place in a modern student support system. It is right that students' living costs should be met out of their future earnings and in part by their parents where

1007
they can afford to do so. We stated clearly in our manifesto that on those grounds we would abolish grants and replace them with income-contingent loans. So no member of the electorate and no Member of this House or student can have any doubt about that. We are talking about a manifesto commitment.
It has also been said, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in particular, that the Government rushed their response to the Dearing Committee's report. The Government responded rapidly and decisively. Having inherited a worsening funding crisis—some noble Lords are laughing. I do not believe it a laughing matter that a government should respond decisively to a very important set of recommendations of this kind.
Having inherited a worsening funding system in higher education, we could hardly stand idly by once Dearing had reported. We had to act quickly, and that quick response has resulted in an extra £165 million for the higher education sector for 1998–99. I know that that has been widely welcomed by many of my former colleagues in the university sector. In fact, I have not heard of a single person who has not welcomed it.
Nor did we want to leave students and their parents in the dark over the summer as they made important decisions against UCAS deadlines. That is why we mobilised our information campaign as quickly as we could. LEAs and institutions have already been notified of the detailed procedures. We have consistently kept them informed of developments and will continue to do so. The Local Government Association and the CVCP have had a key role in the development of the implementation arrangements for the new system.
When one considers the scale of our information campaign, and the positive response we have had to it, it is rather unconstructive for noble Lords to persist in suggesting that students are in the dark. Our freephone orderline has received about 33,000 calls, and sent out over 1 million booklets, posters and other materials explaining the new student support arrangements. Over 80 per cent. of those organisations which received initial copies of the leaflets have ordered more for their students. Clearly they recognise it as a worthwhile and informative read. We also know from research that a high proportion of would-be students have read the information and understand what the new arrangements mean for them; 99 per cent. of them were aware of the introduction of tuition fee contributions; 87 per cent. knew that the contribution would depend on income and 80 per cent. knew that increased maintenance loans would be available. Equally encouraging awareness was shown by potential mature students, even though those students are harder to target with information. I have already recognised that and said that we want to address that concern. I think that the vast majority of people know what our plans are. Our intentions in this area are clear.
My noble friend Lord Davies referred to the previous government's legislation. I would remind Members of your Lordships' House that when the current mixture of grants and loans was introduced by the previous government we were assured before the publication of the student loans Bill that loans would be introduced
1008
gradually, and would not constitute 50 per cent. of the total maintenance package until the year 2007–08. But only four years after the Bill was enacted the previous government announced without any consultation or debate that the process would be accelerated, and indeed the 50 per cent. target was reached by 1996–97. So I am surprised that some noble Lords opposite have developed an attachment to grants when before they were eager to reduce the value of the grant as quickly as possible.
We have heard some alarmist statements about what the effects of our proposals might be, but little hard evidence, I am afraid. I gave some evidence about the impact of loans in Committee, and I shall repeat it here. In the five years before the current loans scheme was introduced, participation among younger students from lower socio-economic groups rose by only two percentage points. In the following five years, between 1990 and 1995, when students received an increasing amount of support through loans, the rise was some seven percentage points. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will remember that and that he will be pleased that that was the impact.
Of course there were, and there remain, many reasons influencing a young person's choice to enter higher education. By far the most important of these is the level of educational attainment reached at school. Quite simply, if a young person gains good A-level results—or the equivalent in vocational qualifications—he or she is likely to go into higher education. Financial considerations are secondary. Nevertheless, the key point is that providing maintenance support in the form of loans does not act as a disincentive; or, to put it another way, there is no evidence to suggest that grants help to encourage students from lower socio-economic groups to enter higher education. What matters is that students have access to the funds that they need while they are studying.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the impact of our arrangements on applications. I have already said in answer to an earlier group of amendments that applications from students under the age of 21 are down by less than 1 per cent. Indeed, the National Union of Students has accepted that it is reasonable to expect that maintenance costs should be repaid later on the new basis that we are introducing.
Several Members of your Lordships' House have argued that under our proposals, students from poorer backgrounds will incur the highest debt, and that this is unfair. I would remind your Lordships that it is a fact of life—a hard fact of life, I acknowledge—that students from wealthier backgrounds are likely to receive more support from their parents, and so need less support from other sources. Our proposals take account of that fact by ensuring that students have access to the resources that they need when they are studying, regardless of their or their families' circumstances. Of course, the amount that individual students borrow will depend on a variety of factors, including where they decide to study and the length of the courses they take, as well as their family income.

1009
In judging the fairness of our proposals, I would also ask Members of your Lordships' House to take a somewhat longer view of the support that the Government are making available to students from poorer backgrounds. I have already made it clear that the terms on which we are proposing to make student loans are generous. Loans will be heavily subsidised to ensure that graduates repay no more in real terms than they borrowed, however long the loan is outstanding. In most cases, graduates will repay their loans over a longer period than they would under the current arrangements. On this basis, therefore, students from poorer backgrounds who take out the full loan available to them will be eligible to receive the largest public subsidy over time. This subsidy is, of course, additional to the support that students from poorer backgrounds will receive towards the cost of their tuition. Indeed, they will not pay a tuition fee.
The introduction of fair and progressive repayment arrangements under our proposals was a key factor leading to our conclusion to abolish maintenance grants. Income-contingent loans will be quite unlike other forms of borrowing in that the level of repayments will be commensurate with the borrower's ability to repay. In this respect, our proposed arrangements are more attractive (as far as potential lenders are concerned) than the existing loans scheme, as the right honourable friend of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch (the shadow spokesman on education in another place) has publicly admitted.
We have consistently made it clear that our proposals are aimed at generating additional resources for investment in further and higher education. The Government are not ashamed to admit that abolishing maintenance grants, rather than keeping them at their present level, will make much more money available for colleges and universities. The effect of this amendment, however, would be to deny institutions and students the benefits of this additional investment. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has failed to suggest an alternative way of bridging the funding gap that would result were her amendment to be accepted.
The noble Baroness asked me to reflect on her amendment between Committee and now—and I have done that. I have also listened to the arguments that noble Lords have advanced in favour of retaining maintenance grants, the most compelling of which relate to access. Like all other Members of your Lordships' House, I want to be sure that we do not in any way damage that access. However, I would invite your Lordships again to consider the evidence that I have cited. That evidence shows that grants have not discouraged participation by students from lower socio-economic groups; that even the flawed system of loans which currently exists has not deterred them from entering higher education; and that graduates are not disadvantaged by a system which enables them to contribute to the costs of their education on an
1010
income-contingent basis. I would, therefore, again urge Members of your Lordships' House to reject this amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, so everything is all right then and students can go away happy because, frankly, this will not affect them—in fact, it will increase their participation in higher education?
Perhaps I may refer briefly to one or two points. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham—this is not a personal remark—that I find it deeply disturbing that a chairman of a funding council who has a very political profile in this House should speak on these matters. It is not the first time—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know—indeed, the noble Lord knows—that this is not the first time that such a comment has been made, but the fact that he has spoken today has let all those students out there know exactly whose side he is on—and, given what he said, it is not the students' side.
I speak with some diffidence in the presence of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. My understanding of everything that the Minister has said on a number of occasions is that it is expected that the £1,000 tuition fee in part or in whole must be met by the student. In order to convince us that no more money must be found by the families, it has been said that the £1,000 must be deemed to be paid by the student, albeit a loan facility will be available for that.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that it was precisely that package that I took into account when I considered Dearing. Dearing said that even though, under the Government's proposals, there would be some exemptions from and means-testing of the £1,000 fee, when £1,000 was weighed against £5,000—which is the figure if maintenance is included—the burden would be considerable. The committee said that the tuition fee could be a flat rate fee to be paid some time in the future when the student was able to do so but that the maintenance fee would have a disproportionate impact on a lower income family.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Recommendation No. 79 of the Dearing Report states clearly that a contribution of about 25 per cent. will be made by students to tuition fees. The Dearing Committee had no idea that the government of the day would means test so that some students should make no contribution at all. They had no idea that a means test would be applied and that students would pay only a proportion of the loan. Taken one with the other, how could the Dearing Committee have recommended maintenance grants? The Dearing Committee looked at a situation in which it felt that, in requiring each student to make a flat contribution irrespective of his or her financial position or that of his or her family,

1011
consideration should be given to maintenance rates as well. What has happened is that the Government have now made it subject to means testing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes my point for me. It is a great irony that the student who qualifies for full exemption from the tuition fees is the very one who has to borrow £4,000 a year, whereas the student who pays the tuition fees has to borrow only half the maintenance costs. A student who is exempt from tuition fees will owe up to £12,000 at the end of a three-year degree course. That results in a disproportionate impact on poorer students. I beg to move.
6.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 50) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 143; Not-Contents, 102.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ailsa, M.

Garel-Jones, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geddes, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Astor, V.

Harlech, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Beloff, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Berners, B.

Henley, L.

Biddulph, L.

Hesketh, L.

Biffen, L.

Higgins, L.

Blackwell, L.

Holderness, L.

Blaker, L.

Home, E.

Blatch, B.

Hood,V.

Boardman, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Bowness, L.

Howe, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Inchcape, E.

Brookeborough, V.

James of Holland Park, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Kimball, L.

Butterfield, L.

Kingsland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Byford, B.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Cadman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Caithness, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Leigh, L.

Carnock, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Long, V.

Chesham, L.

Lucas, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleraine, L.

Luke, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Davidson, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Denman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Elles, B.

Marlesford, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Feldman, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Flather, B.

Mersey, V.

Fookes, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

1012

Mottistone, L.

Renton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Renwick, L.

Naseby, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Newall, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Rowallan, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Norrie, L.

Seccombe, B.

Northesk, E.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Onslow, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Skidelsky, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Stewartby, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strange, B.

Pender, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Sudeley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Trenchard, V.

Pike,B.

Trumpington, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Prentice, L.

Ullswater, V.

Prior, L.

Waddington, L.

Pym, L.

Warnock, B.

Quinton, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Reading, M.

Wise, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wynford, L.

Rennell, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Barnett,L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Islwyn, L.

Berkeley, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Blackstone, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blease, L.

Jeger, B.

Blyth, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kennet, L.

Burlison, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Chandos, V.

Lockwood, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Longford, E

David, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mishcon, L.

Desai, L.

Molloy, L.

Dixon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Dubs, L.

Nicol, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Northfield, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Peston, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gallacher, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Gilbert, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Puttnam, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Gregson, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Grenfell, L.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Hardie, L.

Sewel, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Simon, V.

Haskel, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hollick, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Hoyle, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hughes, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

1013

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Thurlow, L.

Whitty, L. [Teller.]

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Varley, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall ensure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth or any subsequent year of study at a higher education institution in England or Wales apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England or Wales.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 51, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77. It is a small amendment about one of the unfairnesses which the Government left behind when deciding to charge £1,000 a year for university fees. In Scotland, an honours degree takes four years to complete. In England, by and large, an honours degree takes three years to complete. Therefore, it is clear that at £1,000 a year a Scottish honours degree will cost £4,000 and an English one only £3,000.
The Garrick Committee, which met in Scotland in parallel with the Dearing Committee, recommended that graduates of a four-year degree course should not be burdened unduly by comparison with the shorter degree courses in England and Wales. After a bit of a fuss, the Scottish Office announced that, in line with the Garrick Report, it would cover the cost to Scottish domicile students of the fourth year of the degree course. Therefore, a student resident in Scotland attending a Scottish university will pay £3,000, as will a student resident in England attending an English university.
However, a problem remained relating to those students not domiciled in Scotland, but attending Scottish universities. The first group are students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Currently, approximately 5,000 students apply each year from the rest of the United Kingdom to Scottish higher education institutions. Indeed, 22,000 students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland are currently studying at Scottish universities. Forty-seven per cent. of the students at St. Andrews University come from England, Wales and Northern Ireland and 45 per cent. of students at Edinburgh University are from England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are not talking about small numbers of students. Currently, students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who go to the universities of Aberdeen, St. Andrews, Glasgow or wherever, will be asked to pay £4,000, whereas students resident in Scotland will pay only £3,000.
That anomaly might be bad enough when we are trying to maintain the fact that the United Kingdom is one country, but it is made a thousand times worse by
1014
the discovery that, in order to obey European Union legislation, students from EU countries must be treated in the same way as Scottish students. They must pay only £3,000 and not £4,000.
Perhaps I may give an example in order to explain the consequence of that. I have two granddaughters, one living in Italy and one living in Kent. If both decide to follow their grandfather and their parents to the University of Glasgow, the one who lives in Milan will have to find £3,000, but the one who lives in Kent, where her father and mother pay into the British Exchequer, will have to find £,4000. That is simply daft! It cannot be right that students from Paris and Paisley pay £3,000 while students from Coventry and Cardiff pay £4,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, unfortunately cannot be here today but we spoke last week about the matter. He made the telling point that the anomaly is even sillier in terms of the island of Ireland where students from Limerick will be asked to pay £3,000, but students from Limavady will be asked to pay £4,000. A considerable number of students from Northern Ireland have opted to study elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and in particular in Scotland. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, the last time we discussed the matter and if I press the amendment will vote with me in order to make the position fairer.
The last time we discussed the matter in your Lordships' House I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, how much the proposal would cost and he kindly wrote to me about that. It is not a cost on the Scottish Office, which stated that it will fund the cost of its domiciled Scottish students. It is a cost on the Department for Education and Employment in England and Wales and the Northern Ireland Office. Once again, I am amazed that the poor old noble Lord, Lord Sewel, is being put up to answer for a policy which he and his department have decided they do not approve of. They believe that students in Scotland attending Scottish universities should pay only £3,000.
I would have been greatly impressed, therefore, if the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, had been prepared to come and argue in defence of the decision of her department, instead of sending the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, whose colleagues decided some time ago that it would be unfair to charge Scottish students £4,000 and are prepared to pay the additional cost in order to reduce it to £3,000. But the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, it must be. However, it is interesting that two or three weeks ago, on the radio, I heard his colleague, Mr. Brian Wilson, the Education Minister, saying that it is nothing to do with the Scottish Office and that one should attack the Department for Education and Employment. Would that I could do so, but its representatives will not come here to deal with this issue.
Let us look at the vast amounts of money that it will cost. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said that in England—I am not sure whether that means England and Wales or only England—it would cost in the region of £1.5 million per year and for Northern Ireland about £0.3 million per year. The money still comes from the same government, despite the fact that we are about to go down the

1015
devolutionary road. It will cost the Government about £2 million per year. That is all it would cost to put right what is an absolutely appalling anomaly.
It is a disgrace for the unity of the United Kingdom that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be treated so unfairly, not just compared with students in Scotland but also compared with students coining to the Scottish universities from any other European Union country. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, earlier the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that in responding to Dearing the Government had been decisive. I do not believe that the Scottish Office has been very decisive about this matter. There was an anomaly which was cured by another anomaly and a third anomaly has now been added. We really are in rather a muddle. It is very unjust to English students, very bad for the image of the Union and it creates a very bad outlook for the future of the Scottish Parliament. I am extremely sorry that it has happened.
I am grateful to the Government for one thing. After a discussion with Heriot-Watt University, I asked who would fund the fourth year and as my noble friend has just said, we now know that the Government are to fund the fourth year in Scotland. That is confirmed in their response to the Garrick Report where I am happy to see it in black and white. That will be a great comfort to everybody.
I hope that the Government are going to do something about this. If my noble friend's amendment were to be accepted, the position would be fairer in all directions. Students would appreciate that and those of us who want Scotland to hold together with the United Kingdom in the future in the work of the Scottish parliament would also greatly appreciate it. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Tope: My Lords, we have now debated this issue several times in your Lordships' House. I watch with some interest the growing embarrassment of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who must rise on every occasion to reply to this frankly untenable position. So often we have talked about the student from Cumbria who must pay £1,000 more than the student from Umbria. We had some more alliteration today.
This clearly is a ludicrous anomaly. I do not know why the Government have not yet corrected it. My Amendment No. 76 seeks to achieve exactly the same purpose as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. We are at one on this issue. I do not know why the Government are persisting with this situation. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will no longer be embarrassed and will be able to tell the House that he understands and accepts the position and that he will accept at least one of the amendments.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before Christmas, at Prime Minister's Question Time, my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown asked the Government whether their policy was based on a principle of non-discrimination and he was
1016
told that it was. My honourable friend came straight back with his supplementary question and asked why the Government were charging English and Scottish students different sums for the same education. The Prime Minister had no answer. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, can do better than the Prime Minister, but he will have a job.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I have only one further point to add to this interesting idea of making some EU nationals more equal than others. I should like to know the legal basis. How do the Government propose to reconcile the arbitrary discrimination against some British members of the EU with the new clause in Article 1B of the Amsterdam Treaty which requires all member states to;
"strengthen the protection of the rights and interests of the nationals of its member states through the introduction of a citizenship of the Union".
If I were a student in Northern Ireland, so many of whom have gone to Scottish universities, I should find it very difficult to understand.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Scottish Office) Lord Sewel: My Lords, we have indeed discussed this issue in Committee but we return to the basic and fundamental point that both the school and higher education systems in England and Scotland are different. It is interesting that a separate committee—the Garrick Committee—was set up in Scotland to look at the issues which Dearing was examining in relation to England and Wales. That is a recognition that the two systems are fundamentally different.
Garrick recognised that the fact that there were two systems could leave students who had followed a Scottish secondary education course at some disadvantage in relation to tuition costs for higher education because many of the courses at Scottish universities, for the same degree, are one year longer than elsewhere in the United Kingdom for comparable courses.
The Garrick Committee recommended that that issue should be addressed and the Government have done so by agreeing that Scottish students studying in Scotland will not be required to contribute to their tuition costs in the final year where the course is one year longer than the equivalent course in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is the point that we all understand. However, it is important to make clear what is the basis of the disagreement, if we have a disagreement, by understanding the basic position as it exists.
It does not follow that the same arguments can be advanced for students from elsewhere in the United Kingdom where the pattern of school education is different. I shall try to advance an argument that even the noble Earl will recognise as having some credibility. The nub of the argument is that the idea for compatibility between students domiciled in England and Scotland is based on a misunderstanding because it falsely conflates two things: the first is the idea of intellectual development; and the other is the period of time necessary to cover the syllabus in any one discipline.

1017
It is important to bear in mind in the Scottish context that, traditionally, Scottish students have gone to university one year earlier than English students. My own daughter is in what I believe to be a not particularly desirable position of having spent an additional year at school but still going to the University of Glasgow at the age of 17. That does not happen with any regularity in English universities.
Therefore, the reason that the four-year honours degree course exists in Scotland and is of value in Scotland for Scottish domiciled students who have come through the Scottish educational system is that their intellectual development has not reached the same stage by the time they leave school as is the case in England where students go to university aged 18 and have often gone through a two-year A-level course. In Scotland, students predominantly undertake a one-year higher course or, effectively, a two-term higher course. Therefore, there is a very strong case to persist with the four-year honours degree course for Scottish students.
English students, having undertaken a two-year A-level course, are that much further along the road of intellectual development than their peers in Scotland. In that case, the challenge is basically for the Scottish universities. That challenge is to recognise that students coming from the English school system and going into the Scottish higher education system should properly go in at what is the second year.
Many Scottish universities make provision in that respect. Indeed, it should be encouraged. As a former university teacher, I see no reason why it is not possible to cover the actual range of many disciplines in three years. I do not believe that any strong argument can be advanced against the possibility of covering an honours degree in three years. The reason it is not done in Scotland rests with the argument of intellectual development: they come there a year early, a year less prepared.
Therefore, the challenge is to the Scottish universities to ensure that they can be attractive to English domiciled students as regards coming in at the second-year level. Of course, there is a certain reluctance on the part of some Scottish universities to go down that road. I do not believe that I am being particularly cynical in suggesting that the possible reason behind persisting with a four-year degree course for English domiciled students is that it is a nice way of maintaining institutional income. I put it just like that as perhaps one of the reasons why some universities have not been too enthusiastic to make it possible for students to come in at the second year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister puzzles me. Is he saying that he is using the extra charge as a means of encouraging English students to enter in the second year and not the first? If so, is it not a matter of academic rather than political judgment?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, as a politician I am not encouraging them. As a former university teacher I am saying that the situation exists at present in some universities in Scotland where students with A-level qualifications enter the second year of the Scottish degree course. That is a perfectly sound academic route. Indeed, I have had students who have done that and they have not
1018
been at any disadvantage whatever. I commend it to those of my former colleagues who are active in higher education in Scotland. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but he is making this sound as if it is just in the nature of Scottish courses. They vary very much. In many universities the first year is an integral part of the course; it is not just a sort of top-up on school education to get people ready for the three years. I suggest to the Minister that the Government are interfering with the curriculum of universities. That is very dangerous.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, we are not interfering with the curriculum of universities; I am suggesting how universities may respond if they wish to do so. It is not for me to interfere with their curriculum. If the argument is that the first year is an integral part of the degree course, perhaps we should look at the structure of that course to ensure that students with A-levels can come in at the second year. I have done it and my colleagues have done it elsewhere in Scotland. It works. Indeed, it is capable of working.
The point has been made about St. Andrews and about the effect that this policy may have upon it. It has been pointed out that a large number of English students attend that university. That is perfectly true—Hastings by the sea. If we have a look and see what has happened this year, we find that English student applications to St. Andrews have increased by 6 per cent. for the upcoming year.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend the Minister, but can he also quote the figures for Edinburgh University?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am sorry, I do not actually have the figures for that university. However, I can tell my noble friend that, if we consider the whole business, there are still more English than Scottish applicants to Scottish universities. There are more English domiciled students applying to Scottish universities than there are Scottish domiciled students applying to Scottish universities.
If one studies the predicted major drop in applications in Scotland from England, about which noble Lords opposite have been warning us, it will be seen that it has not occurred. The drop in English applicants is actually less than the overall drop—it is 5 per cent. compared with 6 per cent. When one compares the upcoming year with the year that is just going through, one finds a very interesting situation. One finds that applications were up on average by 8 per cent. last year, while this year they are down overall in Scotland by 6 per cent. So there is no fundamental evidence to suggest that the policy has actually put off students. What has happened is that there has been a less than compensating decline for the increase that took place last year. Clearly, if people applied last year, they are out of the system and so, naturally, there would be a drop this year.
Let us keep what the extra £1,000 means in perspective. I have put forward my suggestion of how universities may respond. It may well be proper for universities to respond

1019
and say that the four-year degree is something that they wish to market as a quality product for English domiciled students. They will be required to take an extra year. But they are already required to take an extra year over their degree courses than their fellow students who applied to English universities. There is also a cost involved. The cost is in foregone income which is estimated at £16,000 a year. There is a cost in the additional year's maintenance which is about £3,000 a year. Therefore, we are already talking about an English domiciled student going on a four-year degree course in Scotland, which is already effectively carrying a cost of about £19,000 to £20,000 a year in one way or another. What we are saying here is that, yes, they will have to pay an extra £1,000 a year for the fee, which is equivalent to something like just over 5 per cent. of the additional cost they are already paying.
Reference was also made to the European paradox. I agree that it is a paradox, but the Government cannot be blamed for the situation. The matter is clear: we have sought legal advice—and, indeed, I have confirmed this—on the matter. We have received that advice and are confident that we have a robust position and can defend it robustly if there is any challenge in the courts. Therefore, there is no problem in terms of our position being incompatible with our European obligations.
We have gone round the course a number of times both in Committee and today on Report. I have a sneaking suspicion that it is not yet over. Basically it boils down to three issues: first, there is no evidence to show that this year, when knowledge has been available about the changing practice, it has in any way adversely affected the application rate for English domiciled students. I say that because the application rate of English domiciled students has fallen by a lower percentage than the overall fall. Therefore, it is clearly not having a discriminatory effect on applications.
Secondly, the opposition to the Government's proposals is based on a misunderstanding—an understandable conflation of two different ideas. I have in mind the amount of time that it takes to achieve a degree of intellectual development and the time that it takes to cover the syllabus in any one discipline. Thirdly, there is no question that the Government are in any way falling short of their European obligations. On all those criteria the Government's position is sound. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this time at least we have had a more robust defence of the Government's policy than we had on the previous two outings. If the noble Earl, Lord Russell, were marking this, perhaps he would give quite a high mark for effort. However, I am not entirely sure that he would give too many marks for content.
It seemed to me that the noble Lord's argument was largely about school and the interaction with university and the fact that English students on leaving school have developed further intellectually than Scottish students and therefore they need only three years at university and they can join a course at the end of the first year. Some of them do that and there is evidence that a slightly greater number are doing that this year. However, that assumes that they
1020
start a university course following on directly from A-levels. If they do not do that, they will probably start a fresh subject, and, in the case of an honours course at a Scottish university, they will have to start at year one. While the noble Lord's argument may have some validity for some students, it cannot apply to them all.
In any case, my understanding is that the Government are not going down the road of trying to take into account the total education bill by saying, "You have already cost us X pounds in school education, and therefore you can cost us only Y pounds in university education. If you cost us slightly more than X pounds at school we will pay less than Y pounds in further education". At one stage in the Minister's speech I wondered whether we would hear of the introduction of vouchers and fees in schools to equate costs as between primary, secondary and university education. I thought that the argument was ingenious and I congratulate the noble Lord on his robust defence of the Government's position. However, he did not address the real issue of fairness as between students from different parts of the United Kingdom studying the same course.
He did not address the European issue at all. He just said that the Government could not be blamed for the paradox. However, the Government have created the paradox. They have caused the paradox. I am providing a way out of the paradox. All they have to do to get out of the paradox is to do what the Scottish Office has done and pay out £2 million to students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland who want to study in Scotland. Then the position is on all fours inside the United Kingdom and on all fours as regards Europe. Frankly, I do not think that my son and daughter-in-law, who would be asked to pay £4,000 to send a child to Glasgow University, would be at all impressed by that reply when a girl from Italy would have to pay £3,000, as indeed would a girl from anywhere in Scotland. The Government say they believe in the integrity of the United Kingdom—we may return to this matter after Easter—and they have a Bill to devolve certain powers to Scotland. They do not seek to split the UK. However, their proposal on this issue splits the UK. I am not in the least satisfied and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.23 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 89.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Blatch, B.

Addington, L.

Boardman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Brookeborough, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Beaverbrook, L.

Butterfield, L.

Beloff, L.

Cadman, L.

Biddulph, L.

Caithness, E.

Biffen, L.

Calverley, L.

Blackwell, L.

Carlisle, E.

Blaker, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

1021

Carnock, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Chesham, L.

Moynihan, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Newall, L.

Colwyn, L.

Newby, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Courtown, E.

Northesk, E.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ogmore, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Onslow, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Onslow of Woking, L.

Denham,L.

Oxfuird, V.

Dholakia, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Flather, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Fookes, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goodhart, L.

Prior, L.

Hacking, L.

Pym, L.

Hamwee, B.

Razzall, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Redesdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hesketh, L.

Rochester, L.

Higgins, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Holm Patrick, L.

Rowallan, L.

Home, E.

Russell, E.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hussey of North Bradley, L,

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Inchcape, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kimball, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Stewartby, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Strange, B.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Ludford, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lyell, L.

Tope, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Tordoff, L.

McConnell, L.

Trenchard, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Ullswater, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Warnock, B.

McNair, L.

Wilberforce, L.

McNally, L.

Wilcox, B.

Maddock, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mancroft, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Windlesham, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wise, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Wright of Richmond, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Wynford, L.

Mersey, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Desai, L.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Gallacher, L.

Burlison, L.

Gilbert, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

David, B.

Gregson, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Grenfell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Hanworth, V.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hardie, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

1022

Haskel, L.

Nicol, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Northfield, L.

Hollick, L.

Peston, L.

Hoyle, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hughes, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Puttnam, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Islwyn, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Jeger, B.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sewel, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Simon, V.

Kilbracken, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Lockwood, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McCarthy, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Molloy, L.

Varley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Whitty, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion perhaps I may suggest that we do not come back to the Bill before 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Code of Conduct) Order 1998
Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Procedural Rules) Order 1998
Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Guidelines) Order 1998
7.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft orders laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move en bloc the draft Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 (Code of Conduct) Order 1998, together with the draft guidelines order 1998 and the draft procedural rules order 1998 also made under the Act which were laid before your Lordships' House on 23rd February.
With the enactment of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act the Government have delivered on their undertaking to address the problems of public order and sectarian divisions which are caused by some contentious parades in Northern Ireland.
As we consider this delegated legislation, I should be grateful for your Lordships' forbearance if I recap briefly the background to the main legislation and its purpose. I am conscious that we have already covered the ground extensively and that these matters have enjoyed the full rigour of parliamentary scrutiny, both here and in another place. Those of your Lordships who have followed these debates may indeed consider themselves to be as familiar with the myriad aspects of the parades question as they would ever wish to be!
Following the serious public disorder at Drumcree in 1996, the previous government set up the independent review on parades and marches under Sir Peter North which provided a very thorough analysis of the issue. The report of that review, published in January 1997, sought to create a framework which would encourage and reward local accommodation. The Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act effectively implements the recommendations of the report.
The central recommendation of the report was to set up an independent body, the Parades Commission, which would work to facilitate accommodation on contentious parades and, where this failed, would take over the decision-making role of the police on such parades. In effect, the Act will introduce a new way of dealing with contentious parades which will enable all the relevant factors to be fairly weighed up by an independent body.
The North Report recommended that the existing statutory criteria for determining whether a parade be subject to conditions should be extended to include a new factor of the impact on relationships within the community. North suggested that the key role of the guidelines should be to clarify for the Parades Commission, parade organisers, participants, police, protesters and all other interested parties, what is the practical application of this new factor.
The report also recommended that an initial task of the commission should be to prepare guidance on the procedures it would follow, in addition to those that are to be followed by the police and the organisers of processions, open-air public meetings and protests.
North also recommended that the commission should produce a code of conduct covering the expected behaviour of participants in a parade and of protesters. The Parades Commission will take ownership of the code, keeping it under review and proposing such amendments as it sees fit.
The Government fully accept those recommendations of the North Report and appropriate provisions requiring the commission to produce a code of conduct, guidelines and procedural rules were included in the Bill; and those provisions of the Bill were the subject of lengthy and rigorous debate both in this House and in another place.
The code of conduct has been prepared in accordance with Section 3 of the Act. Your Lordships will recall that there was considerable support in the House for the extension of the provisions of the code of conduct to cover those who wish to protest against parades as well as those who organise or participate in them. The Government recognise this, and an appropriate amendment was made to what is now Section 3 of the Act.
The code is designed to assist organisers of parades and of protest meetings by providing both a check-list and reminder of the points they will need to cover and the issues they will need to address in planning and on the day.
Similarly, the procedural rules have been made under Section 4 of the Act. They set out the procedures to be followed by the commission in the exercise of its functions under the Act and those to be followed by others in their dealings with the commission.
The procedural rules explain how the commission will accommodate information about the various factors detailed in the guidelines: how it will hear the views of supporters and opposers of parades; how it will express an informal broad view of the overall pattern of parades in the areas in which they are contentious; and how it will issue formal determinations on individual parades within a fixed timescale.
Section 5 of the Act requires the commission to issue a set of guidelines to which it is to have regard in deciding whether to impose conditions on a public procession. The guidelines are, in essence, the factors to which the commission will have regard in making a judgement on each individual case and they are intended, as the North Report said, to lead to greater transparency and consistency on decision making.
The Parades Commission issued the code of conduct, procedural rules and guidelines in draft form for public consultation last October. The revised versions which we are considering today have benefited greatly from this consultation. The commission then submitted the documents to the Secretary of State for laying before Parliament in draft.
We believe that these documents get the balance right and can play a very valuable role in getting to grips with what is undoubtedly a difficult and thorny issue. However, we recognise that experience on the ground may lead to a need for change and it is for this reason that Schedule 2 to the Act sets out the mechanisms by which the documents can be changed in the light of experience.
The Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act and the mechanisms it is setting up will break new grounds in the handling of parades in Northern Ireland. I recognise that we are moving into uncharted waters and that the commission will have a very challenging task in the months ahead. We do not expect that the commission will immediately bring about a marching season free of controversy or dispute. There will undoubtedly be problems and many hurdles on the way to overcome. But I believe that, with the passing of the Act and the introduction of these three documents, we

1025
are laying a secure foundation for new arrangements which will lead to a lessening of tension in the area of parades.
The draft orders, which will bring into effect the three Parade Commission documents, are vital components in the effective working of the new legislation. They are mechanisms which will directly assist and improve the regulation and conduct of parades and will as a result immeasurably improve prospects for peace and stability for the people of Northern Ireland over the coming months. I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft orders laid before the House on 23rd February be approved [24th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Dubs.)
7.40 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, although from these Benches we unreservedly support the orders in the light of the debates that have taken place and the amendment to the Bill itself, the notice has been very short. We are discussing orders that are already printed (and I shall say a word about the attractiveness of the design) and which come into effect at midnight. One might be tempted to say that their progress through this House is being taken pretty much as a formality and a rubber stamp. That seems regrettable. We were originally to have discussed the orders last week, and I am unclear as to why even that short space of time has disappeared. As a result, we are almost literally discussing them at the 59th minute of the 11th hour. However, carping aside, the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act has finally reached the statute book—based on the North Report and substantially amended, it must be said, in many cases by the initiative of this House—and it deserves our support.
I said that I would comment on the presentation of the booklets. They are supposed to be written so that they are useful to the man in the street, and even more so to the man who might march down the street. They are well designed and a great deal more attractive than many Northern Ireland Office documents. However, I wish I could say the same for the content. I wonder what the Plain English Campaign would say about the sentence on page 7 of the guidelines:
"Where, however, communication is problematic, the Commission will expect disputants to explore how to resolve the problem including, for example, seeking assistance from facilitators";
or the sentence,
"Where it is not possible to reach agreements on self-imposed restrictions, it will be important to take steps to establish a line of communication aimed at achieving accommodation on the proposals for the parade".
They do not exactly have the ring of clear English.
Perhaps I might make a suggestion to the Northern Ireland Office. It might be sensible in future to use the draftsman of the appendices to the Code of Conduct, which are absolute models of succinct Anglo-Saxon clarity. Nobody who reads the appendices is left under any misunderstanding as to what they are supposed to say. Perhaps whoever drafted the appendices might in
1026
future be given the job of drafting the whole document, so that the people for whom the documents are intended can understand them.
That said, the booklets need to be widely distributed. In responding, will the Minister say how they are to be made available? It will be no use at all if they sit in the office. I know that leading members of the Orange Order, the Apprentice Boys and most other marching groups will already be aware of the implications of the public processions Act, as, I suspect, the organisers of some counter-demonstrations will be, too. However, I wonder whether the people who participate in marches are going to know about the new rules. I should be interested to know how they are to be made available. When I last visited the Parades Commission in Belfast, it was impossible to escape without being given the sets of draft guidelines. Although I have complained about the fact that we are discussing these orders at the last minute, I wish to pay tribute to the long period of consultation which preceded the publication of these documents.
Finally, I hope that the whole House will wish Mr. Alistair Graham and the newly announced members of the Parades Commission success in their work. We are now beginning to enter the preliminaries of the parade season, from Easter weekend onwards beginning to build up to the marches of the summer. This year of all years it will be a particularly sensitive season. I hope that the codes of conduct and the guidelines will be helpful and will be made available to all those who would benefit from reading them.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, and myself have had occasion over many years in this House to draw to the attention of the House, when there is a debate on Ireland, the vast attendance of noble Lords, who rush in to hear the debate. It is potentially one of the most dangerous situations in the United Kingdom. It is something of a shame that there are not more Members present in this House to take an interest in what is happening in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will understand that he will meet no opposition in this House in relation to the orders. We have already debated them at great length both in this Chamber and in Committee. This is unique legislation for Northern Ireland, a part of the United Kingdom. It is unique and unprecedented—and, as yet, untested. I do not think that there is anyone in Northern Ireland with experience of being a representative or of living there who is not apprehensive about the marches that will take place there this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made a point that I fully support. An hour ago I received a telephone call from a journalist friend of mine whom the Minister may have met in Northern Ireland. He told me that he had read this paraphernalia, which I understand has been sent out to 600,000 people. He told me that he could not understand it. And he is a journalist—with, I suspect, a certain command of the English language. If he cannot understand it, there will be many, many people in Northern Ireland who will be even more doubtful about its contents.

1027
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a few questions. I understand that there is a mediation role for the commission. I believe it has attempted to meet some of the more controversial figures who will be in charge of the more controversial areas in Northern Ireland. As the Minister said repeatedly, they will oversee certain marches, and there are only about 20, or at the very most 30, very difficult areas. Will the Minister tell the House whether the commission has met the spokesmen for those areas? I think immediately of the Bogside in Derry, the Ormeau Road in Belfast and a location in County Antrim. Have the persons responsible for those areas met the commission? Have they had discussions? Or have they rejected any submissions made by the commission? Is it true about the extremes on both the nationalist and the unionist sides? I feel sad to have to say that I understand the unionist side contains some Unionist Members of Parliament, elected representatives, who refuse to meet members of the commission. In the dangerous situation that exists in Northern Ireland now those elected representatives are not acting in the interests of their own constituents or in the wider interest of the people of Northern Ireland.
I understand that today Alistair Graham and two or three other members of the commission have gone to America. Whom are they expected to meet in America? With whom are they expected to hold discussions? Is it the Irish-American lobby? Because, to say the least, the Irish-American lobby has been very unhelpful in the past. Indeed, many of its members come to Northern Ireland every year at the end of July or in August, which is a very dangerous marching season in Northern Ireland, and they have been anything but helpful. They have thrown their full support behind one set of nationalist extremists against unionists in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether anything will come out of the meetings with Alistair Graham and those with him.
At the end of the day, as has been said repeatedly in this House and in another place, the conduct of the marches will be a matter for the RUC. The responsibility will fall on the police, whatever the commission may or may not do. The responsibility for maintaining law and order in Northern Ireland will rest on the shoulders of the RUC. All I can do is to wish them every vestige of luck, because they will certainly need it.
I said to the Minister that he will find no opposition in this House. In whatever way we can we should support the Minister on this legislation.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, we find ourselves in a distinctly peculiar position this evening. We are invited to approve drafts produced by a newly appointed commission, the composition of which was decided by the Secretary of State in accordance with powers conferred upon her by both Houses of Parliament in an Act which received Royal Assent on 16th February 1998.
But only this weekend the authority of the Secretary of State, and thereby the authority of this Parliament, has been called into question by the Foreign Minister of
1028
another member state of the European Union; namely, the Irish Republic. I understand that the said Foreign Minister, Mr. Andrews, put forward a list of nominees to the Secretary of State for membership of the new commission. His complaint is that not all of his favourites were accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
I understand that there is to be a meeting of the Anglo-Irish conference in Dublin later this week. Your Lordships will have to wait until then to discover whether the Irish Government agree with your Lordships' decision tonight or whether the drafts before us really have the approval of yet another new commission more to the liking of the Irish Government. From the way the situation was developing in Northern Ireland before I left today, it seems very doubtful that the new commission, with its present membership, will remain in being in that form.
If anyone should doubt the leverage of Irish governments in the internal affairs of the United Kingdom, they have only to look at the scandal of an earlier Irish Government's blatant action in overturning the report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission on which the general election last year was conducted. The Irish rejection of the Boundary Commission report, forcing Her Majesty's Government to send the commission back to the drawing board, had the effect of depriving Dr. Hendron, formerly the Member of Parliament for West Belfast, of his seat and securing the election of one Mr. Gerry Adams in his place. That was a direct result of the intervention of the Irish Government.
Last year, around 12th July, some of us were credited with taking decisions which averted a planned IRA uprising over that weekend. I shared a hope that a pattern had been established for future years. Such hopes have today been dashed by the irresponsible outburst of the Irish Foreign Minister, who is also his government's spokesman on Northern Ireland and involved in the current talks.
Even if Her Majesty's Government remain firmly in support of the membership of the commission, which they have recently appointed, the perception—and noble Lords will agree that perceptions are everything in Northern Ireland—will be that, in all its determinations, the commission will be doing the will of Dublin, and every decision of the commission, the police and the Government will henceforth be suspect. That is the uncomfortable truth.
The same perception and suspicion will surround the commission's powers to review and revise its own rules and procedures, as authorised in the Act, and also the power to review the working of the Act itself now that the commission has been contaminated by the unwise intervention of Mr. Andrews.
Last Thursday in another place, in the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the Minister for security explained that the new commission was appointed on 19th February, met the following day and endorsed the orders before your Lordships' House this evening. It is not clear to me whether the drafts were produced by the former members of the commission and then rubber stamped by the new commission within

1029
hours. If that is the case, the new commission has to be commended on its speed—or haste, as may turn out to be the case.
In the changed circumstances, I have to ask the Minister whether the chief constable will still be required to supply to the commission and all its members copies of advance notices of processions, giving very sensitive information in regard to the names and addresses of every organiser and details of dates, times, routes and numbers of any procession.
The opening words of Schedule 1 to the Act stipulate
"The Commission shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown".
I gather that that was the express wish of the commission at that time.
Although disclosure of what should be strictly confidential information was not objectionable when the Bill was drafted last year, the position has been transformed, whether we like it or not, by the injection of the Irish Government and its agents and the probable insertion of placemen of the Irish Foreign Minister at this late stage.
In the light of these unforeseen developments, I trust that Her Majesty's Government will think again about disclosure of what amounts to classified information to persons who refuse to be classified as Crown servants. I trust that Her Majesty's Government can be persuaded of the risks involved before it is too late.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to hold this debate today rather than last week. The debate was not signalled on the Order Paper until the day before it was due to take place last week and the documents were not available in the Printed Paper Office until later that day. I do not regard that as an acceptable way to put legislation before this House. It has happened before; it should not happen again, in my view. It means that we are discussing this matter shortly before the code of conduct and the other documents are due to come into force. Were we not to approve these orders—although I do not anticipate that—obviously that timetable would go by the board. That is not something I would recommend to the House, on grounds of timetable or anything else.
The documents have been some time in gestation. We saw earlier drafts of them when we discussed the Bill and previously. The procedural rules document sets out the elaborate system for the commission to gather information, to take evidence and to express, first, a preliminary view and then a determination in the case of contentious parades. It is crucial—indeed the basic point of the commission's existence—that determinations should be as acceptable as possible to all concerned. It therefore seems to me right that an elaborately fair method of decision-making should be put in place, as the procedural rules do. But the rules provide much less information about how the
1030
commission intends to facilitate mediation. That is also right, as that process is obviously a much more flexible one.
I should point out that in the explanatory note to the procedural rules order this part of the commission's power is described as to mediate, not to facilitate mediation. The Minister will know that this point was a matter of some contention in discussions on the Bill, and it is disappointing that those who drafted the explanatory note seem to have missed that. It does not form part of the order, so we do not need to fuss unduly, perhaps. However, it does not inspire confidence. The commission has taken that point fully on hoard, and that is what matters in this case.
The next document, the guidelines, sets out the factors which the commission will have to take into account in making decisions about parades and about protest meetings. They seem to cover the relevant factors, but the skill of the commissioners will lie in how they weigh up the different factors in each case. On that skill hangs their contribution to this aspect of peace in Northern Ireland.
It is the third document, the code of conduct, which is the most important of the three documents before us. It provides a check list of what needs to be considered by the organisers of parades and the organisers of protests. For those of goodwill it will be useful, no doubt, in avoiding the causing of offence and disorder. Of course, we all know that some organisers of parades wish to cause offence and some organisers of protests go to some lengths to be offended or to encourage others to be offended and sometimes to cause disorder, too.
It is, after all, obvious that no legal parade leads to disorder unless there is also a protest. That is why it is right for the code of conduct to cover protests as well, and I am glad that the Government agreed to that in the course of the Bill and that it is included in this code of conduct. But no code of conduct can prevent disorder, particularly when, as in this case, the commission's only sanction if the code is broken is to take that fact into account next time that particular organisation applies to it for a parade or for a protest. What a code of conduct may be able to do on the day is to help make clear who is responsible for causing offence or for causing disorder. As always, the disorder will fall to be dealt with by the police—by the RUC—and it is they who remain responsible for the maintenance of public order. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, that is the heaviest responsibility of all, over and above the responsibility of the commission, important as that is.
There may be some who set out to use the commission as an additional excuse for grievance. For that reason it is vital that the commission, both in its membership, which was the point of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, and in the way it goes about its duties, is seen to be fair to the point of obsession. Fairness in this context does not mean the same as balance. Often in Northern Ireland's history, balance has been used as a substitute for fairness, but fairness is an altogether more complicated concept. Reading the code of conduct, it seems to me that the commission realises that, but the difficulty will come in putting it into practice.

1031
Of course, there are some people, it has already emerged, who are deeply distrustful of this whole process. That was particularly obvious in the debates on these orders in Committee in another place. They want to have as little to do with the commission as possible. I do not believe that is a wise course for them to take. Anyone who is thinking of ignoring the commission or trying to sideline it should think again. It has been given, by statute, a job to do and every citizen should help it to do just that job.
On the general subject of parades in Northern Ireland, the question is sometimes asked over here as to why people in Northern Ireland need to march as they do. What good does it do? Having spent yesterday marching in London in the countryside march, I have had reason to ponder that question in a different context. There is no doubt that marching in public with those who think alike is a natural and satisfactory way of expressing one's point of view. In a democracy there are other ways, too, and there are legislatures whose job it is to make decisions, but marching is a legitimate way of drawing attention to views, and legislatures are wise to take account of those views.
I am glad to say that yesterday's march was very good tempered. Incidentally, that was by no means a foregone conclusion. The origin of the march and the immediate motivation was the proposed abolition of hunting. Small counter-protests were mounted by the "antis" and feelings run high on both sides. There has been a lot of violence at demonstrations of that kind; there has been violence at meets of the hounds. When I was representing a constituency in another place there was an attempt to dig up the grave of His Grace the Duke of Beaufort a few months after he died while his widow was still living nearby. Very strong emotions were afoot yesterday; it was nevertheless a peaceful march. In my view, it was stronger in its message for that reason. The same applies to marches of all kinds in Northern Ireland. The message is stronger when the march is peaceful.
I hope that during the coming marching season in Northern Ireland the activities of the commission will help to allow the expression of strong and enduring emotions without violence. The commission, however carefully and wisely it discharges its responsibilities, cannot achieve the impossible. But its existence can help, even if the police have to carry the ultimate responsibility.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the few noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I will deal with the specific points made. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, thinks that the notice was very short. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, said a few moments ago, it was originally suggested that the House might wish to debate these orders last week. The debates were delayed in order to give noble Lords more time to consider the contents of the three documents. It was done entirely to meet the wishes of certain Members of this House. I hope that that was helpful.
1032
The Government do not regard this House as a rubber stamp. This debate is not a formality. It is a proper debate and, throughout the discussions on this particular Act, we have listened very carefully to this House. The noble Lord will have to agree that the Government took into account many of the points made during the debates in this House. Indeed, the Bill was amended accordingly. One point which was made in this House was subsequently the subject of an amendment in another place. Nobody should accuse us of treating this House as a rubber-stamping body. I am sure that the noble Lord was not suggesting that.
I understand that copies of the draft orders and all the Parades Commission documents were sent to all noble Lords who contributed to the Second Reading debate when the Bill was going through the House. Some effort was made to ensure these were in the possession of all those who might want to contribute.
The documents were written by the Parades Commission, not by the Northern Ireland Office. I shall certainly pass on the comments about the appendices and the text to the Parades Commission, but it is not the responsibility of the NIO. I agree that we should endeavour to produce all government publications in good and clear English so that anyone can understand them. I made similar complaints over the years about the previous government's documents, so I am very sympathetic to the point made. The Government want to improve the standard of English so that what we turn out in any form is comprehensible to all who wish to read it. However, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful and supportive comments in relation to the orders and the Bill as a whole.
My noble friend Lord Fitt put his finger on the point: this is a unique piece of legislation. It is untested and clearly there must be some apprehension as to how it will work in the coming marching season. If there is goodwill, it will work well; if there is not, then we may face some difficulties. However, I hope that it will be seen by all fair-minded people that the three publications are intended in all good faith to make the situation sensible and to show that we are adopting an even-handed approach to these contentious issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to a leaflet going out to 600,000 people. That was not the code, the rules or the guidelines, which have not yet gone out because they have not yet been passed. However, he referred to a leaflet that has gone through many doors in Northern Ireland. It is fairly clear. I do not know to whom he was talking, but that is the history of that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked a number of specific questions. He asked whom the members of the commission had met. I understand that a number of meetings have taken place between the commission and representatives of the Bogside and Ormeau Road residents groups. He also asked whom the commission would meet on its present visit to the United States. I understand that the commission intends to meet a whole range of opinion formers in the United States on the role of the commission and how the legislation will work. I do not have precise details of the commission's itinerary or plans. I repeat that the commission is an

1033
independent body and that it is for its members to decide whom they want to meet and how they want to handle their trip.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, slightly confused me. He said on the one hand that the Republic of Ireland had indicated that it was unhappy about the most recent appointments to the commission. On the other hand, he suggested that the commission would do the bidding of the Republic. I am not sure that both those propositions can stand and I suggest that neither is on the mark.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, perhaps I can assist the noble Lord. I was simply making the point that if Mr. Andrews succeeded in getting some of his placemen, who were not included in the present list, injected into the new list, then they would ensure that the commission did the will of those who nominated them in the Irish Government.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the position is that we receive nominations from the Government of the Republic for a whole range of bodies. But it is up to this Government, or the appropriate Minister, to decide whether any of those nominations are acceptable and whether those persons should be appointed. All we are saying is that we are willing for names to be put before us, but we shall then decide who is to be appointed.
As regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, I am sure that he is not suggesting that two of the recent appointees—Mr. Tommy Cheevers and Mr. Glen Barr—are likely to toe a Dublin line. I should have thought that the criticism of any recent appointment has been that those two individuals would take an altogether different view.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. Am I right in assuming that the composition of the commission is not settled? The Minister said that the Government are open to suggestions. I understood that the commission had produced the codes and therefore that that was the work of the commission at that given point. The point in relation to the Foreign Minister of the Republic is that at this moment the credibility of the commission is vitally important for the parades. If the Foreign Minister can object publicly to its composition, as he appears to have done, and then inject his own members publicly—he obviously feels that by doing it publicly there is a better chance of getting them injected than by doing so privately, otherwise he surely would have done so—then it would appear to all and sundry that the commission is being swayed in favour of the Republic and therefore the nationalists.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, membership of the commission has been announced. There is no intention to change that membership in the foreseeable future. I am not clear what the argument is about pressure coming from outside. The fact is that the commission consists of a number of people with good reputations covering different communities in Northern Ireland;
1034
people who will bring their minds to bear on the difficult problems facing the commission. They will do that independently of outside pressure.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I am reluctant to intervene again, but the misunderstanding may have arisen because the Minister said that the Government would be prepared to consider other nominees. That gave the impression that this was a kind of movable feast and people could be co-opted or added at any time.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, if I gave that impression, it is not the impression that I intended to convey. As a generality, in terms of government appointments, of course we receive names for a whole range of bodies to which we appoint people. But in the case of the commission, the membership is now settled for the foreseeable future. There is no question of any other names coming forward. We have a commission which will do its job with great skill and independence. The formal position is that the Irish Government make their suggestions and the names of any persons nominated by the government are confidential, and we keep it that way. That is the position of this Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, asked also about the role of the chief constable in giving the commission details of proposals for parades. The answer is that he will do so; otherwise the commission could not do its job as required under the Act. However, the commission will treat all such information as confidential. That is an assurance that I am able to give.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, made a number of comments and I thank him for his helpful and supportive approach. Any of the documents can be reviewed in the light of the Parades Commission's experience, and that is why we spent some time discussing the method by which Parliament could endorse new documents. We see the commission as learning from the experience of the present set of documents and it will make changes if that should prove necessary.
I appreciate the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, about the skill of the members of the commission, the importance of the guidelines and the code of conduct and his endorsement of the need for marches to be peaceful. Until he spoke, I did not see the noble Lord, Lord Cope, as a marcher and demonstrator. But he has cast himself in a new light today and no doubt, when he writes his memoirs, I shall read with interest about the various marches and demonstrations in which he has taken part.
I appreciate the helpful comments that have been made. These documents are important. They will make a significant contribution to the way in which the marching season this year is approached in Northern Ireland. Of course, we cannot assume that they will work. We believe that we have given the Parades Commission every possible chance and these documents will make it clear to the people of Northern Ireland that the commission will have an even-handed approach. Those that wish to march and those who wish to protest

1035
against marches will see how they should sensibly behave in order to have a peaceful marching season this year. I commend the orders to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 1998
8.20 p.m.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order before the House tonight is a straightforward provision which is necessary to maintain cross-border harmonisation of valuation practice. A discrepancy exists in respect of seaward jusrisdiction. In England and Wales and in Northern Ireland the extent of local authorities' seaward boundaries for valuation and other purposes is defined in statute. Pipelines extending out to sea there are non-rateable. In Scotland, however, the seaward boundaries of local authorities for valuation and other purposes are substantially undefined except for some subjects such as coal-mines, piers and bridges which have been held by courts to be properly entered in the valuation roll. Legislation exists to exempt certain offshore installations from entry in the valuation roll. However, the assessor for Dumfries and Galloway has concluded, after taking legal opinion, that the Premier Transco and Bord Gais Eireann (the Irish gas board) undersea gas pipelines are not covered by the existing provisions and has entered valuations in the roll for them. We accept that the current regulations are not clear and this draft order, made under provisions of the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes)(Scotland) Act 1976, clarifies the position. It excludes those parts of the pipelines lying seaward of the low water mark of ordinary spring tides from the valuation roll. This order will ensure that cross-border harmonisation of the valuation practice is maintained. I commend the draft order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Sewel.)
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order to me and other noble Lords. We support the order but there are one or two small points which I hope the noble Lord will be able to clarify for me. Can he tell me whether any other pipelines under the sea are rateable? How will new pipelines, when laid, be treated? If the legislation going through another place at the moment concerning devolution becomes law, how will pipelines supplying gas or oil from Scotland to England or Wales be treated; and, if rateable, how will the rateable value be calculated?
The noble Lord said that each new pipeline will be considered on its own merits. What guidance will be given by the Government as to how they are to be rated?
1036
I know that I have asked one or two questions more than perhaps the Minister was expecting. I would be only too happy to have answers by letter.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his helpful observations on this particularly abstruse matter. He asked a number of questions, all of which I had failed to anticipate, so I will rely to a large extent on writing to him. However, I can give him some words of assurance and comfort in that I think that, as a result of the order, we are tidying up one of the last remaining anomalies in terms of achieving cross-border harmonisation. So I doubt whether there are any other examples of pipelines being treated differently north and south of the Border. But if there are, I will ensure that the noble Earl is informed about them.
The noble Earl has obviously been in cahoots with some of his noble colleagues and has raised yet again the prospect of devolution. We look forward to devolution. I have to tell the noble Earl that, following devolution, valuation will be a devolved matter, but we are working to achieve cross-border harmonisation. Work that one out!
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.24 to 8.35 p.m.]

Teaching and Higher Education Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 16.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 51A:
Page 12, line 37, after ("terms,") insert—
("() the Secretary of State has first commissioned an independent view and published the findings,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there is real anxiety that the Government will, despite their present protestations, at some future date use the powers of the Bill to increase the tuition fee, which is compulsorily payable, above the figure of 25 per cent. proposed by Dearing, which is represented in the Government's current figure of £1,000. But, in addition to the need for an affirmative resolution in this matter, the Dearing Report proposed a further safeguard. Its Recommendation 79 proposed,
"that it ensures that the proportion of tuition costs to be met by the contribution cannot be increased without an independent review and an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The contributions made by graduates in work in this way should be reserved for meeting the needs of Higher Education".
However, the Government, while accepting the tuition fee concept from Dearing, and the provision for an

1037
affirmative resolution, says on page 55 of the new glossy document Higher Education for the 21st Century, Response to the Dearing Report,
"the Government does not see the need also for an independent review".
There are anxieties here that a future Administration might well seek to increase the proportion of the total tuition costs which would be charged through a tuition fee. I have in my hands a letter from the Students' Union of the University of Wolverhampton referring to an unpleasant experience in the Antipodes. It says,
"The [present] Bill is skeletal and leaves the powers given to the Secretary of State wide open and without detail. We find this alarming, especially when we see how the percentage of tuition fees charged in places such as Australia has increased dramatically over recent years, from 23 per cent. to an average of 45 per cent".
What Dearing has already proposed is, in many quarters, felt to be bad enough. When the Government set aside the safeguards suggested by Dearing, it is time to smell a rat. I think it is necessary that, in addition to the affirmative resolution procedure, there should be some independent review as proposed by Dearing. So, I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Renfrew. One's suspicions are aroused when, in response to the Select Committee report, the Government appear to see no reason why an independent committee should be established to consider any increase in tuition fee charges. Contrary to what the Government said on that occasion, it would not necessarily mean that any increase in grants or fees paid to students, however minor, would have to go before Parliament. That was the argument used by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, at a previous stage. However, it would mean that an independent review, which is what my noble friend is seeking, would be able to give an independent view of the fairness and appropriateness of the case for any increase. That would make any changes to the level of tuition fees paid by students more transparent. We think that it is the transparency that is important.
It is deeply worrying that the independent review, which was recommended by the Select Committee, has been conveniently dropped by the Government. I know that students are particularly worried about this. It may well be that they are reading more into it than is appropriate, but the Government should not use the argument that Parliament will be bothered by itty-bitty pieces of legislation for very minor changes. That is not the argument that I am advancing in support of my noble friend. I am saying that there should be an independent review body to consider any increases that may be suggested so that we do not end up going down the Australian route. It is true that, since the introduction of those proposals in Australia, fees have risen; the threshold at which post-graduate students are required to start repaying their loans has been lowered, and applications for places have certainly declined, particularly from mature students. That result is mirrored here in the United Kingdom for the coming year. Furthermore, the funding crisis which the
1038
proposals set out to address in the first place has not been resolved and, hey presto, in Australia yet another review is pending.
Great disquiet has been spread among students and they are fearful about what the Government may do in the future. I believe that the Government should either accept my noble friend's amendment or accede to the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an independent review to act in the interests of the students.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, has reflected the anxieties in the student community. Nevertheless, I believe that those anxieties are misplaced in view of what the Government have already said and in view of what we intend to be in the Bill. The Dearing Report recommended that the proportion of costs to be met by student contributions should not be increased without an independent review as well as an affirmative resolution of both Houses. However, that was in the absence of any explicit and clear government commitment reflected on the face of the Bill. We have said that we intend that the maximum annual student contribution should remain broadly at 25 per cent. More importantly, we are seeking an explicit provision in Clause 16(5) that parliamentary approval should be required before we can increase the maximum annual contribution by more than the rate of inflation—in other words, there is a built-in control. We start from a figure of 25 per cent. and we cannot increase it by more than the rate of inflation without parliamentary approval. When Dearing was considering these issues, there was not the commitment—and certainly not the draft clause—which limited us, without parliamentary approval, to the rate of inflation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, can the noble Lord point to where in the Bill there is an absolute guarantee that fees could not rise beyond 25 per cent?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Clause 16(5) provides that we would not increase it. We need a certain flexibility. We can increase it by less than the rate of inflation, but we are limiting any increase to the rate of inflation. That is a changed situation from that which faced the Dearing Committee and the immediate comment after the Dearing Report. We are committed to not raising it significantly differently from the 25 per cent. which Dearing recommended. That guarantee should convince the student community that we are committed to not increasing the proportion in the way that has happened in Australia. I give that commitment again tonight. I hope that in the light of that the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation which gives some encouragement. I am aware also that circumstances have not allowed us this evening to discuss another safeguard which would have been offered under Amendment No. 46, so it may be better

1039
to reserve these matters for further discussion at Third Reading if it then seems appropriate. I thank the noble Lord again, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 12, line 40, after ("subsection") insert ("(3A)(a) or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 12, line 49, at end insert
("(9) A statutory instrument containing the first regulations under any provision of this section shall be laid in draft before, and shall be subject to approval by resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(10) A statutory instrument containing the second or subsequent regulations under any provision of this section which is made without a draft having been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 54, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 and 71. I return to the specific recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. As I said at a previous stage, this Chamber has a 100 per cent. record of always agreeing the recommendations of that Select Committee. I believe that there should be no exception here. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am happy to support this amendment. I have here the recommendation of that Select Committee. It states:
"We invite the House to consider whether the subject matter of the regulations under section 16 is so important that the bill should be amended to require affirmative procedure for the first regulations".
I explained in Committee why that is the strongest wording that the committee puts forward.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that this Chamber has so far accepted all the recommendations of that Select Committee. No rule is true forever, but I have been shown no reason why this should be the first occasion for departing from it.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House will see that I am proposing amendments to Clause 25 which have a very similar effect to that which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is seeking here. Clause 25 provides for the making of regulations and orders under this Bill and is, therefore, the more appropriate place to bring forward amendments of this type. Therefore, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
I also hope that my amendments need not detain us for very long. They are very similar to those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. They require the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for the first set of regulations made under Clause 16. The last of them makes parallel provision for Scotland by amending the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, under which the
1040
equivalent Scottish regulations will be made. They also provide for the possibility of a choice in future years between the affirmative and negative procedures. As the noble Baroness is aware, that is the approach favoured by the delegated powers scrutiny committee.
The student loans regulations for the academic year 1998–99 will be made under Clause 16 and under the equivalent Scottish provision; and they will come to your Lordships' House before the Recess. I remind noble Lords of the undertaking that I have already given that the student support regulations for the academic year 1999–2000 will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. These amendments will enable us to honour that important commitment. Furthermore, they will enable regulations to be considered under the affirmative procedure in subsequent years if those regulations introduce substantial changes. For example, such changes may include the extension of eligibility for support to different groups of students or substantial variations to the way in which the level of repayment is calculated. I stress that currently the Government have no such changes in mind. We undertook to reflect on what was said in Committee about the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. We have done so. I hope that these amendments fully meet the concerns, and I commend them to your Lordships.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her clarification of the amendments that she has tabled. Perhaps it is due to my own inadequacy, but I need to be absolutely certain that they meet in every way both the recommendations of the committee and the concerns that I have expressed. I am relieved by what the noble Baroness has said. However, one of the examples that the noble Baroness gave was the possibility of a change in the level at which students repaid loans. That was precisely what happened in Australia. The level at which students began to repay loans was changed quite dramatically but not in favour of the students.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I should like to reassure the noble Baroness. The Government have absolutely no intention of changing the 25 per cent. level. However, I said that at some future date perhaps there would be another government—maybe a government formed by the party of which the noble Baroness is a member—that wanted to make a change and at that time regulations subject to the affirmative procedure would be in place.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am delighted by the intervention of the noble Baroness. I am reminded that there has been almost a switch in positions. The noble Baroness at one time pressed me and said it was very important that the House should take a view on any changes. I am very happy to be the one who today presses the noble Baroness. But the noble Baroness has made my point. I was delighted that in giving her example she said quite clearly that the Government had no intention and had no plans whatever to make a change. However, for the purposes of Pepper v. Hart

1041
I believe it is very important to have it on the record. Subject to reading carefully what the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Imposition of conditions as to fees at further or higher education institutions]:
Baroness Perry of Southwark Baroness Perry of Southwark moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 13, line 45, after ("secure") insert (", to the extent of its powers,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 55 represents my second attempt to try to persuade the Government that the current wording of Clause 18 gives rise to a problem with specific reference to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Clause 18 gives the Secretary of State power to impose conditions on the grants by a funding council relative to the fees that universities and colleges of further education charge their students. Subsection (3) specifically gives the Secretary of State power to impose conditions relative to higher education. In subsection (4) it is provided that the Secretary of State shall require the governing bodies of such institutions to ensure that neither they nor any institution connected with them charges more than the prescribed amount of fees—a sentiment with which I heartily concur.
There is a real constitutional and legal difficulty for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. In particular, Clause 18 goes on to provide that the funding council is required to impose a sanction on any university if it or any institution connected with it charges more than the prescribed fee. The difficulty is that in both Oxford and Cambridge the colleges are quite clearly connected with the universities in many ways. I am quite sure that on any reasonable definition of "connected with" the funding council will be convinced that the colleges of the universities are connected with the universities.
However, the legal position begins to fall apart when one considers that the governing bodies of neither Oxford nor Cambridge has any power whatsoever over the fees charged by the individual colleges of those universities. We may deplore this; it may be inconvenient, or it may cause all kinds of difficulties because of the wording of the Bill, but it is a fact. The colleges are chartered, independent institutions. Many of them under their statutes have not only a right but a duty to charge fees which cover their own tuition costs. The university cannot tell them not to do it or stop them from doing it if it tries. I have every expectation that the colleges at present have no intention of doing this but, as the Minister has just reminded us, time moves on and the current heads of Oxford and Cambridge colleges and their governing bodies will change.
It may be that if a college found itself in financial difficulties it would have a duty to charge its students additional fees, at which point the mechanism set out in the Bill would be triggered. The funding council would be obliged to sanction the university by taking away some of its grant. The college would not itself be subject to sanction but would have caused this very tough sanction to be imposed on the university; in other words, the university would be punished for something over
1042
which it had no control. That is not natural justice. I am assured by both universities that their advice is that should this happen and the matter came before the courts the Government would not have a leg to stand on in arguing that they had a right to sanction the university itself. I hope that the Minister can be persuaded that the right course is for the Government to encourage civil servants to come up with a different form of words applicable to those two universities. If not, although I have no intention of dividing the House tonight. I shall return with the same amendment on Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lady Perry I should like to remind the Minister that I indicated at Committee stage how with a skeleton Bill of this kind it was sometimes difficult to understand the substance. In the debate a week ago on the Motion that the Report be now received I asked the noble Baroness a question. I declared an interest at that time because of my association with a college at Cambridge. I asked how the Bill bore upon the fees of colleges at Oxford, Cambridge and elsewhere, particularly Durham. The answer of the noble Baroness, which I do not believe to be correct, was:
"The noble Lord. Lord Renfrew, will forgive me if I do not become involved in the issue of college fees at Oxbridge. That is quite a different matter. It is not an issue for this Bill".—[Official Report, 23/2/98; col. 420].
But the question of how the Bill bears upon college fees and to what extent is indeed an issue. My noble friend Lady Perry said at Committee stage:
"we would hope that the Government would address the question of how to penalise the colleges should they charge top-up fees and not try to penalise the university which has no control over what the colleges do [in financial terms]".—[Official Report, 22/1/98; col. 1734]
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, replied:
"we are looking at mechanisms for dealing with the colleges in Oxford and Cambridge. We may well need to look further at the wording".
That was a very wise remark. However, we have absolutely no evidence that the Government have yet looked further at the wording. Certainly, they have tabled no amendments at Report stage. The observation of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, scarcely tallies with the reply subsequently given to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I submit that it illustrates the confusion which surrounds Clause 18. We are receiving different responses from government spokesmen on different days in respect of a matter which is of serious importance to the universities of Oxford and Cambridge. At present, the Bill provides no explicit mechanism for dealing with college fees. I reiterate, as did my noble friend Lady Perry, that top-up fees are not the agenda of the colleges. It is not clear how top-up fees would be dealt with.
As I mentioned during the debate on the Motion that the Report be now received, I have had sight of a draft amendment to Clause 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, making explicit reference to

1043
college fees but not in a way which would recognise their particular features. Fortunately, the amendment, Amendment No. 67, no longer contains that element.
The Bill appears to treat college fees precisely as though they were top-up fees. I say "appears" because I do not understand it too well. We have received no explanation from Ministers other than the general statement that they might look at the wording. If they have done so they have not yet communicated the results of their ratiocination. The Bill makes no explicit distinction between the fees. That is why its structure is so deeply unsatisfactory and difficult to argue with, as some of us said at an earlier stage.
I make it clear that at this stage I am not arguing against the Government's policy on college fees, particularly as I do not have the slightest idea what it is. The noble Baroness says that it is not an issue for this Bill. But what is an issue, or should be, is the mechanism which the Bill affords for dealing with the matter. The Government may or may not have a policy on college fees, they may or may not tell us what the policy is, but we are debating the legal mechanisms. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, conspicuously failed to answer the questions put by my noble friend Lady Parry on the second day in Committee and the Minister brushed the point away last Monday.
That is not good enough. If the Government do not yet have a policy or are making a policy on the wing—as on matters such as the gap year, the four years for Scottish students and the means testing of students from the European Community—that is up to them, but we are debating legislation. The Government must have a mechanism or the Bill is defective. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, says laconically that we need to look at the wording. It is now the Report stage and we are still mired in confusion on this and a number of other issues. I support the amendment.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. The colleges have their own charters and are entitled to do what they wish and act as they believe necessary, in many cases for their survival. It is easy to write off such issues as concerning only Oxford, Cambridge and Durham and as of no central importance to the Bill. But if the Bill is not clear, Oxford, Cambridge and Durham will be in real trouble. I share the college of the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. We would not wish to do that. Therefore, I strongly support clarification of the issue at the present time—and there is not much time left.
The Lord Bishop of Lichfield: My Lords, the universities of Staffordshire and Wolverhampton are well established in my diocese in the West Midlands. I therefore share the concern of other Members of this House and of the Minister that all colleges and universities in the UK should flourish equally and as a whole. However, I am among those who are not yet persuaded that to maintain the particular prerogatives of a college at Oxford or Cambridge is to detract from the distinctive ethos and excellence of other colleges and universities elsewhere. I am among those who fear that
1044
if by any means extra funds which an Oxford or Cambridge college at present receives are removed or drastically reduced, such colleges are in danger of becoming the preserve of the well off.
That point was made in another debate in your Lordships' House by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. Sooner or later, some of the colleges in the ancient universities may be obliged to charge more, thereby becoming a club for the wealthy. That would mean excluding students who are now there on their academic ability simply because their parents would not be able to afford the extra fees. It would sad if colleges in the ancient universities became clubs for the relatively well off, with all that that could imply for future jobs and careers in this country. There would be an accentuation of the worst kind of élitism.
I therefore support the amendment, with the background of being identified with the establishment of new universities in my region, but in the hope that a way can be found of safeguarding the historic diversity and character of our colleges and universities on the basis of academic ability alone.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment and what has been said by my noble friend Lord Renfrew and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield. The right reverend Prelate had a wonderful ability to show support for the amendment while at the same time understanding the relationship between the old institutions and the rest of the university sector.
A pincer movement appears to be making almost impossible the survival of some of the colleges. That is the only point I wish to make in supporting the amendment. It was November when the Department for Education and Employment received advice on the allocation of college fees. It is time—in fact, one is overdue—for a response from the Government. It is highly suspicious that we might not receive that response until the Bill has passed through this House. That would be unfortunate. The amendment is tabled not only in the vacuum of not knowing precisely what the Bill means, but in the vacuum of not knowing what the DfEE plans in terms of allocating funds to college fees.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, one of the great problems about all this is the continuing uncertainty. At present in Oxford it is proving virtually impossible to make long-term appointments. The colleges do not know where they stand. They do not know whether they dare commit themselves to the costs of a long-term, permanent tenure. Therefore, very many short-term appointments are being made.
That will have a serious effect for several reasons. First, graduates will be deterred from the academic life because they see that there is no permanent future in it. Also, because of the uncertainty, the colleges are having to think about whether they can continue to afford to sustain endangered subjects; whether they can afford to have three tutors in chemistry or whether it had better be two. That will be to the disadvantage of students from every financial situation. They will not be able to

1045
be there because there will be no one to teach them. There is a serious problem of long-term uncertainty which needs to be resolved.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I do not believe that the Government have realised quite how modest this amendment is. It requires governing bodies to do things to the extent of their powers. I hope it is not the Government's view that they should do things beyond the extent of their powers. We are all bound to respect the law. I hope the Government realise what are the limits of the relevant powers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, spoke, it became clearer as to what is behind the amendment. I am not entirely sure that subsequent contributions have helped because we have gone into areas concerning the future of Oxbridge colleges and their funding which are not matters for this clause or for us today.
On the face of it, the amendment is unnecessary in that, as the noble Earl has just said, we should not expect a governing body to act beyond its own powers. Indeed, we could hardly legislate to that effect. Therefore, the amendment is otiose, as they say.
However, I now understand more clearly what is in the noble Baroness's mind in relation to the amendment; namely, the concern that Oxford and Cambridge in particular, and possibly other institutions, do not have sufficient power over connected institutions to ensure that they do not charge top-up fees. I understand her view that it is those colleges which should be penalised rather than the university. Of course, having said that, there may some room for debate as regards the interpretation of what is and what is not within the governing body's powers. I still find it difficult to accept that universities should continue to receive grants for students attending connected colleges if they are not prepared to use their powers to the full to ensure that those students are not charged top-up fees.
However, having said that, I recognise the problem. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, we have looked at the wording, but we do not believe that any amendment should be made to this clause. Rather than amend subsection (4), we are prepared to look again at that part of subsection (8) which refers to fees payable to connected institutions with a view to bringing forward in another place an amendment clarifying that reference. That would be an amendment to subsection (8) to clarify the links between funding council grants for certain students and the aggregate fees that may be charged to those students by both parent universities and any institutions connected with them with a view to ensuring that institutions can be penalised for top-up fees charged to students only if they are claiming funding council grants for those students.
Therefore, we intend to come forward in the Commons with amendments to subsection (8). I hope that, at least to some extent, that commitment will
1046
reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, and that, in the meantime, she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, my noble friend asked when the Government are going to give an opinion about Oxford and Cambridge fees. No answer has been given to that question.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have said already that that is not of relevance to the Report stage of the debate. However, the answer is that that will be done shortly.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, as ever.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and his acknowledged understanding of the point I was trying to make. I thank other noble Lords who spoke on related matters.
I am rather disappointed that we are being offered an amendment which will come not to this House but to the other place. Many people in this House understand the issue very well and they would have a particular interest in ensuring that what is provided is something which can be accommodated in terms of the legal structure of Oxford and Cambridge.
Although I know that Third Reading is almost upon us, I hope it may be possible for the Government to bring forward an amendment at that time so that it can be considered here before the Bill leaves this House rather than waiting until it reaches the other place. I shall look forward to seeing an amendment tabled in time for Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 56 to 59 not moved.]
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 14, line 18, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not exercise the power to prescribe descriptions of courses under subsection (4) in such a way as to discriminate

(a) in relation to courses of initial teacher training, between different courses on the basis of the subjects in which such training is given, or

(b) in relation to other courses, between different courses at the same or a comparable level on the basis of the areas of study or research to which they relate.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at every stage of this Bill, we have heard allegations in this Chamber that Clause 18 poses a threat to academic freedom. I do not believe that to be the case. But, nevertheless, I share and understand the value which many in your Lordships' House and outside attach to the principle of academic freedom.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, along with his noble friends, has tabled the same amendment—Amendment No. 61—as he put down in Committee, with the aim of restating the principle of academic freedom that is enshrined in the Further and Higher Education Act

1047
1992. In responding to that amendment in Committee, I said that I fully understood the motives behind it and sympathised with its aims, even though most of it was unnecessary. More than that, I promised that we would look with the CVCP at Clause 18 to see whether an appropriate amendment could be drafted to ensure that, as far as possible, conditions on grant to control top-up fees could not be framed by reference to courses in particular subjects.
Amendment No. 60 fulfils that commitment. Subsection (4) of Clause 18 makes provision for courses of prescribed description provided by higher education institutions to be covered by conditions on grant controlling top-up fees. It is for the Secretary of State to prescribe the courses in regulations. But subsection (8) already makes clear that such courses may not include part-time or postgraduate courses, other than those of initial teacher training. The amendment adds to that safeguard by preventing the Secretary of State, when he draws up the regulations, from singling out courses at any particular level by area of study or research.
That makes it absolutely plain that the Secretary of State cannot, through conditions controlling top-up fees, affect the freedom of universities to decide which courses to offer, which subjects to teach or which areas of research to pursue. He can, thus, prescribe first-degree courses or courses leading to a diploma as those that can be covered by conditions on grant controlling top-up fees. But he cannot name in those conditions particular areas of study or research—whether any branch of medicine, science, technology, social science, arts or humanities.
The only exception is initial teacher training; and it has been necessary to deal with courses in initial teacher training separately for technical reasons. That is because not all courses of initial teacher training lead to a first degree. Some courses lead to a postgraduate certificate. Other courses—for, say, intending craft instructors who are seeking a qualification to teach in FE colleges—lead to an undergraduate certificate below first-degree level. We want to ensure that, whatever the level of the course, students on courses of initial teacher training should still receive financial support for fees from public funds. We have made clear all along that we need to be able, if necessary, to control any top-up fees that may be charged to students on those courses. That is why, paradoxical though it may seem, we have made special provision in this amendment for courses of initial teacher training to ensure that they are treated like first degree courses and not differently.
However, so as to ensure, again, that the Secretary of State cannot, through conditions controlling top-up fees, interfere in universities' freedom to decide which courses of initial teacher training to offer, this amendment prevents him from singling out such courses by subject. Thus the relevant regulations could prescribe that conditions might apply to all courses of initial teacher training. But they could not prescribe that conditions might apply to courses of initial teacher
1048
training specialising in any particular subject—such as social science—but not in another, such as the physical sciences.
I made plain in Committee the Government's commitment—and it is a total commitment—to upholding the principle of academic freedom. I hope that the amendment before the House speaks louder than any words that I could utter and enshrines that commitment in the Bill. For its part, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals has made clear in its briefing that,
"government amendment (No. 60 on the Marshalled List) meets universities' concerns about the protection of academic freedom".
I very much hope that it will also meet the concerns of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. Indeed, one must always thank Ministers for small mercies. But I think that this is a very small mercy. If the Minister compares the words of Amendment No. 60 with those of Amendment No. 61, which I do not intend to move at this time of night, she will observe a very considerable discrepancy. I grant that Amendment No. 60 prevents the Government from distinguishing between different academic subjects. As far as I can understand it, it does not prevent the Government from imposing a term or condition such as, for example, the abandonment of the tutorial system on all academic subjects. I do not know why not. I can find nothing in Amendment No. 60 or any of the material in Amendment No. 61 relating to the academic conditions for the selection of staff or the admission of students. Can the Minister tell the House why not?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I have made clear in Committee and in speaking earlier this evening that I fully understand the motives behind the noble Earl's amendment and I sympathise with its aims. I know that university autonomy is a sensitive issue for vice-chancellors; after all, I have been one. I quite understand concerns about academic freedom. I can only assure the noble Earl once again that this Government are committed to upholding the principle of academic freedom. We have no intention of prescribing how universities should carry out their teaching, to refer to one example that the noble Earl has just mentioned. We have no intention—under the 1992 Act I do not think the Government would be able to do so of prescribing how any university should select its students. I do not think that I can say any more than that. I have tabled what I believe to be a helpful amendment to meet the concerns of your Lordships' House on the issue of academic freedom in relation to the kind of subjects that are taught. Of course that is a matter for the universities, as is the question of how they carry out their teaching. It is quite unnecessary for us to bring forward an amendment that prescribes the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to teaching methodology or indeed the selection of students.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I have a worry which the Minister will most probably be able to dismiss. It seems to me

1049
that the Government have taken control of university tuition fees. The financing of universities will now be a matter for the Treasury and the university concerned. Let us suppose the universities want to raise tuition fees. In the old days they negotiated with the HEFC. Now they have to negotiate with the Treasury. The Minister shakes her head, but where will the money come from? The Minister's colleagues look worried. If universities want to raise tuition fees two years from now, how would they do that?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, before the Minister replies I wish to ask her a question. As I understand it, there is no difference between the funding of universities and the role of the Higher Education Funding Council as proposed under the Bill, and the position which exists at the present time. Would it be appropriate to prescribe in a Bill what the academic responsibilities should be of either the governing body or a vice-chancellor of a university? Would that not in itself be breaching the principle of academic freedom?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I say to my noble friend Lady Lockwood that I think I have already answered that question. The Government have no intention of interfering in the academic decisions that are made by our universities. I am puzzled by the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, as it does not appear to have anything to do with this amendment. It is perhaps relevant to the subject of later amendments when we shall discuss whether top-up fees should be included on the face of the Bill. All I can say to the noble Lord is that the Government have not taken control of university tuition fees. In this clause they are taking a reserve power to prevent universities charging top-up fees. It is a power that we hope we shall never have to use.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 61 and 62 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 63:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that Clause 18 do not stand part of the Bill. I must declare one more interest. I am advised on this by the principal of my own college who says among other things, "In my dealings with foreign delegations considering to what country their students should be sent, reassurance is often sought that the government of the day do not have control of the university. It would be difficult to have to say that the law provides power for a Secretary of State to impose conditions on the amount and nature of fees to be charged to students—conditions which may impact on the general quality of education we can provide".
I am in agreement with that view. Clause 18 is not fit for a curate's breakfast. No parts of it are excellent. It is objectionable both in whole and in part. Clause 18(2) is a Henry VIII clause. It was not identified as such by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Clause 18(3) deals with the matter we have just discussed. I am not in the least satisfied by the Minister's answers. Ministers always say that they do
1050
not intend to interfere with academic freedom. What Ministers intend to do is to save money; and they do that absolutely regardless of the effect on academic freedom. That is an old story and it is independent of party.
Clause 18(4) is a power to impose a cap—the reserve power to which we referred just now. It gives the Government in the end ultimate power to determine costs. Clause 18(6) is in effect a power to exclude from the state system those who do not co-operate with that cap. That is intended, I think, to be a bluff. One day that bluff may be called. The end of a state-funded system of higher education would indeed be a disaster. If the clause reaches the statute book I, for one, cannot be certain that that will not happen.
The clause strikes me as being somewhat like sending someone to sea in a rather rickety submarine which has suffered a certain amount of war damage, and then barring the escape hatch. The power to charge a top-up fee is precisely that; it is an escape hatch. No one wishes to exercise the power any more than he wishes to escape from inside a submarine in deep water. But there may be circumstances when it is not possible to provide a competent academic education for the amount the Government provide. The options may be only to do that or close down. It is in that spirit that I describe the provision as like closing the escape hatch of a submarine.
Perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the air force in World War I. It appeared to those in command that it would diminish the courage of those who were flying if they were allowed parachutes. So it was decided that they should not be allowed parachutes for fear they might desert their planes and avoid battle. It is not my intention, nor I believe the intention of anyone else, that any university should charge top-up fees. But it appears to me to be necessary that in the process of adjusting what shall be paid for the support of universities there should be a process of negotiation.
It is entirely proper that the Government have the final say in how much public money should be spent. Where the Government cannot have the final say is in deciding how much that money will buy. For that is to enter an area where government's competence is limited. It also breaks the basic principle of the market: the Adam Smith principle that a deal must be in the interests of both sides. For if the Government have the power to determine both how much they will spend and what that money will buy, we then get into what is best described as the Aeroflot system of funding. I have not forgotten the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asking in this House that the Government should deny landing rights at Heathrow to Aeroflot for reasons for air safety.
There is here an issue of academic freedom. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that if that was so, he did not understand what the words "academic freedom" meant. The content of courses inevitably has implications as to costs. If the cost of a course cannot be decided, its content cannot be decided; library or laboratory provision cannot be decided upon. So in the end you are told, as the Treasury always does, that you have to cut your coat according to your cloth.

1051
If that principle gains control, there will be no way in which we can decide upon the content of courses according to their academic merit. When that happens, I do not know whether it will be worth preserving a state-funded system of higher education any longer. I should regret its disappearance desperately.
The one serious argument from the other side during our discussions was put at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I gave her notice that I intended to refer to it. She raised the point of access. I care about that as deeply, I believe, as she does. I have not forgotten one of my school contemporaries who was in the first year with me at Oxford referring to somebody who was 10 times the scholar he would ever be as, "You know, the sort of person who ought not to be here", simply because he had a Lancashire accent. I have no truck with that sort of attitude.
But I also remember the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, a few weeks ago answering a Question from my noble friend Lord Carlisle about why there were not more ethnic minority ambassadors. She had some suggestions as to things that might be done, as indeed do I. But in the end her answer was that the problem was lower down. It was perfectly obvious both that that answer was true and that she was having great difficulty putting it over to the House. If people ask about the proportion of people from state schools in universities, that is very often the answer. The place where we need to look is not university admission procedures, but school libraries.
The other response is: what is the point of providing more access if that to which we are providing access no longer deserves the name of higher education? To say that more and more people should receive higher education—which is a good proposition—is no excuse for ensuring that what they receive does not deserve the name of higher education at all. If this clause remains in the Bill, that is what will happen. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, although from a rather different perspective. Unlike the noble Earl, I hope that there will be top-up fees in many universities. I believe it is the only way in which we can meet the type of model which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, outlined for us in a debate on the Bill earlier today; that is to say, to depart from the obviously catastrophic attempt to finance on equal terms out of the public purse 150 institutions of higher education in order to proceed to something closer to the American model where a range of different institutions are funded in different ways, partly from the public purse, partly from private purses and partly from students, making it possible, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, for entry not to be governed by the ability to pay. That is the key to a proper system of higher education.
The cause of our present problems is a notorious failure on the part of the Department for Education over a period of years to foresee that it was creating an
1052
insoluble problem. It postulated a growth in the number of institutions and students without reference to whether it would be able to pay for those students to receive the kind of instruction to which they felt they were entitled. In addition, to take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, the assumption was that there would be places for everyone with suitable ability; but, in order to maintain the pace of expansion, the ability threshold—perhaps not in terms of individual talent, but in terms of preparation for university work—was allowed to fall.
I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. If this provision remains in the Bill, we shall eventually see a collapse of the higher education system funded primarily by the state without making it possible for the lacunae in that system to be filled by enterprise, different forms of financing and endowment and different levels of fees.
I know that this is wholly different from the view of the Government as it was expounded. They have not been able to convince people with direct experience of universities today that what they propose is workable and that they can somehow produce a system which will be generally acceptable and admired internationally, as the British system has been in the past, without some departure from their rigidity on the matter of fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned that the Bill would be further amended in another place. I hope that the Bill will never reach another place. After all, the Government have been defeated twice today on amendments of importance, although not as important as the one we are discussing now. They know perfectly well that they are riding for a fall, even if the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is not accepted. The general university world will not accept their outlook. It would be far better for them to let things ride for a year or two, to look at what should be done about the financing of higher education and to come back with a Bill which is not only better prepared but also better drafted so that much time will not have to be spent in your Lordships' House in trying to penetrate the intention of the Government on this or that issue.
This is a very sad matter. It is sad to have to speak in these terms in your Lordships' House, but I find it impossible to do otherwise.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Russell on this amendment. This clause is not a necessary part of the Bill and it seems to me extremely important to remove it. It has an authoritarian style. Indeed, to use a word I know the Government do not like, one might almost say that it is a socialist measure which seeks to impose uniformity on 120 or 130 higher education institutions which revel in their diversity. It is an accumulation of executive power. The Minister herself has talked about reserve powers. Generally stated, it is a minefield of complexities of interpretation and it takes us down a road which we should not at this stage be following.
What we are doing in this Bill, reluctantly and with the opposition of many of us on these Benches, is moving away from a state-funded system towards a

1053
system in which universities are going to have to find more resources from non-state sources. The Government wish at this stage, as they start out, to insist that their hands are tied behind their backs and that, as we start out—not knowing how far we will go, not knowing where the £1,000 for the first year—will move in the second or third year—all higher education institutions, perhaps with the exception of Oxford and Cambridge, will have to charge the same amount.
I speak as an academic at the London School of Economics, and one has to think about the other quality universities in this country. We have heard a great deal about Oxford and Cambridge. There are other world-class universities in Britain. We have managed to survive so far by expanding the number of students from outside the European Union. The last government used to reply, every time we protested about the squeeze on our funding, that we should merely attract more students from outside the European Union. We have reached the stage where one of the priorities many of us in my institution now have is to increase the number of British students in our institution, because that seems to us to be one of our fundamental functions.
None of us wish to move down the road towards top-up fees, but if it is a choice between maintaining the quality of British higher education institutions in years to come and accepting that, like universities on the continent, we will allow our quality to fall as numbers expand, then we have to have that option in front of us. I regret that, but that may be, as my noble friend Earl Russell has said, one of the reserve powers we need in negotiating with the Government—the future government—over future funding.
Ministers currently say that they are not intending to use these powers. This House should make it very clear that it does not therefore wish to give Ministers these powers. The British constitution operates far too much already on the basis of executive power and parliamentary acquiescence. To remove this clause from the Bill would be to mark that Parliament wishes to insist that it does not go too far in giving government the benefit of the doubt.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is a very unhappy clause, and I suspect that several members of the Government are rather unhappy about it. Clearly, it has a confusing implication and consequences which they are now slowly beginning to recognise.
We saw one aspect of that tonight in the earlier debate on Oxford and Cambridge fees, when the Ministers recognised that there is a real issue here: namely, if one penalises a university like Oxford, can that penalty be passed on to the individual colleges? The Minister has indicated that there will be some amendment to subsection (8) of this clause. I would not welcome that kind of amendment, because then one has an immediate problem, which I indicated at Second Reading.
In a debate on a procedural matter I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, saying that it was not flagged up, but, earlier in the debate on this whole
1054
question of the powers of old chartered bodies, I did in fact rather immodestly mention this at Second Reading, as when I was the Secretary of State I had my own fingers burnt on exactly the same issue dealing with academic tenure. I found that in order to introduce a reform—not impose a will—I had to establish a great institution, and the commission took five or six years. The Ministers, when they come to deal with that little aspect of this clause, will find that they have the same sort of problem.
The problem with the clause—I share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—is that it will impose a straitjacket upon the future development of universities. No one can foresee how universities will develop; no one could have foreseen 10, 15 or 20 years ago the nature of higher education in our country today, the variety and depth of courses.
The concern of the Government is that by introducing tuition fees some universities and colleges may charge top-up fees and become, as the right reverend Prelate said, clubs of the rich—rich, dull students attending only because they are rich. I must say to the right reverend Prelate and to the Government's worries about this that the country that charges the highest top-up fees has the highest quality universities. That is not the pattern that developed in Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley and the other great American universities where the fees are infinitely higher than the levels about which we are talking now. They have not become playgrounds for the rich playboys and playgirls of America. If they did, their reputations would fall and students would not want to go there. That is a self-correcting mechanism for which we should allow flexibility in the future.
When we introduced per capita funding for universities and student loans I hoped that one day we would set out on a path which would make our universities truly independent, and those would be, together with endowments, the main sources of income. In that case the Government's interference and the duties and the need for a funding council would disappear. I hope that funding councils will eventually disappear. I am sorry to say that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has just become the chairman of one of them. I do not wish him personal redundancy, but the sooner he disappears from the scene in his official capacity, the greater will be the independence of higher education in our country. I believe we want a more self-correcting mechanism in the funding of higher education.
I am disappointed that the clause appears to be going backwards. It is taking greater powers of direction and that will create a tension and restriction which higher education does not want. It is not in the best interests of higher education. I do not argue for the rich to go to high colleges, and so forth; I share the same anxieties in that regard. I am concerned with the quality of higher education.
Let us suppose that a new course is established in some area of academic study about which we have not yet thought and suppose the university says that the cost of the course is £8,000 a year. Overseas students will pay that. In many cases they come from countries with

1055
a much lower per capita income than this country, but they are prepared to pay it. However, we will only charge English students £1,000. Suppose, as a result of that, that the sums cannot be made to add up and the best teachers cannot be attracted to take the course—it is not an existing course, but a new course. It would be an infringement upon the academic freedom of that institution to offer that course and we cannot get away from that.
For all those reasons, I would not like to see this clause stand part of the Bill. The anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lord Beloff, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, are real ones and I hope that the Government will think again about this. The interests of higher education in our country are extremely important. It is one of the real jewels in the Crown. We have in this country a number of universities which are the envy of the world. They will become even more the envy of the world with greater freedom and flexibility; not with greater control.
Lord Desai: My Lords, when I was young I was a revolutionary Socialist. I thought that the revolution should happen instantaneously and immediately and I went from A to Z in one fell swoop. Perhaps age, not wisdom, mellowed me.
I know where I want to go, but I do not want to go there through this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, correctly described how I would eventually want to see the British university system operating. It will have differentiated fees. There will be no funding councils, better capital markets and lots of freedom for students to work while they learn. However, I would not charge £1,000. As I said at Second Reading, I would charge 1 0,000. The average cost of teaching is £8,000. To that we add £2,000 so that we can give fellowships—merit scholarships—and that is how we will arrive at the American system.
This Bill will not take us there immediately. This is a first small Bill in a system which has been used to a good deal of government control—I shall come to that point with the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and in which we have been used to thinking, as many noble Lords have said, that higher education is free in this country and that we have equal fees and so on. We are breaking away from that system in a very small way. The reason why I am in a dilemma is that I want to go from here further but not through this Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that in a sense only the supplier of education knows the cost of providing good courses and that if you tell that person what to charge then you have violated academic freedom. I have been in the higher education system for 33 years—perhaps not as long as the noble Earl has been—and I have never had the freedom to decide the price I charge for a course. Academic freedom has thrived—this is the system we are trying to defend. In this system we have always had uniform pricing and by and large in this system we have not had freedom to charge any price we like. We are about to enter a stage in which we are breaking the system of free tuition for 18 to 21 year-olds and we are saying they must pay. At this stage there will
1056
be a great temptation for the top 10 to 15 universities including the LSE—we have had a good deal of discussion at the LSE about top-up fees—to break out of this system and go immediately to charge £1,000, £2,000 or £3,000 more.
I am rather puzzled by the Liberal Democrats on this subject. Either they want no fees whatever and complete equality or, as soon as you break out, they want lots and lots of inequality. They have to make up their minds about this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, with respect, diversity is part of what we wish to maintain, a good Liberal value; and uniformity and lower quality are what we fear.
Lord Desai: My Lords, the noble Lord has been as long in higher education as I have been. We have maintained diversity and quality of educational courses with great difficulty and the moral is uniform pricing. I know it does not happen in theory—it cannot happen in theory—but that is the system we have built up. We want to go away from that system. We want to keep as much as possible the diversity of the system and not so greatly increase inequality of the system that it breaks down.
What I see the clause as saying is that there will be no immediate and undisciplined breakaway by the Russell group, or other such group, which will make the universities which are going to toe the line feel very badly done by because they will have to have uniform pricing, they will not be able to charge top-up fees and they will therefore suffer both from a loss of students and from a loss of quality. I see the clause as saying that we will go from here to there, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said. He wanted reform. He started in 1990; this is a next step; and perhaps within the next five or six years we will take another step. However, I do not see that this is the Bill in which we want to give that freedom.
I really think that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is exaggerating the consequences of this clause. Until now we have had no freedom to decide what prices to charge and we have managed to preserve academic freedom. Suddenly, as soon as the Bill is passed, his world will come to an end because he is not allowed to charge a little extra. I do not understand that world. I live in the world of higher education where we try to manage our difficulties.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but this is the third time that the noble Lord has said that he does not understand. Does he not know enough about the public spending round to appreciate that what comes out of it is the result of a negotiation?
Lord Desai: My Lords, I do. Does not the noble Earl know that the overall culture of higher education funding in this country has been largely of not much choice for the universities as regards what they buy and charge? The same system is going to continue. Academic freedom is not going to die because of the fact that we shall charge tuition fees but not be allowed

1057
to charge top-up fees. The system of fees will break up in about five to 10 years. I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to start the process.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at this stage of the evening I would not wish to introduce what may be a discordant note. I begin by congratulating Her Majesty's Government and the noble Baroness on the Front Bench on certain features of the Bill. For many years some of us in your Lordships' House attempted to persuade the previous administration of the crucial importance of having a general teaching council, but invariably that proposal was blocked for a variety of reasons.
However, as regards this particular amendment, one of the things that concerns me most is the present state of the universities. They have suffered a 40 per cent. reduction in unit costs over the past 20 years. I wholly accept the concerns that have been expressed by the Government Benches as regards future funding and aspects of student support. I found it extraordinary that earlier tonight Amendment No. 50 was passed by your Lordships' House. That is an amendment which, put on the face of the Bill, will establish the principle of 50 per cent. contribution to student support in tablets of stone and in perpetuity, taking no account of the crucial importance of accepting that loans should also take account of the contribution that students will make in future to their fees.
Having said all that, however, I am deeply concerned about the university sector, which in many respects is in serious difficulty. I believe that the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others is crucial to the future of the sector. How can one tell what the future holds as regards government funding for universities and higher education in the next few years? How can one be sure what future governments will decide in relation to funding higher education? For that reason alone, and as responsible institutions, universities must be allowed some flexibility in being able to raise funds from sources other than government funding in order to support the initiatives in higher education that they wish to pursue. How can one possibly accept this clause, which would act as a kind of straitjacket in restraining them from raising funds from other sources in order to maintain the quality of education which they wish to provide? Therefore, I support the amendment with the greatest of enthusiasm.
10 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this House has a reputation for defending the universities, particularly their academic freedom. However, I feel that too much is being read into this clause. When the Bill was first published there was, rightly, some concern about the breadth of the clause and the possible interpretations. However, since then my noble friend the Minister has been able to introduce amendments which have more clearly defined what is meant by the "funding" of courses. Apparently, those amendments have now satisfied the CVCP to the extent that it is prepared to support them, as well as the clause.
1058
There seems to be some misunderstanding also about what the different fees mean. We are talking about the £1,000 which students will be expected to contribute to their university fees, but that is only a contribution. Fees for different university courses differ according to the nature of the course. The student is not being expected to pay a 25 per cent. contribution towards any particular course because the costs of courses have been amalgamated and, on average, students are now being asked to pay 25 per cent. However, that does not mean that the costs of the courses (as they are now) will remain static. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, said that there is the possibility of future developments which will demand much higher funding of some courses. I am sure that if there are scientific developments in the university world, the universities, the funding council and the department will together be able to accommodate such charges. However, that matter is entirely different from individual universities being able to charge their own top-up fees.
In earlier debates we heard a lot about what the National Union of Students was saying about the Bill. So far, no mention has been made of what the NUS is saying about Clause 18, which is that it should be preserved. Although the NUS might oppose the introduction of the £1,000 contribution to fees, it is certainly opposed to the ability of universities to introduce top-up fees. I should like to quote from a letter from the University of London, written on behalf of the Aldwych Group, which represents the student unions of the universities in the so-called "Russell Group". It stated that,
"the issue of 'top up' fees is particularly pertinent to our institutions. This would lead to a two tiered higher education system based on wealth rather than academic ability".
I feel that we must take note of what the student unions are saying in this respect.
If the House does not accept Clause 18, it will lead to different charges at different universities. I do not disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, said earlier. He is concerned about the funding of universities per se. I, too, am concerned about that, but I do feel that a better system of funding needs to be introduced. However, that is quite different from this clause which prevents individual universities introducing differential fees—not for differential subjects because there is a differential in the fees for social sciences as opposed to the sciences—which would have to be borne by individual students. That would be a divisive force in our university system and I would oppose it on those grounds.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that we have a two-tier university system and do not have total uniformity? We have Oxbridge versus the rest. Oxbridge receives funding additional to that received by the rest. Is the noble Baroness in favour of maintaining that two-tier system, or does she wish to impose total uniformity on the higher education sector?
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, there was a substantial debate on this subject some months ago. Had

1059
the noble Lord taken part in it he would have been aware that at that time I was very conscious of the history of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and the need to protect that system to some extent. But I do not believe that because we have that situation in relation to those two universities all universities should be treated differently.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to deal briefly with the point just made that students are not concerned about the effect of this clause. On the contrary, for example, University of Edinburgh students have been very concerned about the effect on teaching and the academic programme in relation to the fourth year. Equally, they were concerned when Mr. Brian Wilson suggested to one of his colleagues one very simple solution to the problem: the universities should be asked to re-jig their four-year courses to make them suitable for those with A-Levels from England to enter the second year. The students believed that that was exactly the kind of interference in the academic syllabus for purely management and financial reasons that should be feared because of the present wording of Clause 18. Therefore, I believe that students are more concerned than might be supposed.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that this debate illustrates extremely well the value of your Lordships' House. We have heard a sequence of contributions from noble Lords beginning with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Baker and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who have had extensive experience of the university world. They know how things work. I speak here as a university person one removed, although I know a little about the universities. My anxiety is threefold. This is such a serious worry that I very much hope that the noble Baroness will consider the matter further. First, Clause 18 puts universities in a straitjacket. If there is one thing that universities do not want if they are to flourish it is uniformity. If one is to achieve excellence one must have diversity, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said. That gives one the best of everything. Universities can specialise in what they believe they do best. To prevent the universities from getting extra money will hinder academic freedom.
The second point about which I am concerned is that which has already been very well made by my noble friend Lord Baker. We are legislating for the future. One does not know what the future may bring. Who would have thought 10 years ago when I was an education Minister that one-third of young people would be in higher education at all, let alone an even greater proportion? I have been married for a very long time to a scientist. Scientists will always say that one never quite knows where the frontier will be or from where the next development will come. Therefore one requires flexibility for these courses.
I do not know what the noble Earl will decide to do with this amendment, but I believe it raises such a very serious matter for the whole future of the education system that the matter must be looked at again.
1060
Although I welcome the amendment in relation to the courses, it is a small part of a much bigger problem and needs careful thought.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as spokesman on the other side of the Chamber, I believe that I am entitled to respond to an amendment.
The noble Baroness referred to and prayed in aid the CVCP. I do not know what her words were, but I know that words were carefully brokered between the CVCP and the Government. The committee admits to "being reasonably" satisfied rather than very happy. I am sure that the Minister will also pray in aid the CVCP. However, having met its representatives and had discussions with them throughout the progress of the Bill, I know that there is deep puzzlement throughout the higher education sector about the stand which the CVCP is taking on behalf of higher education. Given that what we agree in this Chamber will stay on the statute book for a long time, I say only that 10 years down the line it may regret not having made a better and more effective stand for the right of academic freedom in higher education.
Although I greatly respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, perhaps I may say a few words in order to justify an amendment won earlier tonight in respect of maintenance. There is nothing strange about the amendment. When individual students leave university having undertaken the same course, students from lower income families should not be disproportionately disadvantaged compared with their fellow students who may well come from a more affluent family. It would be deeply unfair if a student from a poor family, irrespective of tuition fees, had to borrow all his maintenance money whereas a student from an affluent family had to borrow only half. That would be unfair and the amendment corrected the situation.
Earlier the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, promised to bring forward an amendment. There is a read-across from that amendment to the debate we are now having on Clause 18. That amendment must be seen and considered by this House before the Bill moves to another place. My noble friend has made known her concerns about the issue not only tonight but on Second Reading and in Committee. It is not beyond the wit, certainly of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to spell out the Government's intentions and what they hope to achieve. I hope that between now and 10th March it will be possible for us to see an amendment, even if it is not perfect. It is important that we do so before the Bill leaves here for another place. If the Government do not come forward with an amendment, this House will have lost its only opportunity to discuss its merits and to give voice to the concerns of my noble friend Lady Perry.
Whatever the Government say, their proposals in the Bill and their intention to use its powers will in practice, although I accept not technically, be setting fees at

1061
universities. I accept the criticisms made about previous governments and it will be interesting to see how much more generous the present Government are. However, one cannot rule out tight settlements in future by a Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fact, I could almost write part of the Chancellor's Budget speech next year. At the back of my mind, I can almost hear him saying that in 1998–99 higher education received an extra £165 million and it cannot expect such generosity every year. That £165 million is a one-off payment and there has been no promise that it will be built into the base revenues of higher education. I do not believe that that promise can be given, but if it is not, not only must one make up the £165 million into the future, but there must be additional moneys.
If there is a tax settlement in future, the straitjacket referred to by my noble friends Lady Young, Lord Baker and others will be real. Where are the universities to go? The fact that there are to be no top-up fees is to be written on the face of the Bill if it is passed in its present form. There has been a promise that the proportion of tuition fees paid for by students is not expected to rise in real terms beyond 25 per cent.; but that is not to be on the face of the Bill. Therefore, I advise those students who are anxious to see Clause 18 remain part of the Bill to be careful because they will be extremely vulnerable in the future. If there is to be more finance to fund higher education, if it does not come from the Treasury and cannot come from top-up fees, it will have to come from the students. That 25 per cent., willy-nilly, will be raised beyond the limit intended by the Government.
If that does not happen, something must give. My noble friend Lady Park referred to the academic programme. First, it will affect staffing and then the course programmes. All the other points about quality then come into play. It is a straitjacket. So far, the Minister has been unable to explain the scope of Clause 18. That was a question put directly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and my noble friend Lord Limerick, who is not present this evening. I ask the noble Baroness whether she is able to enlighten us further this evening on the absolute extent of the scope of this clause.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I find it very strange that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and his noble friends should seek to leave out Clause 18. I found his metaphors somewhat perplexing too. They were all transport metaphors. We moved from parachutes to submarines and Aeroflot all within the space of two or three minutes.
I have tried also, without success, to find some consistency in the noble Earl's approach to future funding arrangements for higher education. On the one hand, he and his noble friends are opposed to students' contributions to fees. On the other, they are seeking to leave out Clause 18. In doing that, they are opposing the safeguard which is designed to protect students from being asked to pay additional top-up fees. Where is the logic in that? It is quite extraordinary.
1062
I remind the House of the purpose of Clause 18. Contrary to some of the claims made both in your Lordships' House and outside, Clause 18 is not about altering the relationships between government and the universities. Rather, it is just one component, albeit—and I am perfectly happy to admit this—an important component of new arrangements to secure adequate and appropriate funding for higher education in the 21st century.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, quite rightly raised issues about the quality of higher education and underlined its importance. I agree with him 100 per cent. about that. However, the Government recognise also that the funding of universities over the past few years has been totally inadequate. The government of which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, were members did not recognise the inadequacy of the funding that was provided for universities. If they had, we should not be in the position in which we are today. We might not even be charging tuition fees because the universities would be properly funded.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes that point but it was precisely because there needed to be some very serious, fundamental thinking about the funding of higher education that Dearing was commissioned with all-party support. There was absolute agreement across all parties that more money had to be found for education. Later, we shall be discussing how we can secure additional money to remain in higher education. But it is not true to say that we did not recognise the problem. We certainly did, which is why we commissioned the report, the recommendations of which gave rise to this Bill.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I was going to deal with that later, and indeed I will. Eventually, when the then government were absolutely up against it because there was a revolt of the vice-chancellors, they set up the Dearing Committee. Unfortunately, they were in office for 18 years and failed to provide adequate funding for the universities. There was a per capita cut of 40 per cent. over that period. I really do not think that the noble Baroness has a leg to stand on.
The Government recognise that, as the Dearing Committee found, the further improvement and expansion of higher education cannot be afforded on the basis of current funding arrangements. Other sources of funding for higher education have to be found. But the question is: who should fund universities? In the Dearing Committee's view, which the Government have endorsed, the costs should be shared between those who benefit from higher education.
Of course, the country as a whole benefits from higher education, socially, culturally and economically; and so the taxpayer bears the major burden of funding higher education. The taxpayer will continue to bear the major financial burden, even after the introduction of the new funding arrangements.
But it is not just society as a whole that benefits from higher education. Students themselves stand to benefit, not only from the personal enrichment that higher

1063
education brings but also the financial advantages of higher salaries that graduates on average earn, as I said earlier today. But we also recognise that there need to be safeguards for students, in return for the financial contributions that they will make. We have made clear that the Government will ensure that the savings are used to improve quality, standards and opportunities for all in further and higher education. As universities stand to benefit from the new funding arrangements that we are proposing, so they too must be prepared to accept a little restraint in the fees that they charge students.
Too few Members of your Lordships' House speaking in today's debate seem to recognise that basic fact. However, most universities do. But that is all that Clause 18 requires from universities—a little restraint in the fees that they charge home and EU full-time undergraduates and students on courses which lead to a qualification for teacher training.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Blatch, said that we were legislating for the future here. I must remind the House again that we are only talking about a reserve power. The Government hope never to have to use that power. It is true that there are other countries in the world where the Government do not become involved in controlling higher education fees for students. Some of our universities may look with envy particularly at American universities with their larger resources and long to be able to charge fees in the same way as they do.
I must say that I often looked with envy at them. I have been a Fellow at Harvard University and at the University of California at Berkeley. Of course, they are extremely well funded. But our higher education system has long been fundamentally different from the American and heavily dependent on government funding. I understand that the noble Earl and his noble friends are not seeking freedom for universities from government funding: quite the contrary, they wish to increase that dependence. Yet they seek a free market in the level of tuition fees that universities may charge beyond a certain minimum threshold. I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Beloff, is much more consistent in his argument. He wants a completely free market and his argument stands up much better than that put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
However, a completely free market is totally at odds with our system of student support with which, if I may point out to the noble Lord, Lord Baker, there has been nothing comparable in the United States. If the noble Earl wishes universities to benefit from a national system of grants for institutions and loans for students, then he needs to recognise that it may not be compatible with a market system where universities are free to charge what they like without any government regulation, even in reserve. As long as we in this country value—as I believe we do—a national system of grants and loans, then the Government must be able to balance the needs of universities and students, as well as taxpayers. The current Bill does just that; indeed the Government's new funding system will provide substantial additional funds for our universities. Noble Lords opposite might perhaps recognise that. Perhaps
1064
there ought to be just a little more optimism about the negotiations that we have to have on these matters. A little more optimism would go a long way.
I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. However, there is a great deal of flexibility for universities to raise funds from a vast variety of other sources. Many of them do that. I speak from personal experience as I spent huge amounts of my time raising funds from a whole variety of other sources. We are in no way imposing a straitjacket, to use the term that I think was used by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
It has long been the case that if universities wish to accept public funds they need to accept that there may be conditions attached to those funds. One cannot have it both ways. We have sought to minimise those conditions. All that Clause 18 does is to give the Secretary of State a reserve power to place conditions on grant through the higher education funding councils to control, if necessary, the level of fees that universities charge to home and EU full-time undergraduates and students on courses of initial teacher training.
We have made amendments to clarify the fact that conditions cannot apply to overseas students, or to part-time or postgraduate students other than those on courses of initial teacher training. We have made clear that the only penalties that might be imposed on an institution that decided to impose top-up fees would be financial ones and that imposing some other penalty would be absolutely out of the question. We have brought forward amendments to make clear that conditions could not single out courses of initial teacher training by subject or all other courses at any particular level by area of study or research. Later this evening we shall bring forward amendments to the definition of fees in Clause 20. Taken together, these amendments put beyond doubt that it will not be within the power of any Secretary of State—whether current or future—to control top-up fees in order to interfere in a university's academic affairs.
We have done our best to make clear the limited nature of Clause 18. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, the amendments we have brought forward, or are bringing forward today, follow discussions with the CVCP and have been welcomed by it. Indeed its briefing note makes clear that the amendments to Clause 18 address its concerns. I deeply regret the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, which I thought were singularly unfair to the CVCP, which represents the HE sector as a whole. It does that well and with commitment, honesty and integrity. The vast majority of vice-chancellors are opposed to top-up fees. They accept that safeguards on the charging of additional tuition fees are necessary for students. As my noble friend Lady Lockwood said, that also applies to the National Union of Students, which will be deeply disappointed—as will most parents—if the Tory Members of this House and Members of the Liberal Democrats decide that they will support this amendment and remove Clause 18 from the Bill.

1065
In supporting the leaving out of Clause 18, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, acknowledges no obligation on the part of universities towards either students or taxpayers. He and his noble friends require either the taxpayer or the student to pay as much in fees as the universities choose to charge. I am surprised that he should take that position. It strikes me as frankly bizarre.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Minister might care to answer the point I made. As the Minister well knows, expansion on the Continent has been achieved by allowing quality to decline. However, we have managed to avoid that in British universities by expanding the number of foreign students. As the Minister well knows, many of us involved with universities are currently struggling with the possible impact on next year's finances of the Asian financial crisis. I am not sure whether the Government will give us a rescue package if that turns out to be a disaster. However, the Minister has not addressed the question of maintaining the quality of British universities which was my main concern.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, with respect, I have referred to the issue of quality at least three times in responding to the debate. Indeed, the whole purpose of the new system of funding of universities is to do our very best to improve quality. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and I share—as I share with the noble Lord, Lord Baker—a wish to improve the quality of higher education in this country.
But it strikes me as, frankly, bizarre—coming from a party which the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said only a week ago was,
"totally and fundamentally opposed to the imposition of student payment of tuition fees".
So why on earth do he and his noble friends oppose provisions which would control the charging of additional tuition fees? The noble Earl, Lord Russell, often tells us during the course of our debates in this House that he needs to explain to his students—I understand that—what the Government or this House has decided. How will he explain to them that he was responsible for ensuring that students will be required to pay far more in fees than the Government ever proposed that they should? How would he justify his actions to the thousands of students up and down the country who might, as a result, be prevented from entering higher education?
A number of points have been made about uniformity. We have a diverse system of higher education; and so we should. We have a diverse system through different levels of research funding that relate to the quality of research undertaken by our universities. We have very different proportions of postgraduate students in our universities. We have very different levels of vocational provision in our universities. We have different levels of overseas
1066
students. Some institutions are specialists and some provide a wide range of courses. Nothing in the clause will alter that diversity.
Perhaps I may say this to the official Opposition. The previous Government, from the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment down, opposed top-up fees and said so in terms. I think that it is rather surprising that Members opposite are now taking a quite different view within less than a year of leaving government. It was indeed the threat of top-up fees by some universities when they genuinely were at their wits' end as to how they were going to provide the quality we all want and need that led the previous Conservative Government to set up the Dearing Committee; and I am glad to say that the Dearing Committee came up with proposals to prevent the need for top-up fees which the Government are now implementing. Indeed, the Government are finding ways of raising even more money for universities than the Dearing recommendations would have led to.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, may tell us that he is concerned with protecting university autonomy and academic freedom. But this clause is not fundamentally about academic freedom; and we have brought forward an amendment to make that quite clear. Clause 18 is about offering students safeguards in return for their contributions towards the tuition from which they individually stand to gain so much. It is about offering safeguards to their parents too. It is about achieving a complex balance between the needs of universities for extra funding and for autonomy, between the demands on the taxpayer and the demands on the student.
I believe that with all the amendments that we are bringing forward Clause 18 achieves the appropriate balance. This amendment, on the other hand, would wreck that balance; and I urge the House to resist it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I shall not attempt to match the noble Baroness for length. She has invited me to explain to my students. I have done so. I shall tell her what I tell them. First and foremost must be a concern for quality; and Government are no judge of quality. If quality is not preserved it does not matter who has access. Once quality is preserved, then we would like to see access as far as possible independent of parental income or social conditions. Thirdly, we would like to continue to see diversity.
The noble Baroness talked about conditions. We understand that he who pays the piper can call the tune. But he is unwise to exercise that prerogative if he happens to be tone deaf. I ask the House to imagine somebody running a restaurant. He is making a loss; he cannot get any more people in—there is no room for any more tables; he cannot reduce the quality of his meals without falling foul of the Health and Safety Executive; and he cannot lower his prices because they are capped. What does he do? He closes down. I do not want to do that, and that is why I ask the opinion of the House.
10.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 73.

DIVISION No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Avebury, L.

Newby, L.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Beloff, L.

Northesk, E.

Biffen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Brookeborough, V.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Butterfield, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Carlisle, E.

Rawlings, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

Camock, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Chesham, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Cross, V.

Russell, E [Teller.]

Dean of Harptree, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Dholakia, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Dundee, E.

Seccombe, B.

Goodhart, L.

Selkirk of Douglas, L.

Hamwee, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Taverne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Lichfield, Bp.

Tope, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Tordoff, L.

Lucas, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Ludford, B.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Warnock, B.

McNair, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

McNally, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Maddock, B.

Wise, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Wynford, L.

Marlesford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hardie, L.

Amos, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Berkeley, L.

Hoyle, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hughes, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Burlison, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Islwyn, L.

David, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Judd, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Desai, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dixon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Dubs, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Fitt, L.

Molloy, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Nicol, B.

Grenfell, L.

Northfield, L.

1068

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Simon, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Puttnam, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Whitty, L.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.44 p.m.
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 65:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
RECEIPT AND DISPOSAI, OF FEES
(" .—(1) The governing body of a relevant higher education institution shall be entitled to receive, and to dispose of as it sees fit, the full amount of any fees or grants in respect of fees payable to it in respect of tuition by or on behalf of any student.
This subsection is without prejudice to any arrangements under which the governing body proposes, with the consent of the Higher Education Funding Council, to pay the whole or part of any fees or grants in respect of fees to any connected institution, as defined in section 65(3B) of the 1992 Act.
(2) In this section, "relevant higher education institution" means an institution providing courses of higher education, where "higher education" has the same meaning as in the Education Reform Act 1988.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 is grouped with Amendment No. 66. It concerns the money which goes to universities which is derived from income from tuition fees. I was fascinated to hear the noble Baroness's one-word answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, who is not in his place at the moment, when he asked whether it was right that higher education would benefit from the money generated from income fees. The noble Baroness's answer was, "Yes". In speaking to this amendment, I wish to explore that answer.
Let me say, first, that Amendment No. 66, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has the same aim as my amendment. I believe that the noble Lord has produced a more effective form of words than I have. I shall therefore seek to withdraw my amendment and throw my support behind that of the noble Lord, which I believe achieves more concisely what we are both looking to achieve.
Whether higher education will benefit from income generated from savings made as a result of these proposals is something we wish to explore. If the noble Baroness is correct, then it must be the case that for the purposes of funding higher education institutions, this money, this newly-generated money and income, must be disregarded in order that it is genuinely, in its entirety, additional funding. That should not only apply to this year. We have had promises this year that the money will go into higher education, although we know that not every penny of it will, because some will be spent in other places.
What we do not know from the noble Baroness and what we ask for a specific answer on is this: will this money, pound for pound, go in and remain within higher education? Can we have an absolute assurance that it will not displace other moneys that would normally come from the higher education funding council? In other words, can we have an assurance that this money is pure pound-for-pound additionality into the higher education sector, enjoyed institution by institution?
If the answer is not unequivocal and should any part of this money that is generated from higher education students and their families be used anywhere else in the system, for example, in further education—and no one is arguing that further education could not use more money—or in any other part of government expenditure or, worse, should it end up in Treasury coffers, then the tuition fee is not a tuition fee; it is a tax.
I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Tope on Amendment No. 66 because, as I said, I believe that that amendment has rather more effective wording. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch said, we are trying to achieve exactly the same object here. I am very grateful to her for acknowledging so graciously that the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend achieves that object more succinctly and more exactly.
The case has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and was made previously in Committee that we are concerned that all the money raised should go to higher education. I suspect that the Minister may tell us in a moment that the amendment is unnecessary. However, I believe that it is necessary, if for no other reason than to reassure those in higher education at all levels who have doubts on the issue.
Much earlier today the Minister asked me to justify how this could be a student poll tax. I do not particularly wish to pursue that now, especially at this time of night, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. If it should be otherwise, then it is a tax; it is a tax on students. That is analogous to a student poll tax.
I shall not press my amendment tonight, but I shall be seeking the same assurances that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch has sought, and I shall certainly be considering, perhaps with her, what we will do in the light of those assurances.
Lord Whitty: My Lords', the noble Baroness asked that we repeat some assurances that she was given at earlier stages of the Bill when these matters were raised. At various points there seems to have been some confusion as to how the present system of funding of higher education works and perhaps some of our assurances were not as clear as she would have liked.
Let me make clear now to the noble Baroness that the money which students pay directly to universities and colleges in tuition fees will remain with the instituions. That is the first point. The second point is that the contributions that local authorities pay on students' behalf, if the assessed income of students and their
1070
families means that they do not have to pay the fee in full or at all, will also remain with the institutions. It will of course be for universities and colleges themselves to decide on how to use those resources.
In relation to the original amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the first part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that is a sufficient and clear assurance that the objectives of those amendments will be met. I therefore do not believe that those parts of the amendments are necessary. Nor can I accept the rather more complex implication of the second part of Amendment No. 66, which is to disregard the fee income for the purposes of calculating the grant for the higher education funding councils.
A large proportion of fee income will continue to come from public funds. Therefore, while universities and colleges will receive £1,000 for every home or EU full-time undergraduate new entrant in Autumn 1998—either from the students, their families or local authorities—by no means all of that will be new money. Local authorities have long paid tuition fees on students' behalf to universities and colleges and will continue to do so. But we estimate that the total contribution will be just over £1 billion in England alone. We clearly cannot leave such a large sum of taxpayers' money out of account when calculating the level of the other channel of public funds for higher education; that is, grant to the HEFCE.
Nor can the funding council leave out of account the fee income received by institutions. That is primarily because it needs to ensure some fairness in funding across institutions where the aim is to fund similar activities at similar rates. As a result, it will be necessary for the funding council to make adjustments to the grant it provides to ensure that some institutions do not lose out in consequence and that others do not gain unfairly. Institutions should not depend for their income on the level of income of their students and therefore the degree to which students are required to meet their own costs.
The aim is that universities and colleges should receive similar support in grant and fees to fund similar activities. Obviously institutions receive more funding, for example, to educate a medical student than a law student because of the extra costs involved. But all institutions, broadly speaking, should receive similar amounts to teach medical students on the one hand, and broadly similar amounts to teach law students on the other. That will require some adjustment rather than disregarding the level of contribution from the students themselves. That fairness of outcome—the noble Lord, Lord Wallace may call it socialism; I call it fairness and common sense—is certainly the approach that we will adopt in the allocation of funds.
For the coming year, following the crisis in the funding of higher education to which everybody referred, we have already announced a package of measures which, as a result of these changes, will allow an extra £165 million to be spent on higher education in 1998–99. Universities and colleges will receive directly £130 million of that and there will be £40 million basically on access packages. The higher education

1071
sector will therefore benefit fully from the money derived from students' contributions to tuition fees, which is approximately £130 million; that is, it will benefit to a greater degree than the saving that we acquired as a result of that by allowing £165 million to be spent on education. That also refutes the suggestions that were made that we are robbing the higher education sector to provide funds for further education. We make no apology for applying further funds to further education, but that has not come out of the savings that we have made on the higher education side.
We have been asked to give undertakings for subsequent years. We are not in a position to give cast-iron undertakings in relation to future years. The reply of my noble friend to the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, related to next year. We are, as noble Lords will be aware, in the middle of a comprehensive spending review. It would be unrealistic for noble Lords to expect me to pre-empt decisions on public expenditure for future years or to put undertakings relating to future public expenditure decisions on the face of the Bill. However, the savings over time will be substantial and higher education will benefit seriously from those savings.
As far as concerns the amendments, to leave out of the reckoning fee income for the purposes of calculating the grant for the higher education funding councils would prevent those councils making the adjustments that are needed to create a fairness of outcome for the institutions, one compared with another. Nor would it be right to place on the funding councils restrictions which would in themselves lead to unfairness in the way in which they allocate grants in the process which they adopt for allocating them.
This has been a somewhat complex response to what is a complex issue. I hope it has cast some light, if not total light, on the way in which these allocations will take place. Given those explanations, I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps he can clarify something for me. I think he said unequivocally that no money from the higher education savings—the private fee money—will go to further education. Why is it then that on 19th December in another place his honourable friend Dr. Howells, in an answer to a similar question, said:
"the introduction of private contributions to tuition fees for higher education will mean an extra £125 million for higher education institutions, plus £4 million to allow for a modest increase in students on sub degree courses mainly in FE colleges. In addition some £15 million of the higher education savings has been allocated to the further education sector".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/12/97; col. 365.]
Can he explain the apparent contradiction in that quotation?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the £16 million allocation to further education does not come from the charging of tuition fees. The total saving which arises from the saving of tuition fees is £130 million. In total, the extra
1072
money going to higher education will be £165 million. A small element of double counting on the sub-degree courses will probably to some extent take place in the further education sector, but that is a very small amount of double counting. In other words, the benefit of all the changes to the higher education figure is greater than the saving on tuition fees. The allocation to further education referred to in that announcement relates to the changes in the loan system and not to the saving on tuition fee contributions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this is as clear as mud. I agree with the noble Lord when he says that moneys paid by the state for those students who are exempt from paying the tuition fees is not new money. It comes from within the state system. Money paid for parts of the £1,000 for those students who are subject to means testing, where it is paid by the local authority, is not new money. It is money from within the system. So I accept that. Money paid in part by students themselves who are means tested but still qualify to pay part of the fees and all of the £1,000 paid by one-third of the students who are subject to paying the full amount is totally new money. It is money that is not there now and it is money that will be there as a result of these changes.
What the noble Lord has said has not made anything clear beyond 1998–99. The red herring in this debate has been, and continues to be, the £165 million. As I understand it, the £165 million has been found from restructuring the way in which grant is paid on a term basis rather than on an annual basis, or vice versa. There has been some restructuring of how that money is paid and it has thrown up a one-off saving of £165 million. The Government, in the kindness of their heart, have decided that that money shall go to higher education. It is not linked, although from time to time the noble Lord says, in passing, that the new money, which sometimes is £125 million and at other times is £130 million, is a sum of money that is exceeded by the £165 million. I would also argue that it is subsumed by £165 million because, as I understand what the noble Lord said, higher education is not going to receive additional moneys of £165 million plus £135 million from tuition fees in 1998–99.
What the noble Lord has not said and what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I wish to achieve by these amendments, relates to the additional money. It would be helpful if the noble Lord will confirm for clarification at the Dispatch Box tonight the situation as regards the money that is derived from £1,000 paid in full by one-third of the students and the parts of £1,000 paid by other students. What does that total in new money? Is that £130 million? If so and if the noble Lord cannot agree in principle that that will be treated year on year—whatever is commensurate with the number of students paying it—and that it is guaranteed and considered to be additional money, disregarded for the purposes of funding higher education, then we do not get the assurances we are asking for.
The noble Lord says that he is continually giving the assurances that we seek. There has not been an assurance that this money will not be considered replacement money, substitute money, displacement

1073
money, for that which is already in the system. For example, if the Chancellor comes down rather heavily in terms of a settlement for the higher education sector—it will not happen this year because it would be difficult presentationally for the Government, and may not even be next year or this side of the election—are we going to find over time, in the medium to long term, that the money provided by students has simply disappeared into the system? Will we find that additionality no longer applies and therefore the rationale for the proposals expounded by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord? It has been stated constantly that this money will be additional and will be spent exclusively and in its entirety on higher education. We seek much firmer assurances than the noble Lord has given tonight.
11 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I repeat that the money paid directly by students—a proportion of which the noble Baroness refers to as new money—will remain with the institutions. I thought that I had made that clear, but the noble Baroness does not regard it as satisfactory. I do not believe that noble Lords would expect me to pre-empt the outcome of public expenditure decisions on what the totality of expenditure will be on the higher education system in future years. We have a comprehensive spending review under way. In any case, as with all governments, public expenditure decisions are taken year by year.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government must be very relieved that they won the vote on Clause 18. But that is as nothing to the consequences of what the noble Lord is now saying. Throughout this Bill the noble Lord has been saying to the students, schools, colleges and institutions that the reason the Government are producing these proposals is so that more money will go into the university sector. There is one point that the noble Lord has made which we accept. The money will remain with the colleges. If that money is to be genuinely additional money then it must be disregarded for the purposes of funding higher education. If the noble Lord cannot give that guarantee then his proposals and the rationale for them fall on deaf ears.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not believe that I can say much more than I have already. This is the mechanism for getting new money into the higher education system. If the noble Baroness is pressing me to say what the expenditure on higher education in total will be, that is not possible and I do not believe that noble Lords would expect me to do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before withdrawing the amendment, I advise the noble Lord that we wanted an assurance in principle that this was meant to be new, additional money which was not to be displaced by the normal funding of higher education. If that assurance cannot be given, we shall return to the matter on Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Clause 20 [Interpretation of Chapter I]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 15, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert—
(" "fees", in relation to attendance on a course, means fees in respect of, or otherwise in connection with, attendance on the course, including admission, registration, tuition and graduation fees but excluding—

(a) fees payable otherwise than to the institution providing the course in respect of the awarding or accreditation of any qualification,

(b) fees payable for board or lodging,

(c) fees payable for attending any graduation or other ceremony; and

(d) such other fees as may he prescribed;").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I promised in Committee that we would look again with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals at the definition of fees in Clause 20. That is the definition that makes clear what costs are expected to be covered by the fees that are charged by universities and colleges and for which means-tested financial support will be made available to students under regulations to be made under Clause 16 (2)(b). It is also the definition that makes clear what additional fees universities and colleges might charge without risking a condition on their grant under Clause 18.
This amendment makes it clear that we expect the essentials of any course of higher education to be covered by the basic fee for which means-tested support will be available up to a maximum of £1,000 next academic year. That sum is intended to cover all tuition costs and any administrative costs associated with the processes of admission (or matriculation), registration (or enrolment) and graduation. We would thus not expect students to pay any extra for admission to an institution, for annual registration with that institution, for tuition during their course or for graduation. We accept that a university may charge for the costs of providing a social occasion to celebrate the awarding of a degree, but there should be no question of a university charging a fee to a student for the actual award of a degree.
If universities or colleges charged extra for any of those essential items—admission, registration, tuition or graduation—the Secretary of State would have to consider whether or not to seek to control such fees by exercising his reserve power to place conditions on grant under Clause 18.
The amendment also makes it clear that, on the other hand, there are certain costs that the Government do not consider to be covered by the basic fee, and so universities may charge separately for these. They include fees charged by external awarding or accrediting bodies; board and lodging; and the cost of special ceremonies. So any university which charged extra for a graduation ceremony or any college which levied charges for board and lodging would not run the risk of having a condition placed on its grant under Clause 18.
Let me make it clear that this amendment has no implications for college fees and that the outcome of our review of Oxbridge fees is an entirely separate matter. That review follows the Dearing Report which pointed

1075
out that college fees represented a substantial addition to the standard funding for higher education institutions and proposed that the Government should review them. It also recommended separately that there should be no variations in the level of public funding for teaching, outside modest margins, without very good reasons. We therefore asked the HEFCE to conduct a review of college fees, taking into account its proposed new teaching funding method and the relevant points in the Dearing Report. We are still considering that advice and hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said—I am sorry that he is not in his place—it is true that an early draft of the government amendment, which we showed to the CVCP, contained a reference to college fees. But we concluded that it was technically defective because either college fees fall into the first category of fees in this government amendment, where we do not wish to see top-up fees charged—that is, tuition fees and the like—or, in the case of board and lodging, they fall into the other category of fees where we believe that institutions should be able to decide on an appropriate level of charges. So we concluded that it would be tautologous to mention college fees separately. That early draft has now been revised; and noble Lords will see that the government amendment on the Marshalled List has no reference to college fees in order to avoid technical defects. But let me stress again that the amendment does not in any way pre-empt the outcome of the review of college fees.
Finally, the definition allows the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations other fees that universities and colleges would be able to charge without being liable to a condition on their grant controlling such fees. Those fees could include fees for field trips and possibly fees for materials, which the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, raised in Committee. This provision for regulations will allow us to consult widely with appropriate representative bodies such as the CVCP and the Committee of University Chairmen before drawing up a detailed list. It would also allow for amendment of that list in due course if it appeared that we had omitted some important fee.
This amendment clarifies which fees universities may or may not charge in addition to the basic fee, for which financial support will be available to students. It also allows for further elucidation through regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Grants and loans: Scotland]:
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 17, line 20, at end insert—
("() Regulations to which this section applies shall not prescribe a rate of interest to be borne by loans higher than that which the Secretary of State, having regard to such retail price index as appears to him to be appropriate, is satisfied is required to maintain the value in real terms of the outstanding amounts of such loans.
() Regulations to which this section applies may make provision, for the purpose of calculating the interest to be borne by loans, for repayment by borrowers to be treated as having been made or received on such date or dates as may be prescribed.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Baroness Carnegy of Lour Baroness Carnegy of Lour moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert—
("(2A) Where the Secretary of State has determined a maximum amount under subsection (2) above, he shall not include in the maximum amount of allowances payable those bench- and field-trip fees, or increases thereto, operated by institutions prior to 26 November 1997.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking in Committee to amendments to Clauses 18 to 22 the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said that after further consultation with the CVCP the Government were willing to consider amending the definition of "fees" in the English and Scots clauses. We have just debated the Government amendment to the English clauses in response to that assurance. Not knowing whether an amendment would be forthcoming from the Government, and after further consultation with the Association of University Teachers (Scotland), I tabled Amendments Nos. 70 and 73 to elicit further information on the Government's intentions for Scotland and also for England and Wales.
The amendments use the examples of bench fees for the use of, say, equipment and materials by chemistry students and extra fees for field trips, perhaps for geography students. Amendment No. 70 seeks an assurance that such fees charged before publication of the Bill will not in retrospect be considered to have been part of the course and so carried forward into the future. Amendment No. 73 seeks confirmation that should a financial penalty be imposed on top-up fees then fees such as bench- and field-trip fees would be excluded from the calculation.
These are details. However, can the Scottish Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, say whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the Bill to match the amendments which his noble friend Lady Blackstone has just achieved in relation to the English clauses? If that is the intention, can the Minister give an assurance that the specific items on the face of the Bill will also be on the face of the Scottish clauses and that the regulations will be properly discussed with Scottish institutions and will cover the same areas as in England, because that is the Scottish institutions' desire? I believe that that assurance is very important, and I look forward to the reply of the Minister. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments. I believe that it is very good for us to have England riding on the back of Scotland. One hopes that someone will remember to mention England as well. I congratulate the noble Baroness on putting the matter that way round. We learn from it.
The question of what is intended by "fees" has given rise to a good deal of confusion and doubt. Field trips are an academic necessity for some subjects. I think in particular of geology. These matters cost money and it must come from somewhere, sometimes from fees. A lot of courses simply cannot be done without field trips. I hope that there will be further clarification on the subject. The Minister seems to be eager to give it and I look forward to hearing him.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I fully appreciate the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I make it clear from the outset that there is no difference between my noble friend Lady Blackstone and myself in terms of the policy objectives in England and Wales, on the one hand, and Scotland, on the other.
A difficulty arises because the Scottish legislation that is amended is structured differently from the English legislation. The Education (Scotland) Act 1980, which provides the basic legislative framework for the substantive issues discussed and put forward in the amendment, is different from the provisions in England and Wales. As I made clear, the policy objectives are the same; we seek to arrive via a slightly different route compatible with the 1980 Act.
We intend to have a period of full consultation during which regulations will be evolved. It is our intention that institutions will not be prevented from making reasonable charges for the services they provide. We will be issuing draft regulations. At that stage, my colleague from the Scottish Office and I will be interested to hear the reaction of the representatives of the institutions of higher education in Scotland and will take them fully into account. No issue of principle is involved, and I do not believe that there is an issue of practice between us.
There is a difficulty with Amendment No. 73 as drafted. If agreed, it would require the Secretary of State to authorise every single change in bench and field-trip fees. Even the Secretary of State, who works very long hours, would find that difficult to encompass. However, I assure the House that we intend to reach the same policy objective as that achieved by my noble friend in her amendment to the Bill. It is just that, in order to keep the matter all square with the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, we will arrive via the different route of regulation and I give an assurance that there will be full consultation with the higher education institutions.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his support and I thank the Minister for his reply. I am glad to note that there is no policy difference. However, it is extremely disappointing that the Scottish Office is not up to speed and able to produce an amendment when the English department can do so. There is no reason why that has not been done and I do not know why we should have to go to the lengths of inventing an amendment when the Government intend to do so. That is disappointing and one wonders what will happen in the Scottish parliament if things move so slowly. I hope that everything will brisk up a little.
Having said those few crisp words, I accept the Minister's assurance. I hope that the draft regulations will be available soon so that everyone can look at them properly. That is important because a great deal of money is at stake for the institutions in Scotland. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Clause 22 [Imposition of conditions as to fees at further and higher education institutions in Scotland]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 18, line 31, at end insert—
("() Where the functions of the Secretary of State under section 4 of this Act are exercised by the Funding Council, the prohibition contained in subsection (3) of that section shall not apply in relation to conditions imposed under subsection (2B) above."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should start by saying that these amendments introduce into Scotland the corresponding provision in Clause 18(9) which applies to England and Wales. I hope that will be a convincing argument for the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy.
These are technical amendments to make clear that certain existing provisions in the legislation governing the funding of higher education and further education in Scotland do not impinge on the new fee regime for further education and higher education institutions which we are introducing in the Bill. The equivalent legislation has been provided in the English provisions in the Bill in Clause 18(9), as I said, although drafted in a slightly different way, but that is understandable. Originally it was thought that such provisions were not necessary but, on reflection, we believe that it is advisable that the matter should be put beyond doubt. I hope that that is agreeable to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 19, line 7, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall not exercise the power to prescribe descriptions of courses under subsection (3B) above in such a way as to discriminate—

(a) in relation to courses for the training of persons preparing to be teachers which are open only to persons holding a degree, between different courses on the basis of the subject in which such training is given; or

(b) in relation to other courses, between courses at the same or a comparable level on the basis of the particular areas of study or research to which they relate.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 74 brings forward for Scotland provisions equivalent to those already debated for England and Wales as Amendment No. 60. Subsection (2) of Clause 22 makes provision for courses of prescribed description provided by higher education institutions to be covered by conditions on grant controlling top-up fees. It is for the Secretary of State to prescribe the courses in regulations. This amendment prevents the Secretary of State, when he draws up the regulations, from singling out courses at any particular level by area of study or research.
This makes absolutely plain that the Secretary of State cannot—through conditions controlling top-up fees—affect the freedom of universities to decide which courses to offer, which subjects to teach or which areas of research to pursue. He can thus prescribe first-degree courses or courses leading to a diploma as those that can be covered by conditions on grant controlling top-up fees. But he cannot name in those conditions particular

1079
areas of study or research—whether any branch of medicine, science, technology, social science, arts or humanities. I believe that that goes all the way that can reasonably be expected to defend the whole principle of academic freedom. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister the question I asked his English colleagues. Why do these amendments make no reference to the other term of Amendment No. 61—the academic conditions for the selection of staff or the admission of students?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I am sorry. I did not hear that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. I wanted to ask why these amendments that he is offering do not include the term which was included in the 1992 Act, which is also included in Amendment No. 61, of not imposing conditions on the academic conditions for the selection of staff or the admission of students. That is a gap in the amendment and I want to know why it has not been filled.
The Minister, I think, is not quite clear what we are talking about here. This Bill replaces the Beloff amendment which was in the 1992 Act which made it impossible to impose conditions, as conditions of grant, on the terms for selection of staff or admission of students as well as conditions on the academic content of particular courses.
This Bill of course supersedes the earlier legislation. The conditions in the Beloff amendment do not apply to this Bill. Therefore, that concession, which is welcome as far as it goes, covers some of what was in the 1992 Act but not all of it. I want to understand why the part that has been left out has been left out. It is a question of considerable importance to a number of people as well as to me. It is a question which we hope will not require too lengthy a consideration because a lot of us are rather anxious to hear the answer to it. The answer we hear may make a considerable difference to what we decide to do when we return to the Bill on Third Reading. Therefore, I hope the Minister is in a position to answer.
Lord Sewel: I believe that I understand what the noble Earl is saying. I should make it clear that we have no intention of imposing the type of conditions which the noble Earl envisages. I make it clear that this amendment relates only to top-up fees. It is certainly not the Government's view that anything in relation to the approval of top-up fees should in any way be conditional on matters relating to the selection of staff or admission of students. I can give the noble Earl the assurance that I will look at this further. If there is a matter of substance between us, I shall so inform him.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 19, line 17, at end insert—
("() The prohibition contained in section 40(4) of this Act and the duty imposed by section 41(2) of this Act shall not apply in relation to conditions imposed under subsection (3B) above." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 19, line 17 at end insert—
("(3F) In exercising his powers under this section, the Secretary of State shall ensure that any arrangements for the payment of grant in respect of tuition fees for the fourth or any subsequent year of study at a higher education institution in Scotland apply equally to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in England, Wales or Northern Ireland as they do to a student whose parental home or normal place of residence for purposes other than attendance at that institution is in Scotland." ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was taken with Amendment No. 51, which the House accepted earlier. Therefore, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Right of young persons to time off for study or training]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 20, line 48, at end insert ("; and
(b) shall be laid in draft before Parliament for approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be brief. The measures set out in Clause 23 are most serious and I shall not repeat the points that I made in Committee. At that time, I fully accepted the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness; namely, that these are two clauses which ought to be seen and considered by another place. For that reason, I withdrew my amendment which sought to remove them from the Bill.
Nevertheless, if employers are going to find themselves subject to the law in order to fulfil their obligations under the measures contained in Clause 23, I believe that it is incumbent upon the Government to place any regulations in draft before Parliament,
"for approval by resolution of each House".
I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, two regulations would be covered by the amendment, both relating to insertions in the Employment Rights Act 1996. The first relates to the power to specify a body to award a qualification and the second to the power to prescribe the standard of achievement. As regards the power to prescribe that standard, we have already said that we want young people to get to Level 2—that is, five good GCSEs, an intermediate GNVQ or an NVQ Level 2. As for the power to award or authenticate qualifications, we have said that, for example, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority will be the guardian of standards in England.
Throughout the debate reference has been made to the report of the delegated powers committee which has considered regulations arriving under these clauses. The committee has agreed with the proposal in the

1081
memorandum of the department that such statutory instruments should be subject to the negative resolution procedure and not the affirmative procedure. In all other respects, we have now accepted in full the recommendations of the committee and we consider that we can also do so in this case. I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point made by the Minister is a fair one. However, there are a number of companies—and, again, I believe that I mentioned this in Committee—which are decidedly disquieted by what they see as prescription of the training. Many companies provide training which is entirely adequate for their employees to enable them to do the job for which they are employed. Some of the companies to which I refer are actually quite big companies. However, because they do not specifically fit the particular mode of training or the particular content of training that will be prescribed, they will be expected to provide additional training, to send people off campus for training or to make expensive modifications to their training.
We are discussing a rather serious matter. Therefore, even though I intend to withdraw my amendment, I would ask the noble Lord to ensure that, in the negotiations with commerce and industry, the Government will take those points on board and introduce as much flexibility as is consistent with the quality of training. I trust that companies will not be required to make unnecessary—or what they consider to be superfluous— expenditure to meet the demands of a bureaucrat, as opposed to the demands that they would seek to address; namely, the quality training that is consistent with the people who work in their company doing the job for which they are employed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 78A:
After Clause 24, insert the following new clause—
REPORT TO PARLIAMENT BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(" . The Secretary of State shall lay a report before both Houses of Parliament twelve months after the coming into force of this Part stating what, in his opinion, has been the effect of this Part on the labour market for persons aged 16 and 17.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of these provisions on the labour market for 16 and 17 year-olds one year after the coming into force of this part.
Local authorities are concerned that a combination of the exclusion of 16 to 17 year-olds from welfare-to-work and this right to time off will have a serious adverse impact on the employability of this age group. Local authorities are keen to ensure that the employment and training options for 16 and 17 year-old young people are enhanced.
While the Government's measures, as set out in these clauses, are welcome, they must be considered in the context of the assistance currently available to this age
1082
group. Unlike their older counterparts, 16 and 17 year-olds are denied assistance from the social security system and have no recourse whatsoever to other moneys. Those who may have been accommodated or assisted by local authority social services departments are often compelled to seek financial support from social services departments. This is neither desirable in terms of providing consistent financial support to young people in need, nor in terms of local authority budgets, which show that, increasingly, payments under Section 17 of the Children Act have been used to meet the income support needs of young people denied help elsewhere. There is therefore a cost both to the individual and a cost which is unaccounted for in the local government finance settlement for local authorities in having to meet these income support needs.
This group of young people are not as yet eligible to participate in the Government's New Deal for the unemployed. The official school leaving age is 16 and the expectation is that those young people leaving school at this age will seek employment, training or education opportunities. They do, in effect, enter the labour market. However, as far as employers are concerned, subsidies are available for employing 18 to 24 year-olds under the welfare-to-work programme, which is not available to this younger age group. The impact of the welfare-to-work programme may be inadvertently compounded by the Government's proposal to require employers to release 16 and 17 year-olds for training. The measures will represent a further cost to employers in recruiting from this age range and may thus act as a potential disincentive. The Government estimate the full-year costs of compliance to employers to be in the range of £60 million to £130 million per annum—large sums.
The Government have recently launched their policy initiative, Investing in Young People, which together with projects in the new start strategy is intended to support, amongst others, those 16 and 17 year-olds. But the IIYP policy has yet to take effect in full and the new start projects are not a nationwide approach but are funded only in 17 pilot areas. In order to monitor these measures, and those in the Bill, and to assess whether they are the most effective way of achieving the Government's objective of improving opportunities for 16 and 17 year-olds, this amendment would provide the opportunity for a full parliamentary scrutiny of their effects.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Blackstone said,
"The Government recognise that there is a potential issue here concerning the interaction of two important commitments. But we believe that that will be a local rather than national issue. However, we shall monitor closely the impact of the New Deal and will be able to assess its possible interaction with other policies. Of course that is important, but it is quite right to give priority to those young people aged 18 to 24 who have been unemployed for more than six months. But we wish to ensure that that does not put at risk the opportunities for 16 and 17 year-olds, a group who have the benefit of other opportunities such as modem apprenticeships, national traineeships and other government supported work-based training. But it is a group also which does not always take up those opportunities".—[Official Report, 26/1/98; col. 33.]
Can the Minister explain how the Government intend to monitor the New Deal and its impact on the proposals in the Bill? I want an answer. It is an important point. The 16 to 17 year-olds may be disadvantaged. I look forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in considering this amendment, I should first like to reassure the House that we have already stated categorically in the regulatory appraisal published alongside the Bill that the impact of this legislation will be evaluated progressively over the two years following implementation. We shall also wish to look at the interaction between the provisions and the New Deal. At this stage I cannot give my noble friend details of the actual structure of the piece of research that will be undertaken, but I can assure her that it is important that we look at this interaction and we shall do so.
I can also reassure the House that we shall publish the evaluation reports that are commissioned and that there will be no delay in making the material publicly available in the usual manner.
I can also confirm that the legislation will be implemented only as and when resources are available, and the costs and numbers of participants are expected to phase in. We are continuing to listen to the views of key partners, especially employers, but also local authorities, so that the legislation can be implemented in a way that is both sensible and flexible, and guidance can be given on best practice.
As this amendment is about the labour market, it may be helpful if I set out the wider context. Comprehensive data for the UK are not available, but the department estimates that there are over 350,000 16 and 17 year-olds in employment or on government supported work based training. Of these, around one-third have already achieved qualifications at level 2, around one-third are already working towards level 2, and around one-third are not receiving any training, or only training below level 2. This last group, totalling an estimated 115,000, is the primary focus of this legislation.
However, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to be in a position to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament 12 months after the introduction of this new employment right. There would of course be some information available from a variety of sources, but it might at that early stage be qualitative rather than quantitative, difficult to aggregate to give a true national picture, and possibly partial. If an evaluation study were to be commissioned to report by the due date, it would need to be in the field some six or nine months after implementation, and that would seem rather too early.
More importantly, many young people exercising their right to time off for study or training will not be able to show at this early stage any tangible outcome or benefit such as a qualification achieved, and it would be quite wrong to send any signal that might try to rush them. The full effect of this initiative will only be felt in the medium to long term, by improving young people's
1084
employability, and employers' competitiveness. An evaluation that had to report 12 months after implementation would not be able to identify these benefits.
As your Lordships will be aware, one of the key aims of this part of the Bill is to improve the long-term employability of young people and to give them those opportunities while they are young. My noble friend may be right that this could bring about some changes in the labour market, but such changes are unlikely to be substantively evident within 12 months of introduction. We need to allow time for both young people and employers to take full advantage of this new employment right, which will be implemented both sensibly and flexibly.
I hope that I have reassured both my noble friend and the House that there will be progressive evaluation arrangements as set out in the regulatory appraisal, and that the evaluation reports that are commissioned will be published. I hope that my noble friend will accept these reassurances and will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that partially reassuring answer. I think it does convey that she is aware of the problem. The local authorities are anxious about this matter, because their social services departments have to pick up the tab if things do not go well. However, I should like to discuss this with the Local Government Association, which wanted this amendment put down, and hope that it will be satisfied with what the Minister said. I see that perhaps there is a problem in getting a response within one year that will be satisfactory and complete. But after my noble friend's reassurances I will, at any rate for the moment, withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [Orders and regulations]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendments Nos. 78B to 80 en bloc:
Page 23, line 3, leave out ("section 16(5))") and insert ("the following provisions of this section)").
Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
("(Subsection (2) does not apply to the first regulations to be made—

(a) in relation to the General Teaching Council under section 1(3), or

(b) in relation to the General Teaching Council for Wales under section 1(3) as applied by an order under section 6(1).
and no such regulations shall be made (whether made alone or with other regulations) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").

Page 23, line 5, at end insert—
("() Subsection (2) does not apply to the first regulations to be made under section 16; and no such regulations shall be made (whether made alone or with other regulations) unless a draft of the

1085
statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
() That subsection also does not apply to—

(a) any regulations in relation to which paragraph (b) of section 16(5) applies, or

(b) any other regulations under section 16 a draft of which has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").

Page 23, line 13, at end insert—
("(6) Once the General Teaching Council or (as the case may be) the General Teaching Council for Wales have been established, the Secretary of State shall, before making regulations under Chapter I of Part I of this Act, consult the Council to which the regulations will relate.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 80A:
Page 29, line 16, at end insert—
("Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (c.44)
In section 133 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (regulations)—

(a) in subsection (2), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsections (2A) and (2B) below,"; and

(b) after subsection (2) insert—

"(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to the first regulations to be made under section 73(1)(f) of this Act with respect to loans; and no such regulations shall be made (whether alone or with other regulations) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2B) Subsection (2) above shall not apply to any regulations under section 73(1)(f) of this Act with respect to loans, other than the regulations mentioned in subsection (2A) above, where a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before midnight.

  Bahrain: UK Military Training
  Lord Avebury
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have undertaken any police or military training in Bahrain, under the Foreign and Commonwealth military training assistance scheme, or otherwise. [HL732]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  Her Majesty's Government have undertaken no police or military training in Bahrain under the Foreign and Commonwealth military training assistance scheme. No police training in Bahrain has been provided under any other scheme. The Ministry of Defence has provided military training in Bahrain. In the last year, the Bahrain defence force has received drill training and the Bahrain national guard has been trained in the protection of key installations.

  NHS Charges: Increases
  Lord Davies of Coity
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to increase National Health Service charges. [HL718]

  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Baroness Jay of Paddington)
  We shall shortly lay before the House regulations to increase National Health Service charges in England and Wales from 1 April 1998. The prescription charge will increase by 15p, from £5.65 to £5.80 for each quantity of a drug or appliance dispensed. This represents a reduction of 0.1 per cent. in real terms. The charges for prescription prepayment certificates will rise to £30.10 for a four month certificate and £82.70 for an annual certificate. These offer savings for those needing more than five items in four months or 14 in one year. The new charge will raise some £336 million for the NHS in 1998–99.

  Charges for elastic stockings and tights, wigs and most fabric supports supplied through the hospital service will be increased similarly. The maximum patient charge for a single course of dental treatment begun on or after 1 April 1998 will increase from £330 to £340. Fewer than one in every 1,000 courses of treatment will attract the new maximum charge. Optical voucher values and supplements will increase by 2.8 per cent. This will maintain the purchasing power of the vouchers given to children and those adults eligible for help with the cost of spectacles and contact lenses.

  NHS charges are being examined as part of the comprehensive spending review, which is due to report in the summer. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will lay regulations to increase
  WA 126
  charges in Scotland by the same amounts. Similar arrangements will apply in Northern Ireland.

  Details of the revised charges have been placed in the Library.

  Fluoridation of Water
  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answers on 5 March 1997 (WA 138) and 12 November 1997 (WA 34), whether they will now cite the major controlled studies relied on to support (a) the effectiveness; and (b) the safety of water fluoridation. [HL673]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  The reviews which were listed in my reply of 12 November at columns WA 34–35 include an appropriate list of references.

  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answers by the Baroness Jay of Paddington on 18 December 1997 (WA 103), on what grounds they are prepared to disregard the recommendation contained in the World Health Organisation Technical Report Series 846, Fluorides and oral health (WHO, 1994) to "be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any new fluoride programme", in assuming the extent of this exposure without attempting to measure it. [HL674]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  We understand that this was not a specific recommendation of the report, but we are taking relevant sections of the report into account, in developing our policy on fluoridation.

  Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Jay of Paddington of 18 December 1997 (WA 103), on what basis have they assumed:

  (a) that usage of topical fluoride must be low in areas of high tooth decay, when it is known that dietary and other factors can also account for tooth decay; and

  (b) that exposure to fluoride from other sources referred to in the World Health Organisation Technical Report Series 846, Fluorides and oral health (WHO, 1994) can be safely disregarded. [HL675]

  Baroness Jay of Paddington
  Studies have shown that the benefits of topical fluoride outweigh negative influences. When planning fluoridation schemes we would expect health authorities to review existing sources of fluoride intended to reduce tooth decay.

  M.40: Additional Service Station
  The Earl of Harrowby
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether, and if so where and when, an additional service station is to be provided at the London end of the M.40 motorway. [HL733]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Baroness Hayman)
  A motorway service area at Junction 8 of the M.40, near Oxford, is under construction and is due to open in July. A planning application for an additional service station at Junction 2 near Beaconsfield was due to go to public inquiry last year but deferred at the request of the developer. No new date has yet been requested.

  Freight Grants
  Lord Stallard
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many rail freight grants have been awarded in the past six months and what plans they have to improve the grant scheme. [HL873]

  Baroness Hayman
  We are today announcing the award since July 1997 of seven new freight grants worth a total of almost £5 million. The grants include £1.8 million to the Port of Felixstowe to help to finance additional cranes and terminal infrastructure; and three separate grants to Freightliner worth over £1.5 million. We are anxious to make full use of the grant scheme to get more freight on rail and inland waterways. In 1996–97, awards totalled £15 million. This year, the £30 million budget will be substantially taken up. To reinforce this success, the funds available in 1998–99 will be increased to £40 million.

  Housing Benefit: Figures
  Lord Dean of Beswick
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the total amount paid in housing benefit to those occupying rented housing in 1988 and in 1997 in (a) local authority housing, (b) housing associations, (c) the private sector. [HL618]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the tables.

  Housing Benefit Expenditure 1988–89

  £ millions

  Local Authority Housing

  2,617

  Private Sector (including HAs)

  1,071

  WA 128

  Housing Benefit Expenditure 1996–97

  £ millions

  Local Authority Housing

  5,582

  Private Sector

  5,887

  Housing Associations

  1,960

  Sources:

  1. Figures underlying table 3 of the Social Security Departmental Report.

  2. Housing Benefit Management Information System (HBMIS) 1 per cent. sample, May 1996.

  Note:

  Data for Housing Associations are not available separately for 1988–89.

  Stakeholder Pensions Scheme: Consultations
  Baroness Castle of Blackburn
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many local authorities, trade unions and other non-profit making organisations have responded to their consultative document on stakeholders' pensions by submitting outline plans for their participation in the scheme. [HL640]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham
  One local authority organisation and seven trade union organisations outlined plans for their participation in stakeholder pensions in their responses to the consultation document. The main purpose of the consultation paper was to seek views on a range of detailed, technical issues on the design of the new pensions. Almost 200 responses have been received in total. Of these two are from local authority organisations, 11 from trade union organisations, and 12 from registered charities and voluntary organisations. The status of other organisations cannot in all cases be reliably identified from their responses.

  Former Servicemen Living Abroad: State Pensions
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they have any plans to review the position with regard to state pensions to former British servicemen and their families in those countries with which there are no reciprocal arrangements to raise pensions in line with inflation. [HL707]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham
  The Government have no plans at present to change the policy that state retirement pensions are uprated only within the European economic area and in certain countries with which the United Kingdom has a social security agreement which provides for uprating. There are over 400,000 UK pensioners living abroad whose pensions are not uprated. Many are likely to be former servicemen and their wives. It would cost some £250 million a year fully to unfreeze those pensions—that is, to bring them up to the rate which would be paid if the pensioners were in the UK. There are
  WA 129
  competing demands and constraints on social security spending, and it would be wrong to raise expectations that uprating these pensions would be likely to attract priority under current circumstances.

  Social Security: Appeals Service
  Earl Russell
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What performance indicators, if any, will be used for members of the social security appeals tribunals. [HL652]

  Baroness Hollis of Heigham
  Tribunal members are judicial appointees and their performance is a matter for the President of the Independent Tribunal Service. The president monitors the performance of appeal tribunals to ensure maintenance of standards and this will continue.

  However, the Government are determined to speed up the administration of the appeals service and measures contained in the Social Security Bill currently before Parliament are intended to address the lengthy delays in the system. The Secretary of State will assume personal responsibility for the administration of appeals and intends to create a new appeals agency. She will set and publish demanding targets for administration and report on the results.

  Ministerial Statements to Parliament
  Lord Chesham
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is their definition of "a major policy statement" as referred to by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 16 February (H.L. Deb., col. 134). [HL703]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  It is not possible to give a precise definition. Ministers take into account a number of factors in determining whether a policy announcement is of sufficient importance to require it to be made to Parliament in the first instance, including the likely degree of public and parliamentary interest.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Baroness Miller of Hendon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What it is estimated will be the itemised cost in a full year of the Strategic Communications Unit. [HL671]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  The budget of the Strategic Communications Unit has not yet been finalised.

  Campsfield House Centre: Report
  Viscount Allenby of Megiddo
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When they expect to publish the report on Campsfield prison. [HL726]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn)
  The date for the publication of the report on Campsfield House Immigration Detention Centre has not yet been announced. This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.

  Asylum Applicants: Delays
  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether statistics of asylum applicants who have not been called for interview are a relevant measure of the effective administration of immigration policy. [HL712]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  The volume of cases in the asylum backlog is an important test of the overall effectiveness of the procedures. But, within that, it is the number of applicants awaiting decision rather than awaiting interview which is the relevant measure. In August last year we announced a study of the asylum process as part of the Government's comprehensive spending review. That study is, among other things, looking at the whole problem of delays and backlogs and is expected to report shortly.

  Firearms: Compensation Scheme Administration
  The Earl of Haddington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will place in the Library of the House (a) a copy of the National Audit Office report containing observations on the administration of the Firearms (Revolvers/Pistols) Compensation Scheme; and (b) a copy of the Home Office Police Policy Directorate letter dated 28 January which gave details of the administration of the scheme. [HL739]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  The Home Office letter to chief officers of police, which was actually sent on 29 January, was informed by an oral briefing on 22 January provided by auditors from the National Audit Office (NAO). The Comptroller and Auditor-General wrote to the Home Office Accounting Officer on 30 January about the NAO programme of work and included an annex formally summarising their interim findings from their visits to a sample of police forces. Copies of the Home Office letter and, with his agreement, that of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, have been placed in the Library.

  Firearms Licensing: Police Administration
  The Earl of Haddington
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will list the current members of the Association of Chief Police Officers Committees on the administration and licensing of firearms for England and Wales and for Scotland, indicating their Constabularies. [HL741]

  Lord Williams of Mostyn
  I understand from the Association of Chief Police Officers that the following people are members of their Administration of Firearms and Explosives Licensing Sub-Committee:

  Mr. A. T. Burden (Chairman)

  South Wales Police

  Inspector B. Brookes

  Avon and Somerset Constabulary

  Mr. D. Winser

  Cambridgeshire Constabulary

  Mr. I. McColl

  Mr. I. Holding

  Cheshire Constabulary

  Mr. T. Slate

  Derbyshire Constabulary

  Chief Inspector B. Talbot

  Hampshire Constabulary

  Sergeant P. Johnson

  Merseyside Police

  Commander A. Trotter

  Metropolitan Police

  Mr. G. Smith

  Mr. M. Lobb

  Northamptonshire Police

  Ms M. McDermott

  North Yorkshire Police

  Ms H. Rodgers

  South Wales Police

  Superintendent D. Davies

  Superintendents Association

  Mr. P. O'Brien

  Police Federation

  Mr. G. Bennett (Observer)

  Fife Constabulary

  Superintendent J. Duncan (Observer)

  Grampian Police

  Superintendent S. Le Bretton (Observer)

  Jersey Police

  Membership of the Scottish Sub-Committee is as follows:

  Mr. G. Bennet (Chairman)

  Fife Constabulary

  Mr. J. Forbes

  Central Scotland Police

  Inspector S. Wilson

  Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary

  Mr. A. Moffat

  Fife Constabulary

  Superintendent J. Duncan

  Grampian Police

  Inspector D. Muir

  Lothian and Borders Police

  Superintendent R. McGhee

  Northern Constabulary

  Superintendent J. Moulson

  Strathclyde Police

  Inspector L. Robbie

  Tayside Police

  Forestry: Strategy for England
  Baroness Gould of Potternewton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they intend to prepare a forestry strategy for England. [HL807]

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue)
  Last year, the Government published an analysis of the responses to the discussion paper on Woodland Creation: Needs and Opportunities in the English Countryside. We said then we are committed to increasing the area of woodland in England, and many of the responses to the discussion paper agreed that a forestry strategy would help us implement this policy
  WA 132
  more effectively. We have therefore asked the Forestry Commission, in liaison with other relevant government departments and agencies, to prepare a forestry strategy for England. This will set out the Government's priorities and programmes for the creation and management of woods and forests in England. It will help set the context for further work by the Forestry Commission and other organisations aimed at realising the diverse benefits that well planned and managed woodlands can deliver.

  We have asked the Forestry Commission to report to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary by the end of July, and expect to publish our priorities and programmes for forestry in the autumn. We have also decided to set up an English Forestry Forum after the forestry strategy has been published. The forum will advise on implementation of the strategy. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary shall chair the forum, which will meet twice a year and which will be run along similar lines to the Agri-Environment Forum which has been operating successfully for a number of years.

  Fisheries: Controls and Allocations
  Lord Williams of Elvel
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the outcome of discussions with the fishing industry on arrangements to implement United Kingdom obligations under MAGP IV, with particular reference to the introduction of effort controls in the pelagic and beam trawl segments. [HL719]

  Lord Donoughue
  As my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary explained on 17 December (HC Deb., column 330–405), the progress made during negotiations with the European Commission on the UK's detailed plans for implementing MAGP IV, together with the results of the 1997 decommissioning scheme, mean that, provided fishing effort in other fleet segments does not increase, immediate further action in 1998 can be limited to the introduction of effort controls in the pelagic and beam trawl segments.

  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary also explained that the Government's preference was for such controls to be managed by the industry themselves and that detailed discussions with the fishermen concerned would be held without delay. As a result of those meetings it has been possible for the fishing effort available in 1998 to be allocated between the various Producer Organisations (POs) or groups of fishermen concerned. The allocations are, however, provisional and will need to be reviewed as definitive information about activity in 1997 becomes available.

  All POs and groups have been invited to manage their uptake of effort to stay within these allocations on whatever basis they and their members consider

  WA 133
  appropriate within their constitutions. The Government are not seeking to impose any particular formula for this and is not making any allocations of effort to individual vessels. POs and groups will therefore have the flexibility to respond to local circumstances and, within their allocations, to take account of any special factors affecting particular members. We would expect them to do this in a fair and responsible way in accordance with their rules. These arrangements are expected to cover virtually all vessels definitively assigned to both segments this year. There may, however, be a few vessels which remain outside PO or other membership, for which a separate non-sector effort allocation will operate.

  Where POs or groups remain within their effort allocations no further action by Government will be needed. But in cases where monitoring shows risks that allocations will be exceeded, POs or groups will be warned and fishing by their members suspended, through the licensing mechanism, if no appropriate response is made.

  Guidance on the arrangements for measuring and monitoring fishing effort is being issued to all fishermen concerned and copies will be placed in the Library of the House, together with details of the provisional effort allocations.

  In addition to the above, certain limited changes are being introduced for distant water vessels, which were the subject of a separate consultation exercise with those concerned. These are designed to reflect the possibility of effort outside EU waters being varied in line with fishing opportunities, as provided for in Article 8 of Council Decision 97/413/EC. But any such requests need also to be cleared with the European Commission and will be subject to examination on a case by case basis.

  All the above changes are without prejudice to the further consultations on the operation of the licensing system, which my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary announced on 17 December (HC Deb., col. 336–405), and to the review of the current moratorium on the issue of distant water licences, which will be taking place shortly.

  The Government recognise that the introduction of these effort management measures represents a new development in fisheries policy. We are alive to the concerns of the industry and will be seeking to ensure that the details of implementation are as practically devised as possible. The arrangements will be kept under review and, in particular, we shall want to consider the possible need for changes at the time of the Commission's interim review of MAGP IV in the first quarter of 1999.

  EU Fisheries: National Quota System
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the national allocation of fishing quota is a derogation from the principles of free and equal access to European Union fishery resources and of non-discrimination. [HL676]
  WA 134
  Lord Donoughue
  The system of national quotas under the common fisheries policy applies without discrimination to all member states. It derogates without time limit from the principle of equal access.

  Fisheries Surveillance Vessels
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Donoughue on 12 January (WA 186), why surveillance vessels operated by the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency in Scotland have a 30-year lifespan only, while those operated in England and Wales by the Royal Navy's Fisheries Protection Squadron will have a lifespan of 45 to 50 years. [HL677]

  Lord Donoughue
  All of the surveillance vessels operated by the Royal Navy's Fisheries Protection Squadron and the Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency, which were listed in my Written Answer of 12 January (WA 187), currently have an expected lifespan of 30 years, measured from the date of commissioning.

  Fisheries: Mesh Sizes
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will specify according to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) areas and mesh size what exceptions there will be to the harmonised mesh size 100 mm diamond in all European Union waters, giving the duration of the various exceptions. [HL679]

  Lord Donoughue
  This information is provided in the new European Community technical conservation regulation that will come into force on 1 January 2000. The regulation has not yet been published in the Official Journal of the European Communities but I have arranged for a copy of the text as agreed by the Council of Ministers on 30 October 1997 (SN 4282/1/97 rev-1) to be placed in the Library of the House. Annexes I to V, in particular, provide details of the mesh sizes agreed including exceptions.

  Demersal Trawls: Discards
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the scientific evidence which demonstrates that species of fish with no swimbladder are killed when caught in demersal trawls, before being discarded under the present minimum landing sizes and discarding rules. [HL680]

  Lord Donoughue
  The main species of fish with no swimbladder discarded from demersal trawl fisheries are flatfish and rays. The majority of discards are below the minimum landing size. Studies on discarding of under-size fish from large commercial beam trawlers in the North Sea indicate that survival varies from 0 to
  WA 135
  50 per cent. in plaice and from 4 to 40 per cent. in sole depending on the tow duration and the condition of the fish landed on deck. The survival rate of rays caught in these fisheries is likely to be similar.

  Studies on discarding of plaice by inshore trawlers in the English Channel found survival rates between 65 and 95 per cent. The higher survival compared with large beam trawlers is thought to be caused by slower trawling speeds and smaller catches.

  Large numbers of small flatfish are also discarded in small-meshed shrimp fisheries. A number of studies have found survival rates for plaice and sole of more than 50 per cent., with generally lower rates for dabs.

  EU Council Regulation 3760/92
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether European Council Regulation 3760/92 will expire on 31 December 2002 in its entirety as stated in the preamble. [HL681]

  Lord Donoughue
  The preamble to Council Regulation (EEC) No. 3760/92 refers to the restrictions on access within 12-mile limits expiring on 31 December 2002. The regulation does not expire in its entirety on 31 December 2002.

  Gulf Veterans: Medical Tests
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish in the Official Report the reply of Lord Gilbert of 12 February to the question for Written Answer of the Countess of Mar of 16 December 1997 (Ref: D/Min/(DP)/JWG/MP/PQ1555I/97/M). [HL791]

  The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert)
  The text of the letter referred to is set out below:

  "On 16 December you tabled a Written Question which asked what tests and medical examinations have been conducted by the Ministry of Defence's Medical Assessment Programme. MAP, on Gulf veterans since its inception, on what dates any changes were made, whether the Ministry of Defence intended to incorporate any new tests into the programme and, if so, which.

  Past changes to MAP tests and examinations

  The medical programme which became the MAP was set up in July 1993 in order to examine veterans who were unwell and who believed that their illness was related to their service in the Gulf. The intention was to provide a diagnosis wherever possible and to document all illnesses in veterans who were referred to the programme. Any veteran who was referred to the programme was examined by a Consultant Physician and a number of tests and examinations were carried out. This essentially remains the case today. The MAP was originally located at the Princess Alexandra's
  WA 136
  RAF Hospital at Wroughton. It was transferred to the RAF Central Medical Establishment in London in December 1995. In October last year it moved to new facilities in the Baird Health Centre at St. Thomas' Hospital, London.

  When the programme was first established, Wg Cdr, now Gp Capt Coker, who ran it until December 1996, initially carried out those tests that he felt were necessary on clinical grounds to establish a diagnosis. When the number of patients referred to the MAP increased, he carried out a number of screening tests, similar to those used by the US Department of Defense's Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Programme, the US DoD's equivalent to the MAP. Any other tests considered clinically necessary would also be performed, these additional tests varying from patient to patient. This system of investigation was in place at the time of the clinical audit which was carried out by the Royal College of Physicians, RCP, in 1995.

  The RCP's subsequent report, published in July 1995, endorsed the MAP's professional independence and integrity, and put forward recommendations concerning the future direction of investigation into Gulf veterans' illnesses. These recommendations ultimately led to the Medical Research Council commissioning the two epidemiological research studies currently being carried out by teams led by Professor Nicola Cherry and Dr. Patricia Doyle. The Report also made specific comments on how the Programme could be improved. However, with the exception of their recommendation concerning psychiatric assessments, on which I comment below, the RCP did not recommend any changes to the tests and examinations carried out by the MAP. A copy of the RCP's report and its appendix, which lists the tests being carried out by the MAP at the time of the audit, are attached.

  Psychiatric assessments

  The RCP did comment unfavourably on the prior discontinuance of psychiatric testing for non-serving veterans and suggested that there was a need for all MAP patients to have a psychiatric assessment. This comment and recommendation were carefully considered by the Ministry of Defence at the time, but, ultimately, were not accepted for a number of reasons. First, a psychiatric testing programme was available at RAF Wroughton for Gulf veterans who were still serving. However, this programme required two or more visits to Wroughton and, for those who had left the Services, it was considered more appropriate for any assessment to be undertaken locally by the National Health Service, which would also be responsible for any follow-up treatment. Gp Capt Coker had recommended such an assessment to veteran GPs when he believed it to be clinically appropriate.

  Secondly, you will be aware that the provision of health care and treatment for veterans who have left the Services is the responsibility of the Department of Health and not of the MoD. At the time of the RCP audit, MoD had been assured on several occasions by both the Department of Health and the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists of the competence of

  WA 137
  the NHS in dealing with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, and other psychiatric conditions.

  At an early stage of the MAP consideration was given to undertaking psychiatric assessment on a wider scale, but it soon became clear that the numbers involved, the need to couple assessment with treatment, and the fact that the few ex-Service cases, which had already been assessed, had psychiatric conditions which were well recognised in the NHS, did not make this a feasible proposition. These arguments were reconsidered in the light of the RCP's report and found to remain valid.

  Tests currently carried out on MAP patients

  A list detailing the baseline tests currently carried out on MAP patients, by St. Thomas' Hospital on the MAP's behalf, is attached. I should stress that these are only baseline investigations. They will be added to, or modified, depending on a patient's clinical history and examination findings. As you will see, the current list is similar to that from 1995.

  Additional investigations

  Additional investigations and/or referrals to other consultants/specialists are sometimes required, and further tests and examinations may, therefore, be carried out if appropriate. For example, some patients have been, and continue to be, referred to Dr. Kocen, a consultant neurologist at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queen's Square, London. You may recall that, when new information about the use of OP pesticides in the Gulf came to light in October 1996, a number of Gulf veterans, whose symptoms could be consistent with exposure to OPs or where there was evidence that they had been exposed to pesticides, were invited to re-attend the MAP and, where considered medically appropriate, were referred to Dr. Kocen. The results of the tests which any particular patient has been given are recorded on his or her case file and remain available to the doctors responsible for that patient's treatment.

  Future changes to MAP tests

  No specific changes to the baseline tests listed on the attachment are envisaged for the immediate future. However, as you are probably aware, the Ministry of Defence plans to conduct a thorough audit of the MAP during the course of the year, focusing on all aspects of patient care and on the service provided by the MAP, including the range of tests and examinations currently undertaken.

  MAP report

  Doctors at the MAP have now examined over 2,000 patients and there is naturally considerable interest amongst veterans and the public at large as to what the MAP has been finding. You will be aware that the Government has undertaken to publish detailed diagnostic results from the MAP. A paper is currently in the final stages of preparation and will shortly be submitted to a medical journal for peer-review and possible publication.

  A copy of this letter, and its attachments, has been placed in the Library of the House. I assume that, like me, you will wish the text of this letter also to appear in the Official Report. I understand that the only way in
  WA 138
  which this can happen is in response to a Question for Written Answer. If you would like to table a Question to this effect, I will be glad to oblige."

  Following are the attachments referred to:

  Royal College of Physicians Audit of Gulf War Medical Assessment Programme
  "Introduction: The Gulf War Medical Assessment Programme has been the main focus of the Ministry of Defence's investigations into the alleged Gulf War syndrome and any UK Gulf veterans, whether or not presently serving, who are concerned about their health have been invited to receive a full medical evaluation by military medical specialists. The Royal College of Physicians was asked to carry out an independent clinical audit of the assessment programme (Ministry of Defence News release 8/2/95).
  This report summarises our findings and makes recommendations for future developments.
  Background: About 51,000 UK service personnel served in the Gulf War conflict in 1990–91. Although not all of them saw active service, they were nonetheless involved through, for instance, vaccination programmes or taking medication for the prevention of damage from nerve gas (NAPS).
  In the last two or three years attention has been increasingly focused on a wide variety of illnesses reported by veterans of the Gulf War. These reports led to the suggestion that a specific Gulf War Syndrome existed, which was attributable to some aspect of serving in this conflict. Factors that have been suggested as agents in the causation of theses illnesses include exposure to chemical or biological weapons, the vaccination programmes used and medication taken for the prevention of damage caused by nerve gas (NAPS). In addition to these agents are the stress and possible psychological trauma associated with involvement in all conflicts. Reports of illness by Gulf War veterans have appeared chiefly in the USA and UK, but also in Canada and Norway.
  In response to these reports in the autumn of 1993 the Defence Medical Services started referring veterans to the hospital at RAF Wroughton, where a special clinic was established. We are informed that the aims of this programme were to ensure full clinical examination of veterans coming forward to facilitate any necessary treatment and to give an early indication whether the Gulf operations of 1990–91 have led to (a) the emergence of a new syndrome, or (b) a higher than expected incidence of known diseases. Assessment protocols were established in the first half of 1994. Veterans have not been contacted individually with offers of this service but it is well-known to veteran associations and to the Gulf War Solicitors' Action Group. Its existence has also been reported in the press. Veterans who have left the armed services who enquire about this service are asked to seek referral from their General Practitioner. To date some 260 individuals have come forward and over 200 of these have already been assessed. At first the waiting time for assessment was up to 12 weeks. Wing Commander Coker, who had been assigned to this work, was then seconded to it full-time and, for a while, had the assistance of another physician,

  WA 139
  Col. J. Johnson. Clinics are now held on five mornings each week and the waiting time has been reduced to a few weeks. There is some evidence that up to 500 UK veterans have expressed concern about their health, approximately 1 per cent. of those who served. The true size of this problem remains uncertain.
  Assessment: The assessment commences with a medical interview and physical examination lasting about one hour. Routine investigations are then performed and include blood and urine analysis. Other specialist investigations performed where indicated are shown in Appendix 1. At first all veterans were also assessed by a psychologist-administered questionnaire and approximately two-thirds were then interviewed by a consultant psychiatrist with special experience of people who have endured very stressful experiences. This psychological and psychiatric assessment is now available only for personnel who are still serving. Any relevant medical records are requested from the individual's own doctor. For personnel who are no longer serving, recommendations for any further specialist investigations are made to the general practitioner involved.
  Findings to date: The results obtained by assessment of the first 200 veterans are at present being entered by Wing Commander Coker into a computerised database. Preliminary analysis suggests that major organic illness, e.g. tumours or heart disease, was present in about 14 per cent. Forty per cent. suffered from a wide variety of less serious illnesses, e.g. skin disorders. Psychiatric disorders were present in some 36 per cent., especially the post-traumatic stress disorder. A diagnosis of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, using the CDC Atlanta diagnostic criteria, was made in 8 per cent. Complex and multiple epidemiological studies would be required to establish whether any single disease encountered in this group occurred with greater frequency than would be expected randomly. Nevertheless the incidence of psychiatric disease, at least, is noteworthy and requires further attention. Provided consent is obtained from the patient, the results of the assessment can be made available at the War Pensions Agency in support of a disability claim.
  RCP Audit:
  (a) We had an in-depth briefing with Wing Commander Coker, the consultant at RAF Wroughton who runs the veterans' assessment programme.
  (b) We have reviewed background literature supplied by the Surgeon-General, including extensive documentation about the work that has been performed in the USA.
  (c) We have visited RAF Wroughton, where we attended a morning assessment clinic, interviewed personnel involved in the assessment and reviewed the diagnostic facilities available.
  (d) We had a detailed presentation by Wing Commander Read and Squadron Leader Neal, consultant psychiatrists, of the protocol used in psychological screening, together with the results obtained to date.
  Preliminary Findings of RCP Audit:
  1. Wing Commander Coker is well placed to conduct the assessments. He is a well trained consultant physician who has an honorary degree in chemistry and a toxicology background. He spent three years at Porton Down running clinical trials of nerve gas prophylaxis. He was also part of the United Nations Special Chemical Destruction Group that spent several months in Iraq in 1992.
  2. Although there was initially a delay in seeing veterans, the assessment programme is now working well with acceptable waiting times.
  3. The history, examination and baseline investigations are appropriate. However, limited use has to date been made of sophisticated tests of immunological function, but the precise place of such investigations is not yet established. Also, the psychological and psychiatric assessment that was instituted in spring 1994 was later limited to veterans still serving. This is unfortunate because of (a) the frequency of psychological abnormalities and (b) the great expertise available at RAF Wroughton for post-traumatic stress disorder.
  4. The initial assessment is thorough but follow-up for personnel no longer serving is uncertain. Communication by Wing Commander Coker to the veteran's general practitioner is satisfactory, but there is no certainty that his request to be kept informed of subsequent developments will be met. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a mechanism for the collation of follow-up information.
  5. Referral of veterans to RAF Wroughton at present depends on an unstructured "grapevine". This may well be efficient but it is not known at present how far news of this service has spread amongst the 51,000 Gulf War veterans.
  Conclusions and Recommendations: The findings at present are hard to assess in the context of the possible existence of a specific "Gulf War Syndrome". This is partly due to the fact that the population studied is self-selected by coming forward for assessment. The plurality of diseases encountered in this group makes it difficult to conceive of a single aetiological agent. It is notworthy that, after extensive study, it has been stated to Congress by the US assistant secretary of defence for health affairs that no evidence has been found to implicate chemical or biological weapons as causes of illness in Gulf War veterans. Nevertheless doubts persist, for instance concerning the significance of high blood levels of lead found in a small number of deceased veterans.
  We note particularly the high incidence of psychiatric illness revealed in veterans by the Wroughton programme. There is a need for further assessment, with subsequent treatment where needed, of veterans in this particular respect.
  In addition we believe that greater expertise in tropical disease should be available to the assessment programme, especially given the concern expressed in the USA about the occurrence of visceral leishmaniasis in veterans.
  The frequency amongst veterans of short-term malaise following vaccination against biological warfare agents is noteworthy but not surprising. We are not aware at present of reasons to believe long-term damage to the immune system following such vaccination but we advise the involvement of expert immunologists in assessment of this possibility. Study of the vaccination issue will not be facilitated by the poor vaccination records we encountered in the medical documents of veterans. We do not underestimate the difficulty of maintaining such records in wartime circumstances but the patchiness of such documentation remains regrettable.
  Thorough epidemiological assessment of the findings to date would involve very large and expensive studies. Even with unlimited resources the difficulties to be overcome in this area are enormous. The US Institute of Medicine Committee asked by Congress to report on Defence Department studies made of illness in Gulf War veterans has advised large scale epidemiological studies with particular reference to toxicological aspects of the problem. US investment in this area is already large and continuing. With the limited resources available in the UK it would seem prudent to take full advantage of the US studies. We are therefore pleased to learn that a MoD team, including Wing Commander Coker, has recently visited the US Defence Department. The Surgeon-General had already visited the USA to discuss these issues.
  We are not at present in a position to comment on a recent report from Glasgow of unexplained damage to the nervous system detected in some veterans. To the best of our knowledge the findings are not yet published and will require scrutiny and confirmation as with any research findings. We are also not able yet to comment on claims made by the group in Duke University, North Carolina, in support of the hypothesis that a combination of the anti-nerve gas agent with an insecticide used by the US forces in the Gulf War can cause damage to the nervous system.
  Finally we have not investigated reports of pregnancy failures and birth defects occurring in the children of Gulf War veterans. This was outside both our remit and our competence.
  Summary: The Gulf War assessment programme addresses appropriately the medical needs of those veterans reporting illness and attending the clinic at RAF Wroughton. It demonstrates commitment to them and provides advice to their general practitioners and service doctors. With the exception of the psychological assessment programme, the resources at present provided are adequate for these purposes. The clinical aim of this programme, namely to examine veterans and facilitate treatment, is being achieved (See page 1).
  The complexities of the issues raised by illness occurring in veterans need further specialist advice, notably requiring immunological, toxicological and tropical disease expertise. The epidemiological issues raised are complex and require very large scale studies for their solutions. Further progress in these areas will require the deployment of far greater resources than have yet been made available.
  We note the publication by the American Institute of Medicine entitled Health Consequences of Service during the Persian Gulf War. It is clearly desirable that the UK keeps abreast of the findings of the extensive research programme in this area that is continuing in the USA."
  Appendix 1

  Clinical Assessment Programme
  Initial questionnaire detailing Service record and Gulf War experience, including geographical details, whether exposed to oil well fires etc.
  History and Clinical Examination
  Urinalysis
  Screening Blood Tests:

  FBC & ESR

  Urea, Creatinine, Calcium, Elects, LFTs, TFTs Immunoglobulins.

  Serology for:

  Coxsackie

  Lyme

  Brucella

  Hepatitis A, B & C

  EBV

  CMV

  CXR

  ECG

  Vitalograph

  U/S scan of abdomen

  Psychological Assessment

  PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
  Computer Clinician Administered PTSD Scale
  Becks Depression Inventory
  General Health Questionnaire
  Psychophysiological Testing
  Patients identified as positive for psychiatric disorder will be offered diagnostic interview with a Consultant Psychiatrist.
  Appendix 1

  Specialist Investigations
  Diarrhoea

  Sigmoidoscopy and biopsy

  Stool cultures

  Ba enema

  Distal duodenal biopsy and duodenal aspirate

  Abdominal Pain

  Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and biopsy

  Small bowel enema studies

  CT scanning

  Neurological Symptoms

  Consultant neurologist opinion

  EMG studies

  WA 143

  Nerve conduction studies

  EEG

  MRI scanning

  Respiratory Symptoms

  Exercise vitalography

  Lung function studies

  CT scanning

  Bronchoscopy

  ACE estimation

  Pyridostigmine challenge

  Cardiovascular Symptoms

  ECG exercise testing

  24 hour ECG monitoring

  Echocardiography

  Isotope scanning

  Doppler scanning

  Other Investigations

  White cell function studies (Oxford)

  Leishmaniasis immunofluorescent studies (London)

  Baseline Tests currently carried out on MAP patients
  Full blood count and sedimentation rate (FBC/ESR)
  Full biochemical screen, including urea, electrolytes, calcium, creatinine, liver function tests (LFT) and blood sugar
  Immunoglobulin analysis
  Creatine kinase
  Thyroid function tests (TFT)
  Seriological screening tests
  Chest X-ray (CXR)
  Ultrasound abdominal scan
  Electrocardiogram (ECG)
  Urinalysis
  Peak-flow lung measurement (to determine the necessity for vitalography).

  Depleted Uranium Contamination
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they will publish in the Official Report the reply of Lord Gilbert of 12 February to the Question for Written Answer of the Countess of Mar of 16 December 1997 (Ref: D/Min/(DP)/JWG/MP/PQ1565/97/M). [HL792]

  Lord Gilbert
  The text of the letter referred to is set out below:

  "In my letter of 2 February I undertook to write separately to you on the subject of the 1991 UK Atomic Energy Authority, UKAEA, paper on Depleted Uranium contamination, a matter which you raised shortly before Christmas in one of your Questions for Written Answer.
  WA 144
  Both the UKAEA and the Ministry of Defence are aware only of a paper written in April 1991 entitled "Kuwait—Depleted Uranium Contamination". Having sought UKAEA's approval, I attach a copy of the report, which has been declassified, and am placing copies in the Library of the House. You should be aware that the report was not commissioned by the Ministry of Defence, but was produced for Royal Ordnance plc on a commercial basis.

  When I first read the report, I was startled to see the figures quoted in the text on the apparent extent of the potential contamination. Further investigation, however, has uncovered that a number of assumptions made in the paper are very far from realistic. Indeed, the paper itself makes clear that it is not a rigorous scientific analysis of the actual situation, but a theoretical appraisal of the possible worst-case effects of Depleted Uranium ammunition in Kuwait.

  In particular, the paper assumes that a large number of Depleted Uranium rounds were fired in Kuwait, that all the Depleted Uranium fired was converted into respirable dust, and that all of this dust was inhaled by a very large number of people. Although uranium is a pyrophoric material, a Depleted Uranium shell needs to hit an extremely hard target to cause the burning which produces various oxides in the form of dust. In practice, our tests show that this occurs only when the shell hits extremely hard armour, as found on only the most modern main battle tanks. Such burning does not occur if the shell hits other types of armoured vehicles, or if it misses its target and is fired into the ground.

  The US estimate that they fired approximately 4,000 tank rounds in combat, not all of which would have hit a target hard enough to cause the Depleted Uranium core to burn. Our assessment, based on the large number of trials carried out in the UK and US, is that only about 20 per cent. of the Depleted Uranium in a shell that has hit such a target is converted into respirable dust. Since the rounds were fired in the desert, many kilometres from the nearest village, it is highly unlikely that the local population would have been exposed to any significant amount of respirable oxide. You may wish to know that, on the basis on which the calculations in the AEA paper rely, 500,000 people would die in Britain if we were to inhale all the natural uranium that exists in 20 square kilometres of average British soil, to the depth of 1 metre.

  The paper goes on to refer to a radioactive dose of 1 milli-Sievert per year as a dose which "could easily be exceeded", and that "exceeding [this] dose puts the public at risk". In fact, in the UK, the average member of the public receives about twice this dose during every year of their life from natural background radiation. This is in the ordinary course of life, rather than in the event of such unrealistic, hypothetical scenarios as those used in the paper.

  The only situation in which exposure to respirable Depleted Uranium oxide is a real hazard is when someone is working inside a tank which has recently been destroyed with Depleted Uranium ammunition. In this situation, a mask should be worn at all times. As you will be aware from the RAOC Technical

  WA 145
  Ammunition Bulletin No. 21/2024, which I enclosed in my letter of 2 February and which is also available in the Library of the House, our standing instructions are that service respirators should be worn at all times during clearance of ordnance by service personnel in such circumstances for this very reason.

  I hope this is helpful. I assume that, like me, you will wish the text of this letter to appear in the Official Report. I understand that the only way in which this can happen is in response to a Question for Written Answer. If you would like to table a Question to this effect, I will be glad to oblige."

  Letter to J. Y. Sanders, Royal Ordnance, from P. G. E. Bartholomew, Business Development Manager, Defence, AEA Industrial Technology, dated 30 April 1991.

  "When we spoke on the telephone, I promised to produce a threat paper on the contamination of Kuwait with depleted uranium used by the US and UK forces in the recent war. I attach a short paper which covers the threat, identifies the need to size the problem and outlines the action we believe is necessary for health safety.

  The whole subject of contamination of Kuwait is emotive and thus must be dealt with in a sensitive manner. It is necessary to inform the Kuwait Government of the problem in a useful way and this Mr. Alastair Parker, Regional Marketing Directorate 1, Defence Export Services has suggested is probably best done in conjunction with the UK Ambassador to Kuwait. He said that a threat paper should be sent by him to the UK Ambassador. He also said that he believed that the work of dealing with the depleted uranium might best be let to AEA Technology as an extension to the Royal Ordnance contract.

  We believe that this may be the most straightforward method and AEA Technology therefore request that RO consider extending their contract with the Kuwait government to include the survey and clean up of depleted uranium by AEA Technology as their subcontractor.

  If you agree to our proposal, may I suggest that we meet with Alastair Parker to whom I am copying this letter, in order to decide on the way ahead."

  Paper presented by AEA Technology:

  Kuwait—Depleted Uranium Contamination
  1. This paper is presented by AEA Technology which is the trading name for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. AEA Technology is the UK Government's official adviser on nuclear safety. The paper gives a realistic appraisal of the effects of depleted uranium on the Kuwaiti population.
  Introduction
  2. Munitions containing depleted uranium (DU) were used by both the UK and US forces in the recent war in the Gulf. The use of depleted uranium was an important contributory element in defeating the armour of Iraqi vehicles. Equipments known to have fired DU ammunition included both UK and US main battle tanks and US aircraft.
  3. DU is the product of the enrichment process of U235 which is used for nuclear fuel. DU is both mildly radioactive and chemically toxic like other heavy metals. Handling of heavy metal munitions does pose some potential hazards as does the possibility of the spread of radioactive and toxic contamination as a result of firing in battle. These hazards are small when compared to those during a war, but can become a long term problem if not dealt with in peacetime and are a risk to both the military and the civilian population.
  Threat
  4. An accurate figure for the quantity of DU fired is difficult to acquire. A best estimate is that the US tanks fired more than 5,000 DU rounds, US aircraft many tens of thousands and UK tanks a small number of DU rounds. The tank ammunition alone will amount to greater than 50,000 lbs of DU, which is equivalent to approximately 360 GBq of radioactivity. This equates to a total dose of 107 Sv. If the tank inventory of DU was inhaled, the latest International Committee of Radiological Protection (ICRP) risk factor of 5 x 10-2 per Sv calculates 500,000 potential deaths. Obviously this theoretical figure is not realistic, however it does indicate a significant problem.
  5. The DU will be spread around the battlefield and target vehicles in varying sizes and quantities from dust particles to full size penetrators and shot. It would be unwise for people to stay close to large quantities of DU for long periods and this would obviously be of concern to the local population if they collect this heavy metal and keep it. There will be specific areas in which many rounds will have been fired where localised contamination of vehicles and the soil may exceed permissible limits and these could be hazardous to both clean up teams and the local population.
  6. Inhalation of airborne DU dust particles can lead to unacceptable body burdens and manufacturers of DU munitions take precautions to ensure that their staff are not exposed to undue risk for this reason. The limit of intake for members of the public is less than 2.2 x 10-3 g in one year and this could easily he exceeded if special arrangements are not made. This would equate to a radioactive dose of ImSv per year, the limit that has been proposed by the ICRP. Exceeding the dose puts the public at risk. DU can also be a danger if taken into the body by ingestion or through a cut. Furthermore if DU gets into the food chain or water then this will create potential health problems.
  7. A further concern is a political one of leaving significant quantities of uranium around Kuwait. The problem will not go away and should be tackled before it becomes a political problem created by the environmental lobby. It is in both the Kuwait and the UK interest that this is not left to rear its head in the years to come.
  Proposal
  8. There is initially a need to identify the size of the problem. It will never be possible to remove all the DU from Kuwait left as a result of the allied forces' action, but it should be possible to remove the worst concentrations and minimise the potential health hazard.

  WA 147
  DU requires sensitive equipment and well trained operators as it is difficult to locate.
  9. Therefore we propose that an exercise should be carried out by AEA Technology to ascertain which areas of Kuwait are most contaminated. This would concentrate on the knocked out vehicles and other known hard targets that are likely to have been engaged with DU ammunition. A radiological survey would ascertain the quantity of DU in such a target.
  10. A clean up plan would be produced as a product of the survey to work in conjunction with the other clean up operations. This survey and the clean up can be carried out by a small and dedicated team from AEA Technology in total confidentiality.

  Uranium-238
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they accept that, while uranium-238 is only slightly radioactive, its isotopes emit alpha particles which, if ingested or inhaled, may cause health problems after a long period of latency. [HL474]

  Lord Gilbert
  Uranium-238 is one of the three isotopes of uranium, all of which are sources of alpha particles. The health effects that may result from taking uranium-238 into the body depend not only on the route of entry, but also on the quantity and solubility of the uranium involved. The health effects of exposure to depleted uranium, which is around 99 per cent uranium-238, are summarised in a report produced by DERA Radiation Protection Services,Radiological and Chemical Hazards of Depleted Uranium (DRPS Report No. 13/93), a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This report concludes that "The only clinical signs or symptoms from exposure to DU would arise if it was inhaled as a soluble compound or spilled on the skin. These would be transient kidney damage or skin irritation".

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether a trapped, single uranium oxide particle smaller than 5 micron in diameter can be measured in the body and whether they consider that any British troops may have inhaled one or more particles of uranium oxide during Operation Granby. [HL476]

  Lord Gilbert
  A single particle of uranium oxide having a diameter of 5 microns will contain less than 0.000018 Becquerels of radioactivity. This is well below the limit of detection of even the most sensitive methods of personal monitoring, including bioassay. The radiation dose associated with such a small quantity or radioactivity, by whichever route it is taken into the body, is infinitesimally small. For comparison, the annual limit of intake for uranium-238, for a member of the public, as specified by the International Committee for Radiological Protection, equates to breathing in aWA 148
  mass of approximately 8 mg of depleted uranium, which would contain 200 Becquerels of radioactivity. This is more than 10 million times greater than that contained in a single particle of uranium-238 with a diameter of 5 microns.

  Soils, including those in desert areas, contain measurable quantities of naturally occurring uranium, which normally exist in oxide form. These oxides inevitably get suspended into the atmosphere by the action of the wind and other disturbing influences, to be breathed in by anyone in the vicinity. British troops will, therefore, undoubtedly have inhaled such particles of natural uranium oxide during Operation Granby.

  Depleted Uranium
  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What facilities within the United Kingdom use, store, distribute or transport depleted uranium in all its forms; whether these facilities are required to be licensed, and, if not, under which circumstances would a licence not be necessary. [HL433]

  Lord Gilbert
  Depleted Uranium has had wide ranging use in both the civil and defence sectors, including shielding of radioactive sources, as counterbalances for aeroplanes and oil rigs, and also in tank and naval weapon ammunition.

  The use and handling of depleted uranium is controlled by a number of different regulations, none of which requires a licence. The basic control of depleted uranium is provided by the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (amended 1995) which is administered by the Environment Agency. Other regulations which may be applicable are the ionising radiation regulations and associated code of practice 1985 and 1993, and the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) (Great Britain) Regulations 1996. Disposal, as opposed to use, of depleted uranium is, however, authorised only for licensed nuclear sites.

  The British Army's depleted uranium munitions, 120mm tank ammunition, are stored in purpose-built ammunition facilities at various locations throughout the UK. Batches of depleted uranium rounds are stored and transported in unit load carriers which are protected to ensure emissions are kept below 5 milli-Sieverts, the annual radiation dose limit for non-radiation workers. All army ammunition, including depleted uranium tank ammunition, requires an explosives licence from the Chief Inspector of Explosives (Army).

  The Royal Navy use depleted uranium in ammunition for the Phalanx close-in weapon system. The majority of this ammunition is stored aboard Her Majesty's ships afloat. The safety of naval munitions, including those containing depleted uranium, is the responsibility of the Chief Inspector Naval Ordnance, who issues safety statements concerning their handling and use.

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:
  WA 149
  Whether in March 1991 a signal was raised by United States military personnel detailing important health and safety information concerning the use, handling and contamination risks associated with the use of depleted uranium munitions in the combat zones of the Gulf War; whether, and if so when, British military commanders became aware of this information; and, if there was a delay, what investigations there were to ascertain the effects on British troops; and [HL434]

  Whether during the Gulf War special United States units were tasked with the collection of raw data concerning the nature of battlefield contamination resulting from the use of depleted uranium munitions by coalition forces, whether British commanders were informed of the likely hazards; and, if they were, what measures were taken to protect British troops from exposure to DU and its products of combustion. [HL435]

  Lord Gilbert
  A search of surviving contemporary departmental records has not found any information about the US data collection units and US signal referred to in the questions of the noble Countess. The US Department of Defense Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, OSAGWI, which is currently in the process of investigating Depleted Uranium related matters with a view to publishing its findings in a detailed "case narrative" on depleted uranium later this year, was therefore consulted and has provided the following advice:

  "Numerous messages were generated in March 1991, as the US Army transitioned from a combat mode to a peacetime mode when US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) license requirements governed the handling and disposal of DU-contaminated equipment returned to the US. Since this was the first time that DU had been used by US forces in combat, it was also the first time that US military forces had had to deal with DU-contaminated equipment. Previously, only isolated preacetime incidents had been experienced. As such, there were considerable communications between US Army personnel in-theatre and various Army commands in the US detailing the specific handling and disposal requirements for contaminated US (friendly fire and accidental fires) and Iraqi equipment. Specific guidance was sought and provided on what could and could not be disposed of in-theatre, what had to be shipped back to the US for burial at the low-level waste burial site, and on monitoring and shipping instructions for the contaminated equipment. Again, the emphasis on this message traffic dealt with the transition from wartime to a peacetime setting when NRC guidelines govern.

  Our investigation of DU-related matters has not focused on when or whether British Military commanders were informed of these actions. Since we are not aware of any British combat vehicles being involved in friendly-fire incidents involving DU munitions, the message traffic involving disposal guidance for equipment contaminated by
  WA 150
  DU during friendly-fire incidents would not have been relevant to British forces in the Gulf.

  There are several US teams involved with the assessment of battle damaged equipment. These included teams interested in the intelligence aspects of damage to Iraqi equipment as well as Battle Damage Assessment Teams responsible for assessing the nature of damage to US equipment. In addition, an in-theatre team was assembled to monitor suspected friendly-fire vehicles for DU contamination and eventually to assist with complying with the NRC's requirements for preparing DU-contaminated equipment for shipment to the US. Again, our investigation has not focused on what was or was not communicated to British Forces."

  The Countess of Mar
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In the light of statements in the United States Army Environment Policy Institute report Health and Environmental Consequences of Depleted Uranium Use in the US Army about the chemical and radiological toxicity of DU (depleted uranium), whether they consider munitions and other materials manufactured with depleted uranium to be safe in both the short and the long term to British troops and civilians who may come into contact with products of combustion; and [HL475]

  Whether they accept scientific evidence that, upon impact, the products of combustion of depleted uranium (DU) munitions and other materials include microscopic uranium, beryllium and insoluble uranium dioxide particles which, if inhaled, ingested or absorbed may many years later result in beryllosis, cancer of the lungs, lymph nodes or bone, kidney damage, and birth defects in the children of individuals exposed to these products; and, if they do not, whether they will publish the evidence which demonstrates that the products of combustion of DU are safe to humans, animals and the environment. [HL472]

  Lord Gilbert
  The health effects which may arise from the use of depleted uranium in munitions, including combustion products, were considered in the then Defence Radiological Protection Services Report 13/93 Radiological and Chemical Hazards of Depleted Uranium, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Significant concentrations of combustion products are liable to be present only within a small radius, about 200–300 metres, around hard targets that have been struck by a depleted uranium projectile. Realistic estimates of exposure, even within this area, indicate little risk either of cancer induction through radiological effects, or of kidney damage due to chemical toxicity. We are not aware of any published research which indicates that uranium oxide dust is a cause of birth defects, at whatever concentrations.

  Berylliosis can only be caused by exposure to beryllium. There is no beryllium present in the depleted uranium shot, explosive charge or igniter used in the DU

  WA 151
  ammunition deployed by the UK in Operation Granby or since. Similarly, the US Department of Defense have advised that the DU ammunition used by their forces during the Gulf conflict also did not contain beryllium. The only way, therefore, in which beryllium could be released into the atmosphere would be if it were present in the target hit by a DU, or any other, munition. It is not possible to state categorically whether or not this ever happened. However, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have advised that there is currently no use for beryllium in either armour or armour piercing ammunition, and that it is extremely unlikely that it would be used in any other country's ammunition.

  The potential hazards presented by depleted uranium combustion products are taken into account when providing training to service and civilian personnel who may have to enter areas contaminated with such products. With respect to public protection, comprehensive environmental monitoring programmes are in place at the two locations in the UK, Eskmeals and Kirkcudbright, where depleted uranium ammunition is fired. To date, calculated public radiation doses from all direct and indirect routes have been trivial, representing much less than 1 per cent. of the national annual radiation dose limit for members of the public. These monitoring programmes will continue until such time as the Environment Agency considers that no further monitoring is necessary.

  Israel and Iraq
  Lord Kennet
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Israeli Government, armed forces, or intelligence services are taking any direct or indirect part in the planning of joint attacks on Iraq by the British and United States Governments. [HL589]

  Lord Gilbert
  If the information sought were held, it would be exempt under exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Armed Forces' Married Quarters
  Earl Howe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by Lord Gilbert on 22 January (WA 263), how their current expenditure programme for the refurbishment of the Armed Forces' married quarters compares with the most recent such expenditure programme of the previous
  WA 152
  government, noting in particular any difference in the programme of expenditure facilitated by the additional £100 million yielded by the sale of the married quarters estate to Annington Homes. [HL623]

  Lord Gilbert
  Provision for the upgrade of Armed Forces' married quarters in Great Britain which are managed by the Defence Housing Executive totals £470 million over the seven years following the sale of most of the estate in England and Wales to Annington Homes in November 1996. This level of funding will maintain the expenditure planned by the previous Government. Of the additional £100 million which the previous Government allocated to refurbishment at the time of the sale, £8 million was spent in financial year 1996–97, compared to £6 million planned, £20 million is forecast to be spent in financial year 1997–98 and the balance of £72 million is planned to be spent by 2002–03 as stated in my previous answer. In addition to the above programme, £4.1 million has been transferred from the Defence Housing Executive to the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, to upgrade properties there.

  Historic Buildings Advisory Group
  Earl Howe
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the Historic Buildings Advisory Group continues to provide advice to defence Ministers; and, if so, who are the members of that group. [HL624]

  Lord Gilbert
  The Historic Buildings Advisory Group remains available to provide advice to defence Minsters to ensure that the highest standard of architectural conservation for the MoD's historic estate is achieved.

  Members of the Group are:

  Mr. Alan Baxter of Alan Baxter and Associates Consulting Engineers.

  Mr. Stuart Lipton of Stanhope Properties.

  Mr. Iain McIvor, former Inspector of monuments for English Heritage.

  Mr. Les Sparks, Director of Planning and Architecture, Birmingham.

  The position of vice chairman is currently vacant and a suitable replacement candidate will be selected shortly.

  As the noble Earl will be away the chairmanship of this group is held by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence.